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

[SpocksOddSocks]

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.

Agreed. I agree that Discovery had quite a few plot issues, but love it so far in spite of those. In the same way I love most things Trek in spite of their flaws, and they all have them. Probably TOS more than any due to time in which it was made. I would also bet large sums of money (if I had it) that a greater proportion of everyone who hated Discovery are shouting about it here, or Reddit, than lovers of the show are popping in to sing its praises. That's the just way the internet tends to work.

 

[BillJ]

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.

This is what it boils down to, for me. If the rest of these supposed projects are as bland and uninspired as Discovery has been to date, relying on past Trek glory instead of forging a new path, then I tend to think the franchise will die out when we do.

 

[XCV330]

Agreed. I agree that Discovery had quite a few plot issues, but love it so far in spite of those. In the same way I love most things Trek in spite of their flaws, and they all have them. Probably TOS more than any due to time in which it was made. I would also bet large sums of money (if I had it) that a greater proportion of everyone who hated Discovery are shouting about it here, or Reddit, than lovers of the show are popping in to sing its praises. That's the just way the internet tends to work.

The loudest critics to Discovery were similar to those upset at Star Wars TFA: anger at increased roles for women and minorities. The same people that purposefully tried to tip the scales on Rotten Tomatoes. And yet Discovery is still doing well there.

Fandom was the primary one decrying the first Abrams film when audiences generally liked it. The lesson forward is to just try and make a good show and ignore the older fanbase. If you please them, that's gravy, if not, well.. no big loss.

 

[mos6507]

anger at increased roles for women and minorities.

Wrong. Trek has a long history of diversity and the oldest long-time fans are cool with that. The single biggest problem is Burnham and other characters were written to be unlikeable from the start.

I think some fans pull the "toxic fandom" card every time they want to make excuses for flawed work and it's getting old.

 

[XCV330]

Wrong. Trek has a long history of diversity and the oldest long-time fans are cool with that.

I suspect some were cool with it up to a point. There's a difference between nobility and noblesse oblige.

The single biggest problem is Burnham and other characters were written to be unlikeable from the start.

Burnham was far from my favorite character so far. I agree she hasn't been terribly well written in places. I like that she was supposed to be a flawed character. My complaint has been when they have chosen her to make moralistic speeches, the "this is what Starfleet, this is what I believe" monologues. She worked best as a foil to Lorca. How they will handle her now, I don't know.

I think some fans pull the "toxic fandom" card every time they want to make excuses for flawed work and it's getting old.

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that toxicity doesn't exist. The demographic that didn't get the show it wanted could only have secured advertisements from the gold sellers and catheter dispensers. That might have paid for plywood and jellybeans.

 

[eschaton]

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

Again, the most shocking part of this to me is that any Trek fan will admit that every series, even their beloved ones, are filled with a plethora of absolutely shite episodes. It's not like Trek has this amazing quality control we have to fiercely guard. We have gotten good Trek stories in the past via quantity as much as quality.

If we end up with five new series, three of which are mostly bad, and two of which are great, I will be more than satisfied.

 

[Lord Garth]

There are some people here and some people I've seen in YouTube Comments who've been very vocal about minorities in DSC. I think that has more to do with being an unfortunate byproduct of the times we live in.

I know there are vocal critics of DSC who are vocal for the "right" reasons. The story, the acting, the pacing, the execution. Those I understand. Those are worth at least giving a listen even if you don't agree, just to see what the other side is.

But the people complaining about too many women, and gays, and who can't stand Burnham because she's the star of the show and a black woman (even though they won't be caught dead admitting it and will keep coming up with ways to avoid saying it) should be ignored. The more they're pissed off, the better.

 

[mos6507]

The demographic that didn't get the show it wanted could only have secured advertisements from the gold sellers and catheter dispensers. That might have paid for plywood and jellybeans.

So play the race-card and then flaunt blatant ageism? Nice one.

