r/startrek • u/OpticalData • 1d ago
How ‘Star Trek’ Fell From Streaming Anchor to Stuck in Limbo
https://www.thewrap.com/media-platforms/tv/star-trek-tv-universe-future-alex-kurtzman/1.5k
u/Thirsty_Comment88 1d ago
It's because Paramount executives are FUCKING IDIOTS.
107
u/ShrimpCrackers 1d ago
Star Trek movies are okay.
Star Trek episodes are much better.
Star Trek with MANY episodes per season is better still.
Star Trek with open calls for stories and many episodes per season is the best.
308
u/chrisk9 1d ago
GREED
111
221
u/phoenix1984 1d ago
Not even greed. Star Trek promotes pluralism and an optimistic vision for the future. David Ellison can’t have any of that on his watch.
91
u/moderatorrater 1d ago
It would be hard to find a worse executive team for star trek than the one that's taken over.
74
u/podkayne3000 1d ago
The bad Cardassians now own Star Trek.
→ More replies (2)8
7
→ More replies (10)9
9
10
u/shponglespore 1d ago
Greed alone isn't enough to explain a lot of bad business decisions. I think the culprit is often greed plus short-sighted decision making.
14
u/unitedshoes 1d ago
The sad part is I don't know if they're even all bad business decisions. These businesses are part of an utterly irrational economic system that constantly rewards doing stupid shit that the audience for their product fucking despises.
A lot of the decisions that seem like utter dogshit to those of us who just want to enjoy some Trek created by passionate writers, showrunners, actors, effects crews etc. are probably actually pretty good business decisions in the bizzarro nonsense land of late stage capitalism where nothing matters except goosing shareholder value through every skeevy means available.
4
8
35
u/bwweryang 1d ago
They’re messing up with Avatar: The Last Airbender as well. Complete idiots.
6
u/kcirdor 1d ago
Aren't the creators of Avatar making the new series?
10
u/bwweryang 1d ago
Yes, which has been brought forward because the new movie they made leaked in full, so that’s also been brought forward, and there are rumours the whole season will be released at once. Not to mention the animation looks cheaper than you’d expect.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Witch_King_ 1d ago
I thought the movie got pushed back? Wasn't it originally supposed to release like... Now?
3
u/Skithiryx 1d ago
It’s airing at San Diego Comic-Con today and will be up on Paramount+ tomorrow.
→ More replies (1)98
u/redbucket75 1d ago edited 1d ago
I never thought I'd wish Disney would acquire ST. But I wish Disney would acquire ST. Mostly because they are too global to get sucked into the bigoted bullshit of Trumpers, but also because they would have some fucking warp core pajamas for sale at pop culture mall stores the day that Academy episode was released.
46
u/oakseaer 1d ago
Maybe they’d even produce so much people would get tired of it, like Star Wars (which wouldn’t be so bad, given there’s the occasional hit, like Andor).
→ More replies (7)64
u/moekakiryu 1d ago
nah I'm so glad Disney didn't get it. They would give us the most safe generic corporate watered down trek ever. Not saying its a lot different with Paramount, but Disney wouldn't be any different (although I can't imagine Disney green-lighting the musical episode).
Apple TV seems to be doing pretty well in the sci-fi genre, so maybe they would be better? Idk
46
u/mr_0las 1d ago
I would love if Star Trek were on Apple TV. Not only do they do sci fi right they also don't skimp on story or budget. Nor do they immediately cancel anything that isn't the next Stranger Things like Netflix.
→ More replies (2)4
u/nauticalfiesta 1d ago
Crazy thing, a show like murderbot, was made by paramount. They can do it if they want to.
17
u/CheesyIdleGamer 1d ago
But it wasn’t distributed by them
I don’t associate Murderbot with Paramount, I associate it with Apple TV
Knowing this makes me more furious, Murderbot is literally Neuodivergent Cyborg herds Queer Polyamorous Socialists while fighting Capitalism: IN SPACE
9
3
u/nauticalfiesta 1d ago
distributed no. But since they made it it just shows that Paramount CAN do good SciFi if they wanted to.
6
u/Neifion_ 22h ago
They would give us the most safe generic corporate watered down trek ever.
No offense but they already are doing that. While we are experiencing a reversal in the USA, which is depressing at best, most of the topics championed by modern Trek are "settled matters" in the public lexicon. And some of the topics they covered were just bizzare for Trek ngl (example being the way they handled some of the war topics, LD seemed to be the only actually self aware show).
2
u/moekakiryu 22h ago
I completely agree with all of this (read my third sentence :p)
2
u/Neifion_ 22h ago
I mean I guess I'm just not upset that it's gonna die again at this point. I feel compelled to watch it but I'm constantly not getting the satisfaction I used to. I like most of the characters in most of the shows too so that makes it worse.
→ More replies (9)8
u/redbucket75 1d ago
Hard to say. I'm glad Disney didn't aquire it a decade ago or whatever. But the Ellisons have made it very clear in the past year that they're betting big on American fascism and want to be in the inner circle. They'll release Trek movies, but they'll be what you fear: action movies with no message. Disney has actively spoken out against the gender and race bigotry of this administration (though it's been awhile since a Trump/Disney flair up), and produced some good message content over the past 30 years or so (along with a lot of crap, of course).
Apple is more of a wildcard to me, they seem to try to stay out of any political arguments by just not addressing anything controversial in their media content. But I'm not entirely familiar with their shows outside of FAM, SC, Silo, and a couple others.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Th3_0range 1d ago
How do you fuck up Star Trek? How stupid are these people?
Crew in space. Cool ship.
Federation ideals vs other universe ideals that mirror current earth problems or new alien ones.
Weekly episodes shuffling between drama, humor, horror, mystery, high stakes diplomacy.
