Star Trek Cast And Crew Share Production Updates On ‘Strange New Worlds,’ ‘Picard,’ And ‘Discovery’

That’s not the story I heard. I had heard that GR intentionally went to syndication from the beginning because he would have more control over his show. Also, FOX didn’t start until 1989 and TNG first aired in 1987.

My bad. Fox did indeed start in ’86. For some idiot reason I was thinking the network started with The Simpsons. But that show was spun off from Tracy Ulman.

It is a very convoluted history, going back to Star Trek: Phase II. When Paramount belatedly got serious about Phase II in 1976-77, all three major networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) were extremely interested in it. There would likely have been a bidding war, the reruns of TOS at the time were that lucrative. This is one (perhaps the main) reason Paramount decided it would launch its own network.

Then Star Wars happened. Paramount decided it needed a Trek movie, and Phase II faded into Trek history.

Flash-forward to 1986. Three movies had all been very successful (even if Paramount would forever plead they lost their shirts on TMP.) and a fourth was imminent and the studio was very happy with it. And a new TV series was once again being seriously considered by Paramount. The networks (now including the new Fox) were all again very interested. But to do it right, the new show would be very expensive, and Paramount wanted 24-ish episodes per season to spread the cost over more episodes to sell to the networks. The networks would probably have gone along with some arm-twisting (standard practice was to start with just 10 or 12 episodes and up the season order later.) Eventually, Paramount (probably with Roddenberry’s complete agreement) decided syndication was the way to go, pocketing more of the money itself instead of sharing it with ABC, CBS, FOX, or NBC middle-men. And the rest is history.

Don’t know if Stargate did this but BSG would often split their longer season into two parts. Sometimes with a break so long they may as well have called it the next season.

Note: The first few years of SG-1 were on Showtime, a pay network.

“Over the air network shows still have a number of shows with 20 episodes or so. But the short seasons have even been encroaching there, too. FOX has done it quite often. And frankly those 10 episode shows on the air don’t look any better technically than the 20 episode shows. So I stand by my comment on laziness.”

Again I’m talking about the streaming shows, which Star Trek is now. Those are a very different animal from the network shows, which I agree is mostly just experimenting with lower episodes. but streaming shows it is mostly out of need because of the cost, the fact they don’t rely on audience numbers wise in the same way and take longer to film and produce.

Back in the TOS and TNG days, it would take 6-8 days to film an episode. For Discovery, takes 15 days now, basically twice as long. Its one of the things Anson Mount complained about when he was shooting that show and why I wasn’t sure he was up for a full series. But it’s also WHY ten episodes is more fitting when it takes the same amount of time to shoot 10 episodes it use to take 20.

And we can sit on our sofa and just shrug off the millions of dollars and months of labor it takes to make these shows but this is just the reality today, especially with FX. TV has been transforming more into event series for the last decade, thanks mostly to GOT (and which btw the producers the originally referenced as the kind of show they wanted Discovery to be in terms of production….and why it got delayed for so long).

Discovery cost $8 million an episode, that’s not The Mandalorian but that is still above what a typical network show would cost and probably why it wouldn’t last very long on one. And yes the turnaround would have to be faster but streaming and cable don’t have the same time schedule like a FOX or ABC show has. With streaming its just different dynamics.

I agree it doesn’t mean because it cost more and has better effects it will be a better story behind it. Look how much Hollywood spends on movies themselves and takes years to get them made just to deliver a so-so product a lot of the times. BUT it manage to get more people to view it then who don’t if they DIDN’T take the time and money to make it into a spectacle. The Kelvin movies are literally the perfect example and why it take 3-4 years just to get one made when TOS and TNG films could be made in 2-3 years. A lot of the streaming shows are going through the same process, but they clearly think its worth it because those shows are only getting more expensive as well.

And these shows are sold to a worldwide audience now. Gone are the days America ran a show first and 9 months later Australia or maybe Germany would get it. They are now more global than ever thanks to streaming and another reason they are putting in the money and time to make them bigger because they are showing them in 200 countries all within 24 hours most of the time.

It’s just a different world now so different expectations and dynamics. I know as we get older change is harder, but it is change nonetheless and I don’t see it going back to the old way because with streaming it never conformed to the old way in the first place.

But you’re getting 5 Star Trek shows out of it, so glass half full! ;)

Dude I just explained why lol. BECAUSE they are filmed more cinematically today than the more standard (but efficient) way TV shows mostly did in the past. I mean that is the excuse, they are taken longer because how the shows are made today literally takes longer to make…and more expensive to boot. They are spending $100 million a season on a dozen episodes in a lot of these shows. They want to take their time.

I guess it’s just funny to me. In the Berman days people criticized Trek back then because Trek was turning into a meat grinder factory producing so many episodes for 15+ years. Now they are taking more time between seasons to try and do it a different way. I understand many still don’t feel they are getting a great show, but if people are criticizing the shows NOW, I can only imagine how badly they would with rushed episodes at a fraction of the price.

And I disagree totally about having set dates. I mean that is the other crazy thing, most franchise films seem to be getting all these set dates (even if they are years away) and I don’t think it makes the films better. Yes we ALL want more Star Trek and the sooner the better, but I still prefer for them to take their time if they think it will be a better experience. At the end of the day that’s what we’re talking about. And in terms of the production values, that can’t be argued. Discovery literally does look and feel like a movie at times. Just too bad they don’t spend more time on the scripts themselves but that’s not exactly an exclusive issue in Hollywood in any form. ;)

Which is of course funny because everyone said when CGI came around and became a staple in Hollywood, the belief back then was stuff would be cheaper and faster to do in time and that’s been proven wrong on both accounts.

VFX have become faster and cheaper to do on a per-shot basis. The reason movies still take so long and VFX budgets have gone up is that the number of VFX shots in movies has exploded. Jurassic Park had about 50 VFX shots in 1993. Compare that to modern-day blockbusters which often have between 2000 and 3000 VFX shots.
There’s an article by FXGuide called “Star Trek Discovery In COVID” from November 2020 that states that each episode has anywhere between 100 and more than 700 VFX shots. So for the full season, that’s indeed more than a modern-day blockbuster.