Jump to content


Photo

Paramount Lays off workers, Star Trek into Darkness is one of the reasons


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#1 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 01 October 2013 - 10:07 PM

I read today on IMDB.com that Paramount is laying off 110 workers due to movies failing to perform as expected. IMDB linked to the "Hollywood reporter" which mentioned several films that didnt make the profits that Paramount needed, which led to the layoff. One film that had a budget of more than 190 million made a worldwide gross of around 600 million and was considered to be only barely making a profit. Star Trek into Darkness was not specifically mentioned, but the ratio of budget to profit was even smaller, so apparently even Paramount feels that the film wasnt successful. Even though Star Trek was not mentioned in the article, IMDB placed a Star Trek Into Darkness thumbnail picture along with the article. This news seems to validate some claims that the film wasnt as successful as some media tried to spin it as being.



#2 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:29 PM

I think, to be fair, you have to look STID by itself. Which is to say it did well. It did make money. BUT... when the studio takes the aggregate, they needed STID to make MORE money to cover all the crappy movies that actually lost money.

 

The way movies makes money is a bit messed up, but assuming that STID took home up to 75% of the Gross sales for the 1st two weeks. Then assume it only grossed 300M for those two weeks (world wide), then that means the studios made 225M which landed a net of 35M.

 

So yeah, making 35M on a 190M risk wasn't a good return, but it would have made money.



#3 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 02 October 2013 - 10:04 PM

I just saw another article on yahoo that did name Star Trek into Darkness as #1 on their list of disappointing Paramount movies this summer. The article says that the rule of thumb in modern moviemaking is to take the production budget, then double it to cover the advertising and after that is profit. With a $190 million dollar budget, doubled would be $380 million before it starts to profit. Worldwide gross for Star Trek Into Darkness was somewhere around $450 million or so? cant remember, but making only a 50 million or so profit is pretty bad considering what they put into it. Home media sales will also be factored in eventually which will help but the movie can hardly be considered a great success with such a meager return on the investment. People see the $450 million gross and think "success!" . Back when big budget movies were $20 million to produce, a $100 million gross would be a great success, but with insane production budgets today, you need to make more than a billion dollars to be a big success.



#4 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 03 October 2013 - 04:06 AM

Right. 

 

Or.... you have to change the economics of how you make movies! I said it before, but I think they will scale the budget back on the next one tremendously. 

 

Part of the issue has to be  these large casts, many of whom are a draw in their own right, with Pine reportedly getting upwards of 2Mil a film, Quinto has to be close I think we can safely assume that major cast salaries are 20-30 Mil alone, and is probably significantly more. 

 

I read the forthcoming movie Gravity only had an 80Mil production budget, yet its getting raves for the effects and look of the movie, but I'm sure a Bullock / Clooney cast was much cheaper then an entire ensemble cast like Star Trek. 

 

If I recall its part of the reason star trek was so expensive on the small screen as well. 



#5 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 03 October 2013 - 07:14 AM

Zoe Saldana seems to be a bigger star than most of the rest of the STID cast, bet she raked in a sizable check too. 



#6 Prometheus

Prometheus

    If I don't have it, It's on preorder.

  • Members
  • 2,137 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 04 October 2013 - 04:20 PM

:-)

#7 Prometheus

Prometheus

    If I don't have it, It's on preorder.

  • Members
  • 2,137 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 04 October 2013 - 04:22 PM

Oops.... sorry...should have posted this in the totally random thread...

#8 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2013 - 05:31 AM

You're not going to see another Star Trek movie made for $60 million (Star Trek: Nemesis) but neither are you going to see another Star Trek movie made for $190 million (Star Trek Into Darkness). Paramount have already said that due to JJ Abrams wanting to film in LA the cost of the movie rose up so the next one will likely be film abroad.  

