|
Post by wolf359 on May 22, 2020 1:39:56 GMT
"Discovery is also in it's own timeline" -----------------------------------------------
I thought that that show took place in the regular universe 10 years before The Original Series ?
Must be otherwise why in no other series is the Discovery ever mentioned, at all, a ship capable of traversing the galaxy god knows how many times faster then the fastest star ship some 130 years later, even faster than the Borg, and why Spock's sister the first mutineer in Starfleet history again is never ever mentioned or alluded to?
oh good grief!
|
|
|
Post by dazz on May 22, 2020 2:19:18 GMT
Must be otherwise why in no other series is the Discovery ever mentioned, at all, a ship capable of traversing the galaxy god knows how many times faster then the fastest star ship some 130 years later, even faster than the Borg, and why Spock's sister the first mutineer in Starfleet history again is never ever mentioned or alluded to?
oh good grief!
Also the other tech is different as is the Enterprise, falling in line with the must be different to the TOS legal requirement, it has to be fundamentally different to the OG timeline and the Kelvin timeline, also the use of the mirrorverse would contradict other shows maybe? hell I think that may also be an alt timeline to the normal one.
Just saying Discovery took such massive deviations it makes more sense for it to be an alt timeline than for it to be the OG one, even visually it doesn't flow, if it's meant to be the same why is so much different wouldn't the key being to try to make it all flow more reasonably? Also The Cage is set before Discovery yet the uniforms are the same as TOS ones as is the Enterprise, compare that to Discovery which looks very different all around, suggest they shouldn't be in the same timeline.
#Heres a thing though IS old Spock in the Kelvin movies the Spock from the OG timeline? because some odd changes happen which make no sense, such as Kirk's birth, in the OG timeline he is meant to be born on earth, yet in Star Trek 2009 he is born in space lightyears away and his mother is giving birth to him as the movie starts, this is prior to the timeline changes of Nero's arrival, so why does this change? could Old spock be from yet another alt timeline? It is Star Trek they have alt timelines coming out the wazoo afterall, most just get forgotten about though, but if so then does that mean in the OG timeline Romulus could still be in tact in the future? just a thought to ponder.
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 on May 22, 2020 2:35:42 GMT
Also the other tech is different as is the Enterprise, falling in line with the must be different to the TOS legal requirement, it has to be fundamentally different to the OG timeline and the Kelvin timeline, also the use of the mirrorverse would contradict other shows maybe? hell I think that may also be an alt timeline to the normal one.
Just saying Discovery took such massive deviations it makes more sense for it to be an alt timeline than for it to be the OG one, even visually it doesn't flow, if it's meant to be the same why is so much different wouldn't the key being to try to make it all flow more reasonably? Also The Cage is set before Discovery yet the uniforms are the same as TOS ones as is the Enterprise, compare that to Discovery which looks very different all around, suggest they shouldn't be in the same timeline.
#Heres a thing though IS old Spock in the Kelvin movies the Spock from the OG timeline? because some odd changes happen which make no sense, such as Kirk's birth, in the OG timeline he is meant to be born on earth, yet in Star Trek 2009 he is born in space lightyears away and his mother is giving birth to him as the movie starts, this is prior to the timeline changes of Nero's arrival, so why does this change? could Old spock be from yet another alt timeline? It is Star Trek they have alt timelines coming out the wazoo afterall, most just get forgotten about though, but if so then does that mean in the OG timeline Romulus could still be in tact in the future? just a thought to ponder.

Everybody's a Critic!
I don't need to ponder anything.
The Super Nova and Destruction of Romulus happened in the Regular Timeline and Universe.
It happened, it's canon, it's final.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on May 22, 2020 6:25:19 GMT
Also the other tech is different as is the Enterprise, falling in line with the must be different to the TOS legal requirement, it has to be fundamentally different to the OG timeline and the Kelvin timeline, also the use of the mirrorverse would contradict other shows maybe? hell I think that may also be an alt timeline to the normal one.
