An Interesting read about how Discovery was financed.
Some bits of note...
So even if a new subscriber subs up and pays for a month and then drops, CBS AA made money.
So basically this means... that people paying for Netflix are subsidizing Star Trek... even in places like the US where you can't watch it on Netflix!
Hmm... I remember this supposedly being part of the reason Netflix was furious over DSC not doing so well with three groups of test audiences; CBS got a free lunch and they were basically stuck picking up the check if the show didn't do well. This is actually brilliant on CBS's part and brain–dead on the part of Netflix. In the interest of full disclosure, I will note that I now own some stock in CBS, although that's a recent development and this decision was made well before I bought said stock.
I should also add that the Terran Empire version of me would like to point out that he's thrilled with the idea that CBS is getting the wad of cash and Netflix is stuck holding the bill for every horrible production decision on DSC, including that wretched excuse for the Enterprise and that affront to aesthetics that is the Discovery.
He certainly looks the part!
You know, I didn't realize just how much he looked the part until I saw him in modern clothing! My mother had joked he'd be a good choice for Pike, and I laughingly agreed, but neither of us thought he was a realistic option. I'm thrilled by this decision though, it shows that someone on the creative team isn't just snoozing at the switch, even if it's only in the casting department.
I never even heard of Hell on Wheels... but the premise looks interesting. The response seems a bit mixed though.
Gothneo, I'm admittedly biased as I absolutely loved the show, so I highly recommend it. The best pitch to a Trek fan could be summed up as "Colm Meaney has the lead role as an a**hole," but that could be said of a decent number of roles he's played. (I'm staring at you Con–Air.) The show changes a bit between the first two seasons and the remainder of the series as it changes hands, but I found this to be a good thing as it seemed to really help bring the whole "building the railroad" element into focus instead of just being part of the background. Anson Mount and Colm Meaney play off of each other really well too, and that's part of what made this series so enjoyable for me.
You were indeed correct and it was not true.
http://trekcore.com/...tive-not-legal/
I like the comparison pic of the calendar Enterprise and its final show design:
https://imgur.com/a/nlfOy
You know, I'd be a bit more lenient on the design if it had been for legal reasons, (granted, not much more lenient, if you have the kind of budget DSC has to blow on ruining the Klingons, you ought to put it where it belongs and pay to use the proper design of the ship instead,) but knowing that this was an intentional creative decision just makes me hate it even more. At the very least, I'd like to see it explained away in season two with a refit of some sort, but I'm not confident enough yet that the writers are smart enough to do that.
I may not have worked for a film company, but I have worked for companies. And I know that as soon as somebody tells somebody else "legal reasons", people start erring on the side of caution and it can usually be easier to proceed that way than to actually go track down those who could tell you the truth about what's legal and what isn't. So, that is why I may not exactly believe this is actually true.
This is true, but when your prized property's iconic symbol is the thing in dispute, you'd be an idiot not to find out whether or not you couldn't legally still use it, and to then spend a small fortune to make sure that you controlled said legal rights to it. The "legal issues" thing reeked of BS to me, and the only way I could see it making sense would have been if Netflix somehow had some control over the show after paying for it, and I've never seen anything to suggest that they do. (And if CBS is smart, they won't.)
I'm guessing this has something to do with merchandise.
CBS licenses the properties separately. As a Discovery licensee (McFarlane), I wouldn't be too keen on my competition (DST) being able to produce the same ship despite not having the license to do so. That "25% different" smacks of an arbitrary number that came from someone in Licensing or Legal – not Creative – to assuage such concerns.
Now this might actually be the real scenario right here. On one hand I doubt CBS would bend over backwards just for McFarlane, but I could see other licensees who'd paid for other Trek licenses who had to pony up again wanting more merchandise to push, and an arbitrary eyesore variant of the Enterprise could be seen as something valuable to them knowing that arbitrary eyesore or not, we still want the damn thing on our shelves. This is mind–numbingly stupid though since screwing with the design of the iconic ship is a good way to irritate your fanbase when you drop a glaring continuity error into the middle of your show. The 25% different actually sounds like it could have been an arbitrary mandate from creative, but I could see it coming more from licensing for the reasons you've mentioned. I would think Legal would have only pushed for 10% as that's what would be necessary to skirt any issues with trade dress (e.g. trademarks) if need be, and Legal doesn't do creative so they'd have just ordered 10% if that were an issue. It's possible that someone in management wanted a ship with a copyright date that wouldn't expire almost half a century sooner than the rest of DSC, but that would be a really stupid reason for the redesign. I could see 25% being a mandate from creative since it's so on the nose, but I wouldn't be surprised if Licensing pushed for it. I do know that other creative companies have similar mandates though. For example, 2K games has what they refer to as a "33% rule," which basically states that every sequel/remake they create must be "33.3% new content, 33.3% altered content, and 33.3% retained content from the previous installement" to basically prevent them from releasing a boring game that's too similar to the previous release. Trek has liked to tinker with designs before, but at least in the past no one was crazy enough to mess with the TOS design of the Enterprise, and when we saw redesigns, they usually weren't meant to be the same ship that had previously lacked something. Likewise, if we saw a ship with a slight redesign, it was always shown in a way where a refit could have been implied. The Enterprise isn't afforded that luxury, and the fact the show was basically designed by reverse engineering it from that shot of the ship only makes this redesign an even stupider idea in my opinion, and one that should have been shot down on day one. (It also feels like it's right in line with many of DSC's flaws, which tend to be a mixture of bad aesthetics and brain-dead writing.)
Don't get me wrong, despite what this post sounds like I don't hate DSC—it's not the second season of ENT after all, but there's definitely a lot in season one that I didn't like. I'm just hoping their smart enough to not cast an adult Spock for season two. The young Spock flashbacks are fine, but recasting Nimoy would be a bigger disaster than that Klingon garbage scow caricature of the Enterprise. If nothing else, it should at least give the writers a reason to get creative in not showing the ship's first officer, assuming of course that Spock is the first officer at this point in time which he theoretically should be.