Picard is back!

[GloatingSwine]

How hard is it for you to do your own research?

You're making the claims, it's on you to provide proof of them.

[JadedDM]

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?

I would find a source that holds some level of legitimacy. An article or interview written by an established news outlet. A study performed by a legitimate organization. You know...citations? Some rando on youtube is not a citation.

How hard is it for you to do your own research?

It's not. But you are the one making the claims, so the burden of proof lies on you. You claim half of Americans are Star Trek fans. You claim that 'they' (presumably the people making the show) want to destroy Star Trek from the inside. You claim that half of all people who watched Discovery did not like it (which, according to your own math, would be 25% of all Americans). I'm merely asking you to back up your claims.

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.

What, exactly, do you think ratings are? Ratings are a measurement of how many people watch a show, or in other words, how popular it is.

Why should someone bother though?

You don't owe me or anyone else here a thing. But as long as you make wild claims, I will continue to call you out on them.

[Metahuman1]

I would find a source that holds some level of legitimacy. An article or interview written by an established news outlet. A study performed by a legitimate organization. You know...citations? Some rando on youtube is not a citation.

Youtube is frequently regarded as an established news outlet. More and more every minute. Yet you dismissed it out of hand. Apparently the only things your not going to dismiss are the one's that agree with you.

It's not. But you are the one making the claims, so the burden of proof lies on you. You claim half of Americans are Star Trek fans. You claim that 'they' (presumably the people making the show) want to destroy Star Trek from the inside. You claim that half of all people who watched Discovery did not like it (which, according to your own math, would be 25% of all Americans). I'm merely asking you to back up your claims.

Said someone who hasn't backed up any of there counter claims. (Also, the 50% number was an obvious case of creating an illustration of a basic concept. Being deliberately obtuse about that? Not endearing.) You claim the show is extremely popular? Prove it. Show me all the CBS all access subscription numbers from a "reputable source.". And I mean including the people that canceled the service every month.

What, exactly, do you think ratings are? Ratings are a measurement of how many people watch a show, or in other words, how popular it is.

In this shows case, actually, in the US, no, no they aren't just that. There how much money the show is making, cause you have to pay extra for an extra service to watch it legally. And that money? That's what they care about, along with the money from merchandise.

You don't owe me or anyone else here a thing. But as long as you make wild claims, I will continue to call you out on them. I know you well enough to realize that everything you say should be taken with a grain of salt, but there are others who might not be aware of that yet.

I see. So your only doing this because you have a personal vendetta? That explains why you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that a movie franchise that's had it's latest installment be 80+ Million dollars in the red and who's merchandise sales are being creamed by Power Rangers is still making "ton's of money right now.". (Oh, and incidentally, Marvel Movies and movie related merchandise are making ton's of money. There animated division is doing noticeably less well, and there comics division is in the toilet. And given that were hearing lot's of little rumblings behind the scene's that the things hurting marvel comics are coming to marvel movies after Avengers 4, there's reasonable cause to be concerned. But hey, you've already admitted that this is all about a personal grudge too you. So, guess that doesn't matter either, right?)

I know you won't provide any real sources, largely because there are none, but by calling you out on it, I help make it clear to everyone else that you are not a reliable source of information.

Because you have a personal grudge match? Because your willing to sit here and lie about franchises profitability even when it's well documented that more recent installment's/sales/events are loosing money, and not in what most people would consider small sums either? Is that why he's not a reliable source? Or why I'm not one?




GloatingSwine : And prey tell, what do we do when sources are provided, and then dismissed out of hand with out even being so much as looked at?




Androgeus : I'll go link diving for you later. I'm at work ATM, and I can't really go web surfing too much. Never know which random website will cause the work place network security to freak out.


zimmerwald1915 : Neil Gaiman says hello.


BeerMug Paladin : Right. Well, since there aren't shows that are doing it then, Star Trek dying might, just maybe, be rather painful for people that like Star Trek for reasons that have something to do with things other than fighting, right? We might not take all that well too it?


*Sigh.* I never though I'd find this many Geeks who were this hostile to the concept of mythology's.

[Darth Ultron]

You don't owe me or anyone else here a thing. But as long as you make wild claims, I will continue to call you out on them.

You can call or type till the end of time...not like I care. You want to utterly ignore anything I type...it's not like I care.

[BeerMug Paladin]

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.

Youtube is frequently regarded as an established news outlet. More and more every minute. Yet you dismissed it out of hand. Apparently the only things your not going to dismiss are the one's that agree with you.

Seriously, you guys are a hoot.

Right. Well, since there aren't shows that are doing it then, Star Trek dying might, just maybe, be rather painful for people that like Star Trek for reasons that have something to do with things other than fighting, right? We might not take all that well too it?

My post was about moving on and finding new things in media to enjoy. I used to be in your position, but I stopped once it became painful, as you say. I generally recommend this sort of activity. If Star Trek isn't being made for you, it's time to find things that are.

[Metahuman1]

Seriously, you guys are a hoot.

My post was about moving on and finding new things in media to enjoy. I used to be in your position, but I stopped once it became painful, as you say. I generally recommend this sort of activity. If Star Trek isn't being made for you, it's time to find things that are.

Your right. I should look over at comic books oh wait. Ok, well there's Doctor Who and oh wait. Oh, well, ok, Star Wars it, oh, wait. Well animation is tried and true and oh, wait. Ah, at least table top gaming can't, *Sees recent tweet form guy in charge of D&D for Wizards.* Oh. Wait.

Beginning to notice a pattern? I find new things, the same sort of clowns have a propensity to move in on them. Thus the initial question that JadedDM was ever so eager to toss out out of hand. How many of these are suppose to be allowed to die in this fashion before there's push back precisely? How many times does this need to happen? Hmmmm?

[Cikomyr]

Lets be fair for a minute. Its not like Darth Ultron ever intended to even give a chance to Discovery. He has been criticizing everything - from factoids to inferred to outright imagined - about the series ever since there was even a trailer, and maybe even before then.

Him bringing out certains facts about the series about episode numbers or plot completely disregard that he spent 100% of his posts in the trailer thread saying how much he will hate Discovery and how much it will end up being stupid.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Your right. I should look over at comic books oh wait. Ok, well there's Doctor Who and oh wait. Oh, well, ok, Star Wars it, oh, wait. Well animation is tried and true and oh, wait. Ah, at least table top gaming can't, *Sees recent tweet form guy in charge of D&D for Wizards.* Oh. Wait.

Beginning to notice a pattern? I find new things, the same sort of clowns have a propensity to move in on them. Thus the initial question that JadedDM was ever so eager to toss out out of hand. How many of these are suppose to be allowed to die in this fashion before there's push back precisely? How many times does this need to happen? Hmmmm?

Ready for some trivia? Oh boy, I sure am!
Age of Marvel Comics: 79 years. 57 if you want to be picky.
Age of DC: 84 years.
Age of Dr. Who: 55 years.
Age of Star Wars: 41 years.
Age of D&D: 44 years.
All of these things have existed for longer than I have been alive. (No citation given for this one, you'll just have to believe me this time.) Even though I don't even have a YouTube video.

[Metahuman1]

Lets be fair for a minute. Its not like Darth Ultron ever intended to even give a chance to Discovery. He has been criticizing everything - from factoids to inferred to outright imagined - about the series ever since there was even a trailer, and maybe even before then.

Him bringing out certains facts about the series about episode numbers or plot completely disregard that he spent 100% of his posts in the trailer thread saying how much he will hate Discovery and how much it will end up being stupid.

So by that logic, I guess I'm not allowed to think The First Purge or *Insert-title-of-next-live-action-transformers-movie-here.* or Reboot: The Guardian Code is going to be horrible based solely on past experience and the trailer? And further, I'm certainly not allowed to be right.

Guess we all have to just not dislike anything till after we've spent a fortune on it and gotten every scrap of it crammed into us.





Do you see why that argument is ridiculous at best?

[Cikomyr]

So by that logic, I guess I'm not allowed to think The First Purge or *Insert-title-of-next-live-action-transformers-movie-here.* or Reboot: The Guardian Code is going to be horrible based solely on past experience and the trailer? And further, I'm certainly not allowed to be right.

Guess we all have to just not dislike anything till after we've spent a fortune on it and gotten every scrap of it crammed into us.





Do you see why that argument is ridiculous at best?

No. Because you are drawing a large scale inference where there isn't. Inventing plot points to hate on isnt merely watching the trailer and actually judging what is on display.

I guess we get a black female Vulcan (and gay, right?) captain? A Vulcan captain sounds very boring...if she always does the logical thing, then she won't hold the idiot ball like most Star Trek captains. And can you have a captain that shows no emotion and still be interesting? Or you think they will make her ''half human'' or make her some type of wild emotional Vulcan?

And they encounter evil Klingons? And they are ''bumpy forehead Klingons''? Guess they will be like renegade Klingons that never got infected with the ''look human'' virus...

And a ''fake'' Vulcan...wow, that just sounds so bad.....like a bad writers trick to get the best of both worlds. Like in some shows she can be all ''evil communist Rodenberry logic'' and then she can also be ''normal middle American emotional '' when the writers flip a switch. Though bet she will spend more time normal emotional...and save the evil logic for very special episodes(like when she blows up all the gas powered cars to save Polotion from the global warming monster, as it is not logical to use gasoline ever..wink, wink).

And it's female captain and first officer? Hope that does not mean the whole rest of the crew is all guys. I'd love a ''politically correct'' show that had like 9 women and only one guy....

If that isnt made up hate fest, i dont know what is.

[Metahuman1]

Ready for some trivia? Oh boy, I sure am!
Age of Marvel Comics: 79 years. 57 if you want to be picky.
Age of DC: 84 years.
Age of Dr. Who: 55 years.
Age of Star Wars: 41 years.
Age of D&D: 44 years.
All of these things have existed for longer than I have been alive. (No citation given for this one, you'll just have to believe me this time.) Even though I don't even have a YouTube video.

Very Cute.

Ok Paladin. Now I REALLY want to know, no BS deflections about derailing the thread. Were are all these supposedly wiz bang amazing things that do ALL the things those older property's do, but better? You've alleged there really common and used that as grounds to keep claiming that the one's I care about deserve what's happening too them, so come on, out with them already.

Were are they? What are there names? I REALLY want to know.

[Metahuman1]

No. Because you are drawing a large scale inference where there isn't. Inventing plot points to hate on isnt merely watching the trailer and actually judging what is on display.





If that isnt made up hate fest, i dont know what is.

Except I'm not. I'm following your logic train and applying it to other franchises and franchises in general. If the logic is flawed, well, not my logic now is it?


As for the posts, when, precisely were those posted? What did we have on it?

Cause, I do seem to recall we got a woman as the captain for the first two episodes before she was murdered for sake of subversion. And I do seem to recall we had a woman whom was, for all practical intentions and purposes, a fake Vulcan, and had it as a thing with her that she acts like a Vulcan, and is in fact Spocks never before mentioned all human half sister and Sarak's never before mentioned daughter.

The franchise HAS done exceedingly ham handed environmental episodes before in previous series, it's not inconceivable they'd do another one or two.

According to the people who made Season 1 in more than one social media comment and interview building up to season 1, the Klingons were suppose to be stand in's for US voters who supported the currently in office United States President, so, sounds like there still doing ham handed message episodes of other sorts. Arguably the whole series is a message episode that people that disagree with the show makers on politics are irredeemably evil for disagreeing with them on politics. (Hilarious when you consider strictly by the events of the first 2 episodes, if the Federation had just given them a wide birth and kept there noses out of there business, the whole war could have been avoided, but that, according to the show, goes against the federations nature.)

As for the bit about her swinging between personality's, I'd like to refer you to previous franchise installment lead Captain Kathryn Janeway, whom is infamous for precisely this behavior. So, there's precedent to have had precisely that concern.


And the Klingon's do have bumpy Forheads, and yes, the smooth Klingon Forheads was a thing in the franchise history related to a virus, canonically. And part of the canon the people making the show insist is Canon too the show.


It's not a perfect series of perditions or anything, and it was certainly pessimistic of the series chances of doing things well. But he's not all wrong either. A person can point to a car that's red, mention it's a car that's red, and be right that it's a car that's red, even if there an asshat or a nut job.

[Thrudd]

@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.

That video says very little that is not speculation and rumor, and even the factual things (like stuff about Les Moonves, and the behind the scenes conflicts and production changes) is of little or no relevance. It's wholly unconvincing on any point. This whole thing about canon, the not-even-in-production-yet Picard series, and trying to merge the timelines is pure speculation, no real basis in anything solid. There's no reason to think they are trying to dump the original timeline for the movie timeline or some combination of them. Everything so far that has come from the people working on the show says they always intended it to be in the original timeline and they are working to make sure it lines up. When they move into uncharted territory post-Voyager and Nemesis, who knows what they'll do? There is absolutely nothing to indicate this will not be Picard in the prime timeline, 20 years post Nemesis.

Even if they are trying to do that, to create a new timeline- and I truly see no sign that they are - who cares? ToS still exists, NG, DS9 and Voyager still exist. The original movies people like still exist. People who don't like the new stuff will stop watching it.

Whether or not this will be a successful business strategy for CBS All Access or CBS in general is unknown, obviously. They might be making terrible business decisions. But there is no way to know how many people will sign up to see Discovery season 2, or the Picard show, or any of the other shows they are planning on. It doesn't matter to CBS how many Trek fans liked the show once they'd seen it, it only matters how many people sign up to watch it in the first place. There is no indication that people have hated it enough that they are in danger of cancelling future shows - just the opposite, they moved ahead with the new shows. This "very big chunk" of people who hated it and will now swear off CBS and all future Star Trek series is probably a much smaller group than is being implied, likely yelling in an echo chamber.

CBS is clearly doubling down on Star Trek and planning on expanding the franchise into multiple other shows, so they can eventually be running new content year-long. That sounds like the critical reaction and/or the money was good enough from the first season that they think this will be successful, even with the many people who probably signed up just for a few months and then cancelled when the show was over. That isn't a failure - that's a bunch of people who gave them money that wouldn't have otherwise given them money, and they have good reason to think it will happen again.

This whole thing about ruining the canon and not being in the proper spirit of Star Trek is irrelevant to the performance of the show. For instance, I have much contempt for the decisions made in the Star Wars prequels and sequels regarding the additions they have made to the "canon", but that definitely doesn't mean that they weren't liked by a lot of people and successful financially and will continue to be so for some time. It also doesn't mean I'm not going to see the new movies - of course I am, and then I'm going to complain about the things I didn't like afterwards. Just so with Star Trek - a percentage of Star Trek fans may dislike what is being added to "canon" and decry the creators' apparent disdain for "true" Star Trek, but I'm betting a good percentage of them will still watch the show so they know what has happened. The only way to know if it is terrible, after all, is to watch it. And some of them might just secretly like some of it, though they will never admit this in the unending quest to be the top surliest fan on angry nerd mountain.

The fact that the heads of media companies and most film and TV creators don't care as much about various nostalgia franchises as do the fanatical fan communities is nothing new or surprising. Given that the fanatical fans make up a very small percentage of where their business comes from, I doubt that is going to change anytime soon.

[(_|_)]

Very Cute.

