Alex Kurtzman Gets New Deal With CBS, Will Expand 'Star Trek' TV

[Agony_Boothb]

Waaaaaaaaay too many assumptions, Vger. As Spock said in COTEOF, "We're not that sure of our facts."

It is generally accepted at this point that DISC has not been a creative success. There are some people who liked it - and I'm happy for them - but it had a huge amount of problems. Some argue that it was a financial success, while strangely failing to make room for the possibility that people watched the whole season, like me, hoping it would get better, and also failing to account for the fact that CBS is almost certainly basing any appraisal of DISC's financial success on the number of All-Access subscriptions ("AAS") it enlisted. CBS has no way of knowing, however, how many people signed up for an AAS, but thought DISC was a trainwreck. Like me.

The clearest evidence that DISC is not a success is that it has been the subject of more BTS drama than most series get in their lifetimes. That cannot indicate that all is well and that everything is going swimmingly, although people here confusingly continue to argue just that. Moreover, your premise assumes that Kurtzman was intimately involved in the "dumpster fire," when in fact all evidence is to the contrary. Every piece of data we have suggests that OTHER people came in to run with whatever broad ideas Kurtzman had - that was his brief with regard to DISC - and those people are now gone. So CBS has turned back to Kurtzman, probably because he came up with what CBS views as a good proposal for rescuing Discovery, and because CBS thinks of him as a stabilizing figure and doesn't want to start all over. Instead, they're going to make sure that Kurtzman is the one in charge, for better or worse, and fire all of the Harberts and Bergs that have botched things so far.

You may disagree with this interpretation of facts, but there's absolutely nothing implausible about it. Your version, respectfully, acts like Discovery is a big success because Kurtzman is still around, ignoring the likelihood that Kurtzman didn't have anything to do with Discovery and all of its problems. Your version also ignores the strong possibility that if Discovery were really that great or really doing that well, CBS would play it out and let it have the spotlight instead of announcing something like five other series right after sacking Discovery's EPs.

CBS is a business and Discovery is a product. No business is going to throw millions of dollars behind a failing product or brand. If a product doesn't make money it gets discontinued. That is how businesses work. Take the retail industry for example. When a retail business wants to open in a new country or state, they'll do their research and market analysis and open a flagship store and see how it does. If the store is successful they will then open additional locations. I've seen what happens first hand to retail businesses that open additional stores if their flagship is failing, it loses the business further money and the company generally has to completely pull out of the region and cut their losses.

There is absolutely no way that CBS would ignore best business practice and go ahead with an expansion of the star trek brand if their flagship product was considered a failure. Discovery costs $8 million an episode, you honestly think shareholders would be ok with that type of money being thrown at five additional projects? It makes absolutely no logical sense.

 

[Wowbagger]

CBS is a business and Discovery is a product. No business is going to throw millions of dollars behind a failing product or brand. If a product doesn't make money it gets discontinued. That is how businesses work.

That is the classical model of how businesses work, but we live in strange and complicated times. Today, a product gets discontinued if it doesn't make money and executives/shareholders lose faith that it will make money in the future.

Amazon.com, to name the obvious example, ran for many years on big promises and shareholder hopes and dreams. Founded in 1994, did not turn its first quarterly profit until, I believe, 2002, and didn't show an annual profit (a small one) until 2004.

All of this is to say that it's entirely possible that Discovery is a financial failure but shareholders believe it can be fixed and earn a ton of money, and so they are doubling down rather than cutting bait.

Of course, it's also entirely possible that Discovery is a financial success in its own right. Based on the very limited evidence we have so far, I'm inclined to believe this. I find V'Ger's case persuasive in broad strokes. But the more pessimistic explanation cannot be ruled out.

 

[fireproof78]

Of course, it's also entirely possible that Discovery is a financial success in its own right. Based on the very limited evidence we have so far, I'm inclined to believe this. I find V'Ger's case persuasive in broad strokes. But the more pessimistic explanation cannot be ruled out.

We, unfortunately, do not have all the information to make any conclusions.

 

[SpocksOddSocks]

I'm pretty sure there was something said about Discovery season one being a financial success for CBS before it even aired. I think they said the deal made with Netflix for the international rights was greater than the show's budget.

Whether it is a financial success for Netflix might actually be the bigger question... as well as one that it more difficult to answer, but ultimately less important toward any decisions made by CBS on the Trek franchise.

 

[dinzy]

Phaser- love you to death...but think about the implausibly from this perspective:

CBS BOARDROOM:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we've all seen the data and we've discussed how much of a morbid failure Star Trek Discovery was this past season on Our All Access streaming service. Well, as you all have been expecting, now it is time to take action."

"As we continue to film our second season of this crash-and-burn waste of $100M per season, we will offer Alex Kurtzman, one of the creators of this dumpster fire, a massive multi-year contract and put him in charge not only of showrunning this atrocity, but he will shepherd in an entire new era of Star Trek for CBS."

