Activision Sues Star Trek Over Franchise Decay

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Activision Sues Star Trek Over Franchise Decay

Posted by simoniker on Tuesday July 1, 2003 @05:35AM from the sliding-inexorably-towards-upn dept.

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a press release announcing that Activision is suing Viacom for breach of contract over the Star Trek game license. The article summarizes Activion's complaints: "..through its actions and inactions, Viacom has let the once proud Star Trek franchise stagnate and decay", and furthermore that "..a continuing pipeline of movie and television production, and related marketing, is absolutely crucial to the success of video games based on a property such as Star Trek." Activision has terminated the contract agreement, and looks to recover damages and advances from Viacom - according to a Dow Jones story, "..the initial license agreement included $20 million in advance royalties and warrants, with additional payments to be based on game sales."

34 of 93 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by OwnerOfWhinyCat · 2003-07-01 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Viacom should just pay up, or better still promise to invest the 20 mil. in the next ST movie.

Let's see a show of hands for everyone who thought Nemesis was the best Star Trek yet?
[crowd remains motionless]

The likely problem I see is that damned corporate pride. There are all kinds of fun things to do in the StarTrek universe still. The Viacom execs. must have convinced themselves that "StarTrek is dead and we have the ratings from Nemesis to prove it."

I certainly hope someone at that company has the balls to say Nemesis sucked because we made it suck, and shop for a decent script for a new movie.
1. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by ip_vjl · 2003-07-01 06:20 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I certainly hope someone at that company has the balls to say Nemesis sucked because we made it suck, and shop for a decent script for a new movie.
  
  Viacom exec 1: Nemesis sucked because we made it suck.
  Viacom exec 2: Nemesis sucked? But everybody thought the script was so good when we used it for Wrath of Khan.
  Viacom exec 1: You're right. Maybe we went too far back.
  Rick Berman ... too far back. Hey, that gives me an idea. Maybe in the next movie we could send the crew back in time to save some whales or something. No, been done. Monkeys! Yes. That'd be new and fresh.
2. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by databoing · 2003-07-01 06:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's not likely to happen, Voyager got home in their finale. Neelix was left behind, so he wouldn't show up in the next one. You'll recall from Nemesis that Janeway is an Admiral now (the nerve of her to be ordering Picard around, hmmph!), so she wouldn't be doing much.
  
  I can just see the movie now: In the 24th century, a new paper-pusher has come to StarFleet Command...
  
  Hey, it can't be any worse than Nemesis...
3. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by MImeKillEr · 2003-07-01 07:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah, I thought it was odd that Janeway was an admiral.
  
  Neelix left behind? YAAAAA! Admittedly, I stopped watching Voyager.
  
  I've seen a couple of the news series' episodes, despite my loathing of Scott Bakula. The hot Vulcan chic is the only reason to tune in, and even then the coldness of her character (yes, I know Vulcans as supposed to be that way) makes one lose interest.
  
  Nemesis blew. The Scimitar was a cool ship, but not cool enough to rescue the movie.
  
  --
  Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
4. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by rsmith-mac · 2003-07-01 07:55 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's more than a legitimate gripe, it may very well be that Activsion is in the right. Obviously, I haven't seen the contract Activision/Viacom signed, but with this kind of deal, both sides usually have to give and take. Activision had to deal with the cost to buy the rights to Star Trek games, and has to deal with Viacom more or less micromanaging projects so that it sticks with the Trek "rules." The converse of this is that if the contract was written up as a partnership arrangement, then something would have to be done to assure Activision that it was worth the effort of the licence, most likely a clause stating that Viacom would make an effort to churn out ideas for Trek that would provide a foundation for Activsion to make games based off of it.
  
  Now, if this is the case(and it's a big if), then Viacom might very well be in violation of their contract. While I think Enterprise is a good series, as game material it sucks, the beginning of human exploration lacks ships, characters, colonies, and other things that lay the foundation for a game. I imagine however that Viacom will take the easy exit, pay Activision off, and possibly void the contract.
5. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by MaverickUW · 2003-07-01 08:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  No no no, you got it wrong. You skipped a movie. The Enterprise is supposed to go back to that Nebula thing, find out that somehow when the Scimitar got destroyed with it's life-ending-weapon, that it created a new planet, and Data's body has been resurrected, and needs to transfer his mind out of B4 in order to remember who he is.
  
