Paramount loses more than a quarter of its value, analyst believes they should "just quit streaming"

[BK613]

Even, bizarrely, PRO: "Lost and Found" (I assume that this predated the current situation). My question is, is this the case in the US as well? Or are they in one whole episode as they were originally aired?

Prodigy is/was a half-hour show but many of the stories the writers tried to tell didn't fit under that time constraint. First half of season 1 had episode pairs 1&2, 4&5, and 9&10 and each pair was essential one story spread over two half-hour episodes.

 

[SalyutBuran]

I'd be curious... what's an example of a "mature" Star Trek episode?

Rather simple basic scene, is when Picard's son meets his father in a bar, and he wants to tell him he's his son, but doesn't because picard doesn't sound like he's particularly interested in being a father.

It's one of those "whoa" moments, that just feels real.

Nu trek couldn't really pull that off, because they'd have to established the character of picard first, and they cna't do that with burnam, because the character just isn't consistent enough.

It's actually amazing how similar Picard S3 was to the type of fan fiction I wrote when I was twelve years old. Hell, even their decision to pilfer music from all the franchise's greatest hits is also similar to how I imagined the movie versions of said fanfics back then.

That tells you how bad nutrek really is. When fanfic is the best they've ever done.

If you're gonna reinvent something you need to justify it with offering something better than what has happened before.

Not only their only hit, but not even a particularly good hit in terms of how popular things like Star Wars or Marvel are.

Star Trek isn't half as big as Paramount thinks it is.

There's a very easy argument to be made that star trek on a streaming platform is a better draw by simple catalog size. You can watch through all the half decent star wars content in a month, some could argue you could watch it all in a week.

The failure of nutrek is a profound failure,

 

[bdub76]

A lot of it is interest rates. Low interest rates encourage businesses to listen to people who 'claim" to see the future.
Means inexperienced people, or people with specific agendas get advanced and the meat and potatoes people get marginalized. Because the meat and potatoes types don't have a lot of ideas for growth.

In addition not only are you not concerned with current income, you have no way of gauging who is out to lunch and who has their finger on the pulse. Companies as a result get trapped with all their eggs in the baskets of agenda driven projects.


Soon as interests go up, growth isn't the value it's short term quarterly profits. This is gonna be an absolute bloodbath, so many incompetent people so many people losing their jobs.












It's never been a better time to avoid people with personalities that are different than your own. The internet/cell phones, means you never really have to engage in a social relationship with someone you're not naturally similar to. Even in work Human Resources has made it so personalities can't clash. this means you never have a tangible way of learning how to deal with other people if you work in certain social environments.

if you're an empathetic person, the world around you has made it very hard to understand someone with less empathy.

Empathetic people are exhausting to be around for the less agreeable. If you're modestly disagreeable you really aren't all that interested in the feelings of others. When you shove it down their throats they tune out. They also are more likely to see agreeable people as gullible and not to be trusted because they're so easily manipulated by social predators.

I.e. seeing people crying is a turn this crap off reflex.
EDIT: agreeableness is complicated, you can be an empathetic person and full of hostility, you can have no interest in the emotions of others while being very restrained/kind.



If you're not naturally open minded, being bombarded by novel ideas is exhausting and something to be avoided at all costs. At the same time if you're open minded, a series of explosions and fist fits is just dull repetitive nonsense.

If you're naturally an orderly person people disobeying orders, in poorly lit/dirty environments, swearing etc, is just a massive turn off.

This singular issue of differences of personality has transformed into a mental health crisis. A simple example is addiction homelessness. Disagreeable don't care, agreeable people care but they can't process that the majority of homeless people are relatively disagreeable. So their entire thesis radically downplays how much disobedient, refusal to follow the rules causes a lot of the homelessness problem and reducing the rules only makes things worst.

It's a real paradox that we're supposedly more conscious of mental health, and yet doing everything we can to make things worst.

I say this because star trek in particular is a show that has carefully crafted a fanbase that has a broad set of personalities.

The orderly people love that there's a rigid set of rules, uniforms, clean brightly colored bridges. The order also makes it more tolerable who aren't super open to new ideas. As they have a format they can rely on.

