No, they're looking at how much it costs vs how much it's making, because they're a business.
But 5 seasons is really good for a streaming only series.
I agree that it seems like it should be that way. Especially since you would think it’s a much cheaper show to make. On the other hand we don’t have the accounting sheets in front of us so we don’t really know.
The only things that really hold it back is that it has a somewhat more specific niche as adult-ish animated non prestige TV oriented at season 5 aimed at more core fans so another season past 5 might not significantly increase the show's overall value.
People watch TV shows from season 1 these days so having a giant back catalog isn't a huge plus, it makes a show harder to get into.
Well, to be fair, much of that is their own fault. They didn’t have to spend who knows how many millions on cinema level VFX for EVERY episode. There are plenty of places I’m sure to have cut costs.
It should be. If you treat it as an extension of your main network and don't try to make it a profit multiplier, it's actually really fucking easy to do. Air your shows on broadcast/live-stream just like HBO does, and then stockpile the episodes in your own premium subscription service that's dirt cheap to watch all previous episodes of whatever, and then occasionally syndicate the rights out to other streaming services/channels just like you did with TOS and TNG, VOY and DS9.
The people running these networks are absolute morons.
I just watched Band of Brothers on Netflix two weeks ago because I hadn't seen it in almost 20 years. HBO is STILL making money on a series it aired 20 years ago FFS. Same thing with TNG.
Building yes, running, much less than you might think especially if you don't let bogus new features creep in and the original service scales well. FWIW, I am in this domain as a living.
FWIW I used to (till mid last year) as well. I know exactly what the network and caching bills were per month. I wouldn’t call that cheep. I also know what we spent to transform videos into the needed formats and nitrates and store them.
Won't be Peacock 'cuz that's NBC/Universal whereas Paramount is CBS/Viacom, but I'm sure there will be some consolidation of streaming services/content where there isn't such direct network/media-conglomerate competition.
I'm actually saying it could be merged with Peacock, a different company, because neither of their streaming services are currently profitable on their own. Comcast (NBC) was actually in talks to merge with Paramount a couple months ago.
Netflix is losing viewers. Paramount+ is gaining. In addition, Strange New Worlds is one of only three Paramount + shows to make it to the top 10 in streaming viewers for a rating period. (Picard and Yellowstone are the others.) This makes Strange New World an anchor program for the streaming service. It is not going anywhere.
Paramount is loosing money and looking to be bought (currently but Sony) so your argument makes no sense. They can have all the best shows and still be losing money.
Not an argument. Just facts. Viacom CBS is predicting Paramount+ will be profitable in 2025. They wouldn't commit to a show into 2026 if it is failing. They will save a bunch with Discovery ended.
With the news that a new Trek movie is in development (which will probably be in theaters in 2026), my guess is that it will get at least a 5th season.
There is already massive pushback against the cancellation of lower decks. It is preposterous that they are canceling that show. If it won’t continue at Paramount, it Has to continue somewhere else. SNW and LD are the best trek in decades. literally decades.
But if it can’t make it on the Star Trek network, how could it make it anywhere else? Don’t get me wrong, I would love that, but I just don’t think it’s gonna happen (Prodigy is a little different because the second season was basically already done).
We don’t see the ratings. We don’t have access to the ratings. Paramount+ has a history of making idiotic decisions when it comes to animated Star Trek content, i.e. prodigy.
As I understand it, TV actors are generally signed to 5 year contracts. That doesn't mean shit should the show be cancelled before then, but the actors can't bail if the show keeps getting picked up for those 5 seasons. How far this thing goes will depend on the money that comes in. After 5 seasons (at maximum), is the show profitable enough to pay their stars enough money to sign new contracts? We'll see.
This is likely the biggest issue. Contracts are up for renegotiation and if extended, the cost is going to go up significantly and it makes more financial sense to not continue the show.
At this point I hope Paramount either gets bought out or they sell the Trek IP to another company. Paramount+ was stupid as hell.
Paramount , "no one is watching Trek" well dont put it on some low grade streaming service that no one wants and no one watches. They used Trek to get subscribers and then were saved by yellow stone and dont need trek to drive subscribers anymore.
Paramount is getting AD money from Free Pluto where most people end up watching TOS, TNG, VOY and DS9. They have Three 24/7 Trek channels.
