Strange New Worlds' showrunners advise fans to write to Skydance and Paramount if they're interested in a "Year One" Kirk sequel series

[Christopher]

So they’ll either make a TV/movie combination based around SFA (as that will be the only show left by the time an actual film is produced), they will base it around some new show taking place in the same continuity, or they will just start from scratch and create a new rebooted universe and go from there.

I think that's taking speculation too far. More likely it'll just be as it's always been -- various shows and movies that share the same continuity and occasionally reference each other to some extent. And I doubt they're any more likely to reboot everything from scratch than any previous Trek creators have been. Roddenberry intended TNG to be a soft reboot keeping only the parts of TOS continuity he liked, but later producers brought it all together as a continuous whole, and everyone since has followed that precedent. Even the Kelvin timeline is explicitly an alternate timeline and a direct continuation of Spock Prime's life, rather than a complete reboot. They could have rebooted fully, but they chose not to because the unity of the canon is important to fans, as well as to creators who are themselves fans. I see no reason to expect any of that to change in the future. Personally, I'd be happy to see a from-scratch reboot that rebuilt the universe from the ground up, but I don't expect anyone is likely to make one.

Besides, part of the reason Kelvin was split off into an alternate reality was because the movies at the time were from a separate production company from the shows, so it was best for legal and business reasons to keep them separate. That is no longer the case; any new shows or films will still be from the same company that made all the previous shows. Okay, it's merged with Skydance now, but that's happened before with Gulf + Western, Viacom, CBS, etc., and yet it's remained a single continuity throughout.

 

[Outcast91]

I think that's taking speculation too far. More likely it'll just be as it's always been -- various shows and movies that share the same continuity and occasionally reference each other to some extent. And I doubt they're any more likely to reboot everything from scratch than any previous Trek creators have been. Roddenberry intended TNG to be a soft reboot keeping only the parts of TOS continuity he liked, but later producers brought it all together as a continuous whole, and everyone since has followed that precedent. Even the Kelvin timeline is explicitly an alternate timeline and a direct continuation of Spock Prime's life, rather than a complete reboot. They could have rebooted fully, but they chose not to because the unity of the canon is important to fans, as well as to creators who are themselves fans. I see no reason to expect any of that to change in the future. Personally, I'd be happy to see a from-scratch reboot that rebuilt the universe from the ground up, but I don't expect anyone is likely to make one.

Besides, part of the reason Kelvin was split off into an alternate reality was because the movies at the time were from a separate production company from the shows, so it was best for legal and business reasons to keep them separate. That is no longer the case; any new shows or films will still be from the same company that made all the previous shows. Okay, it's merged with Skydance now, but that's happened before with Gulf + Western, Viacom, CBS, etc., and yet it's remained a single continuity throughout.

I still don't get that bit.
Paramount and CBS were separate companies but still had the exact same board of directors.
What did the board meetings look like?
Was it a bunch of Quintessons sitting around a table, lmao.

 

[fireproof78]

I still don't get that bit.
Paramount and CBS were separate companies but still had the exact same board of directors.
What did the board meetings look like?
Was it a bunch of Quintessons sitting around a table, lmao.

It means each company had to be run separately. The licensing, agreements and contracts could not be shared. If Paramount owned it CBS did not automatically have access and vice versa.

The board still must operate in the best interest of the company and shareholders.

 

[Outcast91]

From what I gather, Midnight's edge kept bringing that up.
IDW's comics still had a crossover with the Kelvin Timeline, and DS9.
IDK how that would effect merchandising, but, I think the 25 percent different thing is a myth.
Obviously if you're making a show like this, the producers are going to want to visually change things so they don't look like the 60s.
Especially at the time it was produced.
CBS owned the main property. Paramount owned the films. National Amusements owned both companies.
CBS owned every TV show, so why is there a prime timeline?
Did Desilu still have an active stake in the property? I'm sure that's what Midnight's edge would have you believe 6 years ago.
But, Desilu is essentially Paramount's production house now.
It's defunct as a company.
If CBS owned TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, they don't need to make an alternate timeline to clear licensing, and I doubt Paramount made the Kelvin timeline from
a licensing choice that boiled down to that.
It looks like a creative choice moreso than a licensing choice.
The Shareholders were gonna make money, I doubt petty things like licensing in that way mattered to a mostly unified company.

That being said, Batman, the Adam West version, had a lot of licensing problems, that were secret.
While I think Midnight's edge is wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a legitimate version of that story, with very different brushstrokes.

 

[Tuskin38]

It means each company had to be run separately. The licensing, agreements and contracts could not be shared. If Paramount owned it CBS did not automatically have access and vice versa.

