Viacom COO To Investors: We Are ‘Very Excited’ About Star Trek Sequel

As a continuing sign of Star Trek’s returned importance to Paramount, it was again discussed in a quarterly earnings call with analysts today, with Viacom’s COO saying the company is "very excited" about the Star Trek sequel coming out in 2012. Details below. 


Viacom ‘very excited’ about Star Trek sequel

For the fans, Star Trek is an interest, a passion, a hobby, or even a way of life. But for Viacom (corporate parent of Paramount Pictures) Star Trek is a franchise brand and the good news is that lately it is again something to be touted to investors. In recent years Paramount has engaged in a strategy more focused on franchises, like Star Trek. As Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone said in today’s 3rd Quarter earnings phone call with investors Paramount has "a really rich pipeline of projects based on franchises and brands."

More specifically, on the same call Viacom COO Tom Dooley touted how these brands (including Star Trek) have helped recently in home video:

In the December quarter of last year, Filmed Entertainment benefited from the Home Video release of franchise titles Transformers 2, Star Trek and G.I. Joe.

Dooley also talked up the future, including Star Trek:

At Filmed Entertainment, as we look beyond fiscal 2011, we have a number of franchise films that we are very excited about, including Star Trek 2, G.I. Joe 2, the first film to be launched from the recently acquired Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise, as well as sequels to the Jack Ryan Series and Zoolander.

The news here is that only a few years after talk of "franchise fatigue" at the higher echelons of Paramount, once again Star Trek is playing a big role in the bottom line and the franchise-focused strategy for the studio.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Sad that I’ve lived to see the day when Star Trek is touted in the same press release as “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”; sadder still that the current take on Trek belongs there.

^ Good lord just give it a rest.

That Star Trek has become an important part of the Entertainment Industry’s economic engine can ONLY be interpreted as a good thing. It is interesting that now, as a successful pillar of a studio’s franchise framework, fans are writing nasty-grams. 40 short years ago, those fans were PLEADING with the network to save the franchise. We should revel that what we knew all along has finally been understood at the highest levels of Hollywood.


It’s all about brand recognizability, these days.

It’s less of a financial risk to invest in a brand that is recognizable enough to cut through through the noise that is many, many entertainment options we have nowadays.

Sadly, that doesn’t always speak to the quality of the product, as there have been many big money-making properties in Hollywood that are pretty awful and vice versa.

The latest Star Trek falls into the later category.

I’m just hoping the success of films like Inception gives Hollywood more incentive to take more risks on original ideas.

If you make a great product and market it right, the people will come.

I like how Zoolander 2 is in all caps.

@1 Then where does Star Trek belong? Forgotten and ignored where it was in 2005?


“I’m just hoping the success of films like Inception gives Hollywood more incentive to take more risks on original ideas.”



“1 Then where does Star Trek belong? Forgotten and ignored where it was in 2005?”

Forgotten and ignored by whom?

Hey, The Turtles are cool.

Inception was pretentious crap that wouldn’t even have broke even without those fx.

“40 short years ago, those fans were PLEADING with the network to save the franchise. We should revel that what we knew all along has finally been understood at the highest levels of Hollywood.”

Actually, they were pleading (or, in some cases, demanding) that the network renew what seemed to them a very cool TV show, not an entertainment franchise. Still, I get what you mean. But in fact the fans only mounted those letter campaigns after the show’s first and second seasons. When the quality of the storytelling fell off a clift during the third, there was no great effort on the part of the fans to see it renewed for a fourth.

Back then, the fanbase understood that any Trek wasn’t necessarily better than no Trek at all.

Zoolander? I am reminded of those “which of these doesn’t belong” thingies.

The only thing Hollywood has finally understood about Star Trek is how to make money from it. Lots and lots of money. Like it or not, it is showBIZ—with an extremely large emphasis on the “BIZ” part.

For those seeking a great deal of originality and creativity… hmmm… well, there are some indepedent movies… and books. Lots of books out there. :)

GI Joe 2? OMG!!!

sigh. Any Trek as GOOD (yes, I said AS GOOD) as ST 2009 is damn better than no Trek as all.

#9 you’re a dumbass.