 

Into Darkness did not bomb at the box office nor is it the deciding factor of Paramount releasing people from their jobs - had Paramount made Into Darkness money on all of their films this year then there wouldn't have been lay off's and actually without the money Star Trek Into Darkness and World War Z made for Paramount/Viacom then it's possible there would have been even bigger staff cut backs at Paramount...

 

Here's another article that suggests just as much: http://www.deadline....cal-q3-earning/

 

Had Paramount stuck to their original prediction of $80 mil opening weekend then no one would have been thinking that a film, no less a Star Trek film that made world wide $466,978,661failed to make money and even when Par Pic did then decide to over estimate the money it was going to make on opening weekend, it still grossed a huge amount more than its 2009 movie but look, VF as impartial as you are... Star Trek Into Darkness did make money, the 3rd movie will be made for less no doubt but we won't see it being made for any less than $100 million I guarantee it since Star Trek remains one of Paramount's tent-pole franchises along with Transformers and GI:Joe. 

 

Sure the cast eat up movie budgets but without Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg or these up and coming names people wouldn't go and see movies. But we're not talking about Tom Cruise pay cheques or Bruce Willis pay cheques...

 

Star Trek Into Darkness performed strong, the overseas numbers are hugely encouraging. The downside to it was that the momentum between 2009 and 2013 had been lost, there were no tie-ins, the merchandise was weak, within that 4 year time period there had been nothing to promote the brand to kids and to the wider movie going audience with cartoons, toys, and whilst CBS Digital are doing a bang up job restoring old Star Trek's, no one out of the fandom are interested because all of the TV series are repeated on TV constantly... Plus the fact that the cast were not seen in anything other than Star Trek in the run up to Darkness (Hemsworth in the run up to Thor has been in Rush), I mean aside from This Means War, Chris Pine has been in nothing, Zoe Saldana's last big movie was Avatar before Trek and Quinto's been hiding under a rock so where was the hype? The average movie going audience had forgotten about it because to them it's not a huge deal, there was very little hype around Into Darkness and ultimately JJ Abrams taking the Star Wars gig in what should have been the big final push with Into Darkness was the killer for the nerd community. The ridiculous way the villain was marketed was to blame too I feel, live or die, they should have revealed it to be Khan in the prologue with The Hobbit.  

 

Although Abrams mystery box has I think lost its edge, for the problems with Star Trek overall the buck stops with CBS and Paramount. They simply don't know how to handle big franchises to get the most out of them. Can anyone name a big Paramount Pictures franchise that could compete with the likes of Star Wars, DC, Marvel, Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit? 

 

Transformers isn't it, GI:Joe isn't it and Star Trek could have been it had they allowed JJ Abrams (for better or for worse depending on your personal preference) full creative control over not just his movies but the entire franchise with profits being split between CBS, Paramount and Bad Robot. When you look at all the big franchises these days, they might be owned by huge studios but they are produced and created by production companies similar to Bad Robot.

 

They've shot themselves in the foot since I think had Abrams been given the car along with the keys, he wouldn't have taken Star Wars. CBS and Paramount's loss I feel.



#9 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 06 October 2013 - 10:01 PM

I think Abrams would have taken Star Wars regardless, its probably his dream job. Abrams with full control over Star Trek would have put it in the grave. Star Trek into darkness made money, yes thats true, but making 15 cents profit on every dollar spent is not what hollywood calls success.



#10 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 October 2013 - 11:29 AM

Abrams with full control over Star Trek would have put it in the grave.

 

Clearly that isn't true since under Abrams in 2009 and 2013, a Star Trek movie has not only made more money than it has done at any other time in its history but both Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness have won over fans who were bored of Trek before 2009 and non-fans who didn't/don't care at all about Star Trek and ultimately it's Paramount and CBS's lack of drive and ambition of Star Trek who seem to be not only digging Star Trek's grave but putting all the nails into the coffin when Abrams and others have been eager to continue the legacy for a new generation by building a brilliant 'new' multi-platformed franchise that would go far beyond a movie every other year. 