The board still must operate in the best interest of the company and shareholders.

CBS did appear to own, at the very least, the merchandising licencing for everything, including the Kelvin movies, even before the merger.

The CBS Consumer Products divsion, which handled retailing and licencing agreements, had the Kelvin movies listed on their website as one of their properties since shortly after Into Darkness released, they also added Beyond to that list when it came out.

Star Trek Online also used content from those movies (and the pre-Kelvin movies), but Paramount wasn't mentioned anywhere in the game's legal/credits section at the time, only CBS.

I think the 25 percent different thing is a myth.

It was real, but the reasoning why was never officially stated by anyone who would actually know, one of the Discovery art department members speculated it had to do with the licencing, and the clickbaiters ran with it as if he was stating fact.

John Eaves posted one peice of concept art for his Connie redesign's engineering hull pennants at one point which had had note saying something about 25% different written in red ink along with other feedback.

 

[Christopher]

IDW's comics still had a crossover with the Kelvin Timeline, and DS9.

Because it had the license to both. A company that has license to adapt two different properties is free to cross them over, which is how IDW managed to cross Star Trek with DC Comics, Planet of the Apes, Doctor Who, Ghostbusters, etc.

IDK how that would effect merchandising, but, I think the 25 percent different thing is a myth.

Pretty sure it's a complete myth. I think John Eaves made an unfounded assumption about the reason for the "change 25%" note.

CBS owned the main property. Paramount owned the films. National Amusements owned both companies.
CBS owned every TV show, so why is there a prime timeline?

Because ownership and licensing are two different things. Marvel owns Spider-Man, but it sold Sony the exclusive license to make movies about Spider-Man, so Marvel has to pay Sony to include Spider-Man in a movie. By the same token, during the time that CBS and Paramount were separate companies, CBS still owned the entire Star Trek franchise, but only Paramount had the license to make feature films about it. And as such, anything unique to the Kelvin films, such as the Kelvin itself, Captain Robau, Red Matter, the Franklin, etc., presumably couldn't be used by CBS without paying Paramount/Bad Robot. Although that ceased to be the case once the companies re-merged, which is why we've gotten the occasional Kelvin reference in Prime since DSC season 3.

If CBS owned TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, they don't need to make an alternate timeline to clear licensing, and I doubt Paramount made the Kelvin timeline from a licensing choice that boiled down to that.

But it wasn't CBS that made the alternate timeline; all of CBS's shows have been in Prime. They don't have to license their own shows to themselves.

It looks like a creative choice moreso than a licensing choice.

Yes, largely. When Abrams and his team decided to reboot the TOS cast, they decided they'd have more creative freedom if it were an alternate timeline. But the fact that the two companies were separate at the time was probably also a factor in their choice to pursue separate continuities, because it's just easier for separate companies to go their own way than to try to coordinate closely.

That being said, Batman, the Adam West version, had a lot of licensing problems, that were secret.

I don't think it's the show itself that had problems licensing things; it was that DC Comics had trouble licensing the characters and elements created for Batman '66, such as King Tut, Bookworm, Egghead, etc., because it was a production of 20th Century Fox and Greenaway Productions, while DC later ended up owned by Warner Bros. So there were too many different companies that had the rights to Batman '66, which meant it took quite a lot of negotiating before DC/WB was finally able to clear the rights for themselves. I don't think any of that was secret; you can tell just by reading the credits.

CBS did appear to own, at the very least, the merchandising licencing for everything, including the Kelvin movies, even before the merger.

Yes, because CBS owns Trek and Paramount merely had a license to make movies about it. Yet the Kelvin tie-in books and comics include both CBS and Paramount copyright notices. I presume that's because CBS owns Trek as a whole, while Paramount owned the stuff exclusive to the Kelvin films.

 

[Outcast91]

Because it had the license to both. A company that has license to adapt two different properties is free to cross them over, which is how IDW managed to cross Star Trek with DC Comics, Planet of the Apes, Doctor Who, Ghostbusters, etc.




Pretty sure it's a complete myth. I think John Eaves made an unfounded assumption about the reason for the "change 25%" note.




Because ownership and licensing are two different things. Marvel owns Spider-Man, but it sold Sony the exclusive license to make movies about Spider-Man, so Marvel has to pay Sony to include Spider-Man in a movie. By the same token, during the time that CBS and Paramount were separate companies, CBS still owned the entire Star Trek franchise, but only Paramount had the license to make feature films about it. And as such, anything unique to the Kelvin films, such as the Kelvin itself, Captain Robau, Red Matter, the Franklin, etc., presumably couldn't be used by CBS without paying Paramount/Bad Robot. Although that ceased to be the case once the companies re-merged, which is why we've gotten the occasional Kelvin reference in Prime since DSC season 3.




