It looks like the upcoming Lower Decks season will be the last one 😭😭 I didn’t have any expectations for this show but it has quickly grown to be one of my favorites. I’ll miss it

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    But my main problem here is the demographic line. You’re suggesting that the only reason to make for another demographic outside of the core Trekkies that have been catered to for decades is for money.

    Yes. 100%. It’s always about money. Paramount does not greenlight Star Trek shows unless they think it will make them money.

    Now businesses are gonna business and wanna make money but why is doing it for another demographic bad? Are they not allowed to enjoy it? Do their opinions not matter? Why is it such a bad thing that more demographics are being catered to with Trek?

    Another demographic isn’t bad. Relying on that demographic as one of maybe two shows when it has not traditionally been a Star Trek demographic is a huge risk that comes entirely from bean counters.

    The reason I am so eagle eyed on this is because the same argument was thrown at Star Trek Discovery specifically due to LGBTQ characters.

    This is entirely different. This is not pandering. This is trying to get Paramount+ an entirely new viewer base at the expense of everything else because it’s what desperate Paramount+ executives feel their failing streaming service needs to survive. “We’re adding a few queer characters to get a gay audience” would be pandering, because it’s about gratification. This isn’t about gratification, this is about subscription fees. This isn’t “okay, we’re throwing you kids a bone so you’ll watch too,” this is, “we are creating this show entirely around the idea of getting new viewers to pay for Paramount+.”

    And again, this isn’t the creative team behind Star Trek saying so, this is Paramount executives.

    Suggesting that appealing to demographics outside of the stereotypical nerd is bad or should be treated with suspicion doesn’t help anyone in anyway.

    It isn’t bad, but it should be treated with suspicion. Because all streaming service tentpole shows that get greenlit should be treated with suspicion right now. It should also be treated with suspicion because there’s zero movement on Legacy, Prodigy was shunted over to Netflix and now Lower Decks, despite being super popular, is ending with only 50 episodes total.

    This is not the early streaming era where anything went and people had lots of creative freedom. This is an era where demographics are everything to executives.

    I am absolutely cynical about such things because I have seen how such things play out over and over again.

    Edit: If you haven’t read this post yet, this article supports my point: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/paramount-earnings-stock-cash-content-1235328376/

    • Stamets@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Another demographic isn’t bad. Relying on that demographic as one of maybe two shows when it has not traditionally been a Star Trek demographic is a huge risk that comes entirely from bean counters.

      But there’s no evidence that they’re relying on them. You are basing all of this off of assumptions. You say elsewhere that SNW isn’t going to last more than 5 seasons but you don’t know that. Moreover, they’re currently only working on their 3rd. So that’s another 3 released seasons of show over a few years which would demonstrate that this YA show would not be the only Star Trek show. Then there’s the two confirmed Star Trek movies (S31 movie and a new Prequel movie) that have been announced as well. You keep acting like the only thing that’s going to be left is Starfleet Academy but there is no evidence of that.

      “We’re adding a few queer characters to get a gay audience” would be pandering, because it’s about gratification. This isn’t about gratification, this is about subscription fees. This isn’t “okay, we’re throwing you kids a bone so you’ll watch too,” this is, “we are creating this show entirely around the idea of getting new viewers to pay for Paramount+.”

      Personally I find that to be splitting hairs. Both are the same thing. Both are the company looking at a demographic and using that demographic for the sake of their own gain. But even then I do not understand this argument in any way whatsoever. It’s like saying “they are only doing the things people might like so they will vote for them.” Like… isn’t that the point of a for profit company? To do things people like and then get the money from them because they like it? Why is it so suspicious that they’re doing what they do to survive.

      Because all streaming service tentpole shows that get greenlit should be treated with suspicion right now. It should also be treated with suspicion because there’s zero movement on Legacy, Prodigy was shunted over to Netflix and now Lower Decks, despite being super popular, is ending with only 50 episodes total.

      Then be cautiously optimistic. I just find it insane that the show hasn’t been released and there’s not even promotional stuff for the show but the immediate assumption is that it sucks, will only be pandering towards an audience to get their money and should be treated with extreme suspicion. Doesn’t matter that the writers involved are people who have proven they legitimately care about the show, like Tawny Newsome.

      This is not the early streaming era where anything went and people had lots of creative freedom. This is an era where demographics are everything to executives.

      It’s the exact same era. Demographics have only ever been used for the sake of money. That’s just how for profit companies work. If you make something that appeals to a certain demographic then you can get the money of that demographic. That’s not a surprise or a sudden groundbreaking thing that’s only now happening. Moreover, it’s not a bad thing and has been my exact problem with the comments about demographics in this thread. It’s reductive to almighty hell and relates to another comment where I used LGBTQ in Discovery as an example. You are saying “They are only using demographic for money” but that is not a new thing. Kids shows are aimed towards a specific demographic because money can be made from them because the market is there for it. If money can be made from a Young Adult audience and they make a show for a Young Adult audience it isn’t surprising or suspicious that they’ve done that. Would you react the exact same way if another Trek show was made for the middle aged, white, straight audience? They’re a pretty big demographic and one that money can be made from which is why they’ve been milked ad infinitum. Why is it that when another demographic gets the same treatment now it’s suddenly problematic? You’re phrasing this entirely from the perspective of yourself. You’re not seeing it from the perspective of people in that demographic. You’re taking this too coldly and too calculated from solely a executives side and not considering the people who are going to get the show, whether they’d like it or whether they want it. Personally I’m not willing to make a single discussion about demographics in anyway until that demographic themselves actually weighs in. They might like it and love it and that’s awesome. Then they get Trek for them. They might hate it and the show gets cancelled. That’s just how media works. Not everything is going to be a hit, not everything is going to be safe and not everything is going to be for the same demographic endlessly.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        I agree. I’m entirely speculating. But I am not hopeful, I’m just not. I’m sorry.

        Would you react the exact same way if another Trek show was made for the middle aged, white, straight audience?

        If it were sold by Paramount as “Middle Aged Star Trek” or “White Star Trek” or “Cis Star Trek” or whatever, yes. I have, aside from Prodigy, never heard Paramount, Vicacom, whatever, sell a Star Trek show as ‘we’re designing this show around this group of people.’

        It instantly raises my suspicions.

        • Stamets@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I have, aside from Prodigy, never heard Paramount, Vicacom, whatever, sell a Star Trek show as ‘we’re designing this show around this group of people.’

          And what happened with Prodigy? Nothing. The world carried on spinning and nothing happened because catering to a specific audience isn’t a problem or problematic. It just means that a new audience gets to see a world with reflections of themselves that they normally would not be able to see.

            • Stamets@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              I probably am. Stressed about a few things and yeah. I am sorry if I came off aggressive or anything here.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                We’re good, dude! I told someone elsewhere in the thread that you’re very passionate about this and I think that’s a good thing.

                • Stamets@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m also just very particular about language which quite often doesn’t help.