Attended the premiere - no spoilers

[Krandor]

Indeed! This is such a new endevuer, we honestly have no clue what will be "enough" or "too little". It might be we suspect it to be a big success and CBS:AA goes bancrupt anyways. Or it might drift with few viewers, but still be able to make enough money to live for years.

We just don't know! Exciting times

And we won't know becasue streaming services don't post any ratings numbers.

 

[Krandor]

I thought CBS said they were looking for subscription numbers in the 4 million range once Discovery launched?

CBSAA and showtime streaming combined by end of 2017 and I think they have either already ht that or are close.

 

[Refuge]

I was editing my post above as you were replying, so in fairness I reverted that post back to its original form, and I will include the revised information in another post here.

The part I was going to add was to say this:

Prequels are made so that when viewing them, it is understood by all that they are prequels that were made after the original reference material.

However, it seems you view prequels, such as the SW prequels, ENT, and this upcoming Discovery TOS prequel different than I (and I would hazard a guess to say "most people") view prequels. I think most people view them as I stated above -- and the filmmakers (who count quite a bit because it is their intellectual property) view prequels that way too.

I have never run across a person (until now) who doesn't view prequel films and TV shows as being made in the chronology of "real-world filmmaking" but rather view them in a very strict sense as as being made in the "in-universe" chronology -- i.e., people who (for all intents and purposes of this argument) consider that ENT was made before TOS.

There are prequels roughly devised in conception, even if they were a general ideal or germ of thought. Say the order of Star Wars movies. The prequels had to be re-fitted but there was an outline from the beginning. There are prequels that set themselves considerably earlier than a know quantity and in doing so can roughly skirt any messy crossovers, though I can't help but think of George Lucas and his tinkering eg. changing the ghost of Anakin. There lies the option to do that but to those who have seen an earlier version, it's messy at best.

The type of prequels Enterprise and more so Discovery are set themselves up to be are set in a timeline that is referenced. The TV franchise one. I get there are current production values and sensitivities but when it comes to being 'in-universe' chronological I think Discovery should strive for that. Why did they choose to be only ten years prior to characters, technology, 'fashion' etc. etc. if we are not expecting Discovery to fit in and lead onto TOS?

 

[CorporalClegg]

I thought the year was 2258?

 

[Krandor]

There are prequels roughly devised in conception, even if they were a general ideal or germ of thought. Say the order of Star Wars movies. The prequels had to be re-fitted but there was an outline from the beginning. There are prequels that set themselves considerably earlier than a know quantity and in doing so can roughly skirt any messy crossovers, though I can't help but think of George Lucas and his tinkering eg. changing the ghost of Anakin. There lies the option to do that but to those who have seen an earlier version, it's messy at best.

The type of prequels Enterprise and more so Discovery are set themselves up to be are set in a timeline that is referenced. The TV franchise one. I get there are current production values and sensitivities but when it comes to being 'in-universe' chronological I think Discovery should strive for that. Why did they choose to be only ten years prior to characters, technology, 'fashion' etc. etc. if we are not expecting Discovery to fit in and lead onto TOS?

the danger to me Discovery has is to avoid too much fanservice that you may alienate new fans who don't understand. That is the risk when you launch a show that has been off the air for over a decade. Doctor Who handled this very well by making it that while fans knew it was a continuation to a new viewer you don't have to know any of the backstory. Only after it was on a few years did they start to do more connecting it back to the old series.

That is a line Discovery needs to walk too. Do stuff that the fans will enjoy but don't do it in a way where you may confuse new viewers with too many continiity references. You have to write it so somebody who knows zero about trek going into episode 1 can still watch it and enjoy it.

 

[mswood]

If DIS doesn't manage to boost the numbers of CBS:AA significantly, then it's dead in the water. ENT was cancelled with a lot more viewers (~3 mio. in it's final season) and a less competetive market, and it cost WAY less per episode. And those few aren't paying Netflix-money to CBS, that's way they need advertising also. DIS doesn't need to only make worth it's own costs (which are significant), but it's there to finance the whole infrastrucutre of All Access and pay for a few other new series to lure more subscribers in.

Sorry but that isn't what is going to determine its fate. The bread and butter paying for this show is the viewers outside the US (a first for Trek). That deal without a single subscriber was earning enough to fully pay for Discovery at 6.5 an episode. As long as they have the overseas Netflix deal Discovery is here to stay, they might lower the budget, but it's subscriber base isn't paying for the show.