 

Had Abrams had his way, Star Trek may not have appealed to you or even me!! (shocking) But there's no doubt it would have become a major player, as things stand it's going to remain a solid but average franchise that will again only ever really appeal to the fans... 



#11 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 07 October 2013 - 09:09 PM

This has already been said but i guess i will have to say it again, TWOK made 8 times its budget at the box office, Into darkness made its money back and maybe 60 million in profit. Which movie was more successful? Ive been watching TNG on bluray for sometime now, just got into season 4. Its like watching it for the first time again its looks so good! This is great Star Trek! Lets get Star Trek back on TV where it belongs.

 

I dont know of any statistics to support this, but i am going to say that i doubt many people who have been introduced to Star Trek through the two Abrams movies will become diehard fans, the kind that go to conventions, buy Bluray or DVD sets at the store or even think about Star Trek at all when there isnt a new movie out. I have heard so many genuine Star Trek fans express disappointment with the new movie. The second time i watched it, i enjoyed it more than the first time, but it doesnt hold a candle to the worst TNG episode IMO. I was there when the first episode of TNG ran in 1987, and i have loved it ever since so im not a guy that hates everything new, i just dislike when someone tries to take the Star Trek out of Star Trek and make it a shootem up big budget Michael Bay type of movie with plenty of action and no substance.



#12 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 October 2013 - 01:25 PM

This has already been said but i guess i will have to say it again, TWOK made 8 times its budget at the box office, Into darkness made its money back and maybe 60 million in profit. Which movie was more successful? Ive been watching TNG on bluray for sometime now, just got into season 4. Its like watching it for the first time again its looks so good! This is great Star Trek! Lets get Star Trek back on TV where it belongs.

 

I dont know of any statistics to support this, but i am going to say that i doubt many people who have been introduced to Star Trek through the two Abrams movies will become diehard fans, the kind that go to conventions, buy Bluray or DVD sets at the store or even think about Star Trek at all when there isnt a new movie out. I have heard so many genuine Star Trek fans express disappointment with the new movie. The second time i watched it, i enjoyed it more than the first time, but it doesnt hold a candle to the worst TNG episode IMO. I was there when the first episode of TNG ran in 1987, and i have loved it ever since so im not a guy that hates everything new, i just dislike when someone tries to take the Star Trek out of Star Trek and make it a shootem up big budget Michael Bay type of movie with plenty of action and no substance.

 

What are you actually talking about... Take the Star Trek out of Star Trek? Star Trek is as subjective as it gets so what exactly does take the Trek out of Trek mean??? It's so irrelevant because Trek (like all entertainment franchises) means something different to different people!

 

Fact: Into Darkness world wide is the biggest performing Star Trek movie ever. Domestically only second behind... JJ Abrams 2009 Star Trek movie so to say that giving Abrams full control over Trek would be a bad thing is quite frankly ludicrous and completely wrong because in the space of two movies, regardless of what past Trek's have made, Abrams has made $486,508,680 domestically and worldwide: $852,659,107, thats just incredible with 4 hours worth of Star Trek. (http://boxofficemojo...id=startrek.htm). As things stand, decisions are being made by people who are even worse so whilst Abrams isn't everyone's cup of tea, I get that, fair enough but if there was a choice in having Abrams and his Bad Robot team or the big, faceless studio's and Les Moonves... I'd go with Bad Robot and Abrams. You might not like it but those guys know what they want to do with Trek and so far, in just 2 movie's they've completely reinvigorated a franchise that was completely done for after Enterprise. 

 

You go on about TNG on Blu Ray and I totally agree with you it is superb, those are beautifully done but why were they done? Because Star Trek became relevant again because of JJ Abrams! Regardless of whether or not people become die-hard fans through Abrams movies is irrelevant too, both Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness have broadened Trek's appeal, had Abrams got his way then I'm certain there would have been an influx of new, young fans getting into Star Trek through the multi-platform franchise concept Abrams had for Trek... CBS didn't want to know. As for established fans, clearly the majority don't agree with you because Star Trek from Abrams has been widely appreciated adding to the rejuvenated interest in TOS and TNG and the other TV series and movie's.  

