Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley developing Star Trek reboot for Paramount

[The Wormhole]

This is Star Trek! If it doesn't provide fuel for bitching on the internet, it can not be considered a success!

Which means, by that criteria, the Kurtzman era is Trek's most successful era.

 

[Mudd]

It also means that the next Star Trek movie will be the most successful in history! Take that to the bank.

 

[Soong-type Android]

It also means that the next Star Trek movie will be the most successful in history! Take that to the bank.

I hope there's not too much riding on this movie in terms of Paramount's future Star Trek plans because the franchise hasn't exactly got a good track record on the big screen, so they can't really expect much of it. It's more likely than not to underperform if not completely flop.

 

[Riley]

I bet it will be after Picard, Lower Decks time. I think they want to go enough time in the future to not be connected with any Berman era elements but no so far in the future that got to pay attention to Discovery and Academy.

There have been rumors that the new management will completely ignore Kurtzman's era. I'd do the same if I were in their position. The Abrams/Kurtzman era has done more damage to the brand than good.

 

[fireproof78]

There have been rumors that the new management will completely ignore Kurtzman's era. I'd do the same if I were in their position. The Abrams/Kurtzman era has done more damage to the brand than good.

How is the brand itself damaged?

And who is running it going forward? How do we know their priorities?

 

[Turtletrekker]

There have been rumors that the new management will completely ignore Kurtzman's era. I'd do the same if I were in their position. The Abrams/Kurtzman era has done more damage to the brand than good.

I'm sure that these "rumors" come from 100% very reliable sources.

At any rate, if they did that, they would lose this 50-year fan forever. I'll take the Kurtzman era over the bland, formulaic sameness that was Voyager and Enterprise anytime.

 

[Jayson1]

There have been rumors that the new management will completely ignore Kurtzman's era. I'd do the same if I were in their position. The Abrams/Kurtzman era has done more damage to the brand than good.

My guess is they will kind of ignore it as well but they won't go out of they way to let Trekies who don't like it prove it's s not canon or anything. Which they will also do with older Trek as well. But I'm sure the movie will have a few Easter eggs and references that only the fans might be familiar with. Shuttlecraft named after Picard or something like that.

 

[Mudd]

There have been rumors that the new management will completely ignore Kurtzman's era.

They'll ignore anything they please, just as J.J. Abrams did. They'll ignore anything prior to 2005 that's inconvenient.

And that's just narrative continuity - the visual aspects of Trek will be completely revamped.

 

[Firebird]

There have been rumors that the new management will completely ignore Kurtzman's era. I'd do the same if I were in their position. The Abrams/Kurtzman era has done more damage to the brand than good.

Ah, yes, the familiar "rumors" that conveniently align with your prejudices.

 

[BillJ]

There have been rumors that the new management will completely ignore Kurtzman's era. I'd do the same if I were in their position. The Abrams/Kurtzman era has done more damage to the brand than good.

If I had money to bet, I’d bet they cherry pick from all versions of Trek to make something entirely “new”.

Paramount owns it all, be stupid to approach a new Trek movie in any other manner.

 

[Ovation]

There have been rumors that the new management will completely ignore Kurtzman's era. I'd do the same if I were in their position. The Abrams/Kurtzman era has done more damage to the brand than good.

If they “completely ignore Kurtzman’s era”, it certainly won’t be to return to past iterations. So what options are left? Something new. And we all know how much those who pine for “real Star Trek” (patent pending) usually react to something new.

 

[Mudd]

They're going to make a new Trek movie that respects continuity, is focused on Trek's core themes, and is what long-time Trekkies have wanted for decades - at about the time Warner Bros puts Zack Snyder back in charge of the DC superhero movies.

 

[BillJ]

They're going to make a new Trek movie that respects continuity, is focused on Trek's core themes, and is what long-time Trekkies have wanted for decades

Guaranteed to get whoever green lights it fired.

 

[James Cole]

The Lower Decks Blu-ray commentaries and the recent behind the scenes art book have several references to needing to license / clear various visual references to the TOS films.

Could this be a hangover of the CBS / Viacom corporate split? Or something over the target of the infamous 25% different rumor?

Nick Locarno became Tom Paris because TPTB that didn't want to pay royalties to Ron Moore and Naren Shankar during VGR's run.

New Management will probably try to avoid referencing the recent stuff if doing so requires paying royalties to Bad Robot and/or Secret Hideout.

 

[BillJ]

New Management will probably try to avoid referencing the recent stuff if doing so requires paying royalties to Bad Robot and/or Secret Hideout.

Pocket Books (or whatever they're called now) has had no issues referencing them. That I'm aware of. Same with IDW and Eaglemoss/FanHome. Has there ever been any indications of separate licenses for the mainline Trek stuff and the Abrams/Kurtzman stuff?

If what you're pointing out is how it actually is working, then CBS/Paramount has created a stupid amount of trouble for itself.

 

[Soong-type Android]

New Management will probably try to avoid referencing the recent stuff if doing so requires paying royalties to Bad Robot and/or Secret Hideout.

Oh no. What a shame. So many of us will be heart broken if that happens.

 

[Mudd]

The Lower Decks Blu-ray commentaries and the recent behind the scenes art book have several references to needing to license / clear various visual references to the TOS films.

Could this be a hangover of the CBS / Viacom corporate split? Or something over the target of the infamous 25% different rumor?

Nick Locarno became Tom Paris because TPTB that didn't want to pay royalties to Ron Moore and NarPen Shankar during VGR's run.

New Management will probably try to avoid referencing the recent stuff if doing so requires paying royalties to Bad Robot and/or Secret Hideout.

Apples and oranges.

Paramount flat-out owns Trek and any characters/stories or other elements that are created for it.

Under the contracts that WGA negotiates with the studio, writers who create a character in a script are entitled to residuals whenever the characters are reused in a film or TV show.

I do not know if that extends to other media, like, say, tie-in novels. I'm no expert. I've always assumed that it does not.

Bad Robot or Secret Hideout doesn't own what they produce for Paramount.

I think Goldsman, Kurtzman and Lumet would be entitled to residuals for the use of Torres or La'An in another production (but not for reference to them).

Such reuse does not require the permission of the writers.

 

[James Cole]

Paramount flat-out owns Trek and any characters/stories or other elements that are created for it.

At one point, Gene Roddenberry did own a portion of TOS. Could he or his estate have sold that portion back to CBS / Paramount / Viacom? Perhaps.

Spyglass invested in ST09. Skydance in STID and STB. And a Chinese firm with a green tree logo is also in the opening to STB. Not my field to suss out the diving line between a loan, funding, and an ownership stake.

Bad Robot or Secret Hideout doesn't own what they produce for Paramount.

But they could have an ownership stake in it, or, at the very least, profit participation from merchandising.

Emphasis on the if hypothetical...

 

[BillJ]

At one point, Gene Roddenberry did own a portion of TOS. Could he or his estate have sold that portion back to CBS / Paramount / Viacom? Perhaps.

Pretty sure Roddenberry sold his portion of TOS well before CBS was ever in the picture. Early- to mid-70's, IIRC.

But they could have an ownership stake in it, or, at the very least, profit participation from merchandising.

Maybe? That still would probably be very minimal, so I doubt it would stop Paramount from making a product featuring elements of it.

 

[Campe]

We could speculate until we’re blue in the face, but largely in these situations, I would think that Bad Robot and Secret Hideout would be producing their Trek as work-for-hire, meaning while they’d get royalties for the Trek they’ve produced, they likely have no say in what is done with characters and ships after their contracts end.