Sign in to follow this  
GustavoLeao

VIACOM CEO on Star Trek Movie Franchise

Recommended Posts

kenman   

I never really doubted this. Trek, in spite of some ups and downs, has always been a workhorse for Paramount. They may not always get it or do it properly, but they have financia success more often than not, and one lower earning film, especially one that still got good critical notices, is going to end it all now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, kenman said:

I never really doubted this. Trek, in spite of some ups and downs, has always been a workhorse for Paramount. They may not always get it or do it properly, but they have financia success more often than not, and one lower earning film, especially one that still got good critical notices, is going to end it all now. 

Never doubted it either.

I've seen the franchise die and resurrect many times in my 50 years.  I suspect it's as permanent a part of the pop culture landscape as Sherlock Holmes, James Bond or Doctor Who.  It will always be around, in one form or another.  And there will be much ebbing and flowing, but it'll never die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Exactly. Those who only wish to see their favorite era of the past or whatever they may perceive as the glory days revisited and rehashed over and over again will be perpetually disappointed.  But Trek proved years ago that it can actually explore strange new worlds, and new ways of storytelling, time and time again...if you only like it up to a certain point, that's cool, you've got the DVDs and Blu-rays, and you don't have to watch it anymore. But I don't really understand the knee-jerk naysaying that goes on before anything is made. By all means give it a shot and hate it, or watch it regularly and critique what you don't like, but the "I hate it already and I've barely seen a frame" is, to me, childish and silly.  You wish that the original cast never aged out of the roles or that TNG could've lasted forever...but wishing death upon the franchise is ridiculous.  Some franchises genuinely cannot continue past their prime. Indiana Jones had a heydey and it will never return to form in my opinion. I love Back to the Future but I hope it never gets touched again.  But Star Trek has spanned 50 years with several different shows and movies, with a variety of casts. It has many layers and it can be revived and rejiggered and find itself anew several times over. 

Longing for yesteryear of a franchise, is really just wishing that you were still young. Just remember, try not to fear the undiscovered country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kenman said:

Exactly. Those who only wish to see their favorite era of the past or whatever they may perceive as the glory days revisited and rehashed over and over again will be perpetually disappointed.  But Trek proved years ago that it can actually explore strange new worlds, and new ways of storytelling, time and time again...if you only like it up to a certain point, that's cool, you've got the DVDs and Blu-rays, and you don't have to watch it anymore. But I don't really understand the knee-jerk naysaying that goes on before anything is made. By all means give it a shot and hate it, or watch it regularly and critique what you don't like, but the "I hate it already and I've barely seen a frame" is, to me, childish and silly.  You wish that the original cast never aged out of the roles or that TNG could've lasted forever...but wishing death upon the franchise is ridiculous.  Some franchises genuinely cannot continue past their prime. Indiana Jones had a heydey and it will never return to form in my opinion. I love Back to the Future but I hope it never gets touched again.  But Star Trek has spanned 50 years with several different shows and movies, with a variety of casts. It has many layers and it can be revived and rejiggered and find itself anew several times over. 

Longing for yesteryear of a franchise, is really just wishing that you were still young. Just remember, try not to fear the undiscovered country.

For me, it's really simple; cling lovingly and fearfully to the past, or embrace the possibilities for the future.  I prefer the latter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
16 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

For me, it's really simple; cling lovingly and fearfully to the past, or embrace the possibilities for the future.  I prefer the latter. 

For me, it's no either/or ... it should be both. The past glory is the basis from which to make leaps into the undiscovered. When you don't know where you come from, you'll have no idea where to go, either.

Doctor Who has shown how this can work perfectly: Post-2005 "NuWho" honors its tradition, but it never allows its legacy to drag it down. Star Trek can and should do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sim said:

For me, it's no either/or ... it should be both. The past glory is the basis from which to make leaps into the undiscovered. When you don't know where you come from, you'll have no idea where to go, either.

Doctor Who has shown how this can work perfectly: Post-2005 "NuWho" honors its tradition, but it never allows its legacy to drag it down. Star Trek can and should do the same.

Granted, sentiment and brand recognition are ST's value in gaining an audience, you're right.   But it shouldn't rely exclusively on that in order to perpetuate itself.    

And yes, New DW is a perfect, almost textbook example of how to update a beloved franchise and attract new viewers without losing sight of what made the franchise valuable in the first place.  

