Paramount/Skydance Deal Runs Into New Snag, And Now Another Bidder Has Emerged

After a long road, it seemed like this might be the week when a deal was going to be struck for the sale and merger of Paramount Global, who controls the Star Trek franchise. However, there is a sticking point with the deal with Skydance, and a new bidding group has emerged.

Awaiting Shari on Skydance

Even after the exclusive negotiation window ended with Skydance Media at the beginning of May, talks had continued with David Ellison’s company and RedBird Capital, the private equity firm backing the Skydance bid. Things were looking up after news broke over the weekend that the special committee of the Paramount Global board overseeing deals recommended the Skydance bid after the deal was revised, which included offering regular (class B) shareholders an option of a 26% premium on their shares. While some media outlets jumped the gun in announcing the deal was done, it was still pending the key final decision by Shari Redstone, chair of Paramount Global and owner of a majority of the controlling (class A) shares. However, the annual shareholder meeting on Tuesday had no announcement about a deal, and, more ominously, an employee town hall event for the same day was postponed due to the “ongoing speculation regarding potential M&A.” That event has been rescheduled for June 25, possibly indicating an expected time when things will become clearer.

Even though a deal with Skydance was always seen as the one Redstone most favored, there have been reports that she was “displeased” with the latest version of the deal, which also included a reduction in the bid for National Amusements, her holding company. Redstone is also reportedly particularly concerned over shareholder lawsuits that could hit her personally, as the complicated Skydance deal would see her benefit more than other shareholders. According to the reliable industry newsletter Puck (UPDATE: And now also Deadline) Redstone now wants a provision calling for approval of the deal from the majority the other holders of voting stock. Redstone holds around 77% of the Paramount Global class B shares. She feels this will protect her from litigation; after she pushed through the remerger of Viacom and CBS in 2019, the company ended up paying out over $290 million in shareholder lawsuit settlements. And according to Puck, this issue could be the “breaking point” for the Ellison/RedBird team, who are concerned this vote could kill the deal.

It’s possible this can be resolved either through Redstone dropping this last-minute ask, or with SkyDance/Redbird indemnifying her over litigation and/or finding a way to ensure the support of the other class A shareholders. They have spent a lot of time crafting what would be a very complicated multi-step deal, so it’s likely they will try to find a way. Before this new sticking point emerged, they were already reportedly laying out plans for how Paramount Global would be managed, with Ellison taking over Paramount Pictures (merged with Skydance), RedBird partner (and former NBCUniversal CEO) Jeff Shell taking over as CEO of Paramount Global, and his RedBird partner (and former CNN president) Jeff Zucker stepping in to head CBS. Those plans will now have to wait for Shari to make her decision.

Skydance’s David Ellison at the premiere of Star Trek Beyond in 2016

Another bidder

Adding to the complication, there is now reporting that a new bidder has been talking to Redstone. Producer Steven Paul (known for the Baby Geniuses franchise) has assembled a group of investors to buy out Redstone, offering more than Ellison. The group of deep-pocket backers includes John Paul DeJoria, the billionaire co-founder of Patrón tequila and Paul Mitchell hair care products. In addition to offering more than Ellison, this deal would also not involve a merger, avoiding regulatory issues. However, it’s unclear what plans this group has for Paramount Global.

A number of other interested parties, including Sony/Apollo, would see Paramount Global split up, potentially turning Paramount into just a brand while the assets, and even the real estate, would be sold off to the highest bidders. That Sony/Apollo deal is still under consideration with due diligence ongoing. One of the reported reasons Redstone had favored the Skydance deal is it would keep Paramount (and her family’s legacy) relatively intact.

Go it alone?