For people who are less empathetic the relatively small amount of emotional content make trek enjoyable/ Spock Data Worf were people they could latch onto.

Nutrek is insufferable for the majority of people with the temperaments listed above.

On the flip side, the level of exploration is severely limited by the format, the drama/action is just irrelevant to a lot of open minded people wanting to explore.

Not to mention how much agreeable people dislike all the pettiness/conflict etc.

Basically nu trek has found ways to piss off clusters of people, at every angle. And that's starting from being in the genre of science fiction, which itself is severely limited.

Of course if you try to point this out, people get so hostile. Especially the creative types who are running these shows. And like I said interests rates were low so they could get away with anything, as no one wants to get caught as buying into a purely incompetent form of content.

The streaming wars was a terrible idea too. Content creation and delivery combined is expensive. Streaming only makes sense if I can get more content than buying physical medium. Plus it’s faster delivery. When it makes more sense to buy physical, then it falls apart. And ads coming back is a huge turn off. Getting the economics to work is hard. Since retention isn’t guaranteed unless you have a big enough catalog.

Netflix was smart. They built up a huge subscriber base before making their own content. And they knew they had to since they expected those providing content to pull it. But they could do it profitably.

Their competitors created new content without having a sufficient subscriber base to support it. And their back catalogue wasn’t sufficient on its own to pull in subscribers. Disney with its huge catalogue can’t turn a profit in this business model.

 

[bdub76]

Prodigy is/was a half-hour show but many of the stories the writers tried to tell didn't fit under that time constraint. First half of season 1 had episode pairs 1&2, 4&5, and 9&10 and each pair was essential one story spread over two half-hour episodes.

Sarah Jane Adventures did this too. 24 minutes isn’t a lot of time.

 

[SalyutBuran]

The streaming wars was a terrible idea too. Content creation and delivery combined is expensive. Streaming only makes sense if I can get more content than buying physical medium. Plus it’s faster delivery. When it makes more sense to buy physical, then it falls apart. And ads coming back is a huge turn off. Getting the economics to work is hard. Since retention isn’t guaranteed unless you have a big enough catalog.

Few people buy the physical medium nowadays, you probably find way more people pirating.

Streaming isn't even but these companies have profound ways to screw things up.

Netflix having cuties which is literally softcore child porn, like it's amazing the government didn't step in.

Disney is just profound in its ability to screw up good things. The way they took "The Mandalorian" and transformed him in "just one of many mandalorians" was profoundly insane.

Then there's shehulk, which was "ok, nothing wrong with it, but this is not a room for me to be in".

amazon just did it to an even greater extreme, I can't even get started on how ick almost all of their properties has become. They boys is a great example, where they're going after half the audience, for absolutely no reason.

How do you think you're gonna make money if half the voting population hates you more than they hate their boss?

Netflix was smart. They built up a huge subscriber base before making their own content. And they knew they had to since they expected those providing content to pull it. But they could do it profitably.

They were also profoundly better at knowing who they are selling to.

Ironically their biggest disaster was making softcore kiddy porn on their platform and the reality is people looking for legal soft core kiddy porn is literally like 5-10 million people, not to mention all those boys under the age of 15-14. FYI if you don't think it's soft core kiddy porn, describe what legal soft core kiddy porn would look like, you won't do better than cuties.

You see shows like the tiger king, and you snap your fingers and realize they know their base.

Their competitors created new content without having a sufficient subscriber base to support it. And their back catalogue wasn’t sufficient on its own to pull in subscribers. Disney with its huge catalogue can’t turn a profit in this business model.

You don't need a ton of content, you need a solid branding/structure. If you have a solid structure, you can make lessor/cheaper/worst shows and people will still have a preference for it by association. It's why no matter how bad disney/star trek/star wars gets they'll always have people who will watch it anyways.

When nu trek is bad, the fact p+ has the legacy trek catalog is just a massive whatever. When nu trek is good, you get people in the mindest of going back and watching the old catalog.

When you feel like things are well structure and well branded you get have a need to complete, where you feel you must go back and watch something. When there's a total disconnect from the legacy product and the new, you kill that from happening.

I should note, one reason cbs has such a good shot at success was because it'd be second nature to merge their own content with sports.

