More like the streaming service is expensive and the recent strikes impacted their television / movie pipeline.
Apple and Amazon, to use two examples, survived because their studios aren’t a huge chunk of their business. Disney also has merchandising and their theme parks to weather the blows.
Paramount Global generates cash. The have a mountain of debt. But they were able to pay that down by $1B last year while still paying a dividend.
If you read the article, you'll understand a complicated situation with a holding company called "National Amusements". They own the majority of voting shares for Paramount.
NA is badly underwater with debt issues.
https://disclosure.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/type/HTML/id/3180225
It’s goes in depth in the second half of the article. They went all in on a streaming service just before the streaming boom retracted, among other questionable attempts at expansion and hesitancy to sell off assets when they received offers. Under the regime before that, they spent a lot of money re acquiring their own stock rather than growing the studio.
which Paramount's majority shareholder, Sherri Redstone, doesn't want to see happen. She wants the company her family built to stay in one piece and not split up and sold for parts
>She wants the company her family built to stay in one piece and not split up and sold for parts
The company her dad bought. No one named Redstone was involved in the creation or running of the movie studio Paramount Pictures.
The movie studio Paramount Pictures went bust, along with all the other movie studios save Disney, in the 60s.
Adolph Zukor founded the movie studio Paramount Pictures. He sold it to another company, Gulf + Western, also not a Redstone company, in 1966.
You're not talking about a company, you're talking about a brand another company bought.
If they separately sell the 1 or 2 parts of the company that are most valuable, they may not be able to sell the other parts, or will at least need to very, very steeply discount the other parts. If the company is sold as a whole or in large bundles, it's more likely they can force buyers to pay a little premium for the less attractive parts of the business.
Oh I agree they should sell it together. They just shouldn’t concern themselves with how or if the buyer will split it up. Not doing a deal for the whole company because you don’t want to see it split up is bad business
FTC will block that. They nearly had a deal several months ago before the FTC stepped in. Sky dance would have averted an antitrust problem. Maybe they will come back.
If it was blocked then i think unless Paramount finds an alternative eventually it will be accepted if Paramount get worse.
I feel like Sky Dance is to small to be bought by anybody unless they get merged into something bigger first.
I didn’t know things were that bad at Paramount. Sky Dance isn’t a super huge company so if they almost managed to acquire Paramount then it must be almost at bankruptcy level.
Their streaming service is losing money. Less money than the year before and it is improving, but the math appears to seem like several more years of loss before breaking even. If Redstone is willing to eat the loss for a few years, which she can afford, then nothing will happen and all of this paramount news is just media bluster to raise the stock price.
Sky dance is a small company but their owners are very wealthy people. They would have become the new owners if the deal went through. They also make high quality films that consistently perform well at the box office so the potential is great.
So is Paramount only losing money because of streaming? Then there is an easy solution for that but they will never do it.
If the owners of Skydance are very wealthy i think they should wait a few years to see how Paramount goes before acquiring it. They would get a lot of ip our of it though and Skydance could easily use that to become a much bigger company.
Skydance is kids of one of the ten wealthiest men in the world playing around with daddy’s money, after he’s spent everything he wants on his sailing obsession (which includes a Hawaiian island). I’m not sure that short term losses are something they’re concerned about.
Skydance just need to take their time with this because it could either make it a much bigger company or destroy the company.
They wouldn’t want to just buy a company that is losing money quickly unless they have big plans to turn it around.
They might. It’s hard to say. It’s unclear why the deal fell apart.
I personally think Redstone won’t sell even if she is losing money and even after all this media. The power of controlling one of the large streamers is greater than can quantified and it’s not losing enough to affect her for a long time.
I mean…Paramount does have plenty of handy assets like Star Trek.
On top of that, Skydance has worked with Paramount before - not only including Star Trek via the Kelvin Timeline films, but also the juggernaut that was Top Gun: Maverick.
You don't rack up 14 billion in debt from just one thing but streaming was supposed to be the way forward and has been arguably the biggest play all these companies have made so it drives engagement to talk about it.
Reality was streaming wasn't supposed to make money for years and years anyways.
Where are you hearing that? I saw that P+ was expected to be profitable Q4 2024 - early 2025, which puts it on track to reach profitability faster than D+ did.
Obviously, Paramount isn't doing great, but their streaming arm seems to be one note of future sucess.
"Paramount Global hit 67.5 million Paramount+ streaming subscribers worldwide at the end of its fourth quarter, a gain of 4.1 million from the previous financial quarter.
The Hollywood conglomerate, with its future the subject of mounting speculation on Wall Street, on Wednesday said it expected to deliver “significant total company earnings growth” in 2024, and reach profitability for Paramount+ domestically in 2025."
Yes, but their numbers support it and other analysts have suggested profitability will hit sooner, like Q4 2024.
The fine line in that statement is their citing of worldwide subscriber numbers but qualify profitability as "domestic".
If any profitability statement has to be qualified for it to be true, that probably means its profitable on paper only.
Also, if they don't shout the actual profit amount from the rooftops, that actual profit amount is probably quite small. The company could be making a dollar and call themselves profitable.
Skydance are owned by Redbird Capital, one of the largest private equity firms in the US. The acquisition was basically funded by Redbird, with Skydance as the operating company at the front.
Skydance is ran by David Ellison, whose dad is Larry Ellison, the man behind Oracle, who has a net worth of $175 billion. Fuck you money doesn’t even begin to describe the kind of wealth behind that family.
Sometimes a guppy can swallow a whale. They would have gotten a lot of outside funding from red bird capital and Larry Ellison.
Though paramount has lost something like 80% of its value in the last 2 years
Warner/Discovery can afford to buy it with pocket cash, but last I heard Paramount has a ton of debt.
As I understand it, a huge part of the problem with Warner Bros. right now is paying down debt it inherited when it got merged with Discovery.