There is always the possibility that Redstone won’t find the deal she wants with any of the potential suitors, and will decide to continue going it alone. This would be a challenge for the company without the capital of its media rivals and the burden of a large amount of debt. For their part, at the stockholder meeting on Tuesday the new “Office of the CEO” (comprised of CBS’ George Cheeks, Paramount Pictures’ Brian Robbins, and MTV’s Chris McCarthy) outlined a turnaround strategy that involves cutting $500 million in non-content costs—likely involving thousands of layoffs. They also made it clear that the streaming strategy is changing and they were looking to form a joint “significant” venture beyond just a simple marketing bundle. Paramount has recently been in talks with Comcast to form a joint venture with their Peacock streaming service, so it appears that or something like it is being planned.

They touted how the company will be focused on “billion dollar brands,” including Star Trek, which Robbins described as one of the “iconic properties” that occupies both film and television, noting how there is a new Star Trek movie “coming soon.”

From Paramount Global 2024 Shareholder Meeting

You can see Star Trek shown above and below during the presentation as both a past and future “billion dollar brand” for Paramount.

From Paramount Global 2024 Shareholder Meeting

During the online event, Redstone touted the new management trio, acknowledging it wasn’t a “traditional management structure,” and said she has faith they will “take quick action” in “driving value for all our shareholders.” Shari also came out to support the trio earlier this month at the premiere of the movie IF (see below).

Embed from Getty Images

In summary, the future of the company that holds the future of Star Trek in its hands is still in flux. As always, TrekMovie will report on the latest in business news that impacts the franchise.

Keep up with all the corporate news that can impact Star Trek here at

Notify me of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Producer Steven Paul (known for the Baby Geniuses franchise)…” should be a non-starter for any proposed deal.


Perish the thought. Finally, my Star Trek/Baby Geniuses crossover script might get the green light!

Clearly, Rascals just didn’t go hard enough.

You have one, too?!

Are we taking bets at what will happen first- filming the Kelvinverse 4th movie or this sale/merger of the company?

The odds of Paramount being sold or merging with another entity are 99.9%. The odds of there being another Kelvin movie are zero percent. The odds of there being a Star Trek Begins reboot movie are probably about 3%.

I pretty much agree with this.

And the Starfleet prequel movie was announced months ago. They supposedly hired a writer and director but zip on updates since… which has been the same pattern on multiple movies now.

If the studio gets sold, there is going to be yet another studio regime to replace the current one. They will start by cancelling all of the projects in development that the previous team had going. That is how Noah Hawley’s Trek movie died.

I’m hoping that’s what happens again.

We’ll get kelvin 4th movie in 2041 for the 75th anniversary , a remake of The Undiscovered Country with Michael Fassbender as Chang, Daniel Craig as Gorkon, Isabela Merced as Valeris, Michael Dorn as Worf and Cumberbatch back as (white long hair) Khan to spice things up abit so its not a complete remake

Is it wrong that I kinda want to see the movie you just described?!

I wrote that as abit of a joke, but I too would kind of like to see a final kelvin movie as a TUC reimagining complete with John Cho Sulu as Capt of Excelsior, Zendaya as Iman/Martia, Alice Braga as Azetbur, Courtney B Vance as Admiral Cartwright.and Alice Eve back as Carol. Not a full on remake obviously as CumberKhan would be there to fubar everything up (picking up on threads from STID). JJ Abrams could return to direct as in the words of Capt Shaw ‘you got us in this mess and your gonna get us out of it!’

The Studio’s future will help to determine what projects go forward.

Oh, god, this is really bad news, guys. I’ve met producer Steven Paul on set, and I didn’t like him. He’s arrogant and condescending, which is ironic since his films–Slapstick of Another Kind, The Double 0 Kid, Never Too Young to Die, The Musketeer, Opposite Day, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, Bratz: The Movie, Doomsday, Chilly Christmas, Tekken, Rambo: Last Blood, Dracula: The Dark Prince, The Painter, and Baby Geniuses–are pretty much all terrible. He’s considered a big joke in Hollywood because he makes low-budget shlock with terrible plots and lousy effects, often starring has-been actors. This is not someone who should be making Star Trek. No, no, no. Other than Ghost in the Shell, he’s never written, directed, or produced anything worth watching. He’s a hack and he won’t care about quality.

