Discovery ending with Season 5

[DEWLine]

Well, if the Netflix deal gave us a good five-season "novel" for TV...we got a good show. I hope it ends in a way that leaves openings to follow up with this cast of characters, to be honest, and that the cast members are interested in continuing in whatever ways can be worked out. And that both Toronto and LA continue as production hubs for whatever's next.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Oh I'm still happy STD is cancelled. The 32nd century is pretty boring.

Is the 32nd century boring? Or did the producers in charge of DIS just make boring decisions?

My gut feeling says it’s the latter. And evidence shows that’s likely the correct answer.

Case in point, ENT S2 and ENT S4 feel like completely different shows because of different writers and different soundtracks and a shift from episodic to three episode arcs..

DIS probably needed a different showrunner to really make the 32nd century a very interesting place.

Had it not been for the words "Star Trek" in the title, Discovery would have been cancelled after one season.

Actually, without “Star Trek” in the title, Discovery wouldn’t have had to leave the 23rd century at all because there would be no complaints of clashing with TOS continuity or that the show its not Gene’s vision. It would have been accepted for what it was.

Yeah. I surprised it was renewed after that first season. It didn't resemble star trek at all.

See what I mean.

 

[Dukhat]

Is the 32nd century boring? Or did the producers in charge of DIS just make boring decisions?

For me, season 3 started out pretty good. It seemed like they were trying to do some worldbuilding with Calypso as their jumping-off point, with the Federation devolved into some splinter group with a funky sounding name, and former Starfleet ships were flying around with pirate crews who stole said ships. And then, boom, that premise went completely out the window with a Federation called the Federation, acting no different from the Federation of the 24th century, other than ships with floating parts. Earth wasn't part of the Federation anymore but it was getting along just fine without it, and despite that, the Federation was still primarily populated with humans. It was just more of the same. The mystery of the Burn was at least compelling enough to keep me watching, but once it was solved, I felt there was no need to continue watching the show (And I was even one of the people who actually thought the discovery of what caused the Burn was interesting and original.)

 

[The Wormhole]

Strictly speaking, it wasn't renewed for a second or third season.

Paramount/CBS and Netflix had a five-season production deal (similar to what Paramount/CBS had with Amazon for the three seasons of Picard).
There was zero chance it would get canceled after one season. Paramount/CBS would have never said "No" to free content for CBSAA/P+. Netflix had to pay no matter how the show performed.

After three seasons Paramount bought out the DIS contract from Netflix and renewed DIS for seasons 4 and 5.
It's very easy to renew an expensive show if someone else has already paid for sets, digital assets, casting, costumes, ETC.

Paramount made Netflix pay for the expansive location shoots in Iceland for season 3.
Guess why there are no expansive location shoots for seasons 4 and 5? It's now all virtual sets (The Volume).

All this gloating from people that because the show was renewed for five seasons is a supposed sign of success is so misguided (same thing for PIC and LD).

Holy hell, no one besides you cares about whatever this is.

 

[MarsWeeps]

I’m very sad about this news but here’s hoping season 5 is an excellent ending.

This would be a great final scene:

Camera zooms in on Burnham, we see her teary eyed (but don't really notice because she cries in every episode) and then all of a sudden, she breaks out in maniacal laughter (think Q's gift to Data), rolls out of the Captain's chair and continues cackling like a hen on acid....as the screen fades to black.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

For me, season 3 started out pretty good. It seemed like they were trying to do some worldbuilding with Calypso as their jumping-off point, with the Federation devolved into some splinter group with a funky sounding name, and former Starfleet ships were flying around with pirate crews who stole said ships. And then, boom, that premise went completely out the window with a Federation called the Federation, acting no different from the Federation of the 24th century, other than ships with floating parts. Earth wasn't part of the Federation anymore but it was getting along just fine without it, and despite that, the Federation was still primarily populated with humans. It was just more of the same. The mystery of the Burn was at least compelling enough to keep me watching, but once it was solved, I felt there was no need to continue watching the show (And I was even one of the people who actually thought the discovery of what caused the Burn was interesting and original.)

What bored me about the 32nd century Federation was the sense of clickbait. Any race you assumed was in the Federation was out and any group we were used to being out were in. It felt like a cheap attempt to create a "wow factor"

 

[Tuskin38]

any group we were used to being out were in

Eh? Which ones?

 

[FederationHistorian]

Holy hell, no one besides you cares about whatever this is.

Aside from being useful for ENT vs DIS debates, unless there is proof that Netflix’s funding of this show contributed to getting other Netflix shows cancelled, its not really all that important.

