News They can't use stuff from ANY Trek movie!

[cultcross]

It would be a ludicrously possessive and specific contact to ban things exclusive to the movies while allowing things that are in the movies but a appeared on TV at some point. You can have the monster maroons, spacedock and Qo'nos, but not The Nexus, Valeris and George and Gracie. Why would anyone come up with such a contract, or for that matter sign it? How would it benefit either party?

 

[Ovation]

The common sense, contextual reading of all this is the story editor (not a lawyer) inferred a greater limitation than actually exists. The “nothing from the films” should logically refer to Kelvinverse films only. It’s not really all that complicated.

 

[David cgc]

It would be a ludicrously possessive and specific contact to ban things exclusive to the movies while allowing things that are in the movies but a appeared on TV at some point. You can have the monster maroons, spacedock and Qo'nos, but not The Nexus, Valeris and George and Gracie. Why would anyone come up with such a contract, or for that matter sign it? How would it benefit either party?

That's pretty similar to the case Marvel ended up in, though, where Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver both were and were not X-Men characters, so both studios could use them.

 

[XCV330]

This claim must be in error, because movie elements have already been seen in DSC. The show uses Marc Okrand's Klingonese, which was invented for ST III. The movie pronunciation "Kronos" for "Qo'noS" has been used in the show, by Mirror Georgiou; they're just variant romanizations of the same place name anyway, like Moscow/Moskva.

Earth Spacedock from ST III was seen under construction in Earth orbit in the season finale. Also in the finale, Ceti eels were glimpsed in a frying pan in the Orion sector of Qo'noS. The Starfleet ship designs are heavily movie-influenced, especially the Enterprise. Discovery's own design is based on a rejected Enterprise redesign from an abandoned 1976 feature film project. There's a starship named the T'Plana-Hath, after the philosopher mentioned in ST III.

But I believe all of those things got later mention in the tv shows. Klingonese, used too many times to name, Ceti eel.. you got me there, but i think they'd allow a cameo, just as the Falcon made it into that one battle scene. I believe T'Plana Hath was also mentioned in Enterprise.

 

[XCV330]

It would be a ludicrously possessive and specific contact to ban things exclusive to the movies while allowing things that are in the movies but a appeared on TV at some point.

There are attorneys salivating at the prospect.

 

[ITDUDE]

Marvel Studios is still playing "catch 'em all" about their own movie rights (FF4, Spider-Man, X-Men,...). Disney and Warner Bros. are lucky their properties like Star Wars and DC aren't broken up.

Yep, Marvel was nearly broke, needed the money, so it sold off bunch of it's property. THEN it got back...some
So now we have a Venom movie (by Sony), that will NOT have Spiderman (who is now Marvel, again) in it

 

[Christopher]

Well, it's entirely possible that what was said here is all untrue. But I don't believe it, because it fits with what was presented on screen, and somebody from the production DIRECTLY said it.

As lawman already explained, that doesn't mean anything, because she was probably interpreting something she'd heard secondhand that was outside her direct area of responsibility. If you wanted to know something about the Enterprise's warp nacelles worked, would you trust Nurse Chapel's opinion as much as Commander Scott's? Not everyone on the same team has the same expertise in every subject -- as I said, that's the whole reason for having a team.

But ALSO because it doesn't really contradict Alex Kurtzman's statement either - he was talking about different timelines. Not legal agreements.

That is simply wrong. Kurtzman specifically said "there's no barrier on what we can do in the show versus the films, and since the films are in different timelines we’re fortunate not to worry about that." What he was saying was that they could use anything from the films if they wanted to; they just don't want to use anything from Kelvin.

I prefer to stick with Occam's razor in this case - what the people from production say (and what fits with what is presented on screen) is actually true, and not someone lying/grossly misrepresenting the facts.

Oh, there's no need to go there, for heaven's sake! An honest misunderstanding is not lying or misrepresenting. Erika Lippoldt is a relative novice, with slightly over two years of credited writing experience on only two series (Reign and Discovery). She's at approximately the point in her career where Alex Kurtzman was roughly 20 years ago. If her understanding of legal niceties far above her pay grade is a little iffy, that hardly makes her a liar.

 

[Mudd]

I prefer to stick with Occam's razor in this case - what the people from production say (and what fits with what is presented on screen) is actually true, and not someone lying/grossly misrepresenting the facts.

Yeah...if you're trying to figure out what's really so that doesn't work. Not in cases like this.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I saw a comment today that casting Quinto would make people think the show was in the Kelvin timeline, ....

If those viewers are casual enough not to know the difference between the timelines, I doubt they really follow Trek close enough for it to matter. Those of us who understand the difference will know. Either way, it's a win-win.

 

[DaveyNY]

Yep, Marvel was nearly broke, needed the money, so it sold off bunch of it's property. THEN it got back...some
So now we have a Venom movie (by Sony), that will NOT have Spiderman (who is now Marvel, again) in it

I thought I read somewhere recently that Spidey may make a cameo in the Venom movie.
SONY didn't relinquish their rights to Spiderman, they worked out a joint deal whereby MARVEL could once again use the character and SONY wouldn't make a specific "Spiderman" only movie.
But they both would share in the profits of the characters use.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Yep, Marvel was nearly broke, needed the money, so it sold off bunch of it's property. THEN it got back...some
So now we have a Venom movie (by Sony), that will NOT have Spiderman (who is now Marvel, again) in it

I thought I read somewhere recently that Spidey may make a cameo in the Venom movie.
SONY didn't relinquish their rights to Spiderman, they worked out a joint deal whereby MARVEL could once again use the character and SONY wouldn't make a specific "Spiderman" only movie.
But they both would share in the profits of the characters use.

