• 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!

Strange New Worlds' showrunners advise fans to write to Skydance and Paramount if they're interested in a "Year One" Kirk sequel series

I would think it self-evident that that proves they did not want to cancel it "as soon as possible." On the contrary, they chose to extend it as much as they could justify.

And my point is that it is erroneous to cast executive decisions in terms of what they want or are interested in. It's not about their wishes or preferences, it's about what they can afford to do based on the ratings. People always want to blame executives for killing shows, but it's the audience that decides a show's fate by whether they watch it in enough numbers. Giving a show a few more episodes when the numbers tell them to end it sooner is an expression of their desire to keep it as long as they can manage, not to end it as soon as they can.

Please point out where I blamed executives for killing shows. CBS is canceling SNW, however they choose to do it, as is their right, as they own the property. And they are clearly not interested in continuing with a new show along the same vein.
 
Last edited:
Please point out where I blamed executives for killing shows.

One:
CBS is interested in ending the show as soon as possible.

Two:
But at the same time, they still clearly want to end the show as soon as they can

"Interested" and "want" cast it as a matter of their own preference. But people often do things they don't want to do, because outside factors require it.


And they are clearly not interested in continuing with a new show along the same vein.

No such thing is remotely clear to me. Or rather, while I don't think it's likely that they'll pick up Goldsman's proposal, I see no logical throughline connecting their decision to end SNW to a hypothetical rejection of a spinoff concept. Shows end all the time for a variety of reasons, often due to factors that outside observers have absolutely no knowledge of. So it is pure arrogance to make assumptions about other people's "clear" motives for their decisions.
 
One:


Two:


"Interested" and "want" cast it as a matter of their own preference. But people often do things they don't want to do, because outside factors require it.

So you’re arguing about semantics. Ok, fine. Have it your way. CBS is killing the show. Happy? Still doesn’t change my point one iota that they have no interest in producing Year One based on their actions in this regard.
 
Still doesn’t change my point one iota that they have no interest in producing Year One based on their actions in this regard.

Perhaps you missed my edit where I said I see no such chain of causality. The only people who can say what the studio execs' motives may be are the studio execs. An outside observer cannot know the real reasons.
 
Which is only the case for the characters within the story, not for the audience. The appeal of the mystery and procedural genres is that they allow the reader or viewer to feel that law and justice will prevail in the end. That's how there can be such a thing as "cozy mystery," stories that feel comfortable and pleasant and relaxing even though they revolve around homicides. It doesn't make a lot of sense if you think about it, but it's more about feeling than thinking.
Cozying up to a mystery set in a fictitious New England town is one thing. Promoting the Ilikai Hotel by routinely showing people taking involuntary dives from one of its balconies is another.
 
I would think it self-evident that that proves they did not want to cancel it "as soon as possible." On the contrary, they chose to extend it as much as they could justify.

P+ can do what Netflix is now doing with Stranger Things's final season -- blow it up into a major media event.

Not outside the realm of possibility given that P+'s new CEO Cindy Holland used to work for Netflix. :whistle:
 
P+ can do what Netflix is now doing with Stranger Things's final season -- blow it up into a major media event.

Not outside the realm of possibility given that P+'s new CEO Cindy Holland used to work for Netflix. :whistle:

I don’t think CBS is interested in making SNW a major media event.
 
We got the wonderful first season of Picard?
Based around someone actually thinking "what sort of resources would a post-scarcity polity of hundreds of worlds be able to field?"

People were shocked by the number of ships in Riker's field at the end of first season and came up with stuff like "they were holoships" but to him, it made perfect sense and to me. We then went back to the same old same old in next two seasons.
 
Cozying up to a mystery set in a fictitious New England town is one thing. Promoting the Ilikai Hotel by routinely showing people taking involuntary dives from one of its balconies is another.

