So
streaming essentially was built on debt, massive debts. Until the last year or two, Wall Street didn't mind; it was about market share. Then when Netflix announced it had lost subscribers, it essentially announced that everyone who would subscribe had done so, and there could only be a fall in numbers. No more subscribers to tap into. That means the streaming business was no longer a licence to print money; that companies couldn't afford to lose so much money on a venture that might never be profitable - that was only going to decline in success.
A lot of it is interest rates. Low interest rates encourage businesses to listen to people who 'claim" to see the future.
Means inexperienced people, or people with specific agendas get advanced and the meat and potatoes people get marginalized. Because the meat and potatoes types don't have a lot of ideas for growth.
In addition not only are you not concerned with current income, you have no way of gauging who is out to lunch and who has their finger on the pulse. Companies as a result get trapped with all their eggs in the baskets of agenda driven projects.
Soon as interests go up, growth isn't the value it's short term quarterly profits. This is gonna be an absolute bloodbath, so many incompetent people so many people losing their jobs.
Also, has new trek really been a "massive success"? We live in an echo chamber, one which easily validates how we feel with circumstantial evidence to convince us of it - and that's a danger, as we put forward claims like that without being sure what we mean or even if it is true. What do you mean, "a massive success", and can you prove it?
It's never been a better time to avoid people with personalities that are different than your own. The internet/cell phones, means you never really have to engage in a social relationship with someone you're not naturally similar to. Even in work Human Resources has made it so personalities can't clash. this means you never have a tangible way of learning how to deal with other people if you work in certain social environments.
if you're an empathetic person, the world around you has made it very hard to understand someone with less empathy.
Empathetic people are exhausting to be around for the less agreeable. If you're modestly disagreeable you really aren't all that interested in the feelings of others. When you shove it down their throats they tune out. They also are more likely to see agreeable people as gullible and not to be trusted because they're so easily manipulated by social predators.
I.e. seeing people crying is a turn this crap off reflex.
EDIT: agreeableness is complicated, you can be an empathetic person and full of hostility, you can have no interest in the emotions of others while being very restrained/kind.
If you're not naturally open minded, being bombarded by novel ideas is exhausting and something to be avoided at all costs. At the same time if you're open minded, a series of explosions and fist fits is just dull repetitive nonsense.
If you're naturally an orderly person people disobeying orders, in poorly lit/dirty environments, swearing etc, is just a massive turn off.
This singular issue of differences of personality has transformed into a mental health crisis. A simple example is addiction homelessness. Disagreeable don't care, agreeable people care but they can't process that the majority of homeless people are relatively disagreeable. So their entire thesis radically downplays how much disobedient, refusal to follow the rules causes a lot of the homelessness problem and reducing the rules only makes things worst.
It's a real paradox that we're supposedly more conscious of mental health, and yet doing everything we can to make things worst.
I say this because star trek in particular is a show that has carefully crafted a fanbase that has a broad set of personalities.
The orderly people love that there's a rigid set of rules, uniforms, clean brightly colored bridges. The order also makes it more tolerable who aren't super open to new ideas. As they have a format they can rely on.
For people who are less empathetic the relatively small amount of emotional content make trek enjoyable/ Spock Data Worf were people they could latch onto.
Nutrek is insufferable for the majority of people with the temperaments listed above.
On the flip side, the level of exploration is severely limited by the format, the drama/action is just irrelevant to a lot of open minded people wanting to explore.
Not to mention how much agreeable people dislike all the pettiness/conflict etc.
Basically nu trek has found ways to piss off clusters of people, at every angle. And that's starting from being in the genre of science fiction, which itself is severely limited.
Of course if you try to point this out, people get so hostile. Especially the creative types who are running these shows. And like I said interests rates were low so they could get away with anything, as no one wants to get caught as buying into a purely incompetent form of content.