So far they've been doing a really good job of that, but inheriting more debt to also pay down is probably not on their list of things to do in June.
Warner-Discovery was created with some 50 billion in debt or over 3x the hole Paramount is in and still has some 43.2 billion left to for Zaslav to murder.
They've been paying that down aggressively, while maintaining profitability. Not something most other streamers can claim. Their real problem is their total market cap is pennies to the cash on hand companies like apple, netflix, and Amazon have. If the WBD stock remains where it is, and they don't lock it down by entering a merger intentionally. They will potentially get outright bought.
Start producing quality content again. Paramount+ is just Star Trek and crap reality shows. They are even cancelling and selling off their Star Trek shows which is their literal only valuable asset.
Fuck, I would pay just as much or more just for Trek+ if they actually kept their content and continued producing more.
Eh not really it’s got all the Nickelodeon stuff too, which if you have kids is valuable. Probably the 3rd most used service at our house with Disney number 1 and Netflix number 2.
I'm... actually okay with this.
Lower Decks said all it really wanted to say in three great seasons. That's something any show can be proud of.
Season four was still quality AF and I'm glad we know what Mariner's deal is now buuuttt it just couldn't hit as hard. I'm glad we're getting season five and hoping it lets them go out on a high note... but even if it sucks at least we don't get a long extended slide into mediocrity.
To each their own.
But personally, I will never understand how Lower Decks became a cult favorite.
I found it incredibly cringe, and for awhile it seemed like everyone agreed with me on that, but then at some point the sentiment flipped entirely, and the live action crossover episode they did with Strange New Worlds (which I found to be the worst of that show by far) became the highest scored episode.
Lower Decks clearly found its audience, but 5 seasons is crazy to me after watching the first. I really did think the second season was just to save face, and that's where it would stop.
The first season was the weakest, in my view. But I don't know where you're getting the cross-over was the turning point.
Season 2 was a steep rise in quality. Probably that and Trek diehards didn't want to give it a real chance.
I gave Discovery 3 seasons before I eventually had to tap out. It was just awful overall.
I wasn't describing the cross over as a turning point of either show. It's just when I first realized people didn't hate Lower Decks.
I thought that episode of Strange New Worlds was abysmal, and
went to some websites to see just how low it had scored, only to find instead that it was by far the highest rated episode of the season.
I’m with you. Too shouty and manic for me…tried to get into it a few times, the last time was after the crossover episode with SNW. Couldn’t make it past the first episode, which makes sense since the x-over actors were the worst part of that episode imo. To each their own but totally agree with you.
If you think Tawny Newsome and Jack Quaid are not perpetually delightful I don't know what to say to you. Obviously you are allowed your own opinion and I am not discounting it (I wish I didn't have to say stuff like that, and good faith was understood, but it's the internet) but I've been a fan of Tawny since Bajillion Dollar Properties. She's an amazing improv comedian, and a good actress otherwise.
I thought they both did a good job portraying their animated counterparts, as animated, but also grounded in a real space in live action. It's really difficult to balance, and I thought they did a great job.
I should probably clarify the actors were fine, and it’s been a while since i saw that episode so I don’t recall specific instances I just remember feeling that the characters/parts weren’t congruent with how an aware time traveler would act. They fanboyed too much and were pretty cavalier about it all. Glad you like them and the parts they play, just wasn’t for me.
That's funny. In the cartoon, especially Biomler - Jack Quaid's character - are huge fanboys and nerds about the Federation and Federation history, especially the big names like the Enterprise and it's crew. And Tawny is a big trekkie in real life.
Well with that context I guess they were true to character. It just seemed far fetched to me that any sane person would travel hundred of years back in time and be more worried about how they interact with a childhood hero than doing as little damage as possible to the timeline and getting back in one piece. One would assume one could prioritize. Regardless of the actors capabilities I guess the frenetic/manic shouty vibe isn’t my jam. Good talk, I enjoyed the discussion…appreciate the thoughtful replies.
If nothing else, Starfleet Academy will be a continuation of DSC of sorts as it will be taking place in the far future, which was first seen in Season 3.
"Let's do an Academy spinoff with younger sexier characters" has been occasionally pitched since at least the 1980's, but it was dismissed as too dumb of an idea for like 40 straight years. It's very funny to me that Disco, probably the least popular series was the one to generate an Academy spinoff despite the audience clearly not being super excited about Disco itself.
Not necessarily. There are definitely folks who weren't familiar with the franchise prior to CBS All Access / Paramount + that jumped on, especially if they wanted to go farther than the Kelvin Timeline films.
That and being a nerd is pretty popular right now. Gone are the days of Trekkies getting openly ridiculed by pop culture - now everybody wants to join something as companies cash in and franchises become bigger household names.
I don't hate her character but having her be a Star Fleet Academy Professor is certainly an odd fucking choice. Unless they go comedy with it, then maybe it'll work.
I think it makes sense. While she has good ideas, she isn’t exactly decisive or bold enough to keep on the command track - something she did to only please her now long-dead mother.
Us too! I go over to my dad's house 2 or 3 times a month so we can watch a couple episodes of Strange New Worlds together.
I was skeptical at first--I mean, how badly were they going to mess with Spock's character?--but I was really pleasantly surprised. It feels fresh but familiar, and I like the little occasional callbacks to episodes in the Original Series. It's good Trek.
I have kids and all they watch is Paramount+. It has the ENTIRE Nickolodeon library. It is INCREDIBLE in my experience. I grew up on Doug and now I've watched all of Doug again. YMMV
Paramount has some other pretty valuable assets. Perhaps you’ve heard of a little airplane movie they released a couple years ago that made a billion and a half fucking dollars lol. Plus they have Mission: Impossible, Transformers, TMNT, Shrek, Kung Fu Panda, and the vast collection of TV properties from CBS, MTV, Nick, Comedy Central, etc. They’re not Disney or WB but they have a very enticing and lucrative catalog for prospective buyers.
