What is a dubious news source? Is it a CBS source that says that Kurtzman Trek is cutting edge and bringing in hundreds of thousands of new viewers (and not allowing actual viewers to comment). Or, is it actual hundreds of thousands of viewers commenting on how awful the new stories are, on sites that do allow comments?
Seems to me, the proof is in. If New Trek was kicking ass. They (Paramount) would be laughing all the way to the bank. Yet somehow they are shutting down your so called cash cow.
You all need to start believing your eyes. Since STD Kurtzman Trek has been and is un rewatchable.
Put the completed SFA S2 on prime time reg. CBS with no pay wall. It will be just like S31. The more who see it, the worse it is.
Seems to me, the proof is in. If New Trek was kicking ass. They (Paramount) would be laughing all the way to the bank. Yet somehow they are shutting down your so called cash cow.
You all need to start believing your eyes. Since STD Kurtzman Trek has been and is un rewatchable.
Put the completed SFA S2 on prime time reg. CBS with no pay wall. It will be just like S31. The more who see it, the worse it is.
I think you've misunderstood. This thread isn't to debate the merits or lack thereof, it's to highlight and debunk unsourced clickbait rather than muddying other threads.
A large proportion of fans would agree with you, but that doesn't make Tachyon Pulse's "breaking news" any truer.
A large proportion of fans would agree with you, but that doesn't make Tachyon Pulse's "breaking news" any truer.
I just need clarification. What is a dubious source? To me tachyon pulse, giant freak, variety, hollywood reporter,..... what is a real source?
Variety: A real source.
The Hollywood Reporter: A real source.
Tachyon Pulse: Not a real source.
Giant Freak: lol
Hope this helps!
I mean, the fact this current era of the Trek franchise has lasted an entire decade consisting of six TV series (three of which had five year runs, which is considered a full run on modern television) plus one movie, should prove it wasn't a failure.
How dare you, sir, introduce facts into a grand narrative of wishful thinking! It’s outrageous!! Outrageous!
Oh shit, I didn't realize there was a monocle smilie!
Going to have to remember that.
Going to have to remember that.
Weird. I rewatch more than most other Treks, aside from TOS, and ST 09.
They've been hemorrhaging money for years now yet did a decade of sustained steaming. If that's failure then may we all be failures to that degree.
The board can support multiple emojis not just the ones listed. Easier on a mobile device.
The streaming bubble was already reaching a point of no return in the wake of the pandemic, but it burst hard following the dual strikes three years ago. It's not a sustainable model, and was never going to be. The greatest trick the Netflix devil ever pulled was convincing everyone that the old model of ad-based cable TV, physical media, and traditional theatrical distribution that had worked for decades didn't actually work.
That's usually how devils work is promising everything while giving nothing.
It's fundamentally flawed at best, because it created smaller and smaller audiences to try and navigate different systems. If people whines about PIN pads all being different imagine the streaming kerfuffle.
This isn't a "Star Trek failed" story but a business model failed for multiple reasons.
I think it is safe to assume Star Trek isn't as successful as some sources claim it to be. You don't cancel everything for nothing. If shows bring in money and viewers, you continue (unless the actor(s) don't want to). The fact that Discovery was cancelled, when they were planning a season 6 and weren't allowed an extra episode or two, the fact that they had to fight to create a shortened season 5 of Strange New Worlds, the fact that Prodigy got booted off Paramount+ and then got cancelled after a mere 2 seasons... And let's not forget Starfleet Academy. The streaming version of Star Trek has not been a success, that much is clear.
But they did get a half hour coda even though the episode ended at a natural point that could have ended the series. You don't pay for all that time, special effects and age makeup just to celebrate a show if it was that much of a failure.
They still wanted to make a film before then so again they were willing to foot the bill to make sure the show got an actual ending. They could have just cut it loose.
Unfortunately neither show was able to find a large enough audience, evidently cadets and young people is a difficult sell for the franchise. Of course you have compounding problems too Prodigy's rights entanglement with nickelodeon and Academy coming in right at the time new management is looking to reset everything.
Star Trek is a niche franchise and always will be but the sheer volume of content we got over the past decade can hardly be considered a failure. Much more popular shows have lasted less than 5 seasons in the streaming age. It is somewhat narrow sighted to call it all a failure, yes some shows struggled to resonate with even the core fanbase but there are so many factors in play.
I could have told you since the late 90s Star Trek isn't as popular as its reputation suggests.
If they hadn’t lost a single viewer from 2017, they would still be subject to diminishing returns on the property.
At an earlier point in the CBS Trek run they clearly had an audience that drifted away over a decade. Unfortunately, audiences drifting away is the nature of the beast in all but the absolute best of the best shows.
The cost eventually outweighed the reward as the cost of everything always goes up.
Network TV audiences have been declining for decades.
Streamers don't want to spend any more money than they absolutely have to.
After S5, things started getting expensive for Disco.
DS9/VOY/ENT lost 85% of TNG's relatively stable audience over their decade.