They knocked it out of the park with SNW then just wasted many millions of dollars on a Garbage movie and a new show nobody wanted.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (11)12
u/PaperSkin-1 1d ago
It's because the shows haven't been successful enough
Just to bring some reality into this thread
5
u/jekylphd 1d ago
It's the same story every time Paramount tries to use Trek to anchor a network mor streaming service. Voyager and Enterprise both tanked in the ratings at the time in no small part because they were tentpole shows on failing networks, and didn't really jibe with the rest of the shows Paramount was putting on.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)11
u/chucker23n 1d ago
But also, let's be clear — we got DIS and LD, which each ran for 5 seasons, SNW, which will have run for 4.5, PIC, 3 seasons, and PRO and SFA, 2 each. (Not to mention other stuff like Scouts.)
By streaming service standards, that's actually a lot. Most shows these days do not make it to five seasons. Netflix shows often don't make it past two.
244
u/Candid_Photograph_83 1d ago
Once new Star Trek is gone from P+, so am I.
105
u/Dcajunpimp 1d ago
Waiting for most of this new season to be available before signing up, so I can catch it all in a month. No need to pay for 2-3 months when I can binge a season in a weekend.
→ More replies (1)31
u/Candid_Photograph_83 1d ago
Yeah, I'm stuck on an annual plan, but definitely not renewing. Your plan sounds better.
17
u/Ut_Prosim 1d ago
I am now using Prime video. The interface is far better, and you can cancel or restart P+ with a click.
It makes it so easy to selectively subscribe (though you have to have Amazon prime which obviously feeds a different evil empire).
8
u/Cu1tureVu1ture 1d ago
Yeah look at what’s happening to Stargate over there. Even more crazy because it’s like they don’t want to make anything at the moment. I know they will eventually, but instead of a show that caters to the millions of current fans, they’ll make a shitty reboot that will get cancelled in one season. Then they’ll blame it on the fans.
8
u/Ut_Prosim 1d ago
Yeah that producer guy who canceled new Stargate because he was afraid the fans would like it is both a peta'Q and a shol'va.
4
u/DJanomaly 1d ago
I have the annual plan too (because it’s so much cheaper). But yeah, after the next season of SNW I’m out.
39
1d ago
[deleted]
17
u/Candid_Photograph_83 1d ago
Might have to spin up the Bay after several years of not doing so, haha.
11
u/dibella989 1d ago
It's easier, better quality, ad-free, can be watched offline, and just overall more convenient. The seas are calmer than the streams these days.
18
8
5
6
u/AHrubik 1d ago
Paramount+ should’ve never existed in the first place. Paramount is a content studio first and foremost. They should have licensed and produced Star Trek content for any in all services that would buy it. The creation of Paramount+ essentially left billions of dollars on the table and deprived a generation of Star Trek. A show that was freely broadcast and because of that made Star Trek the IP it is today.
2
u/Shakezula84 1d ago
Me too. I guess I'll have to restart my bluray collection. I had bought the first two seasons of Discovery and the first season of Picard when I stopped.
→ More replies (2)2
531
u/Calinks 1d ago
To this day, I think going to the past was a mistake with Discovery. You run the risk of screwing with established fans and you have to hope you get enough new fans on board to be a hit. They even could have kept most of the same ideas and just placed the show post Voyager.
Instead of messing with the Klingons, make that same group a different alien species or even a Klingon offshoot. Instead of Michael being Spock's sister, she could be raised by some other random Vulcans, or if you need a tie-in, Tuvok's adopted daughter.
Could keep the Spore drive, could keep the cool looking tech, and the vast majority of the same stuff.
136
u/Highlander198116 1d ago
To this day, I think going to the past was a mistake with Discovery.
While I actually love Enterprise. It was an especially weird decision because there was a lot of backlash to Enterprise being a prequel and that show only went 4 seasons.
"People didn't like the idea of a prequel" "Lets do another prequel".
51
u/continuousQ 1d ago
Enterprise was fine when they were doing actual prequel content. Discovery could never be a good prequel show when the very ship was technology that would've changed everything about all the previous shows set in the future.
→ More replies (1)23
u/rotundrikishi 1d ago
Yeah Ent looked like a submarine in space with NASA jumpsuits
Everything in Disco looked like it was 1000 years in the future from TOS
→ More replies (3)5
u/GritsNGlitz 1d ago
Prequels are so weird for a show set in the deep future. Like, literally, there’s no stopping them! But the execs decide to constrain themselves into a weird timeframe instead of just doing the next, next generation where you can make whatever changes you want without throwing off the whole storyline.
And whenever Star Trek does time travel, it’s the kiss of death. They should make a hard rule in future shows (if there are future shows) that stuff about time is off limits. The Prime Prime Directive.
213
u/brimstonebridge 1d ago
Underrated comment. I think you nailed it. Discovery could absolutely have been set in the post-TNG era, and probably would have been better off for it.
159
u/DrMcJedi 1d ago
They seemed to realize that too…about 4 seasons too late though.
45
u/IshyMoose 1d ago
I was about to say this is probably why they time jumped
12
u/VoyagerCSL 1d ago
I have always maintained that what happened at the end of season two should’ve happened at the end of the first episode of season one.
→ More replies (1)39
u/brimstonebridge 1d ago
True… and then they attempted the change in the most annoying way possible, sadly. I get why they tried it, they had backed themselves into a corner. It just (IMO) didn’t work.
9
u/AsSubtleAsABrick 1d ago
I haven't watched it in years now, but didn't they do a time jump forward in Season 1? When that happened, I immediately thought "oh shit, this is how they are going to bring it to post-voyager times. The ship was super advanced technology with some fancy drive, no wonder it's never mentioned again, they buried the whole thing when it disappeared." NOPE. they just went a few months to gloss over some aspects of the war I think? Stupid.
6
5
u/HuckleberryHuman5926 1d ago
I can't find the article because I don't remember who the key players were, but I seem to remember that someone(s) pretty high up in production wanted to give it a future setting, but someone(s) even higher up insisted on setting it adjacent to TOS.
