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?
You should try reading a bit more carefully. I didn't say that if DSC had failed CBS would cancel Trek on their streaming service forever. I said they would have cancelled DSC and delayed any additional Trek show, because "franchise fatigue". It's right there in my post.
Ent was considered a "failure" by studio heads and it was canceled -- in 2005. TV Trek was then mothballed for 12 years before DSC debuted. Sound familiar? BTW, I disagree vehemently with that assessment of Ent.
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.
Retool? What are you talking about? The Picard show is not a retooling of DSC, if that's what you're saying. It is an additional show in the Trek verse, just like TNG through DSC. Not sure of what you mean by "mixing up DSC". DSC hasn't been retooled. The show, like all of it's predecessors looks like it is going to have new storylines and guest characters. The entire regular cast and their characters are returning for season 2, except Jason Isaaks.
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.
I can agree that CBS has nothing other than DSC that I care to watch, but NO studio is going to continue producing shows that don't please their audiences, even if the shows are part of a once successful franchise.
Universal tried to revive it's horror franchises with a movie fronted by it's biggest star. The movie bombed and consequently, we're not likely to see another film from that franchise anytime soon.
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.
So you think that (by your estimation) CBS has nothing else to put on CBSAA, that would compel them to continue to spend money on a franchise they have seen fail on their service. Ent would once again, be an example of what networks do when they think a franchise has failed.
But as an aside, part of the reason for the Picard series is to replace all of the DSC fans who canceled their subscriptions after season 1 of DSC ended -- another tacit example of DSC's success.
If DSC had been a failure, there would have been no urgency to replace subscribers who weren't there in the first place. Just like there would also be no rush to produce another Trek series -- franchise fatigue, remember?
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).
This is ridiculous. What CBS insider told you this? His initials wouldn't be "Midnight's Edge" would it?
Or your positive spin which denies the chaos in the backroom that surrounded DSC since inception.
I'm well aware of what is publicly known about some of the things that have happened behind the scenes at DSC. But I don't know what to tell you, despite all that has happened, the show turned out a stellar season 1. BTW, is this your admission of your own bias against the show? Just curious.
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.
How does what you've written above in any way, negate or contradict what I wrote about DSC being a prequel and it being logical to present familiar aspects of the Trek verse?
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).[/QUOTE]
Huh? I've written nothing of the kind. neither this thread nor our conversation has had anything to do with this.
You're the one who has tried to delineate what CBS's "plans" are, you know, your whole "insurance policy" theory, etc. This sounds like a conversation you may have been having in another thread or forum.
