Kurtzman on Any New Series Reaching 100 Episodes

[Cr0sis21]

So I just read this article today:
https://www.cinemablend.com/interviews/modern-star-trek-series-reach-100-episodes-alex-kurtzman

I don't dislike Alex Kurtzman. Quite the opposite in fact. But I do take issue with a few things he said. Starting with this:

I think most people watch two seasons of a streaming show, and they check out, you know, and that's not specific to Trek. I just think that's the watch pattern for television in the streaming world.

Not really. Most shows lose viewers in general the longer they go on. Has nothing to do with streaming. That's been a thing forever.

it's funny you can talk to old writers of old Trek series, and they're like, ‘Man, there's a bunch of filler episodes in there. We are just trying to get to 22 a season,’ you know, and, and we all know which of those episodes were [filler], we know the ones that were truly stellar from the ones that felt like they were kind of spinning their wheels. And so I think what ten episodes a season forces you to do is really make sure that every story counts as much as it possibly can. And I like that, you know, I like that. I like what that affords us now.

I really disagree here. I think, yeah, the audience patience for 22-episode seasons has waned, but the "filler" stuff is what adds depth.
You dont get "Sluggo Cola" without Profit and Lace.
You don't get "Fully functional" without The Naked Now.
You dont get Sisko's baseball without "If Wishes Were Horses".
You don't get Pike in a wheelchair without "The Menagerie".
And on and on. Plus, shortened seasons are no guarantee that every episode will be great (See: "The Galactic Barrier").
There are advantages to each, but I think it's wrong to claim Trek is better without filler. I mean, after all, where would most Trek be without "Piller Filler"?

 

[Tuskin38]

20+ episodes suck. And I grew up in the era of 20+ shows.

 

[F. King Daniel]

This isn't a Trek thing, it's a TV thing. The landscape has changed so much. And SNW manages to squeeze in fluff episodes still.

I doubt it'll go back to the way it was, if they can't keep Trek shows going more than 5 seasons now. The choices are being made higher up.

 

[Cr0sis21]

This isn't a Trek thing, it's a TV thing. The landscape has changed so much. And SNW manages to squeeze in fluff episodes still.

I doubt it'll go back to the way it was, if they can't keep Trek shows going more than 5 seasons now. The choices are being made higher up.

They can keep Trek shows going. Disco is hardly the barometer of the viability of long-term Trek. Regardless of how you feel about it, it's hardly a critical darling like Strange New Worlds. P+ was pretty quick to shunt Disco to the side and make SNW the poster Trek series.

 

[mswood]

So I just read this article today:
https://www.cinemablend.com/interviews/modern-star-trek-series-reach-100-episodes-alex-kurtzman

I don't dislike Alex Kurtzman. Quite the opposite in fact. But I do take issue with a few things he said. Starting with this:

Not really. Most shows lose viewers in general the longer they go on. Has nothing to do with streaming. That's been a thing forever.

Actually while we don't typically get universal streaming numbers. What we actually know is that streaming churn is higher than what broadcast churn is. I would assume there is an actually performance aspect to that rate of cancellation being higher. The only real platform that seems to buck this trend is Apple, which frankly since they don't have to worry about making a profit on their programming its hardly surprising.
Its been true since they were typically doing 13 episodes seasons its still true as shows average now 8 episodes a season.

And you are correct most shows lose viewers as they age, been true since the original TOS.

But for some reasons the number of percentage of live action shows that make it past two seasons on streaming is lower then what is historical for broadcast or even cable live action.

As to your other point, since streamers key some programming to be significantly better produced then broadcast (ie make you feel a reason to pay for your service) that seriously limits the amount of episodes you can produce a year versus the broadcast model (hell even look at broadcast, the better produced shows typically don't deliver 22 episode seasons).

What is possible strictly on a production schedule is 15 - 18, but higher than 15 actors are going to be nearly working a full year on a show. Which means it's much harder to get quality talent as many of them prefer not to be stuck full time on one project.

