|
Lister posted:Crow's info was a little out of date. But viacom looks like it's trying its best to make their platforms more globally competitive so they took back the international rights to star trek. Ah. I didn't know about that because all the Trek shows are on Crave here in Canada, and have been since Disco premiered in 2017, so I've never really had to deal with the "Is Star Trek available where I live, Y/N?" question. I just remember seeing peeps on Twitter posting screengrabs of their Netflix top pages that showed Disco as like #2 in Germany, or #3 in Poland, etc. But I guess that was for like Season 2 or 3 then.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
Lister posted:Crow's info was a little out of date. But viacom looks like it's trying its best to make their platforms more globally competitive so they took back the international rights to star trek. Yea Pluto TV is an awful platform, it really is like a live broadcast. Paramount+ is meant to be launching in the UK at some point this year, Disco 4 will probably appear when that does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
Lister posted:You're forgetting that no one goes back and to rewatch old seasons of The Bachelor several years on from their broadcast. quote:Star trek shows are much more likely to be valuable for longer into the future than cheap reality shows or original shows not connected to an IP. Even Enterprise has probably made a good profit by now in streaming rights, and that was such a bomb that it's the only trek series to get cancelled since TOS. Paramount+ could fold in 10 years and Viacom would still be able to sell the licensing rights to other platforms in perpetuity. Ehhh, there's a lot of differences with these shows. First off, TNG and DS9 were first run syndication. They were able to sell to a ton of markets, in advance, to fund the show. Likewise, UPN sold to a lot of different markets, so they could work a similar funding arrangement with VOY and ENT. CBS is taking the entire financial hit on the new Trek series. Also, they are much more expensive, with much more advanced makeup and special effects than the old shows (S2 PIC not withstanding, lol.) Finally they are producing during COVID which adds another pretty significant expense to their production. You are asserting they are going to make these expensive, valueless shows to.. recoup value? It's logically inconsistent. quote:So yes, it is possible for a trek series without a lot of interest to keep getting the green light, because the analytics suggest that even if it isn't profitable in the short term, the longer term value is higher than season 16 of "I'm marrying a person I haven't met from another country" Not to pick on you because I am sure it's just a random example you named, but 90 Day Fiance is outperforming pretty much every reality show out there atm and in terms of profit/drawing eyeballs is pure fire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:CBS is taking the entire financial hit on the new Trek series. Also, they are much more expensive, with much more advanced makeup and special effects than the old shows (S2 PIC not withstanding, lol.) Finally they are producing during COVID which adds another pretty significant expense to their production. You are asserting they are going to make these expensive, valueless shows to.. recoup value? It's logically inconsistent. They had a sweetheart deal with Netflix that meant Paramount got Discovery produced for almost nothing and they bought Netflix out to get it back and now bear it's entire nine figure per season cost themselves entirely. Perhaps our dauntless thread experts can tell us that's actually clearly part of a complex money laundering scheme next, that's about as good as "streaming services just pretended people watched Discovery"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
Seemlar posted:They had a sweetheart deal with Netflix that meant Paramount got Discovery produced for almost nothing and they bought Netflix out to get it back and now bear it's entire nine figure per season cost themselves entirely. Clearly CBS got rid of all their dirty money by giving it to Netflix, and they replaced it with a vastly larger sum of clean money made off of Star Trek being wholly their own IP once again. That’s how money laundering works, right? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 01:59
|
|
|
Man a whole lot of numbers getting posted to bring this discussion to the end
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:That's actually also not true. That content is all valuable, and new people discover it constantly. It's not as much of a draw as new content, but there's a reason why every streamer has tons and tons of old reality seasons. People watch that poo poo. They have tons of old reality shows because they already produced them and own the rights, so there's no reason to take them off, even if very few people ever watch it. I'm not saying it doesn't have value, but I'm talking about how well the shows end up aging and their ability to retain value over time. It's less than a franchise like star trek because the tenancy is to watch the current season, not go back decades like you would with trek. quote:Ehhh, there's a lot of differences with these shows. First off, TNG and DS9 were first run syndication. They were able to sell to a ton of markets, in advance, to fund the show. Likewise, UPN sold to a lot of different markets, so they could work a similar funding arrangement with VOY and ENT. CBS is taking the entire financial hit on the new Trek series. Also, they are much more expensive, with much more advanced makeup and special effects than the old shows (S2 PIC not withstanding, lol.) Finally they are producing during COVID which adds another pretty significant expense to their production. You are asserting they are going to make these expensive, valueless shows to.. recoup value? It's logically inconsistent. I'm saying that they're making these expensive shows because of the value they add to building a streaming service. Even if they don't make money in the short run, being able to have noteworthy shows from something people recognize goes a long way in selling the service in the long term. What's going to end up catching the eye of a potential new subscriber? An extra season of Interrogation or Coyote or one of a star trek series, even if it's more expensive? quote:Not to pick on you because I am sure it's just a random example you named, but 90 Day Fiance is outperforming pretty much every reality show out there atm and in terms of profit/drawing eyeballs is pure fire. Yes, I know that it's one of the highest rated reality shows - for its current seasons. How many people are going back to the first three seasons of 90 Day? What about Keeping up with the Kardashians which was a huge show too? I don't have the data, but considering the disposable nature of reality tv, I think a show like enterprise is getting more people to come back to it than those.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 02:13
