Paramount Pictures, which holds the exclusive rights to produce Star Trek feature films, could be merging with another major studio, possibly Sony or Universal. The news comes from the latest issue of Barron’s, where a major fund manager (and one of Viacom’s big shareholders) talks about what he is hearing going on with a possible ‘studio consolidation.’
‘Something Going On’ at Paramount
The cover story for the latest Barron’s Magazine has a roundtable of Wall Street experts predicting what is next for the market. Included in this roundtable is billionaire investor Mario Gabelli, founder and CEO of GAMCO Investors, and an investor in Viacom (Paramount’s current parent company).
On Viacom, Gabelli states:
Sumner Redstone controls Viacom through the A shares, which we own. We also own the B shares, which are more liquid but have fewer votes. There are 610 million shares, and the B shares trade for 23. I have been following this company for 36 years. Sumner took control in the mid-1980s. Viacom owns cable networks such as MTV, and Paramount Pictures. Today there are seven or eight motion-picture studios. A round of consolidation will occur in the next six to 12 months because of the costs of financing, prints and advertising, the benefits of globalization and such. We hear talk of something going on. Paramount will merge with someone — maybe Sony Pictures or Universal Studios. This year Viacom could earn about $2 a share, going to $2.40 next year. It could be a 20% grower for three or four years. It sells for 6.5 times Ebitda, and capital spending is de minimis. The company is a terrific cash generator and the balance sheet will improve. They might buy back stock.
What affect this would have on the Trek franchise is not known. Throughout its 43 year history, the Star Trek franchise has been through a number of corporate restructurings and merging, starting back in 1967 when Desilu (the original owner of Star Trek) was sold to Gulf+Western (Paramount’s parent at that time). More recently (2006), Viacom split into two companies (Viacom and CBS), with CBS becoming the official ‘owner’ of the Star Trek brand, with Paramount retaining the rights to the film franchise (both the film library and rights to produce future films). Since then Paramount purchased and then sold off DreamWorks SKG.
By forming into a larger studio, Paramount would have access to greater assets, which could help with large projects, like Star Trek sequels. For the latest Star Trek film Paramount had brought on a financing partner (Spyglass). On the flip side, Star Trek would have to compete in the newly merged studio for resources and possible release slots. So if Paramount were to merge with Sony, this could affect the release dates of the Star Trek sequel (targeted for Summer 2011) and Spider-man 4 (which is now slated for May 6, 2011). A combined studio would likely want to put some room between those tentpoles to avoid competing with itself.
There is also always the factor of a change in management. The current Viacom and Paramount leaders (Philippe Dauman and Brad Grey) have been very pro-Star Trek and especially pro-JJ Abrams. The studio’s current strategy is to put a bigger emphasis on its franchises, including Star Trek. A big corporate merger could always result in new priorities and strategies, which may affect how the new entity deals with Star Trek.
As of now, this talk of merger is just talk, but TrekMovie will continue to follow the story and provide updates as more info is made available.
Lets hope for the best with Paramount and Star Trek
This would be due to multiple factors, not the least of which would be the current state of the economy.
Woah. This will be interesting.
This would be the biggest thing to happen to Paramount and Trek since it’s acquision by Viacom.
Star Trek + Universal Studios = STAR TREK BACK IN THE THEMEPARKS BABY.
I miss the days at Universal Studios Florida where you could get a VHS tape of yourself “in” a Star Trek movie (greenscreens and whatnot), and I guess there was a live-action thingy at Universal Hollywood?
I just hope this will be to Trek’s favor, in the long run.
I’m a bit confused here… would this mean simply a merger of operations, or a corporate merger of Viacom with another conglomerate/movie company?
Will we finally get the Star Trek/James Bond crossover we’ve been dying to see?!
They should do a Star Trek / X-Men crossover, like they did in the comics!
OK, maybe not.
Hmmm…. as a Viacom employee, I’ll very definitely be waiting for news on this one with FULL anticipation…
Baaahhhh….
I don’t like this one bit……I can’t see a Trek sequel happening if a merger happens. I can see another Les Moonves coming in killing the franchise stating that Trek didn’t make the kind of cash that Spiderman 2 made globally….