Honestly, yes they are. It's great comfort TV. The reality is Paramount didn't have comics during the huge boom and it's hurt them. They don't have generalist superhero stuff or Disney content for the broad audience.
I fkn hate Big Brother, Survivor, The Bachelor, and all the shows affiliated with these shows. All of their spin-offs and reruns. I hope all recordings of them burn in hell.
Just the mention triggers this response and causes people to respond,
"Who asked you?".
Thanks for listening.
I got a free trial and don't even use it. They add so many ads that it takes longer to watch an episode of Beavis and Butthead than it did in the 90s when it aired on MTV.
This really all hinges on Star Trek. I can't really think of any merger/acquisition scenario that doesn't lead to the enshittification of Star Trek.
The Paramount-Disney merger rumors had me scared because I do not feel Disney has proven to be a good steward of intellectual property it acquires.
Before Disney's Star Wars trilogy, I might have agreed with you. But, *Star Trek* and *Star Trek Into Darkness* were masterpieces and very respectful of the canon compared to that trilogy.
While the Trek that Kurtzman isn't as involved in like Lower Decks and Star Trek Beyond are both a step up from stuff he works on, Strange New Worlds is still great, and he's a writer/EP on it.
I'd argue that Trek is better off in his hands than as a Disney property. But, the pessimist in me thinks that this is the end of Trek in the streaming era, and we'll see a long stretch without it again until the next paradigm shift in media delivery. If Strange New Worlds season 4 does get made, I expect it to be the end of this Trek era.
It at least follows up on what the first AOS movie set up in terms of 'hey, Starfleet, you just lost a major chunk of ships and crew-members...how do the warhawks in your numbers react to this?' Whether it's execution was the best, it at least maintained continuity with what came before as compared to being a standalone movie.
> were masterpieces and very respectful of the canon compared to that trilogy.
We're talking about a hypothetical where Disney owns Star Trek. I was using hyperbole in my rhetoric to drive my point home that Disney could make Star Trek even worse than Kurtzman era trek. I was not calling Into Darkness a masterpiece in absolute terms.
>It’s already shittified
Nah the three newest Star Trek shows, Lower Decks, Strange New Worlds and to a lesser extent Prodigy are all fantastic.
Strange New Worlds is absolutely killing it in terms of bringing back what made old school Star Trek so appealing.
Man, I don't agree with this at all. Every Star Trek since Berman has been either "just ok" or the worst Trek ever made. Nothing that I would call really good or outstanding like the pre-2005 stuff.
Then who will take it?
If Kurtzman’s era ends, I think the franchise will just go back on ice and live off of the past, much like what happened after Berman’s reign crash landed before the Abrams films.
There is even a chance that it may never rise again because Trek isn’t as profitable as, to name an example, the MCU. Ultimately, it is all about money and the franchise is more mid-tier when compared to other groups.
>go back on ice
I can live with that. I would rather have that than see some new owner ruin it. But history shows it *will* come back in some form.
The original series ended in 1969, and we did not get any new live-action Star Trek until 1980 (yeah, I know, technically 1979 but December '79 is practically 1980 to a millennial like me). Heck, if Gene Roddenberry had scraped up $50,000 in the mid-70's he would've bought the rights to it, that is how little Paramount/Gulf+Western valued it. It has always been under-valued.
u/Philix's mention of "shift in media delivery" is **so** salient because the first renaissance of Trek in the 80's was due to Paramount trying to launch a third network, deciding not to, and turning a Star Trek pilot script into a movie. Then Fox came along, \*did\* launch that third network, syndication became a hot opportunity, and that got us TNG/DS9/VOY and unfortunately ENT.
Everything old is new again, so I guess we may just wait for the Apple Vision Pro 5 to launch the fourth era of Star Trek with "The Borg Queen Immersive Experience".
Eh. I would prefer it continue, but that is probably because I don't mind a lot of the works. They're great at best and entertaining at worst.
Putting it back on ice is just a bitter rage quit that doesn't benefit anybody.
It was the crown jewel through most of the 80’s and 90’s. Those films and shows would have never gotten made had the franchise not had the fan (consumer) loyalty that it did.
They also had Friday the 13th. That might have never been as critically acclaimed as Indiana Jones, but I'm sure they loved how cheap and fast they were to make and how loyal the fans were at showing up to them.
I guess what’s your point? People still want to watch Star Trek?
The Star Trek property has more going for it than any other property in the Paramount portfolio
Paramount makes money on all the streaming platforms Star Trek is on, even the free ones.
The only way they don’t get money is when you buy old physical media or pirate the content.
I know! It’s like the CEO is a stupid cunt with no foresight to how impossible it is to run a streaming service, and just told us customers to get fucked with the content cause she no idea what she was doing!
Paramount will cease to exist before the decade ends.
They need to keep making good shows like strange new worlds and lower decks (which just got cancelled). If they continue making shows like Discovery and Picard they are going to lose me as a subscriber. The first two seasons of picard are the worst show I’ve ever seen. Thats not an exaggeration.
Partnering with another streamer is a great idea, actually. You handle the content, someone else houses and delivers it. Don't like the idea of Peacock being the partner, though. Amazon Prime and Apple TV+ would be better picks, but neither might be interested.
Other than that, I really think they need to just... improve the movie slate. Smarter budgets and better bets. More Sonic movies, of course, but also try and get *Top Gun 3* off the runway already. And keep *Trek: Strange New Worlds* going... possibly with some films.
Not wanting a streamer to own the last mile to the customer was the exact reason every one of these studios decided to stand up their own streaming service, thinking, it's just a bunch of computers, IT can handle it, how hard can it be.
Every one of these studios were really scared of Netflix becoming their gatekeeper.
True. Sadly, not many of them could handle the tech side of things. Disney did mainly via the bamTech/Hulu acquisitions, and Max just used HBO Go as a launchpad. Everyone else failed completely in this regard, Paramount most of all.
