Picard is back!

[JCarter426]

Sounds like a bunch of speculation and nonsense.

a) No legal document in the world would have a multi-million dollar franchise predicated on what something "looks like". The specifics of the CBS/Viacom split aren't public, but it doesn't have to do with aesthetics and timelines. Those would just be reactions to the legal situation - it's easier to make sure everything checks out if the movies and TV are in different timelines and look different. But that certainly wasn't one of the terms in the contract. Most likely, CBS owns all Star Trek intellectual property (that's what the legalese on all the recent movies says) but isn't allowed to make movies; Paramount on the other hand has a perpetual license to make Star Trek movies (possibly with some silly F4ntastic-esque expiration clause) but what they're allowed to use and whether it's merely a license and the rights to anything they make revert to CBS isn't clear. Also, we know as part of the deal CBS agreed not to make any Star Trek TV until 2017. And the deal can certainly be renegotiated - CBS passing Discovery off to Paramount is evidence of this.

b) This is all moot if CBS and Viacom merge again.

[Metahuman1]

That hasn't been true since season 1 of Enterprise, or maybe since First Contact came out?

Although I would like to note that there are many series in the last decade or so which I feel reproduces the Star Trek feeling better than any actual Star Trek product since the good old days. Consult your fandoms, results may vary.

I know we all love our franchises, but sometimes it's just time for something to go away and become a relic of the past. Because coming into the future means change and as well all know, they changed it so now it sucks. Or you know, hold nothing sacrosanct.

It's been 21 years since first Contact Came out, and what, 17 or 16 years since season 1 of Enterprise? And what have we had since then? 5 Horrible movies that basically no one likes or cares about, 2 somewhat decent seasons of a prequel no one asked for out of 4 seasons for that prequel, and because the first 2 seasons were so lousy, the baggage still managed to kill it.

And oh, yeah, we've had Star Trek Discovery, which has been rather a disaster.


Youll forgive me if in light of some of the other information, I'm inclined to belive that no, the thing really is dead. And no, that "they changed it now it sucks" excuse doesn't hold water. That's a flimsy straw man CBS have been hiding behind for bad decisious with this property.


Edit to get the quote in and no double post.

Sounds like a bunch of speculation and nonsense.

a) No legal document in the world would have a multi-million dollar franchise predicated on what something "looks like". The specifics of the CBS/Viacom split aren't public, but it doesn't have to do with aesthetics and timelines. Those would just be reactions to the legal situation - it's easier to make sure everything checks out if the movies and TV are in different timelines and look different. But that certainly wasn't one of the terms in the contract. Most likely, CBS owns all Star Trek intellectual property (that's what the legalese on all the recent movies says) but isn't allowed to make movies; Paramount on the other hand has a perpetual license to make Star Trek movies (possibly with some silly F4ntastic-esque expiration clause) but what they're allowed to use and whether it's merely a license and the rights to anything they make revert to CBS isn't clear. Also, we know as part of the deal CBS agreed not to make any Star Trek TV until 2017. And the deal can certainly be renegotiated - CBS passing Discovery off to Paramount is evidence of this.

b) This is all moot if CBS and Viacom merge again.

You clearly vastly over estimate the intellegence of everyone involved, while simaltanousouly underestimating the ability of higher ups to let there own personal tastes make them malicious to there own cash cows.

It MIGHT be moot. IF that happens. That's a BIG if to start wtih. And even then, it only MIGHT be moot.

And frankly, even then, that's basically going to be a miracle in and of itself, so my point would stand. Barring a Miracle, Star Trek? It's dead Jim.

[JCarter426]

You clearly vastly over estimate the intellegence of everyone involved--

OK, you win.

[Peelee]

5 Horrible movies that basically no one likes or cares about
[snip]
Youll forgive me if in light of some of the other information, I'm inclined to belive that no, the thing really is dead.

For movies no one likes or cares about, they sure made a lot of money. Now as we all know, money is irrelevant to a franchise's continuation; the important thing is that the fans like it. This, of course, is why Firefly just wrapped up its 16th season.