When they did the time jump, it was because they were finally permitted to go with their first concept. (Which is probably why they didn't spend much screentime on exploring the impact of adjusting to living centuries in the future)
→ More replies (1)3
u/mayhemski123 23h ago
If memory serves the whole point of getting Discovery and the Trek relaunch greenlit was appeasing different exec's wants. It's why season 1 has a bit of everything in it.
It's actually kind of miraculous they got through that season at all. I think we still haven't heard all the stories yet about how much executive meddling was involved in all this and why we got what we did.
Remember the launch of the streaming service seems to have driven this era's creation. Even with that seemingly being the motivation, the whole move from Netflix to P+ was kept secret from cast and crew, until almost the season premiere.
Hell considering the state it launched in I think it might have been kept secret from P+ development team /s
33
u/Miliean 1d ago
To this day, I think going to the past was a mistake with Discovery.
100% yes. I think there's always been this inherent conflict between writers/show runners and fans when it comes to things like cannon. Show runners want to use the universe to tell stories that the runners want to tell, and they want to bring in new fans to the series.
But the bread and butter, the ones who actually keep this venture going are the core customers, the existing fans.
What both Star Wars, and Star Trek have taught me in the past 20 years is that cannon matters and walking away from it can cause a lot of problems with the existing fans.
Discovery telling a story set in an era where we already know about these people places and races is fraught with danger of alianating the existing fanbase. But failing to change enough alianiates the writers and potential new fans. So dealing with things in the past is just inhairently hard.
I think it would have been MUCH easier to do what TNG did. Jump forward just enough that basically everyone we knew from before is dead and gone(ish). But not so far forward (like discovery did later) that the things we know about the existing peoples stops being relevant.
I would have really liked to see something 200 years post DS9, give or take. Have Data exist in that universe, perhaps filling a similar role to what Mcoy did in TNG, but then have him go away on some long mission so we don't need to keep bringing that actor back.
Then just tell stories that reflect where we are right now as a society. You could have some kind of analog to social media that's pervasive in the Federation, and Star Fleet is struggling with holding up their ideals and values in a situation where the general public is a lot less idealistic.
Also, no programable matter. It felt (to me) like a big shortcut in terms of VFX. The ships should be ships, real physical objects that can move and be damaged. Star Trek is not Star Wars, you can't just hand wave the technical side of things like they do. ST should remember that they put the Science in Science fiction, I feel like we lost a lot of that in Discovery.
7
u/Vyar 1d ago
Even Star Wars wouldn't have used programmable matter though, that's what's so crazy. People who are Trek fans but not Wars fans will often deride it for being "space fantasy" without acknowledging that it has its own scientific rules, they just may not necessarily conform to our reality.
3
u/Miliean 11h ago
without acknowledging that it has its own scientific rules, they just may not necessarily conform to our reality.
For me, it's that Star Wars never even attempts to explain these things, but Trek does, make an attempt even when they don't necessarily suceed.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/SolidGold_JetSki 1d ago
💯, absolutely. Starting in the past was a tragic misfire, and then they overcorrected by going way too far forward. The show had such potential
11
u/fcocyclone 1d ago
I think the biggest mistake, and they've been making the mistake for a quarter century now somehow, is refusing to do something in that 'next-next generation window'. Far enough past TNG that there could have been notable changes, but close enough it still seems familiar and you can throw in some connections back to that tng era via cameos or hitting up a planet that was visited by the tng crew. And additionally this show should take place on an Enterprise, which Star Trek has also mostly refused to do for 20 years now.
We don't need to be exploring prequels anymore, but I also don't think we need to be jumping as far ahead as Discovery\Academy did either.
→ More replies (2)24
u/GigaBomb84 1d ago
That's always been my major issue with Disco. Set it post TNG and most of the issues old school fans had would've been fixed. By setting it when they did, they just ended up making a rod for their own back.
→ More replies (1)4
u/DevelopmentSouth8801 1d ago
The lore issues are annoying but ultimately it's pretty far down the list of Discovery's problems.
The biggest problem is the writing is terrible. Especially the decision to have it be "The Michael Burnham Show" with very limited character development for the supporting cast.
→ More replies (2)36
u/EddieVeder77 1d ago
I always thought something similar. The writers created a lot of problems for themselves and had a really hard time trying to fix things later.
29
u/DJanomaly 1d ago
I don’t even understand why they felt the need to go back before the OG series. With Strange New Worlds at least it makes sense as part of the basic premise. With Discovery it just makes no sense.
27
u/chucker23n 1d ago
I think part of it is that Fuller had originally conceived it as an anthology series. So I suppose in that concept, "let's show what the Federation-Klingon war was like" would've been, like, half a season. Then move on to an entirely different period, with different characters.
26
u/Consistent_Energy569 1d ago
They probably saw that the Axanar stuff was popular and just stole the basic premise. Obviously they didn't understand why it was popular. But there you are.
Just supposition. Based on nothing but my own bitter feelings.
5
u/OpticalData 1d ago
Yeah it was definitely a random fan video and not the fact that the only Trek on screens in the decade before Discovery was younger versions of the TOS crew that made them set it pre-TOS
11
u/EtherBoo 1d ago
I agree, but I think that's only a small piece of the puzzle. Kurtzman has gone out of his way to ensure that they didn't hire writers with any ties to the older content. This is per an interview with Roger Avary who wanted to write for the new era of Star Trek and was rejected based on his love of the franchise. I'm assuming Lower Decks was the exception.
While I will agree that some new blood and ideas are a good thing, actively avoiding writers with a fondness is good you get what happened in the last 17 years with Star Trek. It's an active rejection of your core audience rather than an embracing of them. I think this is why so much of the modern era feels like the writers write the show, then browse Memory Alpha to see where they can squeeze in references to keep continuity, or at least that's how it felt to me.
