It seems there is a reason for the visual reboot and the producers aren't being honest about it.

Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Smoked Salmon, Apr 15, 2018.

  1. Smoked Salmon

    Smoked Salmon Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    This is a quote from John Eaves (who is one of the few to cross over from the Berman era to the new era) on redesigning the Enterprise.

    "The task started with the guideline that the Enterprise for Discovery had to be 25% different otherwise production would have most likely been able to use the original design from the 60's but that couldn't happen so we took Jefferies original concepts and with great care tried to be as faithful as possible."

    So this immediately explains why the stories are mostly a canon fit and the visuals aren't. Why have the Discovery producers not been honest and told us it was all a rights issue, and what in the Paramount/CBS split meant that TOS (and presumably other designs) was off the table?
     
  2. Tosk

    Tosk Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2001
    Location:
    On the run.
    Where in his quote does he say it's a rights issue? We'd need to know where (and why) the guideline comes from before we can really tell what's what. Eaves also had the guideline "No round nacelles" when working on Discovery, and that had nothing to do with rights.
     
  3. JamesRye

    JamesRye Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    OK, how do we know the round nacelles issue wasn't also to do with copyright - or the radical klingon redesign? In fact it seems that DSC cannot legally use any TOS designs!! Bonkers, I know, but there it is....

    Also, there are a ton of comments in the thread, where they clarify that its legal reasons and not creative ones that prevent them using TOS designs. Below are quotes from Facebook.

    "Gabriel Charles Koerner John Eaves, was the "25 percent difference" mandate creative or legal?"
    Scott Schneider Legal.
    "Gabriel Charles Koerner Scott, fascinating. I'd heard this before. Which seems very odd to me, as I would assume CBS owned all legacy Trek assets carte blanche, except the Kelvin timeline films, whose merch still goes through CBS..."
    John Eaves after Enterprise properties of Star Trek, ownership changed hands and was devided so what was able to cross show VS tV up to that point changed and a lot of the cross over was no longer allowed. That is why when JJ's movie came along everything had to be different. the alternate universe concept was what really made that movie happen in a way as to not cross the new boundries and give Trek a new footing to continue.



    "Scott Schneider Alex Rosenzweig and the 25% is typically the number used when making one product similar to another. It must be at least 25% different in order to avoid copyright infringement. This is common with many products. Ive also come up against this in the past when using inspiration from other ideas that were copyrighted. In fact back on coneheads we used Libbius woods designs for Remulak and production was threatened with a lawsuit because it was too close and we had to change the models "20-25% " to avoid a lawsuit. This is nothing new or exclusive to trek."

    "Gabriel Charles Koerner Man, its just baffling, considering that CBS can sell the original Constitution Class design in form of toys, model kits, all manners of licensed merch... but it can't be included in new Trek TV productions?"

    "John Eaves Samuel Cockings your asking the wrong guy. I only know there is a division of property and when the task at hand asks for 25% changes or a whole new design I know that what ever it is is not allowed to be used"

    "John Eaves after Enterprise properties of Star Trek, ownership changed hands and was devided so what was able to cross show VS tV up to that point changed and a lot of the cross over was no longer allowed. That is why when JJ's movie came along everything had to be different. the alternate universe concept was what really made that movie happen in a way as to not cross the new boundries and give Trek a new footing to continue."
     
  4. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    One wonders why they decided to change the D-7 100% rather than just the required 25%.

    And sweet shit, they're required to make a minimum of 25% changes to TOS designs they use? Why didn't they just go for broke and make this an all new timeline in that case?
     
  5. Lord Garth

    Lord Garth Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Location:
    Aug 10, 1999
    I see why they avoided the late-23rd and 24th Centuries. It's easier to set it in the TOS Era (more or less) and say "We can't get away with 1960s visuals today!" than to say the same thing with Star Trek made from 1979-2005.

    On the other hand: they could've set DSC in the 25th Century and pulled a TMP by saying they redesigned everything. Make the Klingons another race, change the names of Sarek and Harry Mudd, and keep everything else about the story the same. The Mirror Universe could've been another version of it instead of the one in DS9.

    With the Klingons, though, it has to be pre-TOS because otherwise, after TNG/DS9/VOY, they'd never have the same attitude against the Federation that they do here.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2018
  6. Monkey Klaus

    Monkey Klaus Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2017
    But who is making the guidlines? Is a bunch of lawyers telling them you can't do this and that or you will get in trouble or is it some CBS head honcho that is telling them that they don't want the show to look to much like the old look because they feel it will look dated. I'm not sure if was a pure creative move for what they did but also not sure it was done because of legal reasons. More like some studio executives making guesses as to what they think modern audiences want to see. I'm sure they looked at some polls or did some study or who knows what to try and predict how modern audiences will respond to the new show. Then they sent their directives down to the creative people and then they tried to bring it to life while trying to add some of their own creative idea's to the process but not the extent that the studio will say no to the look.

