XPost: alt.tv.star-trek, alt.startrek, rec.arts.tv   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   anim8rfsk  wrote:   
   >Doc O'Leary  wrote:   
   >>Dimensional Traveler  wrote:   
      
   >>>He didn't dare aim any of that at Paramount, they were the ones paying   
   >>>him and would have canned his ass so fast the Earth would have rotated   
   >>>backwards.   
      
   >>Why do you think they have any investment in the Trek universe greater   
   >>than that of making a profit?  The pitch was to make a successful Trek   
   >>movie, not simply to do as he pleased.  There was just enough overlap   
   >>to suck the soul out of the franchise, to whatever extent the soul of   
   >>Trek still exists post-TNG.   
      
   >>Likewise, I doubt Paramount really cares that much about the   
   >>anachronistic token diversity that is being pushed in Discovery.   
   >>Someone was simply able to sell them on the notion that they’ll get a   
   >>larger audience (and thus larger profits) if they hype that angle.  And,   
   >>in the short term, that will probably be true.  But short term planning   
   >>is *not* a wise thing to do when you have a brand that you want to build   
   >>a lasting value.   
      
   >Does Paramount have anything to do with STD?  I thought they had the   
   >movies, and CBASS has the TV shows.   
      
   That's interesting. Paramount Television was re-instated in 2013.   
   The old Paramount Television (ex-DesiLu) was merged with CBS Productions   
   to become CBS Television Studions in 2006. All they've done that you've   
   heard of was production partner on Minority Report television series.   
   They have nothing to do with Star Trek.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)