One of the reasons Apple Tv will succeed is because they have MLS soccer contracted for the next decade.
Combining sports with a limited shelf of content is a massive way to make money.

 

[valkyrie013]

well the old model did well, Studio A made content, and sold it to TV station B to broadcast it, and the TV station paid for the cost of production through commercials, or if cable, subscriptions. sometime multipule times, like say sell a moviet to HBO first, then after a time sell it to TBS, or one of the terrestrial stations like ABC. Same with TV, sell it to ABC for first run, then sell it to whatever TV station that wants to buy it to show as reruns. Each time its sold or another contract is made, money rolls in.

the New model is, Studio A makes content, then it shows it themselves on there own streamer, hoping subscriptions cover the cost. Now with that there is ALOT of overhead in having a streaming service, it isn't just simply put it up to view, many millions of dollars for servers, bandwith, etc. and thats for your whole cataloge, some of which won't be watched that much. Sometimes you get a hit and people come.. but sometimes not.

then the series or movie just lingers on your streamer, few people watching ocasionally, but no money coming in.
Now, the old streamer model of Studio A making content, then selling it to Netflix, Amazon etc. then money is made like the old times, it covers a contracted period of time, and if they want it more, they'll buy it again. if not, its returned, with maybe it being bought as a bundle in at some other time.

Right now there's to many streamers, so there only so much of the streaming pie to go around.
I don't have all the streamers, hell right now all I have is P+ and no comercial youtube, I ocasionally get netflix or whatever if something pops up, but I can't afford every streamer, and honestly I don't want them since a good amount don't have content I want to view, or enough to keep them for a long term.

Honestly, the quicker the streamer wars collapses, the happier i'll be.

 

[herofhyrule]

Prodigy is/was a half-hour show but many of the stories the writers tried to tell didn't fit under that time constraint. First half of season 1 had episode pairs 1&2, 4&5, and 9&10 and each pair was essential one story spread over two half-hour episodes.

I know, but Memory Alpha specifically states that "Lost and Found" was originally released as a single episode, as opposed to "A Moral Star" and "Supernova" which were originally released as two episodes. It's apparently a single episode on the DVD/Blu-ray release as well, though I don't have it to confirm.

 

[herofhyrule]

You can't separate the two.

It's very obvious when someone is doing something not because they have a good idea behind it but because they an idea they're highly committed to.

If you're initial premise is that a thing is inherently flawed. It ain't a shock when your attempt to fix the thing that is not broken explodes in your face.

Could be wrong, but I imagine a large part of the female audiences sees the doctor as the idealized man, smart dynamic etc. Even women themselves were turned off when a major draw was taken away.

If you think something is inherently flawed you're usually the last person who should be given the reigns when the thing is working.

When you swap genders, it's always a good sign to the viewer that not only do you see the thing they like as flawed, but it also seems they think the audience themselves are flawed for not seeing the problem.

The alien franchise has been dominated by leading women, if you were to change that I'd check out permanently. It's a key part of the franchise not something you can change, unless you give a very good reason. And I'm the one who passionately loves all 6 alien films, when most hate more than 1.

I mean, I'm not a big Doctor Who fan, but I don't think the Doctor being male was ever an important aspect. Otherwise you could argue that we shouldn't have had Janeway because every main character in a Star Trek series up to then was male (Kirk, Picard, Sisko), even though their gender was never particularly important.

 

[ananta]

It's actually amazing how similar Picard S3 was to the type of fan fiction I wrote when I was twelve years old. Hell, even their decision to pilfer music from all the franchise's greatest hits is also similar to how I imagined the movie versions of said fanfics back then.

That’s precisely how I found P3. It was kind of like fans playing with action figures; created by the nerds strictly for the nerds. I enjoyed it, yeah, but I also found they really needed to dial back the fanwank and work more on a rich, coherent and satisfying story.

I think they meant that fandom turned nasty which in places it most certainly did.

Like you, for me Jodie wasn’t the turn-off. The lacklustre writing was.

