Definite New Series/Limited Series with Patrick Stewart Returning

[Tuskin38]

Picard's family crest
https://i.imgur.com/yZtVCXr.png

Source:
https://ca.startrek.com/news/star-trek-storms-san-diego-comic-con

Edit:

Oh the Crest was created for Generations, it's on the cover of his family album. I had no idea.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/File:Picard_family_album_-_Let's_Make_a_Deal.jpg

 

[137th Gebirg]

Nice catch! Never noticed that before either.

 

[Kerock]

I wonder, does anyone think we might get a reference to what happened to the Enterprise?

I heard the Enterprise was being displayed at the Smithsonian but is on loan to the Romulan Hall of State.

 

[comics1996]

Considering there is star trek discovery and will soon be star trek Picard. I wonder if there will be the adult comedy and the star trek for kids. That will be too much star trek a one time. As in the 90's, there was never more than 2 star treks on at the same time. This to me it a sign that there will be a case of putting to much iron in the fire.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Considering there is star trek discovery and will soon be star trek Picard. I wonder if there will be the adult comedy and the star trek for kids. That will be too much star trek a one time. As in the 90's, there was never more than 2 star treks on at the same time. This to me it a sign that there will be a case of putting to much iron in the fire.

The way broadcast tv worked in the 90s really isn't relevant to what Trek is currently doing. These shows have to exist and succeed on streaming platforms and that means the ideal for the company is for Star Trek fans to want to subscribe to the platform year round. The best way to make that happen is to have multiple shows going at the same time so that when Discovery takes its season break, Picard steps up to the plate, and so on. Also, the more trek shows they have available on the platform, the more tempting it becomes for people who have been holding out because they don't like paying for trek to actually at least check the service out and maybe get hooked.

 

[Tuskin38]

I wonder if there will be the adult comedy and the star trek for kids.

I mean both of things have already been announced, and one of them has a panel at comic-con this month.

 

[The Librarian]

Yeah, saying that there's "multiple on at one time" is a bit misleading. It looks like there's never going to be two simultaneous shows like there was during DS9. Instead there's going to be one at a time with breaks between them, probably at least a month or two at a time even when everything is going. Not only that, but the shorter seasons means there's going to be less total hours a year than when there were two 26-episode seasons a year.

 

[donners22]

Considering there is star trek discovery and will soon be star trek Picard. I wonder if there will be the adult comedy and the star trek for kids. That will be too much star trek a one time. As in the 90's, there was never more than 2 star treks on at the same time. This to me it a sign that there will be a case of putting to much iron in the fire.

Keep in mind that '90s Trek involved 26-episode seasons. Discovery has 14-15, Picard only 10. I assume Lower Decks will only be half-hour episodes and won't be a particularly long season. Plus, of course, it's a lot easier to watch TV at your own convenience these days.

Having said that, I don't disagree that it may be too much. Trek's popularity peaked nearly 30 years ago, it's not greatly appealing to young people and the fanbase is toxic enough to drive away newcomers. I'm not at all confident there's enough potential interest to sustain this many shows.

 

[Tuskin38]

Yeah, saying that there's "multiple on at one time" is a bit misleading. It looks like there's never going to be two simultaneous shows like there was during DS9. Instead there's going to be one at a time with breaks between them, probably at least a month or two at a time even when everything is going. Not only that, but the shorter seasons means there's going to be less total hours a year than when there were two 26-episode seasons a year.

Yes, they want a year around star trek, so they probably won't overlap.

 

[fireproof78]

Keep in mind that '90s Trek involved 26-episode seasons. Discovery has 14-15, Picard only 10. I assume Lower Decks will only be half-hour episodes and won't be a particularly long season. Plus, of course, it's a lot easier to watch TV at your own convenience these days.

Having said that, I don't disagree that it may be too much. Trek's popularity peaked nearly 30 years ago, it's not greatly appealing to young people and the fanbase is toxic enough to drive away newcomers. I'm not at all confident there's enough potential interest to sustain this many shows.

I'm not either, nor do I think Star Trek will always continue. But, I'm interested to see them try, even if it fails.

 

[comics1996]

I'm not either, nor do I think Star Trek will always continue. But, I'm interested to see them try, even if it fails.

The problem is if you know something is going to fail and it does. That means you just wasted a boatload of time. Along with ever since enterprise. Where all of the new treks since enterprise have hurt star trek's reputation. There is only so much pushing of boundary before everything starts to head in the other direction of backfiring. No show has ever had more than 2 shows on at the same time. With even worse considering that it will be only on cbs all access. When even hulu has the double digits amount of people.While CBS all access only has about 3 million people. Were everyone who has a tv channel like Disney seems to be wanting to start a pay to watch service. To me, it seems like a poor time to start one with almost everyone wanting to start to pay to watch service.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

The problem is if you know something is going to fail and it does. That means you just wasted a boatload of time. Along with ever since enterprise. Where all of the new treks since enterprise have hurt star trek's reputation. There is only so much pushing of boundary before everything starts to head in the other direction of backfiring. No show has ever had more than 2 shows on at the same time. With even worse considering that it will be only on cbs all access. When even hulu has the double digits amount of people.While CBS all access only has about 3 million people. Were everyone who has a tv channel like Disney seems to be wanting to start a pay to watch service. To me, it seems like a poor time to start one with almost everyone wanting to start to pay to watch service.