[Bohandas]

It's been 21 years since first Contact Came out, and what, 17 or 16 years since season 1 of Enterprise? And what have we had since then? 5 Horrible movies that basically no one likes or cares about, 2 somewhat decent seasons of a prequel no one asked for out of 4 seasons for that prequel, and because the first 2 seasons were so lousy, the baggage still managed to kill it.

Science-fiction prequels, in general, need to stop being a thing

[Metahuman1]

For movies no one likes or cares about, they sure made a lot of money. Now as we all know, money is irrelevant to a franchise's continuation; the important thing is that the fans like it. This, of course, is why Firefly just wrapped up its 16th season.

I see what you did there.

[JadedDM]

Sounds like a bunch of speculation and nonsense.

It is. Don't believe anything Darth Ultron says. He talks like he has insider knowledge, but he's just making stuff up.

[Peelee]

I see what you did there.

I aim to please! Now, time for my yearly wailing and gnashing of teeth for how long that show could have lasted had Fox not been... well, Fox.

Darth Ultron talks like he has insider knowledge

That is considerably more generous than I would put it.

[Metahuman1]

It is. Don't believe anything Darth Ultron says. He talks like he has insider knowledge, but he's just making stuff up.

You might also want to look at the video he summarized then. After all, if your correct, you'll spend 24 minutes chuckling about how dumb Darth Ultron's assessment of the situation is.

And if your wrong, well, learn something knew every day, and hey, speaking of days, even stopped clocks are right twice during the day.

[JadedDM]

Sorry, Metahuman, but in the past you've proven yourself to be a conspiracy theorist so I take anything you say with a grain of salt, as well.

[Metahuman1]

Sorry, Metahuman, but in the past you've proven yourself to be a conspiracy theorist so I take anything you say with a grain of salt, as well.

Then you won't be particularly bothered if I'm not inclined to take your position all that seriously myself, given that your opting not to even expose yourself to the possibility that you might have misread the situation I take it?



Also, conspiracy theorist? Really? I don't recall blaming the US government for Boy Bands or Aliens for the success of Reality TV. Or are you simply referring to the fact that I'm no record that the people running certain franchises at break neck speed are doing so and giving reasons as to why? Cause, if Disney or CBS or Marvel's comics division wants to do an about face today to go 180 degrees in a different direction and explain there was something leaked into the water at corporate HQ for awhile there, I'd love to hear it.

[BeerMug Paladin]

It's been 21 years since first Contact Came out, and what, 17 or 16 years since season 1 of Enterprise? And what have we had since then? 5 Horrible movies that basically no one likes or cares about, 2 somewhat decent seasons of a prequel no one asked for out of 4 seasons for that prequel, and because the first 2 seasons were so lousy, the baggage still managed to kill it.

And oh, yeah, we've had Star Trek Discovery, which has been rather a disaster.


Youll forgive me if in light of some of the other information, I'm inclined to belive that no, the thing really is dead. And no, that "they changed it now it sucks" excuse doesn't hold water. That's a flimsy straw man CBS have been hiding behind for bad decisious with this property.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

My point was that what I liked about Star Trek, what I considered to be its core appeal, has been long absent from the official franchise. And it continued to exist and make money anyway. Although nothing done now will really kill it for me, because I still have the memories of enjoying those old shows and nobody can take that away. Not even Michael Bay. Which would be secretly glorious, I'm sure.

Additionally, I moved on to enjoying other things so I sort of stopped following the franchise. Other media engaged with me the way that Star Trek used to. Beginning at around that time. I'm honestly puzzled why more people don't draw a line somewhere in that area, but we all have our own tastes. Apparently rumors and gossip of an unfinished product's state are some peoples' lines. Which I'm sure will be erased as new rumors and gossip later on become the new lines...

There's also the fact that art changes over time with culture, and any newer revisit to a franchise is always going to have artistic differences from its predecessors. That's just a consequence of the evolution of culture and the influence on artwork it produces. Unless you follow Starfleet's Prime Directive of non-inter... innovation!