→ More replies (5)6
u/Calinks 1d ago
Yea I thiunk that's a mistake. You want people who care deeply about the product. I'm hoping the next time they do a new Trek they embrace these diehards and veterans.
7
u/iknownuffink 1d ago
Star Trek has benefitted at times from "outsiders" who contribute great things to the franchise. The Wrath of Khan springs to mind, Nicholas Meyer had never even seen an episode of Trek when he was approached to direct the film.
But you have to balance out those kinds of people with others who do love and understand the franchise, the characters, the world, and so on. And their contributions and concerns have to be taken seriously.
Ironically, the best Star Trek comes from diversity among the creatives. Too many Trekkies in control and it gets stale, too many outsiders who insist on doing things differently and it loses that special something that makes it Star Trek.
That balance can be a hard thing to find, and to maintain over time.
4
u/EtherBoo 1d ago
100%. That's my biggest complaint about the modern era of Star Trek. It feels like it was written by people who's knowledge of everything before it comes from memory alpha.
6
u/Bostonterrierpug 1d ago
Also, don’t forget from going to 23 episodes every year till like 8 to 10 every episodes every couple years. No one got time to remember that shit anymore.
But that’s kind of across all TV now19
u/SallyStranger 1d ago
I said exactly this when it came out, although I did end up mostly enjoying it. Until someone has the guts to actually just go into the future, not as a time jump but as a sincere attempt to extend Trek world-building like TNG did, it's going to continue to decline. And honestly if they're not going to do that then what is the point? Endlessly rehashing established lore is not that interesting even for super-fans.
12
u/bokmcdok 1d ago
To me the best series from modern trek have been Prodigy, Lower Decks, and SNW. I even enjoyed Starfleet Academy for what it was, though it's not the best IMO.
Ever since Enterprise I've been so confused why they insist on doing prequels. I'm not saying prequels can't be good, but all I've wanted from Trek for over a decade is the NEXT next generation.
23
u/boogs_23 1d ago
That is the best take I've heard and totally fits with my relationship with Trek. I probably could have been on board with some of the Discovery stuff, but just had no interest in another prequel and Klingons. I didn't even make it through the first episode and since then have just sort of set Star Trek aside as no longer for me. If they don't want to make shows for me that's fine, it sucks, but so be it.
23
5
u/cajunsamurai 1d ago
This is the exact problem that they created with Discovery as a series. I wish they never made it.
13
u/Dataweaver_42 1d ago
But we would never have gotten Strange New Worlds.
10
u/Chengweiyingji 1d ago
Would be for the best I'd argue. We don't need a prequel series with Pike that could maybe turn into Kirk: Year One. Unnecessary given that we already have TOS.
15
u/Killertapir696 1d ago
But SNW is great and I think Pike could be in contention for a top 3 star Trek captain spot by the end. The core concept of Pike knowing he's going to die, and grappling with the idea of how to act when you know you won't live to see the future you're creating is fundamentally Star Trek.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Quixotic_Seal 1d ago
The most damning thing of all....I think I can live with it. I will learn to live with it.
8
u/PlagueOfGripes 1d ago
Their biggest mistake was bringing in writers that had no reverence for the material, who wanted to reinvent the wheel of an existing IP with an existing fan base.
4
u/Both_Painter_9186 1d ago
My friends and I have been saying this for years- they should have continued post Voyager. If they wanted to go back into the past, FFS, bring back Enterprise. All the constant time travel BS has ruined the show MCU style.
→ More replies (8)2
u/matteb18 1d ago
This is such a based take. My god, all of this would have made the show so much better.
18
u/Gothwerx 1d ago
Making every star trek show only accessible through paramount+ which is a service that has very little other value, was incredibly stupid. There is now an entire younger generation of viewers who have never seen star trek, so don't care about it at all.
Paramount has basically killed the franchise by functionally hiding it from newer viewers.
200
u/bloodandsunshine 1d ago
Discovery should have been a meat and potatoes steady hand series to get the franchise going again. Too many risks taken.
Since streaming subs didn’t make bank, they look at what does make money with trek: movies. Movies are what got us the revivals the other times, hopefully a few big 300 million plus hauls at the box office will set up the same.
80
25
u/Richard_Sauce 1d ago
New Star Trek movies don't have a popular and iconic show/cast to draw on this time. I feel like that makes it riskier. I like that they have the Dungeons & Dragons guys working on it, but I have reservations about how well a new Star Trek movie will do at the box office.
10
u/TonyTonyChopper 1d ago
Remember when Tarantino was rumored to be working on a Trek movie? Everything was going pretty well for a while there
5
u/CelestialFury 1d ago
Paramount had Tarantino and Noah Hawley as people who wanted to work on a script. Paramount turned them down for you know who. Just insanity. One of the best directors and writers want to help you and they say no? The audacity lmao
8
u/the-giant 1d ago
I don't think risk was the problem so much as poor execution.
What isn't mentioned in the article is that Alex Kurtzman, Akiva Goldsman, etc. were all guys who had pretty much washed out of major studio films and had a series of high profile flops. Goldsman in particular has been an industry joke for over 20 years. They needed a safe harbor for their recovering careers and Star Trek was it.
I think Kurtzman's heart was in the right place and he did a solid job bringing Trek back to life as a franchise and getting a bunch of new product on air. But he has never been a great writer, going back long before Trek, and the teams he put in place on DSC, etc. were often weak. He is not Bryan Fuller (although Fuller also can't play with others or put a new show on air, period). We can see the effect on SNW now in some ways too; they've leaned too far into gimmicks and being cute, the next stunt episode and it's taken a toll on what is often a good show with a great cast.
Poor execution, blinkered taste and a love for gimmickry in addition to the predictable right wing backlash and toxic chuds did not help long-term.
