Spoilers Star Trek: Prodigy General Discussion Thread

[fireproof78]

We don't know what Netflix will do. They are likely weighing the viewing options and data, and they don't have all the data since, and this is the important part, season 2 hasn't aired.

All the data is not in. We do not know how Netflix will react next. So...it's only a waste if fans and audience members give up on Prodigy as quickly as they do. And given the vapidity of attention spans in popular culture it wouldn't surprise me if people gave up on it because of such news.

 

[137th Gebirg]

That’s putting the cart before the horse in a self-fulfilling prophecy, then. If that’s true, then they’re already setting the show up to fail before it’s even released. This kind of pisses me off even more. It’s not the Prodigy show runners who need to be replaced, it’s the Netflix executives.

 

[fireproof78]

That’s putting the cart before the horse in a self-fulfilling prophecy, then. If that’s true, then they’re already setting the show up to fail before it’s even released. This kind of pisses me off even more. It’s not the Prodigy show runners who need to be replaced, it’s the Netflix executives.

How so?

They're not assembling the room and paying more money because they don't know? How is that putting the cart before the horse? Two, contracts will need to be renegotiated since it's a new company and costs are adjusting based on that. Finally, Netflix needs to know does this have an audience.

And so far I would say it's a definite maybe that it might have an audience. Season 2 will make the data cement.

 

[eschaton]

Pfft…. If that’s going to be the case, Paramount should have just kept it on P+, released the final season and called it a day. What a thoroughly idiotic waste…

As I noted elsewhere just now, Paramount Plus just pulled the TOS/TNG Trek movies from P+, which are now available on Netflix/Max.

They have given up any plan of being the "home of Trek" and are now just out to monetize whatever the hell is worthwhile in their content library.

 

[fireproof78]

They have given up any plan of being the "home of Trek" and are now just out to monetize whatever the hell is worthwhile in their content library.

Soooo...they are trying to make money the way people constantly lambasted them to do back when CBS ALL ACCESS was first released?

How dare they?

 

[Christopher]

To be honest, as neat and orderly as the concept of having an entire franchise library available on the same streamer may be, it's not really a very good practice and it's weird how quickly we've fallen into the habit of assuming it's right and desirable. It's as if, instead of having supermarkets that sold everybody's products, we had to go to a bunch of different companies' separate stores where they sold their own respective products. It limits the audience's access and the company's profits, which is why so many streamers are abandoning the "everything in one place" model. We're complaining about the end of something that was probably a bad idea to begin with. Overall, it's probably better for studios and audiences alike if they make their shows available on major, widely patronized streamers like Netflix or Prime than to keep them in their own separate gated communities.

 

[fireproof78]

We're complaining about the end of something that was probably a bad idea to begin with.

And we're complaining about something that a lot of people were against in the first place.

Memories are short.

 

[eschaton]

Soooo...they are trying to make money the way people constantly lambasted them to do back when CBS ALL ACCESS was first released?

How dare they?

I dunno if you're trying to claim I'm being inconsistent or what, but I'm just noting that this is an admission of defeat.

Paramount lost the streaming wars, and recognizes the only thing they have left really is the value of their IP to more established streaming services.

 

[fireproof78]

I dunno if you're trying to claim I'm being inconsistent or what, but I'm just noting that this is an admission of defeat.

Paramount lost the streaming wars, and recognizes the only thing they have left really is the value of their IP to more established streaming services.

This is nothing personal.

This is my observation that this "loss" was predicted long ago when this all started. And the term "monetized" makes it sound insidious, when that's what many people wanted in the first place.

 

[Wouter]

I do not see this as being promising news, Netflix would not want to wait 3 years for new episodes. If Prodigy was being picked up for season 3 then I am sure that it would have been part of the Netflix deal? However, as the team behind Prodigy is still ‘dissolved’, I read this as meaning that the show is probably ending after season 2?

Perhaps season 2 leads in to the live action Academy series?

The Hagemans and Waltke have explained several times that the deal with Netflix is to stream season 1 and 2 (and the latter is already a major win for the producers, the fans and for the audience that is discovering Prodigy only now) and that a pickup for season 3 (or another form such as an animated movie) is not out of the question but depends entirely on the numbers that it is doing now on Netflix and will be doing for season 2. And if Netflix figures' are such that it makes commercial sense to order some form of continuation, together with Paramount as the producing company, they will do so. If not, they won't. This hasn't changed.