I gave up on Dr Who after watching it my entire life. I’m not toxic about it; I simply didn’t like the writing or the star, as I don’t think Whittaker was at all well cast. I didn’t make a song and dance about leaving the show behind; I just moved onto other things I do enjoy. In general, I really dislike fandoms anyway. This is the only “fan” place I frequent on the net because it’s balanced, respectful and people generally do not flame each other.

 

[SalyutBuran]

I mean, I'm not a big Doctor Who fan, but I don't think the Doctor being male was ever an important aspect

Depends on the person, i promise you a massive number of women like the male doctors.

Otherwise you could argue that we shouldn't have had Janeway because every main character in a Star Trek series up to then was male (Kirk, Picard, Sisko), even though their gender was never particularly important.

Their gender was always important.

Janeway wasn't an issue because it's an ensemble cast. It's a completely different beast.

It's the same reason you can't gender swap the Alien franchise leads. The final character being a women, is crtical because of the vulnerability, if it's a man it's much easier for people to tune and out and just see the male lead as another red shirt. Not a lot of female red shirts, it's just not a big thing.

There's even sociological reasons why more male characters is important. Biologically speaking men have a more naturally wide range of personalities/archetypes. Women can get by a narrower set of traits.
With men you have the jock, the leader, the robot, the nerd, the comedian etc. Different men relate to different characters. With women it's not so obvious that they require the same range. In part because women generally aren't so dependent on having a self insert character. Either because of better empathy, or just the social environment of sci fi.

 

[bdub76]

well the old model did well, Studio A made content, and sold it to TV station B to broadcast it, and the TV station paid for the cost of production through commercials, or if cable, subscriptions. sometime multipule times, like say sell a moviet to HBO first, then after a time sell it to TBS, or one of the terrestrial stations like ABC. Same with TV, sell it to ABC for first run, then sell it to whatever TV station that wants to buy it to show as reruns. Each time its sold or another contract is made, money rolls in.

the New model is, Studio A makes content, then it shows it themselves on there own streamer, hoping subscriptions cover the cost. Now with that there is ALOT of overhead in having a streaming service, it isn't just simply put it up to view, many millions of dollars for servers, bandwith, etc. and thats for your whole cataloge, some of which won't be watched that much. Sometimes you get a hit and people come.. but sometimes not.

then the series or movie just lingers on your streamer, few people watching ocasionally, but no money coming in.
Now, the old streamer model of Studio A making content, then selling it to Netflix, Amazon etc. then money is made like the old times, it covers a contracted period of time, and if they want it more, they'll buy it again. if not, its returned, with maybe it being bought as a bundle in at some other time.

Right now there's to many streamers, so there only so much of the streaming pie to go around.
I don't have all the streamers, hell right now all I have is P+ and no comercial youtube, I ocasionally get netflix or whatever if something pops up, but I can't afford every streamer, and honestly I don't want them since a good amount don't have content I want to view, or enough to keep them for a long term.

Honestly, the quicker the streamer wars collapses, the happier i'll be.

I turn streamers on and off base on content. The only two that I consistently have are Prime and Netflix. Witcher starts up soon.

My expectation is to have P+ until SNW wraps up. Then I’ll get MGM+ for vampires, witches, and From through Halloween. Then I’ll get Peacock for Quantum Leap and Hallmark to get me through the holidays.

Max and D+ I’ll turn on and off based on content. Both seem to be shrinking their content now.

 

[herofhyrule]

I mean, "because men like looking at it" has been used to justify a lot of downright sexist and misogynistic decisions that objectify and sexualise women, so I see no reason why the same logic shouldn't be applied to the female gaze. And the gender of Kirk, Picard, and Sisko aren't important. What would be different if any of them were woman? Also, are you basically saying that women are less varied than men? Because that in itself is sexist.

 

[SalyutBuran]

I mean, "because men like looking at it" has been used to justify a lot of downright sexist and misogynistic decisions that objectify and sexualise women, so I see no reason why the same logic shouldn't be applied to the female gaze.

People are attracted to who they are attracted to. Women are statistically more attracted to a broader set of traits than men.

And the gender of Kirk, Picard, and Sisko aren't important. What would be different if any of them were woman?

they'd be a completely different person. Just as Picard would be a completely different character if he were young, if Sisko wasn't a father, and Kirk wasn't given magical superstrength and IQ.