I'm not saying it's rational, but it seems to be why the "cozy mystery" genre is a thing, and why mysteries and procedurals are popular in general. The reassuring happy ending of the detectives always bringing the killers to justice apparently offsets the scariness of the murders, even if multiple people are killed in the course of the story. The reason it works is that audiences don't choose to think about the uglier ramifications but just focus on the puzzle of solving the case and the satisfaction of exposing whodunnit.

I mean, look at how many Agatha Christie novels and stories involved travel and popular tourist locations, most of which I think she'd personally traveled to. I don't think she would've gotten away with doing that so often if her stories of murder in those locations hurt tourism rather than helping it. Audiences understand that the murders are fictional devices for the sake of setting up the mystery, so it doesn't color their perception of the real places.
 
I find it a bit strange that the showrunners or producers need fans to convince Paramount to greenlight a show. I'd expect the producers to do their job and come up with such a strong pitch that Paramount wouldn't have a choice but to say yes.

I'm totally on board with writing letters to save a show from getting canceled.

But this particular campaign—while clearly well-intentioned—makes me wonder if the producers themselves aren't entirely confident the show would actually work.

And personally, I'm not really into the whole "First Year Kirk Show," especially with the current actor playing Kirk (though that’s a separate issue). My ideal would be something set during the Lost Era between Star Trek VI and TNG, or maybe a series in the 28th century focusing on Starfleet’s first timeship. Honestly, I’ve just hit a bit of TOS-era fatigue, and I can’t quite bring myself to write a letter for something I’m not excited about.
 
I find it a bit strange that the showrunners or producers need fans to convince Paramount to greenlight a show. I'd expect the producers to do their job and come up with such a strong pitch that Paramount wouldn't have a choice but to say yes.

I'm totally on board with writing letters to save a show from getting canceled.

But this particular campaign—while clearly well-intentioned—makes me wonder if the producers themselves aren't entirely confident the show would actually work.

In truth, even letter-writing campaigns rarely actually save a show from cancellation, since what makes the difference to a network is whether advertisers are willing to invest in a show, not whether a few thousand viewers like it enough to write their opinions down. Gene Roddenberry played up the mythology that the fan letter campaign "saved" TOS from cancellation after season 2, but the fact is that the show was merely "on the bubble," its fate undecided, and what made the difference in favor of renewal was Roddenberry's agreement to reduce the season length by 2 episodes and lower the per-episode budget, which is why we got fewer guest stars and hardly any location work in season 3. Almost always, it's that kind of budget cut that gets a struggling show renewed, by lowering the overhead enough that it doesn't eat up all the projected profit. NBC's famous announcement about renewing the show didn't mean "Okay, we've caved into your demands and will change our minds about cancelling it," it meant "Look, folks, we already decided to renew it, so please stop making things hard on our mailroom crew by flooding them with unnecessary letters." And the myth that the campaign brought in as much as a million letters was inflated two orders of magnitude from the actual figures (per Inside Star Trek by Solow & Justman).

Sometimes a fan campaign can make a difference, but it depends on whether the executives are amenable to renewal in the first place. Alien Nation (1989) was a critical darling beloved by most of the FOX network and affiliate executives as well as its loyal fanbase (including me), but FOX's then-president Barry Diller disliked the show, and the smash success of The Simpsons made him decide to reorient the young network toward sitcoms, four of which could be made for the cost of Alien Nation, letting FOX add more nights to their broadcast schedule. So Diller shot down all the internal attempts to save the show from cancellation by reducing its budget, doing it as periodic TV movies, etc. (Two movie scripts were written, but Diller rejected them unread.) It wasn't until Diller left four years later and was replaced by a studio head who'd loved the show that it was revived and the two movies (and three more) were finally made.

And then there's the Justice League Snyder Cut, which only got made because Warner Bros. needed new content to launch their streaming service and the pandemic had shut down the production pipeline. The public hype campaign was just something they latched onto to help them promote the film after they'd decided to do it.

So the influence that fan campaigns can have is feeble next to internal factors like budget calculations, larger studio strategies, and executive preferences. At most, it can be one of the factors weighed in the decision, but a minor one.