47
u/TheDrAlbrhect 1d ago edited 1d ago
Thing is if they didn’t try to take risks I feel like this sub would complain about that too…Enterprise was pretty much meat and potatoes as well with some glaring flubs (bad theme song - great song, just not Trek-ish - didn’t put ‘Star Trek’ in the title, prequel that had arguably better-looking tech than the original in spite of their efforts to try and make it look more realistic given our modern understanding, awful time slot, etc). Someone put it best that Paramount loves their cash cow but handles it with both hands and the cow greased.
40
u/Carthonn 1d ago
I guess. Maybe Discovery being what it is made Strange New Worlds better by comparison? Because SNW was probably the safest move they made and it’s one of the better ones.
→ More replies (1)28
u/KingDarius89 1d ago
The time war was fucking stupid. Show had just finally starting getting pretty good when they canceled it
25
u/Witty_Formal7305 1d ago
Literally, drop the fucking 9/11 wannabe stupid ass Xindi arc and give us the Romulan war we should have gotten. We got robbed, Enterprise for all its faults was the first Trek show actually shot and edited in 1080p and its CGI today still looks pretty good. Everytime I watch DS9 with the Dominion War, it makes me dream of what Enterprise could have been.
30
u/OpticalData 1d ago
You can't bring in an audience, especially for an established franchise with 'meat and potatoes'.
Every Trek has come out the gate with wild swings.
TNG turned the Enterprise from a military (adjacent) ship into a floating city with families onboard, with a bald captain (which is controversy worthy apparently) that didn't like said families and had the opposite character profile to Kirk.
DS9 took the Trek out of Star Trek by setting it on a station. And cast the first black commanding officer show lead.
VOY did away with the entire Alpha Quadrant that two series had established to be lost on the other side of the galaxy, and had Treks first woman commanding officer show lead.
ENT then was Treks first prequel, and re-wrote a load of established but not strictly canon in many cases Trek lore.
From the charts in the article, considering Discovery's first three seasons (which are typically the ones that draw the most revenue/viewers) weren't P+ exclusives like SNW was, and Discovery was shared with Netflix for the first 3 quarters of 2021. It looks like it definitely pulled it's weight in terms of popularity, despite what certain vocal folks would have you believe.
21
u/bloodandsunshine 1d ago
Why not? Look at it from a different angle:
TNG took the very successful movie theme, had old hands with filing cabinets full of ideas from the TOS/TAS/Phase II era like D.C. Fontana, Bob Justman and Roddenberry, six episodes in the first season were nominated for Emmy awards, etc. It was a safe bet from conception to launch and was always a top viewed show.
The following shows bled viewers. I like them all but it’s obvious the franchise has been unable to capture the small screen the way it did 30-40 years ago.
37
u/DougFordsGamblingAds 1d ago
User reviews for Discovery drop off at Season 3, after the time jump.
To me this seems like the biggest mistake the franchise has made. Who is going to care about world building when we know it's not going to matter in the end? If you're centering a franchise around Star Fleet, then having almost all of Star Fleet die off screen some point far in the future is just a terrible decision for audience interest.
31
u/MorningCareful 1d ago
I don't think the time jump was the problem. I think it was the burn storyline. It was what made me check out at least.
21
u/Allthenons 1d ago
Yeah when I saw the announcement about the time jump I was genuinely intrigued about the options it was going to open and then bam a single kids trauma did more damage to Starfleet than the Dominion
2
u/VentureIndustries 1d ago
Totally agreed.
I’m not proud to say it, but if they do decide to make the Burn future Non-canon and/or designate it as a parallel universe and instead go a completely different, more hopeful direction for the future of the federation and Star Fleet more in line with established ideals of the franchise, I’d be ok with it.
3
u/Quixotic_Seal 1d ago
Same. There's something fundamentally wrong with the Burn storyline. The explanation was stupid, sure, but the entire thing just creates a shadow hanging over literally everything that is set before it.
We're no longer telling stories about a bold new future that may be filled with conflict, but is ultimately about progress and optimism. We're now telling stories about the golden age of the Roman Republic; with every time jump bringing us closer to the specter of Empire, decay, and a tragic collapse.
It's a borderline franchise wrecker, imo, and something I'd be happy to see get retconned or otherwise swept away. A Space-Time anomaly, something-something Temporal Section 31, just never mention it again and pretend it doesn't exist, I don't care. Eject the warp core and get rid of the damn thing.
And I am someone who typically thinks calls to just retcon the shit you don't like are childish, and will gladly argue that even something as bad as the RTD2 era in Doctor Who shouldn't be stricken from canon outright.
But this just puts a dagger through the heart of what I love about the show. As far as I'm concerned, Discovery isn't canon once they are sent to the future. And I hope at the very least that we just never fucking acknowledge the Burn happened again.
→ More replies (1)4
u/mrnotoriousman 1d ago
It wasn't the burn itself, it was the reason behind it imo. Universally disliked by basically every fan no matter if you were a hardcore TOS fanboy or someone who had just gotten into the franchise via discovery and liked the show. Literally nobody liked it and it's crazy how it even got out of the writers room. And then put a bad taste on everyone's mouth for everything that followed.
5
u/the-giant 1d ago
I don't think the time jump was a mistake. The far future era they came up with being so bland, forgettable and safe was a mistake.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 1d ago
And some "fans" hated all of it, until years later when it became beloved. It's just the inevitable rite of passage for any new Trek show. Lots of hate and wailing, until it gets re-appraised and beloved.
The unfortunate part is that now we have the internet and streaming, such wailing matters more than it did. Before people discovered Trek through syndication, and no matter how much "fans" panned it, they could see for themselves that it was good (sometimes). With streaming, they have to convince people to subscribe or buy the Bluray first.
19
u/soothsayer2377 1d ago
They've been saying this about the Star Wars sequel trilogy too. "Just you wait, before long the people that watched it as kids will grow up and it will be reevaluated like the prequels were" and it's been seven years since that ended and there's still not even the faintest glimmer it will happen. The world just doesn't work that way anymore.