"In parallel to continued development of the aforementioned plague ship that is DSC, we will be developing 4-5 other Star Trek concepts. As you all know, our typical battle plan is to take anything super-expensive that fails horrifically and looses millions of dollars, and then go and duplicate that in other forms, because that is an enormously risk-free and obvious solution."

"So, let's get to work. We need to draw up a multimillion dollar contract for that a-hole Kurtzman who developed this whole mess with Fuller, then we need to start pumping money into the initial development of these other ideas that are all from the same franchise that just burned us so terribly in the form of DSC. Because once again, spending time and money on the prolification of business ventures that have been proven to lose massive amounts of money is what we here at CBS are all about, and is the cornerstone of our strategic growth plan for CBSAA"

It's nonsense.

DSC might be a disappointment to some, and it had story issues (despite the fact that I still found it wildly entertaining), but it was critically successful, generated good buzz, and I think there's no way within reason we can deny that CBS has viewed it as anything other than a success from the perspective that it accomplished whatever it is that they had defined as success for it.

So, while I agree that "quality" and "business success" are two different things, there's no way we can view the series of events that have taken place since Oct 2017 as any indication other than CBS considers DSC a good success.

While I agree with this, I have seen projects that were dumpster fires continued in a similar fashion with the lead who wasted 10s of millions of dollars granted more and more responsibility.

 

[Vger23]

While I agree with this, I have seen projects that were dumpster fires continued in a similar fashion with the lead who wasted 10s of millions of dollars granted more and more responsibility.

Have you seen such activity in a context like this one? I'd be interested to hear more.

 

[Lord Garth]

Pleasing those among Trekkies who are unplease-able. There was a song like that once, except about something else. But tell me the lyrics don't fit, if you just change a few words. Like I did below.

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

Uh huh huh...
Oh yeah...
Work...work...

Somebody told me,
Boy, everything [Trekkies] want is everything [Trekkies] see...
I guess I must have loved you.
Cause I said you were the perfect [fans] for me,
Maybe...
But now we're [a few decades] older...
And everything you want and everything you see,
Is out of reach...not good enough...
I don't know what the Hell you want from me but boy...

Uh huh huh...
Oh...oh...
Uh huh huh...
Doo doo doo...
La la la la...

Somebody tell me,
Won't you tell me...
Why I work so hard for you?
All to give you [entertainment]
All to give you [entertainment]...

Some people work for a living,
Some people work for fun,
[Trekkie], I just work for you.
They told me [fandom] was a give and take,
Well, show me you can take you've got some giving to do.
And now you tell me that you're having my [feedback],
I'll tell you that I'm happy if you want me to...
One step further and my back will break,
If my best isn't good enough
Then how can it be good enough for [millions]?
I can't work any harder than I do...

Somebody tell me,
Won't you tell me...
Why I work so hard for you?
All to give you [entertainment],
All to give you [entertainment]...

Oh...
Why do I do the things I do?
I'd tell you if I knew.
My God...
I don't even think that I love you....
Won't you tell me...
Tell me...tell me...tell me...

How could you settle for a [show] like me,
When all I could see was the end of the [season]...
All the things we [make],
And the things [you] buy,
Ain't gonna keep us together...
It's just a matter of time.

My situation,
Never changes.
Walking in that manner through that door,
Like a stranger,
But the [ratings]...
I give you all you say you want is [entertainment]...

And all I can see is the end of the [season],
All the things we [make],
And the things [you] buy,
Ain't gonna keep us together...
[Trekkie], it's just a matter of time.

 

[Phaser Two]

CBS is a business and Discovery is a product. No business is going to throw millions of dollars behind a failing product or brand. If a product doesn't make money it gets discontinued. That is how businesses work. Take the retail industry for example. When a retail business wants to open in a new country or state, they'll do their research and market analysis and open a flagship store and see how it does. If the store is successful they will then open additional locations. I've seen what happens first hand to retail businesses that open additional stores if their flagship is failing, it loses the business further money and the company generally has to completely pull out of the region and cut their losses.

There is absolutely no way that CBS would ignore best business practice and go ahead with an expansion of the star trek brand if their flagship product was considered a failure. Discovery costs $8 million an episode, you honestly think shareholders would be ok with that type of money being thrown at five additional projects? It makes absolutely no logical sense.

Discovery is not the flagship product of the brand. It's merely the brand's return to TV after about 15 years, with a highly debatable decision to go the prequel route and massive creative problems. I think "shareholders," who by the way have zero say in the dealings of a corporate entity this large (but I know what you meant, or I believe I do) want the brand to succeed. It certainly doesn't have to do so via Discovery. As they're now proving with all these new ideas including a possible examination of what happened to the TNG crew.

Here's my guess at their thinking, in a sentence or two. "Discovery just may not work out. What else can we do with our valuable franchise before it gets too associated with Discovery in the minds of the public?"

