Star Trek Uncharted...

[fireproof78]

Oh, and that would be a rather strange NDA ... you can say there is a pitch happening, and what you are pitching. But you can't say how we came to you to make the pitch. Never heard of that.

Actually: ALL movies or projects you have ever heard of. Ridley Scott wants to do Prometheus 2? What will it be about? Which actors will be back? It's all there in the interviews. The details of his contract? Not so much. (Is he already contracted? Will he get a two-movie deal and get a personal film funded as a reward? IS THE DEAL ACTUALLY ALREADY SETTLED? Who knows...)

That we already know so much about this pitch is indeed a bit strange. But probably comes from the unique situation that this pitch is the result of a fan-outline on the web.

I think the less we hear about this pitch is actually the better. I would rather have them make a deal behind curtains à la 'we can use this and/or this idea if we ever produce a new series for this much money/a writer credit' instead of a detailed 'THIS IS THE EXACT WAY HOW MY PITCH FAILED!'.

Again: The only reason I'm cautiously optimistic is because it sounds cheap for Paramount (comparing to BUY his website for their big blockbuster) and because he's a professional (well, video-game-)writer.

Soo... what do you guys think about the content of 'Uncharted'?

Well, this was my post from the first page, with relevant parts bolded.

A couple of things:

First, isn't CBS the person to pitch for a TV series as they hold that part of Trek right?

Secondly, the whole trying to discover the creators of life was done before (TNG "The Search" I believe) and was attempted by GR himself several times, before scrapping the idea. When Shatner pitched is search for God (or possibly the devil, depending on the draft). I don't see that going well.

Finally, there are too many Prometheus references for the project's own good. That's a problem if you want your concept to stand out as unique and original.

My skepticism on this one is pretty high, from trekmovies banner, to the way it is all set up, I don't find it credible. I could be wrong, but it just doesn't set right.

To expand, I think the concept is interesting in the bare bones, but doesn't resonate in a way that I find enjoyable.

Now, I understand trying to craft a concept and using current media for reference points. To that end, borrowing Prometheus type materials/ideas to illustrate it makes sense to me. And the author admits this, which I see upon further review.

I think exploring a new galaxy is probably the safest way to go, for a more contemporary series. That said, the original concept had no inspired me. Reviewing the site gave me more interest due to exploring a new galaxy, and providing a little creative room for the writers.

That said, the Galactic War thing bothers me, just because that is a consistent theme I see in a post Dominion War timeline. Expansion by Milky Way powers is inevitable, I suppose but it doesn't set well with me.

tl:dr Some interesting ideas, but I'm not 100% sold yet. Still open.

 

[Phantom]

Whatever happened to the rumors from a few years ago of Paramount re-starting it's Television division? If they did, it would be logical for Viacom to re-assign the TV rights back to Paramount, putting Trek back under one roof for the first time since they shut down the Trek office.

 

[Michael_Hinman]

Whatever happened to the rumors from a few years ago of Paramount re-starting it's Television division? If they did, it would be logical for Viacom to re-assign the TV rights back to Paramount, putting Trek back under one roof for the first time since they shut down the Trek office.

How would Viacom have that authority? While Paramount is a subsidiary of Viacom, CBS has been spun off. It is a completely separate company now, even if it does have some common management.

Because of that, Viacom has no authority to step in and take away CBS' control of Star Trek's television rights. That is, assuming there is no such specific clause in the separation agreement that created CBS Corp. in the first place that would allow such a move.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Whatever happened to the rumors from a few years ago of Paramount re-starting it's Television division? If they did, it would be logical for Viacom to re-assign the TV rights back to Paramount, putting Trek back under one roof for the first time since they shut down the Trek office.

It would be if Viacom owned Star Trek. The current incarnation of Viacom only licenses Star Trek from CBS to make movies. CBS has the final say in who does what Star Trek on TV, in movies and elsewhere.

 

[Phantom]

How would Viacom have that authority? While Paramount is a subsidiary of Viacom, CBS has been spun off. It is a completely separate company now, even if it does have some common management.

Because of that, Viacom has no authority to step in and take away CBS' control of Star Trek's television rights. That is, assuming there is no such specific clause in the separation agreement that created CBS Corp. in the first place that would allow such a move.

At the time, CBS had not been spun off.

 

[Michael_Hinman]

Whatever happened to the rumors from a few years ago of Paramount re-starting it's Television division? If they did, it would be logical for Viacom to re-assign the TV rights back to Paramount, putting Trek back under one roof for the first time since they shut down the Trek office.

It would be if Viacom owned Star Trek. The current incarnation of Viacom only licenses Star Trek from CBS to make movies. CBS has the final say in who does what Star Trek on TV, in movies and elsewhere.

What is your source of that information?

According to a story that appeared in The Wrap in 2013, the only thing Paramount licenses from CBS are the characters for merchandising. Otherwise, Paramount has the film rights outright, and are not licensing them from CBS.