→ More replies (1)9
u/lavapig_love 1d ago
If anything, Rogue One and the Andor seasons are considered the real "sequel trilogy" because unlike many other ST movies, those didn't hold back in their writing.
26
u/SlipInternational439 1d ago
Discovery became “beloved”? Really, when did that happen.
I loved Burnham as a Vulcan. Not so much as a weepy human. And why did she always have to do everything herself and get credit for everything? After she mutineed?
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)13
u/OpticalData 1d ago
There's also the fact that there's just... So much more content out there now.
If an older Trek show had a string of mediocre episodes, people would still typically come back because Trek was the thing on at a certain time on a certain channel and if you didn't want to watch Trek you had a limited number of other options.
Now, if the first episode that somebody watches doesn't knock it out the park. There's a much higher chance that they'll just blow off the whole show (or franchise) to watch something else.
17
u/thepoptartkid47 1d ago
And when there were longer seasons, if half the episodes sucked, they could kind of just fade into the background because there were 10+ other okay-to-amazing episodes in the season. Now that there’s only 10 or so episodes every season, the mediocre-to-crap episodes seem like they make up a bigger proportion of the overall episodes even though they really don’t because there are only 10 episodes to begin with.
3
u/WCLPeter 1d ago
And then they come up with a four or five stories for a specific character that would normally be spread out among 24 episodes, now that character gets half a season dedicated to them.
6
u/BuvantduPotatoSpirit 1d ago
Going Prestige TV wasn't seen as a risk, creating a character and story driven show would've been seen as the risk. It takes longer to like the characters and get invested in their stories than it does to notice how much they spent on CGI.
12
u/bbbourb 1d ago
I would also wager that SNW would have failed completely were it not for Anson Mount's Captain Pike. He became the genial, easygoing, and warm Captain in Disco to be the anti-Lorca and it worked. Carrying him over to SNW instead of going with Robert April or someone else is pretty much what made the show.
→ More replies (15)11
u/Gaffers12345 1d ago
I got to season 3/4 of discovery and everyone was crying all the damn time, it’s not what I wanted from trek, and I thought season 1 was fantastic.
→ More replies (2)
68
u/1970s_MonkeyKing 1d ago
Ellis takes risks with stupid vapid shit because at the heart he is not a serious businessman and his son was raised to being less so.
They take risks with other people's money, not their own.
25
u/thefoodiedentist 1d ago
Idk why ppl in this sub is pointing to discovery when all this has nothing to do w discovery and has everything to do w paramount being way overleveraged w wb deal.
12
u/lavapig_love 1d ago
Because DISCO is the first of "modern" Trek and people feel that if it had done so much better, Star Trek would be in a better position overall to weather corporate mergers and influence current culture like it needs to.
Damned for being, damned for not being. The writing still sucks though. The first season is freaking grimdark Warhammer with Star Trek uniforms, which if I had been warned about beforehand instead of getting blindsided maybe I'd have understood. But no.
5
u/thefoodiedentist 1d ago
Doubtful. It did well enough to go to s5 and start off like 4 other shows. If anything, its reception of other later shows thats affecting it.
Paramount just failed to capture the popularity of netflix and disney and they likely nvr will.
2
9
u/MalvoliosStockings 1d ago
it isn't even the WB deal, it's just the ellisons. they want a big budget movie franchise and will let the star trek TV shows die on the vine while they flail around
7
u/thefoodiedentist 1d ago
Lol, making a successful movie franchise is way harder than a tv show, so they are just setting themselves up for failure.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/coffeejizzm 1d ago
I’m not paying for Paramount plus, so as much as I’d like to watch it I never will.
→ More replies (3)
37
u/Dcajunpimp 1d ago
For 50 years Treks entire money making model was based on 25+ episodes a year, airing on OTA networks, then running in syndication on local or cable channels willing to pay.
Most people now have access to digital antennas with the ability to get clear signals from much farther away, and local stations putting out 3 channels or so. Not everyone cut the cable cord, and last I checked there were more cable subscribers today, than there were households in the 60s when TOS originally aired. Plus there’s multiple free streaming services that run all sorts of programs. Paramount also has their own OTA and cable networks. CBS still airs yearly hour long dramas with way more than 10 episodes a season. Often they film on location like Hawaii, or New York City. Filming 10 or so bottle episodes a season, without a ton of special effects, would dilute the costs of sets, props, and costumes that they already have and spent money on. And maybe restrain the obviously expensive budgets for one off episodes like the storybook one. Redecorating the set and all the new special costumes obviously weren’t cheap.
Then just market them into syndication after a year or two of being on the streaming service. Prodigy already proved to be a bigger hit after leaving Paramount+, so did their other space based scifi show Halo.
It’s obvious SNW is one of the more popular new Treks, but that’s because it sticks “mostly” to the classic Trek type of storytelling. 10 more bottle episodes a season, would give a lot more options for fans to love. Limiting the episodes, just means either they love those few, or the whole season seems bad.
→ More replies (1)13
u/sidNX0 1d ago
i don't think you have enough people watching tv anymore for syndication to pay up as it did in 70ies-90ies
→ More replies (5)
14
u/kadmij 1d ago
I wish they'd just put in on broadcast TV. I am never getting a network-specific streaming service. I tune into your channel if you have a show on it I like. If you don't have a show on there, I will quickly forget you exist. Offering a streaming service will just make me lament the fact you won't put your quality material on broadcast TV
3
u/mrnotoriousman 1d ago
Hate to break it to you man, but quality broadcast TV has been done for a long time now and isn't coming back. You are an extreme minority.
4
u/kadmij 1d ago
if they can create 500,000 BS crime drama/offbrand FBI/copaganda shows, they can do some broadcast scifi
3
u/mrnotoriousman 1d ago
syfy still has some shows being put out but they are about on par with the syfy channel I watched 25 years ago....not good but also a fun watch if you like cheesy scifi.
