Discovery made under same licence as Kelvin Timeline?

[Jefferies]

I will apologise up front and say that I have not kept abreast with the ins and outs of the inception of the new series. The moment the first publicity material hit the net I felt this show was heading for a major departure from the prime universe in style and content resulting in my interest flat-lining to asystole. However, now that the show is about to air I intend to give it a shot.

Therefore, I have started to check out trailers etc. As a result of this activity a fan made video was suggested to me on youtube. It goes into some of the behind the scenes industry politics. You can find a link to it here:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

One of the major claims this video seems to make is that Discovery was made under the same licence as the last three movies. This apparently forces the show to be distinctly different from the prime universe – in particular on a visual level. This is the reason Discovery is so similar to the Kelvin Timeline in its production design.

Is this really true?

The video also makes lots of other claims about how the show has already jumped the shark etc. which seems clearly speculative.

However, the licence issue really confuses me and it would be great if someone could shed some light on this. Is the Star Trek licence really this split now that a new show would actually face legal hurdles when trying to connect to the established cannon and stylistic history of the show?

 

[Roald]

I always considered the entire video to be bullshit, but maybe someone else can shed more light on it...?

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Almost all of this person's videos have been absolutely lousy, baseless and off the mark.

As for the licenses, DSC is being made by CBS, the license holder. They are the ones who grant licenses to people who want to market items using the name "Star Trek" and its affiliated trademarks.

Paramount has the right to make the Trek movies only, not a TV series. This split between them is what forced the decision to go with another timeline, so they wouldn't be going into familiar territory (what CBS has the rights to, via owning the rights to all the series, aka Prime Timeline). This information is just what I was reading around the time the 2009 movie came out.

The person making this video has as much knowledge of the industry as I do of designing a wing of the Guggenheim (which is to say, none).

 

[Mudd]

One of the major claims this video seems to make is that Discovery was made under the same licence as the last three movies. This apparently forces the show to be distinctly different from the prime universe – in particular on a visual level. This is the reason Discovery is so similar to the Kelvin Timeline in its production design.

Is this really true?

The claim is unmitigated bullshit, on the same level as claims that NASA faked the Moon landings and being generated by people of the same emotional and intellectual stripe.

There are actually two or three delusional faux "insiders" who are the common source of most of these kinds of rumors.

TPTB are making Discovery this way because they want to.

 

[cultcross]

I always considered the entire video to be bullshit, but maybe someone else can shed more light on it...?

You are correct. It's total targshit.

 

[F. King Daniel]

One of the major claims this video seems to make is that Discovery was made under the same licence as the last three movies. This apparently forces the show to be distinctly different from the prime universe – in particular on a visual level. This is the reason Discovery is so similar to the Kelvin Timeline in its production design.

Is this really true?

Don't believe every idiot out there with a Youtube channel. The source for these claims is Doug Fitz (fka Para Mobius) a conspiracy theorist nutcase who likes to invent stories.

 

[Mudd]

Yeah, Doug and Fred Archer The Boy Wonder.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

There is also a guy on YouTube with the name of CaptApril, I think, who wears a trucker cap and looks like he records his videos while filling his car with gas or in a booth at truck stops, and uses the videos above as his sources. Problem is, the guy isn't making fun of anything and is giving his opinions on Trek as well.

 

[Jefferies]

TPTB are making Discovery this way because they want to.

Not quite sure that's good news but time will tell.

So, regarding the licence, if something is made under the banner of CBS they are free to relate it to the previous shows as closely as they wish to... or not. Out of curiosity how does that relate to Paramount? Do they actually have limitations on what they can do with their licence from a creative point of view?

 

[CorporalClegg]

How/why does this video keep showing up?

 

[Christopher]

So, regarding the licence, if something is made under the banner of CBS they are free to relate it to the previous shows as closely as they wish to... or not. Out of curiosity how does that relate to Paramount? Do they actually have limitations on what they can do with their licence from a creative point of view?

