I think the distribution method raises the stakes quite significantly. TNG was not the centrepiece of a subscription service. Discovery is.
If the first season flops, how many people will fork out for a second?
Next year’s ‘Star Trek’ reboot may have naked aliens and swearing, CBS digital chief says
- Thread starter dbcooper
- Start date
I think the distribution method raises the stakes quite significantly. TNG was not the centrepiece of a subscription service. Discovery is.
If the first season flops, how many people will fork out for a second?
TNG season one is my favorite from Modern Trek. But even I realize that is has flaws that would sink it with current audiences.
STNG was syndicated so Paramount would have a guarantee of investment in a full season..26 episodes. Networks only wanted 6-12 . The ratings were so good it was guaranteed a 2nd season, the rest is history.
Just as Paramount took it upon themselves to change TV CBS is offering a huge existing franchise in a format that will will probably replace network tv as we know it. Because they won't need to garner huge ratings and the first season is already paid for, it's almost 100% guaranteed a season two. History repeats itself. There is no danger of early cancellation for Discovery even if it's awful. I've been saying it all along.
RAMA
Audiences are a bit different now. If CBS takes for granted that people will show up because its "Star Trek" they may end up having a short-lived production.
I really don't think there's any evidence CBS is doing this. Especially given the caliber of people they hired to work on this project. The whole "taking the audience for granted because it's Star Trek" thing really falls in the lap of the creators, not the network. It's the creators who are responsible for delivering a quality show to fans and newcomers.
EDIT: And it's the quality of the show the creators have put together that will draw people into CBSAA.
Thing is, we really don't know why Fuller left. It would make sense if there were creative differences and CBS decided to be conservative with the show, not coloring outside the lines of what came before.
We know exactly why Fuller left. He's too busy finishing American Gods. There's been no indication that it was due to creative differences. Making the assumption that the "real" reason is CBS being unhappy with Fuller's vision is just pure speculation. And even if that were the case, Kirstin Beyer and Nicholas Meyer are still creative contributors to said vision -- it's not like they dumped the creative team to bring in something totally new.
Didn't Fuller say that he could be more "socially relevant" in his storytelling on American Gods? That says a lot to me. He quit his dream job, probably something he fell in love with because he felt it was "socially relevant" because he could be more socially relevant elsewhere.
I think Fuller and CBS' vision for Star Trek didn't line up.
And the hiring of Beyer and Meyer never filled me with wonder the way it has other fans. Meyer has been competent at best as a Trek storyteller. Lots of holes in his stories and Beyer is an unknown commodity as far as TV is concerned. There are zero TV/movie credits I can find for her.
People leave film and tv projects due to "creative differences" all the time, and that's a frequently stated reason, even if it's before the show's premiere. There's really no reason for either party to keep that hushed up. It's not a conspiracy, it's a creative difference. Just as an example, this has been happening a lot with the DCEU, and it's happened before with the MCU as well. So, I basically believe Fuller when he says he left because he's focused on a prior commitment. Anything else is just making up reasons that fit a narrative we've created ourselves. It could've been literally anything, but people like to jump to the creative differences reason because it fits neatly into the "networks vs creators" narrative. Sometimes people really are just wrapped up in other projects. It really can be that simple.
http://www.trektoday.com/content/2016/12/more-on-fullers-departure-from-discovery/
Deep Space Nine dealt with religion, so I'm not sure why Discovery couldn't...
Deep Space Nine dealt with religion, so I'm not sure why Discovery couldn't...
That's the reporter's interpretation of Fuller's words. Fuller isn't saying the bigwigs at CBS wouldn't let him tell the story he wants to tell. He was saying that in the Star Trek universe, religion isn't really a thing (with I guess Bajorans being the exception) so he felt he couldn't deal with the religious issues he wanted to deal with, at least directly, because of the parameters of the universe, not the parameters of the network. And as you said, DS9 addressed religious issues, and that was years ago. Why would CBS be worried about that now, when people are generally less religious than ever. I don't see it.
CBS didn't own Star Trek in the 1990's, Paramount Pictures did. CBS is very conservative.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-advertisers-get-the-older-viewers-they-want
CBS' current model, targeting older audiences. And it seems likely to continue with All-Access as two of the confirmed shows are spinoffs of Big Brother and The Good Wife.
With Fuller gone, I have a tough time seeing Discovery as being anything more than a pale imitation of what came before.
CBS' current model, targeting older audiences. And it seems likely to continue with All-Access as two of the confirmed shows are spinoffs of Big Brother and The Good Wife.
With Fuller gone, I have a tough time seeing Discovery as being anything more than a pale imitation of what came before.
I think we're expecting this show to fail before we've seen hardly a single thing about it. A lot of assumptions and drawing conclusions based on very little information. If there had been actual creative differences or restrictions, rather than Fuller wanting to commit to a show where he could dive deep into religious stories, he would probably have just said that outright. That is not uncommon at all. I think we just need to relax and wait for this thing to actually come out, or see some actual information about it and its stories before go drawing conclusions about its quality or literally anything about it.
I wasn't suggesting it will be awful, only that we have a full 2 seasons to find out. Obviously, it's highly unlikely it will be awful..it had a good start, a good creative team, and it will be the first "modern" Trek show, one not beholden to the Berman era to make a fresh start.
RAMA
Is it even a religion, when your "gods" are proven to exist?
Also, what *does* God need with a starship?
Religion is defined as a system of faith and worship. I don't think it requires that the existence of the deity be unprovable. You could have an actual person and if people worship him/her then it would be a religion.
Similar threads