Ok Paladin. Now I REALLY want to know, no BS deflections about derailing the thread. Were are all these supposedly wiz bang amazing things that do ALL the things those older property's do, but better? You've alleged there really common and used that as grounds to keep claiming that the one's I care about deserve what's happening too them, so come on, out with them already.

Were are they? What are there names? I REALLY want to know.

Meta, you just have to ****ing look for them. Not this schlock that's coming out, or the repetition people go nuts over. The good stuff. The series that are actually worth investing in. You just have to find them.

Because nobody, who actually cares about their series is going to namedrop it on a forum that spends 90% of it's time doing critique threads and watch the people here take their fun apart. There's just no reason to.

[Darth Ultron]

Lets be fair for a minute. Its not like Darth Ultron ever intended to even give a chance to Discovery. He has been criticizing everything - from factoids to inferred to outright imagined - about the series ever since there was even a trailer, and maybe even before then.

Him bringing out certains facts about the series about episode numbers or plot completely disregard that he spent 100% of his posts in the trailer thread saying how much he will hate Discovery and how much it will end up being stupid.

Well, sure my predictions came true....it's hard to be right most of the time. It's such a burden, but it is who I am.

I gave it a chance, watched all of season 1. And was massively disappointed.

I guess we get a black female Vulcan (and gay, right?) captain? A Vulcan captain sounds very boring...if she always does the logical thing, then she won't hold the idiot ball like most Star Trek captains. And can you have a captain that shows no emotion and still be interesting? Or you think they will make her ''half human'' or make her some type of wild emotional Vulcan?

And they encounter evil Klingons? And they are ''bumpy forehead Klingons''? Guess they will be like renegade Klingons that never got infected with the ''look human'' virus...

Yea...well we knew Sequa would be the main character and ''had something to do with the Vulcans", so sure I thought ''Mike" might be a Vulcan and captain. Not even I would have thought, ''oh lets make her Spocks secret sister" and not be captain.

And Discovery went for the HAHA everything you know about Kingons is WRONG, as we say they are now THIS! Hahaha!

And a ''fake'' Vulcan...wow, that just sounds so bad.....like a bad writers trick to get the best of both worlds. Like in some shows she can be all ''evil communist Rodenberry logic'' and then she can also be ''normal middle American emotional '' when the writers flip a switch. Though bet she will spend more time normal emotional...and save the evil logic for very special episodes(like when she blows up all the gas powered cars to save Polotion from the global warming monster, as it is not logical to use gasoline ever..wink, wink).

And it's female captain and first officer? Hope that does not mean the whole rest of the crew is all guys. I'd love a ''politically correct'' show that had like 9 women and only one guy....

And note, Mike being a fake Vulcan is as bad as I said it would be. She is all 'robot' most of the time...until something dumb happens and she gets all emotional. And Mike does get all emotional when she goes full murderhobo.

Whether or not this will be a successful business strategy for CBS All Access or CBS in general is unknown, obviously. They might be making terrible business decisions. But there is no way to know how many people will sign up to see Discovery season 2, or the Picard show, or any of the other shows they are planning on. It doesn't matter to CBS how many Trek fans liked the show once they'd seen it, it only matters how many people sign up to watch it in the first place. There is no indication that people have hated it enough that they are in danger of cancelling future shows - just the opposite, they moved ahead with the new shows. This "very big chunk" of people who hated it and will now swear off CBS and all future Star Trek series is probably a much smaller group than is being implied, likely yelling in an echo chamber.

You need to keep in mind though: it a pay Tv show...you have to pay to watch it. In America(legally). And to pay for something, you have to like it...even just a little.

People can watch other shows, like on Broadcast, and see if the change or get better. But they can't do that with a hidden pay TV show.

And how many people that did not like season one will come back? Very few. Even more so if episode 1 of season 2 has the Romulans in it...but you know they are all made up and bald (like the Star Trek Kelvan Timeline ones) and have a society based on Noplolinic France, not Rome. So like the Romulan will walk over and stab Mike with her...disruptor saber..and be like ''en guard!" Sure the Discovery fans will be all like ''yes laser swords! just like Star Wars so cool!"

And you do have the bigger picture of merchandise.

CBS is clearly doubling down on Star Trek

Except the problem is that they don't care about Star Trek.

And, the thing is, Star Trek is a very easy Cash Cow. If you can put out an even 'ok' Star Trek show...you are guaranteed to make tons and tons and tons of money. There are 100 million or more Star Trek fans more then happy to pay for some good Star Trek content. So, all you need to do, is make some good content, and sit back and let the money roll in.

It is possible to make good content for the fans, that all the masses will like too. Marvel does it just fine.

The only way to know if it is terrible, after all, is to watch it. And some of them might just secretly like some of it, though they will never admit this in the unending quest to be the top surliest fan on angry nerd mountain.

Except for things like Discovery, they won't pay to watch it. Sure if it was broadcast they might tune in to see how bad it is.....but that is a far cry from paying for it.

