"paramount should quit streaming"
- Thread starter Jarvisimo
- Start date
Unlike Amazon, Wal-Mart has a physical retail presence (Whole Foods notwithstanding).
Amazon owns MGM.
They already have two franchises (Stargate and the Bond films).
They don't need to cannibalize themselves.
One advantage of Paramount owning its own platform: They're not dependent upon anyone else. They're not dependent upon another streamer.
Last edited:
season 1 was and then they had to ruin it by a certain plotline
the danny karen sex thing
and just the Steven's kid's in general
and just the Steven's kid's in general
ruined might be a bit hyperbolic but those element really let the show down in my opinion with that said i'm still looking forward to season 4the danny karen sex thing
My wife hated that. She was very disappointed in the lady in question.
It's a minor thing though. Hardly a show killer.
I honestly don't get it. These conglomerates can't seem to figure out what most people would call common sense. Cut your budget. That's how you make a profit. Not by throwing good money after bad. Nobody watches half the crap on these services, so why have it? Keep Trek, keep Yellowstone and the back catalogs. Have exclusive rights to CBS programming rebroadcast. Dump the rest.
That's what they're doing and people bitch.
That's exactly what they have been doing, cutting things.
Of course, they cut Star Trek: Prodigy and you had some screaming bloody murder. They also cut Grease: Rise of the Pink Ladies and I don't know if there was any outcry over that.
Either way, they are cutting things because they can't afford to keep throwing good money after bad.
Speaking of Yellowstone, Paramount is also going to have a new Yellowstone series on Paramount+ (and not on Peacock) that debuts this December, I believe. So Paramount+ will have the 1883 and 1923 spinoffs, and this new sequel series to the current series that airs on Peacock that's ending in November.
I may finally give Yellowstone a try. Starting with the 1883 and 1923 series, and then this new one because Matthew McConaughey is rumored to be the star and I like him.
On the Star Trek side of things obviously the Starfleet academy series and Section 31 streaming movie are up next; two things that I'm really looking forward to...
So they seem to be doubling down on what's working and cutting what's not.
Doubling down on what's working--you may like the concepts of the academy and section 31, but much of the fandom does not including the general audience. They want a followup of Picard, not academy or 31.
Same here. And I'm hoping that once those are done they continue the variety of Trek with something that somewhat appeals (if briefly) to the Legacy group, even if it isn't Legacy.
A Trek for all, as it were, even if it takes time.
I'm inclined to agree, but they're also striking the harsh balance of saving money and using existing assets. So Academy would benefit them, since those assets already exist, as well as potentially have scripts in place prior to the strike. Legacy type project does not.
When you say "much of the fandom does not... " what are you basing that on, what's said online?
Whatever the case, Paramount feels that this is the way to go at the moment.
It may work or may not work, only time will tell.
Yeah, the variety approach (as it stands now) can prove to be costly, I think.
Having one show set in the 23rd century, one set in the 25th century, and one set in the 32nd century I would say isn't really a money saving measure and an efficient use of existing assets. It would seem to me that they should pick one period and do their variety of different shows in that century.
They can do a serialized academy show, and a serialized exploring show, and an episodic exploring show (although these last two may be a bit redundant). Either way, just do them all in, say, the 32nd century. Throw in an animated show too, if they like...
So you can have your variety in different storytelling styles and subject matter, and you're also spending your money more efficiently.
Indeed, yes. And I think the mixed approach is going to take time to really stretch out but I am more confident in the idea of "something for all" rather than "one size fits all."
Yeah, while I was never a fan of multiple shows set in different time periods, when the money was there to do that, when money was seemingly no object, they had that luxury.
Now times are different and they don't have "Apple money," they don't have $3 trillion dollars, so they have to be a little more focused.
(I'm hyped for season two of Foundation that's why I bring up Apple.)
I’d say focus on the 23rd century. The DIS sets were originally meant for the 23rd century and can be redressed to meet whatever requirement necessary (Walker class/Shepard class/other 23rd or 25th century ships; Klingon ships; alien starbases). This also makes it easier to fit them into a 25th century show, if it ever gets greenlit.
There are also stories from Short Treks they could finish telling on SNW (Pike’s cadet, Berellium & the Tholians; Pike original science officer, Lynne Lucero, and what became of her; Harry Mudd and the bounty hunters (Tellarite, Klingon, female, whatever) & Orion bodyguards after him; the V’drayash pod & Craft’s shuttle could become SNW’s version of “Future Tense”).
Some CGI assets from DIS/ST can be reworked to fit into SNW (Starbase 28, Hunhau ships, courier ships, the Emerald Chain ship Viridian, trance worms, Tuscadian pryosome). They can also use Iceland as a filming location for SNW too, like they did for DIS. And also film in the University of Toronto, like they did for that 24th century school in the ST prequel to PIC.
Plus, members of the DIS cast being special guest stars on SNW (because of the Mirror Universe/Confederation/alternate timelines/insert other idea here) will mean much more than holograms of the SNW crew in the 32nd century.