It has been clear for a long time that the Hagemans wouldn't be able to keep the team they assembled together, pretty much since P+ announced new seasons ordered of Lower Decks and SNW while only saying they would air Prodigy S2 (which they eventually didn't). That was the time to continue production, by not ordering season 3 an inevitable gap in production would arise. Due to the long 'pipeline' in production for such an animated series, writing the S2 episodes was already completed by february 2022, nearly two years ago. Writing has to be locked early on this type of show, because the whole process of animation takes a long time to complete and there is no such thing as a reshoot. That's also part of what makes Prodigy and Lower Decks good: they have to plan, unlike live action series where the producers can change things almost at the last minute, even changing showrunners mid-season.

It's clear Prodigy S2 won't be a lead-in for Academy, the Hagemans still hope to continue with their own story and characters.

Netflix may want a new team.

I don't think they would want a new team, it's just that keeping the old team would be impossible when most had probably already left well before Netflix picked it up and there was still no new order.
If the Hagemans can more or less reform the old team, they wouldn't say no, I suppose. It's the norm in the sector that everybody is working on multiple shows/project at once, which is a necessity when most projects never get picked up and shows get cancelled early regurlarly.
So the danger, if Netflix even orders some form of continuation, would be if they fail to get key figures like Ben Hibon, Aaron Waltke and the cast back (Ella Purnell's career seems to have taken off, so maybe not so evident to get her back). They would also need to re-book the Indian animation studio that is doing Prodigy, which could be problematic if they would get plenty of other work in the meantime.

We don't know what Netflix will do. They are likely weighing the viewing options and data, and they don't have all the data since, and this is the important part, season 2 hasn't aired.

All the data is not in. We do not know how Netflix will react next. So...it's only a waste if fans and audience members give up on Prodigy as quickly as they do. And given the vapidity of attention spans in popular culture it wouldn't surprise me if people gave up on it because of such news.

The large majority of the potential audience will never even hear it nor be interested in it, so I doubt there will be an impact. The Hagemans have developped spin-offs of their own animated show on Netflix before, and I'd guess that also involved some major personnel changes. I've no doubt they can do this if the numbers are such that Netflix is willing to go for more.

More may be a season 3, but potentially with a different structure (say, if 10 30 minute episodes may bring in the same amount of viewers as 20 22 minute episodes and cost less to produce while increasing quality per episode, they could do something like that) or it could be a Netflix animated movie. 3 years on and without Nickelodeon involved, maybe the audience expectation could shift as well.

 

[fireproof78]

The large majority of the potential audience will never ever hear it nor be interested in it, so I doubt there will be an impact.

Then this is the best it gets.

So the danger, if Netflix even orders some form of continuation, would be if they fail to get key figures like Ben Hibon, Aaron Waltke and the cast back (Ella Purnell's career seems to have taken off, so maybe not so evident to get her back). They would also need to re-book the Indian animation studio that is doing Prodigy, which could be problematic if they would get plenty of other work in the meantime.

Of course that's the danger. That is the nature of the business.

 

[Wouter]

Then this is the best it gets.

I mean the news about the disbanded writers room and wider production team, not about Prodigy itself. Being on Netflix will greatly increase the number of people who become aware of the existence of the show.

While the need to reform the team is a practical issue with potential influence on the result, the decision to continue or not will be taken solely on the basis of the show's performance on Netflix, and whatever algoritms and reasoning Netflix uses to continue or axe a show. If it is a commercial succes, it can be expected the Hagemans will either reform the old team (in large part) or create a new one that will do the job. Unless the Hageman's themselves get busy with another show in the meantime, but there is still time for that. I'm guessing that Netflix may already have a good idea by now if they want to continue beyond season 2 or not, based on their data for season 1.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm guessing that Netflix may already have a good idea by now if they want to continue beyond season 2 or not, based on their data for season 1.

That is probably true, if an erroneous choice on their part to decide without all the data.

 

[Avro Arrow]

To be honest, as neat and orderly as the concept of having an entire franchise library available on the same streamer may be, it's not really a very good practice and it's weird how quickly we've fallen into the habit of assuming it's right and desirable. It's as if, instead of having supermarkets that sold everybody's products, we had to go to a bunch of different companies' separate stores where they sold their own respective products.

But isn't this still the case, though? Continuing your analogy, it's not like TrekFilm-brand cereal is now available at more than one grocery store, it's that before you could only get TrekFilm-brand cereal at Metro, but now it's not at Metro any longer, and you can only get it at Sobey's.

So I'm not really sure how moving exclusivity from one streamer to another helps that much with increased access. If they had licensed it to Max and also left it on P+, then that would be a different story.

