There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

FlyingSquid , (edited )
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

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: hollywoodreporter.com/…/paramount-earnings-stock-…

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines