And none of it will be right.
Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse
- Thread starter fyre
- Start date
And none of it will be right.
I'm not sure what a middle aged Canadian session drummer brings to the show, either. But you gotta remain open minded.
It's a reference from the link above regarding a supposed falling out between Abrams and CBS regarding merchandising, which is from an internet news article published around the time STID was released. However, while that article was reposted at a couple of other sites, it was never really confirmed, plus the article itself implies that this had more to do with ST09 and that they made nice in time for STID, so the "issue" really becomes a moot point anyway.
Damn. At this point you don't even try to pretend you respond to my comments, you go straight up to constructing your own, imaginary weak and wrong arguments to "disprove".
If you care: google how royalties for newly created characters/story events/production designs work. Or how the same box office numbers can be either a "great success" (if your property was "Ant-Man") or only "moderate" (if you made the same earnings with "Superman"). Or which production companies and persons are involved in the new series, and which aren't.
Or don't. I don't care. Most of this is speculation and guesstimates at this point anyway, on either side. You know, the part where a disscussion should be fun. But isn't, if one side constantly tries to twist one's every word.
And I have neither the time, nor enough crayons to explain it to you.
Last edited:
Because Ant-Man spawned multiple television series, movies, merchandise, books, inspired countless of scientist and got a freakin' Space Shuttle named after him?
Star Trek is Superman. Everyone knows the basics, but only few have actually watched it. Star Wars is Batman. Superman's neighbour everyone finds much more accessable and that actually makes the big (well, bigger) money.
Edit: Shit! I shouldn't have written that! Now we're going to have an endless disscussion about how this analogy is wrong and therefore everything I have said before must be wrong, too.
ahem. Move on guys. Move on! Nothing to see here. That was only a weather balloon in a swamp. And sheet lightning. Drive on.
Last edited:
It's even better to know something about it.
The proposition that there's some challenging legal or financial hurtle to CBS springboarding off of Paramount's Star Trek movies is arrant nonsense. We can just put that to rest and move on.
So then, you're figuring CBS is worried about having to pay to use Admiral Marcus or Captain Robau and that this would influence Kurtzman's decisions about setting for the new show?
Pretty much No.
Kirk, Khan, Spock, Pike, Uhura, etc etc and so forth - CBS owns them already.
Pretty much No.
Kirk, Khan, Spock, Pike, Uhura, etc etc and so forth - CBS owns them already.
Welcome to America!
Actually, I think you've made a cogent argument. I don't know whether you're correct or not but you make a strong, logical case which is not the norm for these forums.
I can also see the other side that they hired one of the architects of the movie universe and so it makes sense that the series would be set in that universe.
I don't care much either way if we get good stories. Although, it would make me laugh if you are correct just because of some "experts" in this forum who are so convinced, and are determined to convince others, that it'll be the JJ verse.
Mr Awe
Yeah, Paramount has done a good job of killing off all their characters leaving a nice and tidy universe for CBS to swoop in an take over.
Even if this was the case (which it isn't because JJ destroyed a CBS-owned Vulcan and redesigned CBS-owned Enterprise), all they would have to do to get around it is not show the Enterprise or show the lack-of-Vulcan.
Since one of the few things we do know is that it won't involve the JJprise and can't take place on a planet that no-longer-exists, it shouldn't be too hard to work around.
And the Locarno conflict was an extreme. Someone wanted to feature another writer's new character throughout another series. UPN didn't want to do that on an unproven series so they just changed the name. Boom. Problem solved. No one is suggesting anything approaching that, since all the nuTrek-only characters are dead.
So, to get us completely back on point.
- There will be a new Star Trek series premiering in January 2017.
- It will be on CBS streaming service, CBS All-Access.
- A subscription to the service will cost $5.99 in the United States (with a potential option for a $9.99 commercial-free version).
- It will be available via foreign distribution deals to other countries.
- Much of the funding needed has come through deals with foreign distributors.
- The decision to put it onto CBSAA came, in part, by other services showing interest in reviving Trek.
- Alex Kurtzman, who co-wrote Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, is an executive producer on the new series, through his production company, Secret Hideout.
- Additionally, Heather Kadin will also act as EP.
- No news has been released in regards to which existing, if either, universe, this series will take place in. (It is entirely possible that it could be a third new universe.)
Bingo.
Well, the Enterprise is bigger, the ships are faster, the weapons are different, the look is different, the history is different, the characters are a bit different, etc. but other than that, yeah, totally the same.
I would actually love that.And prequels, remakes and reboots in general. Trek's was done well, but there's just too much of that. Hell, today they announced a remake of Memento, for crying out loud!
Subterfuge. We don't know for sure.
Without question to any reasonable person, or without question to the pedantically obstinate? I'm certain that simply showing the explosion of Vulcan five, six, or even a hundred times wouldn't stop some fans from questioning whether it is in fact the very Abramsverse.
Exactly why TOS, TMP and TWOK take place in different universes.
I am hoping for a cameo by Scott Dracula.
Similar threads
