Discovery Renewed for Season 2

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

If the show had been called Star Trek Firefly and had been about civilians out beyond the Federation Frontier trying to make their own way or some such, it would have lasted longer. Brand recognition counts for a lot. So does scheduling, and FOX really screwed the pooch on that one, but I digress.

However, speaking just for myself, there were more memorable moments in those 14 episodes and a movie of Firefly then there were in the first three seasons of Enterprise combined.

Quality over quantity. Success does not equate to quality. Look at Honey Boo Boo.

You might be right about Firefly if it had been part of the Trek universe. Maybe, but who knows, as I doubt Trekkers would have liked a Trek show that doesn't center on Starfleet.

As for the rest, don't misunderstand me, I don't mean that Enterprise was a top-notch show, because we both know it was not, but just that in today's TV market, a show is not considered a failure merely because it didn't get all the seasons it wanted. But, this can't be denied, Enterprise did spend practically its entire run bogged down by low ratings, threats of cancellations, behind-the-scenes-dumbfuckery and a general feeling that Star Trek needed to give us a chance to miss it. In fact, I've just read through this whole thread today, and I can say with confidence that you and I agree almost 100% about ENT and Trek in general.

I did notice someone said (don't ask me who; it was several pages back) that the writers on ENT were bad. That may or may not be the case, but I can pretty much narrow down ENT's problems to three names: UPN, Rick Berman and Brannon Braga.

UPN is at fault for imposing itself in the creative process. Berman and Braga are at fault for having a rock-stupid creative process. Neither man should have still been involved with Trek at that point. Neither man could break themselves out of their mental rut when it came to how to make Enterprise a series that stood out from what came before it. Merely setting it in the past and then doing nothing with that setting that you weren't already doing with the series that just finished isn't going to win anyone over. They utterly failed to embrace new storytelling ideas, new ways to develop characters. They definitely had a "we've done this before so we know how it works" mindset and wouldn't allow anyone to break out of the box they'd shoved Trek into.

I've heard story after story of writers on the Voyager and Enterprise staff who describe the writers' room as a very depressing place to be, and how 90% of their ideas were shot down immediately upon suggestion by B&B. Anything that was out of the ordinary or didn't follow the beaten path was summarily tossed out. And what was accepted got filtered through the B&B homogenization machine.

 

[Mudd]

Once you admit a hypothetical you can prove absolutely anything.

It's unlikely that Paramount would have placed Star Trek Firefly on the Fox network to begin with, for a variety of business reasons. Since the 1986 announcement of TNG, the studio has always carefully hedged their bets such that they're guaranteed to get their profit out of Star Trek series. Indeed, the fourth year of Enterprise* was produced pretty much for that reason.

*Hey, look, I actually brought Enterprise into the conversation for the first time.

 

[Prax]

For fuck's sake I did not.



In the past nine years (since production began on the first Abrams movie) they have produced three feature films that take place in the 23rd century, and one TV series, Discovery.

When the possibility of another 23rd century show was brought up, someone responded "no more prequels."

Now, if you want to split hairs and argue that Beyond "wasn't really a prequel" rather than admitting that you dragged in Enterprise all on your own because you don't read what people actually write, knock yourself out.




"May have."

In fact you have no accurate idea of what the studio's accounting is on any of these movies. What we can know is what the total box office is on them, and the three Abrams movies sit at the top of Trek's box office history. No 24th century-based film ever broke one hundred million.

Jeez, you don't have to go all tartigrade on me.

No 24th century film spent more than 100 million either. They're in a different league. And so is Discovery. Wait, wait a minute. Didn't 3/4 24th century films brake 100m?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I think he's speaking domestically.

Because this is Trump's America, to hell with worldwide numbers.

​

 

[Noname Given]

Jeez, you don't have to go all tartigrade on me.

No 24th century film spent more than 100 million either. They're in a different league. And so is Discovery. Wait, wait a minute. Didn't 3/4 24th century films brake 100m?

