Everyone in the streaming business is cutting costs, Disney included. The odds of a buy out are low.
"paramount should quit streaming"
- Thread starter Jarvisimo
- Start date
Apple and Amazon are both increasing their spending on content.
Warner and Disney are cutting.
Netflix content spend looks about flat to slightly down.
Not everyone, Amazon is increasing its content spending and I can see Walmart buying Paramount. Apple I think is thirsty for content, they can't afford to cut content.
They are cutting costs elsewhere. A buyout means spending more money that companies may not have.
I don't see a buy out coming. I see reduction, cost saving measures to buy time.
I'm not saying I expect it.
But some of these companies absolutely could by Paramount if they wanted to. It would come down to regulatory approval.
It's not like this is my idea. Industry analysts have been discussing the potential of it getting bought out.
I expect Paramount+ to shut down first and all Trek content being titrated to nearly nothing as finances tighten up.
That's my expectation. I care very little one way or the other what happens.
I don't think Apple has a killer genre franchise in its lineup and I'm not sure that many people even watched Foundation.
If Amazon's Rings of Power can bring back viewers in Season 2 now that the dragged out plot point of "Who is Sauron?" is finally overwith, them adding Trek to their lineup would boost them quite a bit.
If Amazon's Rings of Power can bring back viewers in Season 2 now that the dragged out plot point of "Who is Sauron?" is finally overwith, them adding Trek to their lineup would boost them quite a bit.
You wouldn’t even be a little disappointed if Trek went into a content drought? Since DSC premiered we’ve been in one of the best times to be a fan of the franchise, with varied shows in varied settings with varied characters. Some have been more successful than others, some better executed than others, but it’s been a great time to be a Trek fan. I see you in other threads clamoring for new things from Trek, and I would be happy for that too as much as I enjoy the familiar things; that would be impossible if the worst case scenario happens in the industry. Not even a little sad/disappointed at the missed opportunities/potential in a property you ostensibly enjoy at least a little bit?
I mean…life would go on and whatever but isn’t it a tiny bit better when we have new Trek to watch?
That's not my way.
The craziest thing that would happen would be if Disney bought the Trek license. Then they'd rebuild Star Trek the Experience in Disneyland and make some Star Trek/Star Wars crossovers. The Marvel Cinematic Universe will be revealed to have been the Trek universe as it existed in the 21st century and the chaotic events of those movies are what Trek calls World War 3. 
Netflix was in the Red A LONG TIME before it started seeing Black on it's ledger; and it's not massive profit either,
The craziest thing that would happen would be if Disney bought the Trek license. Then they'd rebuild Star Trek the Experience in Disneyland and make some Star Trek/Star Wars crossovers. The Marvel Cinematic Universe will be revealed to have been the Trek universe as it existed in the 21st century and the chaotic events of those movies are what Trek calls World War 3.
It would give a WHOLE new meaning to the Eugenics Wars, that's for sure!!!
So cable is dead, and now everyone is yelling about streaming dying. Movies are all but dead (unless you like the 15 MCU movies they barf out each year...which I do not)...so what is the alternative? I'm not arguing that the numbers don't tell the story...but it also doesn't make sense. Ultimately, people like to watch TV and movies. It's not like there isn't a market out there. So something has to work itself out.
streaming isn't dying per se but i believe a bunch of buyouts will happen and it will consolidate to 3 major stream networks, not unlike how broadcast tv in America had ABC, NBC, and CBS.
Yeah I think it’s heading this way too. This wouldn’t be a death knell for Trek but we would certainly see less, both in terms of number of shows and frequency of releases.
Who knows. Right now every streamer is trying to leverage their most popular owned IPs. Disney has Star Wars and Marvel; and right now it seems Paramount's biggest two successful streaming IPs are Yellowstone and Star Trek.
Paramount is also trying to leverage their Grease (the film) IP with The Pink Ladies series, and they also made an agreement with Microsoft to do their Halo series based on the game, which got a two-season order off the bat; but the second season has yet to receive a streaming date, but I'm sure Paramount will stream the second season on Paramount+.
But my point? At this point no streamer is abandoning and existing IP that has a sizable following, and Star Trek is definitely one of those IPs, and Paramount is leveraging it both on its Pluto TV free streaming service, as well as Paramount+. Unless they completely drop all their streaming plans, I don't see Paramount plus abandoning Star Trek on streaming as it has been one of their big draws for their streaming space. No it's not as big as Yellowstone is for them right now, but it's sizable and it has a worldwide following.
So what’s the difference between that outcome and cable TV networks?
I'm just speculating, if I actually knew I wouldn't be here, I'd be off consulting with the big streaming executives on what to do next.
I heard the news earlier this week. The analyst suggested that Paramount follow the example of Sony, which creates content and ships it out to various streaming services. Sony is doing pretty well.
The central problem with streaming as it's constructed is that each of the providers is trying to replace cable in its entirety, rather than a particular channel. The one possible exception being Disney+, which has a distinct skew towards family-friendly content (though that's becoming less true than in the past). So if you're say pretty exclusively a fan of SF/fantasy content, you still need to have subscriptions to every service (or at least start/stop them periodically) because 2-4 things you're interested in will be exclusive to a given service in a given year. But you end up paying for access to a lot of shit that isn't relevant to your own interests (for example, you have to pay for access to extensive libraries of children's content, even if you have no kids and zero interest in said programming).
From an end-user perspective, the ideal situation would be if each of the streamers was specialized. So you had a service specializing in sitcoms, another on dramas, another on SF/fantasy, another on kids shows, etc. But this wouldn't be ideal from a studio perspective because it would result in savings for consumers. Or, I should say many consumers, as sci-fi/fantasy is bigger budget, and probably subsided by cheaper content like reality TV and standup comedy. Much like how in the days when people still watched cable, non-sports watchers subsidized those who watched sports, due to the huge costs associated with ESPN licensing.
From an end-user perspective, the ideal situation would be if each of the streamers was specialized. So you had a service specializing in sitcoms, another on dramas, another on SF/fantasy, another on kids shows, etc. But this wouldn't be ideal from a studio perspective because it would result in savings for consumers. Or, I should say many consumers, as sci-fi/fantasy is bigger budget, and probably subsided by cheaper content like reality TV and standup comedy. Much like how in the days when people still watched cable, non-sports watchers subsidized those who watched sports, due to the huge costs associated with ESPN licensing.
Last edited:
Similar threads