[Metahuman1]

That video says very little that is not speculation and rumor, and even the factual things (like stuff about Les Moonves, and the behind the scenes conflicts and production changes) is of little or no relevance. It's wholly unconvincing on any point. This whole thing about canon, the not-even-in-production-yet Picard series, and trying to merge the timelines is pure speculation, no real basis in anything solid. There's no reason to think they are trying to dump the original timeline for the movie timeline or some combination of them. Everything so far that has come from the people working on the show says they always intended it to be in the original timeline and they are working to make sure it lines up. When they move into uncharted territory post-Voyager and Nemesis, who knows what they'll do? There is absolutely nothing to indicate this will not be Picard in the prime timeline, 20 years post Nemesis.

Even if they are trying to do that, to create a new timeline- and I truly see no sign that they are - who cares? ToS still exists, NG, DS9 and Voyager still exist. The original movies people like still exist. People who don't like the new stuff will stop watching it.

Whether or not this will be a successful business strategy for CBS All Access or CBS in general is unknown, obviously. They might be making terrible business decisions. But there is no way to know how many people will sign up to see Discovery season 2, or the Picard show, or any of the other shows they are planning on. It doesn't matter to CBS how many Trek fans liked the show once they'd seen it, it only matters how many people sign up to watch it in the first place. There is no indication that people have hated it enough that they are in danger of cancelling future shows - just the opposite, they moved ahead with the new shows. This "very big chunk" of people who hated it and will now swear off CBS and all future Star Trek series is probably a much smaller group than is being implied, likely yelling in an echo chamber.

CBS is clearly doubling down on Star Trek and planning on expanding the franchise into multiple other shows, so they can eventually be running new content year-long. That sounds like the critical reaction and/or the money was good enough from the first season that they think this will be successful, even with the many people who probably signed up just for a few months and then cancelled when the show was over. That isn't a failure - that's a bunch of people who gave them money that wouldn't have otherwise given them money, and they have good reason to think it will happen again.

This whole thing about ruining the canon and not being in the proper spirit of Star Trek is irrelevant to the performance of the show. For instance, I have much contempt for the decisions made in the Star Wars prequels and sequels regarding the additions they have made to the "canon", but that definitely doesn't mean that they weren't liked by a lot of people and successful financially and will continue to be so for some time. It also doesn't mean I'm not going to see the new movies - of course I am, and then I'm going to complain about the things I didn't like afterwards. Just so with Star Trek - a percentage of Star Trek fans may dislike what is being added to "canon" and decry the creators' apparent disdain for "true" Star Trek, but I'm betting a good percentage of them will still watch the show so they know what has happened. The only way to know if it is terrible, after all, is to watch it. And some of them might just secretly like some of it, though they will never admit this in the unending quest to be the top surliest fan on angry nerd mountain.

The fact that the heads of media companies and most film and TV creators don't care as much about various nostalgia franchises as do the fanatical fan communities is nothing new or surprising. Given that the fanatical fans make up a very small percentage of where their business comes from, I doubt that is going to change anytime soon.

I guess will see. Though given the fact that Star Wars is loosing merchandise sales to Power Rangers and the most recent movie actively lost money at the box office in the tens of millions, I question that thing about the percentage of people who have a serious enough problem to not give there money anymore being in any way accurate. Particularly when you consider that percentage of people are also the repeat customers who spend a hell of a lot more per person than most, and drag other people to spend money on it as well.

But will see.





(_|_) :


So, what your saying is, when I make a claim or assertion, and even attempt to provide evidence, it's not good enough. But everyone else is allowed to just say what they please to refute me and never ever has to back that up? One set of rules for me another for you? That about sum it up? Sure sounds like it.

[Thrudd]

Except for things like Discovery, they won't pay to watch it. Sure if it was broadcast they might tune in to see how bad it is.....but that is a far cry from paying for it.

Apparently enough people paid for it that they think it's a good idea to make more of them. Discovery was successful enough that they like their prospects- regardless of how many Trek fans say they don't like it.
Maybe they're wrong, and nobody will sign up to see the new series, and the whole thing will collapse. We won't know until next year. But I'm thinking they have a pretty good idea that it isn't going to flop too horribly.

I liked Discovery. I thought the Mirror Universe twist was great. But then, I've never been a really committed Star Trek fan so I'm not missing or expecting much of anything.

[Metahuman1]

Apparently enough people paid for it that they think it's a good idea to make more of them. Discovery was successful enough that they like their prospects- regardless of how many Trek fans say they don't like it.
Maybe they're wrong, and nobody will sign up to see the new series, and the whole thing will collapse. We won't know until next year. But I'm thinking they have a pretty good idea that it isn't going to flop too horribly.

I liked Discovery. I thought the Mirror Universe twist was great. But then, I've never been a really committed Star Trek fan so I'm not missing or expecting much of anything.

On the flip side, after showing brazen disdain and contempt for everything ever to come before in Trek, all of a sudden they felt the need to do a 180 and bring back a fan favorite out of left field?

Sounds more to me like there REALLY hoping to be forgiven, or at least, forgiven enough to get another wave of money coming at them. Which does not make me think there confident in the direction they've taken.

What would scream confidence would be something more like "Were doing a new show in the late 25th century now! No none of the old cast members from the prime timeline are going to be there, are you nuts?!!".

