Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,491
# 11
08-26-2012, 04:25 PM
I say go for it.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 67
# 12
08-29-2012, 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagorak View Post
I think what you're overlooking is that Patrick Stewart is bald, but not all bald men are Patrick Stewart. If baldness was the only aspect that determined whether a character was a likeness of Patrick Stewart, then we wouldn't be able to use any bald characters at all. And also Stewart would be getting royalties for the last 4 seasons of DS9.
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Of course not all bald men are Patrick Stewart, but if you make the character of Picard and also make him bald then you using Patrick Stewart's likeness.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,030
# 13
08-29-2012, 07:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sl1ckm1ster View Post
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Of course not all bald men are Patrick Stewart, but if you make the character of Picard and also make him bald then you using Patrick Stewart's likeness.
Hrm. I see it as oddly murkier than that. Stewart himself objected to wearing a hair piece in flashbacks and his stand-ins were also bald.

That's why Tom Hardy was bald both as Shinzon and young Picard.

I guess one of my arguments for recasting Picard is that he was played by no fewer than four actors. If there was voiceover, you might go for a Royal Academy of the Dramatic Arts accent, a kind of hyper-enunciated Received Pronunciation accent, with a bit of Yorkshire creeping in when he's angry and a deliberate pronunciation of French words with French traits. THAT would be a likeness and would be inevitable.

I think Stewart's insistence on other actors going bald to play Picard (and frustration with actors who didn't) coupled with the dialogue referencing it tends to bestow an innate baldness to Picard that is no longer incidentally Stewart's likeness creeping through.

Oh...

Here's Stewart's stuntman through Insurrection, BTW.

http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/...igh_Ground.jpg
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,424
# 14
08-30-2012, 05:41 AM
One trait, however iconic, does not represent the whole of a likeness. All bald men are not automatically Patrick Stewart lookalikes. A person's likeness also includes the shape of the cheekbones, nose, height and width of eyes, iris color, shape and length of chin, etc, etc. Giving a Foundry character one trait of a canon character does not constitute a EULA violation. If it did, we wouldn't be able to use beards cause of Jonathan Frakes, we wouldn't be able to use visors cause of Lavar Burton, we wouldn't be able to use pointy ears cause of Leonard Nemoy, etc.
Join the Foundry Roundtable live Wednesdays at 7:30PM EST/4:30PM PST on twitch.tv/thefoundryroundtable

Looking for a Foundry mission for your Romulan character? Look no further!
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,030
# 15
08-30-2012, 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by azurianstar View Post
Be nice if they can go over the EULA once again and fine tune with examples of Do's and Do nots.


From what I understand of past discussion over the Foundry EULA:
  • You cannot show canonical characters.
  • You can "talk" to canonical characters (view screen off, talking via communicators).
  • I'm iffy with canonical starships. At one time we were told all canonical ships are off limits, but in the last couple of months I heard it was okay to put them in. (So not sure what the real legalities are).
(I'm particulary interested given that I'm doing the Foundry misson of the Kor's Klacht D'Kel Brakt mission. So far reference Kor, and sort of put in Klothos in, but not 100% sure. But others put the Enterprises in their missions so I'm not 100% sure with ships).


So with Picard, Lev..........I wouldn't chance it.
With regards to ships:

EULA FAQ:

Quote:
1. Can we use the names of ships from any show/ movie? For example, show a Defiant class vessel called U.S.S. Defiant, or a Galaxy class ship named U.S.S. Enterprise? Not talking about showing anyone from the crew, just the ship itself.
Nothing in the EULA prevents this. Please refer to the EULA for a list of “Star Trek Properties”.
2. Can we use old names of ships on new ships, but change the letter in the registry number? For instance, U.S.S. Enterprise G.
Nothing in the EULA prevents this. Please refer to the EULA for a list of “Star Trek Properties”.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...d.php?t=271084
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 532
# 16
08-31-2012, 11:26 PM
I think you're flirting with fire.

You run the dangerous chance of getting burned... but... if you don't...



It'll be hot!
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,030
# 17
09-01-2012, 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by designationxr377 View Post
I think you're flirting with fire.

You run the dangerous chance of getting burned... but... if you don't...



It'll be hot!
Worst case, it gets pulled and I repost it with Picard stuffed in an EV suit and extra technobabble. Unfortunately, it will be a BREEN EV suit since those are the only ones we have in the Foundry.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 855
# 18
09-01-2012, 11:31 PM
I think you -could- go with simply making a "Bearded Picard", without the imho, unnecessary VISOR. The Irumodic Syndrome was suggested in 'All Good Things', and was diagnosed by Dr Crusher -before- the timeline was reset. For all we know, that was just another piece of the puzzle, created by Q for Picard to solve.

Another possibility, is that his time on the Ba'ku planet might've cured the syndrome, if he ever had one. No mention of it was ever made in canon, after All Good Things.

As others have said, simply creating a; "Human, Male, Bald" character, does not automatically mean it's a "Patrick Stewart likeness" issue. You would have try your best, to recreate his face shape, cheek bones, mouth size, eye size etc.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,030
# 19
09-02-2012, 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meurik View Post
I think you -could- go with simply making a "Bearded Picard", without the imho, unnecessary VISOR. The Irumodic Syndrome was suggested in 'All Good Things', and was diagnosed by Dr Crusher -before- the timeline was reset. For all we know, that was just another piece of the puzzle, created by Q for Picard to solve.

Another possibility, is that his time on the Ba'ku planet might've cured the syndrome, if he ever had one. No mention of it was ever made in canon, after All Good Things.

As others have said, simply creating a; "Human, Male, Bald" character, does not automatically mean it's a "Patrick Stewart likeness" issue. You would have try your best, to recreate his face shape, cheek bones, mouth size, eye size etc.
Well, my plot builds on the idea that it's neither curable nor is it Irumodic Syndrome but something that Q was trying to alert Picard to.

In fact, I re-watched all the Q episodes (including non-Q episodes planned as Q episodes) and walked away with this idea that Q was trying to warn Picard about something but was under orders not to. So he masked it all as mischief (and most of it was) but that Q foresaw something and was more or less trying to "cheat the Prime Directive" (or the Continuum's version of it) by giving a lower species clues the whole time.

And among those cheats were his introduction to the Borg (which might not have been ABOUT the Borg at all, directly, running with the idea that the Borg aren't the threat he's alluding to but that Q is dropping hints about something else entirely; listen to his speeches in Q-Who; he sounds like a guy who's trying to get them to connect dots) and his revealing of the Irumodic Syndrome, which I see as a giant sized clue.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,236
# 20
09-02-2012, 03:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sl1ckm1ster View Post
They changed their stance on this. You can now show the character, it just cant look like the actor who played them. Which basically ruins the whole point of showing the character. But if it was an alien who was wearing so much make up you cant see what the actor really looks like, you could do that.

Given Leviathan's post below, I just wouldn't chance it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoleviathan99 View Post
Branflakes really needs to redo that. Practically everything had the same response. Would've been better to say "The following is not mentioned in the EULA:"

Not to mention his link to the EULA is dead.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:18 PM.