Jump to content


Photo

The reason Trek Canon Is being erased?


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,437 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 14 December 2018 - 05:33 AM

Midnights Edge posted this lengthy video about the controversies around Discovery, the new Picard Series, and talks about the deals between CBS and Paramount. If true, then thank goodness Les Moonves is out! 

 

In a nut shell it says most of the reasons for all the differences between the current movies and and canon comes down to an alternate copyright CBS gave Paramount, which states the look and feel of the movies must be substantially different from the original. 

 

But they found that its been a licensing nightmare for product as fans only want "Prime" trek merchandise (and judging from this board thats mostly true).

 

The real kicker seems to be that, under Moonves, CBS only sees Trek as a way to get subs... thus the reason its relegated to AA, however, as we know, its very expensive to produce, so it seems the grand idea is to basically allow TV trek (Discovery) to be produced by paramounts Trek alternative license so that paramount doesn't loose it... and CBS gets their content funded as I assume they are kicking in money to produce Discovery S2 and is the reason Kurtzman , whi is bad robot and Paramounts guy has the creative control of Trek. But Paramount and Bad robot want to merge the two timelines to erase prime trek and make the merch more appealing to fans as it makes the Alternate Trek Copyright basically the only one of value.... I think I got the summary right... but watch the video for yourselves. 

 

I gotta say if thats really whats going on, then I gotta agree with detractors that they really are missing the point of what Fans liked about Trek. 



#2 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 14 December 2018 - 07:16 AM

People have to love something before the merchandise flies off the shelves. Merchandise is our way of grabbing a tangible piece of something we love. So if they had any brains they would be focused on simply making content we will have no choice but to love. The rest will come naturally, but likely not overnight.

#3 MisterPL

MisterPL

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 December 2018 - 08:49 AM

The attitude of the powers that be has been "The fans will watch it anyway" since at least the first season of TNG.

 

It makes sense that rival divisions of the same company wouldn't want to share assets. Despite the fact that it all goes to the same bottom line eventually, these people don't want to hand over something they've spent time, energy, and money developing only to have someone outside that circle use it for free. So it's either pay to license it or come up with something new and different that you can control.

 

I get it. It's just sad, sad that not only has the fandom been fractured since going from television to feature films but that the franchise itself was divided along the same lines.

 

"That's OUR Enterprise!" "NO! That's OUR Enterprise!" :(



#4 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,437 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 14 December 2018 - 11:23 AM

Yeah, its like I said in the other thread... some of what they are dishing up may not be bad sci-fi... but its bad Star Trek... and it seems like its bad for Star Trek.

#5 Damon1984

Damon1984

    Tracking number maniac

  • Members
  • 92 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 December 2018 - 12:05 PM

Midnights Edge is a terrible source, though. From what I can gather, they just make stuff up to justify their rants. Don't forget; for them it's a business model.



#6 MisterPL

MisterPL

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 December 2018 - 12:14 PM

Yeah, its like I said in the other thread... some of what they are dishing up may not be bad sci-fi... but its bad Star Trek... and it seems like its bad for Star Trek.

 

Good and bad are subjective. They're only interested in making it profitable. And if the last three films demonstrated anything it's that the closer they get to offering up "classic" Trek, the less money they stand to make.



#7 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,437 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 14 December 2018 - 05:35 PM

Midnights Edge is a terrible source, though. From what I can gather, they just make stuff up to justify their rants. Don't forget; for them it's a business model.

 

 

Good to know... and thats why I was putting a big "if" as a caveat... they didn't provide any real citations so who knows.



#8 JMW326

JMW326

    If I don't have it, they never made one.

  • Members
  • 4,821 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 15 December 2018 - 05:50 AM

I don't know about this but I do know that some old Star Trek fans will analyze and over think the fun right out of everything .
People might enjoy the shows and franchise in general a hell of a lot more if they just stopped trying to dig deeper into everything to find hidden and deeper meaning. Just watch this stuff for what it is.... Entertainment. Then they may actually see that there is something in all of the different shows and movies that is enjoyable. Or do like people used to do. If you give it a try and don't like it, don't friggin watch it.