|
|
|
Discovery isn't the first Star Trek that Kurtzman has worked on. Kurtzman worked on a few others before. But they didn't survive more than a few pitch meetings. Discovery's predecessor almost made it to its fourth movie. Discovery should have been cancelled before its sixth episode.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 02:26
|
|
|
Seemlar posted:They had a sweetheart deal with Netflix that meant Paramount got Discovery produced for almost nothing and they bought Netflix out to get it back and now bear it's entire nine figure per season cost themselves entirely. You're acting like no corporation has ever wasted money in trying to expand its power and influence with a gamble to grow market share. They got over a billion of free money last year right before the bottom dropped out of the company. So they're free to spend like a drunken sailor for a while. https://ir.paramount.com/news-releases/news-release-details/viacomcbs-prices-offerings-class-b-common-stock-and-mandatory In case you didn't know, viacom's stock was pumped artificially last year by one hedge fund using borrowed money. That press release corresponds with the stock's crash. The moment viacom cashed out on its higher value to raise extra money, the fund was margin called and the bottom fell out completely. However, viacom got paid and they're using a lot to invest in a lot of content for viacom. Sometimes investments don't pay off for a long time, and like with most tech companies, you have to spend a ton and not be profitable for a long time before it can start paying off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
Lister posted:They have tons of old reality shows because they already produced them and own the rights, so there's no reason to take them off, even if very few people ever watch it. I'm not saying it doesn't have value, but I'm talking about how well the shows end up aging and their ability to retain value over time. It's less than a franchise like star trek because the tenancy is to watch the current season, not go back decades like you would with trek. I'm talking about streaming as a whole, not just Paramount+. You asserted that no one watches those old seasons, but companies are paying money for all these old seasons for a reason. It's not because no one watches em. quote:I'm saying that they're making these expensive shows because of the value they add to building a streaming service. Even if they don't make money in the short run, being able to have noteworthy shows from something people recognize goes a long way in selling the service in the long term. What's going to end up catching the eye of a potential new subscriber? An extra season of Interrogation or Coyote or one of a star trek series, even if it's more expensive? But you can name it "Star Trek" and have it be about anything for that same effect. And again, they have FIVE Trek series now. They aren't going to keep producing underperformers for nebulous "selling the service" reasons when they can just axe them and NOT spend that money. quote:Yes, I know that it's one of the highest rated reality shows - for its current seasons. How many people are going back to the first three seasons of 90 Day? What about Keeping up with the Kardashians which was a huge show too? I don't have the data, but considering the disposable nature of reality tv, I think a show like enterprise is getting more people to come back to it than those. This is all based on your feelings and likes. There's literally no logical reason to think people wouldn't watch or even re-watch reality TV for frankly the same reasons they watch or re-watch scripted TV. And the reality stuff is multitudes cheaper to produce. Fidel Cuckstro posted:Man a whole lot of numbers getting posted to bring this discussion to the end No one shares the numbers. It's plain common sense a studio isn't going to take losses on a show when they have 4 more in the wings with the exact same IP Also, could you compare Kurtzman to Mussolini or something so we can get another break from your interminable poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
It's possible for shows to be bad AND popular. How long did Big Bang Theory go for? Vampire Diaries? They still make the Simpsons and that hasn't been good for twenty years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:This is all based on your feelings and likes. There's literally no logical reason to think people wouldn't watch or even re-watch reality TV for frankly the same reasons they watch or re-watch scripted TV. And the reality stuff is multitudes cheaper to produce. The logic is that star trek series are a part of a large franchise and every story adds extra detail to the whole universe it's in. So when new people become fans, they go back and watch old episodes from the old series. Reality tv doesn't have that same retention because it's not a part of a much larger story. Seasons are usually isolated or disposable season to season. Do you really think that people are watching episodes of The Real World from 1999 in the same way they go back to episodes of Voyager?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 02:47