 

[XCV330]

So play the race-card and then flaunt blatant ageism? Nice one.

I haven't "played a race card" nor am I playing cards. As far as ageism, I'm only being fair. And to really be fair, my own age isn't far from where advertisers will shift focus on me too (for some reason the ads on this forum keep wanting to sell me rabbit hutches. I don't get that. I've never owned a rabbit. I digress) Watch Fox News or a good deal of other day time programming during the daytime geared to people of advancing years. Compare the number of catheter ads, "buy gold" ads, incontinence products etc, compared with prime time. Advertisers go where they need to reach. You probably wont find a plethora of NRA ads on BET, either. New sci fi shows with a high budget aren't interested in securing that demographic.

 

[CaptGrumpy]

I haven't "played a race card" nor am I playing cards. As far as ageism, I'm only being fair. And to really be fair, my own age isn't far from where advertisers will shift focus on me too (for some reason the ads on this forum keep wanting to sell me rabbit hutches. I don't get that. I've never owned a rabbit. I digress) Watch Fox News or a good deal of other day time programming during the daytime geared to people of advancing years. Compare the number of catheter ads, "buy gold" ads, incontinence products etc, compared with prime time. Advertisers go where they need to reach. You probably wont find a plethora of NRA ads on BET, either. New sci fi shows with a high budget aren't interested in securing that demographic.

Sad to say, but as a person who found Star Trek in it's last season (at age11) and became a fan during it's first wave of syndication in the early 70's, I am no longer the audience DISC is marketed to. We older fans are aging out of demographic that the money people look for. That's probably why they don't stick to the original visual aesthetics. The people they are marketing to might find them hokey an uninteresting. I'm personally ok with the redesigns, I accept that things change.

 

[XCV330]

Sad to say, but as a person who found Star Trek in it's last season (at age11) and became a fan during it's first wave of syndication in the early 70's, I am no longer the audience DISC is marketed to. We older fans are aging out of demographic that the money people look for. That's probably why they don't stick to the original visual aesthetics. The people they are marketing to might find them hokey an uninteresting. I'm personally ok with the redesigns, I accept that things change.

I'm just a few years behind you. Started watching in the 70's, reruns. I like the redesigns and I love TOS too. But fortunately I got STC and DSC. I'm good.

 

[eschaton]

I haven't "played a race card" nor am I playing cards. As far as ageism, I'm only being fair. And to really be fair, my own age isn't far from where advertisers will shift focus on me too (for some reason the ads on this forum keep wanting to sell me rabbit hutches. I don't get that. I've never owned a rabbit. I digress) Watch Fox News or a good deal of other day time programming during the daytime geared to people of advancing years. Compare the number of catheter ads, "buy gold" ads, incontinence products etc, compared with prime time. Advertisers go where they need to reach. You probably wont find a plethora of NRA ads on BET, either. New sci fi shows with a high budget aren't interested in securing that demographic.

Although to be fair, CBS has a reputation as being a network for old people (though I don't think the audience is much older than ABC). Last year the average age of a live-action CBS viewer was apparently 61. Now, some of this isn't CBS's fault of course - young people don't watch much TV. Obviously some of this is because of streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime, but in general studies have found that the time people spend online has basically directly come out of what would have been "TV time" a generation ago - meaning once boomers die off there's just not going to be a big market for TV any longer.

CBS's problem, however, is that it's attempting to shift demographically from being the "old network" to becoming a direct competitor to the streaming services - basically a 180 degree shift. This is a very difficult re-branding process.

 

[Jadeb]

CBS's problem, however, is that it's attempting to shift demographically from being the "old network" to becoming a direct competitor to the streaming services - basically a 180 degree shift. This is a very difficult re-branding process.