 

[cultcross]

Everybody - please drop the personal side of this exchange. Fine to debate good/bad qualities you think Discovery had, and the ramifications of the cancellation I don't want any more sniping at each other about personal qualities. If posters annoy you too much, that's what the ignore feature is for.

 

[Sci]

Exactly. It's pretty much a failure at this point.

No. Discovery is a television program that has lasted five seasons (several years longer than most streaming TV shows), established several highly-popular characters, and produced a beloved spinoff in Strange New Worlds. It is a success.

Now, it is true that Paramount+ has not yet turned a profit. It is also true that Disney+, the streaming service of the single most successful company in the entire global entertainment industry, has not yet turned a profit. Most studio streamers haven't. This is because there's a problem with the fundamental business model of studio streaming services, not with the programs those services carry per se. Captain Midnight has a pretty good overview of the problem almost all the major streamers are facing:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Star Trek: Discovery is not ending because some whiny Star Trek fans on the Internet don't like the Klingon makeup design or whatever. It's ending because Wall Street is pressuring Paramount+, and the other studio streamers, to cut costs as a result of external financial pressures. Streaming television has been a bubble the last ten years or so and the bubble is popping. We're generally going to see fewer TV shows and we're probably gonna see their budgets decreased, and Star Trek is probably going to be part of that wave.

Paramount will not totally abandon Star Trek, as it's still the biggest franchise it has other than maybe Yellowstone - and thus the biggest single draw to their service. It would be like Disney deciding to abandon Star Wars because most of the recent stuff has been lackluster.

Cut back? Sure. But actually ceasing to make any new Trek content is signing their death warrant, hastening the day it's bought out by Amazon or something.

I agree that as long as Paramount+ exists, Star Trek will remain one of its flagship programs.

However, I think it's not implausible to imagine that Paramount+ might be forced to shutter if it doesn't start turning a profit. It wasn't supposed to turn a profit yet in its business plan (they always planned to lose money the first few years while building up a programming library that would attract and retain viewers), but the viability of that business model is now in doubt as a result of so many streamers having financial problems and as a result of so many parent companies not being able to shoulder the burdens of running their streamers on a deficit as a result of external economic factors.

I've always been skeptical of the idea that individual studio streamers were economically viable in the long run. Back in the 1990s, you didn't go to the Paramount Video Rental Store to rent a Star Trek movie and the Warner Bros. Video Rental Store to rent a Batman movie and a Disney Video Rental Store to rent The Lion King -- you went to Blockbuster or Family Video or whatever, and they would carry Star Trek or Batman or The Lion King or whatever, because their value to their customers came from having a wide variety of stuff to rent, not just one studio's back catalog. I suspect the same principle broadly applies to streamers, which is why Netflix can generally maintain its subscription base (its original programs supplement the non-original stuff, but the non-original stuff is its backbone), whereas studio streamers' subscription numbers wax and wane quite a bit more and they've had so much trouble turning a profit.

So at the end of the day, I wouldn't be surprised if Paramount+ (and Disney+, and HBO Max/whatever they're renaming it this week, and Peacock, etc.) fold within a couple of years. But even if it does, there's clearly a demand for new Star Trek, and I could see a return to the pre-2017 arrangement where Netflix pays Paramount Global to carry all the old Star Trek shows and also starts paying to carry new Star Trek shows as well.

There is a significant audience for this stuff out there thanks to Star Trek 2009. It reinvigorated the franchise for a younger generation.

Even though the JJ movies lost their momentum by 2016, if even a fraction of that movie audience tunes in and pays for the TV shows.. it justifies the investment.

I mean... bear in mind that 2009 was a long time ago now. 25-year-olds today were 11 when that movie came out, 18-year-olds today were 4, and 25-year-olds in 2009 are turning 39 this year. And it's been going on seven years now since Star Trek Beyond.

No one's had any sympathy for me wanting the show canceled for the last 5 seasons.

It is true, folks are not generally sympathetic to those who wish to harm the livelihoods of innocent people.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek: Discovery is not ending because some whiny Star Trek fans on the Internet don't like the Klingon makeup design or whatever. It's ending because Wall Street is pressuring Paramount+, and the other studio streamers, to cut costs as a result of external financial pressures. Streaming television has been a bubble the last ten years or so and the bubble is popping. We're generally going to see fewer TV shows and we're probably gonna see their budgets decreased, and Star Trek is probably going to be part of that wave.