Here's a Star Trek feature film list with various BO grosses - and a section that has the grosses listed and sdjusted for current inflation:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

FYI in that adjuted for inflaition list - Star Trek beyond still out grosses every TNG film with the Exception of ST:FC and the JJ Abrams fims are 1 (ST2009) - 4 (STID) - 8 (STB) out of all 13

 

[ichab]

Here's a Star Trek feature film list with various BO grosses - and a section that has the grosses listed and sdjusted for current inflation:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

FYI in that adjuted for inflaition list - Star Trek beyond still out grosses every TNG film with the Exception of ST:FC and the JJ Abrams fims are 1 (ST2009) - 4 (STID) - 8 (STB) out of all 13

I can't believe he's still arguing this. Seriously, numbers don't lie and all the "yeah buts.. " in the world isn't going to change the fact that the Kelvin Movies are far more popular than the TNG movies ever were.

 

[ichab]

Because there is a small but VERY vocal group of Trek fans who HATTEEEEE Discovery and shit on it at every opportunity. They also in the next breath praise The Orville for being REAL Star Trek because they are stuck in the past and blinded by nostalgia and pseudo-TNG aesthetics. I think some of them just spite-watch The Orville.

Truth.

If Orville doesn't get renewed for Season 2 and Discovery does, they'll shit a brick.

I won't be surprised if that happens. Orville is really just a bad parody of a formula that got old twenty years ago. Why watch a poorly made ripoff of TNG when I can see something different? I still have my TNG disks or I can watch it on Netflix, Amazon Prime, or CBS when I get a nostalgia itch.

 

[Refuge]

I've not even seen one promo, preview, or speck of the Orville. Somehow Discovery still screens with all its flaws (and otherwise) the same to me.

 

[Prax]

I can't believe he's still arguing this. Seriously, numbers don't lie and all the "yeah buts.. " in the world isn't going to change the fact that the Kelvin Movies are far more popular than the TNG movies ever were.

please don't talk about me in the third person, and I didn't bring it up. I replied to Ed like an hour ago. It's not like I picked up a week old conversation and sent a drive by reply or anything....like some might.

The argument is this: Prequels are more popular.

It ignores so many factors. The Kelvin films were popular, yes. Two of them grossed more than three of the TNG films. They also grossed more than all of the TOS films. Each era of films had one bomb near the end.
What Percentage of profit did each film make? And where does that put the Kelvin films?

The only prequel series besides Discovery, was Enterprise.

Discovery is only 6 episodes in, is on a paid streaming service only, and can't be measured in success in any comparable method to the previous series. So, it's not only too early, it's apples and oranges.

 

[Albinator]

Sorry guys, the JJ films are the highest grossing, when adjusted for inflation. The "adjusted for inflation" list on BOM only includes domestic grosses. TMP's worldwide gross in 1979 was 95% domestic, and was, in 2017 dollars, ~310M.

Star Trek Beyond grossed $343M.

Now, if you want to argue it's an unfair comparison because in 1979-1991 international grosses were negligible due to studio factors rather than lack of interest, that's fair enough, but the facts are the facts.

 

[STR]

Here's a Star Trek feature film list with various BO grosses - and a section that has the grosses listed and sdjusted for current inflation:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

FYI in that adjuted for inflaition list - Star Trek beyond still out grosses every TNG film with the Exception of ST:FC and the JJ Abrams fims are 1 (ST2009) - 4 (STID) - 8 (STB) out of all 13

Just because I'm a numbers guy, even BOMojo admits that their inflation calculation is approximate. It doesn't account for 3D sales, for example. I'd probably treat any number within 10% of each other as identical if there's more than a couple years gap. ST09 did about the same as TMP. SID did the same as TVH. STB did the same as GEN and TUC.

Sorry guys, the JJ films are the highest grossing, when adjusted for inflation.

One of them is, maybe. Again, take any adjusted numbers with a heaping dose of skepticism. A 5% error is easy to accrue over a 30 year window.

 

[Refuge]

please don't talk about me in the third person, and I didn't bring it up. I replied to Ed like an hour ago. It's not like I picked up a week old conversation and sent a drive by reply or anything....like some might.

The argument is this: Prequels are more popular.

It ignores so many factors. The Kelvin films were popular, yes. Two of them grossed more than three of the TNG films. They also grossed more than all of the TOS films. Each era of films had one bomb near the end.
What Percentage of profit did each film make? And where does that put the Kelvin films?

The only prequel series besides Discovery, was Enterprise.

Discovery is only 6 episodes in, is on a paid streaming service only, and can't be measured in success in any comparable method to the previous series. So, it's not only too early, it's apples and oranges.

