The number of signatures on the main Legacy petition on Change.org (30,791) have now surpassed the signatures on the historical make a Pike show petition (30,061)
Ok. What is the chance of a Picard spinoff?
- Thread starter ELCHawk
- Start date
Yes -- they went bankrupt because of Netflix and Hulu, which were able to replicate their same service (providing a wide variety of movies and TV shows from a wide variety of studios) with the greater convenience of both a larger catalog and the customer getting the content from their home instead of having to go to a store. In other words, a paradigm-shattering service emerged. The things that led to Blockbuster's and Hollywood Video's bankruptcies aren't applicable to the streaming industry's current paradigm and won't be until a new paradigm-shattering service emerges.
Before streaming became a paradigm-shattering service, the idea of a single-studio video rental company would have been absurd, because within the paradigm of home video rental companies competing with one-another, they had to compete on variety of content and size of catalog.
That's basically the same situation streamers are in today -- they have to compete with one-another on size of catalog and variety of content, in order to ensure a stable, year-round subscriber base.
The question for single-studio streamers is how catalog size and content diversity can lead to financial viability. So far, no single-studio streamer has turned a profit, and it seems to me that that's because no single-studio streamer has been able to develop a back catalog large enough and diverse enough in content to attract a large-enough stable, year-round subscriber base to earn the kind of income they need to turn a profit.
Yes. And it may well be that an aggregator streamer is better at attracting a stable year-round subscriber base than a single-studio streamer.
In other countries. In the United States, Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard were always exclusive to Paramount+.
Yes, studios often want to profit from distribution as well as production. Hence the old studio system back in the Golden Age before the Paramount Consent Decrees, and hence the emergence of single-studio streamers like Paramount+, Disney+, etc. However, a studio's desire to profit from distribution as well as production does not mean that they are actually able to so profit. There's a reason Paramount+ and Disney+ have not yet turned profits for their owners; it is not clear if the business model is fundamentally viable.
An interesting statistic from July 2022, generated by whip media. In 2022 Yellowstone Season ? and Picard Season 2 were the in Top 3 of shows, which drove subscriptions to paid streaming service. I think it is fair to say, that Picard Season 3 will be number one in this year’s poll…
An interesting statistic from July 2022, generated by whip media. In 2022 Yellowstone Season ? and Picard Season 2 were the in Top 3 of shows, which drove subscriptions to paid streaming service. I think it is fair to say, that Picard Season 3 will be number one in this year’s poll…
DISCO 6th if I am reading that right.
Radical idea: since the DISCO crew are the last links the 32nd has to Starfleet before the Burn, many of them take Academy positions, not just Tilly.
Actually 9th place all over
4th place in all Paramount+ productions
An interesting statistic from July 2022, generated by whip media. In 2022 Yellowstone Season ? and Picard Season 2 were the in Top 3 of shows, which drove subscriptions to paid streaming service. I think it is fair to say, that Picard Season 3 will be number one in this year’s poll…
And info like that makes me suspect that even if Paramount+ folds, Paramount will still produce plenty of new Star Trek. They'll just have another streamer (probably Netflix) carry it instead of distributing it themselves.
Another odd thing about this "if you count Orville" business is that even if we entertain the notion of considering The Orville to be de facto Trek, in what way can it be considered to be a spinoff of Discovery specifically? Their first seasons were contemporaneous. Looking it up, it appears that The Orville actually premiered two weeks before Discovery.
So is all of streaming Trek a spinoff of The Orville?
We're just barely 1/3 of the way through the year. Still plenty of time for another show to eclipse Picard's popularity.
No franchise can support a streaming service on its own. Star Wars + MCU together doesn't even do that for Disney. Heck, adding Disney proper to the mix, and that service is still a financial loser. That Paramount+ isn't profitable isn't on Star Trek. It's on their lack of developed other IPs to draw on a wider audience, and likely, as you said, a fundamental failing of the single-studio streaming model.
I don't think it's viable. I think there is market space for maybe three big ones and two boutique ones. I just discovered the other week that Amazon turned Epix into "MGM+", rather than fold it into Amazon Prime video, because for whatever reason, they thing we need another streaming service. Interesting, they arent doing new Stargate stuff, because it would probably be costly vs more grounded content.
I absolutely love this idea.
I do wish they would bring Shaw back in a regular plot contrivance though. Show a flashback of Ohk bringing him back from the dead and he has a fake heart or something now like human-bodied Picard did. But I'd also be thrilled with Q-Shaw.
100%. The fact that Warner Bros. tried to have a streaming service exclusively for DC Comics adaptations and it lasted less than three years proves how wrong-headed the idea that a single franchise could support a stream is. Streamers, like video rental chains before them, have to compete on variety and catalog size.
That the overwhelming response to the season has been heard and they're listening, and while nothing is iminent, there is more stories to tell of the Era.
