How is/isn't Discovery Star Trek?

[Kemaiku]

Having an entire cast of new characters not from previous alt-universes and families would have solved so much. As would having a Klingon war *almost* break out but not, having Discovery be an older model rushed out to covertly stop it but *not* with magic bug drug space hopping, not falling back on long drawn out dialogue, swearing more fluidly throughout if they had to bring it in, and just reducing 20 writers to 2.

But hey, Trekkies will throw money at it anyway so alright.

 

[Tuskin38]

Having an entire cast of new characters not from previous alt-universes and families would have solved so much. As would having a Klingon war *almost* break out but not, having Discovery be an older model rushed out to covertly stop it but *not* with magic bug drug space hopping, not falling back on long drawn out dialogue, swearing more fluidly throughout if they had to bring it in, and just reducing 20 writers to 2.

But hey, Trekkies will throw money at it anyway so alright.

None of that stops it from being Star Trek.

 

[Vger23]

Having an entire cast of new characters not from previous alt-universes and families would have solved so much. As would having a Klingon war *almost* break out but not, having Discovery be an older model rushed out to covertly stop it but *not* with magic bug drug space hopping, not falling back on long drawn out dialogue, swearing more fluidly throughout if they had to bring it in, and just reducing 20 writers to 2.

But hey, Trekkies will throw money at it anyway so alright.

I dont "throw my money" at just anything. I watched about 1/4 of VOY when it first aired (still can't muscle my way through it) and only survived about 13 episodes of ENT S1.

I watch DSC because I personally find it 10x more entertaining than a good deal of Trek produced between 1987 and 2004.

 

[Apparition B5]

And DS9, and Voyager and Enterprise.

Well, she wouldn't be wrong about the latter two either.

 

[Tuvix5675]

This whole debate is nothing new and was happening around J.J. Abrams' Trek films as well, as I'm sure it will happen when the QT Trek film comes out, if it ever does. For me, Discovery was a lot closer to the type of Star Trek I grew up watching (TNG-ENT) than the Abrams' films. I wouldn't go so far as to say Abrams' films aren't Trek. Trek is in fact anything Paramount or CBS says is Trek since they own the copyright. If you want to say Trek involves a certain type of storytelling like morality tales or social commentary than what about The Orville, or the numerous other sci-fi properties that do this? Would anyone argue The Orville is Star Trek? IDTS. Abrams' Trek for me was still Trek but a minimalist version. Discovery is just a new way of doing Trek trying to make it for a more adult modern viewing audience, which I appreciate. For me, this debate is mute, the real debate isn't whether Discovery is Trek but how or where it fits in with the other series, can it truly be considered to be in the Prime universe or not?

 

[eschaton]

I dont "throw my money" at just anything. I watched about 1/4 of VOY when it first aired (still can't muscle my way through it) and only survived about 13 episodes of ENT S1.

I watch DSC because I personally find it 10x more entertaining than a good deal of Trek produced between 1987 and 2004.

Yeah. I have my criticisms of DIS, and they're rather strong (mostly related to the writing quality). But DIS was - at minimum - never really boring. I can't say that for the majority of the run of VOY and ENT, which are soporific and stultifying.

 

[Arpy]

I don't know what magic cable you use, but when we cut the cord 5 years ago for cable and internet our bill was $180 with Time Warner, it was easily that for cable alone with Direct TV before that. We now have Hulu, Netflix, YouTube TV, and CBS AA and pay FAR less than we were before, because even when we had cable, we were still subscribers of Hulu and Netflix. So all we added was YouTube TV and CBS. That gives us literally all the channels we need. The channels not available (Viacom) we can get FOR FREE from their apps. We were ALWAYS paying for TV. The only Star Trek show that you could argue people did not pay for directly in some way was TOS. By the time TNG came out in '87, cable penetration was very widespread.

We never had cable growing up. We got NBC ABC CBS PBS Fox UPN WB and five other local channels FREE. The only Star Trek I have ever seen for money is DSC.

I currently get about 100 cable channels, high speed Internet, and a landline for $150. Plus how much for Netflix, and (in season) CBS All Access and Showtime.

As President Dukat mentioned above, it’s the adverisers that buy TV to reach us with their ads. That we’re now paying $200 a month for Soap Commercials is a contemporary absurdity. That’s $2400 a year, and that’s a trip to Greece or Peru.

Or healthcare, so you don’t have to choose which finger you’re going to mortgage the house to save, if you have an accident.

 

[Arpy]

No, people didn't know what it cost. People assumed a lot that because they didn't pay anything up front that it didn't cost, which is inaccurate, to say the least.

