That and the prime universe is what fans know of and what fans love and where all the adventures fans love took place. To come out and say all that is no more and now never happened and we a are starting over from scratch isn't going to sit well at all.
It seems there is a reason for the visual reboot and the producers aren't being honest about it.
- Thread starter Smoked Salmon
- Start date
That and the prime universe is what fans know of and what fans love and where all the adventures fans love took place. To come out and say all that is no more and now never happened and we a are starting over from scratch isn't going to sit well at all.
Well, I remember a special I watched on Canada's Space channel the night the premiere aired where the hosts kept mentioning "returning to the Prime Universe" every two minutes. I wish I was exaggerating when I said that.
Really? Just because something is set in another timeline doesn't the original timeline never happened. It's exactly because of this kind of thinking that the Abrams movies played it safe with the whole "alternate timeline that's connected to the Prime Universe with Leonard Nimoy appearing to prove it" card and why Disco is so adamant about pretending to be Prime Universe despite the fact that they apparently can't be because lawyers.
Didn't happen may not be the right wording however if you are asking fans to invest in a new show that has no connection at all to the old show and the hundreds of hours of shows that they are used to and have watched for years that is a much harder sell.
No wonder the show is as bad as it is. Designed and produced by lawyers.
Lawyers are the enemy of common sense.
Why? Even the most die-hard Trek fans do watch other shows which have nothing to do with Star Trek or it canon/continuity at all, don't they? It's basically the same principal.
Ok, without digging through this whole thread, unless I am missing something I would not put too much weight behind something that artists on a production say about the legalities because likely they are getting 4th-hand explanations of what's going on. And the farther removed you are from the legal department the less certain you probably are. Sometimes producers are just cautious about doing stuff that they're unsure about the legality of, so they just say "make it different". This whole 25% thing is weirdly specific in a way that I've never heard in any discussion of Copyright, especially since what does 25% even mean? 25% of the lines have moved? That's so legally vague as to be basically meaningless.
I had the experience once that our lawyers could not get too specific about questions I had about a property we owned but had a royalty situation with, and the contract was really secret so they basically couldn't tell me the terms. What I finally ended up doing was saying, "Ok, just tell me what I can safely do with the property," and left it at that, and I stayed on that side of the line they drew for me. This may be the case here, assuming any of this is factual and not just some producer making an excuse to stop his fannish artists from sticking too close to what said producer considers dated material.
Last edited:
I was wondering when “25%” memes were going to show up. more please
We need to be careful about drawing too general conclusions from the evidence at hand. John Eaves is quite clear that he doesn't understand the whole legal framework at work here, only that certain elements he has worked on have required design variations and he was told or understood that this was for copyright reasons. We don't know what the ownership arrangements are, what they affect, and how much overall impact they have had.
I see you use the non-traditional definition of “mainstream media”
The end credits of "Will You Take My Hand?" are set to the complete TOS theme.
Similar threads