Also, are you basically saying that women are less varied than men? Because that in itself is sexist.

Yes, the vast majority of violent offenders are men. that's not a statistical debate, men for one reason or another display a wider range of extremes. Low intelligence, high intelligence, psychopathy, autism you name it. Pre natal testostorone is a thing.


Sexism is thinking someone should have to adhere to a gender norm when they don't feel that way. if someone naturally feels a certain way it isn't our job to tell them they're wrong. The flip side is assuming that a gender should have some sort of symmetrical distribution of traits just because it occurs with another gender.

The majority of violence lovers are men. Doesn't mean all men have to be violent, nor women can't be violent. It means it isn't a crisis that the most popular video games are geared towards men.



Klingons are naturally violent, it's narrow minded they should be born thinking like humans, neurodiversity is a real thing. It's racism to think because some, most klingons are violent, therefore no klingons should be allowed in star fleet.

The fact that we even need to discuss this and can't just reference a new trek episode is beyond depressing.

 

[herofhyrule]

I mean, a lot of that really has nothing to do with what you originally said.

There's even sociological reasons why more male characters is important. Biologically speaking men have a more naturally wide range of personalities/archetypes. Women can get by a narrower set of traits.
With men you have the jock, the leader, the robot, the nerd, the comedian etc. Different men relate to different characters. With women it's not so obvious that they require the same range. In part because women generally aren't so dependent on having a self insert character. Either because of better empathy, or just the social environment of sci fi.

I mean, this is just not true. Women are not a monolith that all relate to the same characters. In fact, some men may relate to a female character and vice versa. It's nothing to do with psychopaths(?) or autism, it's just a fact that women can have personalities that are as different from each other's as men can.
With regards to Kirk, Picard, and Sisko: Picard's age and Sisko's fatherhood are important parts of their characters. Their gender is not, nor is it central to Kirk's character. What, specifically, would change if they were female?
Regardless, this will be my last post on the topic in this thread. If you wish to continue this discussion, let's take it to a more relevant thread.

 

[1001001]

The fact that we even need to discuss this and can't just reference a new trek episode is beyond depressing.

Well, you’re not wrong about that.

 

[SalyutBuran]

I mean, a lot of that really has nothing to do with what you originally said.

Pardon?

I mean, this is just not true. Women are not a monolith that all relate to the same characters. In fact, some men may relate to a female character and vice versa.

I never once said they were a monolith. But there"s a far more consistent distribution with women. Less of the extremes.

It's nothing to do with psychopaths(?) or autism, it's just a fact that women can have personalities that are as different from each other's as men can.

Both psychopathy and autism are on spectrums. And these spectrums span out into the greater population with an obvious gender difference. Obsessiveness and lack of empathy relate to those two traits, it's a pretty well defined line that explains some of the gender extremes. Obsessiveness and a lessor empathy are traits common in a whole lot of men. Women can have both, but it's just way less common. Usually it's one or the other.

With regards to Kirk, Picard, and Sisko: Picard's age and Sisko's fatherhood are important parts of their characters. Their gender is not, nor is it central to Kirk's character.

What you mean is it wouldn't change anything to you. I'm not arguing with you about what you like, more than happy to admit you're unique. This is the distinction. I'm not denying people exist.

For the simple reason I want to be like the male character, I want to emulate them, I emulate people who take on my gender role. I don't ever try to emulate the opposite gender, anymore than I try to emulate the mannerisms of a chinese person. Not because I hate women, not emulating a soccer player doesn't mean I hate soccer players. I just have modeled my life on hockey players etc.

It also goes in both directions, I never ever want to be a neelix, 7of9 or the doctor.

Favorite female characters are consistently, Pulaski/troi/yates/torres/t'pol.

I don't relate but I wish I could do what they do because I can't.

One of the fundamental problems with writing female characters a lot of men like, is that they don't value a girl that can kick but. But it's those qualities that are not common in men that usually move the needle in one way or the other.

This can turn into a long discussion, point is there's no moral high ground in denying people's preferences, nor is it particularly virtuous to manufacture narratives to suggest liking something makes the person evil.

What, specifically, would change if they were female?