(Also, just FYI to any Canadians, apparently they're still on P+ in Canada. I cancelled my subscription after Lower Decks S4 ended, so can't confirm this personally.)

 

[Christopher]

So I'm not really sure how moving exclusivity from one streamer to another helps that much with increased access.

Because Netflix is a much, much bigger streamer than P+, with a far larger audience, and has a much better chance of still existing 5 or 10 years from now. Remember, Netflix was a distributor of programs (first by DVD rental, then by streaming) long before it started producing its own, so it's closer to the supermarket in my analogy than to a single company's specialty store.

It used to be that many different studios put their shows on Netflix, so you could find a wide range of different things in one location and that attracted a large audience. But with the studios pulling their content back to their own proprietary outlets, they've shrunk their audience by forcing people to split their attention and money among multiple different streamers, so that a lot of people only subscribe to a fraction of them. I'm not just talking about moving one single show. I'm saying we should go back to something like we used to have before it all got balkanized, where instead of having a dozen studio-owned streamers with small audiences, you have a dozen studios selling their shows to the same few streamers with large audiences. That's a system that worked well in the past, whereas the current balkanized system is clearly failing as streamers continue to lose money, cut costs, raise prices, and become ad-supported.

If I go to the supermarket, I can get all the food and stuff I need in a single place. I don't have to go to the Kraft store to buy Kraft products and the Kellogg's store to buy Kellogg's products and the P&G store to buy P&G products and so on. All the different companies that make the products sell them in the same places. That's how broadcasters and streamers have worked for most of the history of television. A single network would carry Paramount shows and Universal shows and Warner Bros. shows and Disney shows and all the rest. There was actual competition between multiple potential buyers for a given studio's shows, the way capitalism is supposed to work.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I'm saying we should go back to something like we used to have before it all got balkanized, where instead of having a dozen studio-owned streamers with small audiences, you have a dozen studios selling their shows to the same few streamers with large audiences.

OK, I see what you're saying. I thought we were talking about this specific instance of Paramount+ touting itself as "the home of Star Trek", but then moving the TOS & TNG films elsewhere. Sure, it lets Max customers view them, but now P+ customers can't. They're still exclusive to one mid-tier service. Yes, Max is somewhat bigger than P+, but neither are Netflix-tier.

I know in your example, you're presenting Netflix as "the supermarket", but I would tend to think of it as just one supermarket chain, probably akin to Walmart due to its size. It's better for consumers if the same product is available at multiple chains, not locked into a single one, even (especially?) if that one is Walmart. Unfortunately, that won't happen, because streamers will pay more for exclusivity for the biggest shows. And I guess I'm not really that keen on the (inevitable) consolidation of the various streamers into the Mighty Few, because that kind of consolidation is usually never good for consumers. Of course, even with the more choices we have now (well, you have now, since as with many things, the Canadian streaming landscape has a lot fewer options than the American one), exclusivity still enables them to behave in a more monopolistic fashion. So either way, consumers lose. Again.

Speaking of consumers losing (and to go more back on topic)... I don't know if I'll even be able to watch Prodigy season 2. Season 1 is now available on CTV.ca and the CTV app, as promised. But you have to have CTV Sci-Fi channel as part of your cable subscription to watch it. I got rid of cable a while ago, and just rely on streaming for the few shows I watch now. There was some speculation that Prodigy might end up on Crave, because both it and CTV are owned by Bell Media, but it's not there, at least so far. Season 1 isn't a problem, because I have the blu-rays and can watch it whenever I want. But if the same conditions hold true for season 2, then I guess I'm out of luck.

 

[Christopher]

And I guess I'm not really that keen on the (inevitable) consolidation of the various streamers into the Mighty Few, because that kind of consolidation is usually never good for consumers.

If the producers and streamers are the same entities, no, but what I'm saying is that that isn't the way it's supposed to work in a healthy system. The streamers/broadcasters are supposed to be the customers for the studios' product -- they compete to buy the rights to air the shows. If the studios only sell their product to their self-owned streamers, that's a monopsony, which is as bad for consumers as a monopoly. In a healthy system, the people who make the shows and the people who distribute the shows are different entities. Like, on broadcast TV, you didn't only have Fox shows on FOX, Disney shows on ABC, Universal shows on NBC, etc. There'd be Disney shows on FOX, Universal shows on CBS, Warner Bros shows on NBC, etc. It wasn't partitioned by which billionaires were getting the profits funnelled to them. It was consumer-driven, competition-driven, because studios had to convince the broadcasters that their shows were worth buying, or broadcasters had to compete with each other for the shows they wanted.

