You know what? Let's do it again. Predict the number of seasons Strange New Worlds will run.

[Pauln6]

If they want to re-do some of TOS then they should do a version of the second 5-year mission (per Phase II). That would basically have been the TOS crew, including Dr Chapel and Transporter Chief Rand plus Decker, Ilia, and Xon. Even if they decided not to bring back Decker and Ilia like in the original concept (basically Riker & Troi) they have dipped their toe in the water to expand some of the other alien species like Saurians, Andorians, and Tellarites. They could probably have a few semi-regular characters like Sam in SNW to round out the cast. I would actually like them develop Deltans more so let's include Ilia's twin cousin, Ilooa.

 

[Jedman67]

If SNW continues to be wildly successful, they"ll try to find a way to keep it going even as a spinoff show with a new cast.

 

[Jonesy]

I was originally going to say five, but given the critical reception of the show, I'm going with six.

 

[ichab]

A space station format, ensemble cast from diverse backgrounds, dealing with geo-politics in easy to digest weekly episodes

Not too long ago I would have loved to have seen a return to DS9 to see how all the characters were getting along post dominion war. But with the deaths of Aaron Eisenburg and Rene Auberjonois that's doubtful. Plus I don't think Avery Brooks would do it as he's been incognito for years. I'm still not happy that we didn't get a dominion war movie back when the show was current. It would have been a hell of a lot more interesting that Insurection.

Whatever post Picard show they choose to do, I would still love to see a return of Kira, Bashir, Garak, Ezri or Quark before those actors pass.

 

[Lucky]

I think five is a good number. I hope it lasts at least that long, as I consider it the best Star Trek show we are getting.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

If SNW continues to be wildly successful

I mean, I like it, but is it 'wildly successful'?

Such a term to me means it has entered the public consciousness in a way that no Star Trek show since (maybe) VOY really has.

I think it's a good show, but it isn't setting the world on fire outside of fan circles.

I would have thought 5 originally (and I believe I voted for that). Now I'm worried it might just be 2 or 3.

Same.

 

[Jedman67]

I mean, I like it, but is it 'wildly successful'?

Such a term to me means it has entered the public consciousness in a way that no Star Trek show since (maybe) VOY really has.

I think it's a good show, but it isn't setting the world on fire outside of fan circles.

It has critical reviews in the mainstream. Star Trek has always had a mainstream audience outside the scifi geeks and the fandom. It doesn't need to set the world on fire to be a critical success, and even with DSC's missteps, SNW managed to be made AND approved for 3 seasons and counting, following DSC's 5. Odds are good that they will want to capture the magic and make a new show with similar production values, story quality and actors chemistry.
At some point you'd have to ditch the Enterprise, but that's alright. Keep one or two SNW cast on and move on to the next bit.

 

[AntonyF]

Think. If it gets five seasons, of ten episodes a piece, that would be the equivalent of getting to getting to about Evolution when Michael Piller came on board TNG. When TNG was just getting started! Future's End for Voyager.

I wouldn't want to go back to those very long seasons for any TV show, both the commitment and amount of filler.

But it still makes even a five year show feel rather fleeting in comparison. Chasing the 100 episodes for syndication seems a lifetime ago.

 

[Jedman67]

Think. If it gets five seasons, of ten episodes a piece, that would be the equivalent of getting to getting to about Evolution when Michael Piller came on board TNG. When TNG was just getting started! Future's End for Voyager.

I wouldn't want to go back to those very long seasons for any TV show, both the commitment and amount of filler.

But it still makes even a five year show feel rather fleeting in comparison. Chasing the 100 episodes for syndication seems a lifetime ago.

I believe modern TV shows can easily do 12-13 episodes rather than 10. Syndication is good for writers and networks. At ~$8mil per episode, they can amortize the same budget over more episodes.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

It has critical reviews in the mainstream. Star Trek has always had a mainstream audience outside the scifi geeks and the fandom. It doesn't need to set the world on fire to be a critical success, and even with DSC's missteps, SNW managed to be made AND approved for 3 seasons and counting, following DSC's 5. Odds are good that they will want to capture the magic and make a new show with similar production values, story quality and actors chemistry.
At some point you'd have to ditch the Enterprise, but that's alright. Keep one or two SNW cast on and move on to the next bit.

For sure, it's a critical success. Don't get me wrong, I like the show a lot. But to me, 'wildly successful' means something like the level that Stranger Things or Game of Thrones reached... What I suppose you could call 'Water-Cooler Worthy'.

