News WB/Paramount merger talks

[TerryTrek]

If I had to guess, Zaslav would scrap the unprofitable TV shows (given P+'s dismal state), and focus on bringing back Star Trek to the theatres as a film franchise.

Probably with recognizable IPs, either a new Kirk and Spock, or rebooting Picard and friends.

He made comments about these big franchises making the most profit theatrically instead of streaming.

 

[eschaton]

You also forget that WBD can just recast for a lot of these shows and movies, making them cheaper to produce. With Trek, the fandom likes their legacy characters as is. You aren’t making Legacy if you decade to recast Seven of Nine with someone younger than Jeri Ryan. With younger actors recasted as Riker, Worf, Geordi, etc. for guest appearances.

Sir Pat's paycheck aside, I don't think aging Trek actors warrant particularly high salaries these days. Most other than maybe Colm Meaney and Alexander Siddig aren't really in high demand for other projects right now. Many are hungry for a paycheck, as you can see by how they tend to be regulars on the convention circiuit.

Compare budgets of The Orville and Star Trek: Picard, based on Qualified Expenses in California.

S1
The Orville: $ 40,026,000 (12-13 episodes)
Picard: $ 75,574,000 (10 episodes)

S2
The Orville: $ 69,169,000 (13-14 episodes)
Picard: $ 101,249,000 (10 episodes)

S3
The Orville: $ 64,230,000 (10 episodes)
Picard: $ 100,517,000 (10 episodes)

Obviously Patrick Stewart is a bigger star than Seth MacFarlane, and that has to be accounted for when comparing the budgets. But Picard has a bigger budget than The Orville even in its first season, when the rest of the cast - save for guest appearances from Jeri Ryan, Jonathan Frakes, Marina Sirtis, and Jonathan Del Arco - are generally unknown to the audience. And The Orville had a few known names of their own in Adrianne Palicki, Scott Grimes, and Penny Johnson Jerald as part of their main cast. And The Orville is also under the umbrella of Disney, which isn't shy in spending money.

I'll concede that the initial link on The Orville I found (from the Wiki) may have been bad information. Still, the other shows I cited were not - they were all as expensive, if not moreso, than modern Star Trek.

I do think that there's been a fair amount of wasted money in modern Star Trek - particularly overblown VFX shots in some Discovery episodes (like the nonsensical interior space inside of the ship at the end of Season 3). But Kurtzman Trek is far, far from the worst when it comes to this. Hell, looking at Paramount Plus, it's been disclosed that a single episode of Yellowstone (a non-genre show with no reason to be so expensive) can cost up to $20 million).

Here's a graph I just found on reddit:

This is an industry-wide problem - none of these costs seem sustainable. That said, Paramount seems to be far, far from the worst when it comes to this stuff.

 

[eschaton]

If I had to guess, Zaslav would scrap the unprofitable TV shows (given P+'s dismal state), and focus on bringing back Star Trek to the theatres as a film franchise.

Probably with recognizable IPs, either a new Kirk and Spock, or rebooting Picard and friends.

He made comments about these big franchises making the most profit theatrically instead of streaming.

I don't think there's much to scrap, is there?

• Picard is done, and there's no evidence that Terry is gonna get his show.
• Discovery is done.
• Strange New Worlds is ongoing but not super expensive (seems to be $7 million per episode).
• Lower Decks budget isn't public, but it's likely between $1-$2 million an episode, judging by other half-hour animated shows.
• Starfleet Academy could be done on the cheap if they wanted, since it will rely upon standing sets of the Academy.
• Nothing else is in production as far as we know other than the Section 31 TV movie.

Given seasons don't come out every year, standard production costs in the range of $100 million for TV Trek in the near future looks feasible, without any of the ongoing/in development shows getting the axe.

 

[Danja]

Strange New Worlds is ongoing but not super expensive (seems to be $7 million per episode).

It's also nearing the end of its run (if Disco is the test case, 4-5 seasons tops).

 

[ananta]

Here's a graph I just found on reddit:

This is an industry-wide problem - none of these costs seem sustainable. That said, Paramount seems to be far, far from the worst when it comes to this stuff.

Wow, it’s a disgusting amount of money they spent on what turned out to be a pretty unwatchable show (Rings of Power, I gave up after a few episodes because I was so bored).

why does this remind me of the old saying, “don’t work harder, work smarter”. Same goes for budget I think.

 

[Noname Given]

Wow, it’s a disgusting amount of money they spent on what turned out to be a pretty unwatchable show (Rings of Power, I gave up after a few episodes because I was so bored).

why does this remind me of the old saying, “don’t work harder, work smarter”. Same goes for budget I think.

I actually enjoyed The Rings of Power much more than Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy for example.

But Hollywood boondoggles are nothing new. One thing I didn't see on that chart:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/jupiters-legacy-canceled-netflix-season-2-1234965510/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter's_Legacy_(TV_series)

Multiple sources say when you add up all the costs involved, that Netflix series ended up being about 25 million dollars per episode as well.