I really miss at lest 13 episode season for streaming. To me thats better number if your wanted a mix of serialized and through in random episode of the week story telling. Which is typically (though not always) my preference.

 

[Cr0sis21]

Actually while we don't typically get universal streaming numbers. What we actually know is that streaming churn is higher than what broadcast churn is. I would assume there is an actually performance aspect to that rate of cancellation being higher. The only real platform that seems to buck this trend is Apple, which frankly since they don't have to worry about making a profit on their programming its hardly surprising.
Its been true since they were typically doing 13 episodes seasons its still true as shows average now 8 episodes a season.

And you are correct most shows lose viewers as they age, been true since the original TOS.

But for some reasons the number of percentage of live action shows that make it past two seasons on streaming is lower then what is historical for broadcast or even cable live action.

As to your other point, since streamers key some programming to be significantly better produced then broadcast (ie make you feel a reason to pay for your service) that seriously limits the amount of episodes you can produce a year versus the broadcast model (hell even look at broadcast, the better produced shows typically don't deliver 22 episode seasons).

What is possible strictly on a production schedule is 15 - 18, but higher than 15 actors are going to be nearly working a full year on a show. Which means it's much harder to get quality talent as many of them prefer not to be stuck full time on one project.

I really miss at lest 13 episode season for streaming. To me thats better number if your wanted a mix of serialized and through in random episode of the week story telling. Which is typically (though not always) my preference.

Agreed 100%. While we may never get back to 22+ being the standard, I think 13-15 shouldn't be out of the question.
SNW, for instance, could absolutely benefit from that. And it isn't like every cast member needs a huge part in every episode. DS9 especially excelled at that.

 

[mswood]

We have no idea if Paramount desires to produce a show more than 5 years. We really lack any solid information to make that claim. With one exception. If Paramount retained the streaming rights of Yellowstone and the actors wanted to, they without question would pursue longer then 5 seasons. Without question.

Using Corporate quarterly statements that must meet legal requirements on what is said. We know Discovery was the least watch live action Trek show (in a comparison of other live action during roughly the same year, it should likely be on a season to season comparison simply because it started with a significantly smaller subscriber base that has continued to grow). We also know from those same statements and the data released by Nielsen that SNW does better than Picard, as well as Discovery (this doesn't count current season as of yet we have no data whatsoever on its performance).

We also have no numeric data for how either animated show has performed in relation to its costs, nor have we heard even a rumor of a budget for those show. We have got some solid and some rumors for the live action.

With Paramount being financially limited we know that they can't afford the initial idea of trying to keep near round Trek programming. We also know that Trek is the key factor in 20% of its subscriber base.

Typically that means you cut the shows that aren't providing the best cost to delivery. Animated since we don't know either data points no judgment can be made. But assuming Trek best performing show would end the same time its live action show that does the worst, isn't something that yet can be made. With Picard ending in season through not from Paramount wish but Stewarts, it's just not something logically we can support.

The one thing we can absolutely count on is that its exceptionally unlikely to see episode counts increase (minus some rare issue where they film so much footage the have enough to split one filmed episode into two released episodes.

 

[Oddish]

The world has changed. If we get five seasons with 10-15 episodes instead of seven with 22-26, then we'll make do.

 

[JamesRye]

Some of the best episodes we're filler or bottle shows.

The measure of a man
Cause and effect
The next phase (though it ended up costing a lot)
The Visitor
Duet
To name just a few...

The trouble with 10 episodes is that we never develop the cast properly. I mean, other than Burnham and Saru, I'd be hard pressed to name the DSC cast.

 

[1001001]

The trouble with 10 episodes is that we never develop the cast properly. I mean, other than Burnham and Saru, I'd be hard pressed to name the DSC cast.

 

[The Wormhole]

Some of the best episodes we're filler or bottle shows.