He’s a talentless hack who shouldn’t be let anywhere near a major studio. If Shari Redstone can’t come to terms with Skydance, there’s no way she’d let this guy anywhere near Paramount.

If it’s clear the company is going to be sold, we’re in Revlon territory, meaning that (Delaware) courts have held the directors’ duties is to maximize the value of the company, not to favor a particular white knight.

She has multiple options available, this wold be the worst path to take.

Chilly Christmas. Oh, man. And I forgot that Slapstick of Another Kind was one of his.

He’s never produced a good film and I can’t imagine Shari Redstone entertaining an offer from him.

“Angels and ministers of grace defend us!”

I remember reading a starlog interview with him about 40 years back and man, he sounded outrageous, like he actually expected the interviewer and readers to believe his line of bull. Then again, he has managed to survive and I guess prosper while making all that crap you cite above.

Paramount has got a lot of yin-yang going on, it seems to me. With the TNG blus, there was a second team doing some VFX on certain seasons that didn’t seem to measure up. Now, with major Paramount 4K UHD films being issued this year, we have two real biggies, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST and CHINATOWN, and while CHINATOWN apparently looks super-nice (done by the Par A-team, I guess), ONCE UPON A TIME is a degrained nightmare of a transfer crammed onto a small memory disc. Did the western get the ‘b’ team?

Leone shot on Techniscope which is exceptionally grainy. Other films shot on this process have been destroyed by DNR as well, American Graffiti by George Lucas is one of them. I’m sure They will also destroy THX 1138 if it ever gets remastered, and it will be the cartoon cgi one from 2004. Not the director’s cut from 1978 without the cgi.

After years of trying and failing to get into it, I finally saw THX a few years back and really enjoyed it — except for the ridiculous ‘cartoon’ aspects you cite. I really don’t understand the thinking behind Cameron and other folks trying to make films of a certain era look like they were shot yesterday by deballing the image. To me, it seems to be the road toward some future where somebody will decided to find detail in the deliberately black shadows of CITIZEN KANE and similarly massacre those really dark TOS moments in BALANCE OF TERROR and DAY OF THE DOVE.

Even Gil Taylor told Lucas he was shooting too soft on Star Wars, though to be honest I doubt Lucas was prescient about HD video, and when he came back to do the Blu-Ray and degrained and sharpened the image his intent had changed.

They want perfect for HD television even before 4K, now it’s an even more all-encompassing goal.

The industry doesn’t say let’s do catalog releases, we can give you the movie the way it looked. They want to improve them.

It kind of has been a thing really since HD reared its head, seeing details we were never meant to see in movies. And also in 4K, flaws are very noticeable, makeup and costumes. Wizard of Oz, they painted out the seam in the Cowardly Lion’s tail because why not, you couldn’t see it on a print in the 30s. Paint out the wires holding up Superman in 1978, because if they had digital back then it’s what they would have done.

When Lowry restored James Bond they wanted to make it look better than the original negative or at least the home video release as close to.

What goes on now is almost reinterpreting a film down to redoing them all in Atmos, HDR and Dolby Vision or DTS:X.

Star Trek The Directors cut 4k looks way cleaner than it has ever looked. Scanning the 65mm negative of Doug Trumbull’s effects in 8k and John Dykstra’s in 6k from the Vistavision resulted in a much sharper and cleaner image, but they also further cleaned the film with DNR. Its safe to say it never looked or sounded that way in the 1970s the Atmos mix that makes it as close to being there when Goldsmith was recording his score. My issue it looks like a movie shot digitally now, even the warmer more pleasing color palette looks modern. I loved the experience watching it this way, but it’s not at all reflective of how it looked.

I’ve actually avoided the director’s cut over this concern. I mean, I saw TMP several times in the theatre, but only one of those viewings was optimum (as in, with a cinema — a second-run house! — where they had a union projectionist and the image was properly bright), and while TMP had a very clean look (some opticals aside, like the bridge probe, which looked like you’re watching a movie in daylight at a drive-in), verging on sterile, it wasn’t video-ized.