This is what is missing from so much of the discussion of Discovery's "success," IMO. If Discovery kept the lights on for CBS' niche streaming service, and it has, we were almost guaranteed to get more Trek, regardless of the critical reception. We may not have much info on Discovery's financials, but we can see what's on All Access, and it sure ain't much. They desperately need more content people will actually pay for. So for now we enjoy the upside of being a big fish relegated to a very small pond.

 

[eschaton]

This is what is missing from so much of the discussion of Discovery's "success," IMO. If Discovery kept the lights on for CBS' niche streaming service, and it has, we were almost guaranteed to get more Trek, regardless of the critical reception. We may not have much info on Discovery's financials, but we can see what's on All Access, and it sure ain't much. So for now we enjoy the upside of being a big fish relegated to a very small pond.

I made this point back when Season 1 was still on the air. Basically if DIS was a "failure," CBS had three options:

1. Double down with more DIS, and start production on more Trek. This seems to be what they're doing.
2. Cancel DIS, but develop more Trek. Problem here is that it would probably take two years minimum to get the next content ready, and they'd be behind the ball compared to their (desired) competitors that much more.
3. Cancel DIS, and essentially abandon Trek. This would be basically surrendering, because they'd need to come up with a whole new scheme to try and attract subscribers to CBS All Access, which would take even longer than the new Trek shows would.

 

[Lord Garth]

I haven't "played a race card" nor am I playing cards. As far as ageism, I'm only being fair. And to really be fair, my own age isn't far from where advertisers will shift focus on me too (for some reason the ads on this forum keep wanting to sell me rabbit hutches. I don't get that. I've never owned a rabbit. I digress) Watch Fox News or a good deal of other day time programming during the daytime geared to people of advancing years. Compare the number of catheter ads, "buy gold" ads, incontinence products etc, compared with prime time. Advertisers go where they need to reach. You probably wont find a plethora of NRA ads on BET, either. New sci fi shows with a high budget aren't interested in securing that demographic.

I'm probably their target demographic. A fan and young enough to be interested in whatever they're marketing. But the joke's on them. I can't afford to buy shit and am struggling just to stay afloat.

 

[DaveyNY]

I'm probably their target demographic. A fan and young enough to be interested in whatever they're marketing. But the joke's on them. I can't afford to buy shit and am struggling just to stay afloat.

That's part of what is somewhat missing from this conversation...
The "Older" Trek Fans are the ones most likely to have the extra funds to spend on purchasing the "goods" that CBS is throwing out there.
And the newer generations are very savvy as to how to get those same "goods" that may interest them, without having to pay for it.
Of course some of us "older" fans fit into both categories.

 

[CaptGrumpy]

That's part of what is somewhat missing from this conversation...
The "Older" Trek Fans are the ones most likely to have the extra funds to spend on purchasing the "goods" that CBS is throwing out there.
And the newer generations are very savvy as to how to get those same "goods" that may interest them, without having to pay for it.
Of course some of us "older" fans fit into both categories.

...and...and, some of the older fans, like me can afford to pay for streaming, but some of (and maybe not enough of us, outside these forums, might not be into streaming.

 

[DaveyNY]

...and...and, some of the older fans, like me can afford to pay for streaming, but some of (and maybe not enough of us, outside these forums, might not be into streaming.

I kinda wonder about that...
I have yet to meet a Trek Fan (old or young) that hasn't almost fully embraced all the new Tech from the last 20 or so years.

Isn't it kinda-sorta a given, that anybody who has developed an active interest in Sci-Fi in general, would most likely also be very interested in technological advances and how we use them in our daily lives?

 

[fireproof78]

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.

Announcing 5 possible spin offs is kind of overreacting if they think Discovery is doing bad.

 

[eschaton]

Announcing 5 possible spin offs is kind of overreacting if they think Discovery is doing bad.

Trek properties does not equal spinoffs. There's nothing in this to suggest that any of the proposed series will have much to do with Discovery. Indeed, if Stewart is playing Picard, the role almost certainly will have nothing to do with Discovery.