Star Trek Discovery

[long_time_DNC]

Watched the first episode of S4...it was ok. I'll be watching more today...

 

[dfergie]

Watching Ep 2 S4 now.

 

[harshness]

Watching Ep 2 S4 now.

Are you watching "The Ready Room" along with?

 

[dfergie]

Not yet, I usually do.

 

[Bruce]

IMHO, this probably means STD is not long for this world. CBS certainly won’t want to spend its own money on production of future seasons.

And…..wrong.

Star Trek: Discovery Renewed For Season 5 — Plus, Picard Season 2 Premiere Date Is Set

The Star Trek Universe is brimming with news, for "Discovery" (renewal!) and "Picard" (return date!) — get all the details.

tvline.com

 

[SamCdbs]

This is surprising. Unlike traditional TV, where ratings are clear, how much a particular show drives people to a particular streaming service is harder to determine. Clearly CBS thinks the Star Trek, even something as awful as STD, is capable of driving people here, enough that they are wiling to spend their own money on this mess.

Hopefully when this series finally runs its course, they will feel the same way and get in a creative team that understands what Star Trek is supposed to be all about. Or cares.

 

[Ronnie-]

This is surprising. Unlike traditional TV, where ratings are clear, how much a particular show drives people to a particular streaming service is harder to determine.

While I dont recall seeing concrete numbers, P+ did say Discovery was their most watched original series in a article I recently read.

 

[Bruce]

This is surprising. Unlike traditional TV, where ratings are clear, how much a particular show drives people to a particular streaming service is harder to determine. Clearly CBS thinks the Star Trek, even something as awful as STD, is capable of driving people here, enough that they are wiling to spend their own money on this mess.

Hopefully when this series finally runs its course, they will feel the same way and get in a creative team that understands what Star Trek is supposed to be all about. Or cares.

Just because you do not like does not mean others do not and Paramount+ makes a lot of money because of having STD ( and other shows), it has roughly 50 million paying subs ( as of 3rd quarter-47 million) if you average it at $4 per sub ( some pay more because of no commercials, some pay less because of deals), that is $200 million a month, that is $2.4 billion a year, then they get money from commercials also.

 

[Bruce]

While I dont recall seeing concrete numbers, P+ did say Discovery was their most watched original series in a article I recently read.

Read the same, Picard was number 2.

 

[DialgaChampion]

Just because you do not like does not mean others do not and Paramount+ makes a lot of money because of having STD ( and other shows), it has roughly 50 million paying subs ( as of 3rd quarter-47 million) if you average it at $4 per sub ( some pay more because of no commercials, some pay less because of deals), that is $200 million a month, that is $2.4 billion a year, then they get money from commercials also.

This is incorrect. Paramount+ may be making money, but not because of shows like Discovery and Picard. These shows are actually losing CBS money because the majority of the fans (customers) are not invested in them. If anything, they're one-and-done series with no rerun value, unlike the pre-2009 Star Trek shows, all of which are still airing in reruns on linear tv to this day. Each episode of Discovery/Picard costs $8-10 million to produce and they're not making any ROI.

If you've been keeping up with what has been happening these past few years, especially behind the scenes in terms of producing these shows, you would know that. All the evidence points to these shows being failures from a business standpoint: from Netflix funding the entirety of Discovery Season 1, to then splitting the cost with CBS for Seasons 2 and 3, to now having completely gotten out of their Star Trek contract with CBS and Kurtzman altogether. They wouldn't have done so if the shows were so lucrative and successful.

Even when Discovery Season 1 aired on CBS' actual tv network last year, it was barely pulling in 2 million viewers an episode according to Nielsen, and that was the first time Episodes 2-onward had been aired on linear tv in the U.S. Any other show costing that much money to produce and delivering such low viewership numbers would be cancelled immediately and moved to the Saturday night death slot, especially if airing on a major broadcast network.

Then you have CBS All Access rebranding to Paramount+. If Discovery and Picard, their flagship series, were so successful for All Access, it wouldn't have been necessary to rebrand. Merchanise/toy sales have also been tanking and you'll be hardpressed to find any toy characters based on the newer series because most Trek fans only want action figures from the classic series (i.e. the newer characters are not memorable).

By the way, Netflix had right of first refusal for the Picard series, yet they passed on it based off the poor viewership numbers for Discovery, which is why Picard went to Amazon instead for a much lower fee. And Amazon doesn't seem too happy right now either, from the Picard Season 1 viewership numbers.

Clearly CBS thinks the Star Trek, even something as awful as STD, is capable of driving people here, enough that they are wiling to spend their own money on this mess.

