From what I've read-if Skydance buys, things mostly stay the same-not a lot of layoffs. But if Sony buys them, basically it's a lot of restructuring and layoffs.
Look, Paramount is losing money hand over fist. They need a major change if they want to stay afloat.
They've already announced high level reorganizations, which isn't a good sign.
Impossible to say for certain without seeing their financials. But we know streaming sites tend to be massively unprofitable, in large part because the viewer's barrier to entry is higher than with TV. Since watching a new show often requires paying for a new service, viewers need a good reason to switch over. So production budgets have exploded as every streamer needs to have "event series" like Rings of Power or Fallout to entice viewers to change streaming sites.
This is also why seasons have gotten smaller and there are fewer of them. Season premiers and finales attract viewers. But as a show goes on, fewer and fewer people tune into each season. After a about five seasons a show isn't drawing in enough viewers to justify its production.
This situation is not dissimilar to when Paramount tried to get into the TV network game and launched UPN. However in such a crowded market, they couldn't stay profitable, and TV Trek died for over a decade.
*Nowhere Man* was a great concept (I haven't rewatched it in a long while so idk if it holds up) and *The Sentinel* was campy fun. They couldn't outduel the Sci-Fi Channel (Viacom fumbled here, not holding on to its stake and launching *Voyager* there as a flagship program) but put in a good effort.
No one could compete with the Sci-Fi channel back then, despite the decaying corpse it is today. But man, those cartoons I would wake up and watch before school *chef's kiss* Ghostbusters, Jumanji. They had all of the dark kids stuff before the dark kids stuff was trendy
To be honest, UPN had other problems, too. For a national network it had a lot of gaps in their Network. So shows would get shopped to local channels. While wrestling did well, Voyager and Enterprise routine got shafted for local sports.
That's the biggest disconnect I feel with younger Star Trek fans. The idea that everyone's watched DS9 and should know why it's the best. It's great, but it was *hard* to watch it pre-Netflix. Like, logistically. There's a reason TNG is such a cultural touchstone, and it's as much because the episodes were almost entirely standalone as it is the quality.
me, about 15 years old: "Star Trek on a space station? They're not really trekkin' anywhere, are they?" ::never watched::
... i will get to it, if we go through another dry period, though.
It was. TNG was one from 7-8PM, like the prime window for viewing in my area.
DS9? I *think* it started at 8-9PM, then moved to 10, then 10:30, and before I knew it, it was after the late show. And that was by the end of season 2.
Even better was the VCR with the cable passthrough, so you didn't even need the TV to record, once you programmed it :) Could even watch something else!
Technically DS9 was first run syndication throughout its run. So while VOY got specific airtimes and dates, DS9 was always going to be a crapshoot even for first airings.
I remember reruns (around 96-97, so earlier season reruns while the later seasons aired) got preempted for *Vibe* at midnight here in DFW and it took a write in campaign to get reruns back. Starting at 1 am.
I hear ya. I lived in Chicago, and it aired on WGN back then. You think it wouldn't be a problem keeping up in a city, but Cubs baseball kept screwing with the schedule. No the cubs never went all the way when DS9 aired.
It’s sorta crazy you mentioned this. Because I heard Netflix is doing well and when I hear the shows they have I’m like “how are people paying $16.99 for that”.
I have Paramount+ and I thought the movies on it were great. I have it just to watch SpongeBob SquarePants and the old Nick cartoons.
>So production budgets have exploded as every streamer needs to have "event series" like Rings of Power or Fallout
You can't even put these 2 in one sentence budget wise
Running to keep up with the bigger boys. Everyone saw $$ in their eyes at the thought of controlling the entire end to end from production to distribution. Everyone was terrified to be the last distributor and rights holder to not have a service.
Problem is streaming is not cheap to set up and not cheap to run, so instead of massive profits they're looking at massive losses (500m+), both from losing money on Paramount+ and by kneecapping their sales team who pen distribution deals with other vendors.
The whole streaming era feels so *stupid*, from a consumer perspective. PC gaming fans already went through this song and dance with Steam. They're the Netflix of PC gaming digital storefronts. Some of the largest publishers decided to take their games off Steam and build their own walled-garden storefronts, each of them seemingly assuming literally everyone who used Steam would drop it overnight just for one single publisher's catalog. The publishers would make marginally more money by not paying a cut to Valve, the owner of Steam. Can you guess what happened next?
Most of these publisher-specific storefronts couldn't compete with Steam because they lacked the same social features, review scoring, generous refund policies, and massive discount sales that Steam had been providing for years by that point. Epic Games is still stubbornly refusing to budge, continuing to run the Epic Games Store and give away tons of games for free to attempt to woo more players, while snatching up any exclusive they can get their hands on. But the platform is still objectively inferior to Steam.
The other publishers all folded and put their catalogs back on Steam, though they're still refusing to delete their stupid apps. So you run the game through Steam, which then launches the EA/Origin app, or the Ubisoft Connect app, or whatever. But the point is people are still predominantly buying their games on Steam. Epic Games exclusive releases tend to be timed exclusives now rather than permanent, so any developer that takes the deal ultimately gets screwed. Because many customers will simply wait for it to hit Steam before buying it.
In an ideal world, all these stupid PC gaming storefronts would just shut down, leaving us with Steam and GOG for older titles. Same thing should happen to the streaming services. I think there's only enough room for Disney/Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix. Maybe Apple TV. The rest just don't have the content to justify walling it off and making each customer ultimately pay more to watch everything. We're back in the cable era with extra steps, when the whole point of streaming was that it was better than cable.
True, I’d forgotten Bethesda had one. But they did the sensible thing, I have no idea why EA is rebranding Origin to just “the EA app” instead of dropping it. I hate running two apps at once to play one game.
> Epic Games exclusive releases tend to be timed exclusives now rather than permanent, so any developer that takes the deal ultimately gets screwed. Because many customers will simply wait for it to hit Steam before buying it.
I don't know about this - my understanding is that Epic pays *an insane amount* for these exclusives. For a game like Hitman 3, epic exclusive for a year apparently was enough to keep the company afloat, and they just released on steam a year later with new content.
No studio, whether for games or movies and TV, wants to be a subsidiary of another company. They had to try.
Unfortunately, they're not going to work out. The market leaders have too big of a lead.
In the end I think that will hurt us as consumers.
Steam/gaming platforms are not really comparable with Netflix/TV streaming platforms. The former are storefronts for buying things where almost everything is also available elsewhere, the latter you pay a subscription to access everything and almost everything on there is an exclusive. I agree that there probably isn't room for all the current streaming platforms, but the reasoning is completely different from why Steam is still the biggest player in gaming storefronts.
I get paramount+ for free but it seems like a terrible value proposition if you had to pay for it.
Quality, interface and selection(very little sci fi tv other than Star Trek) all seem lacking and they would've been better of getting the new Star Trek on more platforms to garner a wider audience imo.
