So, when it's marketing, it's OK to be dishonest (especially if everyone else is doing the same and no-one's stopping it)? It's what it amounts to and you're accepting it. I think we all should be held to higher, more honest standards than that. Otherwise we all end up as cynics. Oh wait...

Perhaps I should have stated (what I thought would have been obvious) that it is also region specific. There's no intention on my part to mislead by using the phrase "where appropriate".

In the US of course, none of my suggestions would be appropriate for this show - in fact they won't be carrying it.

Elsewhere, Netflix UK Exclusive, etc, etc would be.

Brands work using various strategies and techniques to plant their name in your mind to influence your choices. In this case, when you are ready to join a streaming service, you will think of them, and probably think of them first. And that's all it takes to gain an advantage - when they succeed in doing that. It doesn't mean you will instantly go out and join Netflix, nor that you'll automatically choose Netflix when you do choose a subscription service. But because their name is there in your mind, it tilts the playing field a little in their favour.

It's already worked on me. If you asked people to name some streaming services, 99 times out of a 100, Netflix would be the first name offered.

You strengthen your brand by, amongst other things, associating your brand with other positive things. In this case that Netflix creates their own content. Which Netflix do, of course. The argument in this case is about Netflix implying, by their choice of phrase, that they create more of their content than they actually do. In so doing they are increasing their brand's influence when you come to make your decision.

It's subtle, but they're trying to gain an unfair advantage by being misleading.

We should all be as transparent, open and honest as we can be, shouldn't we? It's a simple ethical question.

What are we bickering about now? Next subject, the taxation of tade routes.

Of course its not OK but its not going to change. You might think we should be held to higher standards but in reality when it comes to advertising and branding this has been the nature of the beast since day one.

I am not accepting it but what I am doing is using my common sense and knowledge to cut though the branding etc and making a decision on the reality of the product.

You can only class it as "dishonesty" if you are totally and utterly unaware of what the point of this type of branding is and I am not sure you will find many consumers in 2016 like that. You might find some who disagree with the branding but that is very different to not understanding it

In this example we can spend every day saying this content is not "Netflix Original" as we understand the term but in terms of a company building a brand and deciding what the critia of that brand that is entirely up to them. Yes there might be a issue in them not making the critia of what makes it an "original" clear but that happens sometimes in any type of branding

Are we arguing about whether someone might be tricked into thinking that Netflix invented Star Trek?

Netflix did acknowledge the issue with the new Arrest Development where they labelled it 'A Netflix Original', but then had something coming up saying 'kind of' before Original (I think that was it).

I don't want to take this thread any further off topic than it already is.

I am well aware of how things are in the world. Netflix is just one trivial, unimportant example of how we can be misled. We're not talking about third world poverty or anything like it that's truly important. All I'm saying is there are better ways to be, and they should be called out on it. Ever heard of the Broken Windows Theory?

I don't object to branding at all when it's honest, when it's not misleading, but I do when it attempts to deceive.

I'm fully aware that it is bought in. But it will appear under the Netflix Originals brand. Just like some of the other Netflix Originals that are also bought in.

Netflix have very high requirements about the picture quality of what gets shown under the Netflix Originals brand. The vast majority of new Netflix Originals programming is delivered in 4K/UHD, so I'd say there was a high likelihood of the same thing happening with Star Trek. It may have even been a stipulation of the deal.

It's not a netflix original by any definition of the word. They have neither commissioned nor paid for the show to be produced. At best it's a Netflix "exclusive".


And mine.


Then it's the wrong word.


And yet the BBC did not exclaim it as a "BBC original series".


Indeed. Which is I take issue with it.


Then you "reckon" wrong.


Then, again, you are wrong.


They do make some original shows.


So they clearly know they shouldn't be doing it; which makes it even worse that they continue to do so.


Back on topic... really looking forward to this. I'm certain it will be brilliant.

URGH! needless debate. it's on Netflix and that's that. can we get back on topic and actually talk/speculate about the show please.