Indeed, this is a far, far, more accurate description of what is happening. Business is not good for streaming right now. It is not bringing in money, and it has created a poor market to sustain that model. Paramount will need to slow way down, and find a more viable solution to make money or face the consequences. Star Trek Discovery getting cancelled makes business sense because a) it's the oldest of the current shows and so requires more money to pay the cast, and crew as time goes on, and b) it was an expensive show to make to begin with.

I expect Trek content to slow way down. This is not a mark against Discovery; this is business.

 

[Sci]

Indeed, this is a far, far, more accurate description of what is happening. Business is not good for streaming right now. It is not bringing in money, and it has created a poor market to sustain that model. Paramount will need to slow way down, and find a more viable solution to make money or face the consequences. Star Trek Discovery getting cancelled makes business sense because a) it's the oldest of the current shows and so requires more money to pay the cast, and crew as time goes on, and b) it was an expensive show to make to begin with.

I expect Trek content to slow way down. This is not a mark against Discovery; this is business.

Exactly. So Picard is reaching its natural conclusion and Discovery is ending. Prodigy is getting at least one more season but they've already had to make some budget cuts (the producers couldn't afford to bring back David Mack as a consultant for instance), and given how expensive its animation is, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not renewed after season two. I imagine Lower Decks is probably relatively cheaper to produce and therefore safe, and I can't imagine Paramount won't want to keep at least one live-action Star Trek show going. So I wouldn't be surprised if come 2025, the only Star Trek shows left standing are Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks.

I would really love it if they made a Star Trek: Seven of Nine spinoff from Picard, or if Academy Award-Winning Actor™ Michelle Yeoh came back to star in Star Trek: Georgiou, but given Paramount+'s need to cut costs (and the fact that Yeoh's fee almost certainly went up last night), I would not hold my breath anymore on these ideas.

 

[fireproof78]

Exactly. So Picard is reaching its natural conclusion and Discovery is ending. Prodigy is getting at least one more season but they've already had to make some budget cuts (the producers couldn't afford to bring back David Mack as a consultant for instance), and given how expensive its animation is, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not renewed after season two. I imagine Lower Decks is probably relatively cheaper to produce and therefore safe, and I can't imagine Paramount won't want to keep at least one live-action Star Trek show going. So I wouldn't be surprised if come 2025, the only Star Trek shows left standing are Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks.

Same here. Everything right now is all through the lens of the budget. Sets can be torn down, costumes auctioned off, etc.

I'm sure it feeds the hype machine around conspiracy theories about Kurtzman and his standing at Paramount. If Paramount was the only one going through these measures I would be inclined to give it some credit. However, since it's not, I do not.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Same here. Everything right now is all through the lens of the budget. Sets can be torn down, costumes auctioned off, etc.



I'm sure it feeds the hype machine around conspiracy theories about Kurtzman and his standing at Paramount. If Paramount was the only one going through these measures I would be inclined to give it some credit. However, since it's not, I do not.

I think kurtzmsan is on his way out.

 

[Sci]

I think kurtzmsan is on his way out.

Alex Kurtzman got Star Trek featured in Vanity Fair and cast the first Star Trek actor to win an Oscar for a lead role. He's also set up Paramount so that even if Paramount+ fails, they're in a better position to make even more money by distributing five new ST shows to other streamers on top of the five shows that came before him. He's not on his way out.

 

[Tuskin38]

I think kurtzmsan is on his way out.

Not until his contract ends.

 

[The Wormhole]

I think kurtzmsan is on his way out.

Even if he does leave Star Trek when his contract ends, his career will continue to thrive in whatever else he moves onto next.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Alex Kurtzman got Star Trek featured in Vanity Fair and cast the first Star Trek actor to win an Oscar for a lead role. He's also set up Paramount so that even if Paramount+ fails, they're in a better position to make even more money by distributing five new ST shows to other streamers on top of the five shows that came before him. He's not on his way out.

What actor won an Oscar for star trek?

 

[TRON JA307020]

Not until his contract ends.

Contracts can be bought out.

 

[Sci]

What actor won an Oscar for star trek?

No one -- I didn't claim anyone had had. But Kurtzman cast Michelle Yeoh in Star Trek: Discovery, and she just became the first actor with a major Star Trek role to subsequently win an Academy Award for a leading film role last night. That's huge. The only other major Star Trek actors to go on to win an Oscar are Whoopi Goldberg in 1990 for Ghost and Christopher Plummer in 2012 for Beginners; both were for supporting roles, not lead roles. And neither of their Star Trek roles were as big as Yeoh's.

Bottom line is, Kurtzman has made Star Trek a part of the mainstream pop culture landscape, which is something Berman never accomplished.