News Star Trek Prodigy Cancelled, Season 2 to be shopped around
- Thread starter EnderAKH
- Start date
Oh there are plenty of Star Wars fan female haters of KK, some of whom are on youtube like That Star Wars Girl.
Personally as some who doesn't like Star Wars or Indy (Relic Hunter was better, although I do like Indy's hat and whip), and who thinks that Star Wars has sucked up way too much of the resources in the Sci-Fi fandom, I LOVE KK. She's good for Star Trek and Stargate, etc....
Plus she stays away from my favourite Lucas Film franchise Labyrinth.
Last edited:
I guess we will learn then if I'm right and its not taken off Cravetv.
They don't have to pay the writers residuals.Yeah, I'm curious about that as well. What the hell is so important about ERASING the show?
Is the writer's strike one reason it's being cancelled?
ETA: P+ is merging with Showtime on Tuesday. Prodigy didn't fit their programming profile:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/paramount-releases-statement-cancelling-whopping-145300099.html
ETA: P+ is merging with Showtime on Tuesday. Prodigy didn't fit their programming profile:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/paramount-releases-statement-cancelling-whopping-145300099.html
Last edited:
So does this mean I'll be able to watch Yellowjackets without having to pay for the Showtime add-on?
Yes.
They're hiking their rates, though. The ad-free tier is going from $9.95/month to $11.99/month (Don't quote me on this.)
I get mine on Amazon Prime too. I'm curious to see how it will play out on that platform.
The entire premise of Star Trek Prodigy, appealing to kids, was an ill-begotten concept from the start, made by people, who by their own admission never got into Star Trek and to this day don't understand Star Trek.
Classic Star Trek did always appeal to kids.
I got into Star Trek when I was in elementary school. How much younger was their target audience? Kindergartners?
I think it's clear that the makers were confused about who the target audience was.
All the PR for the show was about "kids", "getting young people into Star Trek", ETC.
But then you have these absurd tie-ins into Star Trek Borg lore:
https://trekmovie.com/2022/11/06/da...s-the-borg-from-voyager-to-picard-and-beyond/
Even more puzzling was that Holo Janeway, a legacy character from a show that ended 20 years ago, was at the center of the marketing for the show. Holo Janeway became the face of Prodigy and represented Prodigy in marketing material at multiple events:
The mystery box "what happened to Chakotay" was also about a legacy character.
A writer on the show complained on Twitter about how the show didn't get enough respect because it was regarded as a show for kids and how hard it was to balance a show aimed at old and new fans. She made the statement that it's hard to get kids into a 50+-year-old franchise.
A) Kids got into Berman-era Star Trek when the franchise was around 20-35 years old without a special kids' show.
B) Why is a writer contradicting what the marketing said about the show? The marketing message was clear "a show for a new, young audience". She said that the show was for an old and new audience.
Either Paramount got it wrong, the marketing team got it wrong, or the writers got it wrong who the target audience was. Maybe the writers didn't follow Paramount's instructions and made a show for an older audience.
I think the cancellation of Prodigy and the announcement of the Academy show are related.
Prodigy failed to get young people interested in Star Trek. And Paramount desperately wants young people to watch Star Trek.
That is why Paramount paired Alex Kurtzman with Noga Landa, who is known for her young adult CW shows (Nancy Drew, Tom Swift).
IMDB did show the demographics of the people who rated a show.
94% of users on IMDB who voted for Prodigy are over 30 and only 12% are female. 94% over 30 for a show that is targeted at children.
That is worse than the demographic for Yellowstone. 92% over 30, 31% female.
Classic Star Trek did always appeal to kids.
I got into Star Trek when I was in elementary school. How much younger was their target audience? Kindergartners?
I think it's clear that the makers were confused about who the target audience was.
All the PR for the show was about "kids", "getting young people into Star Trek", ETC.
But then you have these absurd tie-ins into Star Trek Borg lore:
https://trekmovie.com/2022/11/06/da...s-the-borg-from-voyager-to-picard-and-beyond/
Even more puzzling was that Holo Janeway, a legacy character from a show that ended 20 years ago, was at the center of the marketing for the show. Holo Janeway became the face of Prodigy and represented Prodigy in marketing material at multiple events:
The mystery box "what happened to Chakotay" was also about a legacy character.
A writer on the show complained on Twitter about how the show didn't get enough respect because it was regarded as a show for kids and how hard it was to balance a show aimed at old and new fans. She made the statement that it's hard to get kids into a 50+-year-old franchise.
A) Kids got into Berman-era Star Trek when the franchise was around 20-35 years old without a special kids' show.
B) Why is a writer contradicting what the marketing said about the show? The marketing message was clear "a show for a new, young audience". She said that the show was for an old and new audience.
Either Paramount got it wrong, the marketing team got it wrong, or the writers got it wrong who the target audience was. Maybe the writers didn't follow Paramount's instructions and made a show for an older audience.
I think the cancellation of Prodigy and the announcement of the Academy show are related.
Prodigy failed to get young people interested in Star Trek. And Paramount desperately wants young people to watch Star Trek.
