Star Trek - Space: The Final Frontier

[Scritti Politti]

I liked Nechayev. Someone has to look out for the Federation's best interests i.e. genociding the Borg.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

I liked Nechayev. Someone has to look out for the Federation's best interests i.e. genociding the Borg.

Nechayev does a thankless job as a middleman between the Council and the Captains in the field. Which is why being a good admiral sucks in Star Trek, they aren't allowed to act on their own judgment really like Captains are allowed to do and have to follow policy more strictly.

 

[Get the rope Macaulay!]

Gen Z doesn’t watch Star Trek

honestly no one under 40 watches Star Trek, the franchise peaked in the 90s, so if you weren't a teenager back then you missed it entirely. the same way so few people under 21 care about the MCU anymore. they missed the hype train, the forum discussions, and the fan films. And the culture changed so much that its a near impossible task to convince someone to give a fuck about that franchise nowadays. even RLM admits you basically have to skip the first half of TNG and don't really care for any trek that was made before 1990.

 

[Captain Syrup]

even RLM admits you basically have to skip the first half of TNG

That unspoken “three seasons” barometer hurt the Star Trek brand in the long run. No matter how terrible shows started, there was always that hope they would get better—eventually.

DISCO didn’t have that luxury. People hated that Michael was a genius, a maverick, and Spock’s sister--But I think she was balanced out by Saru, Georgiou, and Lorca. But when those characters lost focus—or, more accurately, got killed off—the bait-and-switch was too much for fans to swallow.

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Most of Nu-Trek's dialogue has been written for bratty teenagers, so they're probably ecstatic to have some actual bratty teenagers to write for.

The people writing for this stopped being bratty teenagers more than 20 years ago, though. They're extending their adolescence doing this, heh.

 

[Get the rope Macaulay!]

No matter how terrible shows started, there was always that hope they would get better—eventually.

i think the tv market changed as well, those 22 episode seasons of cheap bullshit have died out completely in the tv landscape. no streaming site wants to make those, despite them usually being the best ROI. USA network thrived on those shitty cheap shows.

the Trek model of "give it 60 episodes" doesn't work in an era of 10 episode seasons. fraiser is a similar failure. Kelsey begged them to make more episodes of that shit, but the production said it could only guarantee 10 episodes at a time. you'd think with the way people clearly don't care about production values based on TIktok's popularity and the streamers own metrics that people enjoy shows with 25+ seasons they'd all be making the cheapest stupidest crap ever, instead they knock out prestige shows that make 5 episodes a year at most.

Slow Horses, a UK based and made show is one of the fastest made streaming shows out right now.

 

[Captain Syrup]

Kelsey begged them to make more episodes of that shit, but the production said it could only guarantee 10 episodes at a time. you'd think with the way people clearly

Makes you wonder how much KG was involved on the producer side of things. My guess? Not much.

It was obvious the show was gonna be a disaster; it gave me flashbacks to that Murphy Brown reboot where "Murph" moves in with her nepo-baby son. Not exactly the kind of comparison you want people making.

 

[Get the rope Macaulay!]

It was obvious the show was gonna be a disaster; it gave me flashbacks to that Murphy Brown reboot where "Murph" moves in with her nepo-baby son. Not exactly the kind of comparison you want people making.

at least the premise is there in the original. but overall unless you near completely reboot it like with 90210 or continue the original like dallas it fails. doing this weird spin off thats somewhat like the original won't work. Murphy Brown is a great example. Roseanne was just like the original was when it came back, and thats why the conners is still doing really well years later. obviously you can't really do that with the father dead but if fredrick came back because he fell on hard times it might have worked.

overall the series was DOA, but how many reboots of 90s shows do well?

 

[Captain Syrup]

Roseanne was just like the original was when it came back, and thats why the conners is still doing really well years later.

Ah, Roseanne, always in my heart. Though, it’s a bit frustrating how they’re always teetering on the edge of financial collapse.