As long as Trek benefits, I’m a happy camper.
It’s not another Studio, it’s the government. They have themselves a car company, now they want a movie studio.
Government Pictures in Association with White House Productions Presents: STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF REPUBLICANS
“LIMBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH!!!!!!!!!
Star Trek 2009 – RIP 2010/11
My gut says that the franchise is now dead due to a possible merger….it is doing great at the BO…if someone like Moonves comes in they will kill it, making similar statements like it doesn’t fit their priorities/vision….
It wouldn’t make sense…
I HATE Les Moonves for killing Enterprise….
A trek sequel will happen, rest assured. Its made over $225 domestic.
Paramount Universal? I like. Now bring THE EXPERIENCE to Florida!!
225 Dollars Domestic ??? Still more than what Nemesis made….lol….
I would rather have Universal than Sony however….
13. That’s hilarious!
Oh no, Paramount and Universal merging, we’ll never get Region 1 Six Miliion Dollar Man DVDs now.
Star Trek’s problem is CBS not Paramount/Viacom. The rights to Star Trek need to get out of CBS’s hands and given to a company that actually cares about it. Perphaps, depending who they merge with, Paramount would be in a postion to buy the complete Star Trek rights back from CBS since they have the right attitude about Trek.
Paramount – Universal = Battlestar Enterprise!
Paramount – Sony = Peter Park Kirk !
Paramount – MJM = StarGate Voyager!
Paramount – BBC= Kirk Who?
Maybe this will help Star Trek: The Experience get started sooner.
We can only hope.
I have ZERO faith in entertainment mergers, as almost all have resulted in less diversity of programming.
#22
Nice deduction
As for my own
Paramount-Universal = Back to the Enterprise (oh no!)
Paramount-Sony = The adventures of Captain Sulu and his pink starship
Paramount-Fox = Star Trek: 24
Paramount-no merge = the same crap we’ve been getting for the last 100 years
As long as they do not mess with Trek and the big sucess they are having i could care less. But mess with trek badly and they will deal with all of of Trek Fans. Will not be pretty.
Frankly, for the first time in ages, I’m actually happy with almost every aspect of Paramount’s handling of Star Trek. The advertising was fantastic as was the movie and choices made regarding it. The only downfall was international marketing. I HOPE AND PRAY that a merger will only help with the international marketing and they will allow things to continue as is for future Star Trek’s here in the U.S. I’m not sure which would be better, Universal or Sony…however, Fox would be a BIG mistake!
So wait. Paramount isn’t in any trouble. The company is fine, right? Financing bigger movies works also with other production companies or even studios (like Warner Brothers). So it’s again just a consolidation so that the shareholders are happy and the investors get their 25% profit margin? Didn’t we agree that such a behaviour is… um… well… bad?
^24. Yep. I’d hate to see Paramount become just a logo, like New Line has become little more than an alternative brand for Warner Bros.
It’s sad that studios think they have to merge to have access to money. How about making more good movies that make money? Relying a one or two tent-pole spectacles a year to pay for everything has turned into a very repetitive cycle, literally. Everything is franchises and remakes and reboots. Everyone is risk-averse and making “safe” films. Blah.
I hate to break it to everyone, but studio mergers are NEVER good for the status quo and are never good for the “house franchises.” Now, it’s ludicrous to say there won’t be a ST sequel—the movie made just too much money and that’s the one thing Hollywood gets a hard on about—money. But Abrams might not have anything to do with it, if his supporters at Paramount are ousted. And/or, some new faces would come in, not understanding what made this latest film so successful, and completely f**k up the formula.
But Magic_Al, I’ve got news for you—ALL the studios are merely “logos,” and have been for decades. None of these studios are anything like what they were back in the glory days of Hollywood, when each had their own distinct identity. But the fact is that BACK in those days, Paramount wasn’t one of the true biggies. It wasn’t in the same league with RKO, MGM, Universal and Warners. (Even Warners was a junior in that quartet at the time). Neither was 20th Century Fox. Paramount’s stock and stars rose as MGM’s fell and RKO and other studios bit the dust. But eventually all any of the studios became were financing units, with some in-house production still maintained, depending on the studio.
