The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Future of Trek (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=205162)

Temis the Vorta March 5 2013 01:49 AM

Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Paramount to co-produce Beverly Hills Cop for CBS now that Paramount is getting back into TV production.

This shows Paramount is thinking about exploiting their film franchises on TV, and if they had organizational difficulties with CBS, as has been long rumored, that's all in the past. The Viacom & Paramount honchos keep mentioning Star Trek as being a valuable property, in the memo at that link and here.

Anyway I thought it was interesting enough to merit a thread for posting news that might relate to the development of a new series. Let's see where it goes.

C.E. Evans March 5 2013 02:19 AM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
It's not quite like that. CBS and Viacom still haven't quite kissed and made up yet.

They're talking about Paramount partnering up with Sony for the Beverly Hills Cop TV pilot that may air on CBS. In this case, CBS will be dealing more with Sony than Paramount.

jefferiestubes8 March 5 2013 06:52 AM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Well in projecting for Trek's next TV series if they see how the pilot process goes then they start talking in Autumn 2013 when either Beverly Hills Cop tv show is (greelit to series) airing or planning for other pilots for 2014 pilot season and longer 2015 pilot development - and how their experience goes they discuss putting Trek TV into development for a pilot script. Since paramount still had a 3rd Trek film to write and produce I can see them wanting a script treatment to see how it would look following the 3rd Trek film when they get that feature film script 1st draft. Since the Trek franchise is so much $ i can see then wanting to start development on a first treatment of TV or a few treatments to start moving in a direction when that 3rd Trek film is in pre-production.
Keep in mind if they stay on-schedule with the TNG releases on Blu-ray they will be done by Q2 2015. That would give them a chance to put a pilot promo on that 7th TNG season blu-ray release to reel in the Trekkies for Autumn 2015 or 2016. Could the TV landscape change so much by then that they would put a season of Trek into production without it airing until the end of shooting 13 episodes?
And if Trek wont be on CBS network anyway why does it have to air on linear TV starting in the Autumn? It could start on TV 7 months after The 3rd nuTrek film in February 2015 or 2016. They should want the Q4 sales as big as possible for Blu-ray release or that 3rd Trek film and no confusion with a new Trek series on TV starting 2 months after the cinema release.

C.E. Evans March 5 2013 12:12 PM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Or CBS could very well tell Sony to f-off and take Paramount with them if they reject the BHC pilot.

Admiral Buzzkill March 5 2013 05:53 PM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Well, this is actually something.

C.E. Evans March 5 2013 06:22 PM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Only if you're a fan of Beverly Hills Cop. For Star Trek fans, not really.

Temis the Vorta March 5 2013 07:17 PM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Quote:

C.E. Evans wrote: (Post 7763464)
Only if you're a fan of Beverly Hills Cop. For Star Trek fans, not really.

Mmmm...I couldn't help notice the way Star Trek was included in both statements, despite not actually having anything to do with the topic at hand. Corporations never do stuff like that by accident.

Who knows if BHC will even go to series. I'm not interested in that series, I'm more interested in what it means for the Kremlinology of figuring out what these guys might be up to. ;) It's not like we have anything else of substance to talk about.

Maybe there will be more clues when Abrams' movie comes out and becomes another big hit. That seems like the next link in the chain. Doing a series based on an old, inactive Paramount franchise seems a lot less appealing than a series based on one that is putting butts in movie theater seats right now. (Working against Star Trek, as always, is the budget and lack of an obvious place for it to live.)

jefferiestubes8 March 5 2013 07:21 PM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Quote:

C.E. Evans wrote: (Post 7763464)
Only if you're a fan of Beverly Hills Cop. For Star Trek fans, not really.

Temis the Vorta points out the relevance to the Trek franchise as regards to a Trek TV series.
Think long term CE Evans not just 7 months from now. My post above details the development and strategizing for CBS and Paramount with the 3rd nuTrek film for long term marketing purposes. The next Trek TV series is not just a decision made in a month and jump into preproduction of a series and casting. The franchise is too big for that.
This thread highlights a news item and shows its relevance to a Trek TV series early planning for development along with strategizing for any tie in with the feature film coattails $$ marketing budget.
For CBS to have a pilot ready for the release of the 3rd nuTrek film's blu-ray release or at least a teaser trailer before completion of the pilot for that blu-ray is huge for marketing.