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:It's possible for shows to be bad AND popular. Right, but the "it's bad" contingent are also claiming no one watches Lister posted:The logic is that star trek series are a part of a large franchise and every story adds extra detail to the whole universe it's in. So when new people become fans, they go back and watch old episodes from the old series. But any series with Star Trek in its title could fulfill this same function. Why would they keep an underperformer when they could just make a new show, or even just axe one of the FIVE they have? quote:Reality tv doesn't have that same retention because it's not a part of a much larger story. Seasons are usually isolated or disposable season to season. Do you really think that people are watching episodes of The Real World from 1999 in the same way they go back to episodes of Voyager? Considering they are doing Real World reunion series, yeah, in a similar way I think they do, or will. Charity Porno fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Apr 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 02:53
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:
Homie I got a bridge with a picture of an ape smoking a weed joint to sell you, just PM me
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:But any series with Star Trek in its title could fulfill this same function. Why would they keep an underperformer when they could just make a new show, or even just axe one of the FIVE they have? The excuse pulled out with this one when you see it around elsewhere is that they just can't cancel Discovery despite it being a secret dead weight because it's their flagship and it needs to continue to "save face" for the other shows around it Which is of course nonsense, they could have ended it and made anything, whether it be Strange New Worlds or something else their centrepiece with ease - if it actually made sense to do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 03:03
|
|
|
They're spending all their star Trek budget for the next 50 years so the only way to produce it will be as an Adam Sandler pyramid scheme where he's captain of the enterprise F with all his lovely friends. David Spade will be there. Kevin Nealon. One inexplicably hot woman married to Adam Sandler's character. Kevin James, Rob Schneider. They have to agree to make this because they're desperate and Adam Sandler is guaranteed money in the bank. Every episode is full of references to poo poo from the 70s and 80s for some reason. That's right, I'm talking about the Orville
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 03:17
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:Homie I got a bridge with a picture of an ape smoking a weed joint to sell you, just PM me Ah yes crytpobros, known for being high up in the business world. You made the Lusitania of analogies
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:They're spending all their star Trek budget for the next 50 years so the only way to produce it will be as an Adam Sandler pyramid scheme where he's captain of the enterprise F with all his lovely friends. David Spade will be there. Kevin Nealon. One inexplicably hot woman married to Adam Sandler's character. Kevin James, Rob Schneider. They have to agree to make this because they're desperate and Adam Sandler is guaranteed money in the bank. Every episode is full of references to poo poo from the 70s and 80s for some reason. Remember when people legitimately thought that Seth McFarland was going to swoop in and buy Star Trek and save it from Alex Kurtzman and all the money Alex Kurtzman was making for Paramount with Star Trek? How’s that third season of the Orville working out anyway?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:But any series with Star Trek in its title could fulfill this same function. Why would they keep an underperformer when they could just make a new show, or even just axe one of the FIVE they have? Because all of the pre-production work is time consuming and expensive. Design new uniforms, design a new bridge, create 5-8 new characters, go through the casting process, think of twist on the formula, name everything. The list goes on and on so you're always going to be better off trying to build on something where the work and investment is already done. And like I said before, it can be an underperformer right now but still be worthwhile to make as an addition to the franchise in the long term. The corporate strategy right now is "grow the subscribers, even if we lose money." That's how tech investments work. You have to lose incredible amounts of money in order to establish a brand or product before you can actually make money from it. I don't think it's far fetched that all the new star trek series lose money for several years before the value of the investment is fully realized in the long term. But hey, don't take it from me, let's hear it from the CEO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek_tLjYROEI&t=101s https://news.yahoo.com/paramount-still-couple-years-away-152124766.html Now this is going to include the costs of everything related to P+ but it goes to show that profitability is taking a back seat to building a library and reputation as they grow. The things that end up getting cut are the ones that are wholly original like I mentioned before like Interrogation or Coyote because there is no cult fan base baked into those shows, so that means no long term value in the library. quote:Considering they are doing Real World reunion series, yeah, in a similar way I think they do, or will. That's nostalgia bait aimed at the people who were young enough to watch those seasons when they were on the air. Maybe I'm not seeing the cult fans of the series that go back and love rewatching the show and talk about it endlessly on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 03:33
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:Ah yes crytpobros, known for being high up in the business world. ahh bro no quick edit this even I'm going to let you walk in to a trap like this!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:How’s that third season of the Orville working out anyway? Comes out late May or early June I think
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 03:37
|
|
|
i mean the lusitania was a fine ship. it just got fuckin blowed up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 03:41
|
|
|
That DICK! posted:i mean the lusitania was a fine ship. it just got fuckin blowed up. Which one of us is the U-boat in this analogy? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
That DICK! posted:i mean the lusitania was a fine ship. it just got fuckin blowed up. Yeah but just imagine if there had been 200 identical Lusitanias? All of them secretly transporting arms to the British? Now with the power of CGI...