GL’s ideal for SW look seemed almost schizophrenic to me. Documentary-like, yet diffused? I’m actually very glad Taylor went mostly the way the studio wanted, because I keep thinking the opticals would have been really messed up. I mean, can you imagine if they’d been able to do the gunport scenes with front projection like originally intended, and shot them with gauze?

Still, Taylor’s rep is a bit sullied going by getting fired on CONAN (Millius said his methods were ‘unsound’ — shades of Kurtz!), and I think he had a pretty healthy ego and had his nose out of joint when Kubrick gave him a camera test before hiring him on STRANGELOVE.

I do have to admit I’m not always a total purist for original look; my wife sometimes slips the TV to some kind of enhanced sharpness mode on movies and I don’t always catch it, though we are both adamant about never seeing anything in the mexican-soap-opera/no-blur look. In the main, I just really miss black shadows that don’t have needless visible detail within; there’s a richness to the old imagery that digital seems to shortchange (and to be honest, the later filmstocks all seemed to go more into this area as well, giving almost too much latitude. I guess I will always be a Kodachrome man at heart.)

Arrogant, condescending, despire bad work… So you’re saying he’s a Hollywood producer.

I know that’s the cliche, and it’s an amusing joke. But the reality is something different. I’ve met several competent people in this industry. They’re not all idiots. :)

I was gonna say that Ralph Winter seems a very decent sort based on a couple of interviews I’ve done with him (I certainly hope he isn’t the producer who takes pride in bankrupting vfx companies by forcing them to underbid their work.) And Bob Justman seemed like he was a pro’s pro.

A real gem of a guy I worked with a number of years who runs a major franchise is a great guy. His predecessor and other producers were also great. Very talented people with a real passion for their work.

Steven Paul? He’s made a lot of money over the years but there’s not a lot of passion behind his work.

It’s probably worth noting that Shari is pretty much obligated to look at any and all offers before rejecting them, so Steven Paul’s bid might not amount to anything despite her looking into it. Plus, after spending months trying to make the Skydance deal happen, I doubt David Ellison will give up now.

She’s obligated to “look at” then, yes, but if Paramount Global is in Revlon territory (and I can’t see how it’s not), the board has the obligation to maximize the short-term sale price.

I might actually go full Joker if that ends up happening. Anyone who prioritizes short-term profit over the arts needs to be wiped from the earth.

Anyone who prioritizes short-term profit over the arts needs to be wiped from the earth.

Out of curiosity:

1. Who decides what sort of art ought to be protected and what sort ought not?

2. If you’re so big on expropriating wealth, who is going to fund the arts? The Medici family was first and foremost a banking family; it used its wealth to finance its patronage of Da Vinci and Michelangelo.

In Star Trek terms, if you tell investors “you can’t safeguard your investment; we won’t demand boards act in your interests, and we won’t hold them accountable if they act in their self-interest,” then who is going to pony up all the cash to pay the likes of Chris Pine and Michelle Yeoh and Holly Hunter? Who is going to pay for all those VR walls and other special effects? It’s called “show business” for a reason.

The former Soviet Union was quite famous for theoretically providing a good life for artists and demonizing “short term profits.” In practice, the public got relatively formulaic art, at least from mainstream sources (the really noteworthy artists, e.g., Solzhenitsyn, lived on the fringes of the system). It also got next to no consumer goods and a miserable lifestyle: basically, the worst of both worlds.

3. Nothing is stopping you from forming a consortium to invest if you think you can do a better job than Steven Paul. Indeed, didn’t Richard Branson offer to self-finance a fifth season of Enterprise back in 2004?

Whatever happens, I hate that it’ll likely come down not to “what option will best preserve Paramount and its catalog as cultural institutions, and allow the greatest number of artists to produce their art, and make it and Paramount’s historical legacy preceding it as widely available to as many people as possible”, but rather “what option will best allow a small number of already-wealthy people to not only retain their wealth but accumulate more of it”.

Agreed! It’s heartbreaking.