And personally, I'm not really into the whole "First Year Kirk Show," especially with the current actor playing Kirk (though that’s a separate issue). My ideal would be something set during the Lost Era between Star Trek VI and TNG, or maybe a series in the 28th century focusing on Starfleet’s first timeship. Honestly, I’ve just hit a bit of TOS-era fatigue, and I can’t quite bring myself to write a letter for something I’m not excited about.

I do think it would be kind of interesting to see this cast assemble into the TOS ensemble (although we came close to that in "The Sehlat..."), and to see who they cast as McCoy and Sulu, and to finally let Sulu get the kind of development that Chapel and Uhura have had. But I would see a modern take on TOS more as an interesting novelty than anything else. I like the suggestion someone made of jumping forward to the post-TMP era, which would fit Paul Wesley's age better anyway. (It would knock more of my novels out of continuity with canon, but that's already happened with about 2/5 of my stuff.) But my preference would be to flesh out underexplored eras like post-Nemesis and post-Discovery.
 
I find it a bit strange that the showrunners or producers need fans to convince Paramount to greenlight a show. I'd expect the producers to do their job and come up with such a strong pitch that Paramount wouldn't have a choice but to say yes.
No producer has ever managed that, unless their name attached to a project is enormously valuable on its own.
 
The streaming bubble burst hard in the shadow of the dual strikes. The film industry is in rough condition at the moment, thanks to private equity rotting out the means of production, all in favor of pumping-and-dumping short-term profits to shareholders.

I don't know if its fair to put it all on private equity. COVID played a large role in the streaming collapse. Lockdown-created demand for content inflated the bubble and both Hollywood and tech went on hiring sprees; at the company I work for there was a lot of hype about virtual production because it was assumed COVID restrictions would kill off location shooting. There was aggressive expansion.

The bubble popped because lockdowns lifted and the demand dropped. They were overextended, and now nobody wants to spend any money. Plus, it's become clear that new content has to compete with entire back catalogs. It doesn't make sense to fund new projects when people are happy to stream Friends and The Office for the hundredth time.
 
Last edited:
There'd be no substantial change in creative freedom. Star Trek has a universal format to tell any kind of story.

No one here on the outside like we are really know what the financial bottlenecks are.

There would be additional freedom with an entirely new cast, new characters, new backstories and unknown fates.

Personnel costs generally make up a large portion of a (TV production) company's total costs; leading actors probably take a large share. The notorious example of the sitcom "Friends" always comes into my mind. Each of the main performers' salary went from $22,000 per episode in season 1 to $1 million for the final seasons due to their bargaining position. I know it is unlikely that any ST actor ever had or will have that kind of raise, but without any established characters the total saving potential could still be in the six- or seven-digit range per season or the first couple of seasons.
I know it is all just wild speculation.

However, to succeed a show has to have appeal. Trading in characters who have appeal for unknowns who by definition don't at the outset must incur some risk of the show losing appeal. Casting unknown actors, ditto.

Back in the day those fools traded Kirk, Spock etc. for Picard and his gang. Horrible decision. :)
 
Back in the day those fools traded Kirk, Spock etc. for Picard and his gang. Horrible decision. :)

It was years before TOS fans and cast members came around to accepting TNG as a legitimate sequel. I think it was largely "The Best of Both Worlds" that proved its worth even in skeptics' eyes. I don't think Shatner came around until they paid him to be in Generations.
 
There would be additional freedom with an entirely new cast, new characters, new backstories and unknown fates.
Not anything that could materially alter the story in this type of format.

[...]
I know it is all just wild speculation.
Exactly.

Back in the day those fools traded Kirk, Spock etc. for Picard and his gang. Horrible decision. :)
Making a new show 20 years after the original was made is not an example of trading in anything. Also, many of the TNG characters were evolutions of Star Trek II charcters developed by Roddenberry et al. in the 1970s, particularly Riker and Troi (cf., Decker and Ilia from TMP), which also doesn't fit the definition of trading in.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top