So that leaves two options for Generic Ongoing Franchise. Abandon the franchise entirely as a time capsule representing the era in which it was made, or change things around a bit for new times or a changing audience. It seems clear to me that general fandoms want the latter, apparently so there's something to rage post about on the Internet.

As for my reference to the trope, that was more of a bemused reaction I notice when I hear about fandoms apparently hating things that I consider either interesting changes to the dynamic of a show, setting or characters. I'd give numerous examples of this, but I really don't want to derail the thread too badly. Let's just say that there's another TVtropes entry out there that explains this sort of phenomenon precisely.

[Rodin]

I mean, what I'm getting from Darth Ultron's post is that they want it to both look different from other Star Treks and be set in a different timeline.

And there's a problem with this...why, exactly?

The aesthetics can be dismissed entirely. If I were to show someone who had never seen Star Trek before I screengrab of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek: TNG, they would never be able to tell that these shows are set in the same universe. Maybe you can view bridges between series and make the call that they follow the same overall design, but even that is iffy. Even the uniforms change quite a bit over the course of the franchise - Kirk has worn no less than 5 different uniform designs at this point. And if the idea is to move the aesthetic away from both Discovery and the new movies...well, good! It's set over 100 years into the future past both those shows. Give the show it's own look suitable to the intended mood of that story without being tied down to old designs.

And as for the timeline stuff...again, why is it a big hairy deal?

I certainly don't want them to be relying on existing canon to create stories. It's 20 years on, that stuff is ancient history. TNG went from Klingons as Cold War Russia analogues into being staunch allies. They pulled from the rough strokes of TOS history from time to time, but mostly they went their own direction and it all worked great. Because it's 20+ years into the future from even TNG, any timeline changes they wanted would have just happened as "history" anyway. You want no more Romulus and Vulcan? Fine, the original supernova took it out, and rather than get hurled back into the past Nero went and blew up Vulcan in the current timeline. Done, with no time travel nonsense. I'm changing events you say? Okay, Vulcan was destroyed in an unrelated disaster in 2388 and has been gone for 10+ years.

Tell me what the history is, and I'll roll with it. After all, the main reason we've had prequel after prequel is that the previous canon was too full in the first place. The one thing they have to get right is Picard - if they changed him into an action hero who sucks at diplomacy, then we have a problem. And if it were a new actor playing him, I'd be concerned. I can't see Patrick Stewart signing on if they wrecked Picard, as he certainly seems to have a lot of respect for the character. As for timeline induced changes to his history? Again, who cares? I'd like him to have encountered the Borg before, as that's a major part of his character. Other than that, individual stories are pretty easy to remove because TNG was such an episodic show to begin with. Even without time travel, any events they want to ignore can just be ignored because there's 20 freaking years in between them.

I just can't get exercised over this. I am certainly worried that the show won't be any good, but that's because they haven't been making the Trek I want to see since TNG ended. And I'm not talking about the movies - First Contact included. I'm talking about the actual TV series.

If Patrick Steward can make it work - great! If anyone can, it's him. If not, I can continue not watching. It's surprisingly easy.

[zimmerwald1915]

TNG went from Klingons as Cold War Russia analogues into being staunch allies.

TNG did not depart from the Klingons-as-Russians allegory in that respect. In the late '80s and through the '90s, indeed, up until 2008, Russia was seen as something like an ally or really, a protégé of the United States. The Russian campaign in Chechnya was seen as part of the embryonic global war on terror before the latter was even a thing. Federation involvement on behalf of Gowron in the Klingon Civil War can be seen as analogous to American intervention on behalf of Yeltsin in the 1996 presidential elections.

I fully expect the relationship to have soured again by the time of this new series given contemporary Russo-American relations, and with the Romulans - mutual antagonists of the Federation and Klingons - having been defanged and possibly transformed into a Federation (or Vulcan, the seeds for "reunification" were laid in TNG) protectorate by a catastrophe that dwarfed the explosion on Praxis. And especially given Discovery's take on the Klingons, which is. . . broadly unsympathetic.

