Netflix isn't that big outside the US and Canada. In most countries it's almost non-existent, people over here in Europe just don't like paying for shielded content - and every import has to be on free-tv anyway, so people just wait a little longer until they can watch GoT on television without paying extra. Meaning even DIS will inevitably run on free-tv. So only the most adamant fans are watching it now on Netflix, while everyone else waits. Which has the disadvantage that when it will be on free-tv, the hardcore fans have all already seen it, and aren't going to tell their friends to watch it, since the buzz has already fizzled out.
Every Trek series before OTOH premiered for all people visible on free-tv at the same time. Trek got pretty big on tv in certain European countries, and both Trekkies and regular audiences watched it. That's why it has amassed such an extremely large following, even most people that are not into sci-fi know the basics of most Star Trek series.
The show might still be more profitable around here, simply by virtue of it's distribution model. But it's almost definitely having a much smaller audience than previous Trek shows had over here as well.
Which is really a shame. Because if Star Trek as a brand shall survive, and be lonterm profitable, it needs to attract new viewers, not just squeeze more and more money out of an ever decreasing pool of hardcore fans.
So, some good points here.
My question, though, is what is truth?
Because when the 2009 "reboot" movie era hit...everyone was arguing that trying to make Trek for a broader audience was wrong, and would end up pleasing nobody (which didn't turn out to be
entirely true, BTW...although the mismanagement of that element of the franchise is worth 100 pages in itself), and that Trek would never have the broad appeal of other genre offerings. The argument was to design and market it with a good awareness of "its place" in the world. Make it for the fans...smaller audiences, smaller scope, smaller budget...because it would never really be anything other than a niche franchise.
I'm not sure I agree or disagree...but I'm curious to know if we'll ever know the "truth" about how this franchise works and what its sweet spot is.
So, enter Star Trek Discovery, which is a totally different approach to the continuation of the franchise. It's neither broadcast television nor a movie...and (for better or worse depending on your tastes) it takes a very different approach to story, theme, and characters. It's basically an experiment. And, it's a very interesting one indeed.
What I see now, though, is a lot of arguing about "what's best for the survival of the franchise" when what people really mean/want is
"what's best for ME that I can couch up as being best for the franchise." There's a distinction there that's pretty easy to register at times.
That's where I start to roll my eyes back into my skull...
So what do we think the answer is? I guess our collective guess is as good as any.
But, I WILL argue that right now, Star Trek is actually in the most positive position for long-term sustainment (I didn't say "
success" because you can define that a lot of different ways, as threads like this attest to) on this new platform. CBS is depending on Star Trek to help them launch their new service and ensure their transition and survivability into the future. Let's be honest, "The Good Fight" and "The Twilight Zone" ain't gonna get that done by themselves. CBS wants and needs Star Trek to be successful in this model. And then they need to grow from there.
That in itself is a great position for the franchise to be in. The studio is invested in the show from their long-term business plan standpoint...not just as a "money maker." It's perhaps the first time in a VERY long time that Trek hasn't been viewed as simply a cash cow. It is core to the strategic direction of the studio. It also means that they are likely to be patient and to devote the time and resources to get it right and continue to improve its quality (which will be needed). It means that they won't be quick to pull the plug just because some asinine Nielson Ratings decline. It means it's not dependent upon box office receipts and critic's ramblings.
I actually think this is an argument in favor of continuing to keep it where it is.
