[livinginfear]

Since we're discussing the economics of film/TV studios, and their weird decisions. I'd like to understand why the studios are still making Star Trek shows. Each one seems to be more poorly received than the last. That's costing studios far more than $55M. Picard alone cost ~$9M per episode according to Wikipedia.

[metabagel]

Paramount+ took a few swings at this, and eventually they hit paydirt with Strange New Worlds.

The intention isn’t to make mediocre shows. The intention is to make a show which draws an audience, and Star Trek shows start with a decent base audience to make it worth trying.

[pests]

SNW works imo because it's a throw back to the episodic nature of the earlier shows.

Discovery did not work for me in the same way despite me usually liking those less episodic plotlines.

[anonymouskimmer]

Star Trek shows last for decades as revenue generators through syndication, streaming, merchandising, novels, movies, theme park events, and etcetera. A new series may draw people in, many of whom will stay to watch the older series.

Now that the series are basically only available on streaming through CBS/Paramount I don't know what syndication gains are being made, but I'd guess a huge percentage of the CBS/Paramount streaming subscribers are staying subscribers for the huge Star Trek library. It's an anecdote but the last time I quit Netflix was when they lost Star Trek and I realized I was basically only hanging on for Star Trek episodes (after about a year and a half I resubscribed for other content).

[ralphc]

There's a cable channel, Heroes and Icons, that Sunday - Friday shows back to back TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise, starting at 8:00 Eastern.

[dylan604]

Eventually, you get one right, right? Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. Plus, there are so many Trekkies that will watch anything regardless of how bad it is just so they can bitch about it after watching it. They still had to watch it though, and that's about all that matters to the analytics.

[rightbyte]

It is strange they can fail so bad, since Star Trek is essentially a setup to make any story at all each episode. I mean, McFarlains comedy-as-an-excuse Not-Star Trek Star Trek is so much more Star Trek than the new series ... at a way lower budget. Imagine if they gave him the job instead.

[alisonatwork]

I know, right? To me the essential Star Trek formula - at least of TOS, TNG and Voyager - is simply to have a team of competent professionals encounter all kinds of weird and wacky creatures and anomalies, and then to resolve those encounters in a peaceful way. It's a sci-fi anthology show that emphasizes the experience of scientists, engineers and diplomats over warriors, outlaws and extremists. One of the reasons I think new Trek fails is because even when they try to make it more episodic (SNW), the characters lack the idealism that makes the show different. The Orville, on the other hand, gets it exactly right.

That said, there is a case to be made that Star Trek is now more than just TOS/TNG/Voyager, and it already was that after DS9. So I don't begrudge fans of the dark, morally gray, against-a-backdrop-of-war stories getting to see more of that in new Trek. At least the animated shows (Lower Decks and Prodigy) keep the optimistic spirit of Starfleet alive, so there's something for everyone.

[rightbyte]

I would say Enterprise fits into the good guy optimism spirit? I was quite young when I saw it so dunno really. Saw it first for some reason, 10 years before half TOS, TNG and Voyager.

DS9 ... was odd in the spirit regard.

[TMWNN]

>It is strange they can fail so bad, since Star Trek is essentially a setup to make any story at all each episode.

The early slash fiction writers (almost all women) in the 1970s more or less viewed the science fiction elements like the Enterpise and the Federation as distractions, and got Kirk/Spock away from them as soon as the could to focus on their relationship. In other words, they were inspired by the close, John Ford-like camaderie between the two characters (or, if you choose to believe so, saw the clear sexual subtext below their heterosexual veneers) and used it as a springboard to tell the stories they really wanted to tell.

[mavhc]

Which new series?

[abenga]

Probably The Orville.

[bobsmooth]

SNW and Lower Decks are pretty good.

[krapp]

> Each one seems to be more poorly received than the last.

Only to a certain subset of "fans" who have made hating Star Trek a part of their identity politics, and a grift on Youtube. They've even started to hate Strange New Worlds, even though it should be everything they wanted.

In actual objective reality, each of the new Trek series has been highly successful.

[livinginfear]

> made hating Star Trek a part of their identity politics...

...The only reason anyone could dislike modern Star Trek: Because they want to </s>. No, I actually want to like the new Star Trek. I just found that to be prohibitively difficult.

> They've even started to hate Strange New Worlds, even though it should be everything they wanted.

Except that it wasn't. It feels like a modern Marvel film masquerading as Star Trek. With sassy Mary Sue characters that just quip back and forth sarcastically. The dialogue is honestly terrible.

> In actual objective reality, each of the new Trek series has been highly successful.

On Rotten Tomatoes Picard has an audience score of 57%. Discovery has 37%. About what I expected. Strange New Worlds is doing well though. I'm not upset that other people like it. I'd consider giving SNW another go, but I won't waste any more time with Picard or Discovery.

[_npe3]

this has got to be the least self-aware comment I've ever seen on this website