Of course you're right. But you know there will immediately be people who will want to make it a PIC vs DSC debate every step of the way.
Spoilers Combined Star Trek SDCC Coverage thread (potential Disco S2 spoilers)
- Thread starter ITDUDE
- Start date
Of course you're right. But you know there will immediately be people who will want to make it a PIC vs DSC debate every step of the way.
Why?? That's bullshit. If things are making money for CBS, they're going to continue.
Wishful thinking?
Notice I said if dude. Nothing is certain of course. But in a lot of ways I think the future of Discovery is now more tied to how well the other Trek stories do than how well it does. I mean, CBS was dead-set on reviving Trek, meaning even if the show wasn't meeting internal metrics they would never scrap it without something else planned as a replacement. Now there are - arguably - "replacements" in the works.
I'm not one of those people predicting Season 3 will be the last season of Discovery though. That said, by the standards of modern shows, three seasons isn't a bad run, though something more like five would probably be better for Discovery.
That would be a good choice.
On the other side of that coin, by your logic PIC will get axed if DSC does really great. I don't see that happening either. Year-round Trek will be awesome.
I'm going to make a bold prediction: it will be just fine.
We know that Stewart doesn't want to do Picard for longer than 2-3 years. But I have to think there will be a desire - if the show goes well - to move a lot of the talent (both acting and writing) right into a "sidequal" that isn't Picard-focused but is still during the same time period with some of the same characters (both old and new).
Making money is hard to quantify here. I mean, the money made is subscriptions really right? If Picard causes a much bigger spike in subscriptions than Discovery, CBS might decide that metric suggests it's more popular. Then of course there's just the question of viewing. I presume most Trekkies will watch both, but some will watch one but not the other, and one of the two shows will thus be (at least marginally) less watched.
Discovery is on the ropes and is going to have to fight for its LIFE with season 3
I'm sorry to say it, but it is in trouble. Picard only has to be "ok" and it'll be considered a big success
Sounds rough.
Where do you get this insider information? I'd love to know more about the facts you have in hand that allow you to draw this conclusion.
Like I said, there will immediately be people who will want to see this be the great CBSAA Deathmach between shows.
It didn't take long.
According to who? CBS seems happy. It's international partners seem happy. They're asking the guy who created the show to make more shows. What am I missing?
Oh, I know the exact reasons why they are doing what they are doing. They are playing it extremely safe and counting on nostalgia to move them forward. My concern is that Star Trek is no longer "boldly going" and looking to showcase an optimistic future for humanity. Instead, it is "boldly revisiting" it's greatest hits. And, I'm sorry, that's not very engaging for me.
Right there with you.
Hahah...no.
I would love to see the hard data that proves it, rather than the wishful thinking that gets bandied about like facts. Kind of like Kurtzman being fired...
According to one of the STO Devs, the writing team asked them for all their post-Nemesis story material, so maybe?
Note though, the Romulans messing with Borg tech came from Countdown first, which Kurtzman was part of IIRC.
Jeri Ryan said she was approached a year ago for this, before Season 2 of Discovery even aired. So I doubt it was because of the big hit Pike and Spock were. I don't recall if Brent has said when he was asked.
There is no evidence to support these claims you're making.
You have to admit, it's not a sign of confidence to send the show 950 years into the future. It's virtually rebooting everything but the core cast and starting over again with a clean slate of paper. It's a lot more dramatic than the 4th-season decisions to add Worf or Seven to DS9 and VOY. It's more akin to the whole Xindi arc in Season 3 of ENT.
Also, being on the 5th showrunner heading into its third season isn't a good look.
Look, I hope season 3 works, I really do. But there certainly are some signs that - at least from a creative side, if not a ratings side - it was thought something needed to change.
They wanted to do something different, shake it up. I don't see the issue here.
There never is when it comes to Disco's "troubles."
Here's my response to such opinions:
It's looking a whole lot better than the end of Season 1 was that's for sure. We have a direct "Star Trek leader" rather than just show runners. CBS is demonstrating confidence in their product.
If they were not confident in DSC they would have scrapped it and pushed Picard out sooner.
They are doing that whole "exploring thing" that I've heard Trek fans ask for. I know, I was as shocked as you were.
I'm just saying there were some signs that Discovery's first two seasons didn't work for CBS in some manner. Maybe it's just fine on the ratings/revenue generation side of things. But Season 3 seems set to be a radical departure. They threw out so much of the original intent. Just as a singular example, so much of Michael's character has been defined by being raised by Sarek and Amanda, and by being Spock's foster sister. None of these characters are going to be in Season 3, except perhaps in flashback. Certainly their absence may be reflected upon - should be reflected upon. But someone must have decided either that stuff like this (maybe not this in particular, but all the 23rd century content and their expanding "universe") wasn't working, or wasn't worth building up further anyway, and to just start over again with the (well acted and increasingly well written) main characters in a different time/setting.
I'm not seeing it.
My mind reading skills are a bit lacking. So I can't speak to motivations.
They're still pumping out Short Treks in the 23rd.
Worked for TNG.
Not sure of the Math there
Season One was Fuller. Then Harberts and Berg
Season Two was Harberts and Berg and then Kurtzman then Kurtzman and Paradise.
Season Three is Paradise.
So we have
- Fuller (Season 1)
- Harberts and Berg (Season 1 & part of 2)
- Kurtzman/Paradise (Part of Season 2)
- Paradise (Season 3)
- ?????????????
Then why give it a 3rd season? You don't give another season to a show that's not working.
True. Though note that they're all Pike/Spock/Number 1 shorts. Well, the Tribble one may just have a cameo by Pike.
I mean, I understand they don't want to give away anything about Discovery's story, and thus wouldn't want to do a Short Trek there yet. But they always could have done some sort of prequel ala The Brightest Star again.
Initially I was going to say four, but I wasn't sure how I should count co-showrunners Harberts/Berg, so I decided to count each individually, meaning a total of five showrunners have worked on the series to date.
Similar threads