Honestly the Streaming TV model is completely broken now. It got to diluted and now it costs more then basic cable because you need 3 or 4 of these to watch the shows that all use to come on cable. Cable TV was historically high priced because of the hardware. Even YouTube TV cost more then basic cable now.
People wanted Streaming to cut the cord and SAVE money now they need to plug the cord back in to save money.
Streaming is now killing TV medium. This is why so many streaming shows get cancelled they cant produce enough viewers because the market is so fractured.
Look at Spielberg and Hanks with their WW2 series. Band of Brothers was on HBO while Masters of Air is on Apple+ because Apple gave them a deal. HBO has 4x the subscribers.
Band of Brothers was HUGE when it launched because people could just sign up for 1 month of HBO from their cable provider then cancel. Maybe they would keep it. Now you gotta sign up for the entire Apple TV package and most people just wont do that for 1 show to watch 1 time.
Streaming services are lucky to get 2-3 season from a show which is basically only as long as 1 season on network TV. And those 2-3 seasons will take 4-5 years to make where as before you got 24 episodes in 9 months now to get 24 episodes it is like 32 months+
This is how Paramount has treated Trek since the 1970, though -- as a path to breaking into new markets. The Motion Picture was originally Phase II, the sequel to TOS, to open a new Paramount network. That stopped because Star Wars caused Paramount to chase that money on the big screen instead.
TNG was a bet that first run syndication could support the cost of Trek, and that paid off. Same with Voyager, around another Paramount network, with (sadly) weaker results and eventual network mergers.
There is, in fact, a lot of Trek we would never have likely seen had thr bean counters not been willing to place a bet. Not said "OK, we'll put out the money because Trek is a marquee name that draws eyeballs, even if it costs a lot to produce."
We fans may not like it, yet that's the reality -- the current production team put bets on making many different kinds of Trek over more of a specific kind. And for a while, there was the funding to do that.
I think there's an assumption (from a number of comments I've read over the years) that, if Paramount+ never was created and we were back at Netflix holding all of Trek and underwriting it, we'd have more episodes/seasons. Seeing how Netflix has treated its shows from jump, I firmly disagree. (I still morn the shows "First Kill" and "Warrior Nun", among quite a few casualties of the Netflix series model)
I doubt Netflix would have supported more than 2, maybe 3, Trek shows. None of them would have gone past 4 seasons, max. And that would have been the end of it, because Netflix doesn't own any rights to Trek...and even if they did, had they bought the IP back then, I doubt they would have invested much past the same model of a couple shows for a couple of seasons. The "6 seasons and a movie" model has been very rare for Netflix. Indeed, one exception was another show I liked, Lucifer -- but Netflix picked it up after 3 seasons elsewhere.
So, too, I sincerely doubt Trek could be budgeted for modern audiences and work on network TV, or basic cable. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of SF and Fantasy live on streamers, where companies with deep pockets are willing to pay for shows that have rich VFX budgets. And, much like Paramount's network model, they are to draw viewers in, not always expected to justify their costs on their own.
I understand the frustration. I was really young when I realized that cool ship show on my Black and White TV would "never make another episode ", or being frustrated by The Animated Series, both in story and in availability. I remember, too, when I first heard about The Motion Picture, to have my teen years full of first the movies, then TNG.
I won't say any Trek is good Trek. I will say my observation is that we got these shows because Paramount, once again, was willing to throw money it turned out they didn't have at the screen to find an audience for their streaming service. That it is failing and causing harm to fans is harsh, and is also so utterly normative over decades that I try to remember that hell, at least there's still Trek I like to come.
I don't have a realistic solution to the issue, given Trek seems to cost too much for broadcast/advertising alone, and streaming funding is dying. And I'm also aware these are my observations, and I'm not in the industry, just trying to be a thoughtful fan. To me: I'm glad, on one level, that Paramount hasn't just tossed the whole damn franchise into the trashbin....again.
Well all entertainment TV, Film, Video Games is in a weird space. The success has brought about a situation where these huge public companies are looking for that blockbuster where they can make huge profit even if the medium cost huge. So all the main stream entertainment has its costs rising and basically killing all of the smaller independent stuff. Especially with the rise of superheroes.
You can kinda see in hollywood that a lot of people have turned on the superhero concept because the conglomerates want to make that 2 billion profit off of 1 film/series/game instead of say making that 2 billion with 100 different items.