To be fair, it's not impossible for a studio to branch into streaming if they hire the right people and have realistic expectations of how the cost structure of a technology company works.
When are one of these companies going to realize they need to shut down their money bleeding streaming service? Shut it down, slim the company down, and license your content.
It's a bit of a rock and a hard place. Do you cede control of access to your content to the streamer, aka, Netflix?
That was all fine and dandy until Netflix decided to be a studio themselves, and now every streamer is also a studio so there is now inherently a conflict of interest when a studio partners with any of the existing streamers.
Paramount streaming as a whole generates cash.
The subscription service "Paramount Plus" had a costly buildout that generated debt. But it is projected to turn a profit in the U.S. by the end of this year. (Based on financial statements).
I remember years back a lot of people wanted Apple to buy Paramount because it seemed like they would be good stewards of the Star Trek IP.
I wonder whatever happened to that notion. I feel like I've seen every big corp mentioned except Apple recently.
They should, especially with the valuation approaching $3 billion or less... aka Apple's preferred price tag. Having said that, Apple seems to not like big buyouts in general, so it'd definitely be a strategy shift.
I think Redstone will sell eventually. Interest rates are heading down and a new presidential administration might lead to a more favorable M&A environment. On the other side, there are people salivating over the opportunity to pick up a major film studio for pennies on the dollar-- and Paramount is only getting cheaper with Redstone controlling it.
As for streaming, I'd like to see their library combined with AppleTV+. AppleTV+ churns good content but lacks a deep library to make it worth subscribing too.
Taylor Sheridan plays a big factor in that. A good percentage signed up for Yellowstone. His behavior has been an issue for several. But the main issue is Paramount dumbly continues to sign for Taylor Sheridan half assed projects he continues to spit out and then abandons. This is upsetting for viewers, the shows they were enticed with have gone STAGNANT. He continues to run through projects anticipating the same $$$ that came in from Yellowstone. He fumbled one of the most profitable shows on Paramount that could’ve been successful for another several seasons. He has writing skills, but also reeks of con man.
Also, did anyone read this article and notice the parallels with the third season of "The Morning Show" on Apple TV+, specifically Holland Taylor's character?
They lost about $3.5 million today while you read this
I would have only charged them $2 million
Fun fact: Just posting that cost them another $7 million.
#Well then STOP posting! - Paramount CEO
"No" -Me
Paramount losing money makes me happy
Why is paramount struggling to begin with? Did they really produce that many flops?
More like the streaming service is expensive and the recent strikes impacted their television / movie pipeline. Apple and Amazon, to use two examples, survived because their studios aren’t a huge chunk of their business. Disney also has merchandising and their theme parks to weather the blows.
WBD is also getting destroyed the same way. It's just basically impossible to survive as a standalone media company unless you're Netflix.
…or just buy more foreign titles live action and animated.
That could do it
What’s wbd?
Warner brothers and discovery I’m assuming.
ahhh good thinking!
Paramount Global generates cash. The have a mountain of debt. But they were able to pay that down by $1B last year while still paying a dividend. If you read the article, you'll understand a complicated situation with a holding company called "National Amusements". They own the majority of voting shares for Paramount. NA is badly underwater with debt issues. https://disclosure.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/type/HTML/id/3180225
Yes, it's a very boring story involving dual-class shares, nepo babies and an endless series of mergers, de-mergers, spinoffs and etc...
It’s goes in depth in the second half of the article. They went all in on a streaming service just before the streaming boom retracted, among other questionable attempts at expansion and hesitancy to sell off assets when they received offers. Under the regime before that, they spent a lot of money re acquiring their own stock rather than growing the studio.
Sony is gonna pick it up. (or Pick up Warner) Paramount can’t afford a merger and the only option is for it to be bought by a bigger company
Sony is a Japanese company. Paramount owns CBS - foreign companies aren’t allowed to own broadcast networks per FCC regulations.
I believe they already said they will split the company
which Paramount's majority shareholder, Sherri Redstone, doesn't want to see happen. She wants the company her family built to stay in one piece and not split up and sold for parts
>She wants the company her family built to stay in one piece and not split up and sold for parts The company her dad bought. No one named Redstone was involved in the creation or running of the movie studio Paramount Pictures. The movie studio Paramount Pictures went bust, along with all the other movie studios save Disney, in the 60s. Adolph Zukor founded the movie studio Paramount Pictures. He sold it to another company, Gulf + Western, also not a Redstone company, in 1966. You're not talking about a company, you're talking about a brand another company bought.
That’s like saying Lee Iacocca had nothing to do with Chrysler
sometimes you gotta face reality
It will also be hard for the company to do with its fiduciary duty to the shareholders.
The shareholders would rather get something than the company driven into the ground, I assume.
If they separately sell the 1 or 2 parts of the company that are most valuable, they may not be able to sell the other parts, or will at least need to very, very steeply discount the other parts. If the company is sold as a whole or in large bundles, it's more likely they can force buyers to pay a little premium for the less attractive parts of the business.
Oh I agree they should sell it together. They just shouldn’t concern themselves with how or if the buyer will split it up. Not doing a deal for the whole company because you don’t want to see it split up is bad business
Remember when she was married and the CEO was a hassidic Rabbi (rebbe to be more specific)
Could they buy Paramount the studio but not the rest of Paramount Global?
sony bought a movie theater chain early this week
FTC will block that. They nearly had a deal several months ago before the FTC stepped in. Sky dance would have averted an antitrust problem. Maybe they will come back.
If it was blocked then i think unless Paramount finds an alternative eventually it will be accepted if Paramount get worse. I feel like Sky Dance is to small to be bought by anybody unless they get merged into something bigger first.
It was the other way around. Sky dance was going to buy paramount.
I didn’t know things were that bad at Paramount. Sky Dance isn’t a super huge company so if they almost managed to acquire Paramount then it must be almost at bankruptcy level.