The measure of a man
Cause and effect
The next phase (though it ended up costing a lot)
The Visitor
Duet

None of those really qualify as "bottle episodes." Bottle episodes mean the entire episode is done on standing sets with no guest stars at all, just the main cast. And while most of those episodes might take place on just standing sets (though The Next Phase and The Visitor did have sets specifically built for them) all those episodes have either a decent sized guest cast, or notable big name guest stars and therefore would be automatically disqualified as "bottle episodes."

Hell, aside from Cause and Effect, none of them are really "filler" either.

The trouble with 10 episodes is that we never develop the cast properly. I mean, other than Burnham and Saru, I'd be hard pressed to name the DSC cast.

Aside from DS9, none of the other Trek shows really utilized their entire casts with 26 episodes a season. Well, okay, TOS, I guess, given their main cast was just Kirk, Spock and McCoy. But TNG? Just Picard and Data, with Worf coming up distantly. Voyager? Janeway, Doctor and Seven, a fact which the rest of the cast has often complained about. Enterprise? Just Archer, Trip and T'Pol.

 

[Takeru]

Not really. Most shows lose viewers in general the longer they go on. Has nothing to do with streaming. That's been a thing forever.

The drop off might be bigger for streaming shows. It is noticeable that long running streaming shows are much rarer than long running network or cable shows and that's true across all streaming services, so it feels like there's some truth to what he says.

 

[Tosk]

The whole 10-ep seasons, cancelled within a few years thing is something the studios made happen. It's not because viewers asked for it. It's because it costs them less.

Michelle Hurd:

"With them (the studios) ...their whole concept is that, 'It's a streaming platform so we have to continue to bring eyes on it', right?
So they're saying to us (the actors), 'People only watch ten episodes and only will stay on for maybe three years, so we have to cancel those things and bring in a new shiny object so that people can watch it'.
It's also, if they wait 'til five years they have to end up paying more money. Go to your streamers and look at what the seasons are. The majority of streaming shows basically get three seasons.
They're doing this on purpose, it doesn't even matter if the show was successful or not."

(Heavily edited as the original quote is very stream of thought.)

 

[Lord Garth]

They can keep Trek shows going. Disco is hardly the barometer of the viability of long-term Trek. Regardless of how you feel about it, it's hardly a critical darling like Strange New Worlds. P+ was pretty quick to shunt Disco to the side and make SNW the poster Trek series.

The fact that Discovery is ending after five seasons isn't a barometer. The fact that Discovery AND Lower Decks are ending after five seasons is.

Picard was only ever going to be three seasons. And the rules are different with Prodigy being intended for children. So, those were both special circumstances. Discovery and Lower Decks didn't have those circumstances.

EDITED TO ADD: Here's an article on the decreasing number of seasons that streaming series last. It's from 2020, but the situation hasn't changed.

The Life Span of Streaming TV Series Is Shrinking - The Ringer

Stranger Things, one the most successful streaming series is only lasting -- you guessed it! -- five seasons. One of my favorite streaming series, Orange Is the New Black, lasted seven seasons. Except Orange Is the New Black premiered in 2013 when there weren't many streaming series. Nothing else since, that I know of, in the streaming world has lasted that long.

 

[Cr0sis21]

The fact that Discovery is ending after five seasons isn't a barometer. The fact that Discovery AND Lower Decks are ending after five seasons is.

Picard was only ever going to be three seasons. And the rules are different with Prodigy being intended for children. So, those were both special circumstances. Discovery and Lower Decks didn't have those circumstances.

EDITED TO ADD: Here's an article on the decreasing number of seasons that streaming series last. It's from 2020, but the situation hasn't changed.

The Life Span of Streaming TV Series Is Shrinking - The Ringer

Stranger Things, one the most successful streaming series is only lasting -- you guessed it! -- five seasons. One of my favorite streaming series, Orange Is the New Black, lasted seven seasons. Except Orange Is the New Black premiered in 2013 when there weren't many streaming series. Nothing else since, that I know of, in the streaming world has lasted that long.

Yeah, that announcement about Lower Decks really took the wind out of my sails.

I was doing a LD spec script where the crew has to go to Sigma Draconis 6 (Spock's Brain planet). But I guess that's a no-go.