There's speculation that the only reason these shows are still airing and being renewed is because of outside investors (i.e. certain billionaires) who are helping to fund the production anonymously, for no reason other than to keep the "message" and political views/narratives in front of people's eyes. Kurtzman already admitted in an interview a while ago that they're using the new Star Trek shows as a political platform, so as long as they continue to do that, these investors (whose political goals align with those of CBS and Kurtzman) are fine with throwing their money away at them.

 

[Ronnie-]

Ok guys, if you want to discuss the politics of these shows, take it to the political section.


Otherwise leave that out of here.

 

[Bruce]

Ok guys, if you want to discuss the politics of these shows, take it to the political section.


Otherwise leave that out of here.

Awwww, but that was hilarious to read.

Amazed that Discovery brings out this much hatred, it is just a TV Show, either you enjoy it or not, I like it, but we watch the whole season at once, not as much fun weekly.

 

[klang]

Awwww, but that was hilarious to read.

Amazed that Discovery brings out this much hatred, it is just a TV Show, either you enjoy it or not, I like it, but we watch the whole season at once, not as much fun weekly.

I think it is just Star Trek in general. Some people are almost religious about it.

I remember similar crap online when the remake of BattleStar Galactica came out. Blasphemy!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[long_time_DNC]

Mostly enjoyed E6 "Stormy Weather" tonight. It felt more like a Star Trek than a "Discovery" episode and advanced the DMA storyline to something along the lines of TOS' "The Doomsday Machine", which actually made it interesting!

 

[SamCdbs]

I think it is just Star Trek in general. Some people are almost religious about it.

Without discussing politics, yeah. Science fiction fans in general, and Star Trek fans in particular, have very particular and passionate views about the franchises they love.

Star Trek has a view of the future that is its core. Hopeful is the easy way to describe it. All Star Trek, even Picard, shares that view. Then comes STD. Its just not Star Trek. Aside from not being very good, the universe it lives in is just not the Star Trek universe. Dark, sad, divisive. And, on top of that, it ignores “canon” and messes with the history of one of the core Original Series characters.

Yes, if this way a cop show or a doctor show “just change the channel” is all there needs said (which is why you wont see 25 page long threads on most such series, here or anywhere else.

But Star Trek is different There are dozens of web sites and YouTubes and other fan voices that all are saying the same things about STD. Because Star Trek, done properly, is so wonderful.

It is just a shame that the outfit that controls the copyrights and trademarks is uniquely unable to make a proper show.

 

[KAB]

Without discussing politics, yeah. Science fiction fans in general, and Star Trek fans in particular, have very particular and passionate views about the franchises they love.

Star Trek has a view of the future that is its core. Hopeful is the easy way to describe it. All Star Trek, even Picard, shares that view. Then comes STD. Its just not Star Trek. Aside from not being very good, the universe it lives in is just not the Star Trek universe. Dark, sad, divisive. And, on top of that, it ignores “canon” and messes with the history of one of the core Original Series characters.

Yes, if this way a cop show or a doctor show “just change the channel” is all there needs said (which is why you wont see 25 page long threads on most such series, here or anywhere else.

But Star Trek is different There are dozens of web sites and YouTubes and other fan voices that all are saying the same things about STD. Because Star Trek, done properly, is so wonderful.

It is just a shame that the outfit that controls the copyrights and trademarks is uniquely unable to make a proper show.

Very well iterated! Hit the nail on the head. There is very little, if any ST in STD. Had to stop watching after the 2nd or 3rd episode of S4. CBS is flushing money away for S5. They should focus on the Capt. Pike/Enterprise show..."Where No Man........................."

 

[TheKrell]

I remember similar crap online when the remake of BattleStar Galactica came out. Blasphemy!

Well, I don't know if it was blasphemy or not. But the actors and actresses on the original were all rather good looking. The remake had actors and actresses which were IMHO just the opposite, with the possible exception of Number 6, who nevertheless couldn't hold a candle to Seven of Nine.

For example, they had nothing like this lady:

Nor this lady:

Nor this lady:

Nor this lady:

 

[Zookster]

I'll take the writing, character development, and world building of Battlestar Galactica 2004 over the bevy of hotties in the original any day (though when I was 12 at the time of the original, I would've said the exact opposite ).

 

[TheKrell]

I'll take the writing, character development, and world building of Battlestar Galactica 2004 over the bevy of hotties in the original any day (though when I was 12 at the time of the original, I would've said the exact opposite ).

You're a lot younger than I am, and yet you seem so old.

 

[primestar31]

I'll take the writing, character development, and world building of Battlestar Galactica 2004 over the bevy of hotties in the original any day (though when I was 12 at the time of the original, I would've said the exact opposite ).

I recently marathon re-watched the 2004 series all the way through, (including all the movies) and found it even better than the original 'watch as it aired'. It's absolute genius, IMO. From beginning to end. They absolutely hit it out of the park...