TV GUIDE: "STAR TREK SHOULD RETURN TO TV...

[CorporalCaptain]

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.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

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.

 

[Harvey]

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.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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.

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.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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.

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:

Their being the "license holder" does not mean that they own copyright to Paramount's movies.

That's funny, because you also said:

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:

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:

OTOH, they could certainly do their own new version of TOS without any reference to the Abramsverse.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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.

 

[Kegg]

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.

 

[xortex]

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.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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:

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:

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.

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.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Really, the most likely way that Trek could come back to TV in the near-future is through Bad Robot, as those folks are hot properties in the TV world and CBS has no other reason to produce a Trek series.

 

[Casas9425]

Really, the most likely way that Trek could come back to TV in the near-future is through Bad Robot, as those folks are hot properties in the TV world and CBS has no other reason to produce a Trek series.

They have plenty of reasons to do another show. Lets just hope that the hacks from Bad Robot aren't involved. Lindelof, Kurtzman and Orci can't write, they're awful.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Really, the most likely way that Trek could come back to TV in the near-future is through Bad Robot, as those folks are hot properties in the TV world and CBS has no other reason to produce a Trek series.

They have plenty of reasons to do another show.

Nope, not a one.

As others have pointed out (more than once) CBS is doing far too well with too much stuff that has broader mainstream appeal to have any urgent interest in Star Trek.

Lindelof, Kurtzman and Orci can't write, they're awful.

Charming and original as that sentiment may be, people without skills do not succeed at what these guys are doing year after year, project after project. People who don't create shows and movies that suit a particular viewer's tastes do, of course.

Go ahead, mention Transformers.

 

[Casas9425]

Really, the most likely way that Trek could come back to TV in the near-future is through Bad Robot, as those folks are hot properties in the TV world and CBS has no other reason to produce a Trek series.

They have plenty of reasons to do another show.

Nope, not a one.

As others have pointed out (more than once) CBS is doing far too well with too much stuff that has broader mainstream appeal to have any urgent interest in Star Trek.

Lindelof, Kurtzman and Orci can't write, they're awful.

Charming and original as that sentiment may be, people without skills do not succeed at what these guys are doing year after year, project after project. People who don't create shows and movies that suit a particular viewer's tastes do, of course.

Go ahead, mention Transformers.

I'll also mention Cowboys & Aliens, The Island and Prometheus. All of which were awful. Star Trek is also CBS' main cash cow, it'll be back and hopefully without those hacks.

 

[C.E. Evans]

[ Star Trek is also CBS' main cash cow...

I think NCIS (or The Big Bang Theory) is CBS' biggest property right now. No scratch that, it probably is The Big Bang Theory.

 

[Casas9425]

[ Star Trek is also CBS' main cash cow...

I think NCIS (or The Big Bang Theory) is CBS' biggest property right now. No scratch that, it probably is The Big Bang Theory.

You forget about the merchandise and DVD sales that ST could bring.

 

[C.E. Evans]

[ Star Trek is also CBS' main cash cow...

I think NCIS (or The Big Bang Theory) is CBS' biggest property right now. No scratch that, it probably is The Big Bang Theory.

You forget about the merchandise and DVD sales that ST could bring.

Not at all, but I believe TBBT generally brings in around 16 million viewers a week currently and CBS has been licensing the heck out of it recently.
http://www.cbsstore.com/the-big-bang-theory/index.php?v=cbs-thebigbangtheory

 

[Casas9425]

I think NCIS (or The Big Bang Theory) is CBS' biggest property right now. No scratch that, it probably is The Big Bang Theory.

You forget about the merchandise and DVD sales that ST could bring.

Not at all, but I believe TBBT generally brings in around 16 million viewers a week currently and CBS has been licensing the heck out of it recently.
http://www.cbsstore.com/the-big-bang-theory/index.php?v=cbs-thebigbangtheory

And you don't think ST can bring in good numbers? If a pile of garbage like TBBT can bring in those ridiculous numbers imagine what ST could do.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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.

Clearly.

 

[C.E. Evans]

You forget about the merchandise and DVD sales that ST could bring.

Not at all, but I believe TBBT generally brings in around 16 million viewers a week currently and CBS has been licensing the heck out of it recently.
http://www.cbsstore.com/the-big-bang-theory/index.php?v=cbs-thebigbangtheory

And you don't think ST can bring in good numbers? If a pile of garbage like TBBT can bring in those ridiculous numbers imagine what ST could do.

I actually don't think a new Star Trek series will bring in anywhere near the numbers TBBT does. Maybe for the pilot episode, but I think on average, a new Trek show will do about half as good as TBBT does.