Would Trek be bigger now if

[fireproof78]

Streaming makes more money than broadcast. There's no middle-men, no split broadcast or advertising costs. 100% of your subscription goes to Paramount. Thus, we can have 5 Trek shows, with less eyes on them, making more money for Paramout than one Trek show on CBS would have.

Even Marvel and Star Wars are doing the niche series thing on Disney+.

This. The biggest aspect, and the hardest reality to recognize, is that the market has changed. Treating Discovery like just another Trek show to air was not moving it towards the strength of using streaming, which the market was going towards.

First of all, 26 episodes is not going to happen in modern times. Even in the 90s the Star Treks were the only shows doing seasons that long. And that was mostly at Berman's insistence anyway. Even then, there's no guarantees that it would even be 20 episodes long. To use your example of The Orville, the two seasons it aired on Fox were each only 13 episodes long, and the first season anyway was part of the fall schedule. Though what I find far more likely would be the case if Disco were on CBS is they would likely treat it like an Event season with only 10 episodes or less, like the modern seasons of The X-Files, or CSI Vegas.

Indeed. The time of 26 episodes is over and it is about time.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

This. The biggest aspect, and the hardest reality to recognize, is that the market has changed. Treating Discovery like just another Trek show to air was not moving it towards the strength of using streaming, which the market was going towards.

When I think 'big' I think, "Is this popular enough to do well as a movie?". TOS reached that level, so did TNG, but I don't think any other Star trek show is that big.

I see the present state of Star Trek as similar to what DC are doing with all their stuff right now. There's a lot of it, but little sense that it all fits together or how. I guess that's the genius of the MCU/Star Wars as far as being big goes. With both there is a sense of watching something that's part of a collective whole.

Star Trek is similar to Doctor Who as well in the way that it's been around for ages but it's never managed to become more than a cult thing outside of its home territory.

I think it could definitely stand to be bigger.

 

[fireproof78]

When I think 'big' I think, "Is this popular enough to do well as a movie?". TOS reached that level, so did TNG, but I don't think any other Star trek show is that big.

I don't think so either and I don't think Trek will do so right now. The trend is far more towards niche, and niche doesn't always mean films (though Dune is definitely helping me feel better about that).

I think it could definitely stand to be bigger.

I think it could too; I just don't see the way forward as the franchise and the market are going right now. It would take a little bit more risk than I think CBS is willing to do. Right now, I think they are more interested in the multiple shows rather than one big thing.

I guess that's the genius of the MCU/Star Wars as far as being big goes. With both there is a sense of watching something that's part of a collective whole.

The other side of that genius is that the stories are pretty well easy to understand. Like, I don't watch all of the MCU yet could follow Infinity War/Endgame or Spider-Man No Way Home without much difficulty. The biggest burden Star Trek has is this perception, real or imagined, that it is a gigantic history that people have to know, rather than feeling like they can just take a small piece and enjoy that as part of the collective whole.

 

[The Wormhole]

Star Trek is never going to be MCU or Star Wars levels of BIG. And that's okay, Trek fans should learn to accept that and like the shows on its own merits. I will say, Trek did squander its chance to be bigger than it currently is. In 2009, Star Trek was huge. Trek XI was a major blockbuster that brought in some serious money, and if Paramount had struck while the iron was hot, they let things run idle. Though a sequel was greenlit a month before the XI's release, they ended up waiting four years to release it. And in that, there was nothing done to capitalize on the movie's success and popularity. The planned tie-in novels that were announced and due to be released were pulled without explanation the day after they went up for preorder and there was no tie-in comic series until two and a half years after the movie's release, and that largely just consisted of adaptations of TOS episodes but with everyone drawn in the likeness of the new actors. The momentum Trek XI built up went nowhere, and when STID was released, Trek XI was just a faint memory for the general public, as reflected by the fact it and later Beyond didn't do as comparatively well at the box office. If more had been done to build off Trek XI's popularity and momentum right away, we could have been looking at a Trek renaissance the past decade. Instead, after a brief surge in popularity, the franchise wallowed back to status quo.

