Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"

I don't get the logic of that. Seems like the new shows in the pipeline are meant to provide an insurance policy for DSC being put out to pasture relatively soon. Also, Discovery leaning on established characters (Pike + Spock) and bringing in Patrick Stewart points to an inability on Kurtzman and Co's part to build up new characters, not unlike the new Star Wars films where Episode IX is shaping up to be little more than a force-ghost fanservice cavalcade.

 

This doesn't track. CBS is investing more money because DSC is failing? Since when do companies throw more money at failing products? Certainly not to the tune of the greenlighting two new shows under the same brand. That makes zero sense from a business point of view.

Equally as odd is blaming Kurtzman who was just hired on to oversee Season 2. Given the BTS drama of Season 1 I'm not sure how Kurtzman owns any of that...

And, speaking of Star Wars, I'll just sum up with a great moment from Episode 8:

 

I think the new Star Trek shows in the pipeline are meant to make sure that a Star Trek show is on CBS All Access more than just 14 or 15 weeks.

15-ish weeks of DSC, maybe 15 of Picard after that, then maybe another 15 weeks of some other Star Trek, and pretty soon Trek fans will need to keep CBS AA all year.

I don't think they have any plans to "put DSC out to pasture" anytime soon.

 

People keep hoping though, don't they?

 

They're doing five spin-off series? Total failure. Cancellation immanent.

 

I love Tilly exactly as she is, and Stamets just says things like that to her because he's a crotchety man.
(I like him, too).

 

It's the same logic as to why they didn't try another TV show right after ENT. IE - If ST: D WERE failing, CBS All Access WOULDN'T spend more money (and extend the Executive Producer of ST: D's contract for 5 years and have him developing OTHER Star Trek series for CBSAA. (They would say "Franchise Fatigue continues or teh Star Trek Brand has run its course - Ex. You don't see anyone chomping at the bit to revive redo "Gunsmoke" that had a 25 season run on CBS back in the day - it ran its course.
^^^
The fact they are extending Kurtzman's contract and paying him a good amount of money to develop MORE Star Trek shows they are happy with ST: D and the job he's done with it, and they consider it a success for CBSAA.

 

It's rumored that many fans think De Nile will be heavily featured during the second season.

 

It's really very simple and I laid it out in the post from which you pulled this quote. If DSC was a ratings failure, there is very little chance we would be getting another Trek series because networks don't present more of the same to their audiences if the audience has shown it isn't interested in a particular subject.

Nooo, this is simply the way you are interpreting it because you don't like DSC. CBS is not obligated to keep a Trek show on CBSAA, so why would they place a Trek show "on deck", in case DSC is cancelled? Why would they need an "insurance policy"? If DSC hadn't been the success that it was, it would have been cancelled and the franchise likely mothballed until they could come up with something they thought would be successful.

Once again, this is simply your negative spin on the situation based solely on your dislike of DSC.

ST DSC is a prequel. And with the franchise's long history, it would be highly illogical if a show set just 10 years before TOS to not feature some of that show's characters.

 

That's the same logic that the forum used to try to convince us all that a new Trek series wouldn't happen in the first place. You know, Enterprise was a failure. Franchise fatigue and all, right?

No. That's not how it works. You don't stop. You retool, which is what they're doing, both by bringing in Picard AND by mixing up Discovery.

CBS has nothing better to pull people into CBSAA. They therefore decided to go all-in just like Disney is spinning up two Star Wars series for its streaming network. Seems like common-sense to me.

Because, as I said above, Trek is their only real series franchise upon which to build a streaming network. And Discovery at one point was supposed to be an anthology series so it's not like they weren't considering this kitchen-sink approach before.

They have standing sets they'd like to leverage, for one thing. Plus the long-term value of a series that only lasts a year is not that good. So they decided to retool rather than cancel Discovery, then spread the risk around by spinning up at least two shows (Picard and the animated lower decks thing).