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
This last page really has been the Aquitania of discussions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 07:41
|
|
|
Truly, it is the Boaty McBoatface of Star Trek discussion threads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 09:17
|
|
|
This was so goddamn awesome when I got to go as a teen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 12:44
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Ah. I didn't know about that because all the Trek shows are on Crave here in Canada, and have been since Disco premiered in 2017, so I've never really had to deal with the "Is Star Trek available where I live, Y/N?" question. I just remember seeing peeps on Twitter posting screengrabs of their Netflix top pages that showed Disco as like #2 in Germany, or #3 in Poland, etc. But I guess that was for like Season 2 or 3 then. Hey quick question as another Crave-haver. Do you happen to have Netflix as well? I'm trying to figure out whether it's just me, or whether Crave's TNG offering actually looks/sounds worse than what's on Netflix? I've been trying to give Netflix the heave-ho because I really only use it to watch DS9 and TNG, was super pleased to see TNG on Crave but when I put it on it just seemed really low bitrate and the audio felt muffled by comparison. Not sure if anyone else has done an A/B comparison but it's driving me bananas, and I do enough re-watches of TNG that I'm almost worried it might make me take my finger off the cancel button on netflix.com At this point I should just buy or "buy" the remastered TNG discs and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 12:46
|
|
|
Leaked clip from Picard Season 3 shows a real return to form.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 13:47
|
|
|
https://trekmovie.com/2022/04/25/interview-ethan-peck-on-listening-to-nimoys-voice-to-get-spock-right-for-star-trek-strange-new-worlds/quote:So you have talked about your Spock has an arc towards becoming the full Nimoy Spock. So how are you calibrating and evolving that journey as you go through season one, and now into season two? fair answer
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 14:14
|
|
|
I'm finally watching Disco for the first time and so far I can say that it's nice to see storytelling at a level so far above Picard, even if I don't care about the story being told. Then I got to episode six and...that was...good?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
CPColin posted:I'm finally watching Disco for the first time and so far I can say that it's nice to see storytelling at a level so far above Picard, even if I don't care about the story being told. Then I got to episode six and...that was...good? Season 1? I mean you're in for a pleasant surprise if you make it through that one, it generally gets better IMO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
Season one was the best one, mostly carried by Jason Isaacs and with the only actually good episode of the series thus far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Seemlar posted:They had a sweetheart deal with Netflix that meant Paramount got Discovery produced for almost nothing and they bought Netflix out to get it back and now bear it's entire nine figure per season cost themselves entirely. What, they didn't buy netflix out, netflix had the rights to show some of them and Paramount decided they wanted to put it back inhouse The big special deal was just for series 1 It looks like it was last minute as gently caress as well since the cast were over here promoting the show and didn't even realise it wasn't going to be watchable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Season one was the best one, mostly carried by Jason Isaacs and with the only actually good episode of the series thus far. I agree. I decided about five minutes in that I was basically gonna treat it as imitation brand Star Trek-flavoured Science Fiction Show with Good CGI and that's what I got
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:Season 1? Yeah, S1E6. I was like, "Wow! This story has a beginning, middle, and an end! And so does the B story!" Goes to show how low Picard has set the bar haha
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
i agree with some prior comments that the nutrek live action high-water mark so far has probably been 'magic to make the sanest man go mad'
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Crusader posted:i agree with some prior comments that the nutrek live action high-water mark so far has probably been 'magic to make the sanest man go mad' I think it's a tie between that or season 3 episode 1
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
The only thing about season 1 that I think was better than the following seasons was Jason Isaacs, and I wish there was some way they could have finagled a way to keep him on the show (I know he probably didn't want to be tied down to a TV series and always intended to do the one season and bail). In general I thought he was a much more compelling mirror universe character and was clearly much better at blending in than the lady who just can't help reminding everyone how evil she is in every conversation. Beyond that I think 3 and 4 have been a lot more interesting due to the setting and I really enjoyed the resolution to season 4. Hell, I really liked the "villain" and thought they did a really good job fleshing out his character beyond just making him the unlikable douchnozzle arrogant scientist trope that we saw every other week on TNG. That said it did feel like a TNG episode that got stretched out across ten episodes and I really hope that season 5 has a few interesting stories to tell and doesn't fall back on "oh no another galactic threat, the stakes are bigger than ever before and only the SPORE DRIVE will make it possible for us to resolve!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
is there anything they can do with this noonien singh gal that isn't just: rowdy ensign: hey get a load of her, she's a noonien singh! hey do any eugenics lately idiot? haha *high five* noonien singh gal: but i just want to serve starfleet to honor the long line of proud and good noonien singhs nobodies ever heard about  number one: it is important to be proud of who you are noonien singh gal: yes  i've thought good and hard about any way they would play it and the only other thing that i can come up with is she's a purely comic relief goofball fuckup klutz, because her family has had to steer clear of anything even closely resembling eugenics for 400 years and the only people who would marry noonien singhs were idiots and other noonien singhs, so she ends up ironically being a kind of Bizarro Superman untermensch. but i dunno i don't think they'll do that
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2022 17:18
|
|