ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Why is JJ Abrams directing the next Trek movie?

Tureaz'47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2605

Report this Aug. 11 2010, 4:22 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Actually, CBS and Paramount were briefly the same company.  When it was a joint venture CBS Studios was the movie arm, in conjunction with Paramount (all owned by the parent company Viacom).  Naturally, they acquired or had access to many of the properties that were once exclusive to Paramount.  They split back in 2005. So they would logically have access to all of that.

 

 

That is somewhat in error. CBS Studios did not involve themselves with movies, at least not theatrical ones.

 

Paramount Television was separated from Paramount Pictures and combined with CBS Television. Paramount Pictures remained Paramount Pictures, the movie studio, and remained under Viacom. The television portions were now under the reorganized CBS.

 

The two TV divisions were known for a while as CBS/Paramount television, but people were confusing Paramount the tv division with Paramount Pictures, so the TV side was renamed CBS Studios Inc.

 

Let Cynic321, a longtime meber here, give the explanation of how CBS came to own Star Trek:

"It started originally with Desilu (Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez's production company). Desilu made the ORIGINAL deal with NBC to broadcast their new tv show: Star Trek.

Which was bought by Paramount. Which owned Trek for decades. Although Paramount got bought by Gulf & Western

Paramount had originally thought to start a TV network 'Paramount Television Service' with Star Trek Phase II as it's cornerstone show.

When Phase II became ST the motion Picture, Paramount dropped the TV network idea. About 10 years later (1989) Gulf & Western became Paramount Communications.

Meanwhile, CBS created Viacom as a syndication company and spun it off into a stand alone tv show distribution outfit.

A few years later, Viacom's a powerhouse and ate it's parent CBS.

But Paramount had some winning programs of it's own, STTNG, STDS9, Arsenio Hall, Entertainment Tonight, etc...

Now Viacom buys Paramount which puts Star Trek with CBS.

Meanwhile

Then Paramount tries a hostile takeover of TimeWarner and fails.

TimeLife merges with Warner Communications to become TimeWarner.

TimeWarner buys Ted Turner.

TimeWarner lauches theWB and Paramount created UPN.

Meanwhile

Viacom/CBS sells CBS to Westinghouse. THEN Westinghouse changes it's name back to CBS. THEN a couple years later Viacom & CBS(the renamed Westinghouse) merge. (It makes NO sense, but it made money).

Next Viacom splits in two. (undoing the merger with CBS) And UPN (network) goes to CBS (network). 2005. ?In 2006, UPN and the theWB partner to create 'theCW'.

The left over Viacom is renamed CBS and holds 1/2 of 'theCW' and "CBS Paramount (Network) Television Distribution" (U.S. distribution) , "CBS Television Distribution" (international) ?& "CBS Studios International". (among many other operations)

The new spinoff Viacom owns (among other things) Paramount Studios, Paramount Pictures Home Entertain. Viacom also owns (through Paramount Studios) Dreamworks SKG (live action only) .

So the new Viacom owns Paramount and the Star Trek Movies, while CBS owns the TV shows. However-Paramount Home Entertain. distributes Paramount movies through CBSdvd.

And the whole kit-n-kaboodle is owned by 'National Amusements' which is owned by Sumner Redstone's two kids."

 

Think that covers it all...

 

 

 

 



That plot would do the "Borgs" head-in SB. LOL!

It's strange, being a catalyst for things that move outside.

Trau

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 322

Report this Aug. 11 2010, 2:22 pm

They were aimming at new commers, CBS wanted Abrams to make a new 'Star Trek' that would bring in new fans and he in turn threw a bunch of Trekky steriotypes together and made a Goulash of a picture that farr too many preexisting loyal fans fans found quite objectionable. CBS wanted Abrams to do with 'Star Trek' what FOX wanted Tim Burton to do with 'Planet Of The Apes'and ultimately he did - while FOX wanted to renew the franchise Burton damaged the franchise, Abrams did the same thing with 'Star Trek', it may well go on but it lost far, FAR more than it wil have gained.