  Duh! :)
6. Re:It sounds like a legitimate gripe. by jafuser · 2003-07-01 09:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Monkeys! Yes. That'd be new and fresh.
  
  (Lightbulb on!)
  
  I'd pay full price and buy a LARGE popcorn and LARGE soda just to see an officially licensed movie which combined Star Trek and Planet of the Apes.
  
  Wow.
  
  They'd resurrect MST3k just for this one movie alone...
  
  --
  Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Ok....? by MImeKillEr · 2003-07-01 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Viacom decided not to pursue any more ST TV shows or movies. Could this be because the latest series isn't as good? Could it be that the movies/TV programs have become less popular?

And Activision wants Viacom to continue to invest in a less-than-profitable franchise so Activision can continue to ride their coattails & sell a few games?

Lame.

--
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
1. Re:Ok....? by fm6 · 2003-07-01 07:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, Activision just wants Viacom to fire that idiot Berman, and hire some decent writers!
  Viacom probably doesn't care much about the Trek franchise any more, because it's part of that big white elephant known as UPN. Paramount started UPN because it had a theory that studios should own networks. (Same theory that made Disney buy ABC and Time-Warner start The WB.) I've always suspected that they cancelled TNG, despite high ratings, just to get out of syndication contracts that prevented them from moving the show to a network.
  Now Paramount is part of Viacom, which owns CBS. They'd unload UPN if they could, and they're not going to give it much attention in the meantime. But if they could be forced to spare some attention for this tiny part of their empire known as Star Trek, they could make some changes that would bring the fans back.
Alright viacom! by AtariAmarok · 2003-07-01 05:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Viacom. Doing what angry Trekkies have wanted to do for years.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
1. Re:Alright viacom! by Otter · 2003-07-01 05:56 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I'm just surprised they're complaining about the lack of new Star Trek movies. You'd think each new movie further degrades the value of the franchise.
  
  --
  What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Quality of Games by Gr33nNight · 2003-07-01 05:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Yeah, right Activision. And I'm sure making craptastic games had nothing to do with poor sales.

Riiiiight.
1. Re:Quality of Games by Gr33nNight · 2003-07-01 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Elite Force 1 and 2 were both good, but thats a rare occurance with Trek games. 95% were ass, the rest were good. If it was the otherway around, you wouldnt see them suing anyone.
Star Wars anyone by Mr.Dippy · 2003-07-01 05:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Now if we can get a lawsuit going on George Lucas then things will get interesting.

Mesa thinks de star wars franchise jumped the shark a long long time ago.

--

-Dipster
OT: Patrick Stewart through with Star Trek by GuyMannDude · 2003-07-01 06:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

I certainly hope someone at that company has the balls to say Nemesis sucked because we made it suck, and shop for a decent script for a new movie.

A few weeks ago us.imdb.com had a brief blurb stating that Patrick Stewart had formally decided that Nemesis would be his last Trek. He said he was bitterly disappointed with the poor reception of the film and he thought it was actually quite good. Apparently he's pissed off enough that he's vowed never to do another Trek. He said that he was sorry that it would have to end on a low note but that he had lost all interest. Sorry I don't have a link.

GMD

--
watch this
StarTrek died the day it turned it into SF by DrSkwid · 2003-07-01 06:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

The original StarTrek was cowboys in space.
It died the day they turned it into Science Fiction.

"What must have happened is a shift in the space time continuim" yawn

It must be a non story because there's nothing on here about it

All a big shame because I was really looking forward to being Nelix' apprentice and learning to fry insects in the MMORPG. Maybe I can be a space gardener instead!

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re: Preposterous by DrWho520 · 2003-07-01 06:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Could Starter or some other athletic wear manufacturer sue Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neil, Allan Iverson or Jason Kidd because their respective teams did not win the NBA championship? A loosing team does not sell merchandise as well as a champion...it has noting to do with whether the jacket falls apart or not.

--
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
Re:OT: Patrick Stewart through with Star Trek by Ophidian+P.+Jones · 2003-07-01 06:18 · Score: 2, Informative

A few weeks ago us.imdb.com had a brief blurb stating that Patrick Stewart had formally decided that Nemesis would be his last Trek. (...) Sorry I don't have a link.

