Picard and SNW were both renewed for a second season before S1 even aired.
News? Stories from Dubious Sources
- Thread starter The Old Mixer
- Start date
Picard and SNW were both renewed for a second season before S1 even aired.
Again, that’s meaningless if the present people in charge who did not make those decisions decide to nix them.
Starfleet Academy is supposed to be a 4 year course, right? I'd say their goal is 4 seasons.
That said, itll be fun to see the actors age far more than 4 years during the making of those 4 seasons. Because they're young, it's going to be much more noticeable.
That said, itll be fun to see the actors age far more than 4 years during the making of those 4 seasons. Because they're young, it's going to be much more noticeable.
I remember when Viacom merged with Paramount in 1994.
Berman & Braga were both retained after the merger (they would stay until 2005). It's not necessarily a given that Kurtzman is going to be shown the door.
We've had three shows last five seasons (Lower Decks, Strange New Worlds, and Disco). Picard successfully completed its pre-planned three season run.
If Kurtzman can give P+ what they want, why would they get rid of him?
Is he giving Skydance what they want?
That right there is the important question.
And as has been discussed repeatedly, the new owners are prioritizing Star Trek as a movie franchise, not television.
I think that's a mistake.
I'm mixed on that.
As do I, but unfortunately I’m not in charge of the studio.
how do you get the statement "we are prioritizing movies" from "we're looking at Trek holistically"
Ellison and Goldberg are on record as being frustrated that they couldn't do TV when working on the bad robot movies
I thought they specifically stated that they are prioritizing movies. “Looking at Trek holistically’ is just meaningless buzzword crap.
Yes, Ellison specifically stated the prioritization of Trek as a movie franchise at one of his first upfront panel after the sale.
New Paramount To Take “Holistic” Approach To Star Trek; Return To Big Screen A “Priority”
David Ellison and his new leadership team are ready for more Star Trek.
trekmovie.com
Yes, Ellison specifically stated the prioritization of Trek as a movie franchise at one of his first upfront panel after the sale.
New Paramount To Take “Holistic” Approach To Star Trek; Return To Big Screen A “Priority”
David Ellison and his new leadership team are ready for more Star Trek.
That's what the headline says but there is no quote in that article that says that.
New Paramount To Take “Holistic” Approach To Star Trek; Return To Big Screen A “Priority”
David Ellison and his new leadership team are ready for more Star Trek.
trekmovie.com
Paramount+ CEO Cindy Holland said:
Surely they can walk and chew gum at the same time.
It's not going to be an either/or situation.
No. In 1994, Braga was just a writer on TNG's staff, co-wrote the script to Generations and moved onto Voyager's staff when it began. Braga was not promoted to a position of authority until 1998. And even then, contrary to popular belief, he was not Berman's partner in running the franchise. Braga was only showrunner on seasons 5 and 6 of Voyager and season 1-3 of Enterprise, as well as being co-creator of Enterprise. That's the extent of his authority in the Trek franchise.
There probably is a hidden meaning there, known only to those internally of an executive/managerial stripe within the company.
It feels much like when I first experienced the word "synergies" around 30 years ago... an oddly meaningless, yet ostensibly benign word, being thrown around by those in the manager caste of companies. Later, only to find out it was a code word for "mass layoffs", usually following a corporate merger. I, too, was "synergized" from one of those companies.
Never trust fancy buzzwords like that. They are nearly always bad, hiding a less-than-favorable agenda, otherwise they would speak plainly.
Yeah. I'm going to guess that "looking at Trek holistically" really means "We're going to cancel everything that CBS/Paramount was planning to do with Trek, and are going to do our own thing, which means no more money-losing TV shows, and more blockbuster theatrical films, because that's where the money is."
Or, to a lesser extent, it might mean "We are not going to focus on Star Trek at all, because that's not where our priorities are."
Entirely possible, yes. With streaming being the primary focus, and some folks opting for ad-free options, I am curious how much net revenue is actually generated by the Trek property vs years past. Is it still in the black or is it hemorrhaging money? If it is in the black, is it as profitable as it used to be or is it somewhat anemic?
We need charts.
CANADIAN charts!
We need charts.
CANADIAN charts!
The chances of big companies giving us that info are infinitesimal, unless some lawsuit forces it to be public. Only those making a fortune will brag about their numbers and $$$. And often those numbers are... padded.
Considering Paramount has been at death's door for awhile, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Considering Paramount has been at death's door for awhile, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Similar threads