[Darth Ultron]

Apparently enough people paid for it that they think it's a good idea to make more of them. Discovery was successful enough that they like their prospects- regardless of how many Trek fans say they don't like it.
Maybe they're wrong, and nobody will sign up to see the new series, and the whole thing will collapse. We won't know until next year. But I'm thinking they have a pretty good idea that it isn't going to flop too horribly.

Except for season one the shows was an unknown. So people were tuning in and paying to see what it was.

But now they know. And many don't like it. So, there is a good chance they won't want to pay for something they don't like. This means less money.

And you note the news is all about CBS ''changing the show". Hummm, so season 2 won't be exactly like season 1. That shows they might be worried.

And, it's obvious that the show did not do too well.....if it did CBS would still be gushing over it. Just think, if they would have made a really good show, they would have made tons and tons and tons of money and been so happy.

And that could have happened, but it did not.

Really I bet CBS could make more money if they bought the show Star Trek Continues and showed it.

I liked Discovery. I thought the Mirror Universe twist was great. But then, I've never been a really committed Star Trek fan so I'm not missing or expecting much of anything.

While I'm a huge Mirror Universe fan, Discovery did it so bland. And it could have been great...only if they could have been lost in the universe for like five episodes, not like ten seconds. And I would have loved to see a Captain Killy episode...where poor little Ensign Tilly had to act Chaotic Evil..and do some really evil, evil stuff. And see, THAT would have been a more classic Trek episode: Who much evil can a person do for a greater good. She has to hide the good ship and crew...so she has to play evil...but she also has to do evil. She can't just send a guy to bed with no supper...she has to kill. Or do worse. would she give into her dark desires? Stay true to Starfleet principles? How could she walk that line and sleep at night. But we get none of that.

And it would have been tons of fun to see the Evil Discovery in the good universe. Even better, to see a Mirror Battle between the two ships and crews.

[JadedDM]

Youtube is frequently regarded as an established news outlet. More and more every minute. Yet you dismissed it out of hand. Apparently the only things your not going to dismiss are the one's that agree with you.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard today. Anyone can make a youtube account and anyone can upload videos saying whatever they want. You might as well claim that posts in this forum are an 'established news outlet.'

Said someone who hasn't backed up any of there counter claims.

That's probably because I haven't made any counterclaims. I've simply pointed out that the claims you and Darth Ultron are making have no reliable sources.

I see. So your only doing this because you have a personal vendetta?

It's neither personal or a vendetta. If either of you started backing up your claims, I would hold no objection. And if some other person started making stuff up and acting like it was fact, I would call them out, too.

Because you have a personal grudge match? Because your willing to sit here and lie about franchises profitability even when it's well documented that more recent installment's/sales/events are loosing money, and not in what most people would consider small sums either? Is that why he's not a reliable source? Or why I'm not one?

I've told no lie. I've made no counterclaim. And if this information is so well documented, it should be easy to rustle up some links. Showing me actual proof would shut me right up, but for some reason, neither of you can come up with anything beyond a 30 minute youtube video full of speculation but no actual cited evidence.

How many of these are suppose to be allowed to die in this fashion before there's push back precisely? How many times does this need to happen? Hmmmm?

Star Trek was already dead. It died like 15 years ago. Discovery brought it back. So if Discovery does wind up 'killing' Star Trek, it's really just a return to the status quo, isn't it?

On the flip side, after showing brazen disdain and contempt for everything ever to come before in Trek, all of a sudden they felt the need to do a 180 and bring back a fan favorite out of left field?

Sounds more to me like there REALLY hoping to be forgiven, or at least, forgiven enough to get another wave of money coming at them. Which does not make me think there confident in the direction they've taken.

Wait, you do understand that they film the entire season at once, then start loading the episodes weekly, right? It wouldn't be possible for them to suddenly make massive changes to the plotline after episodes have already started going up.

And you note the news is all about CBS ''changing the show". Hummm, so season 2 won't be exactly like season 1. That shows they might be worried.

So you think the right decision would be to make season 2 just more of the same? Of course season 2 will be different. Why wouldn't it be?

[Scowling Dragon]

So I'm, not the only one Jaded GM pulls the shtick of "Well I will dismiss you offhand because you have different opinions!". Huh. Puts things in perspective.

[factotum]

So I'm, not the only one Jaded GM pulls the shtick of "Well I will dismiss you offhand because you have different opinions!". Huh. Puts things in perspective.

Asking for proof of a claim does not equal dismissing that claim offhand.

[BeerMug Paladin]

After thinking about the prospect more, I think I am fairly likely to watch a Picard show. Even if that means signing up for the thing. I just like the idea of the character a lot, and I don't think it would be easy to screw it up. Now at the risk of needless repetition...

This whole thing about ruining the canon and not being in the proper spirit of Star Trek is irrelevant to the performance of the show. For instance, I have much contempt for the decisions made in the Star Wars prequels and sequels regarding the additions they have made to the "canon", but that definitely doesn't mean that they weren't liked by a lot of people and successful financially and will continue to be so for some time. It also doesn't mean I'm not going to see the new movies - of course I am, and then I'm going to complain about the things I didn't like afterwards. Just so with Star Trek - a percentage of Star Trek fans may dislike what is being added to "canon" and decry the creators' apparent disdain for "true" Star Trek, but I'm betting a good percentage of them will still watch the show so they know what has happened. The only way to know if it is terrible, after all, is to watch it. And some of them might just secretly like some of it, though they will never admit this in the unending quest to be the top surliest fan on angry nerd mountain.