Their streaming service is losing money. Less money than the year before and it is improving, but the math appears to seem like several more years of loss before breaking even. If Redstone is willing to eat the loss for a few years, which she can afford, then nothing will happen and all of this paramount news is just media bluster to raise the stock price. Sky dance is a small company but their owners are very wealthy people. They would have become the new owners if the deal went through. They also make high quality films that consistently perform well at the box office so the potential is great.
So is Paramount only losing money because of streaming? Then there is an easy solution for that but they will never do it. If the owners of Skydance are very wealthy i think they should wait a few years to see how Paramount goes before acquiring it. They would get a lot of ip our of it though and Skydance could easily use that to become a much bigger company.
Skydance is kids of one of the ten wealthiest men in the world playing around with daddy’s money, after he’s spent everything he wants on his sailing obsession (which includes a Hawaiian island). I’m not sure that short term losses are something they’re concerned about.
The Wealthiest people in the world are also the smartest people in the world when it comes to investing
*kids of the wealthiest people. This isn’t Larry Ellison, this is his son.
I remember when I was this naive when I was a child.
> If the owners of Skydance are very wealthy Oh, don't worry. They are. The owner is the son of the world's 9th richest man.
That may be what happens over the course of the next few years.
Skydance just need to take their time with this because it could either make it a much bigger company or destroy the company. They wouldn’t want to just buy a company that is losing money quickly unless they have big plans to turn it around.
They might. It’s hard to say. It’s unclear why the deal fell apart. I personally think Redstone won’t sell even if she is losing money and even after all this media. The power of controlling one of the large streamers is greater than can quantified and it’s not losing enough to affect her for a long time.
I mean…Paramount does have plenty of handy assets like Star Trek. On top of that, Skydance has worked with Paramount before - not only including Star Trek via the Kelvin Timeline films, but also the juggernaut that was Top Gun: Maverick.
You don't rack up 14 billion in debt from just one thing but streaming was supposed to be the way forward and has been arguably the biggest play all these companies have made so it drives engagement to talk about it. Reality was streaming wasn't supposed to make money for years and years anyways.
Where are you hearing that? I saw that P+ was expected to be profitable Q4 2024 - early 2025, which puts it on track to reach profitability faster than D+ did. Obviously, Paramount isn't doing great, but their streaming arm seems to be one note of future sucess.
Expected by who? Paramount themselves?
"Paramount Global hit 67.5 million Paramount+ streaming subscribers worldwide at the end of its fourth quarter, a gain of 4.1 million from the previous financial quarter. The Hollywood conglomerate, with its future the subject of mounting speculation on Wall Street, on Wednesday said it expected to deliver “significant total company earnings growth” in 2024, and reach profitability for Paramount+ domestically in 2025." Yes, but their numbers support it and other analysts have suggested profitability will hit sooner, like Q4 2024.
The fine line in that statement is their citing of worldwide subscriber numbers but qualify profitability as "domestic". If any profitability statement has to be qualified for it to be true, that probably means its profitable on paper only. Also, if they don't shout the actual profit amount from the rooftops, that actual profit amount is probably quite small. The company could be making a dollar and call themselves profitable.
I'm on my second trial account and will be making another when the next south park special comes out.
Skydance are owned by Redbird Capital, one of the largest private equity firms in the US. The acquisition was basically funded by Redbird, with Skydance as the operating company at the front.
Skydance is ran by David Ellison, whose dad is Larry Ellison, the man behind Oracle, who has a net worth of $175 billion. Fuck you money doesn’t even begin to describe the kind of wealth behind that family.
Sometimes a guppy can swallow a whale. They would have gotten a lot of outside funding from red bird capital and Larry Ellison. Though paramount has lost something like 80% of its value in the last 2 years
Nah the ftc will just make them spin off a couple brands and then say it’s fine.
Warner/Discovery can afford to buy it with pocket cash, but last I heard Paramount has a ton of debt. As I understand it, a huge part of the problem with Warner Bros. right now is paying down debt it inherited when it got merged with Discovery. So far they've been doing a really good job of that, but inheriting more debt to also pay down is probably not on their list of things to do in June.
Warner-Discovery was created with some 50 billion in debt or over 3x the hole Paramount is in and still has some 43.2 billion left to for Zaslav to murder.
They've been paying that down aggressively, while maintaining profitability. Not something most other streamers can claim. Their real problem is their total market cap is pennies to the cash on hand companies like apple, netflix, and Amazon have. If the WBD stock remains where it is, and they don't lock it down by entering a merger intentionally. They will potentially get outright bought.
Yeah Warner doesn’t need that added on investment right now. They need to get their debt down before they can buy anything
Start producing quality content again. Paramount+ is just Star Trek and crap reality shows. They are even cancelling and selling off their Star Trek shows which is their literal only valuable asset. Fuck, I would pay just as much or more just for Trek+ if they actually kept their content and continued producing more.
Eh not really it’s got all the Nickelodeon stuff too, which if you have kids is valuable. Probably the 3rd most used service at our house with Disney number 1 and Netflix number 2.
Yeah, Paw Patrol alone probably eclipses all their normal shows, lol.
Cancelling discovery I am more than OK with. Cancelling Lower Decks is a crime.
Wait, did Lower Decks get cancelled?!
Season 5 is its last season. Hopefully someone buys the rights to make more.
…or they just reboot it as a new animated comedy. Star Trek: Middle Decks perhaps?
Either... The Decks Generation Or... Upper Deckers
Sadness, though at least there is one more season
I'm... actually okay with this. Lower Decks said all it really wanted to say in three great seasons. That's something any show can be proud of. Season four was still quality AF and I'm glad we know what Mariner's deal is now buuuttt it just couldn't hit as hard. I'm glad we're getting season five and hoping it lets them go out on a high note... but even if it sucks at least we don't get a long extended slide into mediocrity.