But it wasn't CBS that made the alternate timeline; all of CBS's shows have been in Prime. They don't have to license their own shows to themselves.




Yes, largely. When Abrams and his team decided to reboot the TOS cast, they decided they'd have more creative freedom if it were an alternate timeline. But the fact that the two companies were separate at the time was probably also a factor in their choice to pursue separate continuities, because it's just easier for separate companies to go their own way than to try to coordinate closely.




I don't think it's the show itself that had problems licensing things; it was that DC Comics had trouble licensing the characters and elements created for Batman '66, such as King Tut, Bookworm, Egghead, etc., because it was a production of 20th Century Fox and Greenaway Productions, while DC later ended up owned by Warner Bros. So there were too many different companies that had the rights to Batman '66, which meant it took quite a lot of negotiating before DC/WB was finally able to clear the rights for themselves. I don't think any of that was secret; you can tell just by reading the credits.




Yes, because CBS owns Trek and Paramount merely had a license to make movies about it. Yet the Kelvin tie-in books and comics include both CBS and Paramount copyright notices. I presume that's because CBS owns Trek as a whole, while Paramount owned the stuff exclusive to the Kelvin films.

There's more to the Batman thing, there's a whole doc on Batman '66, there's private parties, and a mess.
The bluray release of that was a miracle.
That being said, Sony and Marvel are also under different shareholders and are two different companies,
Not two different entertainment companies that have always been at the hip under whatever conglomerate owned them with the same executives and shareholders.
By and large, I strongly agree with your points though.

 

[fireproof78]

Not two different entertainment companies that have always been at the hip under whatever conglomerate owned them with the same executives and shareholders.

Doesn't change how things must be handled legally.

 

[Christopher]

That being said, Sony and Marvel are also under different shareholders and are two different companies,
Not two different entertainment companies that have always been at the hip under whatever conglomerate owned them with the same executives and shareholders.

I think everyone understands that analogies are not required to be exact in every particular, just in the specific one being illustrated -- in this case, the difference between owning a thing and having a license to use it. People tend to get those confused, and the Spidey situation is a well-known example that helps to illustrate the difference.

 

[Outcast91]

I think everyone understands that analogies are not required to be exact in every particular, just in the specific one being illustrated -- in this case, the difference between owning a thing and having a license to use it. People tend to get those confused, and the Spidey situation is a well-known example that helps to illustrate the difference.

I don't think it is.
It's like saying Disney+ couldn't produce Xmen 97, because the Saban group within the company won't allow it.

 

[Leo Walsh]

I'd like to be ethical, and just divorce it from TOS, as an alternate timeline.
You can have a sequel, but that's the prime timeline.
IMO, it's elegant that way, and far less to argue about.

SNW is in the main "Prime" timeline, and is a direct prequel to TOS.

So, there's no problem with creating a series Iike Year One focused on the original crew aboard the Enterprise.

 

[Christopher]

It's like saying Disney+ couldn't produce Xmen 97, because the Saban group within the company won't allow it.

That makes no sense as an analogy. The original X-Men animated series was a co-production of Marvel Entertainment and Saban Entertainment to begin with, so Marvel had the rights all along. Marvel just subcontracted Saban to do the production, the same way CBS subcontracts Secret Hideout to produce the modern Trek shows. That's a different thing entirely from selling an exclusive license to another company.

Besides, Saban Entertainment was sold to Marvel in 2001 anyway (and renamed BVS Entertainment), so whatever licensing situation existed in the 1990s is obviously no longer in effect today. The Saban Capital Group is a different entity entirely, a private equity investment company formed by Haim Saban on the same day his sale of Saban Entertainment to Marvel took effect. The Group would subsequently form a different production company, Saban Brands, which was later acquired by Hasbro.

 

[Danja]

SNW is in the main "Prime" timeline, and is a direct prequel to TOS.

So, there's no problem with creating a series Iike Year One focused on the original crew aboard the Enterprise.

Paramount might see it differently ("We have the Kelvin timeline. Why do we need to reboot it AGAIN?")

TOS is a proven draw. Paramount Pictures might decide to keep it for themselves to use in feature films.

Kelvin vs. Prime is really splitting hairs here.

 

[Christopher]

Paramount might see it differently ("We have the Kelvin timeline. Why do we need to reboot it AGAIN?")

TOS is a proven draw. Paramount Pictures might decide to keep it for themselves to use in feature films.