C.E. Evans March 5 2013 08:32 PM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Quote:

jefferiestubes8 wrote: (Post 7763638)
Quote:

C.E. Evans wrote: (Post 7763464)
Only if you're a fan of Beverly Hills Cop. For Star Trek fans, not really.

Temis the Vorta points out the relevance to the Trek franchise as regards to a Trek TV series.

The thing is, there is no relevance to that. The only reason why Trek was mentioned at all in the article was because it's a tentpole release this summer for Paramount.

Otherwise, the article is more about a pilot episode that Sony is producing for possible air on CBS, with Paramount as a tagalong.

It's wishful thinking, but this does not equate to a new Trek series any time in the forseeable future.

RAMA March 5 2013 09:52 PM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Quote:

Temis the Vorta wrote: (Post 7763617)
Quote:

C.E. Evans wrote: (Post 7763464)
Only if you're a fan of Beverly Hills Cop. For Star Trek fans, not really.

Mmmm...I couldn't help notice the way Star Trek was included in both statements, despite not actually having anything to do with the topic at hand. Corporations never do stuff like that by accident.

Who knows if BHC will even go to series. I'm not interested in that series, I'm more interested in what it means for the Kremlinology of figuring out what these guys might be up to. ;) It's not like we have anything else of substance to talk about.

Maybe there will be more clues when Abrams' movie comes out and becomes another big hit. That seems like the next link in the chain. Doing a series based on an old, inactive Paramount franchise seems a lot less appealing than a series based on one that is putting butts in movie theater seats right now. (Working against Star Trek, as always, is the budget and lack of an obvious place for it to live.)

Star Trek's budget on TV is likely to be less than a network show with "big names" and the budget they do have can go into the look, at least until the cast becomes popular.


In a world where wrestling is on Syfy(and syfy is called syfy!!), STNG is on BBC Amercia, and pseudoscience appears on nominally "scientific" channels such as Ancient Aliens, Ghost Hunters, etc, you talk about an OBVIOUS place for it to be???? Time to start thinking out of the box.

RAMA

C.E. Evans March 5 2013 10:15 PM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Quote:

RAMA wrote: (Post 7764253)
Quote:

Temis the Vorta wrote: (Post 7763617)
Quote:

C.E. Evans wrote: (Post 7763464)
Only if you're a fan of Beverly Hills Cop. For Star Trek fans, not really.

Mmmm...I couldn't help notice the way Star Trek was included in both statements, despite not actually having anything to do with the topic at hand. Corporations never do stuff like that by accident.

Who knows if BHC will even go to series. I'm not interested in that series, I'm more interested in what it means for the Kremlinology of figuring out what these guys might be up to. ;) It's not like we have anything else of substance to talk about.

Maybe there will be more clues when Abrams' movie comes out and becomes another big hit. That seems like the next link in the chain. Doing a series based on an old, inactive Paramount franchise seems a lot less appealing than a series based on one that is putting butts in movie theater seats right now. (Working against Star Trek, as always, is the budget and lack of an obvious place for it to live.)

Star Trek's budget on TV is likely to be less than a network show with "big names" and the budget they do have can go into the look, at least until the cast becomes popular.

I doubt that. ENT's budget was generally on par with network shows with big names commanding high salaries, but it was pulling in fewer viewers.
Quote:

In a world where wrestling is on Syfy(and syfy is called syfy!!), STNG is on BBC Amercia, and pseudoscience appears on nominally "scientific" channels such as Ancient Aliens, Ghost Hunters, etc, you talk about an OBVIOUS place for it to be???? Time to start thinking out of the box.

RAMA
That's just a case of cable networks evolving from their original small origins to something that can compete with the broadcast networks. They're all trying to get as many viewers as they can.

But to be fair, BBC America is based in New York and is really just an American network that carries BBC programming that tends to do well among most Americans.

RAMA March 5 2013 10:29 PM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Quote:

C.E. Evans wrote: (Post 7764373)
Quote:

RAMA wrote: (Post 7764253)
Quote:

Temis the Vorta wrote: (Post 7763617)

Mmmm...I couldn't help notice the way Star Trek was included in both statements, despite not actually having anything to do with the topic at hand. Corporations never do stuff like that by accident.

Who knows if BHC will even go to series. I'm not interested in that series, I'm more interested in what it means for the Kremlinology of figuring out what these guys might be up to. ;) It's not like we have anything else of substance to talk about.

