Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by HaventGotALife, May 20, 2013.
TV Guide takes up what I have been saying for 2 years now:
Except doing the long form contemplative morality play can't really be shoved into a two hour movie, nor should it. I think J.J. blends just enough philosophy and morality to go with the action thrill ride to hearken back to Trek's roots. Because if this is unTrek, so is First Contact, Wrath of Khan, and a number of other Star Trek movie staples.
I do agree that Trek belongs on the small screen, though.
I agree the movie isn't the appropriate format, but Khan is hardly devoid of social commentary. "I'm trying to tell you that scientists have always been pawns of the military!" This is true of today's drones and computers. Molding metal that led to new swords. Splitting the atom leading to the atomic bomb. Just remember that Genesis is a scientific weapon that out-paces our morality. Like the nuclear bomb. Khan is also a creation that out-paced our morality. Spiritual death versus fulfillment in Kirk and Spock, respectively. "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." That's what makes Khan worth re-watching, in my house. And that's why it's the best Star Trek film.
First Contact is not liked by this Star Trek fan because it's most discernible commentary is about heroes and if their human, and Data's "resistance is futile" line to the Borg Queen. We will fight to the last man. It's not a strong enough version of Star Trek.
If they did happen to do another tv series setting it in the abrahamverse would be a good thing, but instead of it being all travel and stuff then maybe have it about the klingons instead, their fight, their tech and planet, would be interesting, maybe even a series set on new Vulcan or some other place and character base
TV GUIDE is still published?
There was a fair amount of that going on in the Nolan Batman films.
If the licensing issues between CBS and Paramount are half as bad as the story last week made it sound, then I expect any new series to be set in it's own universe with no use of JJ IP.
Oh yes, by all means then, let's ring up the Phase II folks and put them on the air.
So does the tv industry itself. Which means more whining from the truefans no matter how "deep and meaningful" it is.
As the license holder to all things Trek, CBS owns it in all its various incarnations, and could set a new series in the Abramsverse if they wanted to and Abrams, Bad Robot, and Paramount can't say anything about it.
But it's probably a case that CBS could probably care less what universe a new show is set in. In any event, it's likely to look different from anything we've seen before, IMO.
That's just great....
Their being the "license holder" does not mean that they own copyright to Paramount's movies.
OTOH, they could certainly do their own new version of TOS without any reference to the Abramsverse.
Truth is, it could go either way. It all depends on the contract between CBS and Paramount. And anything we say is just speculation.
What exactly about the Abramsverse is even exclusive anyways?
I'd imagine only the newly developed characters and ships, and there's not exactly a ton of those.
Like if a new show continued with the premise of Vulcan not being around, could Bad Robot even do anything about that?
CBS owns the Star Trek IP (and works derived from it). Paramount's ownership extends only to the release and distribution of the actual film, but the licensing of its actual content belongs to CBS.
(the above will probably be updated soon with Star Trek XII).
It's not like Paramount will have a say in it anyway.
No wonder they put me to sleep!
I don't ever want to see another of those "moral discussions" because, frankly, ever since TOS the characters default to whatever the studio thinks is a noncontroversial consensus position on the given topic. Trek is family viewing, after all.
That made Into Darkness's explicit stand against the use of remote drones and the killing of accused terrorists without trial really refreshing - a little moral courage, for a change.
That's funny. The text on my DVD of Star Trek (2009) clearly assigns copyright to both MavroCine Pictures and Paramount Pictures. Trademarks and logos are assigned to CBS Studios Inc.
Exactly so. The other poster clearly doesn't understand what copyright, trademark and licensing are.
CBS doesn't automatically have the rights to anything of the so-called "Abramsverse" that isn't contained in the shows they already own. Distinctive likenesses, designs, characters introduced in Abrams's movies and so forth are in no way the property of CBS; they belong to Paramount.
Paramount and Abrams have incentive to play ball with CBS in this regard, of course, since they're using Kirk, Spock and the gang as well as a lot of CBS trademarks under license.
Look at your DVD text again (under the main credits).
You'll see "Star Trek and related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc."
That tells you who really owns Star Trek and the various things derived from it.
What Paramount has is the copyright to the theatrical release and home video distribution of the movie. Paramount also continues to release CBS shows on DVD/blu-ray, but they act solely as a home video distributor for CBS in that regard.
Exactly not so. (See the earlier response to who really owns Trek).
The "other poster" understands the situation more than you do, though.
Wrong, as already proven:
Paramount has no ball to play with. They are a non-factor in this regard.
I'm going to repeat what has been said in other threads in this forum numerous times:
After years of not working together well, Viacom and CBS were split off into separate companies in 2006 and Paramount was divided between them. CBS got ownership of what was formerly Paramount Television while Viacom retained ownership of Paramount Pictures (the movie division). Under that arrangement, CBS got ownership of the Trek franchise and Paramount was allowed to continue making Trek movies under a license from CBS.
But the Trek IP does belong to CBS. Paramount does not have any say in a new Trek series because they don't own the rights to make one, whereas CBS can make a Trek show based on any incarnation of it they like.
Separate names with a comma.