Please Don’t Kill The Star Treks
We Need them to LLAP 🖖

And how is it that you determine who the greedy people are? You Are SUPPOSED to make money off a deal like this.

*I’m* supposed to make money from a deal like this? I’m pretty sure that’s not going to happen, no matter what.

I didn’t say anything about whether or not the stakeholders have the (legal) right to do what they can to accumulate more wealth, regardless of whether or not they already have enough. I’m just decrying the fact a body of cultural works, and the artists who make them and are dependent upon them for their livelihood, are of less consideration in this than whatever deal will best help a small number of people who can already afford X yachts buy Y more. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

So you think that the board ought to prioritize its artistic judgment over its fiduciary duties to shareholders?

YES. Shareholders are greedy pricks who don’t know the value of art and shouldn’t have that much power when it comes to entertainment. Screw fiduciary duties.

It is not unfathomable that, somewhere in your 401(k) or your company’s pension plan, you are exposed to Paramount Global — or if not Paramount Global, some other Hollywood studio. Should corporate boards be allowed to mimic Eric Cartman say “screw you, I’m acting in my own narrow self-interest, as opposed to that of the people whose interests I am supposed to represent”? Because that is *precisely* what you’re advocating…

It’s perfectly reasonable to lament the downfall of a storied institution that has so much history and emotional meaning to people, it’s why they changed the name of the company to begin with. Even Shari Redstone is obviously wrestling with some complex personal attachments, this is a messy process without precedent.

But to go into the business-end of things, I don’t know how much sympathy the Redstones and Class A voting shareholders really deserve at this point. The company has been mismanaged for decades. Prioritizing stock buybacks. Overseeing the downfall of Blockbuster (which had the chance to buy Netflix during this time). Turning down the chance to buy Marvel. Splitting CBS and Viacom instead of achieving scale. Multiple periods of alienating Hollywood talent with Paramount’s stingy budgets. The failure of UPN. The diminishment of MTV, BET, Nickelodeon and Showtime as powerhouse brands. Miscalculating the streaming wars. That’s a long list of unsentimental decisions that led to billions of dollars going down the drain. Now’s a fine time to talk about taking fiduciary decisions seriously.

That’s not the function of boards; they exist to enrich themselves and their shareholders. What I’m saying is that what’s good for that 0.0001% or whatever of humanity isn’t necessarily great for the remaining 99.9999% or whatever.

Not at all denying they have the legal right to run their business however they see fit to maximize revenue. I’m just saying it can suck for the rest of us.

DeJoria, et al are just a venture group with no vested interests in entertainment that I can find, so, this is probably the same as the Apollo deal: Everything Para gets sold for parts, but Shari gets more money.

I’ll believe something is happening when it actually does. What’s funnier.. JJ’s announcements of new Trek movies that never happen, or all these Paramount Deals that never happen?

Of course Transformers isn’t on the future billion dollar franchise things, it’s getting mismanaged by both Hasbro and Paramount. The Earthspark toyline is half assed and the show itself is being neglected in favor of movies. If actual care was being placed into it, it would stay a top franchise.

The Netflix series War for Cybertron trilogy was SO good. Shame they aren’t continuing that

We will have to disagree. To us it was just the same old story told yet again with terrible lighting. We liked Earthspark season 1 because it was a different take on the franchise.

I boycotted it because no Peter Cullen or Frank Welker because they wanted non union. No disrespect to the actors they did hire, but I can’t support that. Who goes we’ll make a G1 inspired series but not hire Optimus Prime. Its literally insane.

Guys, before we talk about talentless this & that. Let’s see what shakes out and who ACTUALLY ends up with Paramount.

Star Trek and the Taylor Sheridan “universe” are probably the only protected franchises. Anything else is endangered.

Fraiser too I think…and maybe top gun. Hope sky dance gets it best option to stay a studio not just in name like mgm:(

I’m not sure how protected Star Trek is under Paramount’s control. Five attempts at series and only one (SNW) is any good. The movies and series are still disjointed. Apple would never bother to buy it, but I wish Paramount would try to sell Star Trek to Apple. They do the best sci fi now.

