• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Trek exec fired by Paramount...

I don't think so, J.J and co should still get the freedom to do what they want and the budget to match there ambitions. I actually read J.J brought the movie a little under budget and he actually does this a lot...The only thing that would concern me is the new replacement at paramount might have a bad idea of marketing.
 
Drawing attention to this thread:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=96962

Bad news for Trek XII?
Going by the Examiner article cited in the OP of that thread (why link to newpost, btw?) it looks more like a reshuffling than an outright firing:

The Hollywood Reporter revealed tonight that Paramount Pictures CEO Brad Grey has requested the resignation of studio executives Brad Weston and John Lesher. <snip>

Reasons for the executive shakeup have not been divulged by the studio. Lesher and Weston, whose bios are still on the Paramount website, have both been offered production deals with Paramount.
(emphasis mine)

I'm not a subscriber to the Hollywood Reporter, and the little bit visible to non-subscription-holders is sort of cryptic and unhelpful, but it doesn't look form the above-quoted like those guys have left yet, does it?


See also this article at Airlock Alpha.

And did you notice the date on the Hollywood Reporter item?

June 19, 2009

Not exactly breaking news.
 
Last edited:
Isn't there a thread of this already?

Yes, but not here (home of all things JJ Trek) and some might miss it. Thus I draw attention to it.

Going by the Examiner article cited in the OP of that thread (why link to newpost, btw?) it looks more like a reshuffling than an outright firing:

The Hollywood Reporter revealed tonight that Paramount Pictures CEO Brad Grey has requested the resignation of studio executives Brad Weston and John Lesher. <snip>

Reasons for the executive shakeup have not been divulged by the studio. Lesher and Weston, whose bios are still on the Paramount website, have both been offered production deals with Paramount.
(emphasis mine)

I'm not a subscriber to the Hollywood Reporter, and the little bit visible to non-subscription-holders is sort of cryptic and unhelpful, but it doesn't look form the above-quoted like those guys have left yet, does it?

1) Fixed link (thought one link was good as another)...thanks for catching that.

2) Dennis seems to think there's more to it from what he's read (meaning the HR article, I assume)...
 
2) Dennis seems to think there's more to it from what he's read (meaning the HR article, I assume)...
I suppose there's always more to it than appears in the report (this is Hollywood we're talking about, right?) and it's conceivable that these guys would walk rather than accept a demotion, but this kind of shuffling goes on at all of the studios. Studio heads are just as susceptible to being replaced as anyone else, possibly more so, and department/division head is sort of a volatile position where tenure is often measured in months rather than years.

I don't think this is automatically something to get excited about just yet. Quoting again from the fragmentary text visible to non-subscribers of the Hollywood Reporter:

Goodman becomes the third exec to oversee all of Par’s film production since Grey was installed as Par chairman in January 2005.
 
No, I don't think there's any virtue in getting the suits particularly involved in telling Abrams and his people how to make movies thank you very much. :)
 
No, I don't think there's any virtue in getting the suits particularly involved in telling Abrams and his people how to make movies thank you very much. :)

Then again, you kinda wish that someone had stepped in during Nemesis and said, "WTF?"
 
No, I don't think there's any virtue in getting the suits particularly involved in telling Abrams and his people how to make movies thank you very much. :)

In the other thread, you said this:

I read through Nikki Finke's report on this and it all seems to be very dramatic and political.

I didn't read anything like that in the first article linked, and the HR article is subscription only.

Could you summarize what Nikke Finke said?
 
NikkiFinkeArticle

I don't think this is a big deal. Trek fans shouldn't be concerned.

Thanks! Wow, what a saga!

I found this reply to be interesting:

Nikki, I love you, but you and many of the commenters are overanalyzing the personality angle. What it came down to: Star Trek underperformed in relation to their expectations, both domestically and globally and GI Joe looks to be not only a flop, but a humiliating piece of shlock. They have zero comedies to subsidize the big franchise bets, and cut too many producing deals to develop properly. Say what you want about Lesher and Weston, but it just came down to poor professional decision making.
Comment by m — June 21, 2009 @ 1:04 pm

Can anyone comment on that? "m" seems to be someone with "inside baseball" knowledge...
 
Loved to know who said that...

What it came down to: Star Trek underperformed in relation to their expectations, both domestically and globally
What a load of tosh when Paramount released to sources they were hoping to break $200 million domestically and $100 worldwide. Even when it broke that they said they didn't expect more than $250 domestically and 150 worldwide best case...fell short worldwide but beat it domestically.

How is $255 million for any movie a domestic failure :lol: pure tosh.
 
Can anyone comment on that? "m" seems to be someone with "inside baseball" knowledge...

I don't see any indication that "m" has any inside knowledge. It's just some dude commenting on a blog, any of us can do that. If he had any inside info he would be quoted in the article instead of commenting on it.

Paramount original estimate for the opening weekend was in the $60 million range which means they were expecting around $200 million domestically, and their goal for international boxoffice was $100 million.

After the better than expected opening in US and clear signs of good word of mouth, some Paramount execs said they were now hoping for $250 million domestically and $150 million overseas. So I don't see how anyone can say it has underperformed domestically. Internationally it has clearly done better than the original goal but fell short of the newer more optimistic target with around $126 million.

I doubt the boxoffice results of the Trek movie had anything to do with these firings.
 
Didn't these firings occur before ST broke past 200 million domestically anyway, this story is a few weeks old or more.
 
"m" seems to be someone with "inside baseball" knowledge...

No, he doesn't. He seems to be an anonymous poster on the Internet, and nothing more.

He, like most of the other posters that responded all appear to be industry insiders. They're just using handles to protect themselves from retribution for saying things the studios wouldn't like said.

SOMETHING sure as hell doesn't make sense. If Trek was such a huge success for the studio, why fire the guy who backed it to begin with, even going out of his way to get an extension on the option?
 
He, like most of the other posters that responded all appear to be industry insiders. They're just using handles to protect themselves from retribution for saying things the studios wouldn't like said.

If a movie under-performs at the boxoffice, especially to a degree that gets someone fired you are not going to find out about it in the comments section of a blog. In cases like that Variety and The Hollywood Reporter know many insiders in the affected studio or in rival studios who will provide them that information, and their names won't get mentioned in the articles if they are worried about any retribution.

"m" is talking out of his ass, at least with regard to Star Trek.
 
NikkiFinkeArticle

I don't think this is a big deal. Trek fans shouldn't be concerned.

Thanks! Wow, what a saga!

I found this reply to be interesting:

Nikki, I love you, but you and many of the commenters are overanalyzing the personality angle. What it came down to: Star Trek underperformed in relation to their expectations, both domestically and globally and GI Joe looks to be not only a flop, but a humiliating piece of shlock. They have zero comedies to subsidize the big franchise bets, and cut too many producing deals to develop properly. Say what you want about Lesher and Weston, but it just came down to poor professional decision making.
Comment by m — June 21, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
Can anyone comment on that? "m" seems to be someone with "inside baseball" knowledge...

I don't agree with this guys "analysis" of Trek's performance, but I completely agree with his critique of Paramount in general. But this is hardly "inside" information. I think it's fairly obvious that Paramount has one of the crappiest in-house development groups. And in regards to "GI Joe," while it's getting a thrashing by critics, non-critics seems to be saying it was a fun and entertaining experience; basically a live-action cartoon.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top