Just saying Discovery took such massive deviations it makes more sense for it to be an alt timeline than for it to be the OG one, even visually it doesn't flow, if it's meant to be the same why is so much different wouldn't the key being to try to make it all flow more reasonably? Also The Cage is set before Discovery yet the uniforms are the same as TOS ones as is the Enterprise, compare that to Discovery which looks very different all around, suggest they shouldn't be in the same timeline.
#Heres a thing though IS old Spock in the Kelvin movies the Spock from the OG timeline? because some odd changes happen which make no sense, such as Kirk's birth, in the OG timeline he is meant to be born on earth, yet in Star Trek 2009 he is born in space lightyears away and his mother is giving birth to him as the movie starts, this is prior to the timeline changes of Nero's arrival, so why does this change? could Old spock be from yet another alt timeline? It is Star Trek they have alt timelines coming out the wazoo afterall, most just get forgotten about though, but if so then does that mean in the OG timeline Romulus could still be in tact in the future? just a thought to ponder.

Everybody's a Critic!
I don't need to ponder anything.
The Super Nova and Destruction of Romulus happened in the Regular Timeline and Universe.
It happened, it's canon, it's final.
Well when the writing is that shitty it's hard not to be, but you carry on being a good boot licker.
I mean seriously it's a discussion board you tool, you are meant to discuss things for fuck sake, don't just get uppity and cranky because I am not as embracing of shitty and ridiculous add ons to continuity as you are.
Also the Old Spock new Kirk place of birth thing was just a fun thought, honestly I can think of the explanation to it easy enough, I just wanted to see if you could also, but given your shitty response maybe you cant, oh well.
|
|
|
Post by azzajones on May 24, 2020 3:54:35 GMT
Thinking this show should bring in some of those characters from the Short Treks featuring Pike.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Jul 12, 2020 19:21:25 GMT
Romulus was destroyed in the 24th century in the original timeline, after which Nero went back in time followed by Spock, creating an alternate timeline in an alternate universe.
The original timeline in the original universe continued alongside the new timeline in the alternate universe.
The creators and producers of the cinematic Abramsverse said as much when the 2009 movie came out.
That can be verified online.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jul 19, 2020 13:23:41 GMT
Romulus was destroyed in the 24th century in the original timeline, after which Nero went back in time followed by Spock, creating an alternate timeline in an alternate universe. The original timeline in the original universe continued alongside the new timeline in the alternate universe. The creators and producers of the cinematic Abramsverse said as much when the 2009 movie came out. That can be verified online. A) Who gives a sit what someone says behind the scenes? That's like counting a deleted scene, or a scene included in the script, but never filmed as canon. If it's not in the actual narrative, it didn't happen. B) From a purely legal standpoint, everything Star Trek related created between the time when Viacom and CBS split, until last summer, which includes the Abrams reboot movies, Discovery and Picard, legally could not be a direct part of the original continuity, but rather a derivative based on the original; with clear and intentional differences in appearance for licensing purposes. The production companies involved in making these latest Trek entries did not own the original properties, but rather had a license agreement, by which the new content required a nuanced take to be profitable. As such terms like "Prime Timeline" were used to distinguish a version of continuity that paralleled what we would otherwise consider the original canon, while containing the necessary differences to suit the legal nuances of the license agreement. Arguably that is part of canon, by virtue of how the effects of that canon were embedded into each production, both visually, with intentional changes made to the aesthetics of each production, and in their approach to writing known characters and their history, making things familiar, yet different. Now, because CBS and Viacom have remerged, circumstances have changed, yet that past agreement and the distinctions made between what came before or after is engrained into the foundation of the newer content. It remains to be seen whether they will continue along the path they've made of being similar, but different; or make full use of the new arrangement by fully reintegrating the new with the old. That assumes it's as simple as that; and that just because they're all part of one company now, one division has unrestricted access to the properties of another. Assuming that to be the case, I won't be surprised if they simply pretend that anything was ever different; and just dive head long into the full aspects of continuity that was previously more restrictive. But I think it would be better if they embraced the differences; and allowed the newer stories to exist, formally and without ambiguity, within the narrative as a parallel reality. I think it would make the stories richer to acknowledge that things are different for a reason; and the writers would be free to take each of those stories in any direction they choose, without restriction. It's a point I feel was a mistake made starting with the 2009 movie, where they went out of their way of trying to make it a continuation of the old. I immediately thought that they would have been better off explicitly making themselves out to be a parallel or otherwise separate universe from the original; even if with some tangential connection to tie everything together. It would have been more creatively freeing, rather than making everything more of a cluster fuck.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Jul 27, 2020 4:13:47 GMT
So are the episodes of the original series that were owned and produced by Desilu part of a different timeline than the episodes that were later owned and produced by Paramount, which owned all Star Trek movies and TV shows at least through Nemesis?