[Thrudd]

TNG did not depart from the Klingons-as-Russians allegory in that respect. In the late '80s and through the '90s, indeed, up until 2008, Russia was seen as something like an ally or really, a protégé of the United States. The Russian campaign in Chechnya was seen as part of the embryonic global war on terror before the latter was even a thing. Federation involvement on behalf of Gowron in the Klingon Civil War can be seen as analogous to American intervention on behalf of Yeltsin in the 1996 presidential elections.

I fully expect the relationship to have soured again by the time of this new series given contemporary Russo-American relations, and with the Romulans - mutual antagonists of the Federation and Klingons - having been defanged and possibly transformed into a Federation (or Vulcan, the seeds for "reunification" were laid in TNG) protectorate by a catastrophe that dwarfed the explosion on Praxis. And especially given Discovery's take on the Klingons, which is. . . broadly unsympathetic.

Articles indicate that season 2 of Discovery is going to be showing different looking Klingons, and are thinking about continuity with the original timeline.
I think there's a chance that we will see some more sympathetic Klingons in S2, maybe the roots of those who will one day push to join the federation. And I can see a revival of religious fanaticism potentially fueling conflict with some Klingons in the Picard series- although since they are such a focus of Discovery I would think they'll be not spending a lot of time with them in the other show.

http://comicbook.com/startrek/2018/0...ngon-redesign/

"In season two, you are going to see much different designs,” Hetrick said. “You are going to see different houses you haven’t seen before. One of the most important things to us was that at this point in canon, as we head towards the current version of unification, the houses really each grow up on different planets. It is an Empire, it is not just Qo’noS…We have seen six of the great houses in close up in season one. As we move forward into the next season, I promise that we will continue exploring and unpacking and unfolding that infinitely interesting story of what the Klingon culture looks like on a wider level.

As for why the Klingons who followed T’Kuvma looked so unique — specifically why they all lacked hair while Klingons in the past have had long manes and distinctive facial hair — Hetrick hinted that could be explained by the group’s religious convictions.
...[he] went on to note that the way Kahless unified the Klingon Empire, according to past Star Trek canon, was “by cutting off his hair, and dipping it into a volcano and forging the first bat’leth and tempering in the ocean of Qo’noS.”

[Darth Ultron]

No legal document in the world would have a multi-million dollar franchise predicated on what something "looks like". The specifics of the CBS/Viacom split aren't public, but it doesn't have to do with aesthetics and timelines. Those would just be reactions to the legal situation - it's easier to make sure everything checks out if the movies and TV are in different timelines and look different. But that certainly wasn't one of the terms in the contract. Most likely, CBS owns all Star Trek intellectual property (that's what the legalese on all the recent movies says) but isn't allowed to make movies; Paramount on the other hand has a perpetual license to make Star Trek movies (possibly with some silly F4ntastic-esque expiration clause) but what they're allowed to use and whether it's merely a license and the rights to anything they make revert to CBS isn't clear. Also, we know as part of the deal CBS agreed not to make any Star Trek TV until 2017. And the deal can certainly be renegotiated - CBS passing Discovery off to Paramount is evidence of this.

It's very clear legally:

1.CBS owns Star Trek.
2.Paramount owns the Star Trek movies it has made in the past.
3.To make new movies, Paramount has a license from CBS, and that license says the Star Trek they make must have a ''new look", and not be exactly like CBS Star Trek.

You might also want to look at the video he summarized then. After all, if your correct, you'll spend 24 minutes chuckling about how dumb Darth Ultron's assessment of the situation is.

I hereby site the above video as one of my sources.

Also, conspiracy theorist? Really?

I'd note ''conspiracy theorists" are often right.

And there's a problem with this...why, exactly?

And as for the timeline stuff...again, why is it a big hairy deal?

You understand they want to throw out everything that is Star Trek right now, and start over from scratch.

I certainly don't want them to be relying on existing canon to create stories. It's 20 years on, that stuff is ancient history. TNG went from Klingons as Cold War Russia analogues into being staunch allies. They pulled from the rough strokes of TOS history from time to time, but mostly they went their own direction and it all worked great. Because it's 20+ years into the future from even TNG, any timeline changes they wanted would have just happened as "history" anyway. You want no more Romulus and Vulcan? Fine, the original supernova took it out, and rather than get hurled back into the past Nero went and blew up Vulcan in the current timeline. Done, with no time travel nonsense. I'm changing events you say? Okay, Vulcan was destroyed in an unrelated disaster in 2388 and has been gone for 10+ years.