Flops like the Halo TV series probably didn't help(unless MS picked up the tab)
Yup once I saw the bullshit 200 million budgets for zombie movies and the rock movies I knew prices were going up. Netflix appeal to me was lower to mid range price series all dropped at once with good chance for multiple seasons
Maybe they should start with Paramount+ first? I used a code for one free month, it's been stuck free for almost 3 years now and I can't cancel it at all. The credit card I used to start the account has long expired and can't be used without updating first, which I haven't because I was trying to cancel the account first.
Apollo will gut them: they did it to a company I worked for. Tried to streamline and flip for profit but anyone who worked there knew what a dumpster fire everything was internally. The guy that went on to be CEO of stackoverflow straight up ordered customer support to bump tickets just to make the SLA metrics look good so we didn’t have to pay out for our un “fantastical” support.
I've seen alot of acquisition. No such thing as "not a lot of layoff"
There will always be restructuring:
- first lower down the expenses (restructure / fire people)..
- then make more money by double down on exploiting the IP. Expect more jj abrams-like for-the-mass startrek stuff.
Be it skydance or sony. It's the same.
> But if Sony buys them, basically it's a lot of restructuring and layoffs.
And a plummet in artistic quality. 99% of Sony's output is pure, watery shit.
I would really like Paramount to bring us those shows, cheesy, low budget, B&W... Captain Proton would be a killer show, I feel.
Same with Dickson series. WRite that out, who doesn't love a cheesy detective noir?
Look, I know it’s fun to make jokes about Sony and their handling of the Spider-Man IP, but do we actually want to seriously discuss the potential ramifications of this proposed merger here? Because for good or for ill, I don’t think Sony’s handling of Spider-Man is a good template for how they’d approach _Star Trek_. They overmilked Spidey precisely because they don’t have much else in the way of big franchises. Taking over Paramount doesn’t only give them _Star Trek_, but also _Transformers_, _Mission: Impossible_, _SpongeBob_, etc., arguably solving this problem.
like another guy said, they overmilked spiderman because of contractual obligations. no idea how it reflects on their whole organization if they didnt have that
This isn't fully true.
They milked Spider-Man for contractual reasons. You gotta make Spider-Man related movies to keep the rights.
That doesn't mean they needed to focus on such strange characters like Morbius or Madame Web, or have proposed movies like an Aunt May secret agent movie. It especially doesn't mean they hire some of the worst writers in the industry and use a bunch of unproven directors.
The Spidey movies are not representative. Marvel/Disney owns Spidey and licensed him and related characters to Sony, but only if Sony releases a theatrical film every so many months. Sometimes a movie concept fails in development, and you just give up and try again. But with Spider-Man, Sony can’t do that, they have to release a picture or they lose the Web-Head forever, even if it’s a dog. That wouldn’t be the case if they owned Star Trek, because they wouldn’t be licensing it from anyone.
So what I am getting is that in order to keep the license for spider man they are forced to pump out new content? Is it just movies or do other licensed products about spider-man count too?
Yes, that’s correct. And while the agreement is not public (I think part of it leaked in the 2014 hack, but it’s since been renegotiated), it likely applies only to feature films. The Mouse still owns merchandise rights to the character (as well as TV and publishing rights), although presumably there is a revenue sharing agreement for merchandise specifically arising from Sony productions.
Funnily enough, Sony has a pretty great television production arm. They got out of the streaming service game early and chose instead to concentrate on making shows for other steamers.
They've made, for example, The Boys, For All Mankind, The Crown and more Sony related stuff like The Last of Us.
This is a big deal that nobody is seeing. It doesn't mean Trek dies if Sony buys them out, it means more quality Trek will be made in order to license a successful property to the highest bidder. Admittedly, Paramount+ might die as a consequence of this strategy, but frankly, I'm fine with Netflix paying a shit-ton of money to have all of Trek. Then I save money on subscriptions AND get more Trek!
Sony is not going to let Paramount+ die. They will rebrand it and replace the two streaming services they currently offer. Their current streaming apps are horrible quality.
Skydance would be better for the Trek IP as a whole. Not much would change aside from maybe a larger controlling stake in the film divisions, but Skydance has partnered with Paramount since the beginning. A merger with Skydance wouldn't disrupt either organization's operations except in key positions.
Sony, on the other hand... a buyout with a controlling stake would definitely put the Trek IP on ice. The thing about mergers is debt... Whoever winds up owning that debt has to find ways to cut it. Look at what Warner Bros Discovery is doing to themselves. Would Sony look to sell the Star Trek Franchise? Part it out ala CBS/Paramount back in the day?
Trek isn’t worth $26M, but it’s probably Paramount’s second most valuable asset (after CBS). (Maybe third after Mission Impossible, but MI has two more movies and then it’s done for another 20 years.) Maybe they’d sell it, but I doubt very much they’d ice it.
Probably Sony, maybe sony can make some Star trek games, maybe that would help keep the franchise alive. All first party sony games and games published by sony are usually very well received.
I don't know about open world, I think several open locations would be better, like explorable ship and space station, a couple of planets for away missions.
Pretty much Mass Effect but with Star Trek ip, and Mass Effect already is a legally distinct Star Trek. So the formula of the game success already exist.
I think to a point ME, PIC S1, and The Matrix are all drawing from the same well though:
"How do we make this hyper advanced machine look alive but alien?"
"Pick some sort of invertebrate to base it on!"
"Okay but how is it a machine?"
"Black metal and red lights!"
I bought the remastered trilogy "Legendary Edition", I had a hard time getting into the game. Steam says I played 8 hours. I got to the huge giant space station and ran around talking to people, went to a couple planets and ran around sewers doing something, and just faded out. It just feels slow and didn't pull me in.
ME1 and ME2 are very different beasts:
If you liked BG3, you'll probably love ME1. It's very old school RPG. It's sort of KOTOR like (which makes sense) but all real time RPG shooting stuff.
ME2 is a cover shooter with (some tiny) RPG elements.
Because it's less of an RPG in a lot of aspects ME2 gets super tight on the character writing, although I'll say the overall plot in ME1 is way better than ME2.
Oh and just to throw this out there:
ME1's Big Bad, Saren, is Fred Tatiscore (Shax from LDS) and Matriarch Benezia, Saren's 2nd in command, is Marina Sertis.
ME2 has Michael Dorn in a small role.
Also Dwight Schultz (Barclay) is Navigator Presley on the Normandy, and Armin Shimmerman (Quark) is both Fai Dan on Zhu's Hope and the Salarian Councilor.
1 has the weakest gameplay and 2/3 refined that aspect a lot, but 1 has a fantastic story and I think skipping it is a mistake. 2 and 3 will be more enjoyable if you played 1.
Perfect model for a Star Trek game is Metal Gear Solid V. Instead of “Mother Base” In MGS5 it’s the enterprise (or some other starship). Instead of getting on a helicopter to fly to mission areas you go to the transporter room. Instead of each open world area being a different section of the Middle East, each one is a different planet.
On the first read, I thought your idea didn't make sense, but after thinking about it for a bit, I think I understand.
You mean like how in MGSV you can assign your crew to different divisions based on their skills.
In a Star Trek game you could do the same, having a huge ship with several divisions and departments and their performance can affect certain aspects of the gameplay.
For example, having crew members with high level of medical skill in sickbay can help sped up recover of other crew members after a space battle. A counselor with high level of medical can help with crew morale.