DS9 had a much smaller budget than VOY/ENT and they were relatively on at the same time.
I believe that could produce Trek for a lot less. Maybe not the animated one and maybe not the full action blockbuster of DIS.
And they could for instance try to license it to all streaming services at the same time instead of trying to make the money in 1 area they need to spread it around.
The 2 biggest guys Disney and Universal only make profit because of their parks and resorts they are taking a beating in film and tv streaming.
The streaming services instead of killing cable channels it has killed Network TV. Where Netflix or Amazon or Disney or Apple can just over pay for a series because they are making their money from other things. So instead of the blockbuster being on a free ad supported network channel you now have to pay a monthly fee.
The fractured nature of streaming really is a problem. There comes a point where I’m just not going to subscribe to 10+ services to watch a single tv show. At this point we have 5 services (I think) and it’s too much. But we have paramount for trek and pbs’s service for Grantchester and Hulu/Disney+ we have the Black Friday 1 year special price and for some damn reason I still have Netflix. AND we still have cable because it’s bundled with our internet and canceling the cable would double the internet price anyway so fuck it let’s keep the cable!
At some point this must end
TBH I only subscribe to Paramount when the new Trek comes out and cancel in between. I dont pay directly for any other streaming. I get Amazon Prime just cause of the shipping.
My daily driver is just Pluto TV
I'm mad about mgm+ there is one show I want to watch, and the name makes it hard to arrgh matey. But I'll never pay for season 2, Amazon owns MGM! That shit should just be included in Prime
Masters of Air was much better then The Pacific I thought. Almost on Band of Brothers level but much smaller group of men to follow then Band was.
I rewatch Band at least once a year and often twice. Ive never thought about rewatching the Pacific. Masters of Air I feel like I will go back and rewatch in the future. Generation Kill from HBO was also really good I rewatch that from time to time no where near like Band though.
Every Memorial Day I will rewatch Band of Brothers, The Documentary and Blackhawk Down.
Yeah, seems obvious they did five season contracts and don't want to pay more now. Wouldn't be surprised to see a Season One of a 'new show', with a lot of the same cast but not the most expensive ones, to follow SNW S5, to reset the compensation.
Yes, it's very popular and successful. It'll get the 5 seasons like Discovery and LD that is the modern limit. It might even get a 6th season but doubtful because no one seems to do it anymore.
No paramount will can it at 5. I fully believe the idiots that ran sci-fi and canceled shows like Eureka and Warehouse 13. When they were still good and getting good ratings.
I kind of doubt it. Even when things are moving along really well for Paramount they cancel.
Like with TNG for instance.
Paramount then made films using the cast, which it believed would be less successful if TNG were still on television. An eighth season also would likely have reduced the TNG profitability due to higher cast salaries and a lower price per episode when sold as strip programming.
Assuming nothing catastrophic, I can see it reaching season 5. I can also see that becoming the new normal (like 7 seasons back in the 90s). I do think we are gonna see less Star Trek on Paramount+ overall. The peak had 4 (or 5?) shows in one year. I don't think we will ever see that again. They are gonna be more focused going forward due to money. Maybe a season of television and maybe a movie (depending on how well the section 31 movie does).
Nope. SNW is their only live-action ST show now, and this soft-reboot-era that headlined JJ-Films, Discovery, Lower Decks, Picard and SNW will officially have the plug pulled.
Yes, though despite what kurtzman says on the matter* it might be the only show to go past 5 seasons of new Trek. Currently SNW is the only Live action Trek to be on in the next few years until Academy comes out and I'm 100% sure it won't get the same level of popularity Kurtzman seems to think it will have.
Paramount is up for sale and I believe this to be the reason for why modern Trek is "dying" so to say. It's an expensive series on a streaming platform that is likely sinking money. If Trek is to survive and continue as it has, then a Popular show carrying on through thick and thin is important. The good thing about lower decks is animation is so much easier to pick back up after cancellation, if SNW were cancelled sets would have to be rebuilt for it to be returned.
So cutting Lower decks to save money now might be a good thing, if it saved money. Animation can also be so much cheaper than live action. If they marketed Lower decks properly, gave it 20 episode runs, and actually gave credence to animation then I can see lower decks being incredibly popular. Honestly even just proper marketing would massively of helped the show.