I must admit here Prax that I personally don't like factoring the movies into the progress of the TV franchise anyway! To a point I can get on board maybe including the original movies that did in fact springboard off the TOS and TNG characters and actors. That is 'family'. The other movies- meh. They could be prequel or sequel for all it really matters as they are stand alone.

I don't know how you measure up success in TV land other than by renewal and ratings. TOS has a great reputation and longevity but was cancelled fairly early if we're honest. Enterprise - a prequel did a four year run. Add them together and that is what? Seven years of Trek. Now add years of Trek service and success of the shows that went forward. Twenty one seasons. There is no argument. Just results.

 

[Prax]

When the Star Wars prequels came out, the OT era took a back seat, for a good decade. Books, Toys, games, and TV shows focused on that era and marketing it.

Come 2015, the reverse has happened, and who knows what it will be in another ten years.

This is the case with many film franchises. You can only market a thing for so long before it's time for something new. In most cases, after a hit is scored, each sequel will have diminishing returns.

The reboot films took Star Trek to a different plateau. They brought them to star wars and marvel level blockbuster spending(both on production & wide marketing), spending the big bucks. Prior to that, the films were on a much tighter budget, and expecting a different scale of returns, but each era was the big thing of its time.

 

[Refuge]

I hope like Star Wars the prequel timeline for Star Trek will eventually leave the past where it belongs.. done to death.

 

[Prax]

I hope like Star Wars the prequel timeline for Star Trek will eventually leave the past where it belongs.. done to death.

It'll branch out. Some of the pitches for a new show that were being entertained since 2006 included a 25th century series, a 500 years later "decline of the Federation" series, a Starfleet academy series, a "Worf and his hot girlfriend out and about in the galaxy like Han Solo" series, and a bunch of others. There's a lot of people out the in Hollywood that would like to make one. Bryan Fuller's pitch was the one they chose, and he wanted to build up a "universe" of multiple eras and multiple shows.

 

[Campe]

It'll branch out.

If it does, there are things I absolutely don’t want to see:

• Khan miniseries
• Captain Worf
• Captain Sulu
• Captain Riker

Hell, I’ll make it simple... Anything that screams for immediate follow-ups to the 21 seasons of 24th century series. That time is done. It’s okay to move on.

And before anyone says anything, while I think it’s adding some interesting texture to characters like Sarek, Mudd and Spock (even if we haven’t seen him), I would have been happier had Discovery been a full-on reboot. I wanted that since day one. I’m relatively happy with what we have but I think cutting the ties completely with the Prime Universe would have given them so much creative freedom.

 

[marsh8472]

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

^Luke's reaction to renewal

 

[Mudd]

The argument is this: Prequels are more popular.

No it's not.

It's that the Trek productions of the last decade, all arguably "prequels" by this silly fannish definition that makes anything before the 24th century somehow "going backward," have been so successful for the studios that there's every reason for them to continue rather than doing what some fans call "going forward" (In actuality, simply a setting used for Trek TV shows in the 1980s and 90s).

No one is going to look at the success of the Abrams movies or Discovery, then at the TNG-based movies or DS9 or Voyager, and say "let's do more of that 24th century stuff."

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I don't think anyone is arguing for more 24th century stuff. Most of the sentiments about "moving forward" are setting it centuries later, which allows more flexibility with canon, whereas something like Discovery set ten years before TOS, doesn't seem to care about visually lining up with the 23rd century shows even on a basic surface level (D7 looking nothing like a D7 in any semblance). It doesn't bother me, but I get the criticism that Discovery could have easily been set in maybe the 26th century, because so far there doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason why this show should be set in the 23rd century beyond call backs.

Besides, the notion that these prequels are successful merely because they're prequels and not 24th century is really bizarre. Audiences didn't flock to nuTrek because they were prequels, they went because it was a new take on Star Trek and it looked fun.

 

[Prax]

No it's not.

It's that the Trek productions of the last decade, all arguably "prequels" by this silly fannish definition that makes anything before the 24th century somehow "going backward," have been so successful for the studios that there's every reason for them to continue rather than doing what some fans call "going forward" (In actuality, simply a setting used for Trek TV shows in the 1980s and 90s).

No one is going to look at the success of the Abrams movies or Discovery, then at the TNG-based movies or DS9 or Voyager, and say "let's do more of that 24th century stuff."

So what do you predict the next star trek series will be about?