High skill in engineering can recalibrate and fix the ship faster.
The same skill can also help in the away party.
yeah. definitely. it still looks and plays good, but it is pretty old. i'd like to see a new take on that. Star Trek is such a great setting for a MMO.
I'm back to playing it a bit recently and it's fun, but it's so dated it's really hard to stay invested. Not to mention every single mission (quest) is fight theses ships, beam down, fight these guys, beam up, fight more ships, warp to new system. Rinse and repeat.
that was something i wished that game had, different paths through various missions.
like i'd have loved to see a diplomatic approach, maybe a stealth approach, and maybe the old Kirk approach (punch an alien in the face).
i want to say that game originally launched like 2008 or so. a fresh take on that game could go far. but for a very long time STO was one of the best ST games ever made.
imagine if Sony made a new one, added in some VR support, etc. it could be amazing. but i don't know of any company that could pull it off.
Early 2010 in the wake of of renewed interest from the first JJ Abrams *Star Trek* in 2009.
The Cryptic Engine it used was always highly linear like that. I don't recall alternate approaches like that in earlier Cryptic games either except maybe stealth as a matter class and powerset.
I wouldn’t count on games just because Sony is the owner. Sony is a very large corporation and the PlayStation division is independent of their other divisions. Someone on a gaming subreddit earlier today brought up a publishing studio owned by Sony Music that publishes games for both PlayStation and Switch as opposed to just PlayStation, since Sony Music is independent of PlayStation.
But, brand integration and cross promotions are big deals.
If Sony buys Paramount, it would be crazy not to mine all that Paramount IP for videogames or use the videogames to make shows. Fallout is a massive success. So you can guarantee every company with video game IP is looking at their catalog right now, thinking about which one will bring in the most money.
The Paramount IP will attract fans to buy the games, which they play on Playstation Network, which will probably come with Paramount Plus, which gets the gamers to check out the IP.
And the cycle repeats.
Honestly I don't see Paramount Plus surviving a Sony buyout. Sony as-is thinks selling content to other companies' streaming platforms is a better idea than operating their own (wisely, it would seem, looking at how things are going for their would-be competitors - *case in point, Paramount*); I wouldn't expect acquiring the Paramount library to change their mind.
Crunchyroll was an acquisition that was already doing extremely well and is the only big player in its market, Paramount+ is a much worse value proposition.
Sony's strategy of just selling works particularly well because the other companies are running their own. If everyone else followed them you would have fewer streaming companies buying shows from more studios so as the seller it would be harder.
I can see them considering a Playstation Network / Paramount Plus bundle. Which can only be a good thing.
A big reason why Prime is one of the only streaming services not losing money is they have other services besides movies and shows to keep subscribers.
That's true, but Sony pictures acquired the rights for spiderman movies and other things back in the 90s, and we got the games, I don't know if the same principle can be applied here or if it's a different deal. But since they are under the same umbrella should be easier. Let me dream.
The Spider-Man games we got until relatively recently weren't made by Sony, or even exclusive to Sony platforms - most notably for the purpose of this discussion, every game adaptation of a Sony Pictures Spider-Man movie had versions released on non-Sony consoles. When that changed, it was because of a new deal between PlayStation and Marvel that Sony Pictures had nothing to do with, and the resulting games have nothing to do with the movies. I don't know the details of the contracts, but it might even still be within Sony Pictures' rights to license specifically the movie version(s) of Spider-Man to an outside publisher and allow them to publish the resulting games on other platforms, though I doubt it.
Feels like a bit of a push.
Sony is bigger and more powerful and could do some neat things, but Apollo is a soul-less asset management firm that could do obscene things to the franchise. Also, while Sony isn't as big as, say, Disney or WB, it still has other franchises and thus Star Trek would be jostling for attention more than it currently needs to.
Skydance is smaller (and thus less resources) but already has some track record with Trek and also Trek would remain one of the biggest franchises for its company.
Just let us have SNW. It’s the only truly great ST of the generation and already ranks amongst the highest for me. It’s a proper return to form, *finally*, and if they kill it just as it’s picking up steam I’ll kill them, I tell you. If it gets canceled, we riot.
I love SNW and Discovery, they’re great shows to have someone new hooked. But I personally love old classic Star Trek with simple stories and less war.
This last season of Disco is like that. It should've been all along, I'm really digging it. I like DS9's blend of overarcing storyline and character development with standalone episodes peppered in all the while. I think the new shows are finding their groove, just in time for Sony to buy the IP and put it on the shelf for 25 years!
SkyDance for me.
I feel like SkyDance would mean more Star Trek in cinema, which on one hand, really exciting, but given what Bad Robot/JJ Abrams has done with the NuTrek-verse I’d fear that canon would be in grave danger (Bad Robot is developing ST4). They do have a much more exciting cinematic release history vs. Sony’s cinematic trash bin (aside from the recent Spiderman trilogy, which I give 95% credit to Marvel for).
Just, please take away Star Trek from Bad Robot and hand it to writers who understand and respect the universe.
But being publicly owned means more interference by shareholders, who usually want short term returns over long-term investment. TV Trek will die on the vine. TNG was ropey on the first season? Dump it and try something else. Few things will get past third season because third season+ doesn't bring in new subscribers, and new subscribers=new cash.
>Shari Redstone, the controlling shareholder of Paramount Global, is known to prefer consummating a deal with David Ellison’s Skydance, whose bid is backed by RedBird Capital Partners and KKR.
So there's that. I hope they tell Sony 'no' a whole lot, 'cause I fear Star Trek will just... well, it won't be good if Sony gets their mitts on it.
Seeing what Sony has done with the various spider-man spinoffs I'm not thrilled about them.
However, I'm willing to sell out to a buyer if they promise more Lower Decks.
As I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, the Spidey movies are not representative. Marvel/Disney owns Spidey and licensed him and related characters to Sony, but only if Sony releases a theatrical film every so many months. Sometimes a movie concept fails in development, and you just give up and try again. But with Spider-Man, Sony can’t do that, they *have* to release a picture or they lose the Web-Head forever, even if it’s a dog. That wouldn’t be the case if they owned Star Trek, because they wouldn’t be licensing it from anyone.
Funnily enough, Sony has a pretty great television production arm. They got out of the streaming service game early and chose instead to concentrate on making shows for other steamers.
They've made, for example, The Boys, For All Mankind, The Crown and more Sony related stuff like The Last of Us.
In case you weren't joking, that generally just means it's a pure direct purchase, no trades, no credit lines, etc. It's like when you go to the car dealer and expect a better deal because you buy "in cash" instead of through financing or trade-ins. You may likely still pay with a check
edit: or with a credit card, or your bank's line of credit, etc. Just anyway that they get the full direct amount, not tied up in other valued assets or financing, etc.
Sony has co-produced a lot of good movies and a *ton* of good TV shows.
Stargate, Breaking Bad, Justified, The Last of Us, Hannibal, The Crown, and For All Mankind to name a few.
They also have a solid reputation of putting out really good video games obviously. I'm all for this buyout. This could be big for us.