People always knew they had to buy a television and watch commercials between acts. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Irrelevant to this conversation.

How? The point is that it’s NOT about choice but being priced pity of NECESSITIES.

No, it's an up front cost.

That was never paid up front OR LATER before.

Absurdity. Who takes an annual trip to Lake Tahoe. Also, false equivalency, since it assumes that some how entertainment costs were never budgeted before.

Lots of people. We used to go to Greece every summer as a kid. It’s not about not accounting for entertainment costs but being foisted NEW ones that detract from other aspects of life.

 

[fireproof78]

That's business.

 

[fireproof78]

People always knew they had to buy a television and watch commercials between acts. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

They did? I certainly didn't and neither did my friends.

How? The point is that it’s NOT about choice but being priced pity of NECESSITIES.

Because we are not discussing the price of health care.

That was never paid up front OR LATER before.

It is paid later, whether you recognized it as such or not. There is always a price, either in ads, goods, or time.

​

Lots of people. We used to go to Greece every summer as a kid. It’s not about not accounting for entertainment costs but being foisted NEW ones that detract from other aspects of life.

Not my family, not my friends' family, not any one I knew and I was in the middle class.

It's isn't entirely new costs. It's costs up front that have always been there.

This whole argument reminds me of retail and attitudes of customers. "Why are things so expensive?" "Why can't you give me a discount?" "Why are not more things made in the USA?"

It demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of how a market and a business actually works. It's frustrating.

In essence, what I'm hearing is "Star Trek should always be (perceived) free!" How dare it cost money!" Absurd because it always cost money, one way or the other. And now, the market has changed and companies have to change or die.

Or, perhaps CBS should wither and die and Star Trek along with it. Either one is fine by me.

 

[Tuskin38]

I'm having déjà vu here, I think this whole unknown cost argument happened last year when the series started.

 

[Arpy]

They did? I certainly didn't and neither did my friends.

What age are you talking about? 2? I’m talking about adults. No one paid to watch TV unless they wanted cable.

Because we are not discussing the price of health care.

We’re discussing the idea of “choice” in contemporary life.

It is paid later, whether you recognized it as such or not. There is always a price, either in ads, goods, or time.
...
This whole argument reminds me of retail and attitudes of customers. "Why are things so expensive?" "Why can't you give me a discount?" "Why are not more things made in the USA?"

It demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of how a market and a business actually works. It's frustrating.

In essence, what I'm hearing is "Star Trek should always be (perceived) free!" How dare it cost money!" Absurd because it always cost money, one way or the other. And now, the market has changed and companies have to change or die.

It was paid for by advertisers trying to sell you their products, not you to watch their ADVERTISING PLATFORM. The art we got was a result of their attempt to keep our attention.

(EDIT: Do you really think that I thought TV was just free, paid for by nobody, out of the ether? I can’t tell if you serious think that other people are so ignorant, while frustrated you alone know economics.)

And it’s always been fundamentally influenced by advertisers’ sensibilities.

Not my family, not my friends' family, not any one I knew and I was in the middle class.

My parents worked 15 hours a day as inner city food vendors. And I work two jobs to live a very middle/working class life, thanks, so please spare me your superior working class bona fides. (If that isn’t being too rude about it, apologies.) International travel was very much possible for working class folks, once upon a time.

Or, perhaps CBS should wither and die and Star Trek along with it. Either one is fine by me.

CBS All Access is not CBS television. It’s an additional cash grab, trying to be Netflix.

 

[fireproof78]

My parents worked 15 hours a day as inner city food vendors. And I work two jobs to live a very middle/working class life, thanks, so please spare me your superior working class bona fides. (If that isn’t being too rude about it, apologies.) International travel was very much possible for working class folks, once upon a time.

I'm happy for you. I was not able to do so. Never was an option for my family, so spare me the fact that your experience some how dictates all experiences.

CBS All Access is not CBS television. It’s an additional cash grab, trying to be Netflix.

Ok, CBS All Access can wither and die for all I care. And Star Trek with it. Better?

Do you really think that I thought TV was just free, paid for by nobody, out of the ether? I can’t tell if you serious think that other people are so ignorant, while frustrated you alone know economics.

Yes, I do believe people are so ignorant. I worked in retail for 12 years. I have seen ignorance of economics prominently displayed many times over. Same with health care, the field I'm currently in. But, please continue to assume my state of mind rather than ask questions.

What age are you talking about? 2? I’m talking about adults. No one paid to watch TV unless they wanted cable.

No one? My parents lied to me.

We’re discussing the idea of “choice” in contemporary life.

As I said, entertainment is always a choice. Star Trek is no different, and is not free, despite the demand that it be so. The market has changed and CBS must with it or die.