I don’t know much about the current management at Universal, but it seems like the company has done well by its OWN long-lived franchises (one of which being horror) at least in terms of keeping them alive, if not in film. SONY, on the other hand, I feel would be terrible for Paramount. But SONY has more money, it seems to me. But then on the other hand, Universal is NOT just “Universal,” it’s GE and NBC. And it’s the biggest of the extant studios. But what great film has it done lately? I can’t think of one.
Bottom line is, a merger would be a mess. And Star Trek would probably suffer.
30…
I agree…..and then we will se Berman and Braga retain their rightful hold, control and vision of their Star Trek brand….
The day that comes is the day that Star Trek dies….again….
gaahhhhh……..spare me the suffering……no more Berman and Braga Trek please…..VOY and ENT sucked….
So did GEN, FC, INS and NEM
30.
I also agree with that assessment. I can just imagine – if there is a merger, we might end up with Star Trek directed by Uwe Boll. Because that’s how little importance Star Trek would have in a new merged studio.
Really guys, step away from the crazy sauce. Uwe Boll?! It’s hard to fathom how Trek would have “little importance” to a studio when it’s the highest grossing movie of 2009 thus far and has such a dependable demographic. We’re talking an original series reboot, not Enterprise or another lesser spinoff.
Thanks Randall for a more level-headed, realistic assessment. i for one hope this is all talk and possibility. Do the optimistic words of Paramount regarding it’s strategy a month or so ago provide some kind of prediction about whether this merger will happen or not?
If there is a merger it will end Like the AOL/TimeWarner merger,
With the two parties seperating down the road .
Someone will someday come up with the bright idea of a theater chain using only digital projection. No cost for prints to the studio[other than the DVDs, about 20 cents a pop]. Better pictures onscreen, DVDs don’t wear out.
Filmmakers can continue to shoot on film if they desire, but shooting digital is far less expensive and easier to edit and is really pretty much there when compared to the quality of film. With this studio/distribution/exhibition setup of the future [yeah, this is all coming sooner or later] things could be a lot rosier financially for studios.
Universal! Anyone remember when you could be IN a Star Trek movie at Universal Studios! It was so fun!
If Paramount is bought out or merges with another studio as a whole subsidiary, this is one of the best times for that to happen, because the Star Trek franchise has now shown itself to be GOLD for any company that owns it. If this news had come a year after Nemesis, I’d be more worried that the suits would try to bury it.
Did they not try a Paramount & + Universal Studios thing before, I think it was called UPN. Anyone remember that Network.
I use to watch it when they had Enterprise, Now locally in Denver Channel #20 is mostly a subset of KUSA channel 9 and Nine News which is rebroadcast on Channel #20 and the only time it really gets watched is when NBC football over runs a regular program or some other sports show does and the bumped show moves to #20.
Anyone think UPN could make a rebirth as a network if they got a Star Trek show again?
My bet is if a new Trek series started WGN (or KWGN in Denver) would grab it first. At least they can aford their own NEWS staff and show.
Not to worry, Trek is too well-established as a franchise, and the numbers the movie is turning in convert to dollarsigns in ‘executivese’. Since studios simply view the publish as a revenue source, they will definitely feed the public another Trek.
It will go forwards, not backwards. Trek has the advantage of being open-ended as a franchise, unlike Hairy Potter and LOR, so there are more stories to tell.
Also, a studio merger will result in a different approach to the marketing of Trek, perhaps some will be innovative. Outside of the comics properties (Batman/Superman/Marvel), Trek is one of the oldest (read: inculcated) cultural entertainment properties around. It is so deeply embedded in the American psyche that it cannot be ignored as a moneymaker, regardless of which studio ‘owns’ it. Reinvigorated by ST2009, it would be foolhardy for a transformed Paramount to ‘drop’ it.
One thing that I know, Sumner Redstone would never sell Paramount to another studio! He built Viacom with Paramount Pictures as his capstone foundation. To sell Paramount, Mr. Redstone would be reducing Viacom to its former self of just a holder of cable networks, ie. BET, MTV, etc. Mr. Redstone has a huge ego!
