this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)
Quark's
1548 readers
30 users here now
Come to Quark’s, Quark’s is Fun!
General off-topic chat for the crew of startrek.website. Trek-adjacent discussions, other sci-fi television, navigating the Fediverse, server meta (within reason), selling expired cases of Yamok sauce, it’s all fair game.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Given Ellison was a producer on Into Darkness, and has recurrently cited Star Trek in the listings of legacy properties in documents related to the merger, I expect that the CEO will micromanage the franchise for good or ill.
Beyond the fact that I don’t see Cheeks or Goldberg staying more than 18 months, based on typical merger transitions, I can’t see Ellison leaving Star Trek in his management.
Goldberg is coming over from Skydance, where she's been since the company was founded in 2010. I don't think she'll be going anywhere.
As for Cheeks...I guess it's a vote of confidence that he's staying at all, but being in charge of linear TV in 2025 seems like a pretty thankless task.
In all honesty, if I were calling the shots, I'd probably move Trek away from CBS Studios and over to Paramount Television. It makes more sense in terms of the divisions' mission statements, and Paramount TV is under the same leadership as Paramount Pictures, which could make it easier to coordinate a feature film with whatever's going on on the TV side.
The downside to that is losing Cheeks, who seems to have done right by Star Trek. Instead it would be overseen by Goldberg and Matt Thunell, who was President of Television at Skydance. I have no reason to believe either of them would be bad for the franchise, but...there's always a risk when you're leaving the devil you know in favour of one that you don't.