If you wonder why Viacom/Paramount can not fund Star Trek...

[spshu]

Viacom Executives Paid to Stay at Home

Time to buy Viacom Stock and ask for their heads at the stock holder annual meeting. If I could even get the motion on the agenda.

[REG]

You need to buy at least 51% of the company's total share to have a unilateral say. You also may want to be prepared to pay legal fees if Les Moonves decided sue for wrongful termination of employment. I don't think "Because he cancelled Enterprise" defense would hold in a civil court.

[JALU3]

how much would that take . . . I am sure we can create a LLC to do it. Make us all partial owners.

[REG]

First, you have to determine the total number of shares and divide that by half.

Secondly, you have to check if any of the shareholders are willing to part with their Viacom stocks.

Thirdly, hire an investigation firm to dig up any dirt on Les Moonves, to use as a leverage and force him to resign or early retirement. Easier this way than fire him only to have him sue back.

Lastly, never forget the primary reason everyone buys shares for: a return to their investment.

In any case, you need to be as cutthroat as a Ferengi, not a starfleet captain.

[Dan Gurden]

In any case, you need to be as cutthroat as a Ferengi, not a starfleet captain.

The ultimate irony would be to complete all of the above, and then find that you still could not return Enterprise to the screen profitably... just a thought.

[T'lara]

Enterprise was not making money. Bottom Line. Look at all the articles from Voyager to Enterprise now. Dig them up, because if I start quoting I am 'bashing'. There was alot of talk about cancelling Voyager because it was unprofitable. Enterprise did not do that well for the profit. If Les Moonves did not cancel it someone else would have. It sucks that now we may not have a Trek series for awhile or never again. Just because one likes a show it has to get the bling. No bling no show. 2 million dollars per show without much bling was not profitable enough for Viacom. If you read through alot of the trades there is major restructuring going on in Viacom since the new heads got into power. Enterprise. unfortunately for Enterprise fans, is on a long list of causalties that made that list. Viacom is trimming the fat. Read it up. Don't take my word for it.

If they are smart they get a new staff with an actual sci fi background maybe bring in people that can bring new flavor to the series or old hands that can bring new life like Wolfe, Behr, David, etc. Star Trek is an institution no arguement there, but remember James Bond went through alot of restructering after License to Kill it was almost a decade before we had Goldeneye with Pierce Bronson. Since then Bond movies have not sucked. MGM had to rework and rethink alittle and get the fans watering again. This may happen to Enterprise keep in mind how long it took between Star Trek: TOS and Star Trek: TNG. How long they waited and even for the Star Trek: TMP. We can wait and will have too. Let's hope Star Trek is not killed forever.

[Sea Tyger]

Well, the Bond movies haven't "sucked," but they have gone in a much different direction than the original movies (almost science-fiction). The funny thing is, everyone invovled with Bond believed that Timothy Dalton was closer to Fleming's ideal of Bond than any of the other actors (trivia note, Dalton was offered the role of Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but turned it down because he thought he was too young).

With Pierce Brosnan gone, the Bond franchise is re-exaiming its direction, trying to decide if they want to continue the near-sci-fi route, or return to their roots.

But, you are correct, the retooling that they did over the 6-year break revitalized the franchise (of course, bringing in the actor they wanted almost a decade earlier helped after Dalton resigned the role in '94).

Star Trek may require a retooling, although I was extremely happy with Manny Coto coming in this year (he did, in my opinion, phenomenal work), and I would like to see him take over the mantle of Trek. I would have preferred season 5 of Enterprise, but, we'll have to wait 'til the next series/movie to see where the franchise goes.

[Don Mappin]

Star Trek is an institution no arguement there, but remember James Bond went through alot of restructering after License to Kill it was almost a decade before we had Goldeneye with Pierce Bronson. Since then Bond movies have not sucked. MGM had to rework and rethink alittle and get the fans watering again.

Excuse me?

Worst. Parallel. Evar.

Totally different reasoning behind what happened. Plus, one is a movie property and the other isn't.

As for not sucking, have you seen Die Another Day?

Please.

[spshu]

You need to buy at least 51% of the company's total share to have a unilateral say. You also may want to be prepared to pay legal fees if Les Moonves decided sue for wrongful termination of employment. I don't think "Because he cancelled Enterprise" defense would hold in a civil court.

Would not need to buy the 51%, just get other shareholders to give me proxy authority atleast on this item. Influencing the company that gives advice to institutional holders of stock could help as this probably would catch their attention. Les Moonves would have to sue Viacom, not me, as he does not work for me but I suppose he could try. This would be for cause as he is being paid to stay at home which is never a reimbursable expense. Those in accounting and treasury that processed this should lose their jobs, too. Star Trek is a major franchise for Paramount, so failing to do something proactive to make it work earlier has to fall on someone's or some person's shoulders.

how much would that take . . . I am sure we can create a LLC to do it. Make us all partial owners.