A few points of clarification-- Marvel has NOT "gotten Spider-Man back." The movie rights at still 100% owned by Sony. The new movies are being made by Marvel Studios and are a part of the MCU, but they are being paid for by Sony, and Sony gets 100% of the box office returns. What Marvel gets are the exclusive rights to merchandising the movie. Win/Win.
Also, the rumor is that Peter Parker will appear in Venom, not Spider-Man.

 

[Tom]

It pretty simple guys. There is no legal issue whatsoever with Disco (or any future CBS Star Trek show) using elements from movies TMP-Nem. After that, it gets a bit more tricky with Abrams films for 2 reasons:

1. These Abrams movies happen after the split which made CBS and Viacom two separate legal entity's (even though Redstone was still associated with both companies after the split) . As part of the split Viacom (thus Paramount) was given legal rights to the Star Trek cinematic universe. Both companies get along very well and have no problems allowing each other to use some elements.. It just needs to go through the proper channels. If they re-merge it gets even easier

2. Bad Robot has shared rights to the 3 Abrams films. Back in 2007 (if memory serves) a contract was created between Paramount and Bad Robot to produce the next Trek movie (which then became 3 and looks like 4 soon with QT also involved) There were also contact stipulations that CBS had to agree to. One such stipulation (which I talked about 3 years ago), was that CBS could not create a Star Trek TV show until after a 3rd Film came out (Beyond) or the contract being voided by Paramount not wanting to produce another film after ST09 or ITD. This a was stipulation that Abrams wanted so CBS would not put out a Trek show that many have some contradictions to his film and 'confuse people'. Abrams even went to far as to ask CBS not to promote the previous shows so much, as he thought it would confuse casual fans (Prime timeline Vs Kelvin time line etc..). Of course, CBS denied his request because money is king.

So bottom line is, if the producers of Discovery want to use elements from Abrams films they need to get permission from not only Paramount, but also Bad Robot. It can be done but it a lot more hoops to go through for them.

 

[Tom]

A few points of clarification-- Marvel has NOT "gotten Spider-Man back." The movie rights at still 100% owned by Sony. The new movies are being made by Marvel Studios and are a part of the MCU, but they are being paid for by Sony, and Sony gets 100% of the box office returns. What Marvel gets are the exclusive rights to merchandising the movie. Win/Win.
Also, the rumor is that Peter Parker will appear in Venom, not Spider-Man.

At least Sony finally did the right thing and struck up a deal with Disney so save it's Spiderman franchise. Fox needs to do a similar thing with Fantastic 4.

 

[Christopher]

At least Sony finally did the right thing and struck up a deal with Disney so save it's Spiderman franchise. Fox needs to do a similar thing with Fantastic 4.

You're behind the times. Disney bought Fox's film assets a couple of months ago, though the deal hasn't been government-approved yet. If it goes through, then they'll fully own the X-Men and Fantastic Four again.

 

[Tom]

You're behind the times. Disney bought Fox's film assets a couple of months ago, though the deal hasn't been government-approved yet. If it goes through, then they'll fully own the X-Men and Fantastic Four again.

Your right, I forgot about that recent deal, I must be getting old! Either that, or I have to much on my mind lately. I think government will approve it, we shall see.

 

[Christopher]

I hope the government doesn't approve the full merger, since Disney is far too huge a corporate behemoth as it is, and consolidating too much of the entertainment industry under too few corporations is bad for everyone except a few billionaires. I'd be fine with Disney keeping the Marvel assets so long as they sell off some other Fox properties to other studios -- which is a trade-off they might well be willing to make.

 

[XCV330]

I hope the government doesn't approve the full merger, since Disney is far too huge a corporate behemoth as it is, and consolidating too much of the entertainment industry under too few corporations is bad for everyone except a few billionaires. I'd be fine with Disney keeping the Marvel assets so long as they sell off some other Fox properties to other studios -- which is a trade-off they might well be willing to make.

I agree. It's creating an unfair market, over time. But Its an idea that might backfire long term and finally let some new franchises develop.

Disney has an institutional history of not knowing when to quit. They run a risk of saturating a market that will get tired of costumed hero movies and especially star wars. It hasn't happened yet (at this rate there will be a Moon Knight trilogy or Great Lakes Avengers movie in the 2030's), but if it does, Disney is left holding on to some very expensive properties that no longer pay out, but probably already paid for themselves. The good news for them is when that happens, they still have other proven in-house franchises they can resurrect like Tron to keep on going forward.

With Universal's "Monster" franchise going nowhere, DC being,, well DC, and Avatar movies at their glacial pace, that kind of leaves Star Trek as one of the few non-Disney franchises, left. I hope that one stays out of mickey mouse's paws.

 

[Christopher]

^Isn't Avatar one of the Fox properties Disney will own if the deal goes through?

 

[jaime]

^Isn't Avatar one of the Fox properties Disney will own if the deal goes through?

Well...if nothing else I expect Kingdom hearts 4 in 2046 to be chuffing amazing, given the properties is the Disney Square Enix portfolio. Lara Croft hitting Wolverine in the head with a Gunblade on the bridge of the Orville, while Han Solo holds her coat should be the intro.

 

[XCV330]

^Isn't Avatar one of the Fox properties Disney will own if the deal goes through?