No doubt it's successful, but I don't think wildly so and sadly its future is far from assured.

 

[JamesRye]

For sure, it's a critical success. Don't get me wrong, I like the show a lot. But to me, 'wildly successful' means something like the level that Stranger Things or Game of Thrones reached... What I suppose you could call 'Water-Cooler Worthy'.

No doubt it's successful, but I don't think wildly so and sadly its future is far from assured.

Yeah, I know its only anecdotal, but no one in my office knows anything about any of the new Trek shows. Star Trek Picard: Season 3, they knew a tiny bit about - but not where to actually watch it. Sadly, Trek on TV hasn't been mainstream since the 90's.

 

[Dar70]

Yeah, I know its only anecdotal, but no one in my office knows anything about any of the new Trek shows. Star Trek Picard: Season 3, they knew a tiny bit about - but not where to actually watch it. Sadly, Trek on TV hasn't been mainstream since the 90's.

Agreed. mainstream it's pretty much dead , for over 20 years now. Steaming is probably the best it will ever see from this point forward ....not that it's a bad thing. At least we are still getting some good episodes.

 

[Noname Given]

Yeah, I know its only anecdotal, but no one in my office knows anything about any of the new Trek shows. Star Trek Picard: Season 3, they knew a tiny bit about - but not where to actually watch it. Sadly, Trek on TV hasn't been mainstream since the 90's. TNG.

FTFY

ST:TNG was the only Star Trek series after TOS to really imprint itself onto popular culture in a similar fashion.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

FTFY

ST:TNG was the only Star Trek series after TOS to really imprint itself onto popular culture in a similar fashion.

I'd say there's a case to be made for Voyager.

 

[Cyrus]

5. It will complete its 5 year mission.

 

[Noname Given]

I'd say there's a case to be made for Voyager.

Not based on the ratings it got. After TNG every Star Trek series declined in viewership after their pilot. Don't confuse "...somewhat popular Within Star Trek fandom..." with "... well known within General popular culture..."

If if you ask: "Name a captain from Star Trek?" To your average person on the street, 99% of the time you'll get one of two answers:

"Kirk" or "Picard".

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Not based on the ratings it got. After TNG every Star Trek series declined in viewership after their pilot. Don't confuse "...somewhat popular Within Star Trek fandom..." with "... well known within General popular culture..."

If if you ask: "Name a captain from Star Trek?" To your average person on the street, 99% of the time you'll get one of two answers:

"Kirk" or "Picard".

There’s indicators other than viewers though. In terms of entering pop culture for example, Voyager is the most recent Star Trek show to have been referenced on The Simpsons. Plus, I recall a few years back it was the most watched of the Trek’s by far on Netflix.

I agree on the Kirk/Picard part though.

 

[ichab]

Not based on the ratings it got. After TNG every Star Trek series declined in viewership after their pilot. Don't confuse "...somewhat popular Within Star Trek fandom..." with "... well known within General popular culture..."

To be fair, the T.V landscape was far different when Voyager went off the air to back when TNG first started. TNG didn't have any real competition when it came out as there was little sci-fi on television. Had it been forced to go up against the X-files or Babylon5, I'm sure the ratings would have taken a hit.

Although DS9's ratings remained solid, it was never as successful as the syndicated Star Trek: The Next Generation, with approximately 6% versus 11% of US households watching during sweeps months. However, it continued to perform better than its franchise sibling Star Trek: Voyager, which averaged around 5% according to the Nielsen ratings. One factor was the increasingly crowded syndicated marketplace, which provided viewers with a number of alternative television series to follow. Another factor was the minimal promotion for DS9, as Paramount focused its efforts on its flagship network series Star Trek: Voyager. From 1995 onwards, most of the independent stations joined new networks (UPN and The WB), and these primetime shows gradually pushed syndicated programming into less favorable time slots as the US television market expanded from four networks (in 1987 when TNG premiered) to six.

 

[Wingcommanderdarkwolf01]

5 seasons is a good run.

 

[donners22]

Plus, I recall a few years back it was the most watched of the Trek’s by far on Netflix.

As I recall that was a list of the most re-watched episodes, which is not quite the same thing as being the most watched show. It may be that people are inclined to do more comprehensive re-watches of the other series, for instance because of the greater serialisation of DS9 or more consistent quality, whereas they would tend to just pick out a few favourites from Voyager.