Maybe there will be more clues when Abrams' movie comes out and becomes another big hit. That seems like the next link in the chain. Doing a series based on an old, inactive Paramount franchise seems a lot less appealing than a series based on one that is putting butts in movie theater seats right now. (Working against Star Trek, as always, is the budget and lack of an obvious place for it to live.)

Star Trek's budget on TV is likely to be less than a network show with "big names" and the budget they do have can go into the look, at least until the cast becomes popular.

I doubt that. ENT's budget was generally on par with network shows with big names commanding high salaries, but it was pulling in fewer viewers.
Quote:

In a world where wrestling is on Syfy(and syfy is called syfy!!), STNG is on BBC Amercia, and pseudoscience appears on nominally "scientific" channels such as Ancient Aliens, Ghost Hunters, etc, you talk about an OBVIOUS place for it to be???? Time to start thinking out of the box.

RAMA
That's just a case of cable networks evolving from their original small origins to something that can compete with the broadcast networks. They're all trying to get as many viewers as they can.

But to be fair, BBC America is based in New York and is really just an American network that carries BBC programming that tends to do well among most Americans.

Not true at all, SOME stars on network shows were making as much per episode as a single episode of Enterprise cost!! Others came very very close to it.

Edit: Just looked this up for modern TV, in this age of low ratings and dispersed viewership, the top stars are making about half the budget of Enterprise per episode:

http://www.tvguide.com/News/TVs-High...s-1051754.aspx

Harvey March 5 2013 10:38 PM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Enterprise apparently cost between $1 and $2 million per episode. Certainly, a few television actors command that salary per episode -- but on programs with much higher ratings that bring in a lot more revenue than a ratings-loser. Most dramas produced from 2001-2005 cost...you guessed it, between $1 and $2 million per episode.

RAMA March 5 2013 11:10 PM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Quote:

Harvey wrote: (Post 7764490)
Enterprise apparently cost between $1 and $2 million per episode. Certainly, a few television actors command that salary per episode -- but on programs with much higher ratings that bring in a lot more revenue than a ratings-loser. Most dramas produced from 2001-2005 cost...you guessed it, between $1 and $2 million per episode.

Exactly..though in the 90s and early 2000s a few actors made in the $2 million range and more (I believe Charlie Sheen was the last to make $2 mill per episode), comparable to Enterprise's over pattern budget. Today shows that cost that much always are aired to lower viewership, so a ST show could do well in such an atmosphere.

From what I recall, STNG: $1.3 million-1.5 million; DS9: $1.5 million; ST Voyager: $1.5 million-$1.7 million; ST Enterprise: 1.5-1.7 million. However all the producers claimed that the comparable budgets were better utilized as they learned more from production in later years, which accounts for the improvement in the visual quality.

C.E. Evans March 5 2013 11:27 PM

Re: Paramount and CBS teaming for TV production
 
Quote:

RAMA wrote: (Post 7764436)
Quote:

C.E. Evans wrote: (Post 7764373)
Quote:

RAMA wrote: (Post 7764253)

Star Trek's budget on TV is likely to be less than a network show with "big names" and the budget they do have can go into the look, at least until the cast becomes popular.

I doubt that. ENT's budget was generally on par with network shows with big names commanding high salaries, but it was pulling in fewer viewers.
Quote:

In a world where wrestling is on Syfy(and syfy is called syfy!!), STNG is on BBC Amercia, and pseudoscience appears on nominally "scientific" channels such as Ancient Aliens, Ghost Hunters, etc, you talk about an OBVIOUS place for it to be???? Time to start thinking out of the box.

RAMA
That's just a case of cable networks evolving from their original small origins to something that can compete with the broadcast networks. They're all trying to get as many viewers as they can.

But to be fair, BBC America is based in New York and is really just an American network that carries BBC programming that tends to do well among most Americans.

Not true at all, SOME stars on network shows were making as much per episode as a single episode of Enterprise cost!! Others came very very close to it.

Edit: Just looked this up for modern TV, in this age of low ratings and dispersed viewership, the top stars are making about half the budget of Enterprise per episode:

http://www.tvguide.com/News/TVs-High...s-1051754.aspx

Um, those are 2012 numbers, not the numbers from ten years ago when ENT was on. An episode of ENT back then cost (on average) around 2 million dollars each, the same price as many shows back then with bigger name stars. Sure, there are a few shows that cost more than ENT, but usually those shows were delivering very high ratings to justify their cost.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.