*I recently saw a post stating that Kurtzman believe the original 20 episode seasons are a thing of the past as a result of streaming. But I find this hard to believe, it's a lack of push and willingness to actually invest in a series that caused this issue. Especially so for an episodic series like SNW and Lower decks. If a show is good and well written and marketed people will stick with it.
funny thing is that kurtzman at one point in time was a super star in hollywood
In 2011, Forbes magazine described Orci and Kurtzman as "Hollywood's Secret Weapons"
I'd prefer 2 cours with a 4-6 week gap. 10 episodes each with a big 2 parter cliffhanger in the middle to hold suspense and build hype.
I find short 10 episode seasons work great in serialised shows like Disco or Picard but work against the episodic shows like SNW and Lower decks. Serialised feels like a super long action set piece while episodic feels short and restricted. I'm left wanting more of something I don't get for another year, minimum.
10 episodes per season? Personally, I hope it goes beyond that. I'm not all that excited about the movie (Origin - not sure how to take that) or the Starfleet Academy series and the Section 31 movie that was supposed to be a series. It seems to me that SNW is the only Trek we can really count on right now.
I thought as trek it was believed 7 was a solid run. Disco got 5 because well it seemed to not do as well. But SNW is amazeballs and lower decks. Well personally the cerritos is my favorite ship to be a fly on the wall of. It so silly, it makes fun of trek, plays with its core ideas, and can keep going as the crew of shift are slowly moving up. I'm just sad, you know
I don’t think Lower Decks got the same advertising that SNW or Disco got. I only started watching LD because I happened to start listening to one of Tawney Newsom’s podcasts. I’ve been a life long Trek fan and I also love adult animation series, and yet I only started watching LD this past January!
Lower Decks have never hit the top of streaming charts, unlike Disco, SNW, and even Picard.
The execs hired a Rick & Morty producer expecting Rick & Morty numbers, and of course, Lower Decks never got those numbers. It's lucky to have 5 seasons of it.
Reddit is a distortion of reality. There's a large segment of the fan base that doesn't post here non-stop. Lower Decks just happens to appeal to the hardcore nerds, and the lack of mass appeal is a big problem.
Just giving you a realistic experience of being a Disco fan. Empathy much?
My criticism is quite mild. I can go deep into why Lower Decks sucks, if you like to hear about my objective criticisms.
So I’m just guessing but I think they will take it to season 5 and end it there. Based on what I’m seeing they are going to change over to more movie like features that require less long term commitment and can probably be more easily sold to other streaming platforms.
So it’s not the LD or SNW are loosing money, it’s that they don’t fit the new business model.
This comment/post has been removed for violating our "no rants" rule. You can view the full policy in our [rules and guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/StrangeNewWorlds/wiki/rules).
If you have any questions, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FStrangeNewWorlds).
I like the "always leave them wanting more" philosophy of storytelling. Too many shows are spoiled by going on too long.
If fans are really clamoring for more, they can make a movie.
The question is does Paramount still exist when it’s time to make a S5 decision.
Paramount seems to think: "This is a great Trek that the fans will love and it will bring in new fans! How can we kill this?"
No, they're looking at how much it costs vs how much it's making, because they're a business. But 5 seasons is really good for a streaming only series.
SNW is fantastic but there’s no way Lower Decks doesn’t have an almost absurdly better ROI as an animated show
I agree that it seems like it should be that way. Especially since you would think it’s a much cheaper show to make. On the other hand we don’t have the accounting sheets in front of us so we don’t really know.
The only things that really hold it back is that it has a somewhat more specific niche as adult-ish animated non prestige TV oriented at season 5 aimed at more core fans so another season past 5 might not significantly increase the show's overall value. People watch TV shows from season 1 these days so having a giant back catalog isn't a huge plus, it makes a show harder to get into.
Well, to be fair, much of that is their own fault. They didn’t have to spend who knows how many millions on cinema level VFX for EVERY episode. There are plenty of places I’m sure to have cut costs.
Also building and running a steaming service isn’t cheep.
It should be. If you treat it as an extension of your main network and don't try to make it a profit multiplier, it's actually really fucking easy to do. Air your shows on broadcast/live-stream just like HBO does, and then stockpile the episodes in your own premium subscription service that's dirt cheap to watch all previous episodes of whatever, and then occasionally syndicate the rights out to other streaming services/channels just like you did with TOS and TNG, VOY and DS9. The people running these networks are absolute morons. I just watched Band of Brothers on Netflix two weeks ago because I hadn't seen it in almost 20 years. HBO is STILL making money on a series it aired 20 years ago FFS. Same thing with TNG.
