• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

News? Stories from Dubious Sources

Visitor1982 said:
Networks don't usually do that when a show is a success, they tend to want more and more and the opposite has happened to almost all streaming Star Trek shows... Call me crazy, but that is failure, no matter how you spin it!
Click to expand...
Streaming sites are simply NOT networks. They do not operate on the same business model, nor do they wish to. Their difference with networks is one of kind, not degree, and their metrics for deciding on whether to continue with a show or end it are such that success and failure are similarly different.

If one applies the “network model” devised long before the internet existed in any form to a distribution model that can only exist in a world of high speed internet, one will arrive at distorted conclusions.
 
Ovation said:
Streaming sites are simply NOT networks. They do not operate on the same business model, nor do they wish to. Their difference with networks is one of kind, not degree, and their metrics for deciding on whether to continue with a show or end it are such that success and failure are similarly different.

If one applies the “network model” devised long before the internet existed in any form to a distribution model that can only exist in a world of high speed internet, one will arrive at distorted conclusions.
Click to expand...
I meant streaming sites, when I wrote networks. The same still applies. Shows that are failures get cancelled, prematurely, like almost all the Kurtzman Star Trek shows.
 
I remember seeing an article or interview about the streaming industry, and basically what they prioritize is looking for the next Big Thing that can make a splash and generate buzz moreso than a lasting fame. It's sort of the Comic Book Issue #1 thing, where comic book periodically and regularly reboot the line because Issue 1 sells more copies than Issue 45. Likewise, season 1 of a show will draw more people in than season 5 or 6, so the streaming services want more season 1s than season 5s.
Visitor1982 said:
I meant streaming sites, when I wrote networks.
Click to expand...
I think we're all aware of that. However, Ovation's point still stands. The streaming services operate on a different business model than the networks. The networks wanted long running shows so they could further make money on it through a syndication package. Streaming services want to generate immediate buzz, which is why their shows tend to be shorter, bot in episode count and number of seasons.
Visitor1982 said:
Shows that are failures get cancelled, prematurely, like almost all the Kurtzman Star Trek shows.
Click to expand...
The only Kurtzman Trek shows which were truly cancelled prematurely are Prodigy and SFA. Picard ended after three seasons on its own accord. Disco and Lower Decks might have had sixth seasons planned, but by streaming standards five seasons can be considered a full run, and any show which ends with five seasons can not and should not be considered "cancelled prematurely." SNW is getting an extra season beyond what Paramount originally wanted to give it, even if it is an abbreviate season.
 
Visitor1982 said:
I do not consider falling ratings necessarily a failure, not if these ratings, though falling, were still quite good for syndication (DS9) or the network it was on (VOY and even ENT). Not when more than 170 episodes were produced over 7 seasons (DS9 & VOY). Only ENT got cancelled prematurely, so that could be seen as a failure.

Whereas on the streaming side of Trek, Discovery, Strange New Worlds, Lower Decks, Prodigy and Starfleet Academy all got cancelled by the network, not even allowing most shows to wrap up properly. Networks don't usually do that when a show is a success, they tend to want more and more and the opposite has happened to almost all streaming Star Trek shows... Call me crazy, but that is failure, no matter how you spin it!
Click to expand...
Only two shows were cancelled prematurely. In the streaming world 5 seasons seems to be more standard.

It simply cannot be compared to the syndication model in the same way.
 
The Wormhole said:
I think we're all aware of that. However, Ovation's point still stands. The streaming services operate on a different business model than the networks. The networks wanted long running shows so they could further make money on it through a syndication package. Streaming services want to generate immediate buzz, which is why their shows tend to be shorter, bot in episode count and number of seasons.
Click to expand...

I do think streaming services are missing the income that used to come from strip syndication.
 
The Wormhole said:
I think we're all aware of that. However, Ovation's point still stands. The streaming services operate on a different business model than the networks. The networks wanted long running shows so they could further make money on it through a syndication package. Streaming services want to generate immediate buzz, which is why their shows tend to be shorter, bot in episode count and number of seasons.
Click to expand...
It's not that different at all, if a show is succesful (ratings, financially), it continues to be produced... Discovery got cut short, whilst the producers were planning a season 6. They begged for a an extra episode or two, but Paramount was only willing to give them a 10 minute coda. The show was not a hit and the studio did not want to spend more money on it...

Strange New Worlds final season got cut, Paramount even wanted to end it after season 4. That doesn't scream hit show to me, does it?

Paramount didn't even want Prodigy season 2, they cancelled it and brought the show to Netflix and then cancelled it again. Sounds like a hit, doesn't it? ;-)

Starfleet Academy got cancelled after season 1 aired, not even waiting for season 2 to air. Again, sounds like a huge hit!

Come on guys, times have changed and streaming is not the same as network TV but hit shows do not get treated by studios in the way Paramount has treated the recent Star Trek shows. That's just the way it is. 5 seasons is decent for a streaming show, although there have been quite a few who've gotten more seasons... Cutting shows short, not giving them proper endings, not informing the producers/writers a season will be its final one, that is not a sign of success, no matter how you spin it...