It's a completely different type of market (be it Netflix or all access). When Enterprise aired you disnt earn money based on the people who watch the show, you did from those who watched the commercials, and primarily those within certain age demographics. You got revenue from one viewing during that broadcast night, DVR and delayed viewing was a very small market. That advertisers weren't paying for.

With Netflix and all access your window for revenue isn't a 24 hour window it's decades. Heck it might be worthwhile for Netflix to pony up that money just so CBS doesn't take trek reruns off their service.

Look at a show like the Expanse, it's adults 18-49 has been as low as 70,000 viewers in the demo and that's who watched the episode, the amount that actually watched commercials could be as little as 70% of that number. It's not a cheap production, it's not on the scale of Discovery, but it isn't cheap. And what is keeping it on? It's Netflix overseas distrubution deal.

Another thing to remember is CBS spent and still spends money trying to have a successful 5th network. They continue to this day to lose money on the studio side. CBS is going to take risk and even be willing to run production at a lose just to try and get a foot in the door on online distrubution.

And the fun thing is we will get almost no data on who or how many people view the show. Netflix doesn't typically release numbers to the public. And CBS All Access has to my knowledge only twice listed subscription numbers (and I can't remember if those were that current months average, that quarters average or if they were a yearly average).

 

[CorporalClegg]

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that streaming shows make almost twice as much per person through subscriptions than "regular" shows do with commercials.

The "math" was done with what a hypothetical Netflix series would fetch in the advertising market spread out across the entire viewership. So it was only to be taken with a grain of salt. But the point was that advertisers who "pay your way" so to speak do so at a lower price per head. I think the cost of a cable subscription was also factored in.

 

[Krandor]

Sorry but that isn't what is going to determine its fate. The bread and butter paying for this show is the viewers outside the US (a first for Trek). That deal without a single subscriber was earning enough to fully pay for Discovery at 6.5 an episode. As long as they have the overseas Netflix deal Discovery is here to stay, they might lower the budget, but it's subscriber base isn't paying for the show.

It's a completely different type of market (be it Netflix or all access). When Enterprise aired you disnt earn money based on the people who watch the show, you did from those who watched the commercials, and primarily those within certain age demographics. You got revenue from one viewing during that broadcast night, DVR and delayed viewing was a very small market. That advertisers weren't paying for.

With Netflix and all access your window for revenue isn't a 24 hour window it's decades. Heck it might be worthwhile for Netflix to pony up that money just so CBS doesn't take trek reruns off their service.

Look at a show like the Expanse, it's adults 18-49 has been as low as 70,000 viewers in the demo and that's who watched the episode, the amount that actually watched commercials could be as little as 70% of that number. It's not a cheap production, it's not on the scale of Discovery, but it isn't cheap. And what is keeping it on? It's Netflix overseas distrubution deal.

Another thing to remember is CBS spent and still spends money trying to have a successful 5th network. They continue to this day to lose money on the studio side. CBS is going to take risk and even be willing to run production at a lose just to try and get a foot in the door on online distrubution.

And the fun thing is we will get almost no data on who or how many people view the show. Netflix doesn't typically release numbers to the public. And CBS All Access has to my knowledge only twice listed subscription numbers (and I can't remember if those were that current months average, that quarters average or if they were a yearly average).

I"m pretty sure the only time we have heard subscriber number informtion is during the quarterly earnings calls to investors. I know that is where the 4M by end of 2017 and 8M by 2020 numbers came from.

 

[Krandor]

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that streaming shows make almost twice as much per person through subscriptions than "regular" shows do with commercials.

The "math" was done with what a hypothetical Netflix series would fetch in the advertising market spread out across the entire viewership. So it was only to be taken with a grain of salt. But the point was that advertisers who "pay your way" so to speak do so at a lower price per head. I think the cost of a cable subscription was also factored in.

At the last earnings call, CBS stated that keep $8.50/subscriber for CBSAA. $5 of the $5.99 plus $3.50 from advertising.

 

[Refuge]

the danger to me Discovery has is to avoid too much fanservice that you may alienate new fans who don't understand. That is the risk when you launch a show that has been off the air for over a decade. Doctor Who handled this very well by making it that while fans knew it was a continuation to a new viewer you don't have to know any of the backstory. Only after it was on a few years did they start to do more connecting it back to the old series.