    Jason
     
    lawman likes this.
  7. Rahul

    Rahul Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Holy SHIT! This is BONKERS!
    Are they seriously suggesting CBS sold ALL of Star Trek to different entities???
    Like, I know it was a bad move when they scrapped all existing props and sets after ENT ended.
    BUT DID THEY SERIOUSLY SPLIT UP AND DISTRIBUTED ALL THE RIGHTS OF STAR TREK TO MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE???? Are they fucking NUTS?

    LES MOOOOOOONVES!!!!!!!:mad:
     
  8. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Also remember Scott and John are not lawyers, and probably don't have the full picture and might not understand what is actually going on.
     
    lawman and JoeP like this.
  9. Tosk

    Tosk Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2001
    Location:
    On the run.
    It was something Fuller was adamant about. "OKay, how do we know that's not because the suits told him to say that?" ...We don't. :)

    There was no link or info in the OP for me to investigate further. Thank you for the further quotes.

    Weird though, the owners of the TV property can't reference other pieces of the TV property without changing it 25%? Surely that can't apply to things like Klingons faces though...because Vulcans stayed exactly the same. Andorians 95%, etc.

    What a fuster-cluck.
     
  10. Rahul

    Rahul Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Star Trek is apparently not just in much worse shape property rights-wise then we previously thought -
    It might be broken beyond ever being repairable.
    Like a company selling the rights to Spider-Man and Peter Parker to different other people, we might never see a unified Star Trek again. Ever.
     
    Thotch, INACTIVERedDwarf and roneill like this.
  11. Rahul

    Rahul Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Honestly, at this point I would REALLY appreciate it if someone of the producing team gives a statement to the press and clarifies the whole rights issue that threatens Star Trek.

    Even if what they say is horrrible and hard to digest - it would be a much better coping mechanism for fans to at least KNOW in what situation the franchise actually is. And if the damage actually ever is repairable. And if not, what the maximum amount of adherence to the "old" Star Trek universe still would be possible...
     
  12. JamesRye

    JamesRye Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    The evidence from the designers is that it was done for LEGAL reasons.

    "Gabriel Charles Koerner John Eaves, was the "25 percent difference" mandate creative or legal?"
    Scott Schneider Legal.

    I've only quoted (up-thread) a small portion of the discussion on the Facebook post. Here's another snippet:

    "Scott Schneider Alex Rosenzweig understood. Honestly I really know nothing of copyright law. I only know what we are told. With Trek Ive come to realize it's a mixed bag. I think after 50 years there are so many hands in the cookie jar so to speak that there are a lot of legal hoops to jump through. It could have something to do with one particular contract regarding one aspect and that alone can complicate things. If Ive learned nothing else in 30 years is that studio politics, contracts and legal issues are not black and white. Something that should seem simple often is over complicated simply because one person wants it that way. Never underestimate the power of greed and control."

    "John Eaves Samuel Cockings your asking the wrong guy. I only know there is a division of property and when the task at hand asks for 25% changes or a whole new design I know that what ever it is is not allowed to be used"
     
    Smoked Salmon likes this.
  13. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    It must be in certain contexts, because several CBS licensed products use the TOS Connie, like the games Star Trek Online, Star Trek Adversaries, comics and novels have all used them, recently.

    It might be the rights to use them in a live action setting.

    Those two species appeared outside of TOS. although so did the Connie.

    Hm
     
  14. Tosk

    Tosk Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2001
    Location:
    On the run.
    Can anyone provide a link to the actual post/thread/whatever so that we others may peruse at leisure? :)

    So did Klingons...?
     
  15. JamesRye

    JamesRye Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2012
    Rahul and Tosk like this.
  16. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Tosk likes this.
  17. TrekMD

    TrekMD Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Location:
    Florida
    So, if this whole thing is a legal matter, what happens if the companies merge again?
     
  18. Tosk

    Tosk Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2001
    Location:
    On the run.
    Someone in that thread asked a good question...if Paramount couldn't use the TOS Enterprise, and CBS can't use the TOS Enterprise...who the hell does have the right to use it?
     
  19. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    That's cats and dogs living together.
     
  20. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    They had a TOS Connie in an Into Darkness Deleted scene.

    [​IMG]

    But I don't know the legality of deleted scenes.