Not a bad ideal. Perhaps Trek United, Inc. could be a conduit to purchase the stock, but they promised to donate the money to charity or return it.

First, you have to determine the total number of shares and divide that by half.

Not hard as you can get that number from Viacom or from Yahoo Finance section.

Secondly, you have to check if any of the shareholders are willing to part with their Viacom stocks.

Can any one say proxy. See above.

Thirdly, hire an investigation firm to dig up any dirt on Les Moonves, to use as a leverage and force him to resign or early retirement. Easier this way than fire him only to have him sue back.

If some one could atleast cause about as much trouble for Moonves at the annual meeting as accurred at Disney's Annual Meeting for Eisner then he might resign anyways. Fight cleanly so no one can claim anything but business reasons for his dismissal. This is dirt as it is basically stealing.

Lastly, never forget the primary reason everyone buys shares for: a return to their investment.

Hurting Star Trek franchise and taking money hurts the bottom line. Trek books have slowed to about one a month. Look at the video game lawsuit against them for not handling the Trek franchise right. Hurting the franchise hurts licensing deals. The weak the franchise is perceived the less you can get in licensing royalities.

In any case, you need to be as cutthroat as a Ferengi, not a starfleet captain.

I would be both.

The ultimate irony would be to complete all of the above, and then find that you still could not return Enterprise to the screen profitably... just a thought.

Well you can cut cost. Does it really need 3 executive producers? No. Two less executive producers saving 2+ million dollars (I assume as I do not know what they get paid). Evaluated other producer positions, too. Moving to Canada would save money in operating costs and usually gets a subsidy from the Canadian government or from a Canadian Province or both. Dual 1st run broadcast deal could spread cost out between the two networks, for example Spike TV and UPN. Close down the Trek wardrobe department or open it up to doing additional work for other programs. Ditto with special effects department. Perhaps even purchase some of the other companies providing some special effects to them to make it a one stop shop for Paramount and others.

T'lara, I have not read anything about the profitability for Voyager, but I can believe it. As I do remember a TV Guide or local newspaper article that Voyager show length was cut from the standard show length 2 or 3 times for more ads to the point that the show was shorter than a standard length 1st run syndicated show like TNG or DS9. The UPN channel was launch as a showcase for a Star Trek show which targeted the primary movie going population males 18-32 (or what ever that age range is). It was created as an advertising venue for Paramount movies, so losing money was consider OK if not good. If Voyager was doing so bad then that should signal to the powers that be that Enterprise should have waited instead of launching it right after Voyager. (Of course their was no "tent pole" show at that time with WWE Wrestling being down at that time. But with the Next Top Model they do have an alternative.) More cause to fire them if either were involved with that decision. Of course, it might cost more money later to restart the franchise as they will most likely shut down the Trek costume and special effects departments.

Summer Redstone is the CEO, Chairman and the major (or atleast the controlling ) stock holder and had been in power for some time. Les Moonves has been with CBS for a long time and put in charge of UPN a few years ago and is only recently
promoted to co-COO in preparation of the split of Viacom into CBS/UPN/Infinity and MTV Networks/Paramount Studios. Thomas Freston -- I am not sure of how long he has been around as president of MTV Networks. If Viacom is as you say it "trimming the fat" then why are they around? They have shown in this article that they are the "FAT" by living high on the Viacom "hog" by requesting and taking these payment for living in their own house and using the corporate jet for personal use.

Coto seem to be going in the right direction, but reducing cost they probably could not bring back any old hands unless they want a reduced role or pay.

MGM only distributes Bond in the USA, as Danjaq is the UK production company.

By the way what they is illegal if it is not in their contract and is illegal either way if it is not included in their income for taxes.

[REG]

Would not need to buy the 51%, just get other shareholders to give me proxy authority atleast on this item. Influencing the company that gives advice to institutional holders of stock could help as this probably would catch their attention. Les Moonves would have to sue Viacom, not me, as he does not work for me but I suppose he could try. This would be for cause as he is being paid to stay at home which is never a reimbursable expense. Those in accounting and treasury that processed this should lose their jobs, too. Star Trek is a major franchise for Paramount, so failing to do something proactive to make it work earlier has to fall on someone's or some person's shoulders.

Meh. I'm not one to follow the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" method of influencing current shareholders to support me in the voting process. I'm too paranoid. I prefer to take their shares.