• Jagermo@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Sucks, but better than overstay your welcome (Dexter) or get cancelled with a big cliffhanger (My name is Earl)

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      overstay your welcome (Dexter)

      I blame the late Manny Coto for that. I blame him for a lot of bad TV, actually. lol (ENT was the exception, somehow)

      or get cancelled with a big cliffhanger (My name is Earl)

      Wasn’t that due to the Writer’s Strike? Regardless, showrunners should never end a season on a cliffhanger when the studios have shown they’ll pull the plug for any reason whatsoever.

      • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        8 months ago

        During an interview with the “Slick & Thick” podcast, Ethan Suplee, who portrayed Randy Hickey, revealed that, ultimately, the cancellation was due to communication issues between NBC, the show’s network, and Fox, the show’s studio.

        “We were a hit. And the network called the studio and said, ‘We want to license the show for another year,’ and the studio said, ‘Well, we want more money. We want to renegotiate our deal with you.’ And the network basically did not respond for two weeks,” said Suplee. “And then the studio called back and said, ‘We’ll take your deal,’ and the network said, ‘Too late.’”

        Looks like plain old incompetence killed the show.

        • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Ah, shame, but not surprising.

          I always assumed it was a victim of the Writer’s Strike around the same time (not blaming the writers, obviously).

          Thanks for that.

          • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s definitely a possibility that it had something to do with why the studios were so far behind that next year. Even shows that weren’t cancelled at the time suffered terribly (Heroes comes to mind).

      • wjrii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Regardless, showrunners should never end a season on a cliffhanger when the studios have shown they’ll pull the plug for any reason whatsoever.

        I guess if contracts are signed, it’s okay, but even then it’s a risk (e.g. strikes). For the most part I agree, though. You need to end on a note that, at the bare minimum, could serve as a slightly unsatisfying pausing point.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      overstay your welcome (Dexter)

      That show overstayed its welcome inside the third season. It would have been a better show as a British style 3-episode / 4-season mini-ish series. But there was sooooo much filler and soooo much recycling of plots, the edginess of killing and dismembering a guy was downright trite by the time Jimmy Smits got to the set.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I’m fine with a show grinding itself into a shadow of its former self. Long term shows like It’s always Sunny had downturns but then came back.

      With Simpsons, you can pick out a few episodes each new season and put together a full good season out of 4 years of mediocrity.

      Especially given that seasons today are 10 episodes whereas DS9 was 20+ episodes a season.

  • TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Sucks to see Paramount mismanage the brand over and over again.

    But, hey, I still got the 90’s shows on disc, so they can’t take that from me.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’m not that surprised. The show’s very nature gives it a limited shelf life. Part of the fun of Trek is watching the characters develop and advance in their careers. Eventually they’re gonna get promoted past what can be called lower decks.

    I’m a bit pissed off that they’re canceling this and going ahead with the section 31 project, but I find section 31 to be tedious at best, and that it undermines Star Trek’s message at worst. “Your utopian post-scarcity society that celebrates diversity can only exist because of these unaccountable fascists slinking about behind the scenes.”

    • MintyAnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      Section 31 was a cool concept in ds9 because of the context around it.

      Every other time 31 shows up is just… Blech. Feels like those writers want to be writing something bloodier than star trek and this is their way to do it.

      • Seasm0ke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        My biggest gripe with discovery was the secret plot to blow up the Klingon homeworld foiled at the last second. Almost turned me away from it entirely but they got much better. SNW is up there with TNG for me now.

  • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’d actually much rather see a good show end at a good spot rather than be dragged on and on until it’s bled dry. 5 seasons isn’t a half bad run.

  • Infynis@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    8 months ago

    Absolutely criminal, unless we get a spinoff with them as senior officers where they do more important missions. I’m not holding out hope though

    • randon31415@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      With the Texas class disaster, they create a “Arizona Class” ship which is partially automated. The lower decks group becomes the bridge crew - and the only crew on the ship. They think they are in charge, but the computer and a shadowy group of scientists are actually pulling all the strings. Can they prove that they are the real ones in charge?

      • Infynis@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        That would totally work. You can bring in Section 31 William Boimler and reference the mess they made with AI in Disco season 2

    • taiyang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s my hope, or at least more of this type of show. It was pretty successful and a good reason to at least have more silly animated Star Trek.

      They already make cameos in other serieses, so those characters can live on in canon, too. Like DS9 had a lot of TNG in it.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    We really needed a Boimler/Mariner trip to the 31st century or even a Tendi/Rutherford trip forward.

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    I never really understood the point of lower decks. It seems like a show that craters to the “adult cartoon” crowd.

    • smoothbrain coldtakes@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      8 months ago

      It does cater to the adult cartoon crowd but it caters to trekkies in general. Mike McMahan has been a fan of Star Trek forever and as the showrunner did a lot of good universe building within the confines of the TNG era. It has a lot of callbacks and references and is just a fun and funny way to enjoy Star Trek.

      I really liked it, I considered it one of the better shows in general, because being lead by a true fan and not just a writers room with notes allowed the show to be a fun little exploration and expansion of the universe, showing us the side of Starfleet we don’t see very often.

      Some people have criticized it for being too goofy with the argument that Starfleet officers are supposed to be professional. My counter is simply that not all officers are bridge crew material and there are so many mistakes that happen across all the random ships in the fleet that it’s fun to center on one and see how it’s going.

      • Howdy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        I was going to say, it has been my personal favorite star trek series since voyager mainly because its set in the timeline I enjoy the best and its aesthetics. Also, it’s just fun.

        Moopsy.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Cartoons do big concept high-action content cheap when live action shows have settle on cheesy low-rent special effects and set dressing. Treasure Planet, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, the Lion King - basically impossible to do right without spending a fortune a la Avatar or Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings.

      Even if you aren’t doing Sci-Fi, you can get a lot of mileage out of the medium simply because the artist is doing so much of the leg work. Check out “Monster” or “Perfect Blue”, two shows that had originally been planned as live action dramas but got converted to animation for budgetary reasons. Also, too, “Grave of Fireflies” if you want to have your heart torn out.

      Cartoon Trek goes right back to the series roots - there was a cartoon version of the Kirk Trek from '73 - and holds up better than the live action original in terms of visuals.

      • Tattorack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        On the basis that it’s Star Trek. But I like I said, I could care less than I already do.

    • 11111one11111@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      While you may have picked up what the other comment was putting down, the statement you are looking for is: “I COULDN’T care less.” Meaning you care so little you are at the absolute zero point of fucks to give😁

      • Tattorack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        True, but look at it like this:

        I already care very little, and but the possibility of caring even less is there.