That is a line Discovery needs to walk too. Do stuff that the fans will enjoy but don't do it in a way where you may confuse new viewers with too many continiity references. You have to write it so somebody who knows zero about trek going into episode 1 can still watch it and enjoy it.

If new fans are totally raw, then really, would it matter? You could feed those virgins anything and they would know no different. Whatever version they get is new. It's those with some cultural references or the fans who are already in the 'universe' who have been deliberately courted to watch, by being teased about.. ten years before Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise, those are the fans that marketing played to as well.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You know what I've always loved about the inclusion of the Space Shuttle in that display? The fact that then-President Gerald Ford stated that the Space Shuttle test-bed vehicle name came from the ship on the TV show -- not any previous real-life ships.

So Star Trek including the shuttle Enterprise in a list of ships named Enterprise was self-referential. It was (in a way) "breaking the fourth wall".

I hate to douse this idea with a bucket of cold water, but I don't believe this is actually the case; myths about Star Trek's influence on history tend to be exaggerated.

It's clear enough that the letter-writing campaign from Star Trek fans was the primary motivation for renaming the shuttle to Enterprise, but there's no record of Ford publicly citing this is the reason for the renaming.

Two PDFs of White House memos on the renaming are available online. One is http://static.history.state.gov/frus/frus1969-76ve03/pdf/d133.pdf at https://io9.gizmodo.com/declassified-memos-reveal-debate-over-naming-the-shuttl-1603073259. The other is https://www.enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/Ford-Decision-to-Name-Orbiter-Enterprise.pdf at https://www.enotrans.org/etl-materi...aming-first-space-shuttle-orbiter-enterprise/. I don't doubt that there are others.

William F. Gorog's memo that Ford initialed to approve the name change cites millions of Star Trek fans, the letter-writing campaign, and public relations as the motivating reasons for the name change. So, it's completely clear that Star Trek fans were the prime movers and that both Ford and his staff at the White House understood this.

However, there was a debate among Ford and his advisers behind the scenes about whether using Star Trek as the rationale was beneath the dignity of the situation. Jack Marsh said:

"I have no objection to this selection of a name, however, I am not enthusiastic about the rationale for the selection. "Enterprise" is a famous name for vessels since the early days of the Republic. I think that is a far better reason than appealing to a T.V. fad."​

Jim Cannon on the other hand appreciated the PR angle that was at stake, saying:

"It seems to me "Enterprise" is an excellent name for the space shuttle.

It would be personally gratifying to several million followers of the television show "Star Trek", one of the most dedicated constituencies in the country."​

But Ford seems to have been swayed by Marsh's side of the argument. Rather than mentioning the letter-writing campaign, in his public remarks Ford said he was partial to the name "Enterprise" and had served on a ship that operated with USS Enterprise (CV-6) in WWII [https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JGIgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2GUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2595,1284578].

(I Googled up the reference to the Eno Center for Transportation's PDF of memos. The remaining references were culled from the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Enterprise.)

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^^^ [shakes fist at you] Why do you have to ruin everything!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Honestly, I think it's awesome enough that Star Trek fans were cited as the reason for the name change in the official memo ordering it!

 

[fireproof78]

I would love to see this as a Star Trek theme some day:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Voyager's was bland and lifeless. DS9's was freakin' awesome. So haunting!

You're getting an upvote for linking one of Disturbed's best songs

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

You're getting an upvote for linking one of Disturbed's best songs

It is a wonderful song. And the message seems to fit the theme of this show. A dark time for the Federation, and Discovery is looking for the light.

 

[fireproof78]

It is a wonderful song. And the message seems to fit the theme of this show. A dark time for the Federation, and Discovery is looking for the light.

I sense of fan edit coming soon, if nothing else

Also, there is a great cover out there of it to

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

I sense of fan edit coming soon, if nothing else

Also, there is a great cover out there of it to

If I could, I'd do it myself.

Who's the cover? I do a pretty good job if it at Karaoke myself.

 

[fireproof78]

If I could, I'd do it myself.

Who's the cover? I do a pretty good job if it at Karaoke myself.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Fateor]

It will be interesting to see what the reviewers who aren't close friends of CBS have to say about the show in the days after the premier.

 

[MvRojo]

It will be interesting to see what the reviewers who aren't close friends of CBS have to say about the show in the days after the premier.

Honestly, I generally don't base my viewing decisions on reviews, and it will matter even less after I've seen it Sunday and have my own opinion.