You'd be surprised. you may not perceive gender, but people like myself do. I don't know how to even start explaining that. I'm autistic and I have a good sense when people display autistic like traits. Women show way less, and even autistic women like my wife, despite having an autistic temperament still is not like a man. I.e. I'm not a fan of violence/action for an average guy, but I still will watch holocaust documentaries while I'm eating my fruits loops/breakfast and have a perfect day. my wife gets upset with modest levels of violence. For me the violence has to be pretty intense before I even have much of an interest.

Statistically likely and statistically common are not the same thing.

If a female captain objected to children like picard, I wouldn't think it's impossible, it'd be mildly confusing because I never met a woman like that before. Doesn't mean it never happens, but my own grandfather is like picard, I don't have to think to long and hard about someone I know who's a picard. Janeway is just like my Aunt, never needed a moment to think on whether or not she's someone I know.

Not every character has to be relatable, T'pol is interesting to me exactly because she shows enough autistic traits that it is atypical. But the story structure of the character works. Unrionically part of the character's appeal is that she's atypical even among vulcans, and she feels a constant sense of overwhelming pressure coming in from all side. Everyone is brutal to T'pol humans because she's vulcan, vulcan's because she's not vulcan enough. Some people perssure her because she's attractive, some resent her because she's too attractive, and at the end of the day she's second in command and she has to spend all of her time cleaning up messes started by archer/tucker and/or earth-vulcan high command. She's a character that works because she's frickin hot and she's rarely inclined to get in a macho pissing match. Her gender formulates a lot of that structure, and at the end of the day she's basically/entirely an autistic woman.

Regardless, this will be my last post on the topic in this thread. If you wish to continue this discussion, let's take it to a more relevant thread.

It's directly relevant, when you ignore what people want, and you want their money, you run into a problem.

If they made content for me it'd be radically different from what we're getting.

you're no different than the people running these companies. If you think gender isn't important, it's no shock when a massive number of people who do, have no interest in your product.

It'd be 40 minutes of technical discussion and 5 minutes wasted on everything else.

I'm not normal, and a studio would be mentally insane to make a show for me.

 

[herofhyrule]

Well, let me just say that I am also autistic, so this isn't an autistic-vs-non-autistic thing. I also find it hard to believe that you've never met a woman who dislikes children. Anyway, as I said, this thread is about Paramount+ (and Paramount in general) failing. This discussion would be better suited to a thread about how gender is represented in media.

 

[Citiprime]

It's actually amazing how similar Picard S3 was to the type of fan fiction I wrote when I was twelve years old. Hell, even their decision to pilfer music from all the franchise's greatest hits is also similar to how I imagined the movie versions of said fanfics back then.

I think part of the reason Picard S3 went over well with a lot of fans is that its tone felt familiar. It was the first live action Trek since 2005 that felt like a continuation of the Berman era, instead of purposely changing things to "update" them. And people can argue about whether or not that's a good thing, but for a lot of the oldheads it was nice to get a Trek that pushed those buttons.

I'd be curious... what's an example of a "mature" Star Trek episode?

I would love a Star Trek that was given the Andor treatment. I mean Paramount seems to favor a version of Star Trek that's more action oriented. If that's so, why not base a series within the Dominion War, but do it as sort of Star Trek meets Tony Gilroy and Band of Brothers. Deal with the horrors of the war from the perspective of the people who were on the ground during those battles. I mean you could depict things that were only spoken about in lines of dialogue (e.g., the fall of Betazed, the destruction of the seventh fleet, the Cardassian genocide etc.) and expand to show other aspects as well.

Not only their only hit, but not even a particularly good hit in terms of how popular things like Star Wars or Marvel are.

Star Trek isn't half as big as Paramount thinks it is.

I think since Star Trek (2009), Paramount has thrown resources at Star Trek in the belief that they can make it into a bigger property. I think it's one of those things like the DCEU where, on paper, they think it should be bigger, but the execution has arguably been off where they can never quite hit that sweet spot of making it as big as something like The Mandalorian.

Once Jodie became the Doctor fandom imploded. I went to Gallifrey One this year, and a lot of the regular attendees weren’t there.