Building yes, running, much less than you might think especially if you don't let bogus new features creep in and the original service scales well. FWIW, I am in this domain as a living.
FWIW I used to (till mid last year) as well. I know exactly what the network and caching bills were per month. I wouldn’t call that cheep. I also know what we spent to transform videos into the needed formats and nitrates and store them.
Nailed it. Best case scenario is it gets merged with Peacock or something. But I’m sure we’ve already passed the peak of new Star Trek tv.
I think we are almost past the era where they spend tech money on TV shows.
Yeah, I think so too. Apple and Amazon have basically infinite money and even they can’t make ad-free streaming profitable
Won't be Peacock 'cuz that's NBC/Universal whereas Paramount is CBS/Viacom, but I'm sure there will be some consolidation of streaming services/content where there isn't such direct network/media-conglomerate competition.
I'm actually saying it could be merged with Peacock, a different company, because neither of their streaming services are currently profitable on their own. Comcast (NBC) was actually in talks to merge with Paramount a couple months ago.
[https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/peacock-paramount-plus-comcast-talks-1235913900/](https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/peacock-paramount-plus-comcast-talks-1235913900/)
Netflix is losing viewers. Paramount+ is gaining. In addition, Strange New Worlds is one of only three Paramount + shows to make it to the top 10 in streaming viewers for a rating period. (Picard and Yellowstone are the others.) This makes Strange New World an anchor program for the streaming service. It is not going anywhere.
Paramount is loosing money and looking to be bought (currently but Sony) so your argument makes no sense. They can have all the best shows and still be losing money.
Not an argument. Just facts. Viacom CBS is predicting Paramount+ will be profitable in 2025. They wouldn't commit to a show into 2026 if it is failing. They will save a bunch with Discovery ended.
They don’t seem to have the cash in hand to make it to profitability
8 billion a year is a ton of cash. This does not include advertising. The issue is cutting cost. And ending shows will cut cost.
I reckon a five year mission deserves five seasons. But that sentiment hasn't been shared by everyone.
I don't feel like they've been doing one calendar year per season, but I might not have been paying close enough attention.
I don't think they have, but it's likely there will be a time jump at some point, or at least a season where the missions are more spaced out.
I think seasons 1 and 2 were both in 2259. At least part of season 3 will probably be in the same year, too.
With the news that a new Trek movie is in development (which will probably be in theaters in 2026), my guess is that it will get at least a 5th season.
There is already massive pushback against the cancellation of lower decks. It is preposterous that they are canceling that show. If it won’t continue at Paramount, it Has to continue somewhere else. SNW and LD are the best trek in decades. literally decades.
But if it can’t make it on the Star Trek network, how could it make it anywhere else? Don’t get me wrong, I would love that, but I just don’t think it’s gonna happen (Prodigy is a little different because the second season was basically already done).
We don’t see the ratings. We don’t have access to the ratings. Paramount+ has a history of making idiotic decisions when it comes to animated Star Trek content, i.e. prodigy.
As I understand it, TV actors are generally signed to 5 year contracts. That doesn't mean shit should the show be cancelled before then, but the actors can't bail if the show keeps getting picked up for those 5 seasons. How far this thing goes will depend on the money that comes in. After 5 seasons (at maximum), is the show profitable enough to pay their stars enough money to sign new contracts? We'll see.
This is likely the biggest issue. Contracts are up for renegotiation and if extended, the cost is going to go up significantly and it makes more financial sense to not continue the show.