Good for Star Trek and us fans. Bad for the film industry. A great film like Inception was only made because Nolan had built up Hollywood clout due to his Batman films. Most franchises are third-rate crap.

#1. There’s nothing wrong with Ninja Turtles, especially when it’s done right.

Inception was crap and ST 2009 rocked I cant wait until
Star Trek 2 :Something Something . comes out I already have a countdown clock on my pc.

17. Stargazer

Lol I too have the Star Trek June 29 2012 countdown……594 days to go…

#4 Proof’s in the pudding!

Star Trek 09 exemplified your quote “If you make a great product and market it right, the people will come.”

And they did!

2. Mr Fusion – November 11, 2010 “^ Good lord just give it a rest.”
3. Spock’s Uncle
6. Harry

All three of you, Hear hear! Star Trek could use more fans like you.

I am excited that Bob, JJ, and Paramount execs are saying the new movie story is exciting and cool.

I have to voice my passion because I am getting very sick and tired of the people insulting and degrading the new movie and you know who you are.

Star Trek is finally in the f*cking lime light and people are complaining. For years my friends know I adore trek and they hated it, because it was dull, and to be honest much of it is, but I love those dull nuances, and I have always wanted my friends to see in it the good which I see in it. Everyone I mean everyone I know who disliked Star Trek simply loved…no…adored the new movie and now love Star Trek and are going back to watch the past movies and series.

I want to know HOW ON EARTH IS THAT BAD?

How in hell can you pessimists of the new movie still spew word vomit bashing the new movie. How is it inherently awful when the new movie is making previous haters of the franchise go back and explore all that has come before. The new movie was not about ruing Star Trek, it was about bringing glory to it. You haters of the new movie may be happy with the majority of the population not liking Star Trek but I am not. All you look at is the Hollywood aspect of making big money and ignore the fact that it is making previous non fans go back and watch the old stuff. And yes Hollywood will benefit from that too, selling more DVD’s and Blu-rays. Yea money is an evil thing and it is destroying us, but you can’t save the world in a day, but where do you draw the line? So Hollywood makes more money, big deal, I will not stop my friends who previously hated Star Trek from exploring the old movies and series because the new movie has peaked their interest in something that is noble and good.

Being a lifelong Star Trek fan my defense for the new movie – and the entire franchise – will only get stronger the more you ignorant pessimistic nostalgics attack it. You have the right to say what you want but be ready for the consequences.

I wonder how much public attention Star Trek 2009 lost this year because it didn’t make any of the big movie networks (HBO, Showtime, Starz.) Instead, it went to the “1-in-25 get it” Epix network. Viacom might have gotten a nice deal from Epix, but I think keeping Trek in the public eye would have been more important that Viacom making an extra 2% on the cable deal.

Can you tell I am passionate?

Can’t say I am too excited about G.I. Joe – I thought it was just god awful – but TMNT, if its live action and not CG OMG I am jumping for joy. I grew up with the original cartoon and the three movies. I can’t say the movies are great, they certainly hold great nostalgic value for me but yet, would love a new live action TMNT, the things they could do today with it. :D :D :D

now its time for a new Star Trek TV show!

24. Frank Fischer – November 11, 2010
now its time for a new Star Trek TV show!



Why all the hate for G.I. Joe? Why so pessimistic? Can’t you realize that Joe is out there to save the world from Cobra, doing something good and noble for us? It was a great, action-packed movie. It didn’t bother with any of those icky, dull messages that make you think. And the movie brought in more fans to the franchise! How dare you voice an opinion and not fall in line with everyone else. There’s nothing wrong with sheep. There soooo cute!

Correction: They’re soooo cute!

#25 I disagree. A few more years yet otherwise we’ll be watering down the product again. And the last thing we need again is indifference.

Urk. I just don’t trust the people holding the money.

How could the CEO of Viacom keep a straight face when talking about a sequel to the awful GI Joe, a reboot of the TMNT franchise, and the worst insult of all to shareholders: the announcement that Zoolander is now a franchise. Are they serious??? LOL LOL LOL

I liked ST 2009, although some of the basic science got rather screwed up.