 

As for TV, CBS won't do it, Paramount can't do it at the moment so it's not going to happen right now.



#13 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:16 PM

I think what you mean to say 1701, is that ST:ITD is the biggest grossing star trek movie ever. That would be accurate. 

 

I would think performance would be measured on ROI, and as VF has pointed out, just by the raw numbers, ST:ITD only earned 2.45 times its investment and that based on Gross Receipts, which we know isn't ROI. I don't know that I agree with VF's "double the budget and subtract that from the Gross receipts". From what I've read you should take the gross receipts, divide by 2 to cover advertising, and theaters take, and then subtract the budget. VF comes up with 50 Mil in profit, and I say 43.5 mil. so not too far different.  If  I run the same formula on the 2009 Star Trek, I get a 52.8 Mil profit! Which tells me that the 2009 Trek actually made more money, and since they spent less to make more, the ROI for 2009 Trek was better! Thus 2009 Trek performed better. If you run the numbers, TWOK is still one of the best performing star trek movie of all time. But its not the biggest grossing trek movie.



#14 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:19 PM

1701, You continue to forget that you have to subtract the production budget, and then about the same amount for advertising and prints before you see the profit margin. Star Trek with a $150 million budget, doubled is $300 million before they see a profit, gives them a $85 millionj dollar profit, which is pathetic when you look at the percentage of investment and return. Into Darkness with a $190 million budget doubled for advertising is $380 million before profit. $86 million profit on that one. International gross was higher than domestic, which is bad because nondomestic ticket sales dont make the studios as much money. Star Trek IV The Voyage Home had a estimated 25 million dollar production budget and made $109 million worldwide, subtracting the budget leaves $84 million, and back in 1986 advertising rates undoubtedly were lower so even $10 million for advertising would still leave $74 million, which is a lot better profit margin than Abrams Trek.

 

I also disagree with you about another thing. I believe Star Trek bluray season sets would have come out even if Abrams Trek never saw the light of day. 

 

You must not pay very good attention to my posts because i have to repeat things so often. I answered your Take the Star Trek out of Star Trek question at the end of my last post.

 

I also disagree with you about Star Trek meaning something different to everybody. If that was the case, i doubt people would assemble for huge conventions to celebrate their common interest in Star Trek.

 

I also dont see any reason why CBS couldnt do another Star Trek series right now. It would be more profitable in the long run i believe.



#15 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 October 2013 - 10:52 AM

Ok then... Let me put it this way... Putting aside your own personal opinions on JJ Abrams and trying as hard as you can by not being facetious... Where would Star Trek be today without his 2009 movie and this years Star Trek movie. By all means take that question as rhetorical if you want.

 

Someone else could have taken it on and done something you'd like and been great for a lot of fans, sure but then I'm sure there would have been someone else who disliked it as much as you dislike Abrams Star Trek... Does you liking Star Trek make it Star Trek? No!

 

I'm sure if you were in a position to make the next Star Trek movie, there would be those who would love it and those who would hate it. You can't please everyone but by and large, Abrams has managed to open Trek up to a mass audience, received high praise from both fans/audience members and critics alike for BOTH Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness and IMO stayed true to the source material and actually improved upon the scope and the scale of it too. Just because we're not seeing Kirk and Spock in their old age contemplating life, doesn't make Abrams movie's any less relevant to a franchise that in it's 50 years of history has gone in various different directions with each incarnation. By your logic is Wrath of Khan even Star Trek? Since it's far darker, grittier and shows a more militaristic Starfleet even down to the uniforms looking like something out of the pages of Horatio Hornblower. Does this mean Star Trek The Voyage Home isn't Star Trek because it shows a kind of parody of each of the characters and is about saving whales rather than exploring strange new worlds and most of it is set on Earth?