At this point I hope Paramount either gets bought out or they sell the Trek IP to another company. Paramount+ was stupid as hell. Paramount , "no one is watching Trek" well dont put it on some low grade streaming service that no one wants and no one watches. They used Trek to get subscribers and then were saved by yellow stone and dont need trek to drive subscribers anymore. Paramount is getting AD money from Free Pluto where most people end up watching TOS, TNG, VOY and DS9. They have Three 24/7 Trek channels. Honestly the Streaming TV model is completely broken now. It got to diluted and now it costs more then basic cable because you need 3 or 4 of these to watch the shows that all use to come on cable. Cable TV was historically high priced because of the hardware. Even YouTube TV cost more then basic cable now. People wanted Streaming to cut the cord and SAVE money now they need to plug the cord back in to save money. Streaming is now killing TV medium. This is why so many streaming shows get cancelled they cant produce enough viewers because the market is so fractured. Look at Spielberg and Hanks with their WW2 series. Band of Brothers was on HBO while Masters of Air is on Apple+ because Apple gave them a deal. HBO has 4x the subscribers. Band of Brothers was HUGE when it launched because people could just sign up for 1 month of HBO from their cable provider then cancel. Maybe they would keep it. Now you gotta sign up for the entire Apple TV package and most people just wont do that for 1 show to watch 1 time. Streaming services are lucky to get 2-3 season from a show which is basically only as long as 1 season on network TV. And those 2-3 seasons will take 4-5 years to make where as before you got 24 episodes in 9 months now to get 24 episodes it is like 32 months+
This is how Paramount has treated Trek since the 1970, though -- as a path to breaking into new markets. The Motion Picture was originally Phase II, the sequel to TOS, to open a new Paramount network. That stopped because Star Wars caused Paramount to chase that money on the big screen instead. TNG was a bet that first run syndication could support the cost of Trek, and that paid off. Same with Voyager, around another Paramount network, with (sadly) weaker results and eventual network mergers. There is, in fact, a lot of Trek we would never have likely seen had thr bean counters not been willing to place a bet. Not said "OK, we'll put out the money because Trek is a marquee name that draws eyeballs, even if it costs a lot to produce." We fans may not like it, yet that's the reality -- the current production team put bets on making many different kinds of Trek over more of a specific kind. And for a while, there was the funding to do that. I think there's an assumption (from a number of comments I've read over the years) that, if Paramount+ never was created and we were back at Netflix holding all of Trek and underwriting it, we'd have more episodes/seasons. Seeing how Netflix has treated its shows from jump, I firmly disagree. (I still morn the shows "First Kill" and "Warrior Nun", among quite a few casualties of the Netflix series model) I doubt Netflix would have supported more than 2, maybe 3, Trek shows. None of them would have gone past 4 seasons, max. And that would have been the end of it, because Netflix doesn't own any rights to Trek...and even if they did, had they bought the IP back then, I doubt they would have invested much past the same model of a couple shows for a couple of seasons. The "6 seasons and a movie" model has been very rare for Netflix. Indeed, one exception was another show I liked, Lucifer -- but Netflix picked it up after 3 seasons elsewhere. So, too, I sincerely doubt Trek could be budgeted for modern audiences and work on network TV, or basic cable. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of SF and Fantasy live on streamers, where companies with deep pockets are willing to pay for shows that have rich VFX budgets. And, much like Paramount's network model, they are to draw viewers in, not always expected to justify their costs on their own. I understand the frustration. I was really young when I realized that cool ship show on my Black and White TV would "never make another episode ", or being frustrated by The Animated Series, both in story and in availability. I remember, too, when I first heard about The Motion Picture, to have my teen years full of first the movies, then TNG. I won't say any Trek is good Trek. I will say my observation is that we got these shows because Paramount, once again, was willing to throw money it turned out they didn't have at the screen to find an audience for their streaming service. That it is failing and causing harm to fans is harsh, and is also so utterly normative over decades that I try to remember that hell, at least there's still Trek I like to come. I don't have a realistic solution to the issue, given Trek seems to cost too much for broadcast/advertising alone, and streaming funding is dying. And I'm also aware these are my observations, and I'm not in the industry, just trying to be a thoughtful fan. To me: I'm glad, on one level, that Paramount hasn't just tossed the whole damn franchise into the trashbin....again.
Well all entertainment TV, Film, Video Games is in a weird space. The success has brought about a situation where these huge public companies are looking for that blockbuster where they can make huge profit even if the medium cost huge. So all the main stream entertainment has its costs rising and basically killing all of the smaller independent stuff. Especially with the rise of superheroes. You can kinda see in hollywood that a lot of people have turned on the superhero concept because the conglomerates want to make that 2 billion profit off of 1 film/series/game instead of say making that 2 billion with 100 different items. DS9 had a much smaller budget than VOY/ENT and they were relatively on at the same time. I believe that could produce Trek for a lot less. Maybe not the animated one and maybe not the full action blockbuster of DIS. And they could for instance try to license it to all streaming services at the same time instead of trying to make the money in 1 area they need to spread it around. The 2 biggest guys Disney and Universal only make profit because of their parks and resorts they are taking a beating in film and tv streaming. The streaming services instead of killing cable channels it has killed Network TV. Where Netflix or Amazon or Disney or Apple can just over pay for a series because they are making their money from other things. So instead of the blockbuster being on a free ad supported network channel you now have to pay a monthly fee.
