Avoiding Franchise Fatigue

[The Overlord]

Veteran Star Trek writer and BSG creator Ron Moore recently talked about Star Trek and how to avoid the same franchise fatigue that plagued Star Trek in the late 90s and the early 2000s:

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/08/19/what-does-ron-d-moore-think-about-star-trek-fatigue/

Moore suggests that if all these new shows are different from each other, franchise fatigue will be avoided and suggested that franchise fatigue set in with Star Trek before due to too much Star Trek productions that were very similar to each other.

What do you think about Moore's suggestions and what can Star Trek due to avoid franchise fatigue in the future?

 

[fireproof78]

It can't be avoided in the current market. I agree in general, that variety is essential, but that isn't the current market. However, depending on how the Picard show goes it might bear out better.

 

[johnnybear]

It's the same with any show but more so with Trek because there are just so many series of it! If a character in the original show mentions a certain planet and tells us all about it and then that planet turns up in a later show or series and isn't the same as what we learned earlier on, then of course there's going to be trouble! Maybe they would reference travelling at the speed of light in one adventure and much later the things mentioned wouldn't happen, so unless there is a logical explanation long term fans are going to complain!
JB

 

[RedAlert]

Star Trek must move quickly, from one story to another... I think.
There is nothing wrong about quantity, everytime we not forget of quality.
More Trek is not bad, as soon we get good Trek.

 

[Visitor1982]

Trek should have different showrunners and writers for each series. Keep it fresh. Different era's, not all ship bound, different characters. Then Trek will be fine.

 

[dahj]

It's a bit early to worry about it, innit?

Last time this was an issue we've had an unbroken run of 624 episodes over 18 years from pretty much the same group of people. We've only had 15 episodes so far and already changed showrunners twice...

 

[mdtauk]

There will still be fewer episodes in a year with two or three shows going on, than there was when it was just TNG on the air. Let alone TNG/VOY and DS9.

Also they will be spaced apart so when Discovery is off air, the Picard show will run.

I doubt these shows will go on beyond 5 years, and then either something different will take its place, or there will be a gap until something new comes

 

[Grendelsbayne]

There will still be fewer episodes in a year with two or three shows going on, than there was when it was just TNG on the air. Let alone TNG/VOY and DS9.

Also they will be spaced apart so when Discovery is off air, the Picard show will run.

I doubt these shows will go on beyond 5 years, and then either something different will take its place, or there will be a gap until something new comes

TNG had 26 episodes per season. If DSC's 13 episodes are standard (season one having been given 2 extra), then two shows already equals TNG. 3 shows would be obviously be much more than TNG by itself.

 

[Dukhat]

I don’t think it’s going to be the same situation as it was in the late ‘90’s-early 2000’s. Because of the shorter seasons, it’s possible that several different shows could be produced but aired at different times. During the season break between S2 and 3 of DSC, they could air the Picard show, for example, and neither show would overlap the other.

*EDIT* I essentially repeated what mdtauk said.

 

[ALF]

NuTrek is being delivered via premium streaming services aren't available to the public at large. Back in the 90s, Trek was on broadcast tv and if you had rabbit ears (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_antenna#Rabbit_ears for the young'uns) you were watching Trek. Or, worst case scenario you had to pop for basic cable, depending on where you lived.

How could we have franchise fatigue with a series the vast majority of people aren't able to watch because it's stuck behind a paywall? I know a handful of people that would love to watch Discovery but they aren't willing to subscribe to CBS all access.

To me, that kind of exclusivity should be preventing Franchise Fatigue, not contributing to it.

 

[dahj]

TNG had 26 episodes per season. If DSC's 13 episodes are standard (season one having been given 2 extra), then two shows already equals TNG. 3 shows would be obviously be much more than TNG by itself.

There's another significant difference between olden trek and the new one, it being in the number of stories being told. While DSC had 15 episodes it's arguably all one story. So even if there's three (or more) shows on a year if they're more serialized like Discovery (and most of modern television) it wont feel as oversaturated as the time when the franchise was pumping out fiftyish self contained stories a year for almost a decade.

 

[Qonundrum]

It's a bit early to worry about it, innit?

Last time this was an issue we've had an unbroken run of 624 episodes over 18 years from pretty much the same group of people. We've only had 15 episodes so far and already changed showrunners twice...

Agreed. Get some people with vision involved. As it starts to wind down, bring in the next batch. Not every idea will be liked, hopefully because people gave it a chance as opposed to "eww, that's different, don't care why because I'm a dinosaur screaming at the kiddies to get off the front lawn".

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Moore's absolutely right.

