The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > New York Times article - and a question
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-26-2009, 06:45 AM
Capt Dunsel's Avatar
Capt Dunsel Capt Dunsel is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 127
Default New York Times article - and a question

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/movies/26itzk.html

Interesting article in the NY Times - particularly regarding the business motivations behind all of this. When Viacom was undergoing reorganization in 2005, the Trek franchise appeared to be ready to be split in two (television versus movie rights) as the CBS Studio was being split from Paramount. All rights seemed bound to go to CBS, where some new TV series might eventually be conceived. This movie was a last-ditch attempt by Paramount management to keep control of some of the Trek franchise... The agreement was to get cameras rolling in 18 months on a meaningful movie or lose the rights....

So, with this as prelude, what the heck kind of TV series might eventually be conceived to address the newly energized masses that this movie might create? I hope to heck that it would be better than the first couple seasons of TNG.... (though it became more than worthy in later years). But in terms of concept, do we go back to the TOS world - and basically imagine a re-created TOS series in the Abrams timeline ????

Holy "Wagon Train to the Stars", Batman !!!!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-26-2009, 06:52 AM
sir num nums sir num nums is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sherwood, AR
Posts: 2,357
Default

Paramount can make the movies, while CBS Studios can make the TV Shows.

And nothing says that IF they make a new show it has to be related to the new movie(s). CBS can go in any direction they want to.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-26-2009, 07:10 AM
cjopbj cjopbj is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 581
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Dunsel View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/movies/26itzk.html

Interesting article in the NY Times - particularly regarding the business motivations behind all of this. When Viacom was undergoing reorganization in 2005, the Trek franchise appeared to be ready to be split in two (television versus movie rights) as the CBS Studio was being split from Paramount. All rights seemed bound to go to CBS, where some new TV series might eventually be conceived. This movie was a last-ditch attempt by Paramount management to keep control of some of the Trek franchise... The agreement was to get cameras rolling in 18 months on a meaningful movie or lose the rights....

So, with this as prelude, what the heck kind of TV series might eventually be conceived to address the newly energized masses that this movie might create? I hope to heck that it would be better than the first couple seasons of TNG.... (though it became more than worthy in later years). But in terms of concept, do we go back to the TOS world - and basically imagine a re-created TOS series in the Abrams timeline ????

Holy "Wagon Train to the Stars", Batman !!!!
Why did Viacom split from CBS?
__________________
Happiness, at least, Sir.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-26-2009, 07:11 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

If they do a TOS era series it can't be on the Enterprise or feature Kirk and co. It would have to be another ship around about the same time, to keep the Enterprise free for the big screen.

However the interview itself was extremely interesting. Thanks for posting it.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 04-26-2009 at 07:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-26-2009, 07:21 AM
Capt Dunsel's Avatar
Capt Dunsel Capt Dunsel is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjopbj View Post
Why did Viacom split from CBS?
From the Wiki Gods...
In March 2005, the prior Viacom (now known as CBS Corporation) announced plans of looking into splitting the company into two publicly traded companies. The company was not only dealing with a stagnating stock price, but also the rivalry between Leslie Moonves and Tom Freston, longtime heads of CBS and MTV Networks respectively.
After the departure of Mel Karmazin in 2004, Redstone, who served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, decided to split the offices of President and Chief Operating Officer between Moonves and Freston. Redstone was set to retire in the near future, and a split would be a creative solution to the matter of replacing him.
The split was approved by Viacom's board June 14, 2005, approved December 31, 2005, and effectively undid the Viacom/CBS merger of 1999. The original Viacom changed its name to CBS Corporation and is headed by Moonves. It now includes Viacom's "slow growth businesses", namely CBS, The CW (formerly The WB and UPN), CBS Radio, Simon & Schuster, CBS Outdoor, Showtime, CBS Records, CBS Paramount Television and most television production assets.
These, according to some analysts, were suffocating the growth of the MTV Networks cable businesses (the split was structured such that CBS Corporation is actually the company previously known as Viacom). At the time of the split, CBS Corporation was also given control of Paramount Parks. CBS sold Paramount Parks to amusement parks management company Cedar Fair, L.P. on June 30, 2006.
A new company, the present Viacom, was also spun-off and was headed by Freston. It comprises MTV Networks, BET Networks, Paramount's movie studio, and Paramount Pictures' home entertainment operations. These businesses are categorized as the high-growth businesses (MTV Networks and BET Networks in particular), and if they were split into a separate company, it could infuse new capital to allow for future acquisitions and expansion.
Sumner Redstone still controls 71 percent of the voting stock of both companies and is the chairman of both companies.

I guess a real issue arose of property rights to the Trek franchise. It was probably a muddy area when the movie studio and the television rights were housed in the same company - but when you are dealing with separate public companies, the rights need to be crystal. When together, the movies could feed the TV franchise and vice versa. If now separate companies entirely, is there any motivation for a relationship between movies and TV? That might have real meaning for how the future of Trek rolls out between the large and the small screen....
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-26-2009, 07:26 AM
Scribbler's Avatar
Scribbler Scribbler is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 726
Default

Bloody hell! Something on this forum with some substance...I vote we have it removed!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-26-2009, 07:54 AM
Gary Seven's Avatar
Gary Seven Gary Seven is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
Bloody hell! Something on this forum with some substance...I vote we have it removed!
No doubt it came from Dunsel, too. Quality post.
__________________
I AM ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ:
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-26-2009, 08:41 AM
RedShirtWalking's Avatar
RedShirtWalking RedShirtWalking is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,020
Default

They're separate corporations, but they're part of the same parent company (National Amusements).

If they really want a new series (which I don't believe they will anytime soon), it won't take much to get it greenlit at all. Networks are scaling back on hour-long dramatic series to cut costs right now and a new Star Trek series certainly wouldn't be cheap to produce.

The new crew has options for two more films and I think that you'll see more films before anything else---which is OK by me.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-26-2009, 12:32 PM
FireDevlin's Avatar
FireDevlin FireDevlin is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 376
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
Bloody hell! Something on this forum with some substance...I vote we have it removed!


Excellent.
__________________
"I'll break out of this zoo somehow and get to you. Is your blood red like ours? I'm gonna find out. "-Captain Christopher Pike
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-26-2009, 12:40 PM
Captain Pike's Avatar
Captain Pike Captain Pike is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Burbank
Posts: 399
Default

They could do a series with Pike before Sulu and the other cadets came aboard.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:50 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.