Viacom is dead, long live Paramount...

[TheOneManHerd 553]

 

[mrschimpf 2050]

A change that should've been made all the way back in 1994 when they bought Paramount, frankly. I never understood why they were so wed to the Viacom name, which has always been associated with 'cheap'.

[ABC 7 Denver 1552]

And CBS is rebranded to Paramount Television Network.

[Action Newsroom 1149]

And just as I grew to love (read: tolerate) ViacomCBS lol. This is a name they should've went with the first time (either that or CBSParamount) but personally I'm satisfied with the change nonetheless.

[Kenneth Kissel 280]

1 minute ago, ABC 7 Denver said:

And CBS is rebranded to Paramount Television Network.

If this doesn't happen. Maybe a UPN comeback? 

[qunewsguy 376]

CBS as a brand won't go anywhere. It's got nearly a century of legacy on its own. Still... glad to see they went with Paramount instead of Viacom.

[ABC 7 Denver 1552]

I realize it's a globally recognized brand, but it's the tail wagging the dog. 

[The Frog 392]

Paramount Global, to be exact.

 

ViacomCBS To Rebrand As Paramount Global

[tyrannical bastard 3442]

And now, let us bask in the former glory of Viacom logos.

 

My personal favorite was the "wikiwiki" version of the 90s, where VYE-a-com was spoken.

 

Was the company known as "VEE-a-com" before?  Some of the 80s variants seem to think so.

[Action Newsroom 1149]

On 2/16/2022 at 12:02 AM, tyrannical bastard said:

Was the company known as "VEE-a-com" before?  Some of the 80s variants seem to think so.

Apparently, yes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_(1952–2006)#cite_note-3

[J1975am 208]

On 2/15/2022 at 11:02 PM, tyrannical bastard said:

And now, let us bask in the former glory of Viacom logos.

 

My personal favorite was the "wikiwiki" version of the 90s, where VYE-a-com was spoken.

 

Was the company known as "VEE-a-com" before?  Some of the 80s variants seem to think so.

Thanks for reminding us on this board about the dreaded V of Doom! (Not sure how many on this board were/have been legitimately scared by the V of Doom before; it is probably the scariest closing logo in television history!)

 

Should one ever come across the V of Doom at the end of a show on, say, MeTV, they have been forewarned!!

[tyrannical bastard 3442]

On 2/18/2022 at 1:36 PM, J1975am said:

Thanks for reminding us on this board about the dreaded V of Doom! (Not sure how many on this board were/have been legitimately scared by the V of Doom before; it is probably the scariest closing logo in television history!)

 

Should one ever come across the V of Doom at the end of a show on, say, MeTV, they have been forewarned!!

I remember seeing it for the first time on old Andy Griffith repeats that ran on WOAC-TV 67 in Canton/Akron before they got sold and turned into an INTV/Shop At Home station and now TCT owned WRLM....

 

By then I was old enough to not be scared by stuff like this, but years before the "Sit UBU sit" somehow had an effect on me

 

And the old ITC logo that ran after the Muppet Show kind of creeped me out too!

Edited February 20, 2022 by tyrannical bastard

[JosiahCubed 238]

1 hour ago, tyrannical bastard said:

I remember seeing it for the first time on old Andy Griffith repeats that ran on WOAC-TV 67 in Canton/Akron before they got sold and turned into an INTV/Shop At Home and now TCT owned WRLM....

 

By then I was old enough to not be scared by stuff like this, but years before the "Sit UBU sit" somehow had an effect on me

 

And the old ITC logo that ran after the Muppet Show kind of creeped me out too!

Yeah, the V of Doom never scared me as a kid (whether I was 3 or 8 years old) when watching old shows like Andy Griffith or Gilligan's Island on TV Land or Retro TV.

[channel2 869]

On 2/15/2022 at 2:54 PM, mrschimpf said:

A change that should've been made all the way back in 1994 when they bought Paramount, frankly. I never understood why they were so wed to the Viacom name, which has always been associated with 'cheap'.

 

When Viacom originally struck the deal to buy Paramount Communications, the planned name was "Paramount Viacom International." Then the bidding war with Barry Diller ensued and somehow the rebrand ended up being scuttled.

 

Sumner was very attached to the name "Viacom." I have to wonder if dropping the name is intended to communicate a clean break from him.

[Geoffrey 779]

Is Paramount in trouble?

 

Deadline:

Quote

 

Paramount+ has canceled a slew of its originals including Grease: Rise of the Pink Ladies, Star Trek: Prodigy, Queen of the Universe and The Game and is taking the shows off its platform as it becomes the latest media company to take a content write-down.