Do you really not like canon? Would you just want for every show or movie to just be randomly something with no connection to anything else? Even every episode just to be some random stuff?

I can't see Patrick Stewart signing on if they wrecked Picard, as he certainly seems to have a lot of respect for the character. As for timeline induced changes to his history? Again, who cares? I'd like him to have encountered the Borg before, as that's a major part of his character. Other than that, individual stories are pretty easy to remove because TNG was such an episodic show to begin with. Even without time travel, any events they want to ignore can just be ignored because there's 20 freaking years in between them.

I'm sure Sir Patrick does not care: He wants to kill off Picard. And he is a ''good actor'' type that will just do what is written for him. And, of course, they can always be sneaky sneaky and just edit it after he shoots everything to make to whatever they want.

Articles indicate that season 2 of Discovery is going to be showing different looking Klingons, and are thinking about continuity with the original timeline.
”

It is possible they are worried about people watching the show. As they should be.

After all with it on CBS All Access people have to sign up and pay to watch it. So, way back when lots of people signed up to watch Discovery. And at least half of them did not like it. And in the massively long time between shows, most people just dropped CBS All Access.

So, someday, there will be a new Discovery show to watch....you know IF people sign back up and pay to watch it....again. And at least half of the people that did last time, won't bother. And that is a huge chunk of the fan base....and, of course, money.

So they have the choice of making the same bad show as season one...and make less money OR try and make a slightly better show, and hope they can draw everyone back.

[Thrudd]

So, someday, there will be a new Discovery show to watch....you know IF people sign back up and pay to watch it....again. And at least half of the people that did last time, won't bother. And that is a huge chunk of the fan base....and, of course, money.

So they have the choice of making the same bad show as season one...and make less money OR try and make a slightly better show, and hope they can draw everyone back.

What are you talking about? There is definitely a season 2, it's already being filmed. They have trailers for it already, it's airing at the beginning if 2019. Pike and Spock and the Enterprise are going to show up.
Season 1 was popular enough that they ordered 2 extra episodes after the season started.
I think there will be a number of people who sign up just for Star Trek, and then cancel when it is done. People already do that for Big Brother. Maybe they think they can survive on subscription surges for a few months out of the year- there were apparently enough last year to warrant continuing and expanding the project to a second series.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'd note ''conspiracy theorists" are often right.

Do you really not like canon?

In regards to canon being disregarded, it's really a good thing if you throw out things which are stupid (or doesn't do anything interesting) in favor of keeping canon which isn't stupid (or is potentially interesting). So tossing out canon on its own is not really a big deal. There's also the potential to toss canon because you have a better effects budget, or set budget or costume design, whatever. Or you know, modern morals have improved since its inception. Ahem...

The core of Star Trek is good people exploring space, finding weirdo things and sometimes fighting against a rival Space Empire which is evil. Everything else is secondary. And as such, when figuring out what to toss and what to keep, the best lens to consider keeping previous canon is probably in looking at what undermines the central premise or completely derails it. Energy beings with cosmic power is probably best discarded, for one...

Also, while I'm thinking of it... It's been a long time since I watched it, but I recall that TNG as a sequel series took a drastic shift towards diplomacy being more relevant than directly fighting the rival empire. The new rival Space Empire encountered in some episodes were the Romulans, and they were mostly not directly fought. They just had a lot of stand-offs that ended without explosions. That was definitely a change in the status quo, and thus, was a pretty big shift in the overall premise. Which I'm sure inspired fan-outrage on the proto-Internet.

But if they can't do this correctly, there's always a chance of an entirely new Hero Scientists Explore Space show cropping up eventually... Right..?

[Darth Ultron]

What are you talking about?

If CBS changes nothing and makes season 2 of Star Trek Discovery just like season 1, they will loose money.

