This post by @Cake got me wondering which kind of show most of you would prefer, if given these two choices: A show that creatively plays it relatively safe, has a big audience and a long run of several seasons or … … a show that takes chances, is controversial in regards to tone, casting, characters and themes, is praised by critics, but is cancelled after only one short season of 10 episodes? Yeah, I know, ideally we'd have a show that reaches a lot of people, runs for years and is loved by the critics. I'm aware all of those aspects are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But I'm really curious to know what kind of show most here would prefer. As for me: I'd take the latter option any day of the week. Some of the shows I love the most only had a short run and/or were cancelled. If those ten hypothetical episodes were the best and boldest Trek I've ever seen, I could live with it being a commercial failure that's only loved by few. All in all I'm just not convinced the length of a series or its seasons or the size of its audience is an indicator for its true merits as a series. Hannibal is one of the best things produced for television I have ever seen. I don't care that it was cancelled and that “no-one” tuned in.
You want play it sad and get cancelled? I suspect that's what will happen Personally I've seen enough shows cancelled before their time. I want it running a good long time, even if it takes 4 seasons before it no longer plays it safe - think DS9 for example, rather than firefly.
I'd rather it tell a better story and have a shorter run than go on for 7+ years being formulaic and 50% filler. 13-episode seasons are a good start, as are more serialised stories. Two of my favourite shows, The Wire and Breaking Bad, had short runs compared to most Trek, CSI, Law & Order etc - five seasons each. I think if you can tell your story in fewer seasons/episodes it's not worth stretching itself out for the sake of it. For example if Discovery's tale is told after 3 seasons, they should let it go. If it's been successful enough, commission yet another new Trek with a different premise and give it a chance to tell its own story.
What if Discovery outlives all of the 24th Century shows.... More than seven seasons, following Number One's career.... with new cast members coming in and out like ER. Fourteen seasons. That's 182 episodes- almost twice the amount Enterprise had.
I seriously would like it to be like Horatio Hornblower. Get a young enough actress, and then follow her for 30 years, as she ascends from first officer to Commander-in-Chief of Starfleet.
That would be really cool but next to impossible logistically. This was also what I wanted with Ioan Gruffud in the actual Horatio Hornblower series that started in the late 90's, but actors get new jobs, genres vary in popularity over the years, production companies and networks are fickle, etc. The only upside is he may come back to the role one day. And maybe that could happen with Trek too but a straight run beyond 10 years or so is a long shot for a lead character.
I want it to be "fun". I don't care much about the issues of the day or critical acclaim. I'm also okay with a short run, as I tend to burn out on shows quickly.
I'm not sad... I just don't think it needs to either play it safe or be controversial to be a solid Star Trek series.
They should make it like Columbo, and just do a "Star Trek Discovery" CBS movie special every few years until the actress retires.
This show is only being made because it serves the commercial interests of the corporation that owns the property. No other reason. Which option do you think that favors?
I dunno, I noticed at Target whilst perusing the blurays that "Grey's Anatomy" has gone twelve seasons and there have been plenty of other long running shoes in the past. The biggest obstacle for a Trek show is most Trekkies seem to prefer that the full ensemble stays largely intact - I'm sure there would be bitching about the show being a "soap opera" if it primarily followed only a single character while the supporting cast comes and goes.
Based on how CBS is distributing the show, I think cancellation is a certainty. I just hope we get a couple of seasons before that happens. Controversial? Well, for some fans, the show will be a travesty merely by its existence. The show won't overcome those people, no matter how good it is.
Nothing in between? I would prefer a memorable show but still run for more than 1 season; maybe 3 seasons. It's better than a crowd pleasing, run of the mill kind that runs for years and years.
Yeah, I have a similar feeling. CBS really doesn't seem like they know what they're doing with All Access - and I don't think there are enough Trekkies to make it viable by themselves (and I've heard of no other original shows for it, although I imagine there have to be some). So the question will be, once they clown All Access, will they still be interested in selling further seasons of Discovery to Netflix or others?
Given the show will be broadcast pretty much elsewhere in the world via NETFLIX, even if it is a huge flop with US viewers on CBS-whatever, the worldwide sales through the secondary platform will allow for a very strong viewership. This could be a strong example of European and Asian markets driving a US TV show, if CBS insist on following their current distribution model for Northern America. Yet, if no-one subscribes to CBS-Direct I can not see CBS doubling down on their decision. If it fails on that platform I can see them screening the show on the main network, with advertisements, to help recoup predicted national earnings, in pretty short order (or at least by its second season). Still, something like 13m people watched the second season of Daredevil, whilst Stranger Things has been watched by 14m people since its release. Sure you have to discount US/Canadian viewers from that total, but as the show has been sold to 188 separate countries through Netflix, the show is already very profitable. What is required of them now is to produce a product that intrigues and entertains like OitNB or House of Cards which have sustained and grown their viewership over the seasons. The Netflix model (and the more experimental nature of its subscribers) has allowed for showrunners to be more creative, with defined styles and ideas that regular network TV would typically shun. So this is a great opportunity for Fuller to try anything/everything and I hope he does. What will be more interesting is how a standard worldwide NETFLIX subscriber will deal with the "weekly dose" of DISCO given they are used to the binge-watching approach. I have not seen viewer figures for the likes of The Mortal Instruments or Orphan Black which were released worldwide on NETFLIX week by week, rather than as a season dump. If we get something safe and bland then I'll be dropping out very early. But given Fuller's past record of theweird, innovation, character and beauty, I doubt he would capitulate and create something just for the ad revenues or the comfort zone. He has a history of walking away from his beloved projects when he does not meet eye to eye with the network (Dead Like Me, where he left half way through production of episode 2) and he has become so favoured among the networks that he can get something like Hannibal into its third season and convince Showtime to produce a show where the source has Jesus hitchhiking through Afghanistan and no-one offering him a ride. I'm was not that interested in a new Star Trek show (or the new movie series when it was announced), but when Fuller was announced I knew there was both the chance of greatness and something different. I doubt he will falter on the latter, at least. Hugo - Number Three
Philosophically, of course I want them to be creative and not just play it safe, so that is what I answered in the poll. However, there's an obvious caveat that has to be applied there. Just because you'd rather something be good and also be controversial than be popular and not good, doesn't mean that you'll like anything that's controversial. If they get creative and controversial, you will potentially have an even greater possibility that you personally won't like what they're doing at all, whereas a 'play it safe' series would likely at least be watchable and good for franchise longevity. My wife and I watched Nashville week by week on Netflix. I actually rather appreciated it in that case, since a network show of 20+ episodes is kind of overwhelming to binge. That won't apply here, but even so - a week by week thing really isn't a big deal, especially for a shorter season. It certainly never hurt Game of Thrones. And since it's Netflix, anyone who really can't stand it can just binge watch the whole thing in the final week.
Sure, if she's not making XX million per theatrical feature like Jennifer Lawrence. Or left acting to raise a family. But yeah, I'd love that. At least if they stay in the 23rd for the next 10-15 years, they could bring back characters from previous shows. I guess it's possible, but non-genre shows are so much cheaper and are extremely profitable when they are a hit. so it's ok for them to go on and on. I don't see that happening with a single Trek cast. I'd be thrilled if it did, though.
You mean the show that's first season was mostly paid for through international distribution before they ever filmed a frame of footage? That show? Bellyaching about All-Access isn't going to make or break Discovery, international audiences will.