But yeah, overall, the production cost for any of the current Star Trek series in fact don't seem to be some of the most expensive for television. Hell, when you look at TV history sometimes some of the most successful shows paid their lead actors more per episode then the entire budget of a given Star Trek episode during either the Berman era or the Kurtzman Star Trek era.

 

[TerryTrek]

I don't think there's much to scrap, is there?

• Picard is done, and there's no evidence that Terry is gonna get his show.
• Discovery is done.
• Strange New Worlds is ongoing but not super expensive (seems to be $7 million per episode).
• Lower Decks budget isn't public, but it's likely between $1-$2 million an episode, judging by other half-hour animated shows.
• Starfleet Academy could be done on the cheap if they wanted, since it will rely upon standing sets of the Academy.
• Nothing else is in production as far as we know other than the Section 31 TV movie.

Given seasons don't come out every year, standard production costs in the range of $100 million for TV Trek in the near future looks feasible, without any of the ongoing/in development shows getting the axe.

If he's not spending that level of money for DC streaming projects (and scrapped all the DC shows of the previous regime), why would he spend it on Secret Hideout's Star Trek?

It would make more sense for him to just sign a new production company to work on a theatrical Trek film (where the big bucks are) instead of re-upping with Kurtzman and co. Just based on his statements about the big IP franchises belonging in theatres.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/david-zaslav-theatrical-movies-cinemacon-windows-1235594027/

At the very least, he's openly stated that he's against Direct-to-Streaming films, so Section 31 could be something that makes the scrap pile.

JJ Abrams 'Star Trek 4' would be deader than dead now as well. Zaslav has wisely excised Abrams from WBD.

 

[Danja]

It would make more sense for him to just sign a new production company to work on a theatrical Trek film (where the big bucks are) instead of re-upping with Kurtzman and co. Just based on his statements about the big IP franchises belonging in theatres.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/david-zaslav-theatrical-movies-cinemacon-windows-1235594027/

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom bombed at the box office.

Nothing is certain.

If he's not spending that level of money for DC streaming projects (and scrapped all the DC shows of the previous regime), why would he spend it on Secret Hideout's Star Trek?

Disney+ is doing it.

 

[TerryTrek]

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom bombed at the box office.

Nothing is certain.

It was pretty certain that Aquaman 2 would flop. Hence why WBD didn't even bother with the marketing for it, and didn't even have a Red Carpet premiere for it.

It was a film done under the previous WB regime of Ann Sarnov and Walter Hamada, so WBD just wanted to get it out there and done.

The rebooted WBD DC projects begin in 2025.

Disney+ is doing it.

Zaslav has had a very different approach and attitude to streaming (and lots of other things) compared to Disney. And Disney's model hasn't been working well. They were forced to admit it this year after a poor year for the company.

Paramount really isn't in a position to blow money like Disney is.

 

[fireproof78]

Neither is Disney.

 

[Tuskin38]

I mean, I don't understand why SNW isn't getting at least half the level of hate early DISCOVERY received...

Because It's nothing like Discovery. It's episodic not a single storyline season like DSC/PIC.
The writing is better, the acting is better, the directing is better and there's more supporting characters.

It feels like a modern take on TOS. As in they have serious episodes, but they also occasionally have silly episodes.

Make a thread in the SNW subforum asking why people like it more than they did Discovery, as long as people are mature with their answers, I'm sure the mods won't lock it.

 

[fireproof78]

I actually enjoyed The Rings of Power much more than Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy for example.

Because it's a coherent, well done, work, rather than overextended detailng of a much smaller story?

Because, Rings of Power is amazing compared to the Hobbit.

 

[eschaton]

If he's not spending that level of money for DC streaming projects (and scrapped all the DC shows of the previous regime), why would he spend it on Secret Hideout's Star Trek?

It would make more sense for him to just sign a new production company to work on a theatrical Trek film (where the big bucks are) instead of re-upping with Kurtzman and co. Just based on his statements about the big IP franchises belonging in theatres.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/david-zaslav-theatrical-movies-cinemacon-windows-1235594027/

At the very least, he's openly stated that he's against Direct-to-Streaming films, so Section 31 could be something that makes the scrap pile.

JJ Abrams 'Star Trek 4' would be deader than dead now as well. Zaslav has wisely excised Abrams from WBD.

I thought you were among those arguing that Trek would be killed entirely as part of a potential merger, not merely that they would change production companies. That is a more defensible stance to take.

That said, I don't think we have much evidence that Kurtzman Trek has been a failure, any more than we have evidence that anything is a success/failure in streaming, because none of the studios have released any public analytics on how many views given shows have. It really is all conjecture, though my general impression is that it's been less of a money loser for them than Paramount+ as a whole, which means little blame would get placed on Kurtzman himself if the franchise is actually losing money right now. Indeed, continuing to throw new money at the franchise (Strange New Worlds, Starfleet Academy, the Section 31 TV movie) suggests Paramount sees it - at worst - as one of the least bad options when it comes to new show development.

I don't think most fans would care either way if Secret Hideout was swapped for another production company at this point. Honestly, Kurtzman isn't really involved in much of anything on the creative level any longer across the franchise, as he's stepped back from his more active role in early Discovery and Picard. If they actually threw out all of the characters from this phase of Trek though, I think there would be a fan revolt, and rightfully so, as internal continuity being kept across the many series is so core to Trek as a franchise.