Mind you, even if the potential after Trek XI's release were realized, I still don't think we'd be seeing Trek shows on the American networks. The networks just aren't a suitable place for genre shows these days. Star Wars certainly doesn't put its shows on the networks, while the only MCU show to air on a network channel is nowadays treated like the franchise's redheaded stepchild that simply will not be acknowledged by the rest of the franchise At All. And really, I think the only genre show which does air on a mainstream network in any country is Doctor Who, and even that is seeing waning popularity in recent years, and is now in talks for some sort of deal with Disney+.

 

[Lord Garth]

My favorite show for a long time was Mad Men, now it's Better Call Saul. I'm not going to smash Star Trek over the head for not being like those. If I give DSC and PIC an 8 out of 10, I give BCS a 10 out of 10, just for comparison's sake.

I was a pre-teen when I became a Star Trek fan, now I'm in my 40s. My tastes haven't completely changed, but they did shift. While I like all three, DSC and PIC are closer to what I like nowadays than SNW. I'll never be 11 again. That can't be recaptured and I'm not asking for it to be.

I think too many people just can't face that their tastes have shifted too. So SNW reminds them of their younger days, but eventually it wears off. You can't stay there forever.

 

[WarpTenLizard]

There are 5 currently running shows, with more TV and movies on the way.

How much bigger could Star Trek get?

A theme park, maybe?

 

[Ragitsu]

The less your product panders to the LCD, the better.

 

[Oddish]

A theme park, maybe?

They had one for awhile. It was called "Star Trek: The Experience".

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Even in the 90s the Star Treks were the only shows doing seasons that long.

26 is a lot, but in the nineties SG-1 was doing 22 a season, The X-Files averages around 24. Babylon 5 did 5 22 episode seasons and Quantum Leap finished on a 22 episode season. Seaquest DSV averaged around 22 a season before being cruelly axed... Friends did 22 episode seasons until it's death in the 00s as did Frasier. ER started in the 90s with 25 episodes and hung around that number until it's end.

I agree with the sentiment that 26,25,24... it's too many. But Star Trek wasn't the only show in the nineties doing 20+ episode seasons and the nineties isn't even where the practice ended. CSI was doing long seasons beyond the 00s, then there's CW shows like Arrow, The Flash, Batgirl and Supergirl and which are doing 20+ episode seasons as far along as 2021.

I'm sure there are more.

Please don't hate me, I hate to nitpick, but Star Trek being the only show in the nineties doing long seasons just isn't true at all, nor did the trend to do so disappear.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If Star Trek 2009 is Man of Steel, then Strange New Worlds is Superman and Lois.

 

[Takeru]

There are 5 currently running shows, with more TV and movies on the way.

How much bigger could Star Trek get?

10 running shows.

 

[The Wormhole]

26 is a lot, but in the nineties SG-1 was doing 22 a season, The X-Files averages around 24. Babylon 5 did 5 22 episode seasons and Quantum Leap finished on a 22 episode season. Seaquest DSV averaged around 22 a season before being cruelly axed... Friends did 22 episode seasons until it's death in the 00s as did Frasier. ER started in the 90s with 25 episodes and hung around that number until it's end.

I agree with the sentiment that 26,25,24... it's too many. But Star Trek wasn't the only show in the nineties doing 20+ episode seasons and the nineties isn't even where the practice ended. CSI was doing long seasons beyond the 00s, then there's CW shows like Arrow, The Flash, Batgirl and Supergirl and which are doing 20+ episode seasons as far along as 2021.

I'm sure there are more.

Please don't hate me, I hate to nitpick, but Star Trek being the only show in the nineties doing long seasons just isn't true at all, nor did the trend to do so disappear.

I didn't say Star Trek was the only show in the 90s doing 20+, but rather that the Treks were the only shows actually doing 26. As you pointed out in your posts, most shows averaged 22-24 episodes a season.

Yeah, it may seem like splitting hairs, particularly comparing the Treks to shows that did 24 episodes, as there's only really a difference of two episodes, but the point stands all the same.

 

[Ethros]

X-Files season 2 was 25. Close

 

[JesterFace]

Seasons of 24 usually had 24 episodes each, for some reason.

 

[fireproof78]

Seasons of 24 usually had 24 episodes each, for some reason.

That's how many beers you are to drink while watching the season.

 

[JesterFace]

That's how many beers you are to drink while watching the season.

I thought it was wine, my bad.