There are two fan bases:

1.The traditional fans that like traditional Star Trek
2.The cool, hip fans that like a random dark edgy sci-fi show with a 'star trek' in the title.

We know 54% of America is a Star Trek fan. So that is 162 million people. Lets just assume they might all watch Discovery.

Right now, if season 2 is exactly like season 1, CBS can expect 81 million people to watch it, pew pew!

But if CBS makes a much better show, they can get all 162 million to watch the show.

Now granted not all 162 million will ever watch the show in reality...but you can do the same with any numbers. Say 100 million: so if season 2 is bad: 50 million, if season 2 is good 100 million.

So...CBS would sure like 100 million people paying then just 50.

In regards to canon being disregarded, it's really a good thing if you throw out things which are stupid (or doesn't do anything interesting) in favor of keeping canon which isn't stupid (or is potentially interesting). So tossing out canon on its own is not really a big deal. There's also the potential to toss canon because you have a better effects budget, or set budget or costume design, whatever. Or you know, modern morals have improved since its inception.

Sure, it sounds good....until the thing you like is called ''stupid'' and tossed out. And it's not even that they will just call it stupid...they want to re do the good stuff too.

The core of Star Trek is good people exploring space, finding weirdo things and sometimes fighting against a rival Space Empire which is evil. Everything else is secondary. And as such, when figuring out what to toss and what to keep, the best lens to consider keeping previous canon is probably in looking at what undermines the central premise or completely derails it.

Well, sure that is exactly what Star Trek is about....to a non Star Trek fan. Yup, it's just about finding weird stuff in space and sometimes fighting. It's exactly like Star Wars.

Also, while I'm thinking of it... It's been a long time since I watched it, but I recall that TNG as a sequel series took a drastic shift towards diplomacy being more relevant than directly fighting the rival empire. The new rival Space Empire encountered in some episodes were the Romulans, and they were mostly not directly fought. They just had a lot of stand-offs that ended without explosions. That was definitely a change in the status quo, and thus, was a pretty big shift in the overall premise.

You might want to rewatch all of Star Trek: the show has never been all about fighting. Star Wars is the murderhobo franchise. Star Trek is all about getting along, diplomacy and ''finding another way", and only fighting as a last resort.

But if they can't do this correctly, there's always a chance of an entirely new Hero Scientists Explore Space show cropping up eventually...

Well....that would be Doctor Who....

[Metahuman1]

@Thrudd


Ok, I'm going to try to break this down. They had a lot of people subscribe to check out Discovery. A VERY big chunk of whom did not like it.

It is now documented that the show preformed in a particularly crappy fashion on Netflix outside of the US. So Netflix put in a LOT less money for the streaming rights this time.

Thus, CBS had to spend a lot more money on a show that a lot of people whom were only there for that 1 show skipped out on after a short period of time, and whom a lot more didn't like in there other markets.

Thus, season 2 cost them a LOT more than season 1 did out of CBS's pocket.

Further, he's pointing out the extreme unlikeliness that more than a very, very small percentage of the people who paid for all access bothered to keep it after they watched the last Discovery Episode for season 1. That for months and months afterword's, they just let it laps and will resign up next year when season 2 hits. Except for the large chunk of them who didn't like season 1 enough to feel like they want to do that and thus, won't spend the money to do it again.


This would all have been more clearly laid out, if you'd watched the video I posted up thread. You should watch it, this will all make more sense if you do.





BeerMug Paladin :


I'm sort of glad you got 2 posts in before I got to post again. Saves me some work. It shows me what that core appeal to you was.

And it was nothing like what the Core Appeal to me was. Not even close.

And that's why.

I got a crap TV series, a heavily, heavily lack luster TV series before that, and 2 lousy movies. Prior to that, I'd had a hit and miss movie series (And when it was good it was very, very good, but when it was bad it was horrid.) and I'd had a sometimes rocky but frequently wonderful and engaging 3 TV show run. And hell, even a couple of the animated series episodes were excellent.

And that whole time, I kept pulling for the franchise, hoping maybe, just maybe, we were just going through a rough patch. That maybe, just, just maybe, we'd improve. After all, this series broke so much new ground, it couldn't go out like THIS right?!