Agreed, and I think the Taylor Sheridan Universe has by far, the biggest bargaining chip. Trek, far behind.

Money talks, regardless of opinions on quality. The spin-offs have been successful and highly prioritized. Paramount needs financial security, but Trek is better off here than almost anywhere else because all other potential owners have bigger franchises they’d care about more.

Netflix doesn’t, but it also is actively try to kill cinema, so I’m not exactly chomping at the bit for anyone to feed that beast.

I do agree Apple might treat Trek well, though.


You think SNW is the only good one? I don’t even think that’s the best of the current crop (I’d say that’s probably Prodigy). But honestly, I think most of the recent / current shows are good, with only Picard really questionable, and even that’s more of a very mixed bag than a flat-out completely terrible one.

Just give me DS9 in HD. Please. That’s all i want from u. PLEEEASSE!

I too would greatly appreciate this. I keep hearing it’s expensive.

Same here!

That’s all I’ve ever wanted. Would happily trade everything with the “Star Trek” name on it after Nemesis… for DS9 on Blu-ray. That’s all I need as a fan. DS9 and VOY on physical media, in HD, and I would have the optimistic, non-dystopian Trek world I miss in my home – on my big screen. The escapism I crave… and I would happily give up on whatever half-baked reductive recent output they have made or will make in the future.

Me too. I pretty much think 21st century Trek can take a long walk off a short docking pylon.

Mmm, I’d dearly love a careful, loving, TNG-style HD treatment for DS9; there’s no TV show in the world I love more… but honestly, at this point I love Lower Decks and Prodigy almost as much, and I couldn’t give them up entirely just to have the already-perfectly-watchable DS9 look better.

See, that’s the difference, cuz I don’t find ds9 anywhere near perfectly watchable; it is very emblematic of all those finished-on-video shows in the 90s that never looked even serviceable to me. Out of all my favorite series, it is the only one that falls into this category … THE PRISONER, TOS and DEADWOOD have had very good DVD and blu releases, CARNIVALE and SEINFELD look good streaming and on DVD (tho I’d certainly buy a blu if offered) and the litttle-seen UK series THE HOUR and THE GAME have solid blu and DVD releases, respectively. THE WIRE’s blu release is problematic only because of the aspect ratio issue, but that show is so amazing that I found myself not even noticing (which is super-rare for somebody like me.)

When I do watch DS9, I have to tweak the TV controls like crazy to try to squeeze a semi-watchable experience (at best) out of the stream or the disk, and it makes binge-watching impossible because I need to break out and see something that looks good after awhile.

It should also be noted that they have announced that there will be significant layoffs across Paramount. As someone who has friends at Paramount whose jobs are at risk, we should keep in mind that this is about more than just whether or not we’ll get more of our beloved Trek.

I recall when it was announced Disney would absorb 20th Century Fox, and so many Marvel fanboys were cheering because this meant Kevin Feige would take creative control of X-Men. The idea of losing a major studio’s independent agenda and thousands of jobs in the meantime didn’t enter into their thinking.

I do think Paramount Global assets will get sold off under Ellison, he will just wait a polite amount of time to do it and will cling to Paramount Pictures as dearly as did the Redstones. Paramount+ will almost certainly merge with Peacock or another service like Roku to take the heat off of their overhead.

The Skydance deal would be the best for keeping Paramount as a competitive company. The rest just want to sell it for parts, and that would be terrible for the employees.

Skydance is under no obligation to keep it together for very long, the silver lining with them is that they want to support Paramount Pictures.

Already it’s rumored WBD is greedily eyeing up CBS.

So funny that a paramount executive used the teaser poster for sonic featuring that wild original design.

this all reads like season 5 of Succession.

Steven Paul is a wrecker. Devil comes just at his left shoulder.

My god, what a mess. It’s really difficult to connect or relate to the financial struggles of hyper-rich one-percenters.