New DW embraced arcs, it changed from the half-hour formats of the old show to a full hour.   The new Doctor went away from frilly shirts, scarves, question mark sweaters, and changed 100% stylistically; but the character was still very much the Doctor.  Compare Chris Eccleston's no nonsense leather coat, black pants and Caesar haircut to say, Colin Baker's multi-color crazy coat and wild, permed hair.   Yes, it's the same character but a definite evolution.   

Companions also became more varied.   And the whole vibe of the show was more modern.   Yes, there were constants; the Tardis was generally the same, the theme music was the same (even if the orchestration varied wildly), and some of the classic monsters returned.   But by and large, the changes and new characters were given the same spotlight and screen time as the old staples.   Weeping angels, Slitheen, the Ood, Rose, Amy, etc. took their place alongside the Daleks, Cybermen, Ice Warriors, Sarah Jane, Zoe, etc. of the old series.  Some of the old seamlessly interacting with the new at times.

DW is a show that literally thrives on change; even its lead character changes faces every few years.  

I want ST to do that very same thing; use that nostalgia as a launching pad for an exciting new series that pays tribute to what went before but isn't handcuffed to it...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, prometheus59650 said:

Bring on Jaylah.

I second that.

Not sure about the Kirk father story though.

Star Trek 4 The Voyage away :carteridea:

 

One problem though, the delay in Discovery does add delay to a film as they are not allowed out at the same time, might impact around series 2. Don't they have to be six months apart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mike Thompson said:

I second that.

Not sure about the Kirk father story though.

Star Trek 4 The Voyage away :carteridea:

 

One problem though, the delay in Discovery does add delay to a film as they are not allowed out at the same time, might impact around series 2. Don't they have to be six months apart

Do they?

I wasn't aware that was a thing.  TNG and the latter TOS ST movies ran concurrently; TUC and TNG's "Unification" also enjoyed a bit of crossover promotion back in 1991.   I think ST 4.0 (or whatever the title will be) could be used to drum up interest in DSC; esp since the two series are set roughly in the same timeline, but in alternate universes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

40 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

Do they?

I wasn't aware that was a thing.  TNG and the latter TOS ST movies ran concurrently; TUC and TNG's "Unification" also enjoyed a bit of crossover promotion back in 1991.   I think ST 4.0 (or whatever the title will be) could be used to drum up interest in DSC; esp since the two series are set roughly in the same timeline, but in alternate universes...

Yeah they say that this was why Discovery is coming so late in the first place (2017) - it wasn't supposed to interfere with Beyond and they wanted for enough time to pass between the movie and the TV series. Paramount vs. CBS.

In short, they think the audience is too stupid to grasp the fact that the movies have nothing to do with the TV series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

 

I want ST to do that very same thing; use that nostalgia as a launching pad for an exciting new series that pays tribute to what went before but isn't handcuffed to it...

 

This. 

Doctor Who has a more flexible storytelling framework than Sar Trek, which is also in a sense mythology, but it is set firmly in "the future" so there are certain rules it has to play by. That is, it should really be an extrapolation of the best of the current world. That's how the original was conceived, that's how TNG and it's siblings DS9 and VOY were continued. ENT is a beast more directly built from continuity (or not, depending on how successful you think that approach was). 

Star Trek could still be reduced to bare bones and built again from the ground up, but to do that, you really need to either reboot again (not an idea I'm personally that fond of) or set it in a time where it is unshackled from the needs and strictures of previously established continuity. That's a very simple storytelling concept, and I believe, probably the one that should've been pursued this time around with Discovery. Far future is the way to go, but after a "year zero" event or cataclysm so Starfleet and the Federation are rebuilding. It means the new show could go ahead without needing to satisfy old continuity rules and being free to adhere to the basic tenets of Trek - optimism, exploration, seeking out new life, etc. 

This was something JJ Abrams knew by instinct when he began his own version of the franchise, and why that version of Star Trek is still in relatively good health, box office returns notwithstanding, and whether or not older fans love it or loath it. It is its own thing. The smart thing to to do would've been to continue the prime universe as was, but in the far future, post-Nemesis. If the movie series continues, and it creates another movie in the vein of Beyond, I'll personally be quite happy to see that. In my view, Beyond was the first Star Trek since Enterprise ended that I felt genuinely involved with. I'm quite happy with a separate movie and TV universe. 

