I seem to remember an episode where the meeting between Cochrane and the Vulcans ended violently and this led to the creation of the Mirror Universe.

The prime universe that meeting was peaceful (and as shown in First Contact)

That wasn't the creation of the Mirror Universe. The point of divergence isn't known. Humans in the Mirror Universe were just more aggressive at that point. It's mentioned in the Enterprise mirror episodes that both timeliness shared the same historical works of literature with some minor differences, suggesting separate timeless going back, at least, to the time of Ancient Greece.

Think it was going to be that Kirk created the mirror universe. Was a planned Enterprise series 5 episode.

Its just been announced that the new show will air on Netflix in the UK

I'm happy with that decision. I thought Sky would have gone for it, but I've no issues with Netflix.

I guess now we know why all the series and films went on there from 1 July. Did seem a big clue at that point.

Probably best UK match up - wonder if Sky even bid?

Maybe there will be secondary network rights offered in the US and UK after a period of exclusivity on these formats?

Is this being filmed in UHD does anyone know?

http://www.geektown.co.uk/2016/07/18...-trek-tv-show/

Yes i did wonder if they would get the new show as well, this is great news.

Apparently sky were wanting it as well, nice to see netflix beat them for something.

Hopefully it will continue the trend of other Netflix Originals by filming and streaming in 4K.

Netflix are changing the game (again). (sorry). Sky can go for rights for 3 or 4 territories at once - Netflix can go for 188 countries. There's always going to be tempting for the rights-holders, versus carving out 1 or 2 countries at a time, especially with a new product.

And with Netflix your show will get top billing, no being bumped mid season or shoved to the graveyard slot. This is a win for CBS and a win for customers.

I am happy too, but wouldn't be if I didn't have Netflix of course.


I believe they were "in the running".


This is not a "Netflix original". They have simply bought the programme in. They will stream it in whatever quality they get it in. Probably not 4K.

That's surprising, but not unwelcome. I had thought it would be Sky. Potentially the best news possible for the UK, IF Netflix make it available in 4K/UHD with HDR (assuming it will be shot in 4K or better).

Anyway, whether it will be 4K or just plain old 1080p, it's still good news.

Yep, also very happy. Sky isn't an option for me due to their lack of fibre in my area.

I'm happy it's on Netflix but I'm surprised at how positive people on this thread have been about this news but I guess that shows how widespread Netflix is now!

It's also great that we get 24 hours after its available in America which is a common practice on Netflix with the American TV shows that they get the rights to them

I agree the fact that Netflix had announced they had the rights to the rest of the Star Trek previous shows and films was a massive hint that this was going to happen!

I just hope that it isn't a series set in the rebooted Star Trek movies timeline or era.

It might not be a "Netflix original" in your mind but it will more then likely be branded in such a way in keeping with the "Netflix original" branding thus making it a "Netflix Original"

It is dodgy marketing practice though, because it suggests Netflix made this series when, in fact, they didn't. It "bigs up" the Netflix brand.

It creates a false impression and (quite deliberately in my view) misleads the public.

Presumably they are using the term "Original" to mean "new" content not previously broadcast by anyone else in that region. As opposed to a lot of their other stuff which has been broadcast by multiple other sources long before it ended up on Netflix.

No more or less then any other brand "tag lines".

Branding like this is meant to "big up" the brand. While also makes it more easy to show content that might not have been available widely before due a lack of a normal broadcaster showing it (for example I think The Killing was only shown on BBC4)

Even the smallest amount of research will show you that some of the shows under the umbrella are not made by Netflix.

not much has been confirmed, but it will be set in the original TV timeline, not the JJ abrams movie timeline.

What has other brands doing similar things got to do with whether it's ethical or not? Others doing a wrong thing has never been a valid excuse for doing the same bad thing and making it worse.

So you think because it is intended to "big up" the brand, that makes it OK to deliberately create a false impression?

All advertising should be truthful, honest, legal and decent. It shouldn't need a Philadelphia lawyer to pick out the truth from the implied falsehoods.

How many average members of the public are in the habit of checking out things such as that?

In my view to intentionally mislead is almost as bad as outright lying.

If they wanted to be perfectly honest, they could use terms like "Netflix Premiere" or "New to Netflix" or "Netflix Exclusive" where appropriate and reserve "Netflix Original" for content they themselves made. Other channels use similar terminology.

The first two isn't saying much. It could just be any old series that has been shown on every other channel over the last few years and Netflix are only just making it available themselves. Hardly the same thing!

They could say Netflix Exclusive but that could be inaccurate too if you consider that CBS have the rights in the US. 'Original' just sounds cooler and means the same thing, I reckon.

I think it's just terminology and I don't think the word "Original" necessarily implies they made the show. I've always thought of them as a broadcast service not a maker of shows.

In any case, what difference would it make to the potential customer's choices if they were to think that Netflix had made it? If they want to watch it they will be attracted to Netflix and if they don't they won't. It makes no difference who actually made the show to the decision whether to get Netflix to view it or not so, if it is a deliberate attempt to mislead I don't see what they would stand to gain by such a misconception

Yes all advertising and branding should be honest etc but in reality it's not. Quite often they slip into a grey areas such as this

We have to be realistic with these sort of things and take them in the context of the real world and how branding and the market operates. Looking at all the content under the umbrella of Netflix Originals do I think all the content are made by Netflix? No I think it's pretty clear it's not if you look at the content both in type and amount. If you look at the brand as a whole I honestly think it's obvious what they class under this umbrella and what they are trying to achieve

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to pick though branding and advertising to see the reality of what the truth is just use common sense and what the company is trying to achieve with the branding