#9 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,437 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 15 December 2018 - 04:32 PM

JMW326, I get it, I know others do too... but as I've said before, I think its important to understand that to some people, its a lot more... a... lot! For some people Trek is, or has been, a defining part of their life, so they just can't take it as mere entertainment. Some people really really feel like they are being attacked.



#10 MisterPL

MisterPL

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 December 2018 - 08:48 AM

There are also people who forget that this is a business, not a charity. Star Trek has never been free. Someone's always had to pay for it.

 

Decisions are made with profit in mind. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Creativity can thrive despite restrictions. 

 

Understanding that can take the frustration out of what might seem to be "lazy writing," for example. It's cheap to put words on a page. Putting them on the screen is always more expensive and often outside the budget.

 

Then there are legal aspects few even imagine that can keep projects from going forward.

 

Given the internal squabbling between CBS and Paramount over Trek, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the video is 100% accurate.



#11 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,437 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 17 December 2018 - 12:29 PM

Yeah I think this gets to the core of some decisions based on the legal aspects.

Part of the issue is that the whole purpose of a franchise is to establish expectations... you go to McDonalds or Wendys because you know what your going to get.

Fracturing the franchise as they did I think hurt that. I think its why fans care about canon... its established the franchise expectations and when you make such huge changes its a shock!

#12 MisterPL

MisterPL

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 December 2018 - 01:31 PM

I'm a nut for canon when it comes to story. That's why I thought Abrams' reboot was so brilliant; it kept the Prime universe intact, preserving it rather than writing over it like a total reimagining would have. It uses the same alternate universe device that makes "Mirror, Mirror" a fan favorite, one that allows future films to keep using Trek's most venerable characters (Kirk & crew) while giving writers more unlimited creatively. And there's nothing keeping other characters (like Picard's crew) from showing up.

 

Aesthetically, I allow far more leeway. I don't expect big budget, contemporary productions to adhere slavishly to the low-budget production values of 1960s television, especially when trying to attract a larger audience. I have my favorite songs and while I'll usually enjoy the original performance most, I can appreciate a decent cover from a different band.

 

So I don't see canon being erased. I see it being enhanced and expended.



#13 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,437 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 17 December 2018 - 04:40 PM

Well... I think "erased" was the videos term... but I think "Retcon'd" might apply. Sure what came before will always be there, but if they really are trying to retcon the prime U... well why? Comics do it when they make things complex or want to undo something that paints them in a box.

 

Is Trek really painted in a box? Maybe if you want to tell stories about Kirk and Spock.. but the beauty of TNG was that it showed we can become interested and attached to a different crew and an updated Enterprise.



#14 MisterPL

MisterPL

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 December 2018 - 09:40 AM

I think the trick is to ease fans into a new crew.

 

If ratings are any indication, jumping right from TNG to DS9 to VOY to ENT was a great way to lose established viewers. Going immediately from one concept to the next was jarring. In hindsight, the better approach would have been more organic. Yes, TNG proved fans were interested in "the voyages of the starship Enterprise" even without Kirk & crew (which was out of necessity since that cast was doing films).

 

Now imagine how cool it might have been to see Star Trek return to the small screen in the form of Phase II instead of to the big screen with TMP. We'd have had the original crew except for Spock since Nimoy was balking at coming back to the role. However, as TNG also proved, Spock-centric episodes could have briefly drawn him back.

 

The events of TMP (Kolinahr), TWOK (Spock's death), and TSFS (Spock's resurrection) could have been special episodes for November sweeps over the years. Transition in characters like Decker, Ilia, Saavik, David, and Peter Preston as the "next generation" crew members they were meant to be. Promote veterans to higher ranks and to different ships while keeping the focus on the Enterprise.