 

As for returns, however it is calculated, Star Trek Into Darkness has made money for Paramount not lost it like Star Trek: Nemesis. Does it really matter anyway, there's going to be a third Star Trek movie and overall whilst a third movie may be made for less money, Star Trek under Abrams has become a financial success at the box office again and something that the mainstream have enjoyed to varying levels which is something that can't be said for much of the franchise before 2009.

 

Whilst I've constantly said more should be done to really build a proper franchise (of which Abrams was planning on doing) thats down to CBS and Paramount sorting themselves out and either selling Star Trek or taking the time to brand it properly and build a multi-platform, modern franchise out of it using Bad Robot or doing it themselves. Regardless of that though, Star Trek is in a far stronger shape now than it was in 2005 and that's down to JJ Abrams and the people who made both Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness

 

To say that Star Trek Into Darkness was one of the reasons Paramount had to lay of workers, is both ludicrous and WRONG and simply silly fan-boy nonsense from someone who has himself been very bitter about Abrams handling of the franchise.

 

You can't please everyone and nor should you try to so whilst Star Trek made by JJ Abrams isn't Star Trek for you VF, it is Star Trek for me and millions of other fans as well as millions of people who just went to the cinema to enjoy a BRILLIANT Sci-Fi movie. Now if you want to continue to moan about Star Trek made by Abrams, go ahead, that's your right but please, do so... Logically.



#16 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 October 2013 - 11:07 AM

I also disagree with you about another thing. I believe Star Trek bluray season sets would have come out even if Abrams Trek never saw the light of day. 

 

Wrong... Why would CBS spend the money on what would have been a dead franchise? Simple economics VF, if something isn't relevant or interesting or in the public eye anymore, there's no money spent on it. When there is something to market and make money off of due to the public being more invested then sure CBS will stump up the cash and roll out the blu-rays and toys. All you have to do is look and remember what Star Trek became between 1998 - 2005, I mean there was very little out there for people to buy aside from the reissues of DVD's and DST limping on going ever further into the abyss.

 

I also disagree with you about Star Trek meaning something different to everybody. If that was the case, i doubt people would assemble for huge conventions to celebrate their common interest in Star Trek.

 

You're talking about a general interest fans have in Star Trek, people come together to celebrate Trek sure, we all love Star Trek but I'm sure if you spoke to many, each would have their own views on what makes Star Trek... Star Trek to them. 

 

I also dont see any reason why CBS couldnt do another Star Trek series right now. It would be more profitable in the long run i believe.

 

Because they'd have done it by now if they were going to do it at all. Bryan Singer, Brian Fuller, Michael Dorn... Loads of producers, writers have pitched Star Trek TV series to CBS since interest in Star Trek started building again as a result of JJ Abrams and none have been successful. Also I think it's an article on trekweb but Abrams himself told a reporter at the Blu-Ray release party for Star Trek Into Darkness that CBS wasn't interested in doing Star Trek on TV (probably to do with the cost a show like that would have to have).



#17 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 10 October 2013 - 05:24 PM

Since this discussion seems to be going back and forth and also seems to have a wide berth... I'd like to throw out something to think about with respect to TV in the U.S. today.

 

Just like Star Trek TNG capitalized on a fundamental shift in how TV was being viewed and shows consumed i.e. producing a show that was syndicated and sold to networks rather then partnering outright with a network, there is another fundamental shift in the way TV in the U.S. is being viewed / consumed etc.

 

THIS Article talks a bit about it... but basically, because of DVR and streaming technology, when and how people watch shows is changing. This is evident with great shows that are paid for and produced by limited networks. Breaking Bad and Game Of thrones are examples of this. Consumers may not watch them live, or even wait until the entire series is produced and on netflix or streaming to watch them.

 

This is why netflix, HBO, and even smaller networks are footing the bill to produce good content. Essentially, this is a sort of direct to viewer syndication model, where the networks make money from the streaming services as consumers view on demand.