For Abrams and Bad Robot it was a pay check - nothing more, if CBS wanted reliable quality they should not have looked at the success of 'LOST' and simply assumed he was the right man for the job.


As for demonising Rick Berman, everyone deliberately overlooks the fact that the guys at the Front Office were in the end the sole decision makers and they could (and ultimately did) overruled his decisions constantly.


Lets see you do something of quality with a commitee breathing down your neck saying, "no, you have to change all this because . . . " to you every day, dontcha think it might erode your creative fire year after year, season after season.


I expect Berman was relieved to be out of there- even if it meant fans would badger him about studio politics they knew nothing about.


 


"Savour the fruit of life my young friends, it has a sweet taste when it is fresh from the vine, but don't live too long - the taste becomes bitter after a time " DaHar master Kor 'Star Trek Deep Space Nine : Once More Onto The Breach'

blackshirt1701

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7

Report this Aug. 13 2010, 3:02 pm

I would not call them JJ followers as you call it, but I believe that a good part of the audience were just looking for a fun film to watch, does not mean they will be ongoing fans
but I believe that most of them will be back for the next. It had alot of action that all.

kmb035

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 91

Report this Aug. 13 2010, 5:29 pm

Because he is awesome and better than berman. Berman sucked and infused his crappy movies with technobabble and mindless dialogue of how data is trying to be human. Star Trek Xl is relatable, exciting, and most of all everyone liked it not just Trekkies. So please stop trying to bring back berman verse, and enjoy the new star trek. Berman is not coming back, I dont want to see a miniseries or a show with jonathon frakes in command of his ship. I cant stand that guy. Abrams forever 2012. woooooooo!!!!!!!

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Aug. 13 2010, 11:56 pm

Delete.

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Aug. 14 2010, 3:48 am

Trau Wrote:


"They were aimming at new commers, CBS"


Paramount.


"wanted Abrams to make a new 'Star Trek' that would bring in new fans and he in turn threw a bunch of Trekky steriotypes together and made a Goulash of a picture that farr too many preexisting loyal fans fans found quite objectionable."


Not at all.  Funny, there are about 5 naysayers who keep saying that there was supposedly a "huge number of Trekkies" that were supposedly "offended" by this film.  Yet, no one has heard of these supposed Trekkies, there is zero indication for this to be true.


"CBS"


Paramount.


"wanted Abrams to do with 'Star Trek' what FOX wanted Tim Burton to do with 'Planet Of The Apes'and ultimately he did - while FOX wanted to renew the franchise Burton damaged the franchise, Abrams did the same thing with 'Star Trek', it may well go on but it lost far, FAR more than it wil have gained."


Nope not really.  The film is the second highest grossing Trek film of all time and among the top rated Treks in franchise history.  So what more did it lose than those two prestiges?


"For Abrams and Bad Robot it was a pay check - nothing more,"


Yes, a Paycheck that the creative team gave up 2 and a half years of their life for.


"if CBS wanted reliable quality they should not have looked at the success of 'LOST' and simply assumed he was the right man for the job."


Regardless of your personal opinion, he was the right man for the job.  You can argue your own opinions and make up your own facts, but you can't deny box office revenue and fanfare (and please, don't come back with some tired line of how "Oh if it made this much money then it must be good" while ignoring the fact that a majority of the people who saw it really did think it was good.")


"even if it meant fans would badger him about studio politics they knew nothing about."


That's a bit ironic in light of most of your statement.

Somniac

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 462

Report this Aug. 15 2010, 2:12 am

Quote: kmb035 @ Aug. 13 2010, 5:29 pm

>

>So please stop trying to bring back berman verse, and enjoy the new star trek.

>


Shan't shan't shan't.


What other people think of you is none of your business.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: sonofspock1

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum