RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,261
Posts: 5,349,409
Members: 24,614
Currently online: 581
Newest member: robyn

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 22 2013, 10:50 PM   #16
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

mos6507 wrote: View Post
J. Allen wrote: View Post
Except doing the long form contemplative morality play can't really be shoved into a two hour movie, nor should it.
There was a fair amount of that going on in the Nolan Batman films.
No wonder they put me to sleep!
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 02:44 PM   #17
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

I don't ever want to see another of those "moral discussions" because, frankly, ever since TOS the characters default to whatever the studio thinks is a noncontroversial consensus position on the given topic. Trek is family viewing, after all.

That made Into Darkness's explicit stand against the use of remote drones and the killing of accused terrorists without trial really refreshing - a little moral courage, for a change.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 03:16 PM   #18
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
As the license holder to all things Trek, CBS owns it in all its various incarnations, and could set a new series in the Abramsverse if they wanted to and Abrams, Bad Robot, and Paramount can't say anything about it.
No.

Their being the "license holder" does not mean that they own copyright to Paramount's movies.
No yourself.

CBS owns the Star Trek IP (and works derived from it). Paramount's ownership extends only to the release and distribution of the actual film, but the licensing of its actual content belongs to CBS.
http://www.cbsconsumerproducts.com/s...new_movie.html

(the above will probably be updated soon with Star Trek XII).

OTOH, they could certainly do their own new version of TOS without any reference to the Abramsverse.
It's not like Paramount will have a say in it anyway.
That's funny. The text on my DVD of Star Trek (2009) clearly assigns copyright to both MavroCine Pictures and Paramount Pictures. Trademarks and logos are assigned to CBS Studios Inc.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 03:22 PM   #19
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
That's funny. The text on my DVD of Star Trek (2009) clearly assigns copyright to both MavroCine Pictures and Paramount Pictures. Trademarks and logos are assigned to CBS Studios Inc.
Exactly so. The other poster clearly doesn't understand what copyright, trademark and licensing are.

CBS doesn't automatically have the rights to anything of the so-called "Abramsverse" that isn't contained in the shows they already own. Distinctive likenesses, designs, characters introduced in Abrams's movies and so forth are in no way the property of CBS; they belong to Paramount.

Paramount and Abrams have incentive to play ball with CBS in this regard, of course, since they're using Kirk, Spock and the gang as well as a lot of CBS trademarks under license.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 06:17 PM   #20
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post

No.

Their being the "license holder" does not mean that they own copyright to Paramount's movies.
No yourself.

CBS owns the Star Trek IP (and works derived from it). Paramount's ownership extends only to the release and distribution of the actual film, but the licensing of its actual content belongs to CBS.
http://www.cbsconsumerproducts.com/s...new_movie.html

(the above will probably be updated soon with Star Trek XII).

OTOH, they could certainly do their own new version of TOS without any reference to the Abramsverse.
It's not like Paramount will have a say in it anyway.
That's funny. The text on my DVD of Star Trek (2009) clearly assigns copyright to both MavroCine Pictures and Paramount Pictures. Trademarks and logos are assigned to CBS Studios Inc.
Look at your DVD text again (under the main credits).

You'll see "Star Trek and related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc."

That tells you who really owns Star Trek and the various things derived from it.

What Paramount has is the copyright to the theatrical release and home video distribution of the movie. Paramount also continues to release CBS shows on DVD/blu-ray, but they act solely as a home video distributor for CBS in that regard.
Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
That's funny. The text on my DVD of Star Trek (2009) clearly assigns copyright to both MavroCine Pictures and Paramount Pictures. Trademarks and logos are assigned to CBS Studios Inc.
Exactly so.
Exactly not so. (See the earlier response to who really owns Trek).
The other poster clearly doesn't understand what copyright, trademark and licensing are.
The "other poster" understands the situation more than you do, though.

CBS doesn't automatically have the rights to anything of the so-called "Abramsverse" that isn't contained in the shows they already own. Distinctive likenesses, designs, characters introduced in Abrams's movies and so forth are in no way the property of CBS; they belong to Paramount.
Wrong, as already proven:
http://www.cbsconsumerproducts.com/s...new_movie.html

Paramount and Abrams have incentive to play ball with CBS in this regard, of course, since they're using Kirk, Spock and the gang as well as a lot of CBS trademarks under license.
Paramount has no ball to play with. They are a non-factor in this regard.

I'm going to repeat what has been said in other threads in this forum numerous times:

After years of not working together well, Viacom and CBS were split off into separate companies in 2006 and Paramount was divided between them. CBS got ownership of what was formerly Paramount Television while Viacom retained ownership of Paramount Pictures (the movie division). Under that arrangement, CBS got ownership of the Trek franchise and Paramount was allowed to continue making Trek movies under a license from CBS.

