True enough. I just don't see the oversaturation risk as was the same in the 90s so I don't see it coming as quickly as others. But, I've been wrong before. Man, I must have watched completely different Star Trek shows with all that action. I wonder were the moral is in dealing with Tribbles, or Kirk killing his best friend because he became god like? Also, I must have watched different Abrams and DSC and Lower Decks since I see some ethical challenges there too. Man, Hollywood is weird being able to show me different shows than others are watching.
Depending on exactly what they're counting in there, there are as many as five unhatched chickens involved. Not worth getting worked up over yet one way or the other, IMO. I kind of doubt that Short Treks is being counted as a show in its own right, because it mostly isn't treated like one on the CBS AA site. Doesn't show up in lists of shows you've been watching; doesn't show up in lists of other shows like the Star Trek show you've been watching; etc. I've been catching up on those, and I usually have to do a search to get it to come up.
Agreed. In my opinion these all being developed just indicates confidence in the brand. If they feel its too much then CBS will scale it back. No harm, no foul, as I far as I'm concerned.
Picard is likely done after S3. Discovery has a few seasons left but will probably end after a few years. Short Treks isn't even a series, it's just a gap fill. So what does that leave 2 shows, S31 plus another to run alongside later seasons of SNW and LDS? 4 ten week shows a year is hardly saturation. Berman Trek also ran for 18 straight years without much difference. It wasn't saturation, it was stagnation.
Ideally, I would love to see Discovery make it to season six. Anything after that would be cherries on top. I feel like there are a solid four seasons worth of stories to tell in a brand new era, and creative folks could make more. Of course, I have no reason to assume they don’t yeet themselves into yet another era at some point. But still.
It's not a factory assembly line. By the time they get a significant number of further replacements for what's ended, other shows will already be close to ending.
Not in the context of what you're claiming here. I don't care how badly done you think any of the shows may be, NONE of them are just popped out in a short time span like a product rolling off an assembly line. They take years to make.
Of course not. But their stated intent from the beginning was year-round Trek on CBS-AA. So there's no way they'll let finished/ended shows go unreplaced unless they decide to change their buisness strategy. We know for sure they're sitting on Section 31 and Starfleet Academy shows, we know they had Nick Meyer write a Ceti Alpha V miniseries (although that one seems to be done for, or at least any involvement from Meyer) and there's a third animated series rumoured.
Which doesn't change anything about the post you disagreed with. 4 ten(+) week shows a year *is* year-round trek. And further projects in development will be more likely to be kept in reserve to replace other shows as they leave to keep the year-round gravy train going (just like they're already doing) rather than dumping everything available on the service at once the way the 'over-saturation' doomsaying claims.
This is going to happen in three phases: 1. They'll ramp up until they have all-year content. (We're here now) 2. They'll have all-year content. Shows that end will be replaced. 3. They'll ramp down and no longer have all-year content. Shows that end won't be replaced. For the way this went previously: 1. 1993-1995: Ramping Up. DS9 started, TNG ended on TV and went to movies, VOY started. 2. 1995-1999: Steady. DS9 and VOY on at the same time. TNG movies come out every two years. 3. 1999-2005: Ramping Down. Back to one series again. The last TNG movie took four years to come out. Other examples of things unfolding this way are CBS's very own Law & Order and CSI franchises. CSI is done and L&O is on its last leg. So we know how these life-cycles work. CBS looked at Star Trek and thought "This is a franchise that was doing what we're doing before we even did it! So if they did it before with Star Trek, we can do it again!"
Basically, but since it is streaming and there are no set network schedules/ seasons they might have 5 shows in rotation so each can take more than a year to produce the next season. Though maybe the 10 episode seasons are so they can get a whole season out each year at the same time.
Aack, corporate buzzwords. There's nothing that says "innovation and creative integrity" like a franchise that epitomizes the strategy of maximizing the power of popular IP, eh? Hopefully they're not killing the golden goose here. As others have pointed out, there are many differences between '90s Trek and today's, in terms of both style and content, and the medium of delivery. (Whether that all adds up to be an advantage remains to be seen.) That said, in terms of differences between then and now, one comment struck me... Where do people put them now, pray tell? After all, the screens are bigger than ever, so there aren't many other places they could fit!...
Star Trek is literally almost the only thing anyone watches on their platform. There's also Love Island and the Good Fight but that's it.
Star Trek is literally the only thing I watch on CBSAA. As soon as the season ends, I cancel my subscription. I sampled the TZ reboot, but couldn’t make it through even one episode. Black Mirror is quite enough Black Mirror-esque material for me.
I'm wondering if a lot of the people who subscribed to CBSAA to get their fix on Star Trek, when a season is over cancels the subscription, and does it hurt the streaming service?
I think the answer would be it depends on the time between subscriptions. If people know Trek is coming back then it likely isn't a long term hit.