Llike KMart and Sears?
Paramount and WBD in merger discussions
- Thread starter wayoung
- Start date
Llike KMart and Sears?
In some sense, CBS spoiled us. In order to build up CBS All Access (later Paramount+), they gave us multiple new Star Trek shows and we quickly got used to that. But now that the streaming bubble has apparently burst and studios are now losing money and are trying to find ways to stop the hemorrhaging and turn things around, we may indeed be looking at the end of the current boom of Trek pretty soon, regardless if WBD takes over Paramount or not.
I'm gonna go on record here as saying that I think there's zero chance that WBD and ViacomCBS complete a merger or buyout.
A partnership of some sort, maybe. Warner and Paramount have a history together, like the WB/UPN melding to create the CW. I just think neither entity has the cash to satisfy shareholders, and the SEC is a hurdle they might not clear.
So, if I'm wrong I'll eat my bag of Peanut Butter M&Ms that I got for my birthday. If I'm right, I'll sip from a nice bottle of bourbon with it as well.
Either way, I win.
A partnership of some sort, maybe. Warner and Paramount have a history together, like the WB/UPN melding to create the CW. I just think neither entity has the cash to satisfy shareholders, and the SEC is a hurdle they might not clear.
So, if I'm wrong I'll eat my bag of Peanut Butter M&Ms that I got for my birthday. If I'm right, I'll sip from a nice bottle of bourbon with it as well.
Either way, I win.
If we're making predictions, I think there is little chance there is a WB/Paramount merger. I don't think it makes financial or regulatory sense. My bet is that instead Paramount+ continues on for maybe 1-2 years and if they continue with the losses they have, it'll shut down and they'll go back to licensing out their products to Netflix and the like, as they used to do. As for Star Trek -- Picard is done, Discovery will have wrapped up by that point, and Prodigy I think is being handled by Netflix now? That'll just leave LD and SNW under development. I think the big tell will be if any new projects kick off between now and then.
Yup. The huge embarrassment of riches that was the streaming output is going to dwindle down. I wonder how much of it will be missed given the negative perception of Paramount right now.
How dare I expect content from a streaming service I'm paying for! What the hell is wrong with me?
I'm gonna go on record here as saying that I think there's zero chance that WBD and ViacomCBS complete a merger or buyout.
A partnership of some sort, maybe. Warner and Paramount have a history together, like the WB/UPN melding to create the CW. I just think neither entity has the cash to satisfy shareholders, and the SEC is a hurdle they might not clear.
So, if I'm wrong I'll eat my bag of Peanut Butter M&Ms that I got for my birthday. If I'm right, I'll sip from a nice bottle of bourbon with it as well.
Either way, I win.
Bolded what I'm responding to.
"If they succeed, you can drink to their courage. And if they fail... you can still drink to their courage."
Darok, "ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH"
(Also happens to be one of my favorites quotes from a Klingon. Hell, from anyone.)
(Side note: Klingons really had some awesome words of wisdom.)
Stop buying it...?
I know, this is a weird concept but when a company stops putting out a product or a reason to purchase I stop buying from them. I don't purchase Disney+ anymore, etc.
That's the nature of business.
I was responding to C.E. Evans claim that CBS was spoiling us. I wasn't being spoiled. People (like me) were paying for Paramount+, and Paramount was making shows for the service. How was I being spoiled here? Because they made a bunch of Star Trek shows? I didn't hold a gun to executives head and force them to commission a bunch of Trek shows. If it was more than they could afford, that's not my problem.
They were.
They were what? Spoiling me? Should I not have watched the shows being produced? Was my mistake signing on for Discovery, should I have watched only half of the first season? Is there some magic number I had to reach with my viewing without going over? Some sweet spot that would let them not cancel Discovery and make more shows, but not make too much Star Trek?
Yes.
Again how, I didn't ask for this.
That doesn't make it less spoiling in abundance of content.
You're right, this is a weird concept. If we did things your way, we'd have nothing to bitch about, and that is no way to live at all.
You're right, this is a weird concept. If we did things your way, we'd have nothing to bitch about, and that is no way to live at all.
My guess is Zaslav would scrap the TV shows, even if S31 begins filming or has a rough cut completed.
And focus on pushing ahead with a Star Trek film franchise, as the P+ streaming model has not been profitable.
He's mentioned that there's much more money to be made theatrically from these big IP franchises if done correctly.
And focus on pushing ahead with a Star Trek film franchise, as the P+ streaming model has not been profitable.
He's mentioned that there's much more money to be made theatrically from these big IP franchises if done correctly.
This.
I was happy with one new Star Trek show. Never did I say, "I want five Star Trek shows at the same time!" No one said that. One was good enough. And I hit the jackpot because I really liked that one. Then I got luckier still because there were two new Star Trek shows I really liked. I'll have had 95 episodes (65 of DSC, 30 of PIC), some shorts, and a TV Movie. That's not "spoiled". Roughly 100 episodes, when you put all of that together, is what used to considered be "normal" for a long-running series. How short seasons and series are now is the unusual situation, not the other way around. For most of television's history, going all the way back to the 1940s, it's been very different.
As far as the rest of what's been and is being put out by Star Trek during the Kurtzman Era: I understand people not wanting to potentially lose the shows they enjoy. And I'm fully aware that if they didn't like the same shows I did, they've had less to enjoy than I have. So, if I don't think I was spoiled, I definitely don't think they were spoiled. I'm not going to go up to them and say, "You were spoiled!"
Five new Star Trek series at the same time? Sure. It sounds like a lot. But between delays and short episode orders, we still didn't get anywhere near as many episodes per year as we did when they were two Star Trek shows going on at the same time during the '90s. In the '90s, there were 52 episodes per year. With just two shows. And that went on for most of the decade. Oh, and on the side, a new cinematic movie every two years.
I remember when we were really spoiled. And this isn't it.
EDITED TO ADD: They've also put a lot more effort into making the Kurtzman Series feel differently from each other than was the case with the Berman Series. So, there's much less of a chance of burnout due to sameness. The plus side of this is that if one Kurtzman Series doesn't pull you in, that's not a guarantee another one won't.
Last edited:
TV and streaming watching are business transactions. Some studio puts on a show on a station or a streaming service, and if you're interested, you watch it. If you're not, you don't. The studio makes money from the station or service, who get their money from ads or subscriptions. The station or service renews or cancels shows based on ratings, subscriptions, and other market factors. No one is being spoiled. The entertainment industry is a profit-making center, not a charity.
(Edited for corrections)
Last edited:
I'm not sure abundance and being "spoiled" with a lot of content is a good thing in the long-term or would be sustainable even if Paramount+ was doing amazing.
In general, I think all of the shows have been good entertainment. But I do think there's an argument to be made that Star Trek shouldn't be NCIS or Law & Order, and you can drive the IP into the ground with oversaturation of the market. Concentrating on making one or two good series based around solid concepts is probably a better strategy than just throwing out a constant stream of differing variations of stories within the Star Trek universe.
For example, I think the MCU lost something when they started putting out the Disney+ shows. It made the movies a little less special, and oversaturated the market with content for the IP.
In general, I think all of the shows have been good entertainment. But I do think there's an argument to be made that Star Trek shouldn't be NCIS or Law & Order, and you can drive the IP into the ground with oversaturation of the market. Concentrating on making one or two good series based around solid concepts is probably a better strategy than just throwing out a constant stream of differing variations of stories within the Star Trek universe.
For example, I think the MCU lost something when they started putting out the Disney+ shows. It made the movies a little less special, and oversaturated the market with content for the IP.
Similar threads
