I'd be a lot happier if they picked one genre and just worked at being good at it instead of this random throw-shit-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach.
It's not confidence, it's a desperate attempt to find an avenue for the Trek franchise they can understand and repeat without bothering much with looking at what made any of the good Trek actually good.
Yup. This isn't confidence. It's using the streaming media bubble as an excuse to make desperate stabs at monetizing the franchise.
There were no new Trek series between 2005 and 2017. In the past 3 years, CBS has put 6 Trek series into production. None of them have been cancelled. I'm not really seeing how this is evidence of desperation.
Even in the "streaming bubble," if a product isn't making money they don't usually respond by making more of it.
When Lower Decks launches, Trek will be at its busiest point in the franchise's history. These are not fly-by-night shoestring budget productions either; CBS et. al. have invested millions into these shows, and keep investing. I'm not sure that supports an argument that CBS is "desperate."
Putting 6 shows into production is absolutely a sign you are desperate to make money from this franchise you own that, as you note, had been doing nothing for over a decade. They are throwing everything at the wall. Streaming makes it much easier to shit out a series and slap it on your own platform and just see what happens.
I'd be a lot happier if they picked one genre and just worked at being good at it instead of this random throw-shit-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach.
It's not confidence, it's a desperate attempt to find an avenue for the Trek franchise they can understand and repeat without bothering much with looking at what made any of the good Trek actually good.
Yup. This isn't confidence. It's using the streaming media bubble as an excuse to make desperate stabs at monetizing the franchise.
There were no new Trek series between 2005 and 2017. In the past 3 years, CBS has put 6 Trek series into production. None of them have been cancelled. I'm not really seeing how this is evidence of desperation.
Even in the "streaming bubble," if a product isn't making money they don't usually respond by making more of it.
When Lower Decks launches, Trek will be at its busiest point in the franchise's history. These are not fly-by-night shoestring budget productions either; CBS et. al. have invested millions into these shows, and keep investing. I'm not sure that supports an argument that CBS is "desperate."
Putting 6 shows into production is absolutely a sign you are desperate to make money from this franchise you own that, as you note, had been doing nothing for over a decade. They are throwing everything at the wall. Streaming makes it much easier to shit out a series and slap it on your own platform and just see what happens.
Throwing everything at the wall, except the exact formula that has proven itself over and over again over decades. That's the weird part.
I'd be a lot happier if they picked one genre and just worked at being good at it instead of this random throw-shit-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach.
It's not confidence, it's a desperate attempt to find an avenue for the Trek franchise they can understand and repeat without bothering much with looking at what made any of the good Trek actually good.
Yup. This isn't confidence. It's using the streaming media bubble as an excuse to make desperate stabs at monetizing the franchise.
There were no new Trek series between 2005 and 2017. In the past 3 years, CBS has put 6 Trek series into production. None of them have been cancelled. I'm not really seeing how this is evidence of desperation.
Even in the "streaming bubble," if a product isn't making money they don't usually respond by making more of it.
When Lower Decks launches, Trek will be at its busiest point in the franchise's history. These are not fly-by-night shoestring budget productions either; CBS et. al. have invested millions into these shows, and keep investing. I'm not sure that supports an argument that CBS is "desperate."
Putting 6 shows into production is absolutely a sign you are desperate to make money from this franchise you own that, as you note, had been doing nothing for over a decade. They are throwing everything at the wall. Streaming makes it much easier to shit out a series and slap it on your own platform and just see what happens.
That might make sense if they had announced 6 shows at once, out of the blue. But they didn't. Discovery premieres in 2017, and response is such that CBS immediately greenlit it for a second season and started pre-production for Picard and Section 31. Shortly thereafter, Lower Decks and the as-yet-unnamed YA show were announced as well. Discovery season 2 drops, leading to Strange New Worlds through fan response alone.
From what I can find, Discovery and Picard have budgets of ~$8 million per episode. So, at minimum, CBS has spent $312 million on Trek since 2017. That's not counting advertising costs, or the costs of making Lower Decks/Section 31/Strange New Worlds/YA Show.
And we know they're about to spend at least $160 million more, for another 10 episodes of Picard and presumably 10 for Strange New Worlds.
Whatever your opinion of New Trek's quality, no business is going to pump half a billion dollars into an IP unless they're seeing a return on investment.
If New Trek were not successful, and CBS was "desperate to make money," they would not continue to make New Trek. Rather, they would do things with minimum production costs for maximum return on investment--like AI-driven remasters of DS9 and Voyager, and pumping out microtransaction-heavy mobile games.
+1
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Posts
son of a bitch
Oh please, everyone knows you save that plotline for the absolutely guaranteed to come out eventually movie.
Star Trek: Quantum or some bullshit, probably.
Putting 6 shows into production is absolutely a sign you are desperate to make money from this franchise you own that, as you note, had been doing nothing for over a decade. They are throwing everything at the wall. Streaming makes it much easier to shit out a series and slap it on your own platform and just see what happens.
Throwing everything at the wall, except the exact formula that has proven itself over and over again over decades. That's the weird part.
That might make sense if they had announced 6 shows at once, out of the blue. But they didn't. Discovery premieres in 2017, and response is such that CBS immediately greenlit it for a second season and started pre-production for Picard and Section 31. Shortly thereafter, Lower Decks and the as-yet-unnamed YA show were announced as well. Discovery season 2 drops, leading to Strange New Worlds through fan response alone.
From what I can find, Discovery and Picard have budgets of ~$8 million per episode. So, at minimum, CBS has spent $312 million on Trek since 2017. That's not counting advertising costs, or the costs of making Lower Decks/Section 31/Strange New Worlds/YA Show.
And we know they're about to spend at least $160 million more, for another 10 episodes of Picard and presumably 10 for Strange New Worlds.
Whatever your opinion of New Trek's quality, no business is going to pump half a billion dollars into an IP unless they're seeing a return on investment.
If New Trek were not successful, and CBS was "desperate to make money," they would not continue to make New Trek. Rather, they would do things with minimum production costs for maximum return on investment--like AI-driven remasters of DS9 and Voyager, and pumping out microtransaction-heavy mobile games.