I hope you're right but out of curiosity why are you "certain" it will be brilliant.
i'm slightly sceptical that in modernising the show too much they might dumb it down slightly and lose the "spirit and essence" of star trek. the side of trek that deals with moral/philopsical issues, contemporary political issues etc,,,,, MUST REMAIN.
otherwise it simply isn't star trek for me

Well, I'm not certain, but I do have high hopes and what little information we do have at the moment (the people involved, the prime universe setting) support that.

You're right, there's much more to Star Trek than great action, visuals and "stuff blowin' up". There is a philosophy there.

So far the Star Trek franchise has always moved forward and retained the balance of the original format offering plot, action, humour and chemistry between the characters. From the films and through the TV series everything has worked and fans have loved it.

I'm encouraged basically because the Marvel series has progressed whether through film or the recent Netflix adaptations. Although CBS are making this series I'm fairly confident the structure will stay true to the original.

Will it appear on proper TV after its been on Netflix??

Next questions:

When will it be released on blu ray?

Will it be released on 4K UHD HDR blu ray and if so, when?

Enquiring minds want to know.

A release on bog standard DVD would be okay for me

Only in Canada at the moment. I don't know of any other Netflix 'exclusives' have ever been shown on TV after a certain amount of time. I don't really know enough about their shows to say if i've seen any. I would think so though. Could see Sky being interested. They always showed Trek.

Not at all. During later years, TV (Voyager and Enterprise) and the last couple of TNG films there was general sense that Star Trek was in crisis, and a wide feeling of dissatisfaction that other genre shows/films were going where no shows had gone before whilst Star Trek was churning out the same old tired by-the-numbers mediocrity. Even the new films, which have injected new life into the franchise are divisive; loved by many, and hated by many.

Deleted

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/original


original
[uh-rij-uh-nl]
.
adjective
.
5. created, undertaken, or presented for the first time:



It is being presented for the first time (in that region). Therefore, it is an original.

I would think probably not for many years to come or at the very least while the show is still in production. Netflix probably have a exclusive on the show for a long time to come.

A couple of times up thread it has been said that we know the show is set in the original TV series time line. Not the movie one where history was changed.

I agree this makes sense to keep the shows separate etc.

But do we know this for sure?

As far as I saw the story claiming that included it being set between the Original Series and The Next Generation and even that it was an anthology.

Those were all denied by those involved as a groundless rumour and stated that there would be one 13 episode story arc.

Given this I was not sure if the TV series or movie time line was true or false based on those denials.

I would have imagined they would want to keep separate from the movies so that stories do not become interdependent given their separate productions. Plus the classic TV series and a close enough period to the past TV shows to allow the occasional guest appearance would obviously help them attract fans.

But can anyone link to the source of the confidence that the show is not set in the movie universe?

I think at this point, anything anyone claims to know is to be thought of as a pure rumour. No actual facts have been revealed, and everything seems to be kept under wraps.

I would think CBS would want to take a DC approach here though, and split their feature between TV and film, thus one will never directly affect the outcome of the other. If they produce a tv series set in the reboot universe and the tv series fails, that may have a drastic effect on the [future] rebooted films. Either they're going to release the new show in the prime timeline (Roddenberry's one), or it'll be another reboot/reset of sorts; I'm hoping for the latter, but we'll see.

As per when it's set, again, that's anyone's actual guess. I guess this will depend upon whether or not we're viewing a new timeline, or somewhere within an existing one.

According to the Future of Trek boards I think there is some sort of event in the US this weekend when they are supposed to be releasing more news. So perhaps we will discover some details soon.

Me too. I dont like the shiny new universe and dont care for the new films.

Personally I'm not bothered which timeline it's set in. Even if it's set on the original timeline it's still going to be new and shiny, it may not be as fast paced and flashy as the films (the tv shows never have been) but will have a modern feel to it. Anyone expecting 90's style Trek is probably going to be disappointed.

I find it worrying that there's no indication of casting yet.