 

With such a model, if CBS produced content to steam direct to viewer, I think it absolutely would be successful... if it was good! that's the caveat people want good content, and many people have said that after shows like "Lost" where they felt it was just a waste of their time, they wait now until a show runs its course and then they watch it streaming.

 

I think Star Trek is missing a golden opportunity in that respect, especially since  they have so much supporting content that people who like new shows, would go back and explore.



#18 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 10 October 2013 - 08:05 PM

I agree with you Goth. Had it not been for netflix, i would have missed out on many great shows that i watched entirely on Netflix. Ive even watched some of the made for Netflix shows, and found them good and entertaining and every bit as good as any network show, maybe better.

 

There is something about todays series that is different from series made in years past. Most of the good shows on tv, or maybe i should say "interesting" shows, are "Arc" shows. Breaking Bad, Dexter, True blood, Game of Thrones are examples of this. I have to say that i enjoy watching these shows once, but i have no interest in ever seeing them again. Stand alone episodes, like the Star Trek series and many other series that i like, i would buy on bluray and rewatch them. Arc shows keep viewers hooked each week, perform well on streaming services, but i am not sure how much rerun value they have. I imagine that most people watching them on streaming services didnt see them first run.

 

I dont agree that Star Trek was a dead franchise before Abrams got involved. Conventions were still held, DVD sets of all the series were put out in the years after the Nemesis disappointment, and continued even after Enterprise fizzled. Star Trek was going strong before anyone ever heard of JJ Abrams, and it will keep going despite what CBS or Paramount do. Money talks, and Into Darkness did'nt come up with nearly enough money to justify the investment. Maybe after this disappointment they will actually try to come up with a Real Star Trek story next time. There doesnt have to be epic space battles and the Enterprise does'nt have to be nearly destroyed to have a great story. The strength of Star Trek has been in its TV series, the movies were made to give fans a treat by seeing the characters together again. If CBS wants to put all of its eggs in the movie basket, they will never realize what a new TV series could. A TV series set about 10 years or so after Nemesis would be a great place to be. Riker and Troi on the Titan would be a great idea, because you have a ton of TNG, DS9 and Voy crossovers that could be done as well as new adventures. That would keep the interest for the movie every few years.



#19 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:18 AM

You hit a good point VF about the way shows are produced in "Arcs"... and I think maybe is was Jules who was explaining how TV worked in the U.K. to us... that effectively a show would get funded for a short, limited run, that producers would fund and maybe its only 10 or 15 shows and thats the end of it.  Smaller networks are thinking this way. They just need good content to attract consumers, so shows like breaking bad, get 10 or 15 shows and are done after 3 seasons. 

 

Star Trek could def be tooled to meet this model. Make essentially Trek "shorts" 5 or 6 episodes in an arc that tell a story. Heck you don't even need a recurring cast, and you could do them from any age of Trek. 



#20 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:42 PM

I think if someone was to make a Star Trek TV series then it would be a short, mini-series with an arc. it would have to be though something that appealed not just to the established fan-base so you would have to start with a new cast. 

 

I just don't see CBS doing that though. I think it all depends on how Paramount TV turns out... If Paramount Pictures begins to establish it's TV arm again then I could see them wanting a new Trek show and having Bad Robot producing a new Star Trek TV show which would probably be sold to a network or into cable.

 

If you look at shows like Downton Abbey and Doctor Who in the UK, we have very VERY short seasons to limit costs. I'm not sure if that would happen in the US but I think it works well in the UK if you have a popular show. Maybe sell Star Trek to the BBC! They've not done badly with Doctor Who.  

 

The only question CBS will be asking themselves is: What's best for the BRAND Star Trek. 

 

For the brand Star Trek is all their interested in as thats what there going to make money off of. Are CBS going to make money off of a Breaking Bad style of production to Star Trek? Done well why not but when CBS are still making 20 million on Trek each year, why would they spend the 20 million in producing a TV show that may or may not work when they have Bad Robot and Paramount making movies that will make CBS money whether or not they do anything new with Trek. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users