And then we got discovery, and it brought other things to light. And I had to accept it was really dead.

I'm having to basically except that Marvel Comics are dead. I'm having to basically except that Star Wars isn't going to pull through either. I might have to swallow it with the MCU soon as well given some of the behind the scene's stuff I'm hearing.

Precisely how many more good things am I suppose to watch drop dead, quietly, because of people who are wearing it on there sleeves that either they don't get the thing there working on at all, or they are actively malicious in these destructions?

How many?








You claim there's a hugh list of things that fill Star Trek's Nitch as well or better. Please, list any and all of them that Aren't The Orville or a fan project, cause I sure as hell haven't seen them coming out of the wood work.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'm sort of glad you got 2 posts in before I got to post again. Saves me some work. It shows me what that core appeal to you was.

And it was nothing like what the Core Appeal to me was. Not even close.

...

You claim there's a hugh list of things that fill Star Trek's Nitch as well or better. Please, list any and all of them that Aren't The Orville or a fan project, cause I sure as hell haven't seen them coming out of the wood work.

The first statement guarantees the latter request would be an exercise in futility. It's off-topic anyway, which is why I did not mention a list when I first made that statement.

[zimmerwald1915]

And then we got discovery, and it brought other things to light. And I had to accept it was really dead.

I'm having to basically except that Marvel Comics are dead. I'm having to basically except that Star Wars isn't going to pull through either. I might have to swallow it with the MCU soon as well given some of the behind the scene's stuff I'm hearing.

This is a good thing. Long-running franchises are basically contra-art, and if they have to go before people start being creative again, then good riddance.

[Velaryon]

Well, except for any show...objectively...you might find a third or even half of the episodes to be 'eh, skip it'. Like I hate the all too classic Trek episode of a character lands on a planet or holodeck of a non-trek show. So they just do a 'wild west' or 1920's show, with a couple of Trek actors, it's such a waste.

At least when the original series did it, they had a reason. That reason being that their budget was practically zero, so they found any excuse they could to reuse props and sets from other shows and movies. The later series have been well-funded enough that that wasn't necessary.

It's also worth noting that TNG was not a regular broadcast show. During its entire run, it was syndicated to local networks.

I had forgotten this. Wasn't TNG one of the first shows to go directly into syndication? It may even have been the first.

[Androgeus]

Ok, I'm going to try to break this down. They had a lot of people subscribe to check out Discovery. A VERY big chunk of whom did not like it.

It is now documented that the show preformed in a particularly crappy fashion on Netflix outside of the US. So Netflix put in a LOT less money for the streaming rights this time.

Thus, CBS had to spend a lot more money on a show that a lot of people whom were only there for that 1 show skipped out on after a short period of time, and whom a lot more didn't like in there other markets.

Thus, season 2 cost them a LOT more than season 1 did out of CBS's pocket

Do you have a source for Netflix paying less? Not that I don't think it could be true, I just always prefer the source over internet gossip.

In other internet gossip about how no one seems to be able to make Star Trek these days, apparently talks with Pine and Hemsworth about appearing in the 4th reboot movie have fallen through.

[JCarter426]

I had forgotten this. Wasn't TNG one of the first shows to go directly into syndication? It may even have been the first.

It's certainly not common, though there were others before it. It's always been typical of low expectation shows - game shows, sitcoms, stuff for kids. They have to fill the airtime with something, so the lack of a network deal isn't going to stop everything. Like it didn't stop TNG. I'd say TNG stands out because it was one of the few successful ones, and maybe it did start a bit of a trend - DS9, Hercules, Xena. Still not that common today, but it happens.

TNG was, though, the first show to accept teleplay submissions from the general public, as far as I know. They stopped doing it with Enterprise though, probably because of the legal costs from phony lawsuits and also having to pay someone to reject 99% of everything read. But I think it's pretty cool that it resulted in actual episodes.

[Kid Jake]

Although if Picard enters the Federation into space-NASCAR, begins talking like Beavis and learns there's a secret society of space-wizards hidden in the cosmos, I might just have to call it quits.

That would definitely get me watching again...

