If they wait too long, the talent scatters, which effectively cancels the show before it starts.Sometimes it does. Studios have limited resources.
If they wait too long, the talent scatters, which effectively cancels the show before it starts.Sometimes it does. Studios have limited resources.
Yup.If they wait too long, the talent scatters, which effectively cancels the show before it starts.
Indeed, yup. C'est la vie.Yup.
OK?Indeed, yup. C'est la vie.
And life moves along and people are able to do other projects and that's ok too.
Like every Star Wars movie since 2019?I don't think it works like that. Once they have it dialed in, then they'll announce. I hate it when projects get announced and then canned.
Plans change, and studios are finding there just isn't the money in streaming that they thought there was. Studios looked at Netflix, said "I want a piece of that," and invested a ton in snake oil for no return. Setting money on fire would have a better return.What's there to dial in? Commit or don't. It really doesn't take this long to decide to produce a series or not.
Plans change, very true, good point. There's money in streaming, but there's a lot of competition, and these streamers tend to overspend. Why not just commit to one series and do 20 episodes a year? I feel like trying to do half a dozen shows at once is what's costing Paramount money.Plans change, and studios are finding there just isn't the money in streaming that they thought there was. Studios looked at Netflix, said "I want a piece of that," and invested a ton in snake oil for no return. Setting money on fire would have a better return.
Personally, I've felt that the streaming model is a poor fit for Star Trek, but the television models don't really make sense anymore.
Correct. There is a huge challenge to trying to find the money, and take Netflix's piece of the pie. The result is a largely diluted streaming market that results in fewer views, less money, but also that the broadcast model has shifted.Plans change, and studios are finding there just isn't the money in streaming that they thought there was. Studios looked at Netflix, said "I want a piece of that," and invested a ton in snake oil for no return. Setting money on fire would have a better return.
Personally, I've felt that the streaming model is a poor fit for Star Trek, but the television models don't really make sense anymore.
It's because they want it to look like the movies but in the TV format. They spend far too much money.I don't see the old broadcast model returning. One, it's costing a lot more for episodes the be produced, and adding on more episodes means more money.
They can't pay the bills with 10-episode seasons.Two, a lot of actors are moving from project to project, rather than keeping to one show.
True.The other side that I truly think is the huge fear of missing out, so studios keep pumping in money hunting for the goose that lays the golden eggs.
How do we know? The costs keep going up.They can't pay the bills with 10-episode seasons.
The cast of The Orville said as much with longer seasons, so the same's gotta be even more true with shorter seasons.How do we know? The costs keep going up.
I mean, I don't know. I don't live that life.The cast of The Orville said as much with longer seasons, so the same's gotta be even more true with shorter seasons.
I didn't say they will, I'm just noting that working on multiple productions as an actor is necessary when the season is only 10 episodes. It's not fulltime like a 20+ episode season is.I mean, I don't know. I don't live that life.
I just don't see longer seasons coming back, at least as harsh and as grueling as the 90s were.
Depends on the actor's contract.I didn't say they will, I'm just noting that working on multiple productions as an actor is necessary when the season is only 10 episodes. It's not fulltime like a 20+ episode season is.
From what I've gathered that's what actors want to in order to have variety of roles to play, rather than stuck in one. I don't think that's a bad thing.I didn't say they will, I'm just noting that working on multiple productions as an actor is necessary when the season is only 10 episodes. It's not fulltime like a 20+ episode season is.
Do you have any sources?From what I've gathered that's what actors want to in order to have variety of roles to play, rather than stuck in one. I don't think that's a bad thing.
Not just actors. Writers, production assistants, crew. The people who would make television ten years from now are less able to afford the work today to make a career of it.They can't pay the bills with 10-episode seasons.
Does Shaw really need to be resurrected, though? The show ended.![]()
Matalas has said that if Legacy did happen, Shaw would be resurrected.The actor has been doing a hard sell for Legacy on the convention circuit since Picard went off the air as though he would be a part of it. I don't know.
Can we please keep Matalas away from Star Trek?Matalas has said that if Legacy did happen, Shaw would be resurrected.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.