Grease: Rise of the Pink Ladies has been canceled after one season, Star Trek: Prodigy will not be going forth with its previously announced second season, The Game has been canceled after two seasons and Graham Norton-hosted reality series Queen of the Universe has been axed after two seasons.

 

 

Before this news broke today, this came out yesterday: Paramount as We Know It Has 2 Years Left, at Most — Analyst

Quote

Sure, the linear television channels and direct-to-consumer businesses would be “sold at deep discounts,” but “a rare gem” in Cahall’s words, are Paramount Studios and CBS Studios.

Quote

That’s the general consensus surrounding Paramount Global: It’s got great studios and a deep library, but the suite of cable channels and other antiquated assets belong in the bargain bin. Even broadcast network CBS, despite regularly drawing the most viewers on television, is more of a burden than a blessing in potential M&A activity.

 

It felt like we were in a golden age of television with all of the new shows and streaming options not too long ago... but it seems like the entire industry is really struggling to survive.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Geoffrey

[tyrannical bastard 3442]

The industry is such a mess, the streaming services can't even afford to keep EXISTING content that PAYING customers either are watching or want to watch.

 

I sense another A.A.P. situation where a equity firm or consortium of companies buys up dead content to license elsewhere.   What good is it doing sitting in a warehouse when it could be monetized, streamed or purchased outright?

[mrschimpf 2050]

They're throwing all the money at one creator (Taylor Sheridan, who refuses any script help and writes nothing but worn-down tropes) towards one demographic (which mostly watches INSP and FNC) while starving promotion from their other shows and creators outside the SpongeBobs and South Parks, and like any PG cable channel has been for the last ten years, you have to watch the content at the time it comes out before they pull it back because they refuse to let it thrive or give unknown creators security (the Heathers situation).

 

Their model is unsustainable, and that their cable portfolio is now in the infomercials and home shopping level of filler nobody actually watches...they're lucky they have CBS primetime and Tom Cruise, because everything else they've touched is just not doing well.

[channel2 869]

3 hours ago, tyrannical bastard said:

The industry is such a mess, the streaming services can't even afford to keep EXISTING content that PAYING customers either are watching or want to watch.

 

I sense another A.A.P. situation where a equity firm or consortium of companies buys up dead content to license elsewhere.   What good is it doing sitting in a warehouse when it could be monetized, streamed or purchased outright?

 

What good is it doing sitting in a warehouse when it could be out there in the culture for people to partake in?

 

We talk an awful lot about money, money, money, but not so much about the social or cultural value of things.

[tyrannical bastard 3442]

Unlike Disney, who for decades of the home video era created the artificial scarcity of limited releases before things are put back into the "Disney Vault", the stuff that's being pulled from streaming services may never see the light of day again unless somebody finds it in the dumpster, and then has to cough up the rights to have it see the light of day again.

Edited June 24, 2023 by tyrannical bastard

[MD TV 163]

Axios is reporting that Paramount is in talks to be merged with WBD:

 

https://www.axios.com/2023/12/20/warner-bros-paramount-merger-discovery-streaming?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social

[mouseboy33 39]

If it comes to fruition thats big.

 

[gbsgeo 20]

rip CBS News

[HSV cheesehead 88]

1 hour ago, MD TV said:

Axios is reporting that Paramount is in talks to be merged with WBD:

 

https://www.axios.com/2023/12/20/warner-bros-paramount-merger-discovery-streaming?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social

Quote

Between the lines: The deal could drive substantial synergies.

• WBD could use its international distribution footprint to boost Paramount's franchises, while Paramount's children's programing assets could be essential to WBD's long-term streaming ambitions.
• CBS News could be combined with CNN to create a global news powerhouse. CBS' crime dramas, such as "NCIS" and "Criminal Minds," could be combined with Investigation Discovery and TruTV.
• CBS Sports' footprint could be combined with WBD's. For example, CBS and WBD's Turner Sports currently share TV rights for March Madness.

Could that mean CBS News finally becoming a top player? Possibly, but not likely.

[GodfreyGR 493]

2 minutes ago, HSV cheesehead said:

Could that mean CBS News finally becoming a top player? Possibly, but not likely.

The 3rd place broadcast newsroom combining with the 3rd place cable newsroom does not make a powerhouse.

 

At what point with all the consolidation does anti-trust finally apply?

[mre29 1338]

I could see Paramount merging with a pre-WBD Discovery, as the latter was basically just a bunch of cable channels at the time. But this.....