 

Move forward but do it gradually over time. That's what the Kelvin-verse allows creators to do; start over with Kirk and crew, reintroduce characters like Carol Marcus, and eventually bring in a new cast of familiar names like Picard and Worf and Data.

 

But it appears that Discovery is a better long-term vehicle for such an endeavor, going even further back in the timeline.



#15 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,437 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 18 December 2018 - 11:49 AM

Maybe Im an outlier but I guess Im just not interested Kirk and Spock stories that much any more... which is what I think were eventually gonna get with Disco... its sort of the same issue with Star Wars ... been tired of the Skywalker sagas for some time now.

And yes ... there is nothing thats been done in the movies that couldnt have basically become a TV series. Interestingly look at Buck Rogers in the 25th cent... that was basically a made for TV movie that they initially released in theaters to get people hyped on the reintroduction of a tv show... which was always intended to be and cut into a two part pilot.

They could even in this day do the same thing

#16 Damon1984

Damon1984

    Tracking number maniac

  • Members
  • 92 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 December 2018 - 08:44 AM



I'm a nut for canon when it comes to story. That's why I thought Abrams' reboot was so brilliant; it kept the Prime universe intact, preserving it rather than writing over it like a total reimagining would have.

 

The brilliance is only there on first sight. But it's just smoke and mirrors. Aside from visuals, the movies brought nothing new to the table. Personally, I'm not interested on how Kirk and Spock met in a timeline where everything was turned upside down. I want to know how OUR Kirk and Spock met. I still don't know. The really grating thing? With slight tweaks, all three movies could have easily been set in the prime-timeline. Instead, they abandonend (or preserved) Star Trek's rich history the moment viewers started to love big franchises with rich histories. Now they try to jump on THAT bandwagon again and... it's just as clumsy. 8[



#17 MisterPL

MisterPL

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 December 2018 - 01:40 PM

Aside from visuals, the movies brought nothing new to the table. 

 

 

One of the consistent criticisms of these films is that they brought too many new things to the table; a new cast, a new version of the NCC-1701, a new look for the Klingons, a new destiny for the planet Vulcan...

 

I understand your point about the brilliance of the reboot being wasted on characters who've had their histories rewritten and I agree to a point. Retelling "Space Seed"/TWOK was a waste of resources, in my opinion. I'd have preferred to jump right to some new material but with some added, familiar names like Carol Marcus and Gary Mitchell. But that's harder to do outside of the long form of episodic television.

 

Where the films have failed in retelling the history of the 23rd century, hopefully Discovery will succeed. I only wish it was taking place aboard the Enterprise, whenever it takes place.



#18 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,437 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 19 December 2018 - 02:43 PM

Into darkness did disappoint me greatly for exactly the reason you cite. It was a story that just didnt need to be retold... and I found it lazy. For all its detractions the 2009 reboot did reintroduce the franchise rather ably... I wanted to like it more... but I couldnt hate it... if that makes any sense... I waited for the sequel to jump in and get us back on Trek... and it didnt deliver imo. So yeah wasted opportunity.

#19 Nigel

Nigel

    Rick & Pat know me by name.

  • Members
  • 362 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2019 - 12:48 PM

They aren't interested in canon, continuity or fans. Just with making money by exploiting the franchise and its name. They did the same thing with Mission: Impossible when it became a feature film franchise.



#20 MisterPL

MisterPL

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2019 - 01:39 PM

The Mission: Impossible films were clearly a reimagining of the TV series, unlike the Star Trek films which followed the same continuity (such as it was) and included the original cast.

 

I'll admit to not following the I:M film franchise very closely but have they already deviated from their own movie canon? Are "fans" outraged because the flicks are suddenly shoving some SJW agenda down their throats by hiring women and non-whites in key roles? Are people complaining it isn't "free" anymore because they have to buy a movie ticket?

 

Either way, Abrams went out of his way to keep the original continuity, not erase it. And yes, this is a business, not a charity. That's nothing new.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users