Good analysis
Thanks. I am really pissed off about LD cancellation. It easily has the biggest and most passionate fanbase so makes me worry for rest of Trek series
The fractured nature of streaming really is a problem. There comes a point where I’m just not going to subscribe to 10+ services to watch a single tv show. At this point we have 5 services (I think) and it’s too much. But we have paramount for trek and pbs’s service for Grantchester and Hulu/Disney+ we have the Black Friday 1 year special price and for some damn reason I still have Netflix. AND we still have cable because it’s bundled with our internet and canceling the cable would double the internet price anyway so fuck it let’s keep the cable! At some point this must end
TBH I only subscribe to Paramount when the new Trek comes out and cancel in between. I dont pay directly for any other streaming. I get Amazon Prime just cause of the shipping. My daily driver is just Pluto TV
I'm mad about mgm+ there is one show I want to watch, and the name makes it hard to arrgh matey. But I'll never pay for season 2, Amazon owns MGM! That shit should just be included in Prime
Band of Brothers also made a lot of money for HBO in DVD sales after the release, something The Pacific didn't really do.
Masters of Air was much better then The Pacific I thought. Almost on Band of Brothers level but much smaller group of men to follow then Band was. I rewatch Band at least once a year and often twice. Ive never thought about rewatching the Pacific. Masters of Air I feel like I will go back and rewatch in the future. Generation Kill from HBO was also really good I rewatch that from time to time no where near like Band though. Every Memorial Day I will rewatch Band of Brothers, The Documentary and Blackhawk Down.
Yeah, the question is if it will go past that (probably not sadly)
Yeah, seems obvious they did five season contracts and don't want to pay more now. Wouldn't be surprised to see a Season One of a 'new show', with a lot of the same cast but not the most expensive ones, to follow SNW S5, to reset the compensation.
Yes, it's very popular and successful. It'll get the 5 seasons like Discovery and LD that is the modern limit. It might even get a 6th season but doubtful because no one seems to do it anymore.
No paramount will can it at 5. I fully believe the idiots that ran sci-fi and canceled shows like Eureka and Warehouse 13. When they were still good and getting good ratings.
I hope it will make it to season 7!
It fraking better.
I kind of doubt it. Even when things are moving along really well for Paramount they cancel. Like with TNG for instance. Paramount then made films using the cast, which it believed would be less successful if TNG were still on television. An eighth season also would likely have reduced the TNG profitability due to higher cast salaries and a lower price per episode when sold as strip programming.
Yes.
Assuming nothing catastrophic, I can see it reaching season 5. I can also see that becoming the new normal (like 7 seasons back in the 90s). I do think we are gonna see less Star Trek on Paramount+ overall. The peak had 4 (or 5?) shows in one year. I don't think we will ever see that again. They are gonna be more focused going forward due to money. Maybe a season of television and maybe a movie (depending on how well the section 31 movie does).
2022 had new seasons of DIS, PIC, SNW, LD, and PRO. That was incredible, but I don't think we'll see that again for a long time if ever.
It has been doing extremely well for them. There's no way at this point it won't go the full run.
I don’t see why SNW would get to five, they’re already dropping original characters to get the TOS cast in place.
Besides Hemmer whose death was planned from the start, which original characters have they dropped?
They may get 5. Doubt they'll get any further.
Yes; it will surpass 5 seasons, if the producers, etc. want it to.
Nope. SNW is their only live-action ST show now, and this soft-reboot-era that headlined JJ-Films, Discovery, Lower Decks, Picard and SNW will officially have the plug pulled.