 

[fireproof78]

Here's my guess at their thinking, in a sentence or two. "Discovery just may not work out. What else can we do with our valuable franchise before it gets too associated with Discovery in the minds of the public?"

Based upon what evidence though? As pointed out, corporations do not tend to shell out money after a brand that is not working, or considered supporting a failing model. There appears to be a financial success, enough to justify putting more money in to concepts and productions.

Otherwise, they could have just as easily pulled the plug on DSC or not bothered with anything after that. CBS tends to be more a conservative corporation when it comes to money and risks.

 

[Jadeb]

I would guess the thinking extended no further than "Discovery got a bunch of Trekkies to sign up for All Access, so let's do a lot more of that so they can't let their subscriptions drop."

 

[cooleddie74]

I don't doubt that DSC has made CBS a lot of money and continues to do so. I just wish for all their investment and all our subscriptions the series were a lot better than it's been, a handful of good episodes notwithstanding.

 

[XCV330]

the toxicity of Trekkers manifest itself
"CBS To Invest Millions in 4 New Series and Renew Another"
Fan response: "it's the end!"

 

[thribs]

Are CBS mad to give him more Trek?

 

[cooleddie74]

I don't mind more Trek. I just hope they're not garbage.

 

[Tuskin38]

Are CBS mad to give him more Trek?

No, because DSC was successful for them.

 

[DaveyNY]

I believe that a lot of folks are forgetting (or perhaps ignoring) the fact that Mr. 'Moonface' himself,
(can ya tell I really don't care for the guy)
... came right out and said before the show even aired, that CBS had already made back the projected cost (and then some) of Discovery's first season just in the sale of it to Netflix.
(never mind what they got from the Canadian Broadcast deal)

One can reasonably say that Discovery so far, may have been somewhat of a critical failure, but there's no way in hell one can say that it was a financial failure.
The Big Man in charge has long ago stated that THAT, is not Factual.

Stomp the hell out of it critically if one chooses, but get off the "not a money-maker bandwagon" ...,
Netflix not only paid for the Band, but also built the wagon, supplied the horses and then preceded to drive the wagon home.

 

[XCV330]

for the fandamentalists in their moment of crisis

 

[Phaser Two]

the toxicity of Trekkers manifest itself
"CBS To Invest Millions in 4 New Series and Renew Another"
Fan response: "it's the end!"

It's interesting how some people just make up what other people are saying!

 

[Phaser Two]

Based upon what evidence though? As pointed out, corporations do not tend to shell out money after a brand that is not working, or considered supporting a failing model. There appears to be a financial success, enough to justify putting more money in to concepts and productions.

Otherwise, they could have just as easily pulled the plug on DSC or not bothered with anything after that. CBS tends to be more a conservative corporation when it comes to money and risks.

There's no way that CBS/Paramount is pulling the plug on its most valuable franchise* just because Discovery is (hypothetically) thought of as bad. I don't understand why this is so difficult to accept for some, although I respect everyone's views.

Take the Star Wars universe/franchise at the time of the prequels (which I happened to like). Tons of people were angered by them, although they made tons of money. Did Lucasfilm pack it in? Nope. They continued with animated projects like Clone Wars and then marketed themselves to Disney in order to sell off the rights to more movies.

Returning to Star Trek, there were only about, what, three years between the end of ENT and the beginning of the writing of ST09? You don't just give up on a valuable franchise of that size and magnitude because of one bad entry. In fact, if you're competing with Star Wars and the MCU as well as whatever Warner can eventually get together for DC, you seize the PR initiative and announce the development of two new movies and a whole bunch of new series, just in case Discovery never makes it.


*You can make an argument for NCIS as well if you're talking about only TV, but with movies added in, it's Star Trek for sure.

 

[The Habs Fan]

I believe that a lot of folks are forgetting (or perhaps ignoring) the fact that Mr. 'Moonface' himself,
(can ya tell I really don't care for the guy)
... came right out and said before the show even aired, that CBS had already made back the projected cost (and then some) of Discovery's first season just in the sale of it to Netflix.
(never mind what they got from the Canadian Broadcast deal)

One can reasonably say that Discovery so far, may have been somewhat of a critical failure, but there's no way in hell one can say that it was a financial failure.
The Big Man in charge has long ago stated that THAT, is not Factual.

Stomp the hell out of it critically if one chooses, but get off the "not a money-maker bandwagon" ...,
Netflix not only paid for the Band, but also built the wagon, supplied the horses and then preceded to drive the wagon home.

Actually, it's not a critical failure. Season 1 is 82 % on Rotten Tomatoes. However, it is a failure among some vocal members of the Star Trek fandom. But what Star Trek show wouldn't have haters? Every fan who's a critic of Discovery has their own idea of what their perfect Star Trek series would be and if that series were ever to be produced, an equal number of haters would appear for it as well. Every single Star Trek series after TOS has had a lot of haters in the fandom, and the trend will continue forever.