I thought GI Joe was awful. I’m always amazed at how really lousy movies such as that and transformers get green lighted for sequels.

There is more chatter about Indy5 now i see. Another money spinner for Paramount.


What have you heard about Indy, Buzz? The last thing I heard was months ago, something about Lucas having an “idea” for a story.

Indy 4 was a disaster just my thought it just lacked everything that made the previous Indy films so great:)

I hope this movie isn’t called Star Trek 2.

That is all I have to say.


Bleeding hearts of the world unite!!!

@ 33 news on Indy 5 is that Producers are fighting over the title

Spelberg wants Indiana Jones and the Comfortable Chair
while Lucas is demanding
Indiana Jones and the Burning Prostrate. :)

@ 20 Chadwick

Chadwick says, “Being a lifelong Star Trek fan my defense for the new movie – and the entire franchise – will only get stronger the more you ignorant pessimistic nostalgics attack it. You have the right to say what you want but be ready for the consequences.”

If I may paraphrase Captain Decker from ST: TMP, this is how I define an ad hominem attack. You say we have a right to speak but we should be ready fof the consequences. Should I be afraid? So, if I say something critical of Star Trek (2009) what are the consequences? Are you going to come to the basement and open a can of whoop a** on me? Will I get a shock from my computer? Am I going to suffer the wrath of Nero? Boy, now I see why Vultan prays for me.

Oh by the way, Roger Ebert criticized Star Trek (2009) He’s problably the most influential film critic in the nation. Does that make him “ignorant” in your words? And Ebert does like other Star Trek movies. (I’ve posted the “ignorant” Roger Ebert reivew of ST (200) and the smart Roger Ebert review of ST IV. below.)

I certainly hope you’re right about Star Trek (2009) leading others to love the TV show. But so far I’m not encouraged. When debating a new Trekker on this site, I cited “The City on fhe Edge of Forever” and “The Doomsday Machine” as great Star Trek. This guy then called the TOS as “talky-gooey”. He put down “City” as being farfetched since a social worker could never get that influential. I later pointed out that President Obama was a community organizer. He also said the “Doomsday Machine” as being about a giant blunt.

There could be a problem where the teenager new Trekker looks to Star Trek as being about loud and coloful action. (Ebert’s words) Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry’s vision. Yes the show had action and sex. But it was about ideas. Roddenberry’s ideas. Anti-racism. Aniti-war. A more secular society. Arms control, etc. But if you want to make Star Trek you must adhere to Roddenberry’s vision. Leonard Nimoy has said great Star Trek works on multiple levels. I distill the to three points. 1.) Heart. 2.) Adventure. 3) Intelligence. I certainly hope new Trekkers get it.

a. “Ignorant” Roger Ebert criticizes Star Trek (2009), soon to suffer Chadwick’s consequences. : ) .

b. Brilliant Roger Ebert loves Star Trek (1986) Seriously, this is a great review.

@ 23, 30

Wow, we can agree. First we love the Star Trek franchise. Second I agree with your assessment of “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.” It was awful. It was all non-stop action that pounded me into my seat. Stupid moments include leaders who can’t figure out that an arms company named MARS is only interested in propagating war. Hellllloooo, Mars was the Roman god of war, not a candy company. The acting was about shouting lines in a macho manner. And what about that fight scene between a young Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow in a kitchern where Snake grabs a bite of a biscuit between the pummeling? And why do the women dress in skin tight leather suits and the guys have real body armor? Okay, I get that last one.

Was there anything worthwhile? Yeah. The accelerator suits could become a reality. Raytheon has just made an “Iron Man” suit that gives the wearer extraordinary strenghth. You can find video of it on YouTube. Battle scenes looked like they used hundreds of extras. And of course, the lovely Rachel Nichols. She was in “Alias” and was the green Orion girl in Star Trek. (2009)

Unfortunately, it made a lot of money. Which means there’s going to be another one. Fortunately, they’ve hired the ‘Zombieland: writers. Let’s hope for more quality dialogue from these guys and some of that “Zombieland” wit.