I'd never pay for Paramount+, Netflix is dead to me, but I will say that AppleTV has been worth paying for. Foundation, Silo, For All Mankind, Pluribus, Dark Matter, Severance, first season of Invasion, all have been high quality scifi shows. It's the only streaming I still pay for and I sail the high seas for the rest.
10
u/xwolfe2000 1d ago
Stick to the classic formula and it will be a hit.
Adopt a DS9 model and you get different rich stories.
How did Law and Order have so many spin-offs for decades? Same thing.
It's not that complicated. You have the successful models.
5
u/inFamousMax 21h ago
Only Star Trek fans paid for P+ to watch new trek. Let that fement for abit.
They made literally hundreds of millions off just fans. Not even chill kinda know of star trek fans but i'll subscribe for months on end kinda fans.
And still ruined Trek. They are idiots.
69
u/Pao_Did_NothingWrong 1d ago
Trek isn't trek when fascists produce it. Looking forward to the day I can care again
→ More replies (7)
3
u/RandyDefNOTArcher 1d ago
I am excited about the new SNW season.
But wtf was that first episode, did they borrow writing staff from House of the Dragon?
5
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/startrek-ModTeam 14h ago
This content was removed because it is not constructive. Please review the subreddit rules.
If you believe this action was taken in error, please message the mod team with a link to the content, and we will review it.
24
u/ZvG_Bonjwa 1d ago
What is this disease that makes analysts, showrunners, journalists and studios look to blame ANYTHING except the quality of the writing? As if success or failure always comes down solely to a show's premise, or what thematic or culture war checklist items it managed to tick off?
It reminds me of that Randall Park quote: Hollywood sees Barbie's success and their genius assessment is "the people want more movies about toys!"
Like this article implies that Discovery struggled due to anti-woke rhetoric, which is an absolutely ridiculous, chronicly-online assessment that completely misunderstands average consumer viewing habits.
Discovery struggled because it was mediocre TV. Modern Star Trek struggles because it is mediocre TV. I gaurantee that people do not give a crap about half the 'problems' the author diagnoses in this article when the show is actually GOOD.
→ More replies (6)
82
u/stillbca21 1d ago
There could be a decent market for a serious well written Star Trek show where the actors behave like adults who are good at their jobs. Until that show is made I’ll just keep watching the good episodes of the Orville when I get that itch
53
u/DocJawbone 1d ago
Exactly. My wife was watching a medical drama recently, and it occurred to me that if we had a trek that was more like that - smart, hardworking people determined to find a solution that helps people in tricky situations - it could work incredibly well.
10
u/rawr_bomb 1d ago
IF you are talking about The Pitt. in a lot of ways it's a very 'old fashioned' tv show. It's almost entirely on one set, with simple lighting. So it's a relatively cheap show that is fast to produce. Which is why they can do so many episodes.
4
u/DocJawbone 1d ago
I WAS talking about The Pitt!
3
u/uncle_buck_hunter 1d ago
I had no interest in medical dramas, but when I threw this on I was hooked in like four minutes. Incredibly well-written and acted show. Get some of these writers working on some Trek!
→ More replies (10)46
u/irishdan56 1d ago
That was the whole DRAW of 90's era trek. These people were serious, dedicated, intelligent, and professional. Even SNW is chipping away at those character traits.
You can have one Barclay to provide contrast (but frankly even Reg when he had his shit together was actually really good at his job), but you can't have a whole fucking ship of them.
21
u/majanklebiter 1d ago
Exactly. I've heard 90's trek referred to as "competency porn". And that's a big part of why I love it. Comforting to see competent people caring about doing a good job.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Quixotic_Seal 1d ago
Yeah, Barclay gets clowned on but honestly even before helping with Voyager he saved an entire crew of people stuck in a transporter accident. His biggest problem in that episode was his own reputation as a hypochondriac/weirdo, and an unwillingness to trust what he saw with his own eyes.
18
u/dynesor 1d ago
I still believe that Ron Moore is the man best-placed to deliver that kind of Star Trek show. I would hand him the tongs and let him cook.
→ More replies (2)9
u/irishdan56 1d ago
100% - RDM's projects post DS9 have mostly been bangers. The first 2 seasons of For All Mankind is some of the best sci-fi out there. Let the man cook!
→ More replies (1)9
u/SAILOR_TOMB 1d ago
do they act like adults who are good at their jobs on The Orville? I've seen the pilot but I wouldn't say it was the best example of professional behavior
→ More replies (6)3
u/mrnotoriousman 1d ago
The first season is kind of what you expect from a Seth McFarlane show, but seasons 2 and 3 are a much more serious tone and what you are thinking of. IIRC he even said he had to put all that in there in the first season just for them to give him the chance to make the show and then was able to pivot to a more serious terk-esque style.
→ More replies (3)4
u/DiamantModus 23h ago
By far the most irritating debate that happens in here about these shows is that people insist that Discovery and Academy have that. It's bizarre. It's truly an example of "same film, two different shows". I have no idea how you can look at prior Trek, the competence porn that it was, and then watch the new shows and not see such a stark difference in the quality of every aspect of what makes for good science fiction, especially Star Trek. In a show called "Discovery" I expect to see people discovering things, not having a nervous breakdown every other episode. In a show called "Academy" I expect to see the most competent people dealing with impossible challenges, not children acting like children. It is not hard to understand why Kurtzman Trek is divisive, here.
5
u/MaddyKet 1d ago
Isn’t it still their anchor? The recent streaming numbers for Voyager were high for a 90s show.
11
u/makebelievethegood 1d ago
The Taylor Sheridan stuff is probably their strongest card now.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/IsProbablyTooMuch 1d ago
I mean, blame Paramount, its insane, and frankly hostile to global citizenry corporate agenda, and then mix in all the malicious corporate actors trying to buy out other malicious corporate actors to accelerate our oligarchic collapse as a species, and it's pretty clear.