To each their own. But personally, I will never understand how Lower Decks became a cult favorite. I found it incredibly cringe, and for awhile it seemed like everyone agreed with me on that, but then at some point the sentiment flipped entirely, and the live action crossover episode they did with Strange New Worlds (which I found to be the worst of that show by far) became the highest scored episode. Lower Decks clearly found its audience, but 5 seasons is crazy to me after watching the first. I really did think the second season was just to save face, and that's where it would stop.
The first season was the weakest, in my view. But I don't know where you're getting the cross-over was the turning point. Season 2 was a steep rise in quality. Probably that and Trek diehards didn't want to give it a real chance. I gave Discovery 3 seasons before I eventually had to tap out. It was just awful overall.
Veritas is in Season 1 is the stubble, wej Duj in Season 2 is the full Riker.
I wasn't describing the cross over as a turning point of either show. It's just when I first realized people didn't hate Lower Decks. I thought that episode of Strange New Worlds was abysmal, and went to some websites to see just how low it had scored, only to find instead that it was by far the highest rated episode of the season.
The Lower Decks crossover episode was not worse than the musical episode.
I’m with you. Too shouty and manic for me…tried to get into it a few times, the last time was after the crossover episode with SNW. Couldn’t make it past the first episode, which makes sense since the x-over actors were the worst part of that episode imo. To each their own but totally agree with you.
If you think Tawny Newsome and Jack Quaid are not perpetually delightful I don't know what to say to you. Obviously you are allowed your own opinion and I am not discounting it (I wish I didn't have to say stuff like that, and good faith was understood, but it's the internet) but I've been a fan of Tawny since Bajillion Dollar Properties. She's an amazing improv comedian, and a good actress otherwise. I thought they both did a good job portraying their animated counterparts, as animated, but also grounded in a real space in live action. It's really difficult to balance, and I thought they did a great job.
I should probably clarify the actors were fine, and it’s been a while since i saw that episode so I don’t recall specific instances I just remember feeling that the characters/parts weren’t congruent with how an aware time traveler would act. They fanboyed too much and were pretty cavalier about it all. Glad you like them and the parts they play, just wasn’t for me.
That's funny. In the cartoon, especially Biomler - Jack Quaid's character - are huge fanboys and nerds about the Federation and Federation history, especially the big names like the Enterprise and it's crew. And Tawny is a big trekkie in real life.
Well with that context I guess they were true to character. It just seemed far fetched to me that any sane person would travel hundred of years back in time and be more worried about how they interact with a childhood hero than doing as little damage as possible to the timeline and getting back in one piece. One would assume one could prioritize. Regardless of the actors capabilities I guess the frenetic/manic shouty vibe isn’t my jam. Good talk, I enjoyed the discussion…appreciate the thoughtful replies.
Ikr. Its dogshit
If nothing else, Starfleet Academy will be a continuation of DSC of sorts as it will be taking place in the far future, which was first seen in Season 3.
"Let's do an Academy spinoff with younger sexier characters" has been occasionally pitched since at least the 1980's, but it was dismissed as too dumb of an idea for like 40 straight years. It's very funny to me that Disco, probably the least popular series was the one to generate an Academy spinoff despite the audience clearly not being super excited about Disco itself.
How is DSC the least popular? Granted, it is divisive among Trekkies, but they’re not the majority market.
The only people watching streaming Trek are the die hard Trekkies.
Not necessarily. There are definitely folks who weren't familiar with the franchise prior to CBS All Access / Paramount + that jumped on, especially if they wanted to go farther than the Kelvin Timeline films. That and being a nerd is pretty popular right now. Gone are the days of Trekkies getting openly ridiculed by pop culture - now everybody wants to join something as companies cash in and franchises become bigger household names.
Well now I've lost all interest in that show.
And Tully is in charge of the cadets. The least interesting person in the entire discovery show.
I don't hate her character but having her be a Star Fleet Academy Professor is certainly an odd fucking choice. Unless they go comedy with it, then maybe it'll work.
I don’t like her character at all. She basically always falls upwards. Star fleet is the best of the best and she seems so basic.
I think it makes sense. While she has good ideas, she isn’t exactly decisive or bold enough to keep on the command track - something she did to only please her now long-dead mother.
Jesus Christ she is the worst character on the show.
Same. Really, really, ***really*** hope Strange New Worlds ain't canned. Dad and I love it. :/
Us too! I go over to my dad's house 2 or 3 times a month so we can watch a couple episodes of Strange New Worlds together. I was skeptical at first--I mean, how badly were they going to mess with Spock's character?--but I was really pleasantly surprised. It feels fresh but familiar, and I like the little occasional callbacks to episodes in the Original Series. It's good Trek.
Indeed. Unfortunately, with my string of luck, that means they'll likely kill it. :/
I have kids and all they watch is Paramount+. It has the ENTIRE Nickolodeon library. It is INCREDIBLE in my experience. I grew up on Doug and now I've watched all of Doug again. YMMV
What about South Park?
South Park is not exclusive to Paramount, they did some stuff on HBO (Max), as well.
That doesn’t actually matter though, because South Park is a Viacom property. When South Park draws paramount always gets a cut.
Paramount has some other pretty valuable assets. Perhaps you’ve heard of a little airplane movie they released a couple years ago that made a billion and a half fucking dollars lol. Plus they have Mission: Impossible, Transformers, TMNT, Shrek, Kung Fu Panda, and the vast collection of TV properties from CBS, MTV, Nick, Comedy Central, etc. They’re not Disney or WB but they have a very enticing and lucrative catalog for prospective buyers.
I swear every time I click on a post about paramount, all anyone here talks about is fucking Star Trek
It’s Reddit that’s why
That’s what we care about This isn’t Yellowstone country
[удалено]
Honestly, yes they are. It's great comfort TV. The reality is Paramount didn't have comics during the huge boom and it's hurt them. They don't have generalist superhero stuff or Disney content for the broad audience.