#chadwick i see you point, i like you love must of the other trek (not voyager)and trek 09 has open up eyes to people who would never of even thought about watching star trek and if they then go back and watch the films and then watch some of the tv episode very good.i do have a few problems with trek 09 but having said that i have a few problems with most of the other trek films as well and that includes trek 6 which is my fav.

tv i would love to see another just please set in in the prime and not jj universe two reason that i can think of so far 1.i want to know what happend to the prime universe and 2 it mean jj ihands are not being tied in any way and he can do whatever he wants to

my last comment trek 09 show that if you put the ringht people in charge of trek it will works and i am not having a go at rick berman

I’m sure from a purely business stand-point, Paramount sees Star Trek as a franchise like every other franchise they own. They are probably not Trekkies of the caliber we see on these threads. For them, Star Trek is a money-making commodity. Therefore, I wouldn’t take insult that Star Trek is mentioned in the same breath as GI Joe or TMJT in a statement coming from Paramount. They are not going to talk about Star Trek like it is the only film that matters, cos to them that is probably not the case.

As for the ongoing Trek09-bashing, IMO it’s all water under the bridge. We all know and confess that watching a movie is a personal experience, and each individual will decide for themselves whether they like a film or not, and then opposite camps get into these pissing contests about who’s more “right” about Star Trek, including the revered Roger Ebert. The LA Times gave TFF a great review upon its release, then look what followed.
As people say about tv programming, if you don’t like the show you are free to change the channel. Star Trek today is what it is, and if you don’t like it, well… you don’t like it. If you like it, then you’ve got no crappy feelings to deal with.
Now and then, the sequels are better than the previous outings. “Alien” was a good film, and “Aliens” was even better. “Star Wars” was a good film, but (arguably) “TESB” was better. I could go on. We have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to believe the Star Trek sequel will not surpass the first, apart from being a completely irrational pessimist. I say, Wait for the movie to actually be written, filmed and released before spouting the venom.

I just hope they get excited enough to do a TV series.

Just sayin…

It doesn’t seem as if “Raiders” is a tentpole anymore, even after ‘Crystal Dull” made a gazillion dollars.

I was really hoping they’d give it another go before Harrison Ford has to call it quits due to age.

@38 basement blogger
i’m not sure that describing ‘the doomsday machine’ as “a giant blunt” is tos-bashing. it may be the funniest one line review i’ve ever heard.

as for ebert being critical, he’s been so far up his own ass for so long i only use him as litmus. if he hates it, there is a good chance i’ll love it. i.e., his contempt for “blue velvet”, a masterpiece, was high ignorance. i will credit him for hating nemesis though, but who didn’t?

i think you’ll find that fans who enjoy trek09 are capable of being critical. the positive reviews posted here, anthony’s included, were measured for the most part. can you begrudge us for being giddy after decades of embarrassment?

Maybe i’m just being nitpicky, but I don’t like this upcoming Trek film being called Star Trek 2. I’m sorry, but that title is reserved for The Wrath of Kahn.
I love this last movie! I saw it five times in theaters, and literally dozens of times at home on Blu Ray. But don’t forget what came before it.

“can you begrudge us for being giddy after decades of embarrassment?”

Decades? Really? So, presumably, episodes like “The Inner Light” and “The Visitor” were cause for embarrassment, but Trek 2009 makes for giddiness because it brought in bucketloads of cash? Well, it must be nice to be a Viacom shareholder, but sadly, I’m not–I’m just a lifelong Trek fan.

Just sing along…

Teenage Mutant Ninja Star-Trek, Teenage Mutant Ninja Star-Trek
Teenage Mutant Ninja Star-Trek
Heroes on a huge ship, BREWER POWERED!

Yep, it works.

ZOOLANDER should be the next Trek villain.

28. Buzz Cagney – November 11, 2010
Ohn a logical level I agree with you, I was drinking was excited. I don’t think a new Star Trek TV should come out any earlier than after the “third” new movie.

30. MJ – November 12, 2010
lmao good call.

31. Rich – November 12, 2010
I agree with you on both fronts, G.I was indeed poop in a can and Star Trek science was a little off :( but it is fiction, how real does it have to be?

48. Desstruxion – November 12, 2010
ZOOLANDER should be the next Trek villain.

lmao imagine that….no wait dont