And/or did each original series episode, as well as Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, create alternate timelines and parallel universes that are not part of the Desilu era?
What about first-run network and first-run syndication episodes?
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jul 27, 2020 4:54:52 GMT
Romulus was destroyed in the 24th century in the original timeline, after which Nero went back in time followed by Spock, creating an alternate timeline in an alternate universe. The original timeline in the original universe continued alongside the new timeline in the alternate universe. The creators and producers of the cinematic Abramsverse said as much when the 2009 movie came out. That can be verified online. A) Who gives a sit what someone says behind the scenes? That's like counting a deleted scene, or a scene included in the script, but never filmed as canon. If it's not in the actual narrative, it didn't happen. B) From a purely legal standpoint, everything Star Trek related created between the time when Viacom and CBS split, until last summer, which includes the Abrams reboot movies, Discovery and Picard, legally could not be a direct part of the original continuity sorry, but that is just not accurate, prior to the "remerger" all TV content had to be connected to TOS, almost the exact opposite of what you claim
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jul 27, 2020 5:11:52 GMT
So are the episodes of the original series that were owned and produced by Desilu part of a different timeline than the episodes that were later owned and produced by Paramount, which owned all Star Trek movies and TV shows at least through Nemesis? And/or did each original series episode, as well as Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, create alternate timelines and parallel universes that are not part of the Desilu era? What about first-run network and first-run syndication episodes? Gulf & Western Industries bought Desilu in 1967 and renamed it Paramount Television. This was a wholesale purchase of the entire Desilu production library, including Star Trek; and as such, any subsequent productions made by Paramount Television or their parent company occurred under the same distinction of ownership as the original production and therefore there's no reason to qualify the movies or the initial spin-offs. When Viacom and CBS split, Viacom (and Bad Robot) established a licensing deal with CBS, which allowed them to produce new Star Trek content, which CBS would air. It was a logistical win-win; Viacom would get a slice of Star Trek pie, since it no longer had the tv series rights - plus some convoluted elements with merchandising, which played into the nuanced visual differences with all things related to "New" Star Trek starting with the 2009 reboot. By incorporating distinct differences into the new content, especially the aesthetic, from the costumes, to the sets, they created an intellectual property based on the original Star Trek property, but by virtue of the license agreement with CBS, Viacom could predominantly cash in on "their" version of Star Trek; both in distributing their productions and with the related merchandise. Thus they effectively created a legal distinction between the Star Trek properties that existed from 1966-2005 (when CBS and Viacom split) and the variant version of Star Trek created by post-split Viacom, under a special license agreement with CBS.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Jul 27, 2020 5:13:50 GMT
A) Who gives a sit what someone says behind the scenes? That's like counting a deleted scene, or a scene included in the script, but never filmed as canon. If it's not in the actual narrative, it didn't happen. B) From a purely legal standpoint, everything Star Trek related created between the time when Viacom and CBS split, until last summer, which includes the Abrams reboot movies, Discovery and Picard, legally could not be a direct part of the original continuity sorry, but that is just not accurate, prior to the "remerger" all TV content had to be connected to TOS, almost the exact opposite of what you claim Oh, okay, I guess because you say so, then it must be true. Wait, no, Viacom definitely had to have a special legal arrangement with CBS for the more recent Star Trek productions....
