Unless the rights changed while they were dealing with Fuller? Do we have a time frame of when this all changed?
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
It's obvious the rights shenannigans started before. It's confirmed in the facebook thread as "after ENT ended". But IMO that at the moment when it was announced 'Star Trek: Beyond' would be delayed, they immediately delayed the (then...) official release of 'Star Trek: Discovery' to have the exact timewindow between the two again even then spoke volumes about there being rights issues involved...
Started, certainly. But, what did they know and when did they know it?
No idea. My personal pet theory (even back then) is (was) that Bad Robot has at least some rights for Star Trek television. Otherwise JJ Abrams plan to make "a big franchise including tv series, animated and tie-ins" to his then new movies wouldn't make any sense...
There is nothing about the story (that we saw) that had to be told in the time period he selected. Seriously, it is so generic that it could've taken place pretty much anywhere in the timeline.
Bidding war?
Then again: JJ. Abrams original plan was to blow up the original Enterprise at the beginning of Star Trek (2009), and not the "USS Kelvin", and he was straight up tolled "No" from Star Trek's owners, that he was not allowed to do that.
Also, he allegedly wanted all prime universe merchandise to stop being produced (Shatner- and Nimoy- alike figurines and stuff) to avoid "brand confusion" and was - again - stopped from it.
Also, the original constitution class model that appears in one of the deleted scenes of "Into Darkness" is (IMO!) also at least 25% different from the very original Enterprise - so they might not be the ones owning the original Enterprise either.
Also, he allegedly wanted all prime universe merchandise to stop being produced (Shatner- and Nimoy- alike figurines and stuff) to avoid "brand confusion" and was - again - stopped from it.
Also, the original constitution class model that appears in one of the deleted scenes of "Into Darkness" is (IMO!) also at least 25% different from the very original Enterprise - so they might not be the ones owning the original Enterprise either.
Worst possible option might actually be some type of MARVEL situation, that they ripped apart the entire IP, and sold different nuggets of it to different corprations and companies. That some telecommunication provider somewhere out there owns the live-action like-ness of the original Enterprise to exclusively use it in their television spots, and somewhere else a hedgefond owns the use of the original Starfleet delta, and that the rights to both those designs for use in toys and tie-in novels are spread to two other, different companies....
Hopefully very unlikely. But not straight up impossible either - and the thought of it is honestly frightening.
Again, lots of missing information.
2008 was a frightening time. I mean financially.
Hollywood corporations are not exactly known to be free with information.
(Sorry, misread your initial response there - my response was not really fitting to what you just said)
It's fine. It's frustrating to not have the details on what the rationale might be.
More generally, I'm concerned that this is going to do two things. One, divide the fan base even more over what is "real Star Trek" and further distrust in CBS. Not that there is a lot of trust to begin with. But, it's just fuel to the fire of reckless speculation and theory that keep the divisions going.
Honestly, this is IMO a good point in time for someone at CBS coming clear to what the actual situation regarding Star Trek's legal status actually is...
At this point, it seems the choices made in creating new Star Trek are vastly more informed by rights issues than actually by creative choices. And that is not a good foundation for good decisions.
They should come clear. If the situation actually is "Sorry, we can't ever do TNG-era stuff ever again, or use the original stuff in any capacitiy" - it would be crushing. But from now on this is going to be the main suspicion of fans anyway, and them dancing around the issue and never directly addressing it is NOT going to help them in any way.
The only thing fans hate more than "No more content because of rights issues" is "No more content because of rights issues, but we are trying (and failing) to work around this stuff anyway, and lie to your faces while doing that". That'd be even worse.
At this point, it seems the choices made in creating new Star Trek are vastly more informed by rights issues than actually by creative choices. And that is not a good foundation for good decisions.
They should come clear. If the situation actually is "Sorry, we can't ever do TNG-era stuff ever again, or use the original stuff in any capacitiy" - it would be crushing. But from now on this is going to be the main suspicion of fans anyway, and them dancing around the issue and never directly addressing it is NOT going to help them in any way.
The only thing fans hate more than "No more content because of rights issues" is "No more content because of rights issues, but we are trying (and failing) to work around this stuff anyway, and lie to your faces while doing that". That'd be even worse.
I really don't follow what you're saying. Who wasted their time on what?
Anyway, I never said that the 1701 had to look exactly like the TOS version.
I think people over-interpret what was seen in that scene. It was clearly unfinished VFX meant to represent an in-universe scale model. Who knows what they were thinking of putting there in the final? A model of the real JJ-Prise? An abstract piece of art? An Imperial Star Destroyer? It means about as much as the shot of Voyager fighting the Borg in that First Contact trailer.
Last edited:
No it's not. It is almost exactly the same.
I didn't see it as 25% different, and may well be why it is a deleted scene.
They might not have attempted to market that Constitution in "Into Darkness" as it would be just a model on set, like the Saturn V, or NX-01.
But the USS Enterprise in Discovery? They'll try to market that under the Discovery logo, and I suppose they can't unless it is different enough to not be strictly under their TOS logo. At which point it is only a marketing problem, but also possibly how many people they need to split the royalty check towards.
But the USS Enterprise in Discovery? They'll try to market that under the Discovery logo, and I suppose they can't unless it is different enough to not be strictly under their TOS logo. At which point it is only a marketing problem, but also possibly how many people they need to split the royalty check towards.
Well they managed to get around that, so I don't see why they "should" have done this.
What I meant is: if the makers of DSC were so concerned with canon that they redesigned the TOS Enterprise so that it could become closer to TOS before going for TMP, it was a waste of time. They should've just made an updated version the way they wanted. Obsessing with "fitting" with canon, especially in TOS' case given what's been done since, is pointless.
From the sounds of it, making the DSC Connie possibly fit with TOS version was a personal decision by the designers (Scott and John), not a mandate from the production staff.
The VFX team went and changed one of those elements (the straight nacelles), not Eaves and Scott.
Similar threads