The 23rd century currently has more goodwill and more momentum. You go where the momentum is, and there is no momentum with Disco. If there was, they would have reworked the Starfleet Academy idea into a sixth and possibly seventh season of DIS. Give Disco & the 32nd century a break and maybe people will miss it enough that there will be some tv movies with them. I know that they had a few ideas for DIS episodes they wanted to do they never did (Desperate Hours type story, a story based around the Tartigrade Ephraim, returning the Pavho, etc.). Such ideas could be made as tv movies down the line when they have the money to put behind more production, and can meet expectations as to what the 32nd century should really be like.
Yeah, that all makes sense.
The only problem with the 23rd century though is that you're more than likely going to start to run into "canon problems" (for the people who care about canon). Strange New Worlds is already doing it and Discovery already did it.
I also believe you limit yourselves from a storytelling point of view. Because you can't really do much of anything new or of any significance because it doesn't show up or is mentioned afterwards. So what you're really doing is just a show or series of shows that fill in the blanks leading up to 1966. You're doing prequels and not pushing anything forward.
You're basically just forever living in the past.
Of course, they can simple say it's a different timeline, but for some reason they don't want to do that.
I already do that though. The JJ Abrams movies are the Kelvin timeline. And Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds I consider the "Discovery timeline," my own made up timeline. And Picard is in the Prime timeline and not part of the Discovery and Strange New Worlds timeline.
(I don't like Picard so that's how I make it "not count" -- I just say it's not part of the timeline of the shows that I like so it doesn't count.).
Anyway, mainly I think they're going with the 32nd century because that seems like what Alex Kurtzman wants to do. And he's the boss right now, so what he says goes.
They could do shows set in the 25th century, that would push things forward a bit. But Discovery went to the 32nd century, so what do you just leave that there? (Rhetorical question) Also, the 25th century just looks like a slight modernization of the 90s Star Trek. It doesn't feel like a big push. So they have to choose, do they want to take a small step or a big step.
I of course say take a big step. Really push forward.
I mean, Uhura and Chapel knowing who T’Pring is already clashing with continuity.
Now will they lose their memories of T’Pring in a future episode of SNW? Or will the writers use it to further establish the Discoverse? Only the writers know. I’d personally just establish the Discoverse, but that's just me.
Not true. I can think of stories that connect SNW to TAS, TNG S1 & S2, DIS S3 & S4, and can build off of DIS S1 and S2. I can think of a reverse “Trials and Tribbl-ations” involving the TNG crew on Pike’s Enterprise. I can even think of a retcon regarding the Earth-Romulan War that still respect Spock;s claim that the conflict was fought ship to ship, but also opens up that there were a bunch of ground battle and black ops going on at the time too and only Pike, Una & April know about it.
25th century answers all the lingering questions from '90s Trek. Once that concludes, they could jump ahead 150 years to the 26th century and the Ent-J. And the Ent-J doesn’t even have to stay in our galaxy. They could journey to the Andromeda galaxy or another nearby galaxy. It, of course. retcons DIS S4 in crossing the galactic barrier. But that does not feel like a big deal to me.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with exploring the 32nd century either. But if they give it a break, they’ll be able to resume at the start of the 33rd century and explore that century.
No. Because it's about money not about potential or momentum.
Yes.
No.
Sure. Or find an ancient wormhole that jumps to another galaxy.
Only Uhura knowing does.
This is Star Trek in it's past. When Bruce Springsteen wrote "Glory Days" he was actually talking about Star Trek.
Yeah, that all makes sense.
The only problem with the 23rd century though is that you're more than likely going to start to run into "canon problems" (for the people who care about canon). Strange New Worlds is already doing it and Discovery already did it.
I also believe you limit yourselves from a storytelling point of view. Because you can't really do much of anything new or of any significance because it doesn't show up or is mentioned afterwards. So what you're really doing is just a show or series of shows that fill in the blanks leading up to 1966. You're doing prequels and not pushing anything forward.
You're basically just forever living in the past.
Of course, they can simple say it's a different timeline, but for some reason they don't want to do that.
I already do that though. The JJ Abrams movies are the Kelvin timeline. And Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds I consider the "Discovery timeline," my own made up timeline. And Picard is in the Prime timeline and not part of the Discovery and Strange New Worlds timeline.
(I don't like Picard so that's how I make it "not count" -- I just say it's not part of the timeline of the shows that I like so it doesn't count.).
Anyway, mainly I think they're going with the 32nd century because that seems like what Alex Kurtzman wants to do. And he's the boss right now, so what he says goes.
They could do shows set in the 25th century, that would push things forward a bit. But Discovery went to the 32nd century, so what do you just leave that there? (Rhetorical question) Also, the 25th century just looks like a slight modernization of the 90s Star Trek. It doesn't feel like a big push. So they have to choose, do they want to take a small step or a big step.
I of course say take a big step. Really push forward.
Dude, did you know that the 23rd century is actually the future? We're only up to the 21st.
Similar threads