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jul 27, 2020 5:35:20 GMT
sorry, but that is just not accurate, prior to the "remerger" all TV content had to be connected to TOS, almost the exact opposite of what you claim Oh, okay, I guess because you say so, then it must be true. Wait, no, Viacom definitely had to have a special legal arrangement with CBS for the more recent Star Trek productions.... Your own ( rambling and unsourced ) quote proves me right, moron: "they created an intellectual property based on the original Star Trek"
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 28, 2020 4:41:31 GMT
Don't we already have Discovery and Picard?
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Aug 9, 2020 4:41:45 GMT
So are the episodes of the original series that were owned and produced by Desilu part of a different timeline than the episodes that were later owned and produced by Paramount, which owned all Star Trek movies and TV shows at least through Nemesis? And/or did each original series episode, as well as Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, create alternate timelines and parallel universes that are not part of the Desilu era? What about first-run network and first-run syndication episodes? Gulf & Western Industries bought Desilu in 1967 and renamed it Paramount Television. This was a wholesale purchase of the entire Desilu production library, including Star Trek; and as such, any subsequent productions made by Paramount Television or their parent company occurred under the same distinction of ownership as the original production and therefore there's no reason to qualify the movies or the initial spin-offs. When Viacom and CBS split, Viacom (and Bad Robot) established a licensing deal with CBS, which allowed them to produce new Star Trek content, which CBS would air. It was a logistical win-win; Viacom would get a slice of Star Trek pie, since it no longer had the tv series rights - plus some convoluted elements with merchandising, which played into the nuanced visual differences with all things related to "New" Star Trek starting with the 2009 reboot. By incorporating distinct differences into the new content, especially the aesthetic, from the costumes, to the sets, they created an intellectual property based on the original Star Trek property, but by virtue of the license agreement with CBS, Viacom could predominantly cash in on "their" version of Star Trek; both in distributing their productions and with the related merchandise. Thus they effectively created a legal distinction between the Star Trek properties that existed from 1966-2005 (when CBS and Viacom split) and the variant version of Star Trek created by post-split Viacom, under a special license agreement with CBS. What about the "nuanced visual differences...incorporating distinct differences...especially the aesthetic, from the costumes, to the sets...based on the original Star Trek property..." between the original series and Star Treks I-VI, VII-X, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise, all of which were produced under the aegis/auspices of Paramount Pictures/Television, including Desilu, which as you pointed out was bought by Gulf + Western, Paramount's parent company? Especially between the original series and Star Treks I-VI, which featured the exact same main cast of actors/characters but looked completely different visually and aesthetically in terms of costumes and sets, not to mention the special/visual effects and even the designs and models of starships, including the same U.S.S. Enterprise from the original series and the first three movies? And while we're at it, what about the fact that William Shatner's hair changed from straight to curly/wavy in the series to Afro in the movies, and James Doohan went from stocky and clean shaven in the series to fat and mustachioed in the movies? And what about DeForest Kelley going from clean shaven in the series to having a full mustache and beard and being clean shaven, all in the first movie? What was that all about? And how about Leonard Nimoy's Vulcan eyebrows and ears changing from season to season and movie to movie? That was all under Desilu/Gulf + Western/Paramount.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Aug 9, 2020 13:56:41 GMT
Gulf & Western Industries bought Desilu in 1967 and renamed it Paramount Television. This was a wholesale purchase of the entire Desilu production library, including Star Trek; and as such, any subsequent productions made by Paramount Television or their parent company occurred under the same distinction of ownership as the original production and therefore there's no reason to qualify the movies or the initial spin-offs. When Viacom and CBS split, Viacom (and Bad Robot) established a licensing deal with CBS, which allowed them to produce new Star Trek content, which CBS would air. It was a logistical win-win; Viacom would get a slice of Star Trek pie, since it no longer had the tv series rights - plus some convoluted elements with merchandising, which played into the nuanced visual