Future of Star Trek to Paramount

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I really don't see how one thing relates to the other. Star Trek made so much money that Paramount was going to focus on it anyhow. How does focusing on it even more fill the holes left behind by Marvel? Unless they decide to put out a Trek movie every year, they are still going to have a problem. They need to develop new projects not focus even more on existing ones.

Well one consideration, especially with what's being said about the business right now during the current economic downturn, is that no studio has an infinite pool of money for production or for promotion.. It's already been said by one Paramount exec that their release schedule in the next year or two may not be nearly as ambitious as this year's - that is, less big movies being produced and released.

So to some extent a studio's big budget films compete for resources - in the best of times there are more resources to go around. In tighter times, the formulation might be something like this:

"Iron Man is more profitable, particularly overseas, than Star Trek - and we foresee producing Iron Man films for the next decade..."

versus:

"Iron Man is more profitable, particularly overseas, than Star Trek - but Iron Man goes away after two more pictures and we own Trek. Do we want to spend resources building an audience for Disney's future Iron Man franchise, or move a little more of that over into building the Star Trek brand?"

 

[Temis the Vorta]

How can they "focus" on it more than now, in terms of movies? It would be insane for them to speed up new movies more than once every two years, since they don't dare interfere with the quality of the movies. Maybe they will do more movies, but "focus" implies greater intensity, as well as greater duration.

The focus therefore has to be on other media. They'll exploit games, the internet, novels, toys, etc. more. And they will somehow do a deal with CBS to get a TV series on the air. That's such an obvious step that it has to happen - you can't "focus" on Star Trek without wanting to use the one medium that it is by far the best suited for.

How this deal will come to pass is anyone's guess. CBS may or may not be keen to exploit Star Trek - it might not be part of their overall strategy at all - but if Paramount sees the value in making this happen, as a way of keeping interest in Star Trek keen inbetween movies - they could provide inducements. The job of businesspeople is to take whatever the situation is, and make the deal you want come to pass. It's absurd to say it's "impossible." Nothing is impossible if there's enough motivation and money behind it.

In that case, Paramount would definitely have something to say about the approach a TV series takes. A TV series unconnected to the movies would be of little value. Star Trek's brand must be intelligently and carefully managed - certainly they've learned that lesson. They are not going to permit CBS to just run off and do their own thing, and since the motive and inducements here would most likely come from Paramount, there's no reason why CBS wouldn't play ball. An unconnected-to-the-movies Star Trek series has no value to CBS, either, or to anyone, so it won't happen.

What I don't think will happen: direct to DVD. That's too low-rent and will undermine the premium nature of the brand. For the same reason, animated Trek seems unlikely.

 

[C.E. Evans]

How can they "focus" on it more than now, in terms of movies? It would be insane for them to speed up new movies more than once every two years, since they don't dare interfere with the quality of the movies. Maybe they will do more movies, but "focus" implies greater intensity, as well as greater duration.

The focus therefore has to be on other media. They'll exploit games, the internet, novels, toys, etc. more. And they will somehow do a deal with CBS to get a TV series on the air. That's such an obvious step that it has to happen - you can't "focus" on Star Trek without wanting to use the one medium that it is by far the best suited for.

How this deal will come to pass is anyone's guess. CBS may or may not be keen to exploit Star Trek - it might not be part of their overall strategy at all - but if Paramount sees the value in making this happen, as a way of keeping interest in Star Trek keen inbetween movies - they could provide inducements. The job of businesspeople is to take whatever the situation is, and make the deal you want come to pass. It's absurd to say it's "impossible." Nothing is impossible if there's enough motivation and money behind it.

In that case, Paramount would definitely have something to say about the approach a TV series takes. A TV series unconnected to the movies would be of little value. Star Trek's brand must be intelligently and carefully managed - certainly they've learned that lesson. They are not going to permit CBS to just run off and do their own thing, and since the motive and inducements here would most likely come from Paramount, there's no reason why CBS wouldn't play ball. An unconnected-to-the-movies Star Trek series has no value to CBS, either, or to anyone, so it won't happen.

To be fair, Paramount doesn't have anything to say about a new TV series. CBS licenses Star Trek to Paramount now and Paramount is officially out of the television business as of this year.

CBS is really in the driver seat when it comes to Trek.

What I don't think will happen: direct to DVD. That's too low-rent and will undermine the premium nature of the brand. For the same reason, animated Trek seems unlikely.

While I agree about DTD, I actually think animated Trek is a strong possibility for the next TV series myself, especially if it was something aimed at a younger audience and wasn't in continuity with any live-action production (ala the current Spider-man and X-Men cartoons running right now). It won't be so much something to appease "Old Trekkers" as to extend the franchise further by creating a version of Star Trek for a younger demographic, IMO...

 

[Ward Fowler]

"Iron Man is more profitable, particularly overseas, than Star Trek - but Iron Man goes away after two more pictures and we own Trek. Do we want to spend resources building an audience for Disney's future Iron Man franchise, or move a little more of that over into building the Star Trek brand?"

That's a very good point. I hadn't even considered the promotion angle.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, if Paramount anticipated holding on to Iron Man more of the pressure would be to cut the pie in its favor, as the performance of the first film was better than that of the first Abrams Star Trek - especially in international markets.

I know that's Shatner in your avatar, but it still looks to me like Lee Majors.

 

[Ward Fowler]

^Hey, it could be. Maybe Lee Major's Fall Guy character was the stunt double for Shatner's Columbo character.

 

[Blue_Trek]

Ironman is important, but not that important.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/chart/?studio=pardw.htm

Just look at the top ten movies for Paramount

 

[MvRojo]

Ironman is important, but not that important.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/chart/?studio=pardw.htm

Just look at the top ten movies for Paramount

In a few years, both Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 will be in their Top 10 as well.

But in general, you are somewhat right that it is not that important...Paramount only got $60 million for the first Iron Man as part of its distribution.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I'm cautiously hoping for a new TV series.

Wouldn't that be nice? But likely not going to happen until after the second movie, if then.

That would be up to CBS, Not Paramount, as the split means that CBS owns TV rights, while Paramount owns the Movie rights.

 

[ReadyAndWilling]

I'm cautiously hoping for a new TV series.

Don't hold your breath!