Thought this might be of interest....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianmor...overy-is-an-unstoppable-monster/#13daecba152e
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianmor...overy-is-an-unstoppable-monster/#13daecba152e
Disc an 'Unstoppable monster'
- Thread starter SJA
- Start date
Without any evidence, their "proof" is evidence of nothing. That's like saying Trump is doing well because billions of people talk about him worldwide every day.
They literally linked the evidence inside the article.
That's a horrible comparison. Approval and popularity are two different things. Trump is popular. His approval ratings are horrible, though. He needs to be approved by the public in order to be a widely functional President, something he is not. Star Trek Discovery is a product, it relies solely on popularity. CBS won't stop profiting if hardcore Trekkies like it or not. They just need people to pay for it.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Look, I don't want Trump to be president but prognosticators of all stripes have been predicting a Trump implosion since he announced his candidacy and it has yet to materialize. I have no faith that he and the GOP won't find a way to slip out of this, too.
And that's enough politics for this thread. Apologies.
It took two replies until we got a Trump reference! Common team, we can do better next time 
All and all, if STD is so good for CBS they should be announcing their commitment to Seasons 3 and beyond of STD and also spinning up new series as soon as possible. And maybe they are, we'll just have to see.
All and all, if STD is so good for CBS they should be announcing their commitment to Seasons 3 and beyond of STD and also spinning up new series as soon as possible. And maybe they are, we'll just have to see.
I'm not so sure you really understand how Parrot's parsing works. It essentially just scans social media for how often people talk about a series/film/ whatever and then weighs that against its P2P activity. Despite what they'd like you to think, their algorithms aren't nearly sophisticated enough to truly account for context. In essence, their bots just scour the internet for people talking about Star Trek Discovery. TBBS alone is example enough as to why that's not a very good indicator.They literally linked the evidence inside the article.
Similarly, just because Trump's name gets dropped a lot in Facebook and YT posts, has exactly zero indication of his actual ability to govern.
The only real "proof" here is that a lot of people downloaded Disco illegally and then went on-line and discussed what they saw. That is not tangible evidence of its success - or that it's an "unstopable monster."
So, a large number of people talking about Discovery proves it's unpopular ?
You're switching quantity for quality again. A President should seek having a Mandate of decent quality so people approve him/her. A product should seek having a large quantity of people being exposed to it so it increases the chances of a sale.
That's a big stretch. You're assuming too much. Do you have any evidence of that ? A large number of pirate downloads doesn't count, since Game of Thrones is the most pirated TV Show ever and still is an economic success. CBS All-Access clearly isn't having any financial troubles because they are expanding their product line.
No.So, a large number of people talking about Discovery proves it's unpopular ?
A large number of people talking about Discovery does not prove it is a success. Suggesting anything else is fallacious.
I'm not the one doing that.
Sice disassociation seems unlikely, let's talk about Sally instead.
Sally works at McDonald's. Everyone talks to Sally. She's the most popular employee there. Everyone else talks about Sally - even behind her back - more than any other employee. None of that, however, is any indication of how good (or not) Sally is at her job or how likely (or not) she is to get the next big store-wide raise/promotion.
Which is the whole point here. There is zero correlation between the two - one is not evidential to the other. The article takes a disingenuous position.
Eh some folks will never accept DSC did not crash and burn.
ST: Discovery is an "unstoppable monster"? Pshaw. Wake me when it's ravaging the ratings like a giant space-going tardigrade. Then we'll talk.
Yup. I might have given the article the benefit of the doubt if it wasn't for the fucking ridiculous hyperbole.
Success has nothing to do with quality. Batman V. Superman was horrible and still was a success. Suicide Squad was horrible and still was a success. Bright was horrible and still was a success. Popularity is exactly that, success. That's why business-people use publicity to make a product of theirs public. Spam tastes like canned dogshit, literally became a slang for something negative in the last few years and it still has decent sells.
Discovery isn't horrible, obviously. Even if it was, it wouldn't change the fact that it's an economical success for CBS. No Executive would authorize giving it another Season if it was a flop.
Sally isn't a product. All she needs to concern herself with is what her boss thinks of the job she is doing. Products don't need the approval of anybody. If they sell well, they continue on the market. If they don't, they vanish. Simple as that.
It's always going to be a bit of a clusterfuck to figure out since CBSAA doesn't put out the numbers so it will always be speculation to know how it is really doing.
It honestly would not matter. Some people will always claim its a big fail. Reality has nothing to do with it.
The reverse is true as well I'm sure, some people will always say it's a big success as well.
Similar threads
