this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
208 points (98.6% liked)

Star Trek

1180 readers
2 users here now

/c/StarTrek: Your safe harbored Spacedock in these Stellar Seas!

Fire up the inertial dampeners, retract all moorings and clear space dock. It's time to boldy go where no one has gone before!

~ 1. Be Civil. This is a Star Trek community and lets keep that energy. Be kind, respectful and polite to one another.

~ 2. Be Courteous. Please use the spoiler tags for any new Trek content that's been released in the past month. Check this page for lemmy formatting) for any posts. Also please keep spoilers out of the titles!

~ 3. Be Considerate. We're spread out across a lot of different instances but don't forget to follow your instances rules and the instance rules for Lemmy.world.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Stamets@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think you keep missing me saying that I hope it's good, I'm just not optimistic that it will be.

[–] Stamets@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.world 3 points 7 months ago

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