Paramount loses more than a quarter of its value, analyst believes they should "just quit streaming"

[C.E. Evans]

They're discussing this very topic at length over in this thread
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/par...ieves-they-should-just-quit-streaming.314053/

 

[1001001]

Merging with the existing thread.

 

[Sci]

The bottom line for us Trekkies is this:

One way or the other, I think it's safe to bet that there will still be new Star Trek. We may see a reduction in the amount of Star Trek being produced. But even if the worst-case scenario happens and Paramount Global decides to shutter Paramount+, they would almost certainly continue producing new Star Trek and licensing it to other streaming services.

 

[Farscape One]

The bottom line for us Trekkies is this:

One way or the other, I think it's safe to bet that there will still be new Star Trek. We may see a reduction in the amount of Star Trek being produced. But even if the worst-case scenario happens and Paramount Global decides to shutter Paramount+, they would almost certainly continue producing new Star Trek and licensing it to other streaming services.

Agreed.

 

[fireproof78]

The bottom line for us Trekkies is this:

One way or the other, I think it's safe to bet that there will still be new Star Trek. We may see a reduction in the amount of Star Trek being produced. But even if the worst-case scenario happens and Paramount Global decides to shutter Paramount+, they would almost certainly continue producing new Star Trek and licensing it to other streaming services.

/thread.

Yup.

 

[Jason_Adank]

streaming services, ie Netflix, was a great deal up till about 2015 or so.... With one subscription, we had access to this huge library of content because all of the studios were licensing their stuff to the one platform. And with no ads even.

But then the studios became envious of Netflix's success and they recognized they had missed the boat with the general transition to web streaming and away from cable. So then studios said "hmm, we should try and get a piece of this pie" and so they each decided to form their own streaming service, for the same cost as Netflix.

The problem is that each studio in itself doesnt generate enough new content to make it worth it. They only have a back catalog. Remember UPN? The network that was created in the 90s solely around Star Trek Voyager. It wasnt enough.

And this situation goes against why the consumer liked it to begin with. Cable costs like what about 80 dollars a month? Nowadays, thats what Im paying for high speed internet itself. I dont want to pay 10 bucks a month to 5 or 10 different streaming services to access to the full catalog we once had back in 2012. Its just not worth it. Actually, now theyre creating tiered pricing so if you go with the lowest one, you have to start watching ads again...

And then theres the amount of content for any one particular show. Now everyone is following the model of a season being 10 episodes (or less). Damn whatever happened to the good ole days of 24 episodes to a season??

At best, Ill wait for a show I like to fully complete a season's uploads, and then Ill pay for one month of that network, binge watch the shows I like, and hen I cancel it till next year.

Seems to me streaming services has killed itself due to greed. Il always remember the good ole days with fondness, back when I first cut cable in 2010. Nowadays, I just dont watch that much tv at all. I spend most of my time watching individual content creators on youtube, or movies that I buy outright as blurays. Budgets are tight these days and I can only afford 1 or 2 streaming services at a time. Everyone else gets the binge membership routine.

If theres a lot of people out there who feel like me, and do as I do, then I dont see a financial future for studios running their own streaming services unless they drop the costs to like 2 bucks a month.

 

[Sci]

And then theres the amount of content for any one particular show. Now everyone is following the model of a season being 10 episodes (or less). Damn whatever happened to the good ole days of 24 episodes to a season??

To this day, I still think 22-26 episodes to a season is too much. The writers end up spinning their wheels just trying to fill space.

I think a 10-episode season can work well, but these days the networks/streamers are putting too much pressure on producers to keep the writers' rooms too small. If you have a decent-sized writing staff, I think 10 episodes can work.

But I think the ideal season length is probably around 15-18 episodes. That gives you enough episodes to have some variety and breaks from the main plot, but isn't so much that the writers end up spinning their wheels, and still gives enough room to tell a good season-long arc.

 

[Jason_Adank]

But I think the ideal season length is probably around 15-18 episodes. That gives you enough episodes to have some variety and breaks from the main plot, but isn't so much that the writers end up spinning their wheels, and still gives enough room to tell a good season-long arc.

Yeah I agree actually, that is a sweet spot. Also its not such a grind for the actors and crew.

 

[StarMan]

I spend most of my time watching individual content creators on youtube, or movies that I buy outright as blurays. Budgets are tight these days and I can only afford 1 or 2 streaming services at a time. Everyone else gets the binge membership routine.

If theres a lot of people out there who feel like me, and do as I do, then I dont see a financial future for studios running their own streaming services unless they drop the costs to like 2 bucks a month.

Oh there's plenty. I've already ditched Disney+ after going cold on Marvel. Netflix is only sticking around for the rest of the household. Ditto Amazon.

Like you, I watch more YT content than anything else. Only a couple of shows each year I take the time to sit down and watch on a weekly basis. Most of the time I like a quick something to put on with a meal and YT fits the bill - always something there to perk my interest.

As for Star Trek, I'd be more than happy with just one series with 10 - to - however many episodes a year, provided it was actually decent.

 

[Farscape One]

To this day, I still think 22-26 episodes to a season is too much. The writers end up spinning their wheels just trying to fill space.

