As to your other point, since streamers key some programming to be significantly better produced then broadcast (ie make you feel a reason to pay for your service) that seriously limits the amount of episodes you can produce a year versus the broadcast model (hell even look at broadcast, the better produced shows typically don't deliver 22 episode seasons).
What is possible strictly on a production schedule is 15 - 18, but higher than 15 actors are going to be nearly working a full year on a show. Which means it's much harder to get quality talent as many of them prefer not to be stuck full time on one project.
&
I get that a 20 or more episode season will never come again. But a happy medium of 15 or 16? I think that's a best of both worlds combination.
There's something else that's not being considered. The longer seasons also meant all those people... actors, writers, cameramen, set designers, etc... would have a guaranteed, steady paycheck for a much longer period of time. Considering how expensive cost of living has become, I personally would rather have a steady income from the same place for as long as possible, not scramble to find a new job every 4-6 months.
I'd argue that "streaming TV" is a distinct, different category to "broadcast TV". The goal with broadcast TV has always been to hit 100 episodes to enable strip syndication on over-the-air TV or basic cable.
Streaming is probably better compared to trying to mass scale the HBO (which by and large lets their series run their course) and Showtime (which takes any hit, has it run far too long, and runs it into the ground) model. Unfortunately streaming shows have tons of money thrown their way without corresponding investments in writing.
Many people here are saying 15-18 is a good length for a season. Look how evergreen the USA shows (SUITS, BURN NOTICE...) have been when translated to a streaming platform. That would allow for multiple arcs and some serialization without needed to film a dead on arrival episode because something needed to shoot that week. A Star Trek series is going to have far more upfront costs than say a legal drama. It almost isn't going to get MCU / Star Wars / GoT level numbers, so budgets need to stretch over more episodes.
Another issue as well... streaming, shorter seasons redistribute gains upwards. Upfront production fees vs long term residuals. Who still gets paid despite the fragmentation? Look at all the sinecure credits on the NuTrek shows. Heather Kadin, Aaron Baiers, Rod Roddenberry and Trevor Roth, occasionally Akiva Goldsman after he moves onto another project... how much of PICARD season 3's budget was syphoned off to pay for Kurtzman's nice building in Santa Monica?
The fact that Discovery is ending after five seasons isn't a barometer. The fact that Discovery AND Lower Decks are ending after five seasons is.
Especially when you take into account the Showtime ties, where have run almost every single series that hits into the ground (DEXTER, WEEDS, CALIFORNICATION, HOMELAND...).
I think they'll eventually work their way back to longer seasons. It's easier for shows to get lost in the shuffle and harder for them to stand out, if they come and go so fast. Not just with Trek, but in general. All the streaming shows out now, and that have been out, how many of them will be remembered even 10 years from now? It's all going to become a blur.
This is especially an issue on Netflix. Just imagine when they start mass content purges a la HBO Max.
Streaming as we know it was largely the product of a bubble from 2017 to 2023. Even with the pandemic, HBO Max, Disney, and Paramount were still throwing out tons of money to try and build up streaming market share.
How many of the streaming shows are actually good, relative to the Peak TV era of MAD MEN, BETTER CALL SAUL, THE AMERICANS, MISTER ROBOT, etc?
And I'm sure we all have our favorites that were the victim of oversaturation. How many here have seen RAISED BY WOLVES?
The problem is making a 10, 13, or whatever number episode season when there is really only enough story 4 or 5 episodes, tops.
Truthfully, the seasonal arc era and shows could have learned A LOT from ENT season 4. Have enough episodes to tell the story, and move on to another.
Imagine if PICARD season 2 had been broken up into multiple arcs.
That wasn't how it was with BSG. There was an overall arc, but they didn't do the "every season is its own movie!" thing. Most episodes had their own beginning, middle, and end.
Stories also carried over season to season. BSG has far more in common with, say, LOST...
Typing all that makes me want to do a re-watch of Battlestar Galactica now.
Right now, I'm slogging my way through Voyager. And I mean slogging. Not terrible, but it's not holding my interest. I'm remembering why I stopped watching. Almost done with the seventh season. After that, I had other plans for what I wanted to re-watch but screw it. BSG is next.
Well, you can test the theory that BSG really was RDM's response to VGR!