But the Trek IP does belong to CBS. Paramount does not have any say in a new Trek series because they don't own the rights to make one, whereas CBS can make a Trek show based on any incarnation of it they like.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24 2013, 01:21 AM   #21
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

C.E. Evans, you haven't refuted what Buzzkill said, and the data is only supporting what he said.

"Star Trek and related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc."
Yeah, that part covers the trademarks, like I said.

It doesn't cover copyright, which is clearly assigned to Paramount Pictures and MavroCine Pictures. As the text said. You know, the part you didn't type in.

If you are going to take the trouble to type in the text, you really should type it all in.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24 2013, 03:18 AM   #22
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans, you haven't refuted what Buzzkill said, and the data is only supporting what he said.

"Star Trek and related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc."
Yeah, that part covers the trademarks, like I said.

It doesn't cover copyright, which is clearly assigned to Paramount Pictures and MavroCine Pictures. As the text said. You know, the part you didn't type in.

If you are going to take the trouble to type in the text, you really should type it all in.
Exactly so. He doesn't seem to understand this stuff, and he's mistaken about how it works. Really, a couple of minutes of research and the application of some common sense is enough.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24 2013, 06:48 AM   #23
Ryan Thomas Riddle
Rear Admiral
 
Ryan Thomas Riddle's Avatar
 
Location: The Bay Area
View Ryan Thomas Riddle's Twitter Profile
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

This bit from the article cracks me up:

Abrams' Star Trek, on the other hand, is very much Kirk-centric. While Chris Pine has delivered a magnificent performance as the captain, I find myself missing the nuanced diversity of the original. In a serialized form, Star Trek was able to give each character narrative autonomy, allowing them to develop outside the shadow of their charismatic leader. But in the recent films, characters like Bones, Scotty and Sulu serve as plot devices within The Kirk Show and not much more.
Did the writer of the article actually watch the original series, or even the original movies? The original STAR TREK was very much a show about Kirk and the decisions he made, especially in the very early first season. Even when Spock and McCoy took on more prominence in the stories, the show was still very much Kirk-centric. He was the center of the action. The Abrams movies have very much returned to the Trek's roots with the heavy focus on Kirk, as well as Spock.

And it can be argued that STAR TREK, no matter the form, whether it be TOS, VOY or the Abrams movies, is a story about the captain whoever that may be. TNG made a fatal mistake in not making that clear in the first one-and-a-half seasons with the captain role divided into two characters. That's why a lot of fans dress in captain's uniforms, which I'm guilty of, 'cause we know it's all about the captain.
__________________
A mild-mannered reporter
Ryan Thomas Riddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24 2013, 07:18 AM   #24
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

There seems to be a lot of mistaken assumptions about the original series in articles related to the new film. If anything, I'd say Into Darkness did a better job handling the ensemble than most of the original. Honestly, I think the only time everyone in the original cast got at least one decent scene was Star Trek III.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24 2013, 08:56 AM   #25
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans, you haven't refuted what Buzzkill said, and the data is only supporting what he said.

"Star Trek and related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc."
Yeah, that part covers the trademarks, like I said.

It doesn't cover copyright, which is clearly assigned to Paramount Pictures and MavroCine Pictures. As the text said. You know, the part you didn't type in.

If you are going to take the trouble to type in the text, you really should type it all in.
You still don't understand, although I've been quite clear. I'm not going to repeat myself again.
Admiral Buzzkill wrote:
Exactly so. He doesn't seem to understand this stuff, and he's mistaken about how it works. Really, a couple of minutes of research and the application of some common sense is enough.
And you don't get it either, or perhaps are willfully ignoring it (exactly so).

Tell you what, I'm willing to bet both of you that if there's another Trek series, it won't be from Paramount or at the very least it'll be authorized by CBS and not Paramount.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24 2013, 10:04 AM   #26
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans, you haven't refuted what Buzzkill said, and the data is only supporting what he said.

"Star Trek and related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc."
Yeah, that part covers the trademarks, like I said.

It doesn't cover copyright, which is clearly assigned to Paramount Pictures and MavroCine Pictures. As the text said. You know, the part you didn't type in.

If you are going to take the trouble to type in the text, you really should type it all in.
You still don't understand, although I've been quite clear. I'm not going to repeat myself again.
Admiral Buzzkill wrote:
Exactly so. He doesn't seem to understand this stuff, and he's mistaken about how it works. Really, a couple of minutes of research and the application of some common sense is enough.
And you don't get it either, or perhaps are willfully ignoring it (exactly so).

Tell you what, I'm willing to bet both of you that if there's another Trek series, it won't be from Paramount or at the very least it'll be authorized by CBS and not Paramount.
Yeah, no. The point that I've been addressing is a very narrow one, actually.