I fkn hate Big Brother, Survivor, The Bachelor, and all the shows affiliated with these shows. All of their spin-offs and reruns. I hope all recordings of them burn in hell. Just the mention triggers this response and causes people to respond, "Who asked you?". Thanks for listening.
I got a free trial and don't even use it. They add so many ads that it takes longer to watch an episode of Beavis and Butthead than it did in the 90s when it aired on MTV.
> Shrek, Kung Fu Panda Stop right there. Pause. Errrt. Wrong. Incorrect. Those are at Universal with the rest of DreamWorks.
This may be the most pretentiously condescending way to tell someone they are wrong I have ever seen on Reddit.
buiddy takes their fat cartoon characters vv srs
Standard Tom Servo response.
Really? That's only about a 6, maybe a 7 from what I've seen.
This really all hinges on Star Trek. I can't really think of any merger/acquisition scenario that doesn't lead to the enshittification of Star Trek. The Paramount-Disney merger rumors had me scared because I do not feel Disney has proven to be a good steward of intellectual property it acquires.
As others have said, there are also the Taylor Sheridan productions too. They’re quite popular with the public.
It’s already shittified What we need is Star Trek out of the hands of Alex Kurtzman; I support whatever sale makes that happen
Before Disney's Star Wars trilogy, I might have agreed with you. But, *Star Trek* and *Star Trek Into Darkness* were masterpieces and very respectful of the canon compared to that trilogy. While the Trek that Kurtzman isn't as involved in like Lower Decks and Star Trek Beyond are both a step up from stuff he works on, Strange New Worlds is still great, and he's a writer/EP on it. I'd argue that Trek is better off in his hands than as a Disney property. But, the pessimist in me thinks that this is the end of Trek in the streaming era, and we'll see a long stretch without it again until the next paradigm shift in media delivery. If Strange New Worlds season 4 does get made, I expect it to be the end of this Trek era.
Into darkness is one of the worst star trek films. Its just the wrath of khan again but worse in every way.
Agreed. Into Darkness was frenetic nonsense, top to bottom.
It at least follows up on what the first AOS movie set up in terms of 'hey, Starfleet, you just lost a major chunk of ships and crew-members...how do the warhawks in your numbers react to this?' Whether it's execution was the best, it at least maintained continuity with what came before as compared to being a standalone movie.
And yet, I'd still rather watch it than Rise of Skywalker, or the rest of that trilogy.
If Rise of Skywalker was playing on my eyelids 24/7, I would gouge my eyes out with a spoon.
So its slightly better than an awful movie? That doesnt make it anywhere close to a masterpiece
> were masterpieces and very respectful of the canon compared to that trilogy. We're talking about a hypothetical where Disney owns Star Trek. I was using hyperbole in my rhetoric to drive my point home that Disney could make Star Trek even worse than Kurtzman era trek. I was not calling Into Darkness a masterpiece in absolute terms.
Into darkness is slightly better than the star wars sequels but discovery and picard season 1&2 were a thousand times worse.
I'd take *Discovery* and *Picard* over *Obiwan* and *Book of Boba Fett* in a heartbeat.
What? Discovery has been fine from what I’ve seen, and Picard season 1&2 were great I thought. Where does the hatred come from for those?
Not slightly. The star wars debacles make Into Darkness seem like actual Wrath of Khan. They literally killed a franchise.
I think star wars is salvageable. Picard’s first two seasons were so bad I wasn’t sure star trek could recover
>It’s already shittified Nah the three newest Star Trek shows, Lower Decks, Strange New Worlds and to a lesser extent Prodigy are all fantastic. Strange New Worlds is absolutely killing it in terms of bringing back what made old school Star Trek so appealing.
Man, I don't agree with this at all. Every Star Trek since Berman has been either "just ok" or the worst Trek ever made. Nothing that I would call really good or outstanding like the pre-2005 stuff.
New Trek is just so obnoxious. It's noise.
Then who will take it? If Kurtzman’s era ends, I think the franchise will just go back on ice and live off of the past, much like what happened after Berman’s reign crash landed before the Abrams films. There is even a chance that it may never rise again because Trek isn’t as profitable as, to name an example, the MCU. Ultimately, it is all about money and the franchise is more mid-tier when compared to other groups.
>go back on ice I can live with that. I would rather have that than see some new owner ruin it. But history shows it *will* come back in some form. The original series ended in 1969, and we did not get any new live-action Star Trek until 1980 (yeah, I know, technically 1979 but December '79 is practically 1980 to a millennial like me). Heck, if Gene Roddenberry had scraped up $50,000 in the mid-70's he would've bought the rights to it, that is how little Paramount/Gulf+Western valued it. It has always been under-valued. u/Philix's mention of "shift in media delivery" is **so** salient because the first renaissance of Trek in the 80's was due to Paramount trying to launch a third network, deciding not to, and turning a Star Trek pilot script into a movie. Then Fox came along, \*did\* launch that third network, syndication became a hot opportunity, and that got us TNG/DS9/VOY and unfortunately ENT. Everything old is new again, so I guess we may just wait for the Apple Vision Pro 5 to launch the fourth era of Star Trek with "The Borg Queen Immersive Experience".
Eh. I would prefer it continue, but that is probably because I don't mind a lot of the works. They're great at best and entertaining at worst. Putting it back on ice is just a bitter rage quit that doesn't benefit anybody.
Somehow Kahn returned.
George Lucas has entered the chat.
I just discovered Survivor and while Paramount+ does suck, I am enjoying the *46 season* back catalog
For decades Star Trek was the red headed step child in the Paramount family. Now it’s the crown jewel
It was the crown jewel through most of the 80’s and 90’s. Those films and shows would have never gotten made had the franchise not had the fan (consumer) loyalty that it did.
90s and early 2000s I’d say. They had Indiana Jones in the 80s.