Heck, when I was a kid, there were only three commercial broadcast networks, plus independent stations and syndicators (and the government-funded Public Broadcasting System). But those networks hadn't yet been gobbled up by the studios, so they were separate entities that acquired shows from all the different studios. The broadcasters were relatively consolidated, but the studios were not, because they weren't the same thing. I find it troubling how completely people have forgotten that there's supposed to be a difference between the entity that manufactures the product and the entity that distributes it.

 

[eschaton]

I know in your example, you're presenting Netflix as "the supermarket", but I would tend to think of it as just one supermarket chain, probably akin to Walmart due to its size. It's better for consumers if the same product is available at multiple chains, not locked into a single one, even (especially?) if that one is Walmart. Unfortunately, that won't happen, because streamers will pay more for exclusivity for the biggest shows. And I guess I'm not really that keen on the (inevitable) consolidation of the various streamers into the Mighty Few, because that kind of consolidation is usually never good for consumers. Of course, even with the more choices we have now (well, you have now, since as with many things, the Canadian streaming landscape has a lot fewer options than the American one), exclusivity still enables them to behave in a more monopolistic fashion. So either way, consumers lose. Again.

I mean, if you're using the Walmart analogy, it's much worse for producers than consumers. Consumers get shitty-quality products out of Walmart cheaply. Companies reliant upon Wal-Mart for sale, though, have to answer to all of the company's whims. There have been many documented cases where companies have been forced to do things like offshore production because Wal-Mart continually ratcheted down the prices they were willing to pay, until they'd operate at a loss if they continued operations in the previous manner.

Realistically though, we will not be heading into a monopoly in streaming, as Amazon seems content to offer Prime as the strange hybrid streaming service/shipping perk. I have seen no evidence that Apple plans to get rid of Apple TV+ either - similar to Amazon it's a cash-flush company which seems content to offer its streaming as a niche business, regardless of how profitable it may be. And I think, despite issues, Disney+ and perhaps Max are going to survive the streaming wars. Everything else is likely gonna die though.

 

[Christopher]

Realistically though, we will not be heading into a monopoly in streaming, as Amazon seems content to offer Prime as the strange hybrid streaming service/shipping perk. I have seen no evidence that Apple plans to get rid of Apple TV+ either - similar to Amazon it's a cash-flush company which seems content to offer its streaming as a niche business, regardless of how profitable it may be. And I think, despite issues, Disney+ and perhaps Max are going to survive the streaming wars. Everything else is likely gonna die though.

That all seems plausible. I just want to get out of this bizarre phase where everyone expects the content creators and the content distributors to be the same company. I mean, I do see the appeal of having all Trek shows together in one place, all DC shows together, all Marvel shows together, etc. from a convenience point of view, but that's a small piece of the larger issue and it tends to distract from the downsides of consolidation. Like, when it was announced that WB was putting out feelers to buy Paramount, people should've reacted with horror at the prospect of the industry getting even more monopolistic and more jobs being lost and consumer choice being restricted even more so David Zaslav could buy more yachts, but instead they were just going "Oh boy now we can have Superman meet Captain Kirk!"

Okay, it's not like Amazon and Apple aren't run by equally greedy billionaires, but at least they aren't just content producers and they can more feasibly support streaming networks because it's just part of their overall business. And of course Netflix and Disney are going to survive because they're behemoths.

 

[eschaton]

That all seems plausible. I just want to get out of this bizarre phase where everyone expects the content creators and the content distributors to be the same company. I mean, I do see the appeal of having all Trek shows together in one place, all DC shows together, all Marvel shows together, etc. from a convenience point of view, but that's a small piece of the larger issue and it tends to distract from the downsides of consolidation. Like, when it was announced that WB was putting out feelers to buy Paramount, people should've reacted with horror at the prospect of the industry getting even more monopolistic and more jobs being lost and consumer choice being restricted even more so David Zaslav could buy more yachts, but instead they were just going "Oh boy now we can have Superman meet Captain Kirk!"

I've mostly seen horror at the idea, given the reputation that Zazlav has right now. I think from a fan perspective that acquisition by Skydance (who would retire Paramount+ and just turn the studio into a content farm ala Sony) is much, much better.

That said, I don't think Trek being owned by WarnerDiscovery is the end of the world. Say what you want about them, but they don't let their tentpole IP franchises die.