Reddit seems all doom and gloom on the topic but what about Lemmy? And the future of Star Trek? - eviltoast

I saw someone on Reddit wondering why the community was so sure of Trek going dark again with Paramount not doing so well financially. Seeing the response was unfortunate as most people feel that it might be a bad time for Trek. And I guess it makes sense with the Hollywood strikes as well.

But I was curious what Lemmy thought. Maybe im in denial too but I’m curious if you guys think the worry is warranted.

  • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if Paramount+ collapses, “Star Trek” as a franchise will be fine. They’ll just revert to the more traditional model of producing shows and selling them to someone else to distribute.

    I’m not sure the currently in-production shows would survive that sort of shift, but the franchise would boldly go on.

  • skellener@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    Studios are not out of money. They just don’t use it wisely. SNW and Lower Decks both have very strong followings. Most of these studios are realizing they make more money syndicating shows elsewhere rather than siloing them on their own service. I’d expect the return of watching shows in lots of places again rather than one single place. The bigger issue right now is the writers and actors strike. The studios need to pay these people and stop being such misers. These are the main drivers of the shows in addition to the crews. Cut some executive salaries. There are multiple series and movies worth of funds being wasted right there.

  • AzPsycho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    SNW and Lower Deck are fucking fantastic. SNW is a true to form traditional Trek show and Lower Decks is funny and diverse enough for those who feel Trek takes itself to seriously.

    If Paramount runs afoul of finances I am sure someone will buy the IP rights to at least these. TBH, Strange New Worlds needs to be available on TV and streaming.

    • Elbrar@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t want to see SNW on TV. I don’t think they’ll have to change the content directly, but they’d have to fit to the 42-odd minute runtime. We’ve had several episodes near and over an hour long. It’s very refreshing to see them making episodes as long as they need to be to tell the story.

    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wouldn’t most Trek ships and tech be ripped apart with the level of weapon tech in the SW universe?

      • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Both franchises are apt to hand-wave science, so who knows? How does a warp drive compare to a hyperdrive? Blasters to phasers? Thermo detonators to photon torpedoes? Star Wars doesn’t seem to have matter/energy manipulation like replicators and transporters, though, so Trek has an edge there.

      • beefcat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do you compare the destructive power of one fantasy laser beam with another?

        Besides, even if the Enterprise is outgunned by a Star Destroyer, LaForge will just reroute warp plasma through the main deflector array.

  • akhenaten0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s healthier than Babylon 5, which is a much smaller property, under the thumb of more incompetent leadership at Warner/AT&T/HBO/Max, and is still coming out with a Blu-Ray remaster later this year.

    Trek is fine. There may be some doldrums, but it’s healthier now than in the post-Nemesis (2002) post-Enterprise (2005) landscape. And even then, it was only four years before Star Trek (2009).

    Again, there’s a smaller gap between Enterprise and JJ Abrams than there is between Discovery s.1 (2017) and today. Stay calm.

    • Riker_Maneuver@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s healthier than Babylon 5, which is a much smaller property, under the thumb of more incompetent leadership at Warner/AT&T/HBO/Max

      Man, you weren’t kidding. That’s some special leadership to let one dude keep it down all this time.

    • Michael Gemar@mstdn.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      @akhenaten0 @startrek I’m old enough to be a TOS fan *prior* to the movies, much less TNG, so a time when there are *multiple* Trek shows on at the same time is mind-blowing. I really don’t think it likely that there’d be no Trek anywhere, at least for long.

  • const void*@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What, that money is already spent. And spent well.

    SNW is awesome. I signed up because a friend recommended. Picard was also good, not as accessible as SNW but I enjoy it.

    On to discovery next!

    • hot_guava@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I enjoyed Discovery and hope you do. It took some big swings and not all of them were hits, maybe even a minority of them were, but I respect the desire to do something new and push the franchise forward and it has some legitimately good stuff.

  • oDDmON@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The real problem, as I see it, is that P+ has gone out of their way not only to gather all that is Trek under their umbrella, but they’ve gone out of their way to ensure their walled garden is the only place it’s found.