[JadedDM]

You understand they want to throw out everything that is Star Trek right now, and start over from scratch.

Citation needed.

So, way back when lots of people signed up to watch Discovery. And at least half of them did not like it. And in the massively long time between shows, most people just dropped CBS All Access.

Citation needed.

We know 54% of America is a Star Trek fan.

Are you just pulling numbers out of the air? I suspect so.

They had a lot of people subscribe to check out Discovery. A VERY big chunk of whom did not like it.

Citation needed.

It is now documented that the show preformed in a particularly crappy fashion on Netflix outside of the US.

Documented where?

I'm having to basically except that Marvel Comics are dead. I'm having to basically except that Star Wars isn't going to pull through either. I might have to swallow it with the MCU soon as well given some of the behind the scene's stuff I'm hearing.

Okay, I think I see the problem. You seem to be under the impression that if you don't personally like something, it is 'dead.' Because it is my understanding that Marvel, Star Wars and Star Trek are all making metric tons of money right now.

Do you have a source for Netflix paying less? Not that I don't think it could be true, I just always prefer the source over internet gossip.

Neither Darth Ultron or Metahuman have any sources beyond long youtube videos that also do not cite any real sources.

[Darth Ultron]

Citation needed.
Citation needed.

Are you just pulling numbers out of the air? I suspect so.

Neither Darth Ultron or Metahuman have any sources beyond long youtube videos that also do not cite any real sources.

And, you have demonstrated the problem with people ''using citations" : Other people will never accept them. So the only reason to say ''citation needed" to to simply stop a discussion.

I guess youtube is not a ''real" source, but it does make one wonder what a ''real source" would be. But it's not like it matters.

[JadedDM]

Posting a youtube video of someone saying the same thing you are is not a citation. It's no different from saying, "I can prove X. Just ask Bob. He'll tell you." If I don't believe you, why would I believe Bob?

How hard is it to offer some proof of anything you've said? Like, "54% of America are Star Trek fans." Where did you get that number? Did you read it somewhere? If so, where? Did someone just tell it to you and you took it as truth without questioning it? Did you just make it up because it sounded reasonable to you?

"At least half of people who watched Discovery did not like it." Again, where did you get that number? Because all of the articles I read indicated the show as quite popular. Popular enough for a second season, at any rate.

Or how about "THEY want to throw out everything that is Star Trek right now, and start over from scratch." How do you know this? Was there a press release or some kind of interview with the execs at Paramount or CBS to indicate this? Let's see some links then.

[Darth Ultron]

Posting a youtube video of someone saying the same thing you are is not a citation. It's no different from saying, "I can prove X. Just ask Bob. He'll tell you." If I don't believe you, why would I believe Bob?

Again, this is the problem: you find a source that says the same thing as what you say. Ok, so what does that mean? Nothing?

How hard is it to offer some proof of anything you've said? Like, "54% of America are Star Trek fans." Where did you get that number? Did you read it somewhere? If so, where? Did someone just tell it to you and you took it as truth without questioning it? Did you just make it up because it sounded reasonable to you?

How hard is it for you to do your own research? You don't ''like" something you see posted don't just bang on your keyboard and spam ''citation needed", how about you look it up yourself. Doing your own research on topics is a good skill to learn and have.

"At least half of people who watched Discovery did not like it." Again, where did you get that number? Because all of the articles I read indicated the show as quite popular. Popular enough for a second season, at any rate.

Oh, well, see If I was you I guess I'd type ''citation needed" here. And wonder why you think how ''popular'' a show is has anything to do with it getting a second season. Networks only care about money and by way of that ratings....they utterly don't care how popular something is.

Or how about "THEY want to throw out everything that is Star Trek right now, and start over from scratch." How do you know this? Was there a press release or some kind of interview with the execs at Paramount or CBS to indicate this? Let's see some links then.

Why should someone bother though? You have already proved yourself to be the ''real complainer". So even IF you were given such a link, you'd just wave your hand and say ''it's not real", right? After all, you can decide what is ''real'' and what is not. And if you don't like or agree with something...then it's not ''real''...too you anyway.