The Star Trek reboot films didn't hurt Trek's reputation. They were more successful than anything Trek did in the 90s, regardless of whether you or any particular fan liked them. Unless you're only talking about tv series, in which case, even if one were to agree that ENT and DSC 'hurt Trek's reputation', 2 is not a trend.

You're not entirely wrong about it being a bad time to start a streaming service, but that has nothing to do with whether these Trek shows can be good or successful or not. That only has to do with whether CBSAA is likely to have a future beyond the next five years or so - which it may not be, but that's still not a guarantee. Some of the new streaming platforms probably will succeed even if most don't.

And your 2 shows limit is still totally backwards for a streaming franchise. That's just not how streaming works.

 

[fireproof78]

The problem is if you know something is going to fail and it does.

Who knows if it will fail? That's a rather odd conclusion when it hasn't even happened yet.

CBS is trying to move in the direction of the market. That makes more sense than remaining in an outdated model.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The problem is if you know something is going to fail and it does. That means you just wasted a boatload of time. Along with ever since enterprise. Where all of the new treks since enterprise have hurt star trek's reputation.

There were people saying that about The Next Generation

There is only so much pushing of boundary before everything starts to head in the other direction of backfiring. No show has ever had more than 2 shows on at the same time. With even worse considering that it will be only on cbs all access. When even hulu has the double digits amount of people.While CBS all access only has about 3 million people. Were everyone who has a tv channel like Disney seems to be wanting to start a pay to watch service. To me, it seems like a poor time to start one with almost everyone wanting to start to pay to watch service.

You're forgetting the rest of the world. CBS-AA may have a reach of 3 million in the US, but what about Netflix and Amazon Prime worldwide? This generation of Trek is likely being seen by more people internationally than domestically.

 

[donners22]

Where all of the new treks since enterprise have hurt star trek's reputation.

Well, I suppose they hurt the reputation of the franchise as being in a state of decay following a series of commercial and critical failures and an extended period of creative stagnation.

Not sure why you'd want to retain that reputation, though.

 

[Dukhat]

Where all of the new treks since enterprise have hurt star trek's reputation.

I'm afraid that's only in your mind. The Abrams films not only re-energized the Star Trek viewing audience (and even made casual moviegoers want to see more), it gave CBS the impetus to create new Trek series when they thought Trek had died with ENT. And 'reputation' is a meaningless buzz word, since Trek fandom does not have any kind of cohesive belief in what "Trek" should be in the first place.

 

[Paul Weaver]

Treks reputation has bever been the same since the got rid of Hunter

 

[Crewman6]

I'm afraid that's only in your mind. The Abrams films not only re-energized the Star Trek viewing audience (and even made casual moviegoers want to see more), it gave CBS the impetus to create new Trek series when they thought Trek had died with ENT. And 'reputation' is a meaningless buzz word, since Trek fandom does not have any kind of cohesive belief in what "Trek" should be in the first place.

You're only partly right here. Yes, the new films were moderately successful, but they weren't a runaway smash, were subjected to diminishing returns and were put quietly to bed without much complaint from either "casual movie goers" or die hard Trek fans.

And, no, it didn't inspire CBS to create a new series. The launch of their new CBS streamer is what did that. They were looking for splashy shows that would attract some buzz and reviving legacy franchises is a very quick and easy way to do that.

It's almost certain that even if the reboot films never existed, we'd have a Trek revival on CBS All Access just as we do now.

 

[Dukhat]

You're only partly right here. Yes, the new films were moderately successful, but they weren't a runaway smash, were subjected to diminishing returns and were put quietly to bed without much complaint from either "casual movie goers" or die hard Trek fans.

And, no, it didn't inspire CBS to create a new series. The launch of their new CBS streamer is what did that. They were looking for splashy shows that would attract some buzz and reviving legacy franchises is a very quick and easy way to do that.

It's almost certain that even if the reboot films never existed, we'd have a Trek revival on CBS All Access just as we do now.

Sorry, I have to disagree. First of all, "diminishing returns' have nothing to do with what I said about CBS taking notice that Star Trek was still a viable property after the successes of the Abrams films. And the 'launch of their new CBS streamer" service was a direct result of that. Why else would DSC be their flagship show for CBSAA if they didn't think it would be a huge success like the films were?

 

[Crewman6]

Sorry, I have to disagree. First of all, "diminishing returns' have nothing to do with what I said about CBS taking notice that Star Trek was still a viable property after the successes of the Abrams films. And the 'launch of their new CBS streamer" service was a direct result of that. Why else would DSC be their flagship show for CBSAA if they didn't think it would be a huge success like the films were?

The Abrams films were fairly successful, but they weren't a runaway smash.

I'm sure it helped...a little. But Star Trek is primarily a TV franchise and it's very easy to envision them doing a Star Trek relaunch while preparing to debut their new service even if those Abrams movies never existed.

That's all I'm saying.