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
Careful? Pfff, it’s much easier (and more fun) to run around with hair on fire. I am sure in few days producers will come up with some official legal mumbo response that will not really answer any questions and raise only more. So basically we’ll have a week or more of fun new discussions on here. Woohoo
Yeah, well CBS Legal already reached out to him, that’s for sure. We’ll see what the fallout will be as soon as tomorrow, but probably sometime this week. Hopefully it won’t be so bad for him.
None of those are "mainstream media" - they're skiffy blogs with high percentages of clickbait. This kind of "story" is perfect for them.
Let me know if this ever attrracts even the industry trade sites' interests.
Did anyone screenshot the conversation on facebook? Also, if anyone is wondering why the topic isn't being discussed over on the Trekyards facebook group(s), it's because the topic is actively being suppressed. If you try to post about this ship design news on a group about trek ships, the post is not approved and deleted instead.
Last edited:
Yup Scott went poof from my list too.
Section 31 got to him.
They can try to bury it, but it's out there now. That's the internet for ya.
Um, then why does CBS have a Star Trek archive? Several people have posted pics from them over the last couple of years.
Okay, lots of folks here seem to be making all kinds of wild speculations on the basis of essentially no meaningful information. (Except for @Maurice... thanks for being a voice of reason, dude.) I can believe that some executive producer at some point for some reason told Eaves and his team "make it look different, but recognizable." Beyond that, though, this is all smoke and no fire.
I've already posted at length about this on the "Enterprise on Discovery" thread, and I'm not going to try to repeat all of that here (especially inasmuch as many of you have probably already read it). Long story short is this: what Eaves is quoted here as saying (in the now-vanished FB thread) about the reasons for these changes (and for that matter the design changes in ST09) simply doesn't make a lick of sense. It doesn't dovetail with any understanding of how intellectual property law actually works (in general), nor how major entertainment corporations (in particular) actually manage their IP.
In particular, the "25% rule" as described is not an actual legal principle, nor ever was... nor ever could be, because it doesn't make any sense on its face, as there's no consensus way to quantify the elements of a visual design.
More importantly, the rights to the original Enterprise (and any other ships, designs, characters, or concepts) from TOS have not been divided up for inscrutable reasons amongst unknown parties. Lest there be any doubt about this, consider the legal boilerplate that CBS requires fan filmmakers to acknowledge, which reads in relevant part: "Star Trek and all related marks, logos and characters are solely owned by CBS Studios Inc." That is as crystal clear as it's possible to be.
Paramount Pictures holds the film rights to Trek, including the existing film library and the right to make new ones, as a matter of contract under the terms of the 2005 Viacom split. Make no mistake, however, film rights do not confer ownership of the underlying IP; those are two very different things. CBS owns everything (i.e., all the IP), and retains the TV rights, meaning it can use that IP on TV as it sees fit (whether streaming old shows on Amazon Prime, or using it in new productions like DSC, or anything else).
The only really sensible and credible statement I've seen from the thread was this one, from Scott Schneider:
As the old saying goes (often misattributed to Mark Twain), "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
I've already posted at length about this on the "Enterprise on Discovery" thread, and I'm not going to try to repeat all of that here (especially inasmuch as many of you have probably already read it). Long story short is this: what Eaves is quoted here as saying (in the now-vanished FB thread) about the reasons for these changes (and for that matter the design changes in ST09) simply doesn't make a lick of sense. It doesn't dovetail with any understanding of how intellectual property law actually works (in general), nor how major entertainment corporations (in particular) actually manage their IP.
In particular, the "25% rule" as described is not an actual legal principle, nor ever was... nor ever could be, because it doesn't make any sense on its face, as there's no consensus way to quantify the elements of a visual design.
More importantly, the rights to the original Enterprise (and any other ships, designs, characters, or concepts) from TOS have not been divided up for inscrutable reasons amongst unknown parties. Lest there be any doubt about this, consider the legal boilerplate that CBS requires fan filmmakers to acknowledge, which reads in relevant part: "Star Trek and all related marks, logos and characters are solely owned by CBS Studios Inc." That is as crystal clear as it's possible to be.