Kelvin vs. Prime is really splitting hairs here.

Again, Paramount isn't a separate company anymore. It's all under one roof, and the incoming Skydance people have said they intend a unified TV/film strategy.

And even when it was a separate company, Paramount Pictures only had the feature film rights to Star Trek. They didn't own or control the characters, they just had the exclusive right to make theatrical movies about them. CBS still controlled the TV rights, which is how Discovery was able to use TOS characters like Sarek, Spock, and Pike while the Kelvin movies were still in production. (Similarly, only Sony can make Spider-Man feature films, but that doesn't prevent Marvel Studios from using Spider-Man in TV series like Friendly Neighborghood Spider-Man, What If...?, and Marvel Zombies.)

 

[Danja]

Again, Paramount isn't a separate company anymore. It's all under one roof, and the incoming Skydance people have said they intend a unified TV/film strategy.

And even when it was a separate company, Paramount Pictures only had the feature film rights to Star Trek. They didn't own or control the characters, they just had the exclusive right to make theatrical movies about them. CBS still controlled the TV rights, which is how Discovery was able to use TOS characters like Sarek, Spock, and Pike while the Kelvin movies were still in production. (Similarly, only Sony can make Spider-Man feature films, but that doesn't prevent Marvel Studios from using Spider-Man in TV series like Friendly Neighborghood Spider-Man, What If...?, and Marvel Zombies.)

Paramount+ Lands ‘Discretion’ Starring Nicole Kidman & Elle Fanning With Straight-To-Series Order In Major Move For New Regime

Paramount+ has landed Chandler Baker's 'Discretion' starring Nicole Kidman & Elle Fanning with straight-to-series order in major move for new regime.

deadline.com

P+'s new CEO Cindy Holland wants more female-led drama series:

According to sources, Holland and her top programming executive, Jane Wiseman, EVP, Head of Originals for Paramount+, had been sending out feelers to the creative community about their interest in premium female-driven drama series to compliment Sheridan’s male-skewing slate, with female thrillers near the top of their wish list.

 

[Outcast91]

Again, Paramount isn't a separate company anymore. It's all under one roof, and the incoming Skydance people have said they intend a unified TV/film strategy.

And even when it was a separate company, Paramount Pictures only had the feature film rights to Star Trek. They didn't own or control the characters, they just had the exclusive right to make theatrical movies about them. CBS still controlled the TV rights, which is how Discovery was able to use TOS characters like Sarek, Spock, and Pike while the Kelvin movies were still in production. (Similarly, only Sony can make Spider-Man feature films, but that doesn't prevent Marvel Studios from using Spider-Man in TV series like Friendly Neighborghood Spider-Man, What If...?, and Marvel Zombies.)

They were barely separate to begin with is my point.
Sony and Marvel are competing for different teams.
Paramount and CBS were competing for the same team.

 

[camdudetenger2018]

the star trek multiverse is like a video game style sandbox where everything is like in the open world

 

[Boo-khat!]

TOS is a proven draw. Paramount Pictures might decide to keep it for themselves to use in feature films.

Is it, though? In order to bring new younger fans into the fold, is it necessary to make a new Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise yet again? How well has that worked for SNW? Because I would think that CBS/P+ wouldn’t have cancelled it if it was some sort of ratings powerhouse with the 18-30 year old demographic.

 

[Danja]

Is it, though? In order to bring new younger fans into the fold, is it necessary to make a new Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise yet again? How well has that worked for SNW? Because I would think that CBS/P+ wouldn’t have cancelled it if it was some sort of ratings powerhouse with the 18-30 year old demographic.

They know what brings in the $$$$.

 

[Christopher]

They were barely separate to begin with is my point.
Sony and Marvel are competing for different teams.
Paramount and CBS were competing for the same team.

As I said, that is not the part that is relevant to the analogy I was making. As with any analogy, the point is about the thing they do have in common.

Is it, though? In order to bring new younger fans into the fold, is it necessary to make a new Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise yet again? How well has that worked for SNW? Because I would think that CBS/P+ wouldn’t have cancelled it if it was some sort of ratings powerhouse with the 18-30 year old demographic.

It's actually pretty rare for a streaming show -- any show, really -- to get as many as four and a half seasons. SNW has done pretty well; of the streaming Trek series, only Discovery and Lower Decks have had more episodes than it will end up with. So it makes little sense to call it a failure.

Although I certainly don't expect another TOS reboot with yet another new cast. After all, if there's a joint film/TV strategy, it will presumably continue the existing Trek continuity just like everything except Kelvin has done.