I don’t see Paramount merging with Universal – because NBC owns Universal Studios, and there is a lot of cross-pollenation going on with CBS/Paramount TV distribution, CBS Studios (which produces a lot of shows that air on NBC), Universal TV distribution (which produces a lot of shows that air on CBS)…frankly, just thinking about it makes my head hurt.
I could see Sony spinning off Columbia Pictures and Parmount merging with Columbia. But not with Sony proper. That wouldn’t be a merger so much as an outright purchase from Viacom. A Sony/Viacom merger would be absolutely huge, but this juggernaut would probably collapse under its own weight.
@40 – UPN was actually the United Paramount Network, which had nothing to do with Universal (although IIRC UPN aired some shows that were produced by Universal Television). And a local marketing agreement (or LMA) between two stations really has nothing to do with whether they air certain shows or not. Lots of local stations either have LMAs or are O&Os of certain networks (in this market, KTVT and KTXA are both owned by CBS, so if a special program airs on KTVT, then KTXA airs CBS programming).
I don’t see Paramount getting back into the TV network business – it didn’t work out so well for them the first time, and the TV landscape has become so fragmented that another traditional network would simply sink. In fact, I could see certain networks in certain markets moving to digital subchannels (in fact, it’s already happened in markets like Beaumont, where the ABC affiliate, KBMT/12, airs NBC programming on digital subchannel 12.2, and the CBS station, KFDM/6, airs The CW on 6.2).
If a new Trek series is done, it’ll probably be done by CBS, since they hold the TV rights, but where it airs is a matter of huge speculation right now.
TREK is the 9th highest grossing film in Paramount history!. Whomever takes control would be insane to mess with that cash cow now!
I Universal took control they must incorporate the Enterprise orbiting their logo!
Man, one thing is clear. When Trekkies go extreme they GO EXTREME. It’s not the glass is half empty or half full. It’s the glass being half empty is a ruse and it’s actually bone dry or the glass just appears half full, it’s actually so full the glass IS water.
Yeeesh.
#41. Despite its fantastic box office rebirth, Trek still has a lot to prove.
It still has not made as much money as TMP did at the box office and may not. That is not to say it is not as successful if not more. However, remember TMP was the culmination of 10 years of anticipation without Trek in any form (not counting TAS). ST09 is also the culmination of anticipation after a decade without a popular Trek and almost 20 years without TOS. There is a huge nostalgia factor with ST09 just like there was with TMP, which still may have sold more tickets. At this point it is too early to say whether Paramount has attracted new fans to Trek, or produced an exciting Summer thrill ride. Certainly the brand name is likely to invoke positive reactions for the next Trek, but depending on what else is at the box office and whether ST11 can deliver the same experience or loyalty is still a question mark.
Paramount only moved forward with a new series after 4 very successful and profitable TOS films. There is no guarantee that rushing into another TV show will benefit from this one’s box office success, especially if it does not showcase the same actors playing the same characters. And, as with the original TOS movies, Paramount and CBS will want to make sure that the franchise is profitable and not simply a one-off thrill ride fluke. Also, Abrams has not proven himself a successful feature sequel producer yet. He’s had many failures in TV and all of his successful series have all started high and dropped by over half their initial ratings by the series’ end. Then there’s the historical franchise pattern at the box office following which sequels tend to trend less earnings than the original which spawned them. ST11 will have to earn as reasonably well as it did a second time and maybe even a third, before a studio would even consider investing the significant resources required into bringing a TV version of the feature to a network.
If there is a new series it won’t be for at least 4 more years, following an equally successful sequel.
The naivete I’m hearing from all sides on this topic is downright amusing.
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.
I hope so that George Lucas will buy Paramount, and then Mr. Sulu finally have proper lightsaber instead simple folding sword. :D :D
Star Trek is a hit but Image That is a major bomb for Paramount. No way Paramount would dump Star Trek.
#47. Paramount has nothing to do with the CW or producing Star Trek for TV. CBS owns both. Whatever merger may happen with Paramount and studio “X”, CBS is unlikely to lose control of Star Trek, nor will such a merger likely affect what plans if any CBS may have for a Trek-based series.
When you call someone naive, it’s usually best to know a bit more about the subject you present yourself as an expert on.