Paramount Pictures holds the film rights to Trek, including the existing film library and the right to make new ones, as a matter of contract under the terms of the 2005 Viacom split. Make no mistake, however, film rights do not confer ownership of the underlying IP; those are two very different things. CBS owns everything (i.e., all the IP), and retains the TV rights, meaning it can use that IP on TV as it sees fit (whether streaming old shows on Amazon Prime, or using it in new productions like DSC, or anything else).
The only really sensible and credible statement I've seen from the thread was this one, from Scott Schneider:
Honestly I really know nothing of copyright law. I only know what we are told. ... 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.
Note that two of the three things he mentions have bupkus to do with anything mandated by law, and as for the one that does he acknowledges complete ignorance.As the old saying goes (often misattributed to Mark Twain), "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Last edited:
Agreed. Shouldnt have used the term mainstream media. Just meant that the news had spread and not confined to the obscure Trek sites.
Holy shit - what a fucking mess.
But this just justifies everything people have been saying for a year; for example in the "Choose Your Pain" Klingon Ship thread:
People have been throwing all kinds of Orwellian redefinition around like 'soft reboot' and 'visual reboot', but basically if you consciously change something big, into something that it cannot mutually occupy - that's not a "prime timeline" anymore, that's a new timeline.
1968, the Klingon battlecruiser:
1979, the higher detailed Klingon battlecruiser:
1987-2001, the Klingon battlecruiser is used in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT:
2001, the unused D4 was designed by John Eaves:
2009, the Kelvin timeline's battlecruiser:
2017, it basically looks like a Dominion ship:
1979, the higher detailed Klingon battlecruiser:
1987-2001, the Klingon battlecruiser is used in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT:
2001, the unused D4 was designed by John Eaves:
2009, the Kelvin timeline's battlecruiser:
2017, it basically looks like a Dominion ship:
....rather than court another controversy, the producers should just put out a definitive statement on their intentions. The only reason I can think, why terms with multiple interpretations are being used, like 'prime timeline', is that they want to sit on the fence and not alienate people hoping for canonical drama. I think honesty would build a less toxic relationship with fans. Say you are rebooting Trek if it is your intention. The act of causing controversy leads to a lot of bad faith with fans, who should ideally be your advocates, not people you lead on for season upon season....
They should have been honest. They should have made it clear that it was a reboot. Allegedly by some kind of political necessity. They should never have claimed it was "prime timeline". They should desist from this damaging claim, before they alienate more people, when simply being honest that they want more control over designs than canon would give them, and declaring it a full reboot, would let fans come to terms with their vision.
DSC is not a Roddenbury-Berman universe show.
DSC is not a JJ Abrams universe show.
It's a third Star Trek.
Last edited:
That has nothing to do with "Prime".
Eaves said they couldn't use the original series TOS design - they either had to redesign completely or change by 25%. Scott Schneider was asked by Gabe in the thread to clarify if the changes were for legal or creative reasons. Scott replied with one word: "legal".
https://graphicartistsguild.org/tools_resources/trademark-copyright-and-related-legalities
So, not an actual legal principle, but one that people often cite in error. It nonetheless seems to be the mandate to which they worked. Scott even provides an example from another production, where he was asked to alter a design.
"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 copyrigted. 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."
If the designers have misunderstood and the reason for the changes are purely creative ones mandated from the studio, why were they forced to change the design of the Enterprise when they wanted to keep it the same? Regardless of the legal enforcement issues of 25%, it does seem that the lawyers may have told the designers to change the designs or completely redesign them. Unless said designers have totally misunderstood and could have used the TOS Enterprise all along
For all intents and purposes, the 1966-2004 Star Trek was one 99% consistent timeline, with a couple of visual errors that could be explained away, where production crews made it an "affair of the heart" to create a coherent visual continuity (to the point of firmly establishing TOS's visual canonicity, when Sisko visited the 23rd Century).
This is not.
And now, we know there was a directive of some sort to this effect.
If you have to "explain something" away it's not very consistent.
They simply used old props from time to time to save money. And did a few anniversary salutes it had nothing to do with "canon". For the most part the 24th Century shows had their own "visual continuity". So did the 22nd Century show.
.
No we don't.
Similar threads
