Will Discovery have 7 seasons or more?

[The Wormhole]

I always thought the 7 season thing had something to do about Pay scales, royalties and benefits with the Actors Union?

It's been so long I can't even remember where I read that.

Not at all. In the old days, the goal was getting 100 episodes or near enough in order to get a syndication package, which indeed is mostly why Enterprise got a fourth season. Even then, though 100 is preferred it's not really required, as proven with TOS. Moot point, these days I don't think a syndication package is much of a priority these days with streaming and home video of a show being made available within six months of broadcast. Even less of a priority for this show, which is being released directly to a streaming service.

 

[ISS Enterprise]

I think the question should be will it have ONE.... LOL

Not a great start - delays now Fuller out, etc. I'm sure it will get out, but not good Jim.......

 

[Kemaiku]

There used to be something about having at least 100 episodes because of how the series could be syndicated or something. And shows tended to aim for a number of episodes per season that meant getting to around 7.

That's not much of a thing anymore, and Discovery is on a different model of production/airing with CBS-AA. That and a lot of streaming shows going for 13 means we'll see multiples of that, 52 would be 4 seasons, sounds about right for a longish run these days.

 

[Philip Guyott]

One season followed by two 15 minute length fan films to tie up the unresolved story arcs!

 

[ChristopherPike]

Not a chance in hell. In a few years, we'll all be apart of a support group wondering what might've been, had it got another season.

 

[Ridcully]

...Heh let's see one before anything else....
Not firing on all cylinders this enterprise!

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Hopefully it will last more than 26 episodes.

 

[m.lp.ql.m]

"...I give it ONE ep... ... lol!1...
...Fuller out...delays...no cast...other stuff...other stuff...5 bad things right there...
Sad!"

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I hope it has as many seasons as it needs to tell its story, and not a single season more. With the exception of South Park, I'm wary of tv shows that extend beyond 7 seasons. I don't need 10 seasons of anything. Except South Park.

 

[The River Temoc]

The trend for modern serialized TV shows seems to be 5-6 seasons (BREAKING BAD, THE AMERICANS, THE SOPRANOS, etc.) DSC clearly wants to emulate these, what with the 15-episode per season format. That's what I'd bet on, assuming the series is commercially successful in its early seasons.

 

[Starscream2112]

Depends on writing and competition that is out there. It might be in direct competition with Lost in Space which will be on Netflix.

 

[Mudd]

The fact that other shows exist on other services doesn't mean that one constitutes more "direct competition" than another. I mean, hell, the new Star Trek will be in "direct competition" with Transparent, too.

 

[erastus25]

I think the question should be will it have ONE.... LOL

Not a great start - delays now Fuller out, etc. I'm sure it will get out, but not good Jim.......

Honestly, I'm skeptical they've even completed the casting as they've claimed. Feels like they're just throwing us a bone to avoid having to admit more delays.

 

[tomalak301]

I just want some good publicity. The casting of Yeoh was good but it doesn't compensate for the negative perception so far.

 

[Greg Cox]

Regarding the "negative perceptions," we should perhaps remember that a good chunk of that comes from the modern expectation for total transparency regarding behind-the-scenes stuff and the tendency of today's entertainment media to track every project from conception to finalization, which can give the impression that any given project is "troubled" at various stages in its development.

Making movies and TV shows is a messy process. Cast changes, personnel changes, script changes, reshoots . . . those aren't necessarily signs of trouble, but simply evidence of a work-in-progress.

Heck, look at Trek's own history:

1965: "Ohmigod, this STAR TREK project sounds like a mess. NBC rejected the first pilot altogether. Jeff Hunter has bailed on the project, probably for the sake of his career. They fired pretty much the entire original cast, including Roddenberry's girlfriend, and just kept the guy with the ears. Now they're starting all over again with a whole new script and star. Sounds like a train wreck to me."

1978: "What the heck is going on with this new Star Trek movie? First it's supposed to be a feature film, then it's the premiere of a new TV series, and now it's a feature film again. And they were going to replace Spock with a new Vulcan, but now maybe they're not? And they're rewriting the script daily, even as they're filming it, and rushing to make an impossible deadline that won't even allow for any test screenings. And I hear that the original special-effects team didn't work out and needed to be replaced by a whole new team at the last minute. This is a disaster in the making that's going to mean the end of STAR TREK."

See what I mean?

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Regarding the "negative perceptions," we should perhaps remember that a good chunk of that comes from the modern expectation for total transparency regarding behind-the-scenes stuff and the tendency of today's entertainment media to track every project from conception to finalization, which can give the impression that any given project is "troubled" at various stages in its development.