I think a 10-episode season can work well, but these days the networks/streamers are putting too much pressure on producers to keep the writers' rooms too small. If you have a decent-sized writing staff, I think 10 episodes can work.

But I think the ideal season length is probably around 15-18 episodes. That gives you enough episodes to have some variety and breaks from the main plot, but isn't so much that the writers end up spinning their wheels, and still gives enough room to tell a good season-long arc.

I agree that 15-18 is probably the sweet spot, but it doesn't need to be a season long arc. Especially considering how difficult it seems to be to have a seasonal arc that actually works with only 10-13 episodes in a season.

Regarding the amount of writers for a show, I think that really depends on what kind of show is being made. There is such a thing as too many cooks in the kitchen.

 

[fireproof78]

At best, Ill wait for a show I like to fully complete a season's uploads, and then Ill pay for one month of that network, binge watch the shows I like, and hen I cancel it till next year.

Same here which is why I like the current model. But business wise it might not make sense.

 

[drt]

The single cheap streamer model was also only ever going to be a temporary thing anyway, it was only possible because content producers were still making most of their revenue from networks and cable. Once those latter two started being economically unviable they were going to have to either (a) join the ranks of streamers, or (b) jack up what they charged Netflix. Most of them were probably hesitant to do (b) because they were afraid Netflix would say "goodbye" and they'd be forced to do (a) anyway. Better to just start with (a) and licence older content out to Netflix so as to not entirely burn bridges.

 

[bdub76]

The problem with P+ is its lack of content. It would be better if it offered better price annual plans like BritBox.

I’m still turning P+ off and on like Peacock. I keep P+ for maybe three months a year.

 

[bdub76]

To this day, I still think 22-26 episodes to a season is too much. The writers end up spinning their wheels just trying to fill space.

I think a 10-episode season can work well, but these days the networks/streamers are putting too much pressure on producers to keep the writers' rooms too small. If you have a decent-sized writing staff, I think 10 episodes can work.

But I think the ideal season length is probably around 15-18 episodes. That gives you enough episodes to have some variety and breaks from the main plot, but isn't so much that the writers end up spinning their wheels, and still gives enough room to tell a good season-long arc.

I agree with this. The last five episodes of DS9 felt like five different endings. The show would have worked much better serialized over 13 episodes.

 

[Owain Taggart]

If theres a lot of people out there who feel like me, and do as I do, then I dont see a financial future for studios running their own streaming services unless they drop the costs to like 2 bucks a month.

Same here. We actually saw a bit of that going on in Canada early on, as there were two competing streaming services, with Crave and Shomi, but after several years of profitability, Shomi was shuttered, leaving Crave be the only other big national streamer. Originally was only offered to Bell customers until the government stepped in to say it had to be available for everybody nationally. We also have network specific services, though sometimes they're ad-supported services like CBC Gem, with a premium option.

 

[The Wormhole]

To this day, I still think 22-26 episodes to a season is too much.

Definitely. One of the reasons I'm so hesitant when it comes to watching old shows these days is because twenty-plus episodes a season is a bit too daunting a task.

 

[Sci]

Definitely. One of the reasons I'm so hesitant when it comes to watching old shows these days is because twenty-plus episodes a season is a bit too daunting a task.

When my wife and I were doing our DS9 re-watch (her first time seeing it) a couple years back, what struck me was how it so often felt like the season would lose its sense of narrative momentum.

 

[drt]

When my wife and I were doing our DS9 re-watch (her first time seeing it) a couple years back, what struck me was how it so often felt like the season would lose its sense of narrative momentum.

Yeah, similarly in Season 3 of ENT, everything is super time dependent and critical, to the point of torturing captives and stealing critical machinery, but we’ll take a week off to fart around on cowboy planet.

I think it’s just too difficult to keep momentum for 20+ episode seasons. The only show that really pulled it off was Babylon 5, and that’s because they panicked about making it five seasons and aired three seasons of their original serial story in two.

 

[bdub76]

When my wife and I were doing our DS9 re-watch (her first time seeing it) a couple years back, what struck me was how it so often felt like the season would lose its sense of narrative momentum.

Lots of repetition in DS9. It was written assuming you wouldn’t catch all of the episodes when it aired is my guess, so some eps will repeat stuff from prior eps. It’s really annoying.

 

[Citiprime]

I agree that 15-18 is probably the sweet spot, but it doesn't need to be a season long arc. Especially considering how difficult it seems to be to have a seasonal arc that actually works with only 10-13 episodes in a season.

Regarding the amount of writers for a show, I think that really depends on what kind of show is being made. There is such a thing as too many cooks in the kitchen.

I actually have always liked the British model for television seasons/series, where it can be as little as 3-5 episodes. I think even with 15-18, you're still going to get a lot of filler with side characters and b-story subplots that are there only to allow the show to spin its wheels before getting back to the main plot, or the writers are going to burn through story trying to fill time.

Back when the American TV model was 20+ episodes, there were a lot of TV series that burned through plot in their first few seasons, or used story ideas to fill some of those episodes, where if they had been allowed to develop them, devote more time to them as the main focus of a season, they could have been done much better.