    Look to file sharing sites and USENET, where the DMCA has been wielded with gay abandon to decimate access to pirated content. It’s impossible to find full episodes on USENET any more and torrent sites likewise.

    What brought ST back in the first place, was syndication. It was cheap enough, every podunk broadcast station could afford to air it, thus creating legions of new fans. This is the exact opposite of what’s happening today.

    Sadly, if P+ loses enough to start cancelling production of new content, they’d still be sitting on all the copyrighted IP and something tells me they’d try to squeeze every farthing possible out it via licensing before letting another production company touch it.

    At this point, I’m buying DVD box sets, ripping them to my raided NAS, reselling them and saying “Yuck fu!” to the controlling millionaires at Paramount.

  • Riker_Maneuver@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like even if paramount/paramount+ falter there will still be a demand. It’s endured for so long and is such a massive IP that it’s not going to go anywhere. It would probably just end up being on another stream service like Netflix or Prime where paramount isn’t footing the whole bill.

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think as long as there is a Paramount+, there will be at least one Star Trek series on the air every year. Whether or not that show will actually be good 🤷‍♂️.

  • angstrom@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think Star Trek is one of Paramount/CBS’ more bankable franchises so will continue in some form. I think for the moment that will be on streaming. I don’t think the movie format works particularly well given the size and ensemble nature of the cast.

    As for the future, Discovery is closing out after S5. Not sure if they will try and spin something out of that. Maybe that rumored Star Fleet Academy series?

    SNW will get another couple of seasons with Pike in command. After that I suspect it will continue with Kirk et al. If they are smart they will jump forward to the point just after The Motion Picture and pick up there. That gives them the opportunity to lean into The Motion Picture redesign to make it visually different from SNW and a fairly clear 5-10 years of timeline to fill before the red uniforms and ST:TWOK.

    I think having 2-3 shows with 10 episodes a season and a season per year is probably the right balance.

  • TootSweet@latte.isnot.coffee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Trek goes dark, that’ll just be a good excuse to watch all of what’s out there now again from the beginning. Or watch more fan-made and non-canon content.

  • gammasfor@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Also to be honest, the Star Trek IP being taken away from Paramount’s dumb decisions could be the best thing to happen to it.

  • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If Paramount collapses Star Trek will get bought by somebody. At this point that would almost certainly improve anything new produced. That said, I think we are at a turning point in TV type media. With the writers strike showing no signs of let up, and Disney, Paramount, Netflix, and I’m sure more streaming services all showing signs of significant difficulties, something big is going to happen.

    My hope is that the industry gets together and decides to cut the BS 8 streaming services for random content and change things to be more user friendly. All content on one non-profit service whose income is divided equitably (after running costs deducted) to all content contributing creators based on demand for their supplied material. Something akin to YouTube, but paid with a subscription fee. No selling rights or whatever in that if you want to make money on your show? Publish it to 1stream and get what it earns back at a standard rate / min watched or whatever.

    I would probably pay $80/month for 1 service that had everything guaranteed with no problems. Not this subscribe to 1 for 3 months and then another for a month and so on BS.

    • hot_guava@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would probably pay $80/month for 1 service that had everything guaranteed with no problems.

      You’re describing cable, and for years we begged for a la carte options to free us from cable packages. I can’t fathom going back to paying $80/month for a bunch of crap I’ll never watch when I can jump around for a third of that. I’ll never argue that what we have is the best solution, but it’s a damn sight better than where we came from, at least from a consumer perspective. It perhaps peaked when Netflix was the only game in town with both physical and streaming to get me everything I could ever want for $20/month, but 8 streaming services is still better than shelling out for a cable package.

      • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, Cable is not where I was going with this. Cable is for profit. 1Stream is non-profit. Cable buys rights to display content and charges flat fees/package. 1Stream would be ‘all content media companies want to publish’ with no rights fees etc. You would pay for how much you use the service and media companies would earn based on how much their content gets used. That is not how Cable works at all. Most notably: I’ve said nothing about ads in this mix either although that could be one way for users to pay.

        Think YouTube on a grand scheme, but, Steven Spielburg/Paramount Pictures as the CC instead of Pewdiepie