I think they got caught unaware. There has been an over decade-long focus of the 23rd century because marketing things that the most accessible and iconic "Star Trek" is all things 2350s/2360s, and Captain Kirk and Science Officer Spock and punching Klingons and stuff. That era. They were blind that because of the sheer mass of content and duration in which it aired, far more people were brought to Trek via the TNG-ENT era and the TOS-TNG movies than the 1960s show that started it all.
At one point, I would have said there may be a generational thing at work here, but really only the older Generation Xers would have been old enough to see Star Trek and get it (it is much more of a Boomer show). The older Generation X executives occupy kind of the dead zone. Younger GenX (like Matalas) and Millennials would have "their Star Trek" be the 24th century era. Relevant because in many forms of media, when revivals come, what's revived is the most familiar form of the content to the writers/producers.
But that can run head to head against Marketing imperatives. So really, who knows. We can only speculate. But I do not think they figured the 24th/25th century was more than a hardcore fan appendage to the franchise, and not its beating heart.
Against much criticism, Warner's new owners are actually engaging in an experiment. HBO Max was by design "everything Warner had". Every movie, TV show, animation. The entire archive. But I guess they pay residuals to performers based on viewers, which means an entire archive is a sponge for money outflow, even when the content is old.
So what they're doing now is they're going to focus on "relevant" (according to their metric) content on "Max" and content that isn't at the core of their buisness, they're going to lisence out. Like Raised By Wolves (BADLY underrated show IMO) is going to Hulu I believe for reruns, and the new animated Batman show is going to Netflix, rather than being in the pre-Discovery merger's central plan for the DC side of HBO.
There may be something to this from their angle to have new "relevant" content have to support just themselves rather than themselves+legacy content. Personally, I'd really miss if the archival nature of streaming goes away (and will drive me back into torreting for archival purposes like yesteryear). But if Disney can't do it, I dont think anyone can.
One thing though.. and I said it before... all these shows trying to go toe to toe with Star Wars and MCU, which have $200 million+ budgets per season, is insane. Picard looked great as basically and evolved version of the Star Trek: Enterprise style of CG (with some flourish like camera swooping and the nebulas). And I'm willing to be based on Matalas' comments from the start of the season the show was very economical outside of actors pay (which is high, because veteran actors in old roles always are). But then I look at Discovery and SNW, which have generally excellent CGI, but it adds so much to costs. Does Star Trek, or really any show need that? I'd say not. If it was JUST Discovery or JUST SNW maybe. But two shows doing $100 million CGI seasons? That's a quick way to burn through a pile of money for limited returns.
I love Star Trek in all its forms and I think there is no one "right" way to do the franchise (nor should their be), but I think think in terms of running shows economically for long duration, simultaneously, there are huge lessons from the Berman era for current Star Trek franchise heads, and really the heads of many franchises to draw from. Berman may have been an imperious pig, but also expertly managed the production-side of the franchise for a very long time. When Enterprise ended, the franchise never looked better.
Would love to see him on Jack as well; his introduction there was simply perfect.
Seven might be closer to Sisko in some ways - unless they give her a new way. Picard tolerated Q, Janeway was asked for help, Sisko played Q's game right back at him... WW7D?
All excellent insights. I agree Paramount is probably going to start requiring Star Trek to be more economical again in the future; I think the question is how cheap they can go while still looking decent on modern HD television sets. Visual effects are a major part of their costs, but I imagine so is set design and lighting.
I haven't a clue about the chances of it happening but I'm on board for a Legacy series.
My preference would be for mostly standalone adventures while paying heed to what's just happened and its aftermath. Pretending none of what's just happened mattered or had consequences would be stupid. I'd expect that characters from Voyager and DS9 would make appearances (although frankly I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in what Chuckles, Bashir and Quark might be up to these days) and that old plot points might be visited, but I'd rather that wasn't all a Legacy series would be about. It all remains to be seen, of course.
My preference would be for mostly standalone adventures while paying heed to what's just happened and its aftermath. Pretending none of what's just happened mattered or had consequences would be stupid. I'd expect that characters from Voyager and DS9 would make appearances (although frankly I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in what Chuckles, Bashir and Quark might be up to these days) and that old plot points might be visited, but I'd rather that wasn't all a Legacy series would be about. It all remains to be seen, of course.
Seconded. Regardless of when it was to potentially set, I've never found the idea of an Academy series even slightly interesting. The fact it's going to be set in the 32nd century somehow makes it even less appealing. Each to their own, however.
I'd rather we got away from the "Earth / the Federation (and it'd be good to do away with the apparent notion that Earth is the Federation, too) / the entire universe is in grave danger" stuff and looked outward. There have to be other stories to tell.
Which is weird if you consider that 24th century Trek had 21 seasons, 526 episodes, airing over 14 years without pause.
Similar threads