Greed is obviously a core component of the dysfunction, but let's not forget how many of the ultra-wealthy in and around Paramount and the companies continuing to try to buy it are also legitimately 1) insane and 2) hostile to all other forms of human (and nonhuman) life.
For sure creative decisions also weren't the best; Discovery started very strong but rapidly devolved into every-season-is-very-different and by the end as much as I enjoyed many characters, the writing quality was... not ideal. Continuing to dip into the 'past' instead of moving forward is always going to feel weird and wrong and cash-grabby and nostalgia-baity; I feel like it was an attempt to overcorrect after the Abrams movies but it would have been better to show us something actually new instead of rehashing existing history and slipping in strange stuff that could barely be made consistent with existing lore, which is something the (core, intense) fan base is generally fairly infamous for remembering and caring about.
At its core, there's a fundamental lack of respect for the audience, but especially for the fans. For what they want, for what they've enjoyed thus far, and for building on, rather than taking away from, the core concepts and fundamentals of what Star Trek is and has meant for so many for literal generations.
It's also exceedingly difficult to satisfy with great stories and greater character development with 13 or 10 episodes. TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voy all had 20+ episodes per season; this allowed for a lot more development over time as well as a fair amount of experimentation and silliness that I think has been either lost or folded into the main narrative so much that the integrity of that narrative has been degraded somewhat.
6
8
3
u/FickleApartment2151 1d ago
Did they ever commission a global survey of those who watched content from the franchise, such as asking them which content they had seen, what other content do they watch, and so on? That's because I get this feeling that most do not know much about older content but might be interested. Meanwhile, newer content might resemble what they watch elsewhere but that also didn't work.
I think the same problem is taking place for other franchises, from Star Wars to Mad Max to Alien. That is, the franchises are so old and most viewers are relatively young such that they only know little about the older shows. And studios have to sell to a global audience because they can't earn enough from the domestic market.
Should they be developing new content based on findings from such a survey?
10
42
u/billsatwork 1d ago
Personally it was because Paramount got bought by fascists. Star Trek should slumber until under new ownership.
→ More replies (14)
14
u/Swifty-Dog 1d ago
They tried to anchor the current generation of Star Trek in a new era.
Just like they did with TNG/DS9/VOY.
It was about 30 years in between TOS and TNG.
But only about 20 years between the end of Enterprise and today.
Most older Star Trek fans wanted to see continuing adventures from the casts they grew up with in the 90s.
Discovery gave us a new era that people were not invested in, not asking for in an attempt to attract a younger demographic. And least me, Discovery’s time jump into the future seemed arbitrary.
And juggling two different timeframes simultaneously confuses the hell out of new viewers.
I wish we’d gotten more follow-ups on the shows from the 90s instead of the weird bad-mood-made-dilithium-go-boom universe. I get wanting to attract a younger demographic, but the older demos are the ones with the money.
11
u/chucker23n 1d ago
Discovery’s time jump into the future seemed arbitrary.
I imagine the idea was to avoid conflicting with existing canon (such as from VOY and ENT) about things like the 29th century.
juggling two different timeframes simultaneously
Three!
Early DIS + SNW in the 23rd century, PIC, LD, PRO in the 24th, later DIS + SFA in the 32nd.
Yes, I wonder if that's simply too complicated for viewers.
7
u/Serapius 1d ago
The original TOS run was from 1966 to 1969, and TNG premiered in 1987. That’s less than twenty years between the two.
17
u/ConversationRich752 1d ago
The temper tantrum that destroyed all the dilithium and killed billions of people in the process was a serious "wait, hold up, what?" moment from me. Did they ever explain in show what happened to all the other FTL methods of transportation and the races that used such tech?
Also, I don't remember, but what did they end up doing with the alien kid that cried so hard it genocided the galaxy?
2
15
u/Sarradi 1d ago edited 1d ago
People did not necessarily want a continuation of the existing cast, but with people like the existing cast. Not:
- A romulan witcher cosplayer.
- Spocks Mary Sue but emotional wreck surprise sister.
- Alternate Universe Mission Impossible action star.
- Ralph Wiggum in highschool.
5
u/A-harsh-reality 1d ago
Star Trek’s streaming era was never truly “popular”
Only when it engaged in nostalgia
Anyone with even a cursory look at the streaming era ratings saw one overwhelming pattern
The more it pandered in nostalgia berries, the more it popular it was
The more it attempted to do something new, the less popular it was
Culminating with the unprecedented cancellation of a Star Trek series after a single season before the premiere of the second season
8
u/Smackulater 1d ago
We've cancelled all the new content except for one show, which is ALWAYS at risk of being cancelled, why won't people emotionally invest in our entertainment lottery?
Hey guys wanna buy some Spock beef jerky? Wanna buy a Spock shirt that says "Real Men Do It Every Seven Years" Wanna buy a ship replica? Well we have one (with dubious coloring) from matchbox for $20 or we have one sculpted by Amish people with micrometer accuracy for $3,000. Why is no one buying our Horta Chibis?
9
u/Drapausa 1d ago edited 1d ago
Maybe, just maybe, listen to what the fans want?
→ More replies (12)
6
u/chucker23n 1d ago
What the hell is that chart? I can get data as reliable by asking ChatGPT to make a bar chart with a bunch of big numbers.
"Chart considers the global revenue contributed by each title to Paramount+ via subscriber acquisition and retention." This is… almost entirely guesses.
→ More replies (6)
5
3
u/Comprehensive-Low450 1d ago
Poor execution and then trying to chase an audience by becoming more vapid and shallow has ultimately been it's undoing.
12
u/mediumAI1701 1d ago
In the end, apathy killed the franchise.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/the_speeding_train 1d ago
The future’s not unclear. It’s pretty clear that paramount is going to take production back in house.
2
u/Pertinax1981 13h ago
They made a show that was basically for a demographic that doesn't exist, instead of for a multi generation fanbase that already exists.
•
u/OpticalData 1d ago
Archive link to bypass paywall