Really enjoyed this episode! Wasn’t quite sure where it was going at first but just went along for the ride and ended up really liking it. Refreshing to see a good temporal mechanics Star Trek episode again.
I’m not 100% sold on new Kirk yet but I also don’t dislike him either. It’s kind of surprising given how well Ethan Peck fits as Spock, I would have thought that Kirk’s casting would be equally spot on.
Still, curious to see where this goes, definitely loving the ride!
I feel like he fits the like... platonic ideal of Kirk, but he's not doing a William Shatner impression the same way that Peck is doing a Leonard Nimoy impression.
He's doing his own interpretation of the same character on the page.
Just as Roddenberry's utopian future transcends sexism, racism, ableism and other isms, so too does the cold-blooded calculation of the corporate accountant. Networks will cancel shows that lose money and renew shows that make money over whatever timeframe their cost/benefit ratio is run on. Personally, I think Prodigy is a breath of fresh air for the franchise, and cancelling it/removing it the network is a mistake from a brand/franchise/portfolio management perspective. But spinning its cancellation as an example of misogyny is silly. You might as well argue that Paramount hates kids cause there are many more children as main characters in the show and only one adult woman.
I agree these kinds of assessments require a bit of a deep dive.
Let’s look at the business case then, the economics and the long haul marketing strategy.
Does the narrative around Prodigy being unprofitable, a write off hold up? Could Whitbrook be putting his finger on something valid?
Let’s also keep in mind that the head of scheduling for streaming at Paramount has been saying that their business strategy for Paramount+, as they integrate Showtime, has said repeatedly that their streaming strategy is built on ‘the 3 Fs’:
Fandoms, franchises & familiar faces.
Prodigy quite obviously was designed to tick off all three elements of the strategy, so what’s the failure point or mismatch as they winnow?
The narrative that Prodigy wasn’t popular enough on Paramount+ doesn’t scan.
First, from what metrics we have available publicly for 2022 (Parrot Analytics mainly),
Prodigy was one of only two Paramount+ animated originals that performed well in audience demand, falling slightly behind Lower Decks.
Overall demand for the franchise and subscription uptake continued to build during Prodigy’s run in the fall-winter of 2022-2023 in contrast to the acute fall-off earlier in 2022 during the runs of Discovery season 4 and Picard season 2.
Star Trek and the Sheridan Yellowstone franchise accounted for half of Paramount+‘s subscription demand in 2022, with net subscription increases during the runs of SNW, Lower Decks and Prodigy.
So then, if Prodigy is doing well in attracting and retaining subscribers and Star Trek is one of two principal franchises supporting their business strategy, where’s the problem?
Let’s look at Nickelodeon, the original destination for the show.
Nickelodeon’s linear audience numbers have been falling overall. Prodigy’s numbers aren’t great on Nick, but none of Nick’s new shows are taking off as they once were.
Going into the pandemic, Nick was such an important anchor for cable in the US that Paramount was obliged to make promises for content exclusivity windows for Nickelodeon when it negotiated its last carrier contract for the US with Comcast. When the pandemic came, suddenly kids were online as never before, and Nickelodeon quickly diminished in its power to attract linear viewership.
So, one can draw an inference that it’s Nickelodeon, not Paramount+, that’s financial trouble is a key point in the decision. Nick is losing money on Prodigy, that needs an exit pathway for an expensive show it can’t afford to partner in.
BUT…
Why then, given Paramount’s 3F streaming strategy, animated shows less expensive and underrepresented in Paramount’s streaming offerings, doesn’t Paramount just rework the deal between the streaming side and Nickelodeon?
Here’s where systematic bias may be coming into it -
Paramount+ has been successful in building a broad subscriber base across ages, genders, race and ethnicity while still gaining ground in ‘middle America.’
This is not the case for other streamers. MAX is struggling to bring together the male-skewed HBO audience and the older-female Discovery one.
Let’s look at what else was cut along with Prodigy.
a show targeted at the LGBTQ audience canceled during Pride month
a show targeted at a niche female demographic
a family show headed by one of the strongest female leadership icon characters of the 90s, with another principal character voiced by a Black actor.
Paramount used a lot of dense marketing technobabble about fit and alignment to explain that the choice to cut and write this particular set of 3 shows. They’ve previously talked about popularity during the cuts of Showtime’s more niche, arty products.
If we listen to them, and accept their justification, the implication is that these LGBTQ, women and black targeted shows no longer are their demographic priorities. They don’t fit with where P+ with Showtime is going even if they all obviously check the 3F boxes. Meanwhile, there’s been no language backpedaling on the 3F strategy.
At the same time, Paramount Global is trying to sell off BET and BET+.
The conclusion isn’t necessarily misogyny, but clearly that Paramount Global is no longer strategically prioritizing its diverse representation of demographic groups.
They are telling us, their advertisers and their investors that Paramount/CBS is turning the entire business back towards prioritizing a much less representative audience.
There’s an implicit assumption that they can continue to retain the demand of women, racially diverse and LGBTQ demographics, while skewing their new investments towards the older, middle American audience of the Yellowstone franchise and the slice of the Trek audience that Picard season three was targeted to draw back in.
