Exactly, real a-hole move.
VARIETY: Paramount-Skydance merger collapsed in the final moments, and will lead to layoffs and austerity measures
- Thread starter Citiprime
- Start date
I wonder if it was over the cost of paying residuals. If you don’t show anything, you don’t have to pay anything?
That's the only thing that makes sense. Otherwise, why not just leave it there and let it be?
Data storage costs went up?
I imagine it's a cost thing right now.Two things are now the only things that make sense.
Follow the money.
It's cost regardless, I agree. They do nothing without looking at the bottom line.
Edited to add, generally the IMMEDIATE bottom line anymore.
Yeah, YouTube makes it look easy, but storing and serving that much video isn't free. It'd probably normally be a marginal cost, but in the situation they're in, they're probably going to be popping the stars around the mountain off with a crowbar and selling them to a silver dealer before too long.
Humans are immediate gratification creatures.
Maybe. Might also be the cost of bandwidth to host those clips?
I just cancelled my subscription to Paramount+. End of an era. At least for me. I've seen what I've wanted to see, my Trek shows are done, and I don't feel like keeping up with all this nonsense going on with Paramount anymore.
When the dust finally settles, I'm sure I'll hear about it.
When the dust finally settles, I'm sure I'll hear about it.
Ahh thanks for bringing that up. My free month is almost up. Luckily I can cancel now and still have 8 more days to go.
I'm wondering if the best case scenerio for Star Trek is for Paramount to be stripped away with the Star Trek franchise and all it's trademarks being independently acquired by a wealthy person/entity that actually cares about the franchise. Like the owner of Amazon , Isnt he he a Trek fan.?
.There were also rumors Seth McFarlane tried to purchase Star Trek from Paramount a few years back, but he didn't have the capital. I wonder if Rod Roddenberry and Seth McFarlane could collectively partner up. And if Paramount would be more willing to sell off some of it's properties in lieu of the collapsed merger. I just want Trek to be good in hands long term.
.There were also rumors Seth McFarlane tried to purchase Star Trek from Paramount a few years back, but he didn't have the capital. I wonder if Rod Roddenberry and Seth McFarlane could collectively partner up. And if Paramount would be more willing to sell off some of it's properties in lieu of the collapsed merger. I just want Trek to be good in hands long term.
Last edited:
i haven't watched a movie on purpose in years. i watch tv, the more the better. i don't want just two hours of something i enjoy, and then to have to wait literal years for more of it. just completely uninterested in movies.
I get that. I enjoy TV but I don't need more of something just because I enjoy it.
There is no better buzz for me than to go to a new Star Trek movie for the first time at the theater. The last time I got that buzz from Star Trek on TV, was "The Best of Both Worlds II", back in 1990.
I tend to think that “let a single billionaire control it” is seldom the correct answer. For, like, anything.
Which is more likely: a conglomerate buys Paramount, or pieces get sold to different buyers?
Does it even get sold? Looks like every suitor, so far, has been rejected. Maybe Paramount limps along until Shari Redstone passes on?