 

[Butters]

Trek should have different showrunners and writers for each series. Keep it fresh. Different era's, not all ship bound, different characters. Then Trek will be fine.

This. The show runners should talk to each other, agree some standards, but two Trek series should be two Trek series. Pooling creativity just spreads it thin.

 

[Lord Garth]

How to avoid franchise fatigue? They should look at what Star Wars is doing and do the opposite.

... I never thought I would type that in a million years.

 

[dinzy]

The definition of success is different now than it was in 2005. Marvel is absolutely everywhere including 5 stand alone shows on Netflix. The Arrowverse has 4 shows. These all have enough viewers to be sustained as products. Trek series certainly declined in viewership after TNG but TV was different then and was having a hard time dealing with competition. Trek was on a new network UPN which later vanished(merged) because it was not successful enough by itself. The numbers ENT pulled, while not good enough for network TV 13 years ago, would be very good today both on network TV and in streaming. Also older Trek shows had 26 episodes each year and not all were very good. That is a lot of content compared to the 10-13 episodes for modern series. Having 2 different Treks on in a year is automatically more varied than having one 26 episode series on. Taking all these things together I think franchise fatigue can only happen if the quality is not good enough. There is plenty of precedent out there that shows that franchises can put a lot of content in front of viewers. As long as it is good Trek fans will tune in, as long as CBS AA can keep their subscriber numbers up, others will keep watching it when they are in the mood for it.

How to avoid franchise fatigue? They should look at what Star Wars is doing and do the opposite.

... I never thought I would type that in a million years.

Star Wars is so weird. Trilogies spread out by years peppered with prequels nobody asked for is not the way to do it. Why would I want to see someone else play Han Solo in a prequel? I made an effort to see TLJ after Xmas, but I am not sure I can devote 2.5 hours to watch Solo when it is out on Bluray. Maybe just do trilogies and TV. Not everything needs to be Marvel with 2-3 movies each year. Star Wars doesn't have the characters for that.

 

[LJones41]

The Arrowverse has 4 shows.

Let me get this straight . . .the Arrowverse producers refuse to acknowledge "Black Lightning" as a part of the franchise?

Star Wars is so weird. Trilogies spread out by years peppered with prequels nobody asked for is not the way to do it. Why would I want to see someone else play Han Solo in a prequel?

I did. Not only did I enjoyed the Han Solo movie, I also enjoyed the Prequel Trllogy. In fact, I enjoyed them a hell of a lot more than I did the Sequel Trilogy. Frankly, I would prefer if Disney would simply abandon any attempt to do more SW trilogies. The studio doesn't seem capable of creating one, if the Sequel Trilogy is anything to judge from. Perhaps it should just stick to stand alone films.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Wars is so weird. Trilogies spread out by years peppered with prequels nobody asked for is not the way to do it. Why would I want to see someone else play Han Solo in a prequel?

Because it's fun, that's why.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I think there's a good chance that between a potential 5 TV shows and 2 movies forthcoming, Trek will drown in itself.

I don't want Trek to become like Marvel, where only a couple of their shitstorm of TV series has any appeal and most feel like they're made to fill a quota.

That said, I an very much looking forward to Starfleet Academy and if they manage to make that indistinguishable from their new cartoon series, from whatever season Disco is on by then, from Picard: 2399, from their new cartoon and from Quentin Tarantino's rated-R Trek movie, they're doing something very, very wrong.

 

[Lord Garth]

I think there's a good chance that between a potential 5 TV shows and 2 movies forthcoming, Trek will drown in itself.

I don't want Trek to become like Marvel, where only a couple of their shitstorm of TV series has any appeal and most feel like they're made to fill a quota.

That said, I an very much looking forward to Starfleet Academy and if they manage to make that indistinguishable from their new cartoon series, from whatever season Disco is on by then, from Picard: 2399, from their new cartoon and from Quentin Tarantino's rated-R Trek movie, they're doing something very, very wrong.

The problem isn't so much the ideas they have, I just hope that they take advantage of the fact that Alex Kurtzman is committed to Star Trek through 2023. If these ideas came out over the course of five years, I could see it working, if they were short-term.

Two main Star Trek series: one being Discovery and another being whichever series it alternates with. Either Picard or Pike but not both. One during the fall, the other during the spring.

Then, they can have whatever mini-series or special they want during the winter or summer. Eventually, by 2023, all of those ideas would have come to light. And maybe one of them could even replace Discovery which, by then, would've presumably run its course.

That's how I'd think it would make sense. It would have be done surgically. But hitting with five all at once? Yeah. That would just be nuts.