 

[XCV330]

CBS All Access is not CBS television. It’s an additional cash grab, trying to be Netflix.

It's network television trying to survive in a new age. And it may be working.

 

[Arpy]

I'm happy for you. I was not able to do so. Never was an option for my family, so spare me the fact that your experience some how dictates all experiences.

I don’t know where you’re getting that from. My point is that this was more doable, previously.

Ok, CBS All Access can wither and die for all I care. And Star Trek with it. Better?

Trek was profitable in syndication for a long time. CBS is lucky to have it, not vice versa. And CBS will be fine if it’s worthwhile.

Yes, I do believe people are so ignorant. I worked in retail for 12 years. I have seen ignorance of economics prominently displayed many times over. Same with health care, the field I'm currently in. But, please continue to assume my state of mind rather than ask questions.[/quote]

Said pot to kettle. I think we can let this drop.

As I said, entertainment is always a choice. Star Trek is no different, and is not free, despite the demand that it be so.

The issue is not whether entertainment, or any number of things, is a choice but whether, as Sirtis said, a good one. Being asked to unnecessarily pay a little extra here and there and there and here is not a good one. You’re being stuck with new bills to increase profit margins, and the aggregate of all that is seriously taking away from your quality of life. That’s not choice, Swiss chocolate or French vanilla.

 

[Tuskin38]

Broadcast television is dying, they're trying to adapt to the times.

 

[fireproof78]

I don’t know where you’re getting that from. My point is that this was more doable, previously.

It was not doable in my experience. That is my point.

The issue is not whether entertainment, or any number of things, is a choice but whether, as Sirtis said, a good one. Being asked to unnecessarily pay a little extra here and there and there and here is not a good one. You’re being stuck with new bills to increase profit margins, and the aggregate of all that is seriously taking away from your quality of life. That’s not choice, Swiss chocolate or French vanilla.

That is choice. How is not having Star Trek taking away from quality of life? This is the point that I find quite baffling and confusing.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, "good" is highly subjective in this case.

Finally, I'm not being "stuck with" new bills. I am taking on a cost that I choose to make, while decreasing costs in other instances of entertainment, i.e I don't go to movies, I don't purchase cable, etc. That's part of being an adult, from what I am told.

Thus far, I have not been able to follow your point. I truly believe we are talking past each other at this point, possibly due to different points of reference and experiences in life. I certainly have not seen TV as "free" in my adult life, nor was it a given for me. It was something paid for. That is my experience. I'm glad yours was different but mine is still a matter of choice as has always been.

 

[eschaton]

So many problems in terms of contemporary media come down to people wanting to have quality products for free.

Basically, advertising had carried much of media - reducing or eliminating entirely the cost to viewers - for a long period of time. But advertising revenues have been continually falling. This isn't just true in print media and broadcast TV, but even online. Yet people now believe they are entitled to free media because of how the internet worked out. Meaning there is both a steady diminution in terms of the quality of free media available, along with the compensation of the creatives who put said media together.

 

[XCV330]

edit: (quotes messed up so I removed them)

As soon as Netflix started streaming, we cut our cable bill and went straight to that. Tried and kept or dropped other streaming services over the years. Collectively we've saved hundreds of dollars at our home doing that. It's a choice, and we're far from alone. I wouldn't go BACK to cable just to watch new episodes of star Trek if they'd went the cable network route, instead. That would be a choice on my part.

If I had instead chosen to rely on rabbit ears and the close proximity of tv broadcasters I could technically call the limited range of choices I'd get (plus a billion religious stations and all the Matlock a human being could ever watch) free, but so what?

CBSAA costs less than lunch for me, and if it puts new Trek on the screen for me (plus every rerun of Trek ) that's fine with me. If I didnt like that, I could just wait for the blurays. They have a price too.

the TV market has changed at about the same time that the way television shows are done, have changed. If CBS had chosen to do a network series instead of CBSAA, their streaming service would never have had the anchor they have now. The Matlock crowd that CBS is still trying to move away from would not at all like Discovery. Its budget would be curtailed and it would quietly die in whatever time slot they chose to park it in as some oddball last gasp of the franchise. And if it tried to be a resurgam of Berman type trek, it would have been beat by a no frills copycat product on a competing network.

 

[seigezunt]

Same. If they had opted to show Discovery on CBS, I wouldn't have been able to afford it. Where I live you can get PBS, Fox, and sometimes ABC over the air. Haven't had cable for over a decade. Just got DVDs before streaming showed up. Paying $6 for new Trek is an easy choice for me.

Discovery wouldn't have lasted on regular broadcast TV.