Link
More proof, by DuckDuckBOOM! · 2003-07-01 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

as if more were needed, that corporations now consider legal strategies at least as important as those of their product lines. Any day now, I'm expecting archaeologists to unearth documentation of a lawsuit brought by Giuliano deMidici against Leonardo DaVinci on grounds that his later works weren't quite up to Mona Lisa standards, thus depriving his patron of revenue through reduced attendance at his showings.
Sheesh.

--
Life is like surrealism: if you have to have it explained to you, you can't afford it.
Activision should sue Interplay by NetDanzr · 2003-07-01 06:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

After all, Interplay has had the Star Trek license since 1993, when it published Star Trek: 25th Aviversary. Over the next almost 10 years, Interplay managed to create a very narrow niche - sales of Star Trek games were never really good; in fact, very few ST games made it into the Top 10. So if anybody is responsible for relatively low sales of the games, it's Interplay.
That's not to say that low sales are wrong, but Activision should realize that it acquires a highly profiled franchise, which will not appeal to the same number of people as games like The Sims or the Command & Conquer series.
1. Re:Activision should sue Interplay by Torgo's+Pizza · 2003-07-01 08:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  That's not entirely correct. Paramount had this craptastic idea of shopping out the different show licenses to different publishers. Interplay had Classic Trek for years, Activision had ST:TNG, yet another had ST:DS9, etc. Paramount saw this as a cash cow opportunity to have other houses bid on each series. (This attitude seems to still exist.)
  After the terms of the agreements ended, Activision made a concerted effort to consolidate the franchises and bought the rights to the entire world of Star Trek. This way, the Star Trek games could share interfaces, feel and be more cohesive and the games could feature characters from any series. (Before you couldn't mention or use any character from a series you didn't have rights to. For example, Spock couldn't show up in a ST:TNG game.)
  I know about this because I was at Ensemble Studios at the time. Activision was really wanting us to do a Star Trek game next after Age of Empires II. They came and did a dog and pony show, gave everyone lots of *nice* Star Trek swag, but in the end we turned them down because we could make more money doing our own game with our own IP rights.
What they should do by The+Analog+Kid · 2003-07-01 06:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

is to stop trek for about 5 years, fire Berman, and his other buddy, and come back with fresh new ideas. Enterprise doesn't seem bad though, just I wanted it to continue in the future, future not 150 years, though the termporal cold war is an intresting idea so we can have some connection to the future. Though if they did that Activison would still be suing them.
They Are Alone... by vjmurphy · 2003-07-01 06:37 · Score: 4, Funny

After the craptastic Star Trek: Nemesis and the lame Enterprise, Activision is actually the only entity that wants Viacom to make more Star Trek.

--
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
Activision sues Star Trek? by lightspawn · 2003-07-01 06:51 · Score: 2, Funny

Man, I hope Star Trek gets a good lawyer, or the Enterprise might end up getting repo'ed.

Guys, can you change the title to something that makes sense?
Amazing! by M.C.+Hampster · 2003-07-01 06:52 · Score: 2, Funny

Activision are suing Viacom for breach of contract

I are flabberghasted!

--
Forget the whales - save the babies.
1. Re:Amazing! by HardCase · 2003-07-01 10:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, you am just American. The Brits consider a collective noun (like the name of a company) to be plural, so "Activision are" would be correct.
  
  So since /. has adopted this idiosyncracy of the British, how come they don't include an extra U in certain select words, e.g., colour? For that matter, why isn't a truck a lorrie, a subway a tube and a television a telly? Shouldn't they be substituting C for S in a select number of words, e.g., defence?
  
  Obviously I'm too senstive to this whole affair of what constitutes "proper" grammar, but my English teachers always told me that "a" group of things was singular because there is only one group. Thus, "a" company may have a gazillion employees, but it is still "a" company.
  
  Sure, the Internet is an international collective (oh crap, should that be "the Internet ARE...?) of individuals and companies, but since /. is an American organization (err...ARE an American...?) and its (their?) viewers are predominantly American (or at least American English-speakers), then shouldn't its (their?) grammar rules reflect American rules of grammar?
  
  I guess it could be worse...at least we don't speak French (a joke, dammit, a joke!)
  