My conclusion - Whitbrook has a point. They wouldn’t have done this with Picard or Kirk.
It says more about Paramount’s strategic shift away from prioritizing representation and diverse demographics more broadly.
It’s not just misogyny, but it’s in there. Without unconscious bias and systemic misogyny, the scheduling folks wouldn’t assume that they can hold girls and women as an audience while taking them out of principal roles.
@StillPaisleyCat I appreciate the long, well-thought out reply. But I'm not convinced. Lower Decks has a black woman, Tawny Newsome, first on the call sheet and Mike McMahan has said (IIRC) that by default all of the characters in the show are bisexual (something that's been shown in various ways on-screen), so I don't think you can point to Prodigy's cancellation due to some bias against LGBTQIA+, women or people of colour when you have a counterfactual right there in its sister show. In fact, every modern Trek show has its diversity boxes well and truly checked, but nobody is accusing Paramount of cancelling Picard because of some network executive's bias against an interacial lesbian relationship in Raffi/Seven.
I haven't watched any of the Yellowstone shows (they're on my list) but I understand that franchise has Kevin Costner, Harrison Ford and Helen Mirren in its stable. A show starring these actors is just going to do better than a show starring Kate Mulgrew (who's last-billed, albeit with the "and" credit), just as a show starring Patrick Stewart as the lead is inherently going to do better numbers than a show where Kate Mulgrew is a supporting character. Bring in, oh say Beyonce, as a lead on a Trek and I'm pretty sure the ratings will spike through the roof. It's not because they're white or male, it's because they're more famous.
They wouldn’t have done this with Picard or Kirk.
Maybe, maybe not. But if not, it's because Picard and Kirk are more iconic, more well recognised characters than Janeway. Star Trek was never more popular in the mainstream than in the mid 80s-early 90s, with the TOS movies and TNG TV series both in full flight. VOY ran during the Berman era's middle-age as Trek's star (nyuk nyuk) was beginning to fade. Fans know who Janeway is, but most people on the street wouldn't, whereas most people on the street would recognise Captain Kirk and the bald English guy from that space show.
By the way, I say all this as someone who thinks that Prodigy is a far more worthy addition to the franchise than the fan-lauded season 3 of Picard.
Thanks for the PSA! I’d seen the warning that not including “Undetermined” could prevent you from seeing content, but I didn’t realize you could multi-select!
Okay there was a lot that worked for me in that episode. The amazing decision to have Pelia knowing nothing about engineering to being a veteran warp core engineer in 200 years. Going for child Khan and really leaning into the fucked up reality that these children were science experiments kept locked in basements for the first time in the franchise? The reminder that Toronto is actually pretty damn photogenic when it's not shot on a CW budget.
And you know what? Paul Wesley doesn't have Kirks voice, and the script still doesn't quite sound right, but he's got the Kirk delivery really nailed. He doesn't sound like Shatner, but he sounds like Kirk
Not mentioned in the in the article or interview but DS9 of course also did an episode set in 2024 with no mention of the Eugenics Wars or WW3. Picard did reference its Sanctuary Districts though which was nice.
And yeah this was an issue in the pilot, when Pike summarized Earth history. Events spiral from the Second American Civil War into the Eugenics Wars and ultimately World War III.
I’m curious what series might be most similar to The Orville in terms of quality. I watched The Orville a few months ago and really loved it and it’s what’s making me wanna finally try Star Trek again.
Strange New Worlds would be the most similar in terms of modern production values, and in many ways the production far exceeds The Orville.
Voyager also feels like The Orville, with a quite similar crew - awkward captain and first officer relationship, a flyboy pilot, a hothead engineer, a young forever ensign, an experienced and trusted security officer, and eventually someone who talks like a robot coming from the crew’s nemesis. It lacks a Bortus, but if you want more Bortus, go look for shows with Worf.
Lots of talking, probably. They probably spilled everything about their histories, and not just their personal histories, but the histories of their own universes. Thinking about that makes the ending all the more heartbreaking.
I enjoyed that episode a lot, although it would have benefitted from its length being tightened up by ten minutes.
What do we think was the nature of the Romulan interference with Earth? And what time period is Sera, the Romulan agent from?
The DTI agent appears to use 29th century tech, which is several hundred years after the Romulan Empire’s supernovae-driven collapse but possibly around the time of the Romulan-Vulcan reunification of Ni’Var. Is she from that same time period?
Sera also shows Kirk a picture of what looks like a TOS-era Bird-of-Prey as part of her alien conspiracy photo deck. It has the round nacelles typical of the 23rd century, rather than those seen in ENT’s 22nd century designs, or some other design representing the 20th/21st century in which these attacks take place.
Is she a time agent from the 23rd century (with the appropriate Romulan ship in orbit)?
Is that her guessing who Kirk is, and planting the evidence he’s most likely to recognize? Or was that really a Romulan design from the 21st century?
Which leads to me wonder if the Romulans started interfering with Earth’s development only due to temporal war shenanigans, or had they been doing flybys for as long as the Vulcans?
Star Trek
Newest