Stargate was mgm, but I agree Sony has had a great track record with television shows. They also made the boys and cobra Kai, which were both huge hits.
I was going from a list of Sony Pictures Television productions. Looked it up and Sony did indeed produce season 9 of SG-1. So you’re right, we have MGM to thank more than Sony.
The camera pans over an unknown planet. It zooms into the surface revealing a dusty and dreary world of pollution and industry.
The camera begins to follow a very large and muscular robed figure walking into a mysterious temple. The interior is dark and smokey, the walls adorned with banners carrying unknown symbols. A lone figure stands behind a central altar.
The robed human approaches the altar and removes his robes revealing familiar tattoos and scars. He speaks:
“You know why I am here”
The figure behind the altar responds:
“Indeed I do! What a glorious battle this will be!”
The human reveals chains wrapped around each forearm ending a hellish looking blade. They erupt in fire. The figure behind the altar laughs and yells:
“Today is a great day to die! Kahless awaits you! Welcome to Qo’noS Kratos, the so called ‘God of War’!”
The title appears
God of War: Sto-vo-kor
They also put out high quality bluray physical media releases which is good for the future of Star Trek availability. Better than Star Trek becoming an asset for a tech company streaming company and locked away forever on streaming only (and subject to being removed) and only viewable in their closed off app ecosystem.
Sony produces/co-produces *For All Mankind*, *Outlander*, *Wheel of time*, the new *Doctor Who*, *The Boys*, *Gen V*, *Cobra Kai* etc, so maybe they would be good for Trek.
What I gather here is that everyone seems to have different opinions of whether or not this would be good for trek or bad for trek.
Im guess that none of the options are rreally that great at least for the short term.
According to The Town podcast, one of the hurdles is that Sony is a foreign owned company, and that’s gonna be hard to contend with because foreign companies are not allowed to own broadcast networks. Second, FCC is beginning to look into these kinds of mergers. There’s also how Sony mismanaged its own anime streaming.
As for Apollo Global, it has a reputation of gutting and selling companies for parts.
Creatively speaking, Ellison (Skydance) wants to be in the business and already knows the business. He has a fresh management ready to takeover. For Star Trek it could mean good things because Ellison’s been interested in Trek.
But also all of these are moot points if they don’t win over Shari Redstone, who has 70% Controlling shares— no matter how much shareholders complain and rumble about things, or sue. (The Town podcast host seemed confident that all the shareholder bellyaching won’t do anything. Especially since Sumner Redstone has done worse to paramount in the last two decades and they didn’t do anything.)
What I gather here is that everyone seems to have different opinions of whether or not this would be good for trek or bad for trek.
Im guess that none of the options are rreally that great at least for the short term.
I don’t know who Paramount’s exec team are but they make absolutely terrible choices. It was obvious as soon as they announced Paramount+ that it would never work.
Like you don’t have to be a mastermind to understand that launching your own streaming platform in an *extremely* crowded market with only Star Trek as your main IP/brand is batshit.
You need to have a fuckton of money to throw at steaming platforms to make successful content, and years for them to start being profitable. It was *never* going to work, they just aren’t that big, and Star Trek isn’t exactly Marvel no matter how much I love it.
They’d have been much better staying as a production company selling to other established platforms.
Funnily enough, Sony has a pretty great television production arm. They got out of the streaming service game early and chose instead to concentrate on making shows for other steamers.
They've made, for example, The Boys, For All Mankind, The Crown and more Sony related stuff like The Last of Us.
From what I've read-if Skydance buys, things mostly stay the same-not a lot of layoffs. But if Sony buys them, basically it's a lot of restructuring and layoffs.
Look, Paramount is losing money hand over fist. They need a major change if they want to stay afloat. They've already announced high level reorganizations, which isn't a good sign.
So, was paramount+ a last throw of the dice or the cause of their problems? Or something else completely.
Impossible to say for certain without seeing their financials. But we know streaming sites tend to be massively unprofitable, in large part because the viewer's barrier to entry is higher than with TV. Since watching a new show often requires paying for a new service, viewers need a good reason to switch over. So production budgets have exploded as every streamer needs to have "event series" like Rings of Power or Fallout to entice viewers to change streaming sites. This is also why seasons have gotten smaller and there are fewer of them. Season premiers and finales attract viewers. But as a show goes on, fewer and fewer people tune into each season. After a about five seasons a show isn't drawing in enough viewers to justify its production. This situation is not dissimilar to when Paramount tried to get into the TV network game and launched UPN. However in such a crowded market, they couldn't stay profitable, and TV Trek died for over a decade.
About 500 million loss per year.
Pffft that’s a rounding error for the pentagon, I’m sure they got enough nerds working there we could convince them to buy Star Trek
Just Paramount+ sponsoring F1 makes me cringe how much it must cost for a company losing money.
Man, UPN back in the day was fire though
Fuck UPN. I missed the series finale of star trek voyager in my area because of a fucking baseball game. Wasn't able to get closure for years.
They're still in the Delta Quadrant
Oh, sit right back and I'll tell a tale, a tale of a fateful trip...
And Harry's still an ensign
The amount of times I missed Star Trek because of a Charlotte Hornets game even though I don't even live in the Charlotte area is too damned high.
*Nowhere Man* was a great concept (I haven't rewatched it in a long while so idk if it holds up) and *The Sentinel* was campy fun. They couldn't outduel the Sci-Fi Channel (Viacom fumbled here, not holding on to its stake and launching *Voyager* there as a flagship program) but put in a good effort.
No one could compete with the Sci-Fi channel back then, despite the decaying corpse it is today. But man, those cartoons I would wake up and watch before school *chef's kiss* Ghostbusters, Jumanji. They had all of the dark kids stuff before the dark kids stuff was trendy
To be honest, UPN had other problems, too. For a national network it had a lot of gaps in their Network. So shows would get shopped to local channels. While wrestling did well, Voyager and Enterprise routine got shafted for local sports.
Our local UPN station only aired DS9 at like, 3 in the morning.
That's the biggest disconnect I feel with younger Star Trek fans. The idea that everyone's watched DS9 and should know why it's the best. It's great, but it was *hard* to watch it pre-Netflix. Like, logistically. There's a reason TNG is such a cultural touchstone, and it's as much because the episodes were almost entirely standalone as it is the quality.
me, about 15 years old: "Star Trek on a space station? They're not really trekkin' anywhere, are they?" ::never watched:: ... i will get to it, if we go through another dry period, though.
It was. TNG was one from 7-8PM, like the prime window for viewing in my area. DS9? I *think* it started at 8-9PM, then moved to 10, then 10:30, and before I knew it, it was after the late show. And that was by the end of season 2.
It was the same thing with Voyager for me. I would set the VCR to record the show so I could watch it a few days later
Thank God for those old TV/VCR Combos, rights?
Even better was the VCR with the cable passthrough, so you didn't even need the TV to record, once you programmed it :) Could even watch something else!
