ST: Strange New Worlds Canceled

Captain Dunsel

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

…well, after the 5th season (which will only be 6 episodes), it’s over…

Only 46 episodes in totality.

IMG_0204.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Jeez, they haven't even started the 3rd season yet. Not sure of that bodes well for future Trek projects. But if future Trek would be like SNW, STD, or Section 31, I guess I wouldn't want it anyway. That Starfleet Academy show is still a go, but I have little hope or interest for it. The article mentions Tawny Newsom's Trek "workplace comedy " but just says there's no word on it. I've watched some of Lower Decks and kind of liked it for what it is, but I don't really want a Trek live-action sitcom.

Curious why they haven't moved forward on a "Captain Seven on the Enterprise G" series. Probably money, but maybe they don't think there's enough interest. I shouldn't get my hopes up, though. I was excited for Discovery (even though I didn't like the prequel setting or the ship design) and SNW before I actually watched them both.
 
Not that I'm a fan, but it might not be about quality. When a bean counter sees that they have two unaired seasons in the can, his first response will be "why are we in production for more? Let's see how these do."

That's what happened to the original run of Futurama.
 
And the same bean counter will be concerned about how his budgeting looks to the higher ups THIS year. Producing a season that won't be aired for years won't help his career.
 
Not that I'm a fan, but it might not be about quality. When a bean counter sees that they have two unaired seasons in the can, his first response will be "why are we in production for more? Let's see how these do."

That's what happened to the original run of Futurama.
I don't know if it's a factor, but the reason most Syfy shows end at 5 seasons is contractual. If they go on longer, they have to pay the actors more.
 
I don't know if it's a factor, but the reason most Syfy shows end at 5 seasons is contractual. If they go on longer, they have to pay the actors more.
I'm not sure if it's true, but I heard that's why the series Bosch didn't continue, but they went on to do Bosch Legacy. If they continued with the original series, they'd have to pay all the actors more, but cancelling it and starting a new one meant they could just keep the lead actors and cut the rest.
 
5 seasons 46 eps. Dsicovery was 5 years and what 55ish? Picard 3/30ish, what was the show before that? Enterprise? I dont think that hit 5 years...so SNWs length seems rather par for the course. I mean, there are bbc shows that last 5 years and dont hit 20 episodes.

Paramount could hace a massive hit on thsir hands anx it wont go past the end of the first contracts because like most networks these days, they are too cheap.
 
5 seasons 46 eps. Dsicovery was 5 years and what 55ish? Picard 3/30ish, what was the show before that? Enterprise? I dont think that hit 5 years...so SNWs length seems rather par for the course. I mean, there are bbc shows that last 5 years and dont hit 20 episodes.

Paramount could hace a massive hit on thsir hands anx it wont go past the end of the first contracts because like most networks these days, they are too cheap.

Enterprise went 4 seasons, totaling 98 episodes…dwarfing anything produced in the Kurtzman era.
 
Last edited:
Enterprise went 4 seasons, totaling 98 episodes…drawfing anything produced in the Kurtzman era.
Depends on how you look at it, no? Network TV at that time was 20-24 shows a year. Their plan wasn't 4 years with cancelation in the middle of the 4th season. The stars wouldn't be due new deals until S5 or 6. But, it ran it's course, wasn't getting ratings and got canceled. But if you got 4 years at that point in time, yeah, you'd get 24x4 = 96 episodes give or take. The current shows being capped by Paramount at 10ish shows a year isn't a fault of the new shows, it's a fault of the network refusing to pay for more. And look at their entire streaming only products...nothing outside reality surpasses that mark either.

I blame Survivor. I told my brother when that came out if it succeeded it would destroy broadcast TV because it's super cheap. You don't have to pay your cast. It'd take over because cheap trumps good every time. But, that's another issue.

Since the shows were brought back, nothing has gone beyond 10-13 in a season. All, except Picard, had a plan for longer than 5 years. Nothing has got past 5 though. Why? They won't let it. In fairness, it's not just paramount. Netflix, hulu, disney, Amazon...they all seem to cancel everything before those 2nd deals have to be negotiated. It's the standard in the streaming world. If you get 3 seasons/30 episodes you should consider yourself lucky.
 
Since the shows were brought back, nothing has gone beyond 10-13 in a season.

Yes—and one would think with the writers being responsible for only producing 6 - 10 shows a season that these would be “well-polished” shows of the highest quality …the opposite is true with 6 - 10 shows, per season, that reflect abysmal quality….

Instead of producing sci-fi that is truly thought-provoking and groundbreaking (what Trek used to be)…


…they are producing this Strange New Slop:



 
Last edited:
Your implication is these things are ending because they aren't good. I'm simply saying, they're being canceled because networks are now pathetically cheap. No more, no less.

SNW could be the single greatest show ever filmed. It'd still get capped at 5 seasons unless it was pulling in simply staggering sums of cash, but no streaming show is ever going to do that.
 
Your implication is these things are ending because they aren't good. I'm simply saying, they're being canceled because networks are now pathetically cheap. No more, no less.

SNW could be the single greatest show ever filmed. It'd still get capped at 5 seasons unless it was pulling in simply staggering sums of cash, but no streaming show is ever going to do that.

Very valid point, indeed.
 
SNW sure looks good, but it's go so soul. No social commentary. It's too bad given the budgets they received; I guess it's true the less money you have, the better your product tends to be. I'm speaking of mainstream hollywood productions, not bottom-of-the-barrel slop that gets dumped on Tubi.
 
Back
Top