Or your positive spin which denies the chaos in the backroom that surrounded DSC since inception.

It was clearly stated early on that they would be avoiding the Enterprise and its characters outside of maybe one or two isolated cameos. They flip-flopped.

The thing is, aside from Alex Kurtzman, there have been a lot of hands on the rudder of Trek at CBS. You are attempting to paint a portrait of a carefully premeditated strategy that hasn't wavered from day one when in fact there have been changes by virtue of all of the turnover (including the ouster of Les Moonves).

 

I won't deny the BTS chaos but I also don't think that CBS thinks Discovery is a failure as many have painted it to be.

 

The lengths people will go to rationalize a simple personal opinion or matter of taste never fail to amaze me.

Keep up the good fight! Don't let logic or facts keep you from the pursuit of validating your own opinions! It matters that people agree and see it your way. It really does.

 

Of course not. You said it earlier. A business like CBS doesn't frigging double down (or in this case, triple down) on a product that looses money or is even PROJECTED to lose money. They pull that $hit in a New York min...especially a very expensive sci-fi program.

People might not LIKE Discovery because it doesn't meet their tastes. But, denying that CBS views it as a success smells a lot like fans denying that Star Trek in 2009 was a success as well, despite box office and critical indicators all pointing otherwise.

It's so important to people that their opinions be validated...regardless of what the preponderance of evidence suggests.

It's ok to have an opinion that others don't share. Just don't cook up a bunch of bullshit to try and make me believe that the way you feel is FACT. I love Star Trek V but I know most people don't like it. I don't try to rationalize to everyone why it's actually objectively a great movie. I'm simply very comfortable liking what I like and not needing everyone else to agree with me.

 

I suspect Discovery isn't quite Kurtzman's first choice for a flagship Trek show. It was a concept by Bryan Fuller, which was radically altered by others (including Kurtzman as a voice among many) after his exit, which Kurtzman has now inherited absolute power over. I don't know for sure, but I don't think the people who wrote the end of season one are the same people who wrote the beginning and set-ups.

 

We might, but it wouldn't be from the same producers as the "failing" show. I would imagine CBS is happy or else they wouldn't have Kurtzman's production company working on multiple new shows.

People are free to dislike a show that is a success. You just have to live with the fact that you aren't a barometer for every person on the planet.

 

People can dislike it all they want. It's the claim that CBS is about to "put it out to pasture" that causes me to raise my Vulcan eyebrow.

 

I'm guessing everyone needs and gets comfort in their own way.

 

Whatever it takes to sleep, I guess.

I personally will always struggle with the idea of that all Trek must suit my particular tastes-that pretty much went out with TNG for me.

 

Boy this thread is full of people who think they know how bean-counters in Hollywood works. Where are the credentials to back up this logic, BTW? Do you have a wire-tap of CBS board meetings?

Way back when I was a kid I used to collect Starlog magazines. One infamous article I remember reading around 1980 was "insider" industry information saying that because of the underperformance of ST:TMP, a future Star Trek film was "unlikely". I've never forgotten that one because of how inaccurate that turned out to be.

Point being that IP holders can and do often throw good money after bad in the hopes of doing better the 2nd or 3rd go round. And why? Because it does often pay off, although it usually requires a change of creative direction as it did with Wrath of Khan, but perhaps won't happen with CBSAA as long as Alex Kurtzman is at the helm.

Funny how easily some people accuse others of bias while ignoring their own.

There's really not a lot of "evidence" to work with here, just speculation. Remember how much PR spin was applied to suggest that Bryan Fuller left under relatively neutral terms? Remember how strongly some here defended that narrative until proven otherwise?

Usually it takes a certain grace period after which the participants finally let on what was really happening behind the scenes. Until then it's in their best interest to sugar-coat.



I'm not saying things are as dire as Midnight Edge talks about, but it's a lot worse than any official statements will admit.