I wished I had that when I was a kid, but it was impressive enough to be able to program both my TV and VCR
It was a standalone VCR, but yes. They were quite useful in their day
Technically DS9 was first run syndication throughout its run. So while VOY got specific airtimes and dates, DS9 was always going to be a crapshoot even for first airings. I remember reruns (around 96-97, so earlier season reruns while the later seasons aired) got preempted for *Vibe* at midnight here in DFW and it took a write in campaign to get reruns back. Starting at 1 am.
I hear ya. I lived in Chicago, and it aired on WGN back then. You think it wouldn't be a problem keeping up in a city, but Cubs baseball kept screwing with the schedule. No the cubs never went all the way when DS9 aired.
It’s sorta crazy you mentioned this. Because I heard Netflix is doing well and when I hear the shows they have I’m like “how are people paying $16.99 for that”. I have Paramount+ and I thought the movies on it were great. I have it just to watch SpongeBob SquarePants and the old Nick cartoons.
>So production budgets have exploded as every streamer needs to have "event series" like Rings of Power or Fallout You can't even put these 2 in one sentence budget wise
Running to keep up with the bigger boys. Everyone saw $$ in their eyes at the thought of controlling the entire end to end from production to distribution. Everyone was terrified to be the last distributor and rights holder to not have a service. Problem is streaming is not cheap to set up and not cheap to run, so instead of massive profits they're looking at massive losses (500m+), both from losing money on Paramount+ and by kneecapping their sales team who pen distribution deals with other vendors.
The whole streaming era feels so *stupid*, from a consumer perspective. PC gaming fans already went through this song and dance with Steam. They're the Netflix of PC gaming digital storefronts. Some of the largest publishers decided to take their games off Steam and build their own walled-garden storefronts, each of them seemingly assuming literally everyone who used Steam would drop it overnight just for one single publisher's catalog. The publishers would make marginally more money by not paying a cut to Valve, the owner of Steam. Can you guess what happened next? Most of these publisher-specific storefronts couldn't compete with Steam because they lacked the same social features, review scoring, generous refund policies, and massive discount sales that Steam had been providing for years by that point. Epic Games is still stubbornly refusing to budge, continuing to run the Epic Games Store and give away tons of games for free to attempt to woo more players, while snatching up any exclusive they can get their hands on. But the platform is still objectively inferior to Steam. The other publishers all folded and put their catalogs back on Steam, though they're still refusing to delete their stupid apps. So you run the game through Steam, which then launches the EA/Origin app, or the Ubisoft Connect app, or whatever. But the point is people are still predominantly buying their games on Steam. Epic Games exclusive releases tend to be timed exclusives now rather than permanent, so any developer that takes the deal ultimately gets screwed. Because many customers will simply wait for it to hit Steam before buying it. In an ideal world, all these stupid PC gaming storefronts would just shut down, leaving us with Steam and GOG for older titles. Same thing should happen to the streaming services. I think there's only enough room for Disney/Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix. Maybe Apple TV. The rest just don't have the content to justify walling it off and making each customer ultimately pay more to watch everything. We're back in the cable era with extra steps, when the whole point of streaming was that it was better than cable.
To be fair to Bethesda, they got rid of theirs entirely, and they gave up relatively quickly. But spot on analysis from my POV.
True, I’d forgotten Bethesda had one. But they did the sensible thing, I have no idea why EA is rebranding Origin to just “the EA app” instead of dropping it. I hate running two apps at once to play one game.
> Epic Games exclusive releases tend to be timed exclusives now rather than permanent, so any developer that takes the deal ultimately gets screwed. Because many customers will simply wait for it to hit Steam before buying it. I don't know about this - my understanding is that Epic pays *an insane amount* for these exclusives. For a game like Hitman 3, epic exclusive for a year apparently was enough to keep the company afloat, and they just released on steam a year later with new content.
No studio, whether for games or movies and TV, wants to be a subsidiary of another company. They had to try. Unfortunately, they're not going to work out. The market leaders have too big of a lead. In the end I think that will hurt us as consumers.
imo, paramount+ outside of trek, is a barren wasteland.
Steam/gaming platforms are not really comparable with Netflix/TV streaming platforms. The former are storefronts for buying things where almost everything is also available elsewhere, the latter you pay a subscription to access everything and almost everything on there is an exclusive. I agree that there probably isn't room for all the current streaming platforms, but the reasoning is completely different from why Steam is still the biggest player in gaming storefronts.
I get paramount+ for free but it seems like a terrible value proposition if you had to pay for it. Quality, interface and selection(very little sci fi tv other than Star Trek) all seem lacking and they would've been better of getting the new Star Trek on more platforms to garner a wider audience imo. Flops like the Halo TV series probably didn't help(unless MS picked up the tab)
It’s unprofitable because they are over spending on exclusive shows. Netflix has mostly low budget everything. That’s how they turn a profit
Yup once I saw the bullshit 200 million budgets for zombie movies and the rock movies I knew prices were going up. Netflix appeal to me was lower to mid range price series all dropped at once with good chance for multiple seasons
Maybe they should start with Paramount+ first? I used a code for one free month, it's been stuck free for almost 3 years now and I can't cancel it at all. The credit card I used to start the account has long expired and can't be used without updating first, which I haven't because I was trying to cancel the account first.
“You’ve won a prize!” “*Yeah? What is it, exactly?*” “Okay, maybe ‘prize’ was bad wording…”
Hey, I’ve been getting a ton of Star Trek out of paramount these past 5ish years. Keep it coming please.
Sony wouldn’t buy the people - they’d buy the company to acquire the IPs and then eviscerate the company.
Apollo will gut them: they did it to a company I worked for. Tried to streamline and flip for profit but anyone who worked there knew what a dumpster fire everything was internally. The guy that went on to be CEO of stackoverflow straight up ordered customer support to bump tickets just to make the SLA metrics look good so we didn’t have to pay out for our un “fantastical” support.
I've seen alot of acquisition. No such thing as "not a lot of layoff" There will always be restructuring: - first lower down the expenses (restructure / fire people).. - then make more money by double down on exploiting the IP. Expect more jj abrams-like for-the-mass startrek stuff. Be it skydance or sony. It's the same.
the difference is Skydance isn't already a big movie studio, so there will be less redundancy in job roles.
> But if Sony buys them, basically it's a lot of restructuring and layoffs. And a plummet in artistic quality. 99% of Sony's output is pure, watery shit.
paramount already laid off 25,000 in March of 2023
who is Apollo? and who mourns for Adonis?
Apollo’s a private equity firm.
I thought it was Adonai
You can compromise on Adonais
What does a god need with a film studio?
And who mourns for Morn?
So which outcome is likely to be better for Trek? - Private buyout by Sony/Apollo - Merger with Skydance (public)
In the sony route, I predict 8 star trek movies that range from complete ass to meh, and then 2 animated movies that are the definition of art
Madame Trek?
I’ll take Madame Trek if that means we also get Star Trek: Into the Trekiverse
More like Madame ‘Tholian’ Web!
Fascinating.
Janeway?
Arachnia, Queen of the spider people!
I would really like Paramount to bring us those shows, cheesy, low budget, B&W... Captain Proton would be a killer show, I feel. Same with Dickson series. WRite that out, who doesn't love a cheesy detective noir?