That is why Paramount paired Alex Kurtzman with Noga Landa, who is known for her young adult CW shows (Nancy Drew, Tom Swift).
IMDB did show the demographics of the people who rated a show.
94% of users on IMDB who voted for Prodigy are over 30 and only 12% are female. 94% over 30 for a show that is targeted at children.
That is worse than the demographic for Yellowstone. 92% over 30, 31% female.
Last edited:
Pity. That could've been a chart, you know.
In all fairness, I don't know how many 12-and-unders vote on IMDB.
It wasn't always FOR kids (Kirk's bed-hopping, his saying "Go to the Devil!" were racy for their day).
It wasn't always age-appropriate (the gore of "Conspiracy" and First Contact, the "decontamination" scenes on Enterprise).
This one.
Of course. Assuming that there's some place willing to pay more than Nickelodeon already was.
This sucks, I really fell in love with the show. Why can't they just leave the series where it is, I was looking forward to S2 even if it is canceled.
The entire premise of Star Trek Prodigy, appealing to kids, was an ill-begotten concept from the start, made by people, who by their own admission never got into Star Trek and to this day don't understand Star Trek.
Classic Star Trek did always appeal to kids.
I got into Star Trek when I was in elementary school. How much younger was their target audience? Kindergartners?
I think it's clear that the makers were confused about who the target audience was.
All the PR for the show was about "kids", "getting young people into Star Trek", ETC.
But then you have these absurd tie-ins into Star Trek Borg lore:
https://trekmovie.com/2022/11/06/da...s-the-borg-from-voyager-to-picard-and-beyond/
Even more puzzling was that Holo Janeway, a legacy character from a show that ended 20 years ago, was at the center of the marketing for the show. Holo Janeway became the face of Prodigy and represented Prodigy in marketing material at multiple events:
The mystery box "what happened to Chakotay" was also about a legacy character.
A writer on the show complained on Twitter about how the show didn't get enough respect because it was regarded as a show for kids and how hard it was to balance a show aimed at old and new fans. She made the statement that it's hard to get kids into a 50+-year-old franchise.
A) Kids got into Berman-era Star Trek when the franchise was around 20-35 years old without a special kids' show.
B) Why is a writer contradicting what the marketing said about the show? The marketing message was clear "a show for a new, young audience". She said that the show was for an old and new audience.
Either Paramount got it wrong, the marketing team got it wrong, or the writers got it wrong who the target audience was. Maybe the writers didn't follow Paramount's instructions and made a show for an older audience.
I think the cancellation of Prodigy and the announcement of the Academy show are related.
Prodigy failed to get young people interested in Star Trek. And Paramount desperately wants young people to watch Star Trek.
That is why Paramount paired Alex Kurtzman with Noga Landa, who is known for her young adult CW shows (Nancy Drew, Tom Swift).
IMDB did show the demographics of the people who rated a show.
94% of users on IMDB who voted for Prodigy are over 30 and only 12% are female. 94% over 30 for a show that is targeted at children.
That is worse than the demographic for Yellowstone. 92% over 30, 31% female.
Were the best episodes (according to most fans) written by Trekkies. Were the TOS writers all in agreement about what constitutes good Trek?
As I watched Prodigy, I did feel the move away from the kids to Janeway as the show progressed. It seemed to me that, at the end, that it became about Janeway's search for Chakotay, with the kids tagging along. The show should have kept its focus on the kids.
Another thing I didn't like about Prodigy was the revenge plot running through the series. I felt that it detracted from the show. I was there to watch the kids learn about Starfleet and the Federation, while exploring who they were and what their place was in the galaxy. The show should have been an introduction to the franchise, for those who were new to it, of all age groups.
Another thing I didn't like about Prodigy was the revenge plot running through the series. I felt that it detracted from the show. I was there to watch the kids learn about Starfleet and the Federation, while exploring who they were and what their place was in the galaxy. The show should have been an introduction to the franchise, for those who were new to it, of all age groups.
1) I never said that writers need to be Trekkies, but writers need to understand Star Trek.
2) Yes, some of the best Star Trek episodes were written by a Trekkie.
3) The TOS and TNG show Bibles/Writers'/Directors' Guide explains very well what good Star Trek is.
http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_Trek/1_Original_Series/Star_Trek_TOS_Writer's_Guide.pdf
http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_...ion/Star_Trek_-_The_Next_Generation_Bible.pdf
They were both products of their times.
I can't watch either one of them.
- Lt. Uhura was a glorified receptionist on TOS.
- Yeoman Rand's primary function was to make coffee for Captain Kirk!
- The women in both shows were adjuncts to the guys (who took center stage).
- POC were subservient to the white people on the show (Sisko had to fight for his Captain's pips -- something that was given to Picard right from the start).
- The LGBTQ+ community? Invisible. (It was hinted at with regards to Kirk/Spock and the Trill, but it never came out into the open until Star Trek: Discovery.)
Last edited:
My issue with TOS is the misogyny. It is painful to watch now. And, reading the transcripts for the episodes, I was struck by the ugliness in the relationship of McCoy and Spock. It got really bad by the third season.
Similar threads