I like this statement. That is all.

So, what your saying is, when I make a claim or assertion, and even attempt to provide evidence, it's not good enough. But everyone else is allowed to just say what they please to refute me and never ever has to back that up? One set of rules for me another for you? That about sum it up? Sure sounds like it.

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.

You just have to find them.

[Rodin]

On the subject of canon:

Internal consistency matters. If Spock is a half-Vulcan one episode and a half-Romulan the next, you bet I'll be annoyed. The canon of any given show* should all line up and stay the same over time.

However, slavishly following canon from other shows within the franchise is not necessarily the best course of action. If the nuTrek movies need to bring up a part of Spock's backstory to develop his character in the films, they should not be restricted by an off-hand reference from the 1960s in what they can do. This is precisely why the Star Wars EU canon was tossed - if the writers want to make a movie set 20 years into the future, having to worry about Mara Jade and umpteen billion other characters from 40 years of books that would mean nothing to a movie-going audience is a major hindrance. I still believe this strategy was wise - the movies have their problems (oh boy do they), but the lack of the EU was not one of them.

So too for Trek. By all means, keep the broad strokes. Taking my above example, if a new series about Romulan Spock were made, I'd be pretty upset about that too. Spock being Vulcan is an iconic part of his character. Keep Picard being captain of the Enterprise, they fought the Borg and had many adventures, yadda yadda yadda. However, the fine details of the universe (including whether certain planets got blown up) are absolutely flexible. What matters is the story being told now. Picard needs to be a recognizable character from who we know him to be, but introducing new facets either from the 20 year gap or from some timey-wimey stuff is all part of learning about the new Picard.

I should also note that I am less tolerant of direct adaptations changing things. If there is an existing scene in other media, changing that scene is rarely for the better, and there has to be a darn good reason for it. Star Trek: Into Darkness mucking about with Wrath of Khan is a prime example.


*Before anyone chimes in with "Star Trek is a show!"....no, it is not. It is a franchise, with many individual shows set within it.

[factotum]

However, slavishly following canon from other shows within the franchise is not necessarily the best course of action. If the nuTrek movies need to bring up a part of Spock's backstory to develop his character in the films, they should not be restricted by an off-hand reference from the 1960s in what they can do. This is precisely why the Star Wars EU canon was tossed - if the writers want to make a movie set 20 years into the future, having to worry about Mara Jade and umpteen billion other characters from 40 years of books that would mean nothing to a movie-going audience is a major hindrance.

I utterly and totally disagree. For a start, I am 100% sure that there is never a necessity to change a particular character's back story in order to tell your story--if you have to do that, choose a different character instead or even invent your own. DS9 isn't the best Trek series because it added to Spock's backstory, it's the best because of its own characters and storyline.

The same applies to Star Wars. There are plenty of new characters in the Star Wars sequels, none of whom would be affected in any way if Mara Jade still existed in canon. The only big problem in setting something 20 years after the original shows is that the Yuuzhan Vong war is supposed to be happening around that time, but it's a big galaxy and I'm sure there are parts of it barely affected by that conflict.

Overall, my opinion is this: if you have to dump canon for your story to make sense, you wrote the wrong story.

[Reddish Mage]

I utterly and totally disagree. For a start, I am 100% sure that there is never a necessity to change a particular character's back story in order to tell your story

Overall, my opinion is this: if you have to dump canon for your story to make sense, you wrote the wrong story.

You heavily unestimate the sheer volume of canon stories in both Star Wars and Star Trek and the potential significance of obscure novels for new stories.

First off, for the new Star Wars movies, to keep canon consistent, we would have all of Han and Leia’s children to deal with, as well as Luke’s child (named Ben). Second the legends timeline...is well huge and active right up to the period 44 years from the first movie. There’s a lot more than a war with extra-galactic aliens to worry about.

That basically means any movie set in a Star Wars future that includes the original cast, to be in keeping with canon, would have to recap the novels so we know what’s going on the characters are. Also the plot would have to be in keeping with all those events.

That’s a lot to have a writing team deal with. Even George Lucas ignored what was previously written about prequel period so he can make the prequels.

Star Trek is in a similar boat with a new Picard series. TNG contradicted TOS many times not to mention itself. Here’s just a few. Enterprise did this all over the place. DS9 produces quite a few headscratchers with its depiction of technology, diplomacy and culture, I find it hard to believe it doesn’t contradict all sorts of depictions.

Doing a new Picard series is going to interfere with the books which has also detailed a timeline after the Dominion war (drill for details after 2395).

DC and especially Marvel are great examples of what happens when a canon is allowed to run for decades and decades across multiple authors and storylines. It’s a mess, one Marvel decided to do away with just a few years ago (although they keep bringing in things from the Ultimate and old 616 universe).

[Peelee]

Well, sure my predictions came true....it's hard to be right most of the time. It's such a burden, but it is who I am.

Actually I've tracked your posts and you've only been right about 12% of the time. Sorry, buddy!