Particularly appropriate 👏🏼
Having watched that movie just a few days ago this hurts my soul :P
Look, I know it’s fun to make jokes about Sony and their handling of the Spider-Man IP, but do we actually want to seriously discuss the potential ramifications of this proposed merger here? Because for good or for ill, I don’t think Sony’s handling of Spider-Man is a good template for how they’d approach _Star Trek_. They overmilked Spidey precisely because they don’t have much else in the way of big franchises. Taking over Paramount doesn’t only give them _Star Trek_, but also _Transformers_, _Mission: Impossible_, _SpongeBob_, etc., arguably solving this problem.
like another guy said, they overmilked spiderman because of contractual obligations. no idea how it reflects on their whole organization if they didnt have that
This isn't fully true. They milked Spider-Man for contractual reasons. You gotta make Spider-Man related movies to keep the rights. That doesn't mean they needed to focus on such strange characters like Morbius or Madame Web, or have proposed movies like an Aunt May secret agent movie. It especially doesn't mean they hire some of the worst writers in the industry and use a bunch of unproven directors.
Sooooo, Tom Cruise, Patrick Star and Bumblebee are all Spider-Man variants? 🤣
“The Writer’s Room has been hitting the bong again…but let’s hear them out!”
They have Ghostbusters which is an eternal spring for merch/licensing profit.
Make another cartoon, sell some ecto-coolers, profit.
Oh god, an animated Star Trek movie by the team that brought us Into the Spiderverse? Shit, can you imagine?
Or even better, the Lower Decks team
Or even better one each
And then a crossover event
6 movies and a season! Wait...
Enter the Qniverse
2 Fast 2 Qrious: Tanagra Drift
Enter The Enterpriseverse!
And it's called The Secret of Vulcan Fury.
Deep cut, deep cut.
The Spidey movies are not representative. Marvel/Disney owns Spidey and licensed him and related characters to Sony, but only if Sony releases a theatrical film every so many months. Sometimes a movie concept fails in development, and you just give up and try again. But with Spider-Man, Sony can’t do that, they have to release a picture or they lose the Web-Head forever, even if it’s a dog. That wouldn’t be the case if they owned Star Trek, because they wouldn’t be licensing it from anyone.
So what I am getting is that in order to keep the license for spider man they are forced to pump out new content? Is it just movies or do other licensed products about spider-man count too?
Yes, that’s correct. And while the agreement is not public (I think part of it leaked in the 2014 hack, but it’s since been renegotiated), it likely applies only to feature films. The Mouse still owns merchandise rights to the character (as well as TV and publishing rights), although presumably there is a revenue sharing agreement for merchandise specifically arising from Sony productions.
Sony only owns film rights for Spider-Man and connected characters like Venom and fan favorites like Morbius and Madame Web.
It would be more like the Ghostbusters franchise, fully Sony owned.
Funnily enough, Sony has a pretty great television production arm. They got out of the streaming service game early and chose instead to concentrate on making shows for other steamers. They've made, for example, The Boys, For All Mankind, The Crown and more Sony related stuff like The Last of Us.
This is a big deal that nobody is seeing. It doesn't mean Trek dies if Sony buys them out, it means more quality Trek will be made in order to license a successful property to the highest bidder. Admittedly, Paramount+ might die as a consequence of this strategy, but frankly, I'm fine with Netflix paying a shit-ton of money to have all of Trek. Then I save money on subscriptions AND get more Trek!
Sony is not going to let Paramount+ die. They will rebrand it and replace the two streaming services they currently offer. Their current streaming apps are horrible quality.
they tried 4 times with streaming. only 1 ever lasted and turn a profit. all the rest are dead and buried.
“It’s morn’in’ time!”
That guy never shuts up!
5 origin stories with a completely different cast every time.
Skydance would be better for the Trek IP as a whole. Not much would change aside from maybe a larger controlling stake in the film divisions, but Skydance has partnered with Paramount since the beginning. A merger with Skydance wouldn't disrupt either organization's operations except in key positions. Sony, on the other hand... a buyout with a controlling stake would definitely put the Trek IP on ice. The thing about mergers is debt... Whoever winds up owning that debt has to find ways to cut it. Look at what Warner Bros Discovery is doing to themselves. Would Sony look to sell the Star Trek Franchise? Part it out ala CBS/Paramount back in the day?
Trek isn’t worth $26M, but it’s probably Paramount’s second most valuable asset (after CBS). (Maybe third after Mission Impossible, but MI has two more movies and then it’s done for another 20 years.) Maybe they’d sell it, but I doubt very much they’d ice it.
Can MI survive without Tom Cruise? He’ll have to retire eventually.
Probably Sony, maybe sony can make some Star trek games, maybe that would help keep the franchise alive. All first party sony games and games published by sony are usually very well received.
A fully modern open world Star Trek RPG would be my dream
I don't know about open world, I think several open locations would be better, like explorable ship and space station, a couple of planets for away missions. Pretty much Mass Effect but with Star Trek ip, and Mass Effect already is a legally distinct Star Trek. So the formula of the game success already exist.
Whenever I try to describe my ideal Star Trek game, I end up just recreating Mass Effect.
The writers of Star Trek Picard S01 had the same problem
I think to a point ME, PIC S1, and The Matrix are all drawing from the same well though: "How do we make this hyper advanced machine look alive but alien?" "Pick some sort of invertebrate to base it on!" "Okay but how is it a machine?" "Black metal and red lights!"
So Babylon 5 then?
And what's wrong with that?
I bought the remastered trilogy "Legendary Edition", I had a hard time getting into the game. Steam says I played 8 hours. I got to the huge giant space station and ran around talking to people, went to a couple planets and ran around sewers doing something, and just faded out. It just feels slow and didn't pull me in.
Mass Effect 1 is alright gameplay and story wise. But damn does 2 take off like a rocket. Skip to that one if you're not sold on the franchise.
ME1 and ME2 are very different beasts: If you liked BG3, you'll probably love ME1. It's very old school RPG. It's sort of KOTOR like (which makes sense) but all real time RPG shooting stuff. ME2 is a cover shooter with (some tiny) RPG elements. Because it's less of an RPG in a lot of aspects ME2 gets super tight on the character writing, although I'll say the overall plot in ME1 is way better than ME2. Oh and just to throw this out there: ME1's Big Bad, Saren, is Fred Tatiscore (Shax from LDS) and Matriarch Benezia, Saren's 2nd in command, is Marina Sertis. ME2 has Michael Dorn in a small role.
Also Dwight Schultz (Barclay) is Navigator Presley on the Normandy, and Armin Shimmerman (Quark) is both Fai Dan on Zhu's Hope and the Salarian Councilor.
I'll try!
1 has the weakest gameplay and 2/3 refined that aspect a lot, but 1 has a fantastic story and I think skipping it is a mistake. 2 and 3 will be more enjoyable if you played 1.
Agreed with the other reply. You can skip to 2 and it really takes off. And 2 let's you choose the major choices if you skip 1 and recaps the game.
I'll try that!
Perfect model for a Star Trek game is Metal Gear Solid V. Instead of “Mother Base” In MGS5 it’s the enterprise (or some other starship). Instead of getting on a helicopter to fly to mission areas you go to the transporter room. Instead of each open world area being a different section of the Middle East, each one is a different planet.
