Strange New Worlds Season 2 Trailer

[ichab]

Oh, bollocks.

The many, many people who enjoy modern Trek will still care about it in 2053. And if Trek exists in any form in 2053, it is due DIRECTLY to the revitalization brought about by Discovery and SNW.

I haven't been a fan of most of modern Trek, but I'm glad that they keep making new series instead of just rebooting the old show. Franchises that try new things last longer than franchises that just tell the same stories over and over. We have home video and streaming if we want to reminisce. Give us something new.

You know, you can just dislike a Star Trek property,right? You don't have to like all of them. But trying to justify that it's garbage and everyone agrees with you is silly.

Agreed. These arguments have been happening ever since the 80s when old trekkers claimed that there was no Star Trek without Kirk, Spock and McCoy. If they had gotten their way there would have been no TNG,DS9,Voyager,Enterprise,DISCO,Picard,Lower Decks, Prodigy or Strange New Worlds. Plus the movies would have been dormant from TUC until Star Trek 2009. Screw that.

I hate TNG and Picard Season 3 . I think they are the weakest and most creatively bankrupt parts of the franchise, and constantly took the easy way out. But lmao, that's not a universal opinion.

DS9 has always been my favorite, but I also love TOS and TNG. For me those are the top three Trek shows. More power to those who have a different list. I can certainly understand why some might not like TNG. The first two seasons are too plot driven, very alien of the week and characters come off as quite smug. Later seasons had good character stories, but did play it safe quite a bit. I loved DS9 because it took Rodenberry's "perfect human" syndrome and turned it completely on its head. I wish Behr and that writing staff could have carried on to Enterprise because I'm sure it would have been better than what we got. But I digress.

Likewise, your opinion that DISCO sucks is not universal. If it was, the franchise would have died again, instead of spawning an entire new era of animated and live action shows.

DISCO isn't my cup of tea, but a five season run doesn't happen if a large amount of people aren't watching. So cheers to DISCO.

 

[johnjm22]

DISCO isn't my cup of tea, but a five season run doesn't happen if a large amount of people aren't watching. So cheers to DISCO.

Paramount is losing a ton of money on these shows.

 

[fireproof78]

Then they should stop making them.

 

[Tuskin38]

Paramount is losing a ton of money on these shows.

Source?

 

[cooleddie74]

Canadian charts?

 

[Mudd]

Paramount is losing a ton of money on these shows.

Paramount is losing money on its streaming service overall - they're losing money on Yellowstone, which is considered a big hit, in the same sense that they're "losing money on Trek." And they're not the only streaming service that is. Disney hopes that Disney+ will turn a profit by the end of 2024 .

How did you think building these services worked? Because you don't seem to understand it.

 

[Noname Given]

Paramount is losing money on its streaming service overall - they're losing money on Yellowstone, which is considered a big hit, in the same sense that they're "losing money on Trek." And they're not the only streaming service that is. Disney hopes that Disney+ will turn a profit by the end of 2024 .

How did you think building these services worked? Because you don't seem to understand it.

Yes remember, Paramount was the studio that claimed in court they lost lots of money on Forrest Gump (when one of the script writers brought up the 'profit participation' clause of his contract. (They lost and paid him; but yeah they had books showing and accounts claiming the film was a huge loss in 1994.)

And in the article even with all this news many wall Street brokers are still upgrading their Paramount stock from 'Neutral' to 'Buy'.

 

[Mudd]

You're talking about a different thing, "creative accounting." There are tremendous upfront costs to building something like a streaming service. They have to spend money to acquire and produce content (which is why studios which have been around a while and already own a lot of popular content have an advantage) in order to build a subscriber base, and building that base doesn't happen quickly in this competitive climate.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Amazon existed for almost a decade before it had a profitable year. It's well-known for aggressively reinvesting to buy more capital.

 

[Mudd]

Amazon existed for almost a decade before it had a profitable year. It's well-known for aggressively reinvesting to buy more capital.

It was probably losing money because they were trying to sell DVDs of AbramsTrek movies and Star Trek: Enterprise. Maybe even Star Wars prequels. That stuff is the commercial kiss of death.

 

[johnjm22]

Then they should stop making them.

Finally we're in agreement on something!

 

[fireproof78]

Finally we're in agreement on something!

Not like life would change if it did.

 

[DaveyNY]

Disney+ is upping Their Premium Subscription to $10.99/month now.
They are also adding a lower priced one that includes ads. ($7.99/month)

I'll be dropping my sub, I like to pay for annual sub's but to go from $80/year to $109/year is too rich for my bank account.

Looks like Paramount+ will be my only sub from now on.
(I'm dropping Netflix this month also)

 

[ichab]

Disney+ is upping Their Premium Subscription to $10.99/month now.
They are also adding a lower priced one that includes ads. ($7.99/month)

I'll be dropping my sub, I like to pay for annual sub's but to go from $80/year to $109/year is too rich for my bank account.

Looks like Paramount+ will be my only sub from now on.
(I'm dropping Netflix this month also)

I wait until the new seasons for shows I like come on then just sub long enough to watch them before canceling.

 

[ichab]

Paramount is losing a ton of money on these shows.

Sure they are.

These shows are what drives subscribers to the streaming service. If you want a true indication of what shows aren't successful, take count of the ones that get cancelled after just a season or two.

 

[johnjm22]

Sure they are.

These shows are what drives subscribers to the streaming service. If you want a true indication of what shows aren't successful, take count of the ones that get cancelled after just a season or two.

They're losing money.

The subscriber growth hasn't been able to cover the cost to produce the content.

The hope is that it will payoff long term by funding a bunch of content upfront, but the losses are increasing, which is why the companies' stock just dropped 30% in one day.

The companies' valuation has dropped from 25B two years ago, to 11B today. Ouch.

 

[Tuskin38]

They're losing money.

source?

 

[Racefuel]

ancedotally...because P+ still hasn't turned a profit. It all depends on which angle you want to come at it from

 

[Lord Hierarch]

Isn't it a fact of thumb that most business will be unprofitable for several years before they start making money?

 

[Racefuel]

Isn't it a fact of thumb that most business will be unprofitable for several years before they start making money?

Yes, thus it is anecdotal