[Darth Ultron]

So you think the right decision would be to make season 2 just more of the same? Of course season 2 will be different. Why wouldn't it be?

Well, for just about all successful TV shows, each season is the same. It's simple: find something that works and stick with it.

However, slavishly following canon from other shows within the franchise is not necessarily the best course of action. If the nuTrek movies need to bring up a part of Spock's backstory to develop his character in the films, they should not be restricted by an off-hand reference from the 1960s in what they can do.

Except it is. If your using a person, place or thing from a canon, you are stuck with using what ever it is all ready established as being. What is really the point of making a random thing and then just slapping an old cannon name on it? All that does is upset the fan base. And you don't need to do it, as you can just make a new character, place or thing.

You don't make a idiot cool frat boy from Lamda Lamda Lamda and then just toss the label of 'Spock' on the character. So you have 'Spock' roll a keg on to the bridge and be like ''lets get this party started!" ? Well, no, you don't. If you use the character Spock, you are ''stuck" with what the character is. If you don't like the character: them simply don't use them. Feel free to make up any new and unique character you want.

This is precisely why the Star Wars EU canon was tossed - if the writers want to make a movie set 20 years into the future, having to worry about Mara Jade and umpteen billion other characters from 40 years of books that would mean nothing to a movie-going audience is a major hindrance. I still believe this strategy was wise - the movies have their problems (oh boy do they), but the lack of the EU was not one of them.

It was tossed because of money, plain and simple. And the idea that writers are just too lazy to ''look anything up" or do a tiny ''bit of research", well, then maybe that type of writers should go write something easy. Sure, it's hard for a lazy non-fan jerk to know about cannon...but that is their problem.

So too for Trek. By all means, keep the broad strokes. Taking my above example, if a new series about Romulan Spock were made, I'd be pretty upset about that too. Spock being Vulcan is an iconic part of his character. Keep Picard being captain of the Enterprise, they fought the Borg and had many adventures, yadda yadda yadda. However, the fine details of the universe (including whether certain planets got blown up) are absolutely flexible. What matters is the story being told now. Picard needs to be a recognizable character from who we know him to be, but introducing new facets either from the 20 year gap or from some timey-wimey stuff is all part of learning about the new Picard.

Except when they change everything, nothing is recognizable.

Star Trek is in a similar boat with a new Picard series. TNG contradicted TOS many times not to mention itself. Here’s just a . Enterprise did this all over the place. DS9 produces quite a few with its depiction of technology, diplomacy and culture, I find it hard to believe it doesn’t contradict all sorts of depictions.

They are not really contradictions as much as they are just bad writing or mistakes as they had no editing or just the classic ''no fan in charge". And most of them are not done by jerks who want to change things for no reason...they are just mistakes.

For example ''we'' don't see Checkov until season 2, but there is nothing in cannon to say he was not on the ship during season 1 and at met Khan. And there is no reason Voyager could not make more torpedoes. Yes a ''normal" ship would not need to, but they did need too. Plus they did trade a lot, and could have bought some too.

Most of them could have been fixed by a good fan writer.

DC and especially Marvel are great examples of what happens when a canon is allowed to run for decades and decades across multiple authors and storylines. It’s a mess, one Marvel decided to do away with just a few years ago (although they keep bringing in things from the Ultimate and old 616 universe).

They are also a good example of how to not change things and how to change things the right way. Take Spider Man Homecoming. Peter himself makes a red and blue costume as per cannon....but when the movie wants him to have a super advanced robo 'awesome computer cgi' suit they have a simple in universe explanation of it: Stark gave it to him. Compare to discovery were all the 'before Kirk' tech is ''super duper anime awesome" for no reason other then to attract the Kidz.

Actually I've tracked your posts and you've only been right about 12% of the time. Sorry, buddy!

I'm sure that is only true as you used Common Core Math...

[Peelee]

I'm sure that is only true as you used Common Core Math...

Nope, I was taught in private schools before Common Core was even a thing. 12% accuracy rating you got there.

[LordEntrails]

Here are some rating numbers with citations;

Season 1

There, it garnered a 1.9 rating in the 18-49 demographic and 9.49 million viewers.

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/s...bs-all-access/

To put that in perspective;

Furthermore, the episodes scored an impressive 1.9 rating in the key 18-49 age demographic. Those numbers make the maiden voyage of Star Trek: Discovery the most-watched and highest-rated TV event other than football and news on the night of September 24.

https://www.cinemablend.com/televisi...in-the-ratings

14 nominations and 3 wins, including 2 Emmy nominations.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5171438...ef_=tt_ql_op_1

30 Jan 2018, regarding All Access;
Numbers can only be estimated outside of CBS, but here's a source;

... in the last year All Access has acquired around half-a-million new subscribers

July 2016 to Feb 2017 had a 100% growth rate (~500k subscriber increase)
2017 had a year over year growth of 33% (another ~500k subscriber increase)

Assuming Discovery does at least this well with All Access customers signed up before it launched, we would see an additional 50,000 for a total of 300,000 subscribers watching.

Any way you look at it, the show is the least-watch Star Trek series in franchise history. CBS’s decision to release the show through All Access appears to have deprived it of most of its audience.

http://www.nscreenmedia.com/cbs-all-...-growth-slows/