The thing that annoys me the most is that the studios are treating all of us like ADD-afflicted toddlers.

 

[Lord Garth]

The thing that annoys me the most is that the studios are treating all of us like ADD-afflicted toddlers.

I agree with you 100%. We might have different favorite Trek shows, but we're in the same exact boat.

But this information might actually help Strange New Worlds. I assume they want to show how Kirk gets command of the Enterprise and they want to show what happens to Pike on Talos IV. So, if they know how long SNW is going to last, they can plan for when they want to do those things, instead of getting caught with their pants down, not knowing when the end would be, and not having a chance to finish the show the way it makes the most sense to.

 

[Cr0sis21]

I agree with you 100%. We might have different favorite Trek shows, but we're in the same exact boat.

But this information might actually help Strange New Worlds. I assume they want to show how Kirk gets command of the Enterprise and they want to show what happens to Pike on Talos IV. So, if they know how long SNW is going to last, they can plan for when they want to do those things, instead of getting caught with their pants down, not knowing when the end would be, and not having a chance to finish the show the way it makes the most sense to.

Yeah, we definitely don't want another Enterprise situation.

You know what seems crazy to me? So apparently P+ had this idea of year-long Trek series, where one season ends as another premieres. Obviously that didn't work, but my question is: If that's the goal, why cripple yourself with 10-episode seasons? Wouldn't it make more sense to do 20-episode seasons and have TWO shows?

I mean, I'm not a studio head or anything, but logically you have two casts versus five, two production crews vs. Five, two sets versus five...

Or make it two 13-episode seasons and throw in an animated show like LD or Prodigy to fill the gap. I dunno.

I'm not a studio head, but I am truly stumped as to the thinking here.

Also, I think I'd rather have 3 20-episode seasons (A'la TOS) than 5 ten-episode seasons.

 

[Lord Garth]

Yeah, we definitely don't want another Enterprise situation.

You know what seems crazy to me? So apparently P+ had this idea of year-long Trek series, where one season ends as another premieres. Obviously that didn't work, but my question is: If that's the goal, why cripple yourself with 10-episode seasons? Wouldn't it make more sense to do 20-episode seasons and have TWO shows?

I mean, I'm not a studio head or anything, but logically you have two casts versus five, two production crews vs. Five, two sets versus five...

Or make it two 13-episode seasons and throw in an animated show like LD or Prodigy to fill the gap. I dunno.

I'm not a studio head, but I am truly stumped as to the thinking here.

Also, I think I'd rather have 3 20-episode seasons (A'la TOS) than 5 ten-episode seasons.

I think they'll eventually work their way back to longer seasons. It's easier for shows to get lost in the shuffle and harder for them to stand out, if they come and go so fast. Not just with Trek, but in general. All the streaming shows out now, and that have been out, how many of them will be remembered even 10 years from now? It's all going to become a blur.

 

[Cr0sis21]

I think they'll eventually work their way back to longer seasons. It's easier for shows to get lost in the shuffle and harder for them to stand out, if they come and go so fast. Not just with Trek, but in general. All the streaming shows out now, and that have been out, how many of them will be remembered even 10 years from now? It's all going to become a blur.

Plus..how do you make new fans? You make it easy to find stuff.
Nobody is going to randomly cone across an episode of Disco and be like "Hey, okay, this is interesting."
But that's how I got into Star Trek. Happened to flip by The Voyage Home and it hooked me.
People are forced to seek out the shows they want to watch, and for most it's just not worth the effort. Let's say, for instance, your kid saw a clip of Prodigy on YouTube and wants to watch more. So you go to Paramount Plus, where supposedly all things Trek are, and they don't have any hint of it on there.
For most people, that's where the search ends.
I don't have a solution for that, but minimizing the product's size and reach certainly didn't help.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

In the 90s there was a new season every year that had 22-26 episodes. Now we get a new season every 2-3 years that has 10-13 episodes. To get to 100 episodes a show would have to last over a decade.