Resignation[]
The way this is worded the impression is given that he resigned in Sepetmber 2018 due to the merger, but I thought he resigned due to other reasons? (Being vague in case there's an admin rule in place not to mention specifics.) 136.159.160.7 21:57, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
- No, as long as it is properly documented, following MA's guidelines regarding use of, most importantly, verifiable background information materials, there are no rules against mentioning specifics, however seedy or unsavory they might be. This case you refer to is rather one of one of our archivists/editors (which incidentally, you might be one of) not yet having been able to get around to, addressing the circumstances you (quite rightfully as it now seems) imply...--Sennim (talk) 23:53, February 5, 2019 (UTC)
Removed paragraph[]
I removed the following paragraph yesterday, because it had very little to do with Moonves, and was mostly sourced to unreliable sources (specifically YouTube videos by Midnight's Edge, which mixes fact with rumor, speculation, and supposed "inside information").
- While Moonves or anyone else at CBS did not at that time, Paramount nonetheless showed interest to continue with the Star Trek franchise in the form of theatrical features, but had now to negotiate a separate license from CBS (incidentally, also for Star Trek's sister franchise Mission: Impossible, which had also changed hands), which it eventually secured together with production partner Bad Robot Productions. However, the by Moonves co-engineered license came with a twist as it turned out later; any new Star Trek movie made by Paramount, had to reportedly for at least 25% – the percentage inadvertently confirmed by Production Illustrator John Eaves in April 2018 [1] – differentiate in production design, likeness and "tonality" from all live-action Star Trek previously produced. The reasoning behind this was rather prosaic – it prevented Paramount from demanding a cut of all merchandise based on "old" Star Trek, past or future, aside from the license being an easy revenue stream for CBS to begin with. Exempt from this were the revenues from home video formats of the ten "old" Star Trek films already made, whereas revenues stemming from any merchandise based on any "new" Star Trek films were to be shared with CBS. The advent of the alternate reality, starting in 2009 with Star Trek, therefore was not so much a creative choice, but rather one dictated by commercially motivated legalities. [2] For Paramount proper, this also meant that the license fee paid added a substantial, but otherwise undisclosed, cost element that had not been there previously, aggravating the already contentious "Hollywood accounting" phenomenon as well as being detrimental to the profitability of their movies, which became a matter of note for Star Trek Beyond in particular (see also in this regard: main article). [3]
The only line in that paragraph that is relevant to Moonves is the phrase "by Moonves co-engineered license". The cited link for that sentence (to fasastartrek.com) doesn't mention Moonves or give any indication of the authorship of the supposed license, and the other citations are to Midnight's Edge videos. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 17:41, August 2, 2019 (UTC)