As far as I know, there's no reason Paramount couldn't set their movies in the Prime timeline if they wanted to; after all, other licensees of CBS like Pocket Books and various comics publishers have been creating Prime-universe material (albeit non-canonical) for decades. My understanding has always been that the reason for using an alternate timeline was a creative choice, not a business-based one. It made the movies more accessible to new audiences, and it gave the storytellers more creative freedom.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

'Ello, I would like to buy a Discovery license, please.

 

[Roald]

As far as I know, there's no reason Paramount couldn't set their movies in the Prime timeline if they wanted to; after all, other licensees of CBS like Pocket Books and various comics publishers have been creating Prime-universe material (albeit non-canonical) for decades. My understanding has always been that the reason for using an alternate timeline was a creative choice, not a business-based one. It made the movies more accessible to new audiences, and it gave the storytellers more creative freedom.

True, I've always believed that as well..! Look at how much Prime elements are still part of the Kelvin timeline (mention of Archer, model of NX-01, mention of Xindi).... I too believe it was a creative choice to create an alternate timeline 'cause it gave them freedom...

 

[cultcross]

The only reason the 'Kelvin timeline' exists is because they wanted to do an updated version of Kirk and Spock and Trek fans insist on explanations for everything. So they incorporated a reason for the changes into Trek 09s storyline. There wasn't a licencing reason for that - after all, Spock from the Prime timeline features prominently in the film.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Words cannot express how little my opinion is of Midnight's Edge in general. Those guys are determined to strangle any interest in DSC, and the sad part is they have quite a few devoted fans. But really, they are beneath contempt. They spread rumor and shit they made up as if it were proven fact, and it looks like some are actually falling for it. I have watched that video waiting for some sort of confirmation that anything they say is confirmed anywhere else. It's not. Their "inside source" is never named, and yet we're supposed to just believe them.

The defense of Midnight's Sludge blatantly saying things that run contrary to what the producers have said from the start is "the producers are lying". "What, you're gonna believe sleazy Hollywood producers?" Yes, until I see proof that they're lying. This is the sort of lie that would be discovered practically as soon as the show airs. Why on Earth would they do that? In what way would that help them? People don't lie if they know for a fact they're gonna be caught out, unless they're trying to hide spoilers.

Here's a video that says it straight:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Yeah, Doug and Fred Archer The Boy Wonder.

Who the hell are these people? Why are their names apparently well known?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Who the hell are these people? Why are their names apparently well known?

Theyre quite active in Trekkie hate groups on Facebook, such as...

We hate the Star Trek reboots & related JJ Trek content & ST Discovery (yes, that's what it's called)

Real Star Trek Fans

TrekVerse

...and loads more. They block and ban anyone who questions them or that they suspect of being a fan of any Trek made after 2005 or if they suspect you're a secret agent of CBS, Paramount Pictures or Bad Robot (yes, really)

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Theyre quite active in Trekkie hate groups on Facebook, such as...

We hate the Star Trek reboots & related JJ Trek content & ST Discovery (yes, that's what it's called)

Real Star Trek Fans

TrekVerse

...and loads more. They block and ban anyone who questions them or that they suspect of being a fan of any Trek made after 2005 or if they suspect you're a secret agent of CBS, Paramount Pictures or Bad Robot (yes, really)

Wow. I know about "Real Star Trek Fans" and I knew the guy running it had problems, but that's ridiculous. Do either of them come here?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Wow. I know about "Real Star Trek Fans" and I knew the guy running it had problems, but that's ridiculous. Do either of them come here?

I suspect they've probably been here, and swiftly banned.

 

[Christopher]

They block and ban anyone who questions them or that they suspect of being a fan of any Trek made after 2005...

Oh, I knew it! I knew that would happen! Fifteen or so years ago, the purist Trekkies were all denouncing Enterprise as "not real Trek" and an alternate timeline and so forth -- and I knew that once the next new thing (or things) came along some years down the road, the haters would end up counting ENT as part of the "real Trek" in contrast to the next new thing that they denounce as fake. Because that cycle happens every time -- every new incarnation is rejected by the purists at first, denounced by them as something that "true Trekkies" will never accept, but then fandom ends up accepting it anyway, and then the purists shift their hostility to the next new thing. 10-15 years from now, the purists will probably be going on about how the Kelvin films and Discovery were so much more authentic than whatever the next new incarnation is.