While CBS can control how Paramount merchandises Star Trek, it does not appear CBS controls who does what in Star Trek "in movies" per your statement.

http://www.thewrap.com/how-web-star-trek-rights-killed-jj-abrams-grand-ambitions-91766/

Also, that same story indicates CBS Corp. has rights to future television series.

 

[Michael_Hinman]

How would Viacom have that authority? While Paramount is a subsidiary of Viacom, CBS has been spun off. It is a completely separate company now, even if it does have some common management.

Because of that, Viacom has no authority to step in and take away CBS' control of Star Trek's television rights. That is, assuming there is no such specific clause in the separation agreement that created CBS Corp. in the first place that would allow such a move.

At the time, CBS had not been spun off.

At the time of what? I think I might have missed something in this conversation.

 

[SPCTRE]

 

[Phantom]

How would Viacom have that authority? While Paramount is a subsidiary of Viacom, CBS has been spun off. It is a completely separate company now, even if it does have some common management.

Because of that, Viacom has no authority to step in and take away CBS' control of Star Trek's television rights. That is, assuming there is no such specific clause in the separation agreement that created CBS Corp. in the first place that would allow such a move.

At the time, CBS had not been spun off.

At the time of what? I think I might have missed something in this conversation.

At the time the rumor about Paramount getting back into the TV business.

 

[Tom]

Viacom and CBS split in 2006. The question of whether Paramount owns the movie rights or if they licensed them from CBS is a good one. Everything I have heard from insiders says its a license deal, and that deal will expire after the next film is released. It is believed, that when Paramount goes to re-negotiate there film license contract in late 2016, they also want to negotiate for the right to produce a Star Trek series that CBS would then distribute. This would help CBS defer production costs etc.. No matter what, it's up to CBS. CBS may have their own show they want to produce after the 3rd contracted film. Everything remains in flux.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Looking at his iMDB page, he has one writing credit for a Star Wars game. Nothing mentioned about Elite Force.

But either way, I simply don't believe it. I don't believe Paramount would waste their time when they could do "startrek . com / beyond" as the website or some type of variation.

Yeah, looking around, they just put everything for Into Darkness at startrekmovie.com. I don't think there was a startrekintodarkness.com. Ultimately the URL can't be that important. We're in serious need of some verification.

 

[Michael_Hinman]

At the time, CBS had not been spun off.

At the time of what? I think I might have missed something in this conversation.

At the time the rumor about Paramount getting back into the TV business.

There has been a report of Paramount restarting its television division post-corporate split.

http://www.1701news.com/node/350/paramount-television-gets-president-star-trek-next.html

 

[Michael_Hinman]

At the time, CBS had not been spun off.

At the time of what? I think I might have missed something in this conversation.

At the time the rumor about Paramount getting back into the TV business.

Viacom and CBS split in 2006. The question of whether Paramount owns the movie rights or if they licensed them from CBS is a good one. Everything I have heard from insiders says its a license deal, and that deal will expire after the next film is released. It is believed, that when Paramount goes to re-negotiate there film license contract in late 2016, they also want to negotiate for the right to produce a Star Trek series that CBS would then distribute. This would help CBS defer production costs etc.. No matter what, it's up to CBS. CBS may have their own show they want to produce after the 3rd contracted film. Everything remains in flux.

Take a look at the link provided above, from an industry publication. It states that the ONLY thing Paramount is licensing are the characters for merchandising purposes.

So while you might like to go with "everything I heard from insiders," I will go with a published report on a widely read industry website that was never challenged by CBS Corp. or Viacom. And you probably should, too.

 

[Michael_Hinman]

Looking at his iMDB page, he has one writing credit for a Star Wars game. Nothing mentioned about Elite Force.

But either way, I simply don't believe it. I don't believe Paramount would waste their time when they could do "startrek . com / beyond" as the website or some type of variation.

Yeah, looking around, they just put everything for Into Darkness at startrekmovie.com. I don't think there was a startrekintodarkness.com. Ultimately the URL can't be that important. We're in serious need of some verification.

That's a great point. From what I understand, it's not necessarily to use the domain name (although it could be an additional pointer), but also to help eliminate confusion.

You see a trailer for Star Trek Beyond, what are you going to do to look for it online? Probably start with StarTrekBeyond.com. Now, you either can get a Paramount-created site for the film (redirected to StarTrekMovie.com), or you can get a fan production. Obviously, there is concern that having someone else control the obvious domain name would create some branding problems for Paramount's marketing department.

 

[Nerys Myk]

At the time of what? I think I might have missed something in this conversation.

At the time the rumor about Paramount getting back into the TV business.

Viacom and CBS split in 2006. The question of whether Paramount owns the movie rights or if they licensed them from CBS is a good one. Everything I have heard from insiders says its a license deal, and that deal will expire after the next film is released. It is believed, that when Paramount goes to re-negotiate there film license contract in late 2016, they also want to negotiate for the right to produce a Star Trek series that CBS would then distribute. This would help CBS defer production costs etc.. No matter what, it's up to CBS. CBS may have their own show they want to produce after the 3rd contracted film. Everything remains in flux.