The good thing about Trek is that it has been solidly progressive from the start, so I don’t see it imploding like DW. But its fandom isn’t as big as Star Wars, so maybe turning P+ into the home of Trek was a bad idea.

I think there was definitely sexists and that went after Doctor Who the same way there were sexists and racists that went after Star Trek: Discovery because there were leads who were female and people of color. However, overall, the Chris Chibnall era of Doctor Who was a disaster.

Even before he took over, I thought that Moffat was running out of interesting things to say with the character. But Chibnall's "timeless child" arc for Doctor Who is one of the dumbest story ideas I've ever seen foisted onto the canon of a long-running series. It's a retcon that totally undermines the lead character.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

It's a retcon that totally undermines the lead character.

I don’t agree it undermines the character, but I do think it’s about to be swept under the carpet along with the ‘half-human’ retcon of the 1996 TVM.

 

[Sci]

I would say that... well, we had five Trek shows running at peak, and a couple more being discussed. Given that (1) one show has reached its planned conclusion, (2) one has been called after its last season, and (3) one appears to be about to cease to exist completely, if the P+ crew have their way... I would say that the franchise is on shaky ground at this point.

I think Star Trek is gonna be fine. The absolute worst-case scenario is Paramount goes under and some other corporation inherits it. ST might go away for a while, but it'll come back. It's a perennial middle-income money-maker.

All of the new Star Trek streaming shows have been juvenile.

Nope.

I’d love to see Breaking Bad meets Star Trek.

Breaking Bad was literally about moral corruption consuming someone. The exact opposite of Star Trek's philosophy.

If you're naturally an orderly person people disobeying orders, in poorly lit/dirty environments, swearing etc, is just a massive turn off.

You're confusing being orderly with being obedient.

This singular issue of differences of personality has transformed into a mental health crisis. A simple example is addiction homelessness. Disagreeable don't care, agreeable people care but they can't process that the majority of homeless people are relatively disagreeable. So their entire thesis radically downplays how much disobedient, refusal to follow the rules causes a lot of the homelessness problem and reducing the rules only makes things worst.

This is classist, blame-the-victim nonsense. Homelessness and poverty are not caused by character flaws -- they're caused by a lack of money.

The orderly people love that there's a rigid set of rules, uniforms, clean brightly colored bridges. The order also makes it more tolerable who aren't super open to new ideas. As they have a format they can rely on.

For people who are less empathetic the relatively small amount of emotional content make trek enjoyable/ Spock Data Worf were people they could latch onto.

Nutrek is insufferable for the majority of people with the temperaments listed above.

I think this is a fair assessment, but I would argue that the rigid set of rules, pro-institutionalist bias, hierarchicalism, and emotionally shallow writing of Berman-era ST represent ST at its artistic low point.

There's even sociological reasons why more male characters is important. Biologically speaking men have a more naturally wide range of personalities/archetypes. Women can get by a narrower set of traits.
With men you have the jock, the leader, the robot, the nerd, the comedian etc. Different men relate to different characters.

I'm sorry, but this is misogynistic drivel. Women are just as diverse in personality as men.

People are attracted to who they are attracted to. Women are statistically more attracted to a broader set of traits than men.

Citation needed.

Sexism is thinking someone should have to adhere to a gender norm when they don't feel that way.

Sexism is many things. This is one of them, but it does not encompass all of it.

Klingons are naturally violent, it's narrow minded they should be born thinking like humans, neurodiversity is a real thing. It's racism to think because some, most klingons are violent, therefore no klingons should be allowed in star fleet.

The idea that Klingons are "naturally violent" reflects real-life racial essentialist thinking. It's a dramatic flaw in ST that ought to be avoided. Future ST shows should not depict Klingons as "naturally" violent, but rather should simply depict violence as a cultural norm.

I never once said they were a monolith.

No, but you very clearly claimed that women are not as diverse in personality as men.

For the simple reason I want to be like the male character, I want to emulate them,

And the same logic illustrates why representation of diverse communities is important.

If a female captain objected to children like picard, I wouldn't think it's impossible, it'd be mildly confusing because I never met a woman like that before.

And I, on the other hand, can think of three or four just in my immediate social circle. There are plenty of women out there who don't like children and don't want to become parents.