differences with all things related to "New" Star Trek starting with the 2009 reboot. By incorporating distinct differences into the new content, especially the aesthetic, from the costumes, to the sets, they created an intellectual property based on the original Star Trek property, but by virtue of the license agreement with CBS, Viacom could predominantly cash in on "their" version of Star Trek; both in distributing their productions and with the related merchandise. Thus they effectively created a legal distinction between the Star Trek properties that existed from 1966-2005 (when CBS and Viacom split) and the variant version of Star Trek created by post-split Viacom, under a special license agreement with CBS. What about the "nuanced visual differences...incorporating distinct differences...especially the aesthetic, from the costumes, to the sets...based on the original Star Trek property..." between the original series and Star Treks I-VI, VII-X, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise, all of which were produced under the aegis/auspices of Paramount Pictures/Television, including Desilu, which as you pointed out was bought by Gulf + Western, Paramount's parent company? Especially between the original series and Star Treks I-VI, which featured the exact same main cast of actors/characters but looked completely different visually and aesthetically in terms of costumes and sets, not to mention the special/visual effects and even the designs and models of starships, including the same U.S.S. Enterprise from the original series and the first three movies? And while we're at it, what about the fact that William Shatner's hair changed from straight to curly/wavy in the series to Afro in the movies, and James Doohan went from stocky and clean shaven in the series to fat and mustachioed in the movies? And what about DeForest Kelley going from clean shaven in the series to having a full mustache and beard and being clean shaven, all in the first movie? What was that all about? And how about Leonard Nimoy's Vulcan eyebrows and ears changing from season to season and movie to movie? That was all under Desilu/Gulf + Western/Paramount. Those were all in-continuity changes, as the uniforms/fashions and technology changed over time. This is demonstrated by virtue of the fact that when any latter installments delved into anything from the past series or movie, regardless of how things looked during that present time frame, they stilled recaptured the essential aesthetic from before. This was the case in "Relics", "Trials and Tribble-ations" and even the Enterprise two-part episode, "In a Mirror Darkly" where, despite being in the past, the mirror-universe NX-01 encounters the USS Defiant from TOS; and it still looks the same. When Voyager used a plot device to flashback to the Excelsior during Undiscovered Country, that ship, their uniforms remained congruent with how the movie depicted them; even though by Janeway's time Starfleet had long since moved on to different styles of uniforms. The same is true of TNG, anytime someone from an earlier era was involved, they used the exact same older style uniforms. Depending on how far back, there might be some subtle variation that showed gradual changes being made, just as the uniforms in TNG through Voyager subtly evolved, but it was still consistent.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Aug 16, 2020 19:35:33 GMT
What about the "nuanced visual differences...incorporating distinct differences...especially the aesthetic, from the costumes, to the sets...based on the original Star Trek property..." between the original series and Star Treks I-VI, VII-X, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise, all of which were produced under the aegis/auspices of Paramount Pictures/Television, including Desilu, which as you pointed out was bought by Gulf + Western, Paramount's parent company? Especially between the original series and Star Treks I-VI, which featured the exact same main cast of actors/characters but looked completely different visually and aesthetically in terms of costumes and sets, not to mention the special/visual effects and even the designs and models of starships, including the same U.S.S. Enterprise from the original series and the first three movies? And while we're at it, what about the fact that William Shatner's hair changed from straight to curly/wavy in the series to Afro in the movies, and James Doohan went from stocky and clean shaven in the series to fat and mustachioed in the movies? And what about DeForest Kelley going from clean shaven in the series to having a full mustache and beard and being clean shaven, all in the first movie? What was that all about? And how about Leonard Nimoy's Vulcan eyebrows and ears changing from season to season and movie to movie? That was all under Desilu/Gulf + Western/Paramount. Those were all in-continuity changes, as the uniforms/fashions and technology changed over time. This is demonstrated by virtue of the fact that when any latter installments delved into anything