 

[ZMOT]

i think the tv market changed as well, those 22 episode seasons of cheap bullshit have died out completely in the tv landscape. no streaming site wants to make those, despite them usually being the best ROI. USA network thrived on those shitty cheap shows.

I think it's less the market and more how it's consumed. doubt many want to binge 22 episodes, while 6-10 is more like an extended movie when movies already are 2+ hours.
there's also much more to watch, and on the internet as well. back then watching the one episode per week was a happening, which was already hard if it wasn't one of the top shows of the season. these days the same cadence probably would make people forget to come back quite fast unless it's really good or popular enough everyone's talking about it.

it doesn't help that even the "best" shows these days end up being trash, or completely fuck up the landing souring the whole thing in retrospect. over the last decade there less than a handful I'd call great from start to finish.

I think a trek series in the old format can still work to some degree. it won't be the mega-seller or killer series to sell a whole service, but there should still be some demand for that type of content. but platform holders rather pull a nu-sony and put all their eggs into 1-2 expensive baskets instead of offering a buffet where almost everyone gets something out of it.

 

[Flexo]

I think it's less the market and more how it's consumed. doubt many want to binge 22 episodes, while 6-10 is more like an extended movie when movies already are 2+ hours.
there's also much more to watch, and on the internet as well. back then watching the one episode per week was a happening, which was already hard if it wasn't one of the top shows of the season. these days the same cadence probably would make people forget to come back quite fast unless it's really good or popular enough everyone's talking about it.

Bingo. But it's also an investment paradox.

Like you make a show. Let's call it "Pals" about some young friends. If you do it sitcom style, then as it starts growing in popularity, when other people get recommended it, they can be "ok I'll watch an episode" and it just takes them 30 min out of the week. Then if they like it, they come back again and recommend it to others. Soon "Pals" is the most popular show on TV.

Plus if you were already a fan of the show, but say something came up and you couldn't watch it one week - no big deal, just watch the next episode. It's still just 30 min out of your life.

The new format is kind of killing itself. Now it can't really grow, because if you decide to check out this "Throne Game" show everyone's talking about, you can't just spend an 60 or 30 min one week to watch it. If they're on season 4, you've got to go and watch like 30 HOURS to catch up with everyone. Or worse, if you are a fan of it, then you end up needing to miss an episode, well then the next week means you have 120 min to spend. And if you miss that week, now it's 180 min. It doesn't take long before you feel like the time investment you have to do to catch up feels like more trouble than the show is worth. Yeah, some people will stick with the show for fear of ever falling behind into this "fall off" stage, but they're not near as many as the number who would jump in and out of watching it.

These factors are pretty much why older, stand-alone shows could have steady growth over their seasons, but the newer streaming shows have steady declines. You ONLY have the first episode to bring a fan on board. Don't get me wrong, I love DS9, but one good thing about TNG is that if you want to show someone why it's great, you can grab an episode from later in the show's run and throw it at a newbie. "Here's Devil's Due. Solid episode, should give you a clue about why we love the show."

I think a trek series in the old format can still work to some degree. it won't be the mega-seller or killer series to sell a whole service, but there should still be some demand for that type of content. but platform holders rather pull a nu-sony and put all their eggs into 1-2 expensive baskets instead of offering a buffet where almost everyone gets something out of it.

Orville would be a test of that concept.

I need to get back to it too...

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Orville would be a test of that concept.

I need to get back to it too...

Orville's problem is that it's only on Hulu. I mean, yeah, pirating is a choice, but I'd rather not do that for new shows. I actually do want to have my money/metrics within reason and getting another subscription service isn't it.

DS9 is like a missing link between longform streaming shows and episodic TV where there was that overarching plot that spans multiple seasons, but then there's a bunch of filler episodes like Move Along Home. So the time investment isn't as bad. Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad are full season blocks of content and that makes them impenetrable. I saw Breaking Bad, but I have no desire to see it again because of that time sink.