Take a look at the link provided above, from an industry publication. It states that the ONLY thing Paramount is licensing are the characters for merchandising purposes.

So while you might like to go with "everything I heard from insiders," I will go with a published report on a widely read industry website that was never challenged by CBS Corp. or Viacom. And you probably should, too.

My Bluray for STID says © 2013 PARAMOUNT PICTURES ALL RIGHTS RESERVED STAR TREK and related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc.

Do owners of copyrights and trademarks challenge every erroneous article published?

 

[Michael_Hinman]

At the time the rumor about Paramount getting back into the TV business.

Viacom and CBS split in 2006. The question of whether Paramount owns the movie rights or if they licensed them from CBS is a good one. Everything I have heard from insiders says its a license deal, and that deal will expire after the next film is released. It is believed, that when Paramount goes to re-negotiate there film license contract in late 2016, they also want to negotiate for the right to produce a Star Trek series that CBS would then distribute. This would help CBS defer production costs etc.. No matter what, it's up to CBS. CBS may have their own show they want to produce after the 3rd contracted film. Everything remains in flux.

Take a look at the link provided above, from an industry publication. It states that the ONLY thing Paramount is licensing are the characters for merchandising purposes.

So while you might like to go with "everything I heard from insiders," I will go with a published report on a widely read industry website that was never challenged by CBS Corp. or Viacom. And you probably should, too.

My Bluray for STID says © 2013 PARAMOUNT PICRURE ALL RIGHTS RE SERVES STAR TREK and related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc.

Do owners of copyrights and trademarks challenge every erroneous article published?

Please be sure you read the full copyright label. The Star Trek mark (meaning the trademark) is held by CBS. However, trademark does not address distribution rights, which is what we are talking about (CBS handles television, Paramount handles movies).

Paramount has full rights to anything on film. And yes, Hollywood does make specific separations between television and film (look at the rights battles that have taken place in properties like Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who, for example).

And whether or not every copyright or trademark is challenged is up to the entity holding such copyright or trademark.

However, considering this has become the primary resource on the ownership structure of Star Trek, and how it's split between Paramount and CBS, if it were incorrect, I do believe that one of those two entities would indeed correct it.

 

[Tom]

At the time of what? I think I might have missed something in this conversation.

At the time the rumor about Paramount getting back into the TV business.

Viacom and CBS split in 2006. The question of whether Paramount owns the movie rights or if they licensed them from CBS is a good one. Everything I have heard from insiders says its a license deal, and that deal will expire after the next film is released. It is believed, that when Paramount goes to re-negotiate there film license contract in late 2016, they also want to negotiate for the right to produce a Star Trek series that CBS would then distribute. This would help CBS defer production costs etc.. No matter what, it's up to CBS. CBS may have their own show they want to produce after the 3rd contracted film. Everything remains in flux.

Take a look at the link provided above, from an industry publication. It states that the ONLY thing Paramount is licensing are the characters for merchandising purposes.

So while you might like to go with "everything I heard from insiders," I will go with a published report on a widely read industry website that was never challenged by CBS Corp. or Viacom. And you probably should, too.

I never said it was gospel LOL. All I know for sure is Paramount needs to renegotiate there contract with CBS after the next film comes out, whether it's for future film rights or just character licensing I could not really say, since I have not seen the contract.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well I'm talking about who owns the property, not the distribution rights.

 

[Tom]

Looking at his iMDB page, he has one writing credit for a Star Wars game. Nothing mentioned about Elite Force.

But either way, I simply don't believe it. I don't believe Paramount would waste their time when they could do "startrek . com / beyond" as the website or some type of variation.

Yeah, looking around, they just put everything for Into Darkness at startrekmovie.com. I don't think there was a startrekintodarkness.com. Ultimately the URL can't be that important. We're in serious need of some verification.

That's a great point. From what I understand, it's not necessarily to use the domain name (although it could be an additional pointer), but also to help eliminate confusion.

You see a trailer for Star Trek Beyond, what are you going to do to look for it online? Probably start with StarTrekBeyond.com. Now, you either can get a Paramount-created site for the film (redirected to StarTrekMovie.com), or you can get a fan production. Obviously, there is concern that having someone else control the obvious domain name would create some branding problems for Paramount's marketing department.

Agreed, its to eliminate confusion. I have been in domain name business and you always want to secure all names that relate to your company or product, whether you use them or not. The don't want someone who owns Startrekbeyond.com so suddenly have a page that says "New Star Trek films suck!" LOL Interesting, Startrekmovie.com and was owned by a fan in 2008 that was not really using it and they came in a took it.

 

[Tom]

Well I'm talking about who owns the property, not the distribution rights.

CBS, but there are things in Star Trek movies that use trademarks established in the TV series so Paramount has a contract with CBS to get those rights. What we don't know for 100 percent is if the rights are doing the films in general, or just rights to certain trademarks of things used in the film (and thus merchandising). For the purpose this topic, TV series are all up to CBS .