2 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

 

Yeah they say that this was why Discovery is coming so late in the first place (2017) - it wasn't supposed to interfere with Beyond and they wanted for enough time to pass between the movie and the TV series. Paramount vs. CBS.

In short, they think the audience is too stupid to grasp the fact that the movies have nothing to do with the TV series.

Viacom fundamentally needs to rethink its whole approach to Star Trek.

They need a visionary. Someone like Bryan Ful-- oh, wait...

Edited by Robin Bland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Robin Bland said:

Star Trek could still be reduced to bare bones and built again from the ground up, but to do that, you really need to either reboot again (not an idea I'm personally that fond of) or set it in a time where it is unshackled from the needs and strictures of previously established continuity. That's a very simple storytelling concept, and I believe, probably the one that should've been pursued this time around with Discovery. Far future is the way to go, but after a "year zero" event or cataclysm so Starfleet and the Federation are rebuilding. It means the new show could go ahead without needing to satisfy old continuity rules and being free to adhere to the basic tenets of Trek - optimism, exploration, seeking out new life, etc. 

^
It does break my heart that they decided on the series to be another prequel; so much lost opportunity to expand the franchise forward instead of backward...

5 minutes ago, Robin Bland said:

This was something JJ Abrams knew by instinct when he began his own version of the franchise, and why that version of Star Trek is still in relatively good health, box office returns notwithstanding, and whether or not older fans love it or loath it. It is its own thing. The smart thing to to do would've been to continue the prime universe as was, but in the far future, post-Nemesis. If the movie series continues, and it creates another movie in the vein of Beyond, I'll personally be quite happy to see that. In my view, Beyond was the first Star Trek since Enterprise ended that I felt genuinely involved with. I'm quite happy with a separate movie and TV universe. 

Viacom fundamentally needs to rethink its whole approach to Star Trek.

They need a visionary. Someone like Bryan Ful-- oh, wait...

^
JJ Abrams, for whatever his faults (I think he's doing okay; others might disagree) did seem to have a vision for the ST movies; to "Star Wars"-them up a bit.  Which wasn't such a bad idea, given the state of the franchise in 2007 or so, when he took the reigns.   And his movie scorecard (both box office and critically speaking) is fair; one big hit (ST09), one overseas hit (STID), and one relative disappointment, arguably bungled in mis-marketing (STB).   That's not too dissimilar from how ST has usually performed at the box office.  It's a shame that STB, arguably the best of the bunch, wasn't released in a worldwide simultaneous launch.   It would've cut down a lot of the piracy and fan resentment that probably undermined its chances of fiscal parity with ST09.

It seemingly got the "John Carter" treatment for some reason...

So yeah, say what you will about Abrams' creatively, but the man did have a vision for Star Trek.

Just wish the DSC had someone publicly giving it the full time love that Abrams did for ST09.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mike Thompson said:

I second that.

Not sure about the Kirk father story though.

Star Trek 4 The Voyage away :carteridea:

 

One problem though, the delay in Discovery does add delay to a film as they are not allowed out at the same time, might impact around series 2. Don't they have to be six months apart

Discovery couldn't air within 6 months of Beyond. I have no idea if that was a one-off marketing decision or policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   
1 hour ago, prometheus59650 said:

Discovery couldn't air within 6 months of Beyond. I have no idea if that was a one-off marketing decision or policy.

Yeah as far as we've been told so far, Paramount had to get three pictures out, and Discovery would have to wait until 6 months post the third film.  I think that was some kind of weird "kids on the weekend deal between CBS and Paramount...where it stands post that, I think is not yet revealed or determined.  My guess is that Paramount wanted to make sure they had a good footing with a film series before CBS launched a new show. I think it is likely that those restrictions between the two are probably lifted for the time being.  Otherwise the two companies sharing bizarre rights to the same franchise would be strangling themselves perpetually.  I think it had to have come to an end post-Beyond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kenman said:

Yeah as far as we've been told so far, Paramount had to get three pictures out, and Discovery would have to wait until 6 months post the third film.  I think that was some kind of weird "kids on the weekend deal between CBS and Paramount...where it stands post that, I think is not yet revealed or determined.  My guess is that Paramount wanted to make sure they had a good footing with a film series before CBS launched a new show. I think it is likely that those restrictions between the two are probably lifted for the time being.  Otherwise the two companies sharing bizarre rights to the same franchise would be strangling themselves perpetually.  I think it had to have come to an end post-Beyond.