  Oh, and for what it's worth, "am" does not agree with "you"...not even in Britain.
  
  -h-
for a good Trek movie, get the script... by dpilot · 2003-07-01 07:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

from just about anywhere but the USofA.

This past weekend my wife and I went to "Bend It Like Beckham," a wonderfully fun movie. At the same second-run theatre we saw that Matrix2 was there already, and XMen2 had been playing for a few weeks.

I'm convinced that it's a general problem with American business. First off, IMHO they believe that "business" is more important than other factors like talent and originality, and that a good manager can manage anything into profitability. Second, I don't really believe that they're even good businessmen, because a good businessman is willing to take a risk and make it work, or accept the consequences of failure. It's perceived as less "risky" to follow a franchise than to try something original, hence the collection of sequels and comic book adaptations.

Gee, these sound like the same problems hounding the music industry - promoting "safe" rehashes of the same old stuff.

But of course it's not really "safe", because movies are bombing and music sales are down. Oh wait, we can blame that on Internet piracy!

The real issue is that it depends on what you mean by the word, "safe," and not in a Clintonesque way. There's "safe" in the media boardrooms and meeting rooms, and there's "safe" in the marketplace. These days, there's little correlation.

Actually, "safe" in todays marketplace should mean taking risks, and that means that sometimes you'll bomb. But is that any worse than today's sequelmania? Consider that today's sequelmania is producing dismal results, is a bomb or two really that bad when originality will probably also bring some HITS?

Plus, as others have said, big budgets and special effects do not necessarily correlate with a good movie. "Bend It Like Beckham" looked pretty cheap to make, as did "The Full Monty" of a few years back. Good writing and good acting are much more important.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
1. Re:for a good Trek movie, get the script... by Tediak · 2003-07-01 08:22 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  There's a problem with this argument. It seems in the Grand Ol' USofA movie ticket sales have barely anything to do with the quality of the actual film. Overall sales may be down, but the blockbusters are still crap, and definately not risky. Besides, sequels sell, look at The Matrix Reloaded and The Phantom Menace.
New Star Trek Icon suggestion by AtariAmarok · 2003-07-01 07:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Suggestion for a new "Star Trek Decay" icon: ....a still snapshot of "The Simpsons" episode where a very round Scotty was waving his arms and complaining that he was too fat to reach the controls.

--
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Re: Preposterous by cicatrix1 · 2003-07-01 07:59 · Score: 5, Informative

Activision isn't suing Viacom because everything since TNG has sucked, they are suing because they made a decision to stop producing any more series or movies. Your (4 Insightful, why??) analogy is way off. The proper analogy would be if the athletic wear manufacturers sued Shaq or others because they decided to quit their sport in the middle of a long term advertising deal, which would be a fair and lucrative suit.

Also, please explain the concept of a loosing team. I am familiar with teams that lose games, and are hence labled 'losing teams'. Maybe the two terms are related?

--

I know more than you drink.
Re:OT: Patrick Stewart through with Star Trek by Poofat · 2003-07-01 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can't say that I blame him. Star Trek:TNG was never about action, and thats all people want to see anymore. Nemesis tried to be successful by making a good movie, instead of action and cool effects.

The same can be said for Insurrection. I really liked that movie (though alot of people didn't), it and nemesis were more like episodes than movies.
Whaddaloadacrap! by parliboy · 2003-07-01 10:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Part of Activision's statement in the article says that the suit is being filed because Viacom has let two series end since they signed the contract.

In other words, they are suing because DS9 and Voyager ran for "only" seven years apiece.

I call Shenanigans right there.

--
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
TMR and TPM by dpilot · 2003-07-01 13:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Both of which seem to have been 'over-anticipated' in retrospect. I guess they both made money, but neither really made fans happy.

I guess a Fan and his money are soon parted.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Activision's big enough and ugly enough... by garyok · 2003-07-01 14:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

...to take over the Star Trek franchise entirely if they want. What's stopping them? Buy the rights from Viacom and then they could make the shows any damn way they felt like. Decent shows (not sci-fi that's softer than baby shit) would be the best advertising their games could get, if that's what they wanted.

And then they could stop sueing and we could stop tuning into more disappointing episodes (hoping against hope that this will be the turnaround episode were something fun happens).

--
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato