But it fits the preconceived notion that he wants to be true.
Strange New Worlds' showrunners advise fans to write to Skydance and Paramount if they're interested in a "Year One" Kirk sequel series
Genuine question, why would the show be cancelled before its second season airs? Like, what internal metrics would they be looking at to make that decision before S2 has even been shown?
I can't word this in a way that doesn't sound like I'm trying to suggest something about the viewership, but I'm honeslty not (and the numbers Stoklasa claimed were obviously bullshit), I just don't know what motivates Paramount's decision-making.
I can't word this in a way that doesn't sound like I'm trying to suggest something about the viewership, but I'm honeslty not (and the numbers Stoklasa claimed were obviously bullshit), I just don't know what motivates Paramount's decision-making.
Change in leadership.
I imagine the numbers, whatever they were, were on a downward trajectory that didn't give them faith that season 2 will draw in a bigger audience.
The ongoing expense of a series that isn't building toward what they want out of the franchise, as well as the direction they intend to take with the Paramount Plus platform.
They've got another ten episodes of programming in the can at no further expense (beyond post).
They've got another ten episodes of programming in the can at no further expense (beyond post).
Yeah. If season 2 hadn't already been shot, it probably would never have gotten made. Streaming TV is weird that way; it used to be that a season was shot only months ahead, and the reason 26- or 22-episode seasons had multiple midseason breaks was so that the filming had time to catch up.
I kept track of the top ten shows on paramount plus every week a new episode was released. It goy beaten several times by old shows like Everybody Loves Raymond, King of Queen, SpongeBob etc. It only flirted with the top ten momentarily and disappeared within hours or a day usually. These old shows were staying im the top ten longer at times. Shows like Landman stays in the top ten for weeks. Since SFA ended its season it hasn't appeared in the top ten once. So it's not a huge viewrshop or ratings winner. I agree it probably did better than 40k an episode but most likely much much less than one million. If paramount ever shows the figure or we get Nielsen information that will tell the tale. But yeah not enough were watching.
As I understand it this is pretty common; a huge chunk of what people actually want to watch is the kind of classic TV that streaming executives sneer at as lowbrow and outdated, and streaming originals generally lose to them, barring breakout hits. I did hear that SFA even got beaten by TOS at various times.
Which brings me back to the evergreen question of why the hell they don't produce Star Trek in the old network style that broadly worked for it for 60 years, but I'm sure there's reasons.
To be honest, SFA scraping the top ten at all actually sounds encouraging - if the direst predictions were true, it simply wouldn't have made it on there at any point.
I would be curious to see the demographics of those watching.
I don't think executives sneer so much as they're constantly trying to find the next big thing to get an audience. We sit there and laugh comfortably to ourselves about various numbers, while they're trying to stay ahead of competition while also keeping stockholders happy and grow an audience base.
I think fans sneer more at executives.
Part of the original model of promoting "prestige" TV was by sneering at everything else - remember "it's not TV, it's HBO"?
The punchline twenty five years in the making being that they're now advertising Friends as one of the big reasons to subscribe to HBO Max.
I get experimentation but the part I don't get is the seeming refusal to even consider, as one of those experiments, considering making some of these franchises in the way they were made during their most successful eras, and which the most popular TV today is made.
The same thing's happened in videogames (certain genres dismissed as "dated" and franchises "updated" into more "respectable" genres) and it just feels bizarre, and then things like Baldur's Gate 3 come along and end up humiliating 25 years of exec/publisher wisdom about what audiences supposedly want.
The punchline twenty five years in the making being that they're now advertising Friends as one of the big reasons to subscribe to HBO Max.
The problem is that, from what we can tell (and what the top ten charts show), their efforts at this get routinely smoked by stuff like NCIS, sometimes by several orders of magnitude. The worst is obviously when 60-year-old Star Trek manages to beat brand new streaming Trek in the rankings, which shouldn't really be happening.
I get experimentation but the part I don't get is the seeming refusal to even consider, as one of those experiments, considering making some of these franchises in the way they were made during their most successful eras, and which the most popular TV today is made.
The same thing's happened in videogames (certain genres dismissed as "dated" and franchises "updated" into more "respectable" genres) and it just feels bizarre, and then things like Baldur's Gate 3 come along and end up humiliating 25 years of exec/publisher wisdom about what audiences supposedly want.
I do not.
Because the same people are not running it. Who is there to teach them how it was run 30 years ago?
There's still people within organisations like CBS making very successful network TV; the decision to not hand properties like Star Trek to those departments but instead insist on transforming them into prestige/"event" TV on streaming platforms seems to have been an ideological one, which is what's so puzzling.
I think it flirted with the top ten because of the influx of viewers that watched it right when it was posted. But it was so brief that it sank quickly. Shows that stay in the top ten even older shows like Raymond have a consistent audience that will watch it even when they've already seen it. I dont expect that SFAs first season will ever hit the top ten again. That tos still gets in there is heartening. It truly is still an excellent show. Episode cost ranged from 160 to 250k. With inflation thats about 1.6 to 2.5 million today. TOS was expensive for its time but still much less than shows like SFA. TOS had to rely on excellent writing to draw in viewers. They ised minimalistic clean sets to save money. SFA at 10 million spent more on sets abd the writing was subpar compared to TOS in my opinion. Producers today want to impress with giant sets when all I want is great stories. Pretty much why I am not impressed with SNWs sets. I would have been just as happy with minimalistic sets and really good storytelling.
Because they're watching other networks do it. It's the ultimate "keep up with the Joneses" attitude within the industry. These are people who are looking at it from a business and stockholder perspective and wanting their own stamp to have a distinction. And then they get feedback from people inside their world, not as a consumer.
It's competition with others in their industry.
For what it's worth, here's a smoothed out chart of the number of IMDB USER RATINGS for the first 30 episodes of the recent Trek series (with Doctor Who thrown in as a reference). So that's the end of season 3 for SNW.
Ratings have kept coming in long after each episode's release, so older series should have an advantage, but I don't know how IMDb's user count has changed over time. Plus it only counts people who've been inspired to rate episodes, so probably not a lot of Prodigy kids giving episodes a score.
Anyway, it's information, make use of it how you like.
Some of the greatest sci-fi writers in history wrote for TOS (Harlan Ellison, Richard Matheson, Theodore Sturgeon, Robert Bloch).
They had a writer's Dream Team back then.
Today's audiences aren't in any mood to be lectured to on a weekly basis. They WANT the razzle dazzle and the bling.
Real Life sux enough as is. Who wants to pay to wallow in it?
Especially by characters who look down on past people.
They did have excellent writers back in tos. Some really great writing..
Thats the problem. We get lectured more on these new shows than the original series. Obvious lecturing. So much social justice messaging and obvious links to our world that it gets annoying and boring. When I watch episodes like The cage, where no man has gone before, the doomsday machine its all pure solid storytelling with loads if adventure, great drama, suspense and character interaction. Really not any or much social justice or political signaling that smacks a person in the face constantly. Just fun. They did it all on a smaller budget 60 years ago. That a 60 year old show can be more entertaining than shows in the same fictional world 60 years later is telling at just how talented TOS people really were in that show. They also had to make 25 plus shows a season. Not a measly 10. An amazing achievement.
It's for that reason that I don't like TNG.
The action would grind to a halt for one of Picard's speeches (Star Trek: Picard really raked him over the coals about it.)
They actually did 35 episodes per season back in the sixties.
The Honeymooners only lasted one season (It has 35 episodes. Today, it would be considered a flop.)
Similar threads