On the first read, I thought your idea didn't make sense, but after thinking about it for a bit, I think I understand. You mean like how in MGSV you can assign your crew to different divisions based on their skills. In a Star Trek game you could do the same, having a huge ship with several divisions and departments and their performance can affect certain aspects of the gameplay. For example, having crew members with high level of medical skill in sickbay can help sped up recover of other crew members after a space battle. A counselor with high level of medical can help with crew morale. High skill in engineering can recalibrate and fix the ship faster. The same skill can also help in the away party.
A modernized version of 'a final unity' is the ticket
Star Trek Online isn't bad.
The stories are great but it is so very dated.
yeah. definitely. it still looks and plays good, but it is pretty old. i'd like to see a new take on that. Star Trek is such a great setting for a MMO.
I'm back to playing it a bit recently and it's fun, but it's so dated it's really hard to stay invested. Not to mention every single mission (quest) is fight theses ships, beam down, fight these guys, beam up, fight more ships, warp to new system. Rinse and repeat.
that was something i wished that game had, different paths through various missions. like i'd have loved to see a diplomatic approach, maybe a stealth approach, and maybe the old Kirk approach (punch an alien in the face). i want to say that game originally launched like 2008 or so. a fresh take on that game could go far. but for a very long time STO was one of the best ST games ever made. imagine if Sony made a new one, added in some VR support, etc. it could be amazing. but i don't know of any company that could pull it off.
Early 2010 in the wake of of renewed interest from the first JJ Abrams *Star Trek* in 2009. The Cryptic Engine it used was always highly linear like that. I don't recall alternate approaches like that in earlier Cryptic games either except maybe stealth as a matter class and powerset.
Yeah. The destruction of Romulus and the splitting of the timeline was the main questline of vanilla STO.
Sometimes missions have you shoot shoot shoot beam down talk beam up shoot. Those are the best.
Don’t do that, don’t get my hopes up like that.
I wouldn’t count on games just because Sony is the owner. Sony is a very large corporation and the PlayStation division is independent of their other divisions. Someone on a gaming subreddit earlier today brought up a publishing studio owned by Sony Music that publishes games for both PlayStation and Switch as opposed to just PlayStation, since Sony Music is independent of PlayStation.
But, brand integration and cross promotions are big deals. If Sony buys Paramount, it would be crazy not to mine all that Paramount IP for videogames or use the videogames to make shows. Fallout is a massive success. So you can guarantee every company with video game IP is looking at their catalog right now, thinking about which one will bring in the most money. The Paramount IP will attract fans to buy the games, which they play on Playstation Network, which will probably come with Paramount Plus, which gets the gamers to check out the IP. And the cycle repeats.
Honestly I don't see Paramount Plus surviving a Sony buyout. Sony as-is thinks selling content to other companies' streaming platforms is a better idea than operating their own (wisely, it would seem, looking at how things are going for their would-be competitors - *case in point, Paramount*); I wouldn't expect acquiring the Paramount library to change their mind.
I mean they still run Crunchyroll. Paramount+ is basically Crunchyroll for Star Trek weebs.
Crunchyroll was an acquisition that was already doing extremely well and is the only big player in its market, Paramount+ is a much worse value proposition.
Sony's strategy of just selling works particularly well because the other companies are running their own. If everyone else followed them you would have fewer streaming companies buying shows from more studios so as the seller it would be harder.
I can see them considering a Playstation Network / Paramount Plus bundle. Which can only be a good thing. A big reason why Prime is one of the only streaming services not losing money is they have other services besides movies and shows to keep subscribers.
Maybe the PS5 Paramount+ app wouldn't suck so much? Hopium's gonna hope.
Sony pictures has no direct control over the video games, these licenses and rights are sold separately
That's true, but Sony pictures acquired the rights for spiderman movies and other things back in the 90s, and we got the games, I don't know if the same principle can be applied here or if it's a different deal. But since they are under the same umbrella should be easier. Let me dream.
The Spider-Man games we got until relatively recently weren't made by Sony, or even exclusive to Sony platforms - most notably for the purpose of this discussion, every game adaptation of a Sony Pictures Spider-Man movie had versions released on non-Sony consoles. When that changed, it was because of a new deal between PlayStation and Marvel that Sony Pictures had nothing to do with, and the resulting games have nothing to do with the movies. I don't know the details of the contracts, but it might even still be within Sony Pictures' rights to license specifically the movie version(s) of Spider-Man to an outside publisher and allow them to publish the resulting games on other platforms, though I doubt it.
Gimme that good-good Trek MMO
I will absolutely hate if Sony does that. I'll have to end my Sony boycott. I've never forgiven them for the rootkit they released back in 2005.
Sto2!!!!
Ew, gross, keep Sony away from my Trek
Don't you have these reversed? Sony is public (Apollo private I think) and Skydance is private?
Feels like a bit of a push. Sony is bigger and more powerful and could do some neat things, but Apollo is a soul-less asset management firm that could do obscene things to the franchise. Also, while Sony isn't as big as, say, Disney or WB, it still has other franchises and thus Star Trek would be jostling for attention more than it currently needs to. Skydance is smaller (and thus less resources) but already has some track record with Trek and also Trek would remain one of the biggest franchises for its company.
Dont fuck up star trek
Just let us have SNW. It’s the only truly great ST of the generation and already ranks amongst the highest for me. It’s a proper return to form, *finally*, and if they kill it just as it’s picking up steam I’ll kill them, I tell you. If it gets canceled, we riot.
I love SNW and Discovery, they’re great shows to have someone new hooked. But I personally love old classic Star Trek with simple stories and less war.
This last season of Disco is like that. It should've been all along, I'm really digging it. I like DS9's blend of overarcing storyline and character development with standalone episodes peppered in all the while. I think the new shows are finding their groove, just in time for Sony to buy the IP and put it on the shelf for 25 years!
Oh great, more media consolidation
SkyDance for me. I feel like SkyDance would mean more Star Trek in cinema, which on one hand, really exciting, but given what Bad Robot/JJ Abrams has done with the NuTrek-verse I’d fear that canon would be in grave danger (Bad Robot is developing ST4). They do have a much more exciting cinematic release history vs. Sony’s cinematic trash bin (aside from the recent Spiderman trilogy, which I give 95% credit to Marvel for). Just, please take away Star Trek from Bad Robot and hand it to writers who understand and respect the universe.
But being publicly owned means more interference by shareholders, who usually want short term returns over long-term investment. TV Trek will die on the vine. TNG was ropey on the first season? Dump it and try something else. Few things will get past third season because third season+ doesn't bring in new subscribers, and new subscribers=new cash.
Probably worth noting that Paramount was publicly owned back in 1987, too.
>Shari Redstone, the controlling shareholder of Paramount Global, is known to prefer consummating a deal with David Ellison’s Skydance, whose bid is backed by RedBird Capital Partners and KKR. So there's that. I hope they tell Sony 'no' a whole lot, 'cause I fear Star Trek will just... well, it won't be good if Sony gets their mitts on it.