 

[UnKillFill]

It's more like Picard saying the Federation should help the Romulans--whom are a hostile government that didn't ask for help in the first place*--and criticizing the Federation for not helping despite the Feds' android slaves committing 9/11 on Utopia Planitia. Then he wants to come out of retirement to pursue his own agenda for personal reasons--which Shaw also chatisized him and Riker for until the plot cucks him out of his chair. So, while I wouldn't have told him to fuck off, I also would have said no.

*And then some senator got so pissy at Picard he challenged him to a sword fight. Bad Robot Romulans are dumb as fuck. Nero spent 20 years floating in space wanting revenge instead of going straight to Romulus to warn them of the impending supernova. The Romulan government not using its vast interstellar navy to save what can be saved of their civilization.

Like I said, it's not what she said, it's how she said it.

I still fully believe Shaw totally did nothing wrong, Picard and Riker were total assholes who completely failed to explain themselves, when *neither* of them would have allowed even a fraction of the shit they pulled on their own ships when they were running them.
And I definitely agree with you about Nero being a retard. He literally could have just waited and used his advanced future knowledge to save his people, possibly even give them an advantage if he was smart.

 

[XYZpdq Jr.]

Orville's problem is that it's only on Hulu. I mean, yeah, pirating is a choice, but I'd rather not do that for new shows. I actually do want to have my money/metrics within reason and getting another subscription service isn't it.

DS9 is like a missing link between longform streaming shows and episodic TV where there was that overarching plot that spans multiple seasons, but then there's a bunch of filler episodes like Move Along Home. So the time investment isn't as bad. Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad are full season blocks of content and that makes them impenetrable. I saw Breaking Bad, but I have no desire to see it again because of that time sink.

yeah the knack for "weekly standalone A plot, b and c plot develop the long-term story while something else too" style writing got lost with... the rest of writing

 

[Mystery Spy]

To be honest, the Orville's biggest issues are branding related. To this day people still think it's a Trek parody. But that was just a trojan horse for Seth to get it greenlit, and people to watch it. And given a lot of the trailers and shorts feature Seth making jokes it isn't suprising people still avoid it for that reason.

The Orville is an unfortunate name for the franchise, not because it's bad, it isn't, but rather that from the get go it kills the possibility of a franchise. You can call a show Star Trek; whatever but "the Orville" anchors it to a single thing.

I do like how it's a spiritual successor of the real Star Trek, but considering it already struggled when there was a demand for it, whenever Star Trek comes back for real, people will go with the brand name. It only really stood a chance because the company that owns to the name is doing awful. Tough even if the Orville had been a massive hit, as Trek is, Disney owns it, so it really only had a chance of success as long as Seth MacFarlane is interested.

This all would've been avoided if Paramount had just given Seth an official Spin-off instead of throwing money at garbage like Section 31, and Discovery. But I guess that's nepotism for you.

 

[marvlouslie]

Orville's problem is that it's only on Hulu. I mean, yeah, pirating is a choice, but I'd rather not do that for new shows. I actually do want to have my money/metrics within reason and getting another subscription service isn't it.

DS9 is like a missing link between longform streaming shows and episodic TV where there was that overarching plot that spans multiple seasons, but then there's a bunch of filler episodes like Move Along Home. So the time investment isn't as bad. Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad are full season blocks of content and that makes them impenetrable. I saw Breaking Bad, but I have no desire to see it again because of that time sink.

Fuck Hollywood. These people have said that they actually hate their audience. A lot of these shows aren't really worth pirating in the long run, because they're not interesting. I've been pirating new content I've found interesting for the last few years, since the lot of them have said the quiet part out loud.

 

[The Gene Genie]

The only way that the old model of 20+ episodes a year, or Hell even 15+ a year really, rather than the 10 every two years that we have now becomes "viable" again is if the streaming platforms that each studio/network runs and operates eventually fold and there's more of a market for "independent" streaming services, which divorce the studios from the streaming market as part of their bottom line. You could see streaming services want more bang for their buck for buying rights to a television show, so if Streaming Service A wants to buy a Star Trek show, then they're going to want more than 10 episodes in the order to get the most value out of it. It's how Star Trek made its money in the first place after NBC canceled TOS, with selling it for syndication. It and TNG had huge appeal in the syndication market, because there were so many episodes that the channel could play and get out of the deal.