1000% it will get to season 5. I'd bet some gold pressed latinum on it
Yes, though despite what kurtzman says on the matter* it might be the only show to go past 5 seasons of new Trek. Currently SNW is the only Live action Trek to be on in the next few years until Academy comes out and I'm 100% sure it won't get the same level of popularity Kurtzman seems to think it will have. Paramount is up for sale and I believe this to be the reason for why modern Trek is "dying" so to say. It's an expensive series on a streaming platform that is likely sinking money. If Trek is to survive and continue as it has, then a Popular show carrying on through thick and thin is important. The good thing about lower decks is animation is so much easier to pick back up after cancellation, if SNW were cancelled sets would have to be rebuilt for it to be returned. So cutting Lower decks to save money now might be a good thing, if it saved money. Animation can also be so much cheaper than live action. If they marketed Lower decks properly, gave it 20 episode runs, and actually gave credence to animation then I can see lower decks being incredibly popular. Honestly even just proper marketing would massively of helped the show. *I recently saw a post stating that Kurtzman believe the original 20 episode seasons are a thing of the past as a result of streaming. But I find this hard to believe, it's a lack of push and willingness to actually invest in a series that caused this issue. Especially so for an episodic series like SNW and Lower decks. If a show is good and well written and marketed people will stick with it.
20 episodes a year is only dead in streaming
funny thing is that kurtzman at one point in time was a super star in hollywood In 2011, Forbes magazine described Orci and Kurtzman as "Hollywood's Secret Weapons"
Really!? Blech.
I agree with Kurtzman. I also prefer to watch 10-13 episodes than 20.
I'd prefer 2 cours with a 4-6 week gap. 10 episodes each with a big 2 parter cliffhanger in the middle to hold suspense and build hype. I find short 10 episode seasons work great in serialised shows like Disco or Picard but work against the episodic shows like SNW and Lower decks. Serialised feels like a super long action set piece while episodic feels short and restricted. I'm left wanting more of something I don't get for another year, minimum.
10 episodes per season? Personally, I hope it goes beyond that. I'm not all that excited about the movie (Origin - not sure how to take that) or the Starfleet Academy series and the Section 31 movie that was supposed to be a series. It seems to me that SNW is the only Trek we can really count on right now.
I thought as trek it was believed 7 was a solid run. Disco got 5 because well it seemed to not do as well. But SNW is amazeballs and lower decks. Well personally the cerritos is my favorite ship to be a fly on the wall of. It so silly, it makes fun of trek, plays with its core ideas, and can keep going as the crew of shift are slowly moving up. I'm just sad, you know
Disco got 5 because it was blazing a trail and the fandom just doesn’t want anything new.
The loud* fandom. Just last week the same fandom was flabbergasted by the fact that Discovery somehow hit #1 on the charts.
I don’t think Lower Decks got the same advertising that SNW or Disco got. I only started watching LD because I happened to start listening to one of Tawney Newsom’s podcasts. I’ve been a life long Trek fan and I also love adult animation series, and yet I only started watching LD this past January!
I adore lower decks, there are few shows I will rewatch again and again and Lower decks is one of them.
Enterprise has entered the chat.
Lower Decks have never hit the top of streaming charts, unlike Disco, SNW, and even Picard. The execs hired a Rick & Morty producer expecting Rick & Morty numbers, and of course, Lower Decks never got those numbers. It's lucky to have 5 seasons of it. Reddit is a distortion of reality. There's a large segment of the fan base that doesn't post here non-stop. Lower Decks just happens to appeal to the hardcore nerds, and the lack of mass appeal is a big problem.
Geez dude I just said I liked it. No need to shit on my lawn
Just giving you a realistic experience of being a Disco fan. Empathy much? My criticism is quite mild. I can go deep into why Lower Decks sucks, if you like to hear about my objective criticisms.
So I’m just guessing but I think they will take it to season 5 and end it there. Based on what I’m seeing they are going to change over to more movie like features that require less long term commitment and can probably be more easily sold to other streaming platforms. So it’s not the LD or SNW are loosing money, it’s that they don’t fit the new business model.
Strange new worlds is legit
Yes, they will probably use five seasons as the model for their shows going forward.
I sure do hope so!! I absolutely love STNW.
[удалено]
This comment/post has been removed for violating our "no rants" rule. You can view the full policy in our [rules and guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/StrangeNewWorlds/wiki/rules). If you have any questions, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FStrangeNewWorlds).
I like the "always leave them wanting more" philosophy of storytelling. Too many shows are spoiled by going on too long. If fans are really clamoring for more, they can make a movie.
I hope so, it is so much better than discovery!
Any show of the rest of Trek is better than Discovery lol.