http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hif0cfid-8UYZg4l9506vuVDx-eQD99MUC580

“”Its movie studio profits are also expected to fall despite blockbuster movies such as “Star Trek” and “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” Two flops, “Dance Flick” and “Imagine That,” hurt results as did fewer distribution deal releases.

This summer, it had one such release, DreamWorks Animation’s “Monsters vs. Aliens,” compared with three from last year, “Kung Fu Panda” and “Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa” from DreamWorks Animation, and “Iron Man” from Marvel Studios.”" – AP

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/movies/26itzk.html?_r=4

”That year[2005], the corporate behemoth Viacom, which owned “Star Trek,” was splitting itself in two, divorcing its CBS studio (which made the “Trek” shows) from its Paramount studio (which made the films). “Trek” was likely to go to CBS, where another television show might eventually be developed. Gail Berman, then the president of Paramount, convinced Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of CBS, to allow her one more chance at a “Trek” film; he gave her 18 months to get the cameras rolling or lose the property. (Under the arrangement CBS retained the “Star Trek” merchandising rights.)” – Dave Itzkoff, NEW YORK TIMES

A) UPN – the PARAMOUNT network—was one half of what has BECOME the CW. (WB being the other half). I SPECIFICALLY said that I had no idea what role, if any, Paramount still had in that regard—but my POINT was that having gone through the mess of a failed network once already, it’s unlikely that Paramount would go that route again… but then again, a larger, merged company MIGHT.

B) It is my understanding that CBS “owns” the original series (even this is not wholly accurate)—it does NOT own the right to SOLELY decide what FUTURE Star Trek series are created for television. But presumably, given the nature of the situation between Paramount and CBS in this regard, a co-production would also be a possibility, and possibly even be likely.

C) I was calling “naive” the idea that Paramount would not even THINK of a return to series television for Star Trek until two or three sequels were hugely successful and profitable. You said that. Furthermore, you referenced the performance of TMP as a partial support for your opinion, which I’m telling you once again is silly. TMP was produced in *1978* – some 31 years ago! The profits that film made are no more on the minds of Paramount now than the profits made by “The Maltese Falcon” were on the minds of Warner Bros. in the 1970s. That is just not how Hollywood thinks.

The fact is that today, media manipulation of a product in Hollywood is ultra-sophisticated, and if it was deemed that more profits could be made by doing so, the franchise WOULD not only go forward with more movies, but also return to television.

Paramount merging with another studio? What next? GM will become government owned and Chrysler will go bancrupt?

Oh wait…that happened.

Anyway, it would be wrong for Paramount to cease to exist.

When you call someone naive, it’s usually best to know a bit more about the subject you present yourself as an expert on.

A) What Sumner Redstone may want or not want is not the point. There are stockholders to answer to, and profits to be made and protected. Paramount is just another asset in that equation—or a liability, if its profit level is deemed to be insufficient.

B) The idea that a merger would “kill” Star Trek is silly. It’s one of Paramount’s major franchises. Money is to be made there, and until money is no longer made, the franchise will exist in some form. The question is WHAT form.

C) Equally silly an idea, however, is that a merger would be “good” for Star Trek. In the long run it probably won’t MATTER to Star Trek, except insofar as a merger might help to keep Paramount in business over the long haul. But in the short term a merger would probably be troubling for the franchise—mergers ALWAYS shake things up. That means heads will roll, faces will change, priorities will shift—and all this, in turn, means that the people who made this recent ST film so successful may not be there once the smoke clears. And that would throw the franchise back into dissarray. Now, it MIGHT come out of that okay—a new team might do just as good a job, or even better. But there’s no guarantee of that.

D) It seems to be forgotten by many here that the current “CW” was a merger of UPN and WB. I don’t know what, if any, holdings Paramount still has in that venture, but just because UPN went away doesn’t mean that it really *completely* went away. There’s little reason to think yet another TV network would result from a merger of Paramount with Universal OR SONY… in fact, it probably would make little sense. But then that’s the point in Hollywood—things are often done that make NO sense whatsoever.

E) This idea that the recent Star Trek film was not as profitable as TMP is a bit of a chimera. Decisions aren’t made in Hollywood on that kind of basis. Hollywood’s memory just isn’t that long. What matters is NOT what happened 30 years ago, but what happened LAST year. It’s all about “what have you done for me lately?” and “what was your last success?” In those terms, the recent ST film is a resounding success and you can all rest assured that Paramount, or a Paramount merger, will continue with pursuing that success. Whether it continues to work is another matter.

F) The idea that a studio would not sink resources into a TV show unless a film series does hugely well for two—or even three–successive entries, is, well… naive. The fact remains that Star Trek is still primarily a TELEVISION franchise. Now, that doesn’t mean that Paramount’s strategy might now be to move away from that and focus strictly on feature films. That’s possible; equally possible is that a merger could change that, as I said. But given the nature of marketing properties in Hollywood, I find it unlikely that any studio would so limit itself. If Star Trek is deemed profitable as a film series, then that’s what it will be. But if additional profit can be made from TV, then we’ll also see it return to television.

And I’ve made this point before—none of this means such a move would NOT involve the current “new” cast. It isn’t the old days when TV was viewed as less prestigious than film. Of course to some extent it still is—but the economics have changed, and the nature of film/TV careers have changed, where the distinction is far more porous.

The bottom line is that Star Trek is profitable, and it’s one of Paramount’s main franchises. This means it’ll never go away—but a merger might not do it a lot of good in the short term.