They also had Friday the 13th. That might have never been as critically acclaimed as Indiana Jones, but I'm sure they loved how cheap and fast they were to make and how loyal the fans were at showing up to them.
>Now it’s the crown jewel Not sure I would go that far. Top Gun Maverick made 1.5 billion. Don't think Star Trek is doing that.
Stark Trek as a property is worth over $10B USD.
To be fair, there are more toys in the Star Trek chest. Top Gun only has two films, though a third is apparently on the way.
Then I guess they better sell it because those last three movies they made barely made 500 million combined.
> they made barely made 500 million combined. If by 500 million you mean 1.2 billion, then yes.
There are hundreds if not thousands of hours of Star Trek content that people will still pay to watch.
[удалено]
I guess what’s your point? People still want to watch Star Trek? The Star Trek property has more going for it than any other property in the Paramount portfolio
[удалено]
Paramount makes money on all the streaming platforms Star Trek is on, even the free ones. The only way they don’t get money is when you buy old physical media or pirate the content.
> Start producing quality content again. That would require them to have capital, which they are showing more and more that they don’t seem to have
Yes why haven’t they thought of this? Weird they must be aiming to make bad content.
I know! It’s like the CEO is a stupid cunt with no foresight to how impossible it is to run a streaming service, and just told us customers to get fucked with the content cause she no idea what she was doing! Paramount will cease to exist before the decade ends.
I would frankly pay for Trek + too, though I don’t think Trekkies are enough to sustain such a streaming platform.
Yeah, they tried that with Stargate SG-1 and look how that went...
They need to keep making good shows like strange new worlds and lower decks (which just got cancelled). If they continue making shows like Discovery and Picard they are going to lose me as a subscriber. The first two seasons of picard are the worst show I’ve ever seen. Thats not an exaggeration.
Star Trek, Drag race, and Nickelodeon
... Paw Patrol, Dora, Blaze and the Monster Machines, etc. etc. etc. Their kids content alone makes it a must have for us.
Partnering with another streamer is a great idea, actually. You handle the content, someone else houses and delivers it. Don't like the idea of Peacock being the partner, though. Amazon Prime and Apple TV+ would be better picks, but neither might be interested. Other than that, I really think they need to just... improve the movie slate. Smarter budgets and better bets. More Sonic movies, of course, but also try and get *Top Gun 3* off the runway already. And keep *Trek: Strange New Worlds* going... possibly with some films.
Not wanting a streamer to own the last mile to the customer was the exact reason every one of these studios decided to stand up their own streaming service, thinking, it's just a bunch of computers, IT can handle it, how hard can it be. Every one of these studios were really scared of Netflix becoming their gatekeeper.
True. Sadly, not many of them could handle the tech side of things. Disney did mainly via the bamTech/Hulu acquisitions, and Max just used HBO Go as a launchpad. Everyone else failed completely in this regard, Paramount most of all.
To be fair, it's not impossible for a studio to branch into streaming if they hire the right people and have realistic expectations of how the cost structure of a technology company works.
> they hire the right people and have realistic expectations Yeah, that didn't happened.
If you partner with Amazon, then Amazon will crush you.
A fair worry, but what other options do they have at this point with the one food suitor - Skydance - now basically gone?
Well written.
When are one of these companies going to realize they need to shut down their money bleeding streaming service? Shut it down, slim the company down, and license your content.
It's a bit of a rock and a hard place. Do you cede control of access to your content to the streamer, aka, Netflix? That was all fine and dandy until Netflix decided to be a studio themselves, and now every streamer is also a studio so there is now inherently a conflict of interest when a studio partners with any of the existing streamers.
Paramount streaming as a whole generates cash. The subscription service "Paramount Plus" had a costly buildout that generated debt. But it is projected to turn a profit in the U.S. by the end of this year. (Based on financial statements).
I like all the content, so hopefully never. I'm fine with most of them losing a bunch of money.
I remember years back a lot of people wanted Apple to buy Paramount because it seemed like they would be good stewards of the Star Trek IP. I wonder whatever happened to that notion. I feel like I've seen every big corp mentioned except Apple recently.
Apple doesn't do big acquisitions. Plus, they'd probably shut down Jon Stewart... again...
And? lol.
Canal+ should merge with Paramount
Naa apple should buy them and merge them into Apple TV+
They should, especially with the valuation approaching $3 billion or less... aka Apple's preferred price tag. Having said that, Apple seems to not like big buyouts in general, so it'd definitely be a strategy shift.
Or Apple+ ++ ++ (ApplePLUS plusPLUS plusPLUS)
And Apple TV+ should have an Android app.
Paramount plus is the only streamer I actually pay for.
I think Redstone will sell eventually. Interest rates are heading down and a new presidential administration might lead to a more favorable M&A environment. On the other side, there are people salivating over the opportunity to pick up a major film studio for pennies on the dollar-- and Paramount is only getting cheaper with Redstone controlling it. As for streaming, I'd like to see their library combined with AppleTV+. AppleTV+ churns good content but lacks a deep library to make it worth subscribing too.
Definitely not going to be a new administration.
yeah should have added a potential new admin.
The Biden hopeful wishcasting...lol.
If we get a new administration, there's bigger things to worry about...
Even for Paramount.
Taylor Sheridan plays a big factor in that. A good percentage signed up for Yellowstone. His behavior has been an issue for several. But the main issue is Paramount dumbly continues to sign for Taylor Sheridan half assed projects he continues to spit out and then abandons. This is upsetting for viewers, the shows they were enticed with have gone STAGNANT. He continues to run through projects anticipating the same $$$ that came in from Yellowstone. He fumbled one of the most profitable shows on Paramount that could’ve been successful for another several seasons. He has writing skills, but also reeks of con man.
Seems like they need another banger like The Godfather.
Also, did anyone read this article and notice the parallels with the third season of "The Morning Show" on Apple TV+, specifically Holland Taylor's character?