In my opinion, like others have said, the new style of every show being like the old BBC minseries, where it was 10 episodes and they're all basically one singular story going bit by bit, is starting to paint itself in a corner. All of the big "flagship shows" are getting too expansive (and expensive.) You don't really have time to fuck around and find your footing, first off. If the audience hates the first season (which is basically the new pilot episode, just 10 hour long episodes long), then it gets canceled and it's a waste of time. It's a waste of time, especially, for the audience because every single one of these new shows have to have a cliffhanger at the end of the season for no reason other than to artificially drive hype so people want a second season. How many of these shows wrap up a first season with none of the plot advanced? Too many to fucking count.

But I think one of the biggest issues, which I think Star Trek has done a decent job (relatively speaking) of avoiding, is becoming a Cinematic Universe. Star Wars and the Marvel franchise suffer heavily from this and I think that this is a huge contribution for why their streaming numbers have been going down. You can't just watch Ahsoka, you have to watch the entire Clone Wars and Rebels television shows to even have the context for why any of this matters. And if you don't? Then all the memberberries of Ahsoka (Anakin, that stupid sandnigger, etc) are totally irrelevant and the show is just a mess of references that you don't understand, with the show concluding without any kind of resolution to any of the problems. Marvel is particularly egregious with this, so much so that there's nerds who have come up with website-long spreadsheets on how to watch this shit. Who has that kind of time? That kind of investment for what is, really, just slop TV? But I fear that the last card that Kurtzman and Paramount have left to play is the Cinematic Universe angle. Remember this random fucking side character from thirty years ago? They're getting their own fucking television show. Who wants to watch Star Trek: Captain Sulu? Star Trek can avoid these pitfalls easier by the nature of its storytelling, since it can pretty much carry itself on that, but at a certain point the "impetus" begins to lean too far on "remember this? Remember this guy? Remember when...?" and the people who DON'T know this don't tune in, and the people who DO know are already burnt out from 15 years of straight garbage.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

But I think one of the biggest issues, which I think Star Trek has done a decent job (relatively speaking) of avoiding, is becoming a Cinematic Universe. Star Wars and the Marvel franchise suffer heavily from this and I think that this is a huge contribution for why their streaming numbers have been going down. You can't just watch Ahsoka, you have to watch the entire Clone Wars and Rebels television shows to even have the context for why any of this matters. And if you don't? Then all the memberberries of Ahsoka (Anakin, that stupid sandnigger, etc) are totally irrelevant and the show is just a mess of references that you don't understand, with the show concluding without any kind of resolution to any of the problems. Marvel is particularly egregious with this, so much so that there's nerds who have come up with website-long spreadsheets on how to watch this shit. Who has that kind of time? That kind of investment for what is, really, just slop TV? But I fear that the last card that Kurtzman and Paramount have left to play is the Cinematic Universe angle. Remember this random fucking side character from thirty years ago? They're getting their own fucking television show. Who wants to watch Star Trek: Captain Sulu? Star Trek can avoid these pitfalls easier by the nature of its storytelling, since it can pretty much carry itself on that, but at a certain point the "impetus" begins to lean too far on "remember this? Remember this guy? Remember when...?" and the people who DON'T know this don't tune in, and the people who DO know are already burnt out from 15 years of straight garbage.

Eh, Picard as a whole is very much a memberberries reference show by its very nature and leverages Berman Trek for Cinematic Universe purposes. As is Lower Decks.

 

[marvlouslie]

Robert Picardo is a faggot.

 

[The Gene Genie]

Eh, Picard as a whole is very much a memberberries reference show by its very nature and leverages Berman Trek for Cinematic Universe purposes. As is Lower Decks.

But my point was that, while Star Trek does have this, it isn't reliant upon it in the same way that the Star Wars and MCU productions have been.