I'm just not so sure Star Trek fits on streaming TV. That's got nothing to do with Kurtzman. But with the fact that we all love Star Trek because we had over 100, 150 episodes of getting to know these characters per series. These bottle episodes about Kira, Odo, Seven of Nine, The Doctor, Data, Pulaski, Trip or T'Pol... These season cliffhangers or two parters in the middle of the season were great, with action and battles etc. But we truly cared because we got to know these people onboard these ships or stations... Now, with 10 episodes and bigger budgets and CGI and continuing storylines, the deeper, well-written episodes about these characters are a thing of the past... And therefor a defining quality of Star Trek is gone and it has become a bit more generic, a bit lifeless perhaps. To me at least.
 
The Wormhole said:
I remember seeing an article or interview about the streaming industry, and basically what they prioritize is looking for the next Big Thing that can make a splash and generate buzz moreso than a lasting fame. It's sort of the Comic Book Issue #1 thing, where comic book periodically and regularly reboot the line because Issue 1 sells more copies than Issue 45. Likewise, season 1 of a show will draw more people in than season 5 or 6, so the streaming services want more season 1s than season 5s.

I think we're all aware of that. However, Ovation's point still stands. The streaming services operate on a different business model than the networks. The networks wanted long running shows so they could further make money on it through a syndication package. Streaming services want to generate immediate buzz, which is why their shows tend to be shorter, bot in episode count and number of seasons.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Traditional TV made money when an episode was broadcast, since they sold ads against it, so more, different episodes that would keep people tuning in week-in and week-out (or day-in and day-out for syndicated reruns) was aligned with their incentives.

Ignoring their cheaper, ad-supported tier for the moment, streaming services make money from people subscribing, not from people watching. They just need to produce enough episodes to make it not worth the trouble to cancel your account, or to get you to resubscribe if you have. Ideally, you'd subscribe, forget you have an account, and not watch anything while they charge you every month, which is the exact opposite of the broadcast incentive, where the amount of people with access to their channel is incidental, but they need people to be actually watching at predictable times to make money.

There is no reason for them to make episodes in the quantity or at the pace that was common pre-streaming. Especially for established franchises with huge back-catalogs like Star Trek, "success" doesn't require a lot of episodes, since it could get people in the door and prompt them to watch the older stuff. If someone subscribes to watch SNW or PIC, then decides, hey, Star Trek is pretty great and I haven't watched it since I was a kid, let's go through the whole thing with my own kids an episode a night, that means you've gotten a subscription for over two years for the cost of producing two month's worth of episodes. That's what all these single-season miniseries revivals are about, it's not so much about you watching the ten new episodes of Scrubs or Malcolm in the Middle or Frasier or Full House, it's an advertisement to get you to watch the hundreds of episodes of those shows that they already have for free in their back catalogs.

That's not even getting into the parade of buyouts and mergers that are going on, with new people taking over who have career incentives to not allow their predecessors' projects to succeed. That's something that happened even in traditional TV and movies, nobody wants to carry someone else's baby over the finish line, where the old guy will get all the credit.
 
Last edited:
Visitor1982 said:
A nice episode... And how many Una centered deep storied episodes have we had since then?
Click to expand...

Honestly have no idea as that was the last episode I watched, the other day. But, watching people talk about the show, it seems it has quite a few quality episodes.
 
BillJ said:
There are absolutely people out there that enjoy it, just seems very selfish to me.
Click to expand...
We know none of the current productions are going forward, and there is constant drum beats that other shows are better and current Star Trek is ruining the franchise.

So, yeah, I'm sorry if it sounds selfish but the enjoyment seems to be an extremely small percentage and thr ripping it apart a larger percentage.
 
fireproof78 said:
We know none of the current productions are going forward, and there is constant drum beats that other shows are better and current Star Trek is ruining the franchise.
Click to expand...

There have been drumbeats that current Star Trek has been ruining the franchise since 1987.

:guffaw:

I’d say, more than anything, that toxic fandom is ruining the franchise far more than any other element.
 
Ya know, at the end of the day, I enjoyed most of the past six series of Star Trek. That’s not to say I didn’t have criticisms of each and every one of them. Im disappointed we won’t get more of SFA because the first season was surprisingly good. I’m also not going to lose sleep over it not continuing. Once the final episode of SNW airs next year, there will be 251 additional episodes over 24 seasons of Star Trek that have been created over a ten year period. I am pretty happy with that.

If more comes under the Skydance regime, great! I look forward to more Trek. If it doesn’t, that’s okay too.
 
Campe said:
Im disappointed we won’t get more of SFA because the first season was surprisingly good.
Click to expand...

I don’t think I can rate it fairly, as I’ve never been a fan of the idea going back to the Harve Bennett-era. I’ve watched eight episodes, a couple were surprisingly good, a few were mediocre, a few really bad.

I don’t think fandom remembers how many mediocre and poor episodes were produced by the prior eras of the franchise.

I’ll probably butcher Billy Joel here, but he once sang that the good old days weren’t always good and tomorrow isn’t as bad as it seems.
 
Visitor1982 said:
Now, with 10 episodes and bigger budgets and CGI and continuing storylines, the deeper, well-written episodes about these characters are a thing of the past.
Click to expand...
What? There have been quite a few episodes that fit that description. Not sure how CGI or serial storytelling somehow prevents that. Off the top of my head I’d offer “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow” and “Under the Cloak of War” as examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top