Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by PicardSpeedo, Oct 16, 2018.
No doubt you're right. Good argument.
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.
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.
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.
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?
This is ridiculous. What CBS insider told you this? His initials wouldn't be "Midnight's Edge" would it?
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.
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?
No, just friends who work in Hollywood at various levels, and a pretty good grasp of business economics.
So, I'm comfortable with my current assessment. Certainly not as dire as the naysayers would have it be presented. As with many things in life the truth is somewhere in between the extremes.
I truly dislike it when folks try to indicate that "The Motion Picture" was a failure.
It really wasn't at the time.
It actually did very well at the box office, the problem was it didn't do "STAR WARS" well.
(which it was never going to do anyway)
Add to that the fact that all the run-up costs for the Original Phase-II TV production had to be included in the final tally.
Paramount was very much interested in making another Trek movie ASAP after TMP.
(thus it only took 3 years for TWoK to hit the theaters)
They also were still looking to recoup their original investment by limiting The Wrath of Khan's budget.
We were very lucky that Harve Bennett was a skilled Producer and managed to give us a great movie practically on a single season TV show's budget.
But that situation isn't comparable to the current one because Roddenberry wasn't kept in charge of the film franchise and they didn't drive a truck full of money into his driveway to have him oversee the development of several other spin-off movies in addition