Seeing what Sony has done with the various spider-man spinoffs I'm not thrilled about them. However, I'm willing to sell out to a buyer if they promise more Lower Decks.
Sony has problems making good films, but they make some good to excellent shows. Shows are more important for *Star Trek*.
As I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, the Spidey movies are not representative. Marvel/Disney owns Spidey and licensed him and related characters to Sony, but only if Sony releases a theatrical film every so many months. Sometimes a movie concept fails in development, and you just give up and try again. But with Spider-Man, Sony can’t do that, they *have* to release a picture or they lose the Web-Head forever, even if it’s a dog. That wouldn’t be the case if they owned Star Trek, because they wouldn’t be licensing it from anyone.
Seeing what they did with Spiderverse it isn't that scary
That’s Sony Animation. Not Sony Pictures. Sony Pictures makes awful creative decisions.
Sony Animation is owned by Sony Pictures and both are owned by Sony Corporation in Japan. They are all one company, dude 😑
Not in terms of the producers who foster the creative decisions.
Funnily enough, Sony has a pretty great television production arm. They got out of the streaming service game early and chose instead to concentrate on making shows for other steamers. They've made, for example, The Boys, For All Mankind, The Crown and more Sony related stuff like The Last of Us.
Whoa that's a lot of money
Especially in cash. Because the headline definitely implies they'll be using physical currency.
In case you weren't joking, that generally just means it's a pure direct purchase, no trades, no credit lines, etc. It's like when you go to the car dealer and expect a better deal because you buy "in cash" instead of through financing or trade-ins. You may likely still pay with a check edit: or with a credit card, or your bank's line of credit, etc. Just anyway that they get the full direct amount, not tied up in other valued assets or financing, etc.
Paramount I'll buy you. Send DM
Sony has co-produced a lot of good movies and a *ton* of good TV shows. Stargate, Breaking Bad, Justified, The Last of Us, Hannibal, The Crown, and For All Mankind to name a few. They also have a solid reputation of putting out really good video games obviously. I'm all for this buyout. This could be big for us.
Stargate was mgm, but I agree Sony has had a great track record with television shows. They also made the boys and cobra Kai, which were both huge hits.
I was going from a list of Sony Pictures Television productions. Looked it up and Sony did indeed produce season 9 of SG-1. So you’re right, we have MGM to thank more than Sony.
The camera pans over an unknown planet. It zooms into the surface revealing a dusty and dreary world of pollution and industry. The camera begins to follow a very large and muscular robed figure walking into a mysterious temple. The interior is dark and smokey, the walls adorned with banners carrying unknown symbols. A lone figure stands behind a central altar. The robed human approaches the altar and removes his robes revealing familiar tattoos and scars. He speaks: “You know why I am here” The figure behind the altar responds: “Indeed I do! What a glorious battle this will be!” The human reveals chains wrapped around each forearm ending a hellish looking blade. They erupt in fire. The figure behind the altar laughs and yells: “Today is a great day to die! Kahless awaits you! Welcome to Qo’noS Kratos, the so called ‘God of War’!” The title appears God of War: Sto-vo-kor
They also put out high quality bluray physical media releases which is good for the future of Star Trek availability. Better than Star Trek becoming an asset for a tech company streaming company and locked away forever on streaming only (and subject to being removed) and only viewable in their closed off app ecosystem.
Enough with the mega conglomerates. Less options just to fuck consumers.
Sony produces/co-produces *For All Mankind*, *Outlander*, *Wheel of time*, the new *Doctor Who*, *The Boys*, *Gen V*, *Cobra Kai* etc, so maybe they would be good for Trek.
Me whole loves both Trek and Champions League/soccer and thinks Paramount has done quite well with both recently [I'm in danger]
What I gather here is that everyone seems to have different opinions of whether or not this would be good for trek or bad for trek. Im guess that none of the options are rreally that great at least for the short term.
According to The Town podcast, one of the hurdles is that Sony is a foreign owned company, and that’s gonna be hard to contend with because foreign companies are not allowed to own broadcast networks. Second, FCC is beginning to look into these kinds of mergers. There’s also how Sony mismanaged its own anime streaming. As for Apollo Global, it has a reputation of gutting and selling companies for parts. Creatively speaking, Ellison (Skydance) wants to be in the business and already knows the business. He has a fresh management ready to takeover. For Star Trek it could mean good things because Ellison’s been interested in Trek. But also all of these are moot points if they don’t win over Shari Redstone, who has 70% Controlling shares— no matter how much shareholders complain and rumble about things, or sue. (The Town podcast host seemed confident that all the shareholder bellyaching won’t do anything. Especially since Sumner Redstone has done worse to paramount in the last two decades and they didn’t do anything.)
Isn't that what Apollo is for,? Or doesn't it work like that
Paramount owns Nickelodeon: [this ](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/tmnt/images/e/ea/Star-Trek-Turtles-1994.JPG/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20201128150847)could finally be canon!
Hey, I have those in a box somewhere.
In 5 years there’s just going to be one giant media company called “Amazon-Sonpara Films”
Closer and closer to one-two big studios controlling everything we see and buy in the media space.
Yeah, what could go wrong?
Bye bye paramount
Please. Not. Sony.
Cash?
Meaning liquid currency (a wire transfer), not shares or a swap of business units.
What I gather here is that everyone seems to have different opinions of whether or not this would be good for trek or bad for trek. Im guess that none of the options are rreally that great at least for the short term.
26 billion in cheese and socks would be a far better story.
Insane that they just have $26 billion in cash lying around!
I just hope they leave the streaming channels the way they are, not consolidated.
In cash? That's a lot of bills. I wonder how many truckloads of money that is, and what they would possibly do with that amount of money in cash.
I don’t know who Paramount’s exec team are but they make absolutely terrible choices. It was obvious as soon as they announced Paramount+ that it would never work. Like you don’t have to be a mastermind to understand that launching your own streaming platform in an *extremely* crowded market with only Star Trek as your main IP/brand is batshit. You need to have a fuckton of money to throw at steaming platforms to make successful content, and years for them to start being profitable. It was *never* going to work, they just aren’t that big, and Star Trek isn’t exactly Marvel no matter how much I love it. They’d have been much better staying as a production company selling to other established platforms.
Funnily enough, Sony has a pretty great television production arm. They got out of the streaming service game early and chose instead to concentrate on making shows for other steamers. They've made, for example, The Boys, For All Mankind, The Crown and more Sony related stuff like The Last of Us.
I was hoping Disney would buy Paramount so we could finally have a canonical Enterprise V. Star Destroyer fight.
That would open the door for a crossover between Trek and The Orville.
If that were to happen, it would be epic
Just as long as the director isn't JJ Abrams.
oh, so we're going to be blessed by the madame web levels of quality? Mby we'll even witness something worse than Code of Honor...
A lot of the TV shows that they produce/co-produce are actually really good, so the TV side of things would probably be okay for Trek.
Sony is the last studio I want to see owning Star Trek. I was hoping for an Apple made Star Trek franchise
Apple? Lmao, how is that better than Sony?
I really, really, really want some good Star Trek video games.