from the past series or movie, regardless of how things looked during that present time frame, they stilled recaptured the essential aesthetic from before. This was the case in "Relics", "Trials and Tribble-ations" and even the Enterprise two-part episode, "In a Mirror Darkly" where, despite being in the past, the mirror-universe NX-01 encounters the USS Defiant from TOS; and it still looks the same. When Voyager used a plot device to flashback to the Excelsior during Undiscovered Country, that ship, their uniforms remained congruent with how the movie depicted them; even though by Janeway's time Starfleet had long since moved on to different styles of uniforms. The same is true of TNG, anytime someone from an earlier era was involved, they used the exact same older style uniforms. Depending on how far back, there might be some subtle variation that showed gradual changes being made, just as the uniforms in TNG through Voyager subtly evolved, but it was still consistent. Thank you for that sincere answer. Going back to your original stipulation, recently I've seen a commercial for CBS Access Online which includes clips from Star Trek: Picard and possibly Discovery, although I doubt the latter. Obviously, the shot of Patrick Stewart in his 24th-century civvies, including a leather jacket which hearkens back to his personal stylistic preference from Insurrection, is from Star Trek: Picard. However, there is another brief shot of a majestic Federation starship cruising through an orange-pink nebula. That can't be from Discovery, because the starship is clearly of 24th-century design, following in the style of the Next Generation series and movies and Deep Space Nine and Voyager. Also, the scene looks very similar to something out of Nemesis, so it could be a flashback although it most likely and probably is not. In addition, the story line starting out with Picard tending to the family vineyard in France and teased in the teaser/trailers is a direct continuation of the Next Generation series and the Next Generation movie, Generations, with Picard recuperating from his Borg encounter at the family vineyard in France tended to by his brother and his nephew, Rene, after "The Best of Both Worlds," and Picard learning in the Generations movie that his brother and his nephew, Rene, were killed in a fire. When the Picard series was announced nearly two decades after the last Next Generation movie, Nemesis, somehow I knew that the show would pick up with Picard running the family vineyard in France. Not to mention the guest appearances of several cast members from The Next Generation and the other 24-century shows reprising their original roles, including Jonathan Del Arco as Hugh, Jeri Ryan as Seven of Nine, and especially Jonathan Frakes as Picard's former first officer, William T. Riker. How does that square with the whole Desilu/Gulf + Western/Paramount/Viacom/CBS situation?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Aug 16, 2020 20:59:04 GMT
Those were all in-continuity changes, as the uniforms/fashions and technology changed over time. This is demonstrated by virtue of the fact that when any latter installments delved into anything from the past series or movie, regardless of how things looked during that present time frame, they stilled recaptured the essential aesthetic from before. This was the case in "Relics", "Trials and Tribble-ations" and even the Enterprise two-part episode, "In a Mirror Darkly" where, despite being in the past, the mirror-universe NX-01 encounters the USS Defiant from TOS; and it still looks the same. When Voyager used a plot device to flashback to the Excelsior during Undiscovered Country, that ship, their uniforms remained congruent with how the movie depicted them; even though by Janeway's time Starfleet had long since moved on to different styles of uniforms. The same is true of TNG, anytime someone from an earlier era was involved, they used the exact same older style uniforms. Depending on how far back, there might be some subtle variation that showed gradual changes being made, just as the uniforms in TNG through Voyager subtly evolved, but it was still consistent. Thank you for that sincere answer. Going back to your original stipulation, recently I've seen a commercial for CBS Access Online which includes clips from Star Trek: Picard and possibly Discovery, although I doubt the latter. Obviously, the shot of Patrick Stewart in his 24th-century civvies, including a leather jacket which hearkens back to his personal stylistic preference from Insurrection, is from Star Trek: Picard. However, there is another brief shot of a majestic Federation starship cruising through an orange-pink nebula. That can't be from Discovery, because the starship is clearly of 24th-century design, following in the style of the Next Generation series and movies and Deep Space Nine and Voyager. Also, the scene looks very similar to something out of Nemesis, so it could be a flashback although it most likely and probably is not. In addition, the story line starting out with Picard tending to