Paramount is a decent studio & worthy of decent money BUT, the ENTIRE film business is slowly falling prey to the streamers with MUCH deeper pockets and delivery platforms that the main target demographic of today LOVES. the theater experience is good and fun but for the 16 to 30 years old (the key demographic) they are now obsessed with VIDEO GAMING and/or the IPhones & streaming a film whenever and wherever they want to – seeing films in theaters is an experience now largely for the “dinosaurs” of our age ie; most folks over 35 and up.. this is the reality and facing it is hard to accept….. this new reality will greatly reduce the studios “book value” and result in the existing franchise IP’s and the library of films becoming the single most valuable assets at Paramount.. the studio real estate could easily become a museum tour attraction showing people how movies “used” to be made in what is now left of Hollywood. There’s a big shark right up the street from Paramount waiting for the price of Paramount to fall significantly and they’ll make an offer that wont be refused….

I think you know the name of this shark. Why won’t you share the shark name?

The theater experience is inconvenient and sucks, it is much better to enjoy a 4K UHD disc in the comfort of my home, I’ll only go to theater for a large format film or an Imax presentation. By the way I’m one of those older than 35 and unless its 35mm or 70mm prints, if its digital or isn’t some special film I’ll stay home.

Theater owners have destroyed theatrical movies. I don’t even get bothered by the idiots who talk and won’t shut off their phones anymore. Maybe because the theaters are 90% empty. What I can’t stand are the ads, actual ads and not trailers, before the movies. I can get Netflix and Disney+ on an ad-free tier. Why can’t I walk up to the box office and buy and ad-free movie ticket?

No Alamo Drafthouse in my city. The nearest one is 100 miles away. The rest are garbage. Why should I spend a penny to have ads inflicted on me? You show me ads, I pay $0. But even then I wouldn’t bite. I’d rather pay more money and lose the ads. I’m not poor, there just isn’t any theater around that serves up what I want to purchase. Oh well, my big screen at home works great.

I loathe the ads too. Unlike at home, you’re forced to sit through them. All that’s missing is the Clockwork Orange-esque eye gear. Last few times I was at the cinema there was about 30 mins of ads to sit through. Appalling.

Forced to sit through them? Who forced you to buy a ticket?

Ever heard of coming late to a movie? It’s not exactly difficult to figure out when the ads will end and the trailers start. Just about everyone has assigned seats now so it’s not like you’ll lose your seat.

Plus, you have a phone. Only time I’ve ever thought it acceptable to use a cellphone in a cinema is during the ads.

Assigned seating? Wow, it has been a long while since I have been to a theater for a traditional viewing I guess. The only time I ever remember assigned seating was back when I was 7-1/2 years old, seeing 2001 first-run in L.A.

Everywhere in big cities it’s assigned seats – you can pick weeks in advance. Went back home to the sticks last year and they’d instituted it as well.

Or I should say, “reserved seating” now that I look back at this.

What happened to TrekMovie on Facebook, I don’t see the page anymore?

I do. Must be an algorithm thing.

The next billion dollar franchise:
Baby Geniuses: The Next Degeneration

I favor the Skydance deal at least we’d get a 4th JJ movie. Here it looks like they’ll just kill Star Trek.

I still wouldn’t hold my breath we would get another Kelvin movie will Skydance unless the budget is way down.

I still think it’s probably seen as too risky.

Sell Paramount to the hair products guy, sell Star Trek to Apple, sell CBS to…someone who can keep it going and not turn it into a shell of its former self. The rest, meh. All we’re losing is reality TV, cowboy soaps and 1000 iterations of the tired cop show formula. It could vanish entirely for all I care.

Baby Geniuses is a franchise? Who knew?
Dexter a billion dollar brand? Dexter the Next Generation? Dexter branded kitchen knives and garbage bags?

Now Dora, I can get behind that.

Remember when people who made motion pictures in television, did it because they wanted to be in the picture business? Now they just want to be in the money business?

For anyone who cares, look up Red Letter Media on YouTube and watch their recent analysis of the “death” of the movies. Very good viewing.

This is also quite excellent:

This has really turned into one big mess. 🤣