Making movies and TV shows is a messy process. Cast changes, personnel changes, script changes, reshoots . . . those aren't necessarily signs of trouble, but just evidence of a work-in-progress.

Heck, look at Trek's own history:

1965: "Ohmigod, this STAR TREK project sounds like a mess. NBC rejected the first pilot altogether. Jeff Hunter has bailed on the project, probably for the sake of his career. They fired pretty much the entire original cast, including Roddenberry's girlfriend, and just kept the guy with the ears. Now they're starting all over again with a whole new script and star. Sounds like a train wreck to me."

1978: "What the heck is going on with this new Star Trek movie? First it's supposed to be a feature film, then it's the premiere of a new TV series, and now it's a feature film again. And they were going to replace Spock with a new Vulcan, but now maybe they're not? And they're rewriting the script daily, even as they're filming it, and rushing to make an impossible deadline that won't even allow for any test screenings. And I hear that the original special-effects team didn't work out and needed to be replaced by a whole new team at the last minute. This is a disaster in the making that's going to mean the end of STAR TREK."

See what I mean?

THIS. Allll of this right here.

Anyone who thinks DSC is "in trouble" or getting off on the wrong foot needs to watch Chaos on the Bridge. That was a mess, and TNG ended up with 7 seasons and is pretty much universally beloved.

Everything is fine. Everyone needs to just relax, be patient, and wait for the show to actually, y'know, come out. Art is never a straight line from "best idea" to "perfect execution."

 

[Greg Cox]

The Wrath of Khan got off to a rocky start, too, or that could have been perceived to be the case. Creative control was taken away from Roddenberry. They put a TV guy in charge instead, and gave him a much smaller budget. The story went through lots of permutations before Nicholas Meyer finally cobbled together a script--which Shatner originally rejected because he thought it made Kirk look bad. Nimoy had to be coaxed back with the promise of a juicy death scene. Etc.

Now imagine this was all playing out in the Age of Internet: with a plethora of fannish websites breathlessly reporting on every new rumor and item of gossip. ("Report: Shatner Hates Script for Sequel! Severe Budget Cuts Suggest Lack of Faith on Studio's Part!") There would be endless speculation that the movie was in serious trouble.

Whereas, in fact, we might just be talking about the usual birthing pains any creative project goes through. Especially one with lots of moving parts and collaborators.

 

[Ithekro]

I would think one or two seasons then switch to a new ship and crew...even time period. To keep things fresh I suppose.

 

[Blooded]

Netflix will be the driving force behind this, not CBS, so as long as Netflix want to pay top dollar for it, it will stay on air. Looking at their own history, that would suggest a three to five season run. That said, they just commissioned Orange Is The New Black up to its seventh season, I believe? A full five season run would be nothing to complain about, nor would a three season run assuming it ended organically.

People always go on about Trek shows hitting seven years, and that's even been used to criticise ENT in the past for not making it that far, yet I don't think I see ANYONE praising those seventh seasons. DS9 perhaps the exception, to a certain degree.

So why push for it to hit this "traditional" seven seasons, if history tells us that it is no guarantee of quality? Hell, for all the abuse it takes for its first two years, it could be argued that ENT had the strongest final season of all the modern Trek shows, yet it had three less seasons than all of those.

Out of curiosity, what is the deal with tv Trek heading to movies now? Do Paramount have exclusive rights to produce Trek movies? As in, if Netflix came to CBS and said we want a Netflix movie with the Discovery cast (or any other cast I guess), are CBS even allowed to entertain that idea even though Discovery is their own property, or would they have to go through Paramount for it?

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Netflix will be the driving force behind this, not CBS, so as long as Netflix want to pay top dollar for it, it will stay on air. Looking at their own history, that would suggest a three to five season run. That said, they just commissioned Orange Is The New Black up to its seventh season, I believe? A full five season run would be nothing to complain about, nor would a three season run assuming it ended organically.

People always go on about Trek shows hitting seven years, and that's even been used to criticise ENT in the past for not making it that far, yet I don't think I see ANYONE praising those seventh seasons. DS9 perhaps the exception, to a certain degree.

So why push for it to hit this "traditional" seven seasons, if history tells us that it is no guarantee of quality? Hell, for all the abuse it takes for its first two years, it could be argued that ENT had the strongest final season of all the modern Trek shows, yet it had three less seasons than all of those.

Out of curiosity, what is the deal with tv Trek heading to movies now? Do Paramount have exclusive rights to produce Trek movies? As in, if Netflix came to CBS and said we want a Netflix movie with the Discovery cast (or any other cast I guess), are CBS even allowed to entertain that idea even though Discovery is their own property, or would they have to go through Paramount for it?

My understanding is that if Netflix wanted to make a DSC movie, they'd have to go through Paramount.