You contradicted Buzzkill when he said that:

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
Their being the "license holder" does not mean that they own copyright to Paramount's movies.
That's funny, because you also said:

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
What Paramount has is the copyright to the theatrical release and home video distribution of the movie.
That was exactly Buzzkill's point, which you said wasn't so when he said it and when I said, but somehow was so when you said it. When I said it, it looked like this:

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
The text on my DVD of Star Trek (2009) clearly assigns copyright to both MavroCine Pictures and Paramount Pictures.
Copyright grants its holder certain rights, such as the privilege of limiting who may adapt their work to make derivative works and how. Since copyright has been assigned to Paramount, it is evident that Paramount has licensed Star Trek from CBS in such a way that they retain certain rights as the holder of the copyright. They paid CBS for that privilege. Otherwise, it would say it was copyright CBS.

Unquestionably, CBS could create a whole new Trek franchise independently of the JJverse, even in the TOS era with Kirk et al., and not owe Paramount a dime. Funny, Buzzkill made that point too, when he said:

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
OTOH, they could certainly do their own new version of TOS without any reference to the Abramsverse.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24 2013, 04:50 PM   #27
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

Yeah, "moving the goal posts" isn't even an adequate description of what C.E. Evans is doing in trying to avoid admitting that he's just flat-out wrong, here.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24 2013, 05:30 PM   #28
Kegg
Rear Admiral
 
Kegg's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland.
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

Harvey wrote: View Post
Honestly, I think the only time everyone in the original cast got at least one decent scene was Star Trek III.
I'd add Star Trek IV to that list, but also yes.

Regardless of where people place the goalposts here, the fact of the matter is Abrams couldn't make a new Trek series without involving CBS in some way (just like Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica could never go to feature films) so I find it unlikely that a Trek series, or particularly a Trek series that ties in to Abrams' franchise, happens anytime soon.

I would like to see what Bryan Fuller would do with the franchise as I think Hannibal is one of the best new TV series of this year, but I guess I'll just have to content myself with seeing what his project for Syfy is like.
__________________
'Spock is always right, even when he's wrong. It's the tone of voice, the supernatural reasonability; this is not a man like us; this is a god.'
- Philip K. Dick
Kegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24 2013, 08:17 PM   #29
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

Who owns Sherman's planet again? Of course Bad Robot owns the copyright for their work on the nu-star Trek movies and have to take full responsibility for them so that they can be positively identified as the ones who made them, else CBS might be blamed for them leaving JJ Abrams to get away with it.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24 2013, 08:30 PM   #30
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans, you haven't refuted what Buzzkill said, and the data is only supporting what he said.



Yeah, that part covers the trademarks, like I said.

It doesn't cover copyright, which is clearly assigned to Paramount Pictures and MavroCine Pictures. As the text said. You know, the part you didn't type in.

If you are going to take the trouble to type in the text, you really should type it all in.
You still don't understand, although I've been quite clear. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

And you don't get it either, or perhaps are willfully ignoring it (exactly so).

Tell you what, I'm willing to bet both of you that if there's another Trek series, it won't be from Paramount or at the very least it'll be authorized by CBS and not Paramount.
Yeah, no. The point that I've been addressing is a very narrow one, actually.

You contradicted Buzzkill when he said that:



That's funny, because you also said:



That was exactly Buzzkill's point, which you said wasn't so when he said it and when I said, but somehow was so when you said it. When I said it, it looked like this:

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
The text on my DVD of Star Trek (2009) clearly assigns copyright to both MavroCine Pictures and Paramount Pictures.
Copyright grants its holder certain rights, such as the privilege of limiting who may adapt their work to make derivative works and how. Since copyright has been assigned to Paramount, it is evident that Paramount has licensed Star Trek from CBS in such a way that they retain certain rights as the holder of the copyright. They paid CBS for that privilege. Otherwise, it would say it was copyright CBS.

Unquestionably, CBS could create a whole new Trek franchise independently of the JJverse, even in the TOS era with Kirk et al., and not owe Paramount a dime. Funny, Buzzkill made that point too, when he said:

Admiral Buzzkill wrote: View Post
OTOH, they could certainly do their own new version of TOS without any reference to the Abramsverse.
You've really been barking up the wrong tree. I didn't contradict anything. Go look at my posts again and you'll see either I wasn't arguing the point--what you call "contradicting"--or simply didn't say what you're accusing me of at all.
Admiral Buzzkill wrote:
Yeah, "moving the goal posts" isn't even an adequate description of what C.E. Evans is doing in trying to avoid admitting that he's just flat-out wrong, here.
Accusing me of what you've done, eh? Doesn't matter, but I'm not wrong here, and saying that I am doesn't make it so. But if it makes you feel better about yourself, be my guest.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.