posted
(I just heard about this on the radio) Actually, Viacom would probably have to get rid of UPN because of a federal rule that prohibits a firm from owning more than one network. There's also a law that allows a single firm to reach no more than 35% of the nation's viewers, and CBS already has 32%.
------------------ "I told you. You're dead. This is the afterlife. And I'm God." --Q to Picard, "Tapestry".
posted
Ok, I think I'm going to have to change my tune. Here's the news article from the IMDb.
VIACOM BUYS CBS
Viacom announced today (Tuesday) that it is buying CBS Corp. for $34.45 billion in stock -- the biggest media merger in history. The new company will be headed by Sumner Redstone, who will retain the titles of chairman and CEO, while CBS chief Mel Karmazin will be named president and COO. The merger, which had been hinted at but discounted by most analysts during the past week, caught many media watchers off guard. "We assumed the strong personalities of Redstone and Karmazin would prohibit such a merger," Fred Moran, analyst at ING Barings, told Bloomberg News. In a statement, Karmazin said, "The new, combined company will be the pre-eminent media company in the world, with great strength in content and distribution across virtually every kind of media that serves the public, both here in the United States and internationally." The statement said that while the new company will be called Viacom, "the world-famous CBS brand will continue to greet viewers and listeners." Still up in the air is the fate of the troubled UPN network, which Viacom partly owns through its Paramount TV division. (By law, no company may own two television networks.) Ironically, CBS itself once owned Viacom, selling off the company in 1969 to comply with a government rule that barred networks from owning the programs that they aired.
------------------ "Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned." -- They Might Be Giants
posted
But Viacom only owns roughly half of UPN, so what does that mean in light of being only able to own one network? Who knows...?
They could let Cris-Craft or whatever buy them out of UPN and keep the stations they own (some of which are actually in areas where there's no CBS!), converting them into CBS stations, just nudging the 35% rule...?
------------------ Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
posted
Here in Canada, CBC Newsworld airs the BBC World news at three in the afternoon local time. I watched their piece on the merger yesterday, and ironically enough the movie scene they chose to show while the reporter was talking was of the Titanic sinking, after it had broken in half and the stern was plunging into the water. A bit of unintentional foreshadowing of UPN's future, perhaps?
------------------ "But, it was so artistically done." -Grand Admiral Thrawn
posted
It looks like Viacom is eager to drop UPN, according to this news story.
VIACOM DOESN'T WANT ITS UPN
Viacom has told the FCC that it will not contest any regulatory decision requiring it to sell off its 50-percent stake in UPN, Broadcasting and Cable reported over the weekend, citing sources familiar with the Viacom-CBS merger. The trade publication said that Viacom has already informed the commission that it has no compelling financial interest in keeping the network, a money loser since its inception. Broadcasting and Cable observed that the company's position "puts the FCC in a quandary because it is unclear whether UPN would attract viable buyers, and regulators do not want to see one of the fledgling nets go out of business -- particularly one whose programming targets minority audiences."
------------------ "Recombination, then Viacom; Safeway." -- Soul Coughing
posted
No, not really. For one thing, there are contractual obligations. I don't think Viacom could move Voyager even if they wanted to.
But there is the question of the next series. Personally, I don't see it happening. I just don't see Star Trek as being mainstream enough. Maybe back in the days of TNG, but now? Also, Trek really doesn't seem to fit into the long term plans of the Tiffany network.
My guess? The fifth series is going to return to the tried and true syndication format.
At any rate, at the soonest, it'll be a year before any new Star Trek shows up. So we'll have some time to observe what the outcomes of this deal are, if any. (Unless of course we get some update at startrek.com..."Star Trek goes mainstream!" Boy, would my face be red.)
------------------ "Recombination, then Viacom; Safeway." -- Soul Coughing
posted
I really don't know if CBS will try to field the next Star Trek series or not. Do we want it to? Would any of the TNG-on series lasted more than on season on any of thew big three? I seriously doubt it. I believe that TNG itself, which has been the biggest money maker of all three, wouldn't even lasted a whole season. The big three are interested in quick returns and instant gratification. They don't generally wait three seasons for a poorly rated show to hit its stride. Instead of suffering from the pitfalls that plague most syndicated televison show (before TNG, syndicated=crap), Star Trek has prospered from it. In fact the one new series that was produced on a network (maybe pseudo network would be a little more accurate) has performed very poorly. In other words, I think that syndication is the only viable format for producing another quality and lasting Star Trek program.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
