Nope. Not north of Mexico.
Discovery Renewed for Season 2
- Thread starter Krandor
- Start date
Thanks. I'm in my late forties and I knew there was a long-running disagreement on it but I hadn't realised it was that contentious. Believe it or not, this is the first time in all these years I've decided to actually register at a site so I could comment on current goings-on in Trek.
Well, I know better now!
I always figured that Starfleet doesn't call itself a military because it doesn't actually function like a military in the sense that we interpret ours today. What Starfleet is as an organization in the 23rd/24th century is nothing like what we have today. Another reason they may not regard themselves as a military organization is to deemphasize the negative connotations that come with the term "military". Starfleet wants to assure their primary function is peaceful exploration, that whatever military might they have is only for military defense, because it would be silly to just wander off in space without a way to defend yourself.
Of course, all this gets confused depending on who's making the show and films. Meyer put more heavy emphasis on military in his films, while Roddenberry had the very early episodes of TNG have Picard disparaging anyone for suggesting attack postures "impractical and provocative!"
Lol, it's not contentious for me, my post was in jest. Beware though, there are fans out there who have already been debating this heatedly for the last half a century, moving from letter writing campaigns, magazine entries, into the digital age and beyond, The fact that they are the same few people reiterating the same points to each other ad nauseum seems not to dampen their enthusiasm.
Word to the wise, as @Greg Cox alludes, money in trek has a similar effect....
Low ratings.
Yes, when I took @Ricky Spanish advice and did a search, I quickly saw how money, military, and religion became one big cluster really quick!
But, that having been said, it is still very interesting to see all the different views and the nuances brought up.
Plus likely less of a return on investment. Putting it on CBSAA, they have full control over the environment. Putting it on conventional broadcast likely involves licensing and other additional costs with affiliates, etc. Results in diverting funds away from marketing and other awareness campaigns. Less people know about it, less people watch.
Agreed, but once you've been there a few times it gets a bit tiresome. Religion is the only one of the three I tend to value, in terms of "how is this portrayed and why?" rather than a binary "is it/isn't it?" for the other two which basically boils down to....."sometimes, depends who wrote the episode and what mood they were in".
It wouldn't be such a problem if people didn't take it so personally, long standing vendettas have developed over this stuff
You know, there is an interesting distinction in the U.S. We have "uniformed services" and "armed forces." Both have ranks but only "armed forces" carry weapons or are otherwise authorised to do so. The Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are, technically, uniformed services--with officer corps but not enlisted ranks--but do not have things you would traditionally consider "military-ish," like Geneva Convention protections as legal combatants, etc.
Anyway, yes, Starfleet is an interesting hybrid of sorts and I get all the reasons why one might want to emphasize one mission-set over another. Still, a phaser in your face will likely lead most to consider you part of some kind of military organisation, whatever you may tell them! The nuances, I think, are lost on many. Heck, I figure the Klingons must think the Federation are delusional or perhaps dishonourable for not calling a spade a spade.
Anyway, thank you for the reply!
Plus DISCO wouldn't even fit in with the type of programming they put on that channel. A lot of their shows are primarily sitcoms and police procedurals. The only Trek that might play on there is if they return to the episodic format and heavily reduce the budget. Trek would not look as gorgeous on CBS as it does on CBSAA.
You can see an example of how a Marvel show looks on a network compared to a streaming service. Just compare ABC's Agents of SHIELD with any Marvel show on Netflix and it's a huge difference.
You can see an example of how a Marvel show looks on a network compared to a streaming service. Just compare ABC's Agents of SHIELD with any Marvel show on Netflix and it's a huge difference.
Bingo. It simply doesn't fit with their other programming. Seriously, when was the last time CBS aired a sci-fi space series, let alone one that lasted more than one season? LOST IN SPACE, fifty-plus years ago? That's not their audience.
Sure, we Trekkies would watch DISCOVERY wherever it aired, even the Home Shopping Network, but that's not the point. If CBS can get better ratings, at less expense, by airing another police procedural in that time slot, that's what they're going to do. They're not obliged to provide STAR TREK as a public service.
Last edited:
I haven't had an issue with CBSAA so far, but they should still work on little things like their mobile app having a ten second rewind, which the other apps have. That's the only thing I suggest.
Oh, and like Hulu, they need to update the rest of the TNG seasons with the remastered versions. Last I looked there were only the first two seasons with the rest still being the old SD video versions. I'm really puzzled over why both CBS and Hulu didn't update that while Netflix and Amazon have.
Oh, and like Hulu, they need to update the rest of the TNG seasons with the remastered versions. Last I looked there were only the first two seasons with the rest still being the old SD video versions. I'm really puzzled over why both CBS and Hulu didn't update that while Netflix and Amazon have.
Or is it that the general public still views Star Trek with scorn and disdain due to 50 years of assumptions surrounding it, and its been essentially "kicked" somewhere only the dedicated fanbase will watch it. Which they are, as its been renewed for a 2nd season.
At least that's how I feel.
The success of the JJ-Verse films (well at least the first two) - shows that the General Public will go to a Star Trek film if they find it entertaining. Even the third film didn't outright bomb like ST:NEM did back in 2002.
Bottom Line: make something entertaining - and the General Public will go.
Not necessarily. There's a lot of popular shows out there on cable networks and streaming that would NEVER survive on the old broadcast networks like CBS and NBC. BATTLESTAR GALACTICA 2004 would not have lasted four seasons on NBC. CBS recognized that Trek would thrive better on a streaming service as there's much more creative and financial freedom.
CBS could have put Trek on their old network if they wanted, but it would be VERY different and likely unsatisfyingly cheap.
This is why TWIN PEAKS returned with a third season on Showtime instead of CBS.
Sadly the JJ movies weren't nearly enough to "revive" the franchise in a way where it's in the public's eye like in the 1990s - especially since Star Wars returned. There was just no hope (no pun intended).
I'm thrilled the movies gave us a new show, but Star Trek is still "underground".
This is rather pessimistic. Trek was at its peak in the 90s because TNG was several seasons in and had hit its stride by that time. DISCO literally just started a month ago on a streaming service that is relatively new. This wasn't going to instantly reach that level of popularity. The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, and Breaking Bad had to go a few seasons before becoming pop culture hits.
Give it time before declaring Trek "underground".
Oh, I'm not all that certain it's pessimistic, per se. Even at its prime, how much was Trek mainstream? Aside from pop culture references like "Beam me up!" etc., that is? A realistic appraisal of the level of popularity of our favoured franchise might easily lead one to conclude it's a niche, acquired taste. Like most fandoms. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Similar threads