I still think that Viacom should just put all of Trek in its own production house. This divorced parents who don't get along nonsense has been detrimental to the franchise for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   
1 hour ago, prometheus59650 said:

I still think that Viacom should just put all of Trek in its own production house. This divorced parents who don't get along nonsense has been detrimental to the franchise for years.

Wholeheartedly agree, and quite honestly doesn't it seem appropriate to house them all under Rod Roddenberry's Roddenberry Entertainment? That said part of the problem is that I think the Star Trek brand is owned by CBS, which is no longer owned by Viacom, but the movie rights are somehow still retained by Paramount, which is still owned by Viacom.  It's a freakin' mess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, prometheus59650 said:

I still think that Viacom should just put all of Trek in its own production house. This divorced parents who don't get along nonsense has been detrimental to the franchise for years.

Absolutely 100%.

It's the first thing any external business advisory body would say. It's blindingly clear to most fans. It's so obvious it appears to be invisible to Viacom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, prometheus59650 said:

I still think that Viacom should just put all of Trek in its own production house. This divorced parents who don't get along nonsense has been detrimental to the franchise for years.

^
This.  Very much this. 

27 minutes ago, Robin Bland said:

Absolutely 100%.

It's the first thing any external business advisory body would say. It's blindingly clear to most fans. It's so obvious it appears to be invisible to Viacom.

Maybe they're too close to the problem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Viacom is clearly a mess.  They've had all sorts of shake-ups and issues beyond just Paramount, but the hardest thing that many still struggle with...CBS and Viacom are NOT under the same tent.  It's weird, but according to Wikipedia:

"In 2005, Viacom divided into CBS Corporation, whose CBS Television Studios subsidiary retained the Star Trek brand, and Viacom, whose Paramount Pictures subsidiary retained the Star Trek film library and rights to make additional films, along with video distribution rights to the TV series on behalf of CBS."

There was talk of them re-merging, which most likely would've been good news for Star Trek, but it was called off.  So CBS owns Trek, and Paramount has the film rights (both the back catalog and for future films), CBS has the rights to make new TV/Web-based series, and Paramount distributes the TV shows for CBS.  Again. MESS.  Something really should be done to get Star Trek all under one roof, but as it is still a profitable franchise, neither group wants to relinquish their ownership rights to their half.  It is literally two different corporations with a stake in a long running franchise, both see the potential, but neither can seem to buy the other out or just give up on the whole thing.  And without Viacom and CBS re-merging?  Little hope to get it sorted for a while it seems.  It would be nice if the two created a new production house purely for all Star Trek products and split up the take 50/50...but seems a long way off with Viacom's issues at the top level, even if CBS seems to have their house in order. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kenman said:

Viacom is clearly a mess.  They've had all sorts of shake-ups and issues beyond just Paramount, but the hardest thing that many still struggle with...CBS and Viacom are NOT under the same tent.  It's weird, but according to Wikipedia:

"In 2005, Viacom divided into CBS Corporation, whose CBS Television Studios subsidiary retained the Star Trek brand, and Viacom, whose Paramount Pictures subsidiary retained the Star Trek film library and rights to make additional films, along with video distribution rights to the TV series on behalf of CBS."

There was talk of them re-merging, which most likely would've been good news for Star Trek, but it was called off.  So CBS owns Trek, and Paramount has the film rights (both the back catalog and for future films), CBS has the rights to make new TV/Web-based series, and Paramount distributes the TV shows for CBS.  Again. MESS.  Something really should be done to get Star Trek all under one roof, but as it is still a profitable franchise, neither group wants to relinquish their ownership rights to their half.  It is literally two different corporations with a stake in a long running franchise, both see the potential, but neither can seem to buy the other out or just give up on the whole thing.  And without Viacom and CBS re-merging?  Little hope to get it sorted for a while it seems.  It would be nice if the two created a new production house purely for all Star Trek products and split up the take 50/50...but seems a long way off with Viacom's issues at the top level, even if CBS seems to have their house in order. 

 

That's it, in a nutshell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this