Why would a fourth Kelvinverse movie be Abrams involved? Does he have some sort of contractual agreement which binds him to these versions of the characters?

 

[fireproof78]

If they actually threw out all of the characters from this phase of Trek though, I think there would be a fan revolt, and rightfully so, as internal continuity being kept across the many series is so core to Trek as a franchise.

Right.

Because fans have not been chomping at the bit for this current run of characters to be relegated to an alternate timeline that's destroyed by a supernova.

Sorry, I don't see the revolt. I see people complaining for a bit then complaining about the new characters not being "real Trek." And the cycle perpetuates.

 

[Lord Garth]

The writing is better, the acting is better, the directing is better and there's more supporting characters.

In order: No (but we already know what I prefer), I think the acting is the same level on all of the series (what show you're on doesn't change how well you act, and even people who hate DSC don't blame the actors), the directors are the same in most cases, and I think there aren't more supporting characters (though I don't feel like putting together a list right now).

It feels like a modern take on TOS. As in they have serious episodes, but they also occasionally have silly episodes.

That's the real answer. It's closer to what people expected when Star Trek returned to TV in 2017. Except the first new series never would've been SNW because it would've been perceived as too similar to the Kelvin Films, both being updates of TOS.

Make a thread in the SNW subforum asking why people like it more than they did Discovery, as long as people are mature with their answers, I'm sure the mods won't lock it.

It would get a page, maybe two, with serious answers, then something would happen, it would devolve from there, and then it would only be a matter of time before it would close.

 

[TerryTrek]

I thought you were among those arguing that Trek would be killed entirely as part of a potential merger, not merely that they would change production companies. That is a more defensible stance to take.

That said, I don't think we have much evidence that Kurtzman Trek has been a failure, any more than we have evidence that anything is a success/failure in streaming, because none of the studios have released any public analytics on how many views given shows have. It really is all conjecture, though my general impression is that it's been less of a money loser for them than Paramount+ as a whole, which means little blame would get placed on Kurtzman himself if the franchise is actually losing money right now. Indeed, continuing to throw new money at the franchise (Strange New Worlds, Starfleet Academy, the Section 31 TV movie) suggests Paramount sees it - at worst - as one of the least bad options when it comes to new show development.

I don't think most fans would care either way if Secret Hideout was swapped for another production company at this point. Honestly, Kurtzman isn't really involved in much of anything on the creative level any longer across the franchise, as he's stepped back from his more active role in early Discovery and Picard. If they actually threw out all of the characters from this phase of Trek though, I think there would be a fan revolt, and rightfully so, as internal continuity being kept across the many series is so core to Trek as a franchise.

Why would a fourth Kelvinverse movie be Abrams involved? Does he have some sort of contractual agreement which binds him to these versions of the characters?

Paramount's streaming strategy for a while, looking at the trades, as been to throw major coin into these IPs and hope that eventually streaming would turn a profit in the long-term. A lot of streamers seemed to have this approach, especially during the pandemic.

Doesn't seem like they've even come close to turning a profit given Paramount's current financial situation.

If they actually threw out all of the characters from this phase of Trek though, I think there would be a fan revolt, and rightfully so, as internal continuity being kept across the many series is so core to Trek as a franchise.

Would Zaslav care?

I do think he'll push Star Trek into the theatrical sphere with some kind of soft reboot, if Trek goes to WBD. All speculation at this point, but we won't have to wait long to see how this all plays out.

 

[fireproof78]

I thought it was all burning to the ground?
Is Kurtzman fired too?

 

[Danja]

Is Kurtzman fired too?

How many times is this now?

You also forget that WBD can just recast for a lot of these shows and movies, making them cheaper to produce. With Trek, the fandom likes their legacy characters as is. You aren’t making Legacy if you decade to recast Seven of Nine with someone younger than Jeri Ryan. With younger actors recasted as Riker, Worf, Geordi, etc. for guest appearances.

It's not just Trek (Star Wars fans had a cow when they tried to recast Han Solo).

It's been hit-and-miss (Chris Pine and Co. have done relatively well rebooting TOS on the big screen).

There comes a point when it becomes ridiculous (Shatner is 92. Takei and Koenig are in their eighties. Nimoy, Doohan, Kelley, and Nichols have passed away.)

 

[Campe]

Those poor flatscreens Kurtzman destroyed on the way out… again!

 

[donners22]

That said, I don't think we have much evidence that Kurtzman Trek has been a failure, any more than we have evidence that anything is a success/failure in streaming, because none of the studios have released any public analytics on how many views given shows have. I

We have Nielsen data since late Feb 2023, which showed that Picard S3 and SNW S2 made the streaming top ten on a number of occasions (SNW more than Pic), despite being on one of the weaker services. That strikes me as a reasonably positive sign.

I also wouldn't have thought that five shows and nearly 20 seasons of new Trek represented a failure - not many would have expected that much before the Kurtzman era began. Hell, plenty were claiming that Disco wouldn't last more than a couple of seasons, let alone lead the way for a bunch more series.