the family vineyard in France and teased in the teaser/trailers is a direct continuation of the Next Generation series and the Next Generation movie, Generations, with Picard recuperating from his Borg encounter at the family vineyard in France tended to by his brother and his nephew, Rene, after "The Best of Both Worlds," and Picard learning in the Generations movie that his brother and his nephew, Rene, were killed in a fire. When the Picard series was announced nearly two decades after the last Next Generation movie, Nemesis, somehow I knew that the show would pick up with Picard running the family vineyard in France. Not to mention the guest appearances of several cast members from The Next Generation and the other 24-century shows reprising their original roles, including Jonathan Del Arco as Hugh, Jeri Ryan as Seven of Nine, and especially Jonathan Frakes as Picard's former first officer, William T. Riker. How does that square with the whole Desilu/Gulf + Western/Paramount/Viacom/CBS situation? I mean, from a division of companies and rights, it's relative. Take Discovery - characters like Spock, Pike, or a ship like the Enterprise are more or less part and parcel as intellectual property that could be owned and licensed. The same is true of Picard, et al. It's akin to having different productions of, say, Sherlock Holmes. In either of those instances, the source works are in the public domain and up for grabs for pretty much anyone to do pretty much anything with (with the possible exception of some of the later Holmes books that may still narrowly fall under copyright). A good example would be the BBC series Sherlock and the CBS series Elementary, both of which went into production roughly around the same time. Both shows created what would be considered a "derivative work". That is, it's based on something else that already existed; while the basis, in this case, was something in the public domain, the substantial nuances that are unique to each iteration, where it's incorporating subtle differences between the source story and the new content, or something more overt, like making Watson a Woman or Sherlock a recovering addict, those changes are new form of intellectual property that falls under a new copyright. So even though Sherlock Holmes is, by and large, in the public domain; the studios or whomever owns a given iteration based on that work, has claims over that which makes it unique. So in the case of Star Trek, Viacom had to license the television rights from CBS, in order to have the permission to use the intellectual property that comprise all of these different characters in the production of a new series. However, at least in theory this would not extend to any kind of merchandising or anything that might have added value to the property. CBS would own that too, and it makes some sense that dividing their stake in Star Trek merchandise would be no simple thing - you still want to get what's due to you for merchandise for all of the older properties that you still own; while your ex wants to create these new projects and get their beak wet too. So how could Viacom get their side hustle with new Star Trek, without infringing on CBS' revenue? By distinguishing the new from the old in some quantifiable way - like a completely different style of uniform during the TOS era than had ever previously been seen; or making subtle changes to the conventional uniforms we have seen; or other aesthetic liberties with other design schemes Viacom can put their rubber stamp on that says "mine". At least that's the speculation. This wouldn't necessarily preclude the like of Patrick Stewart of Jeri Ryan from reprising their roles. Any merchandise Viacom might have offered based on Star Trek: Picard may use Stewart's likeness for merchandise in the same way CBS would, but there again, it would have been the differences between the two properties - the style of costume or some other distinguishing characteristic, unique to the Viacom productions, that would have made it a product Viacom, rather than CBS, would have reaped the profits from. While not necessarily definitive, when I was watching Picard, I felt like the TNG movie era uniforms didn't look right. To me they looked more like an approximation and of the quality closer to what you'd expect if they had been homemade costumes. There was just something off about how they fit the actors. It could just be me, or they just might not have put the necessary effort in to replicate the uniforms correctly; or they intentionally wanted to avoid making the costumes to close to something they didn't have merchandising rights to. That last one is entirely supposition. All that said, it's now a moot point, since the two companies have re-merged and the distinction of one or the other's properties really doesn't exist anymore, or may only exist now as a formality, depending on the nuances of their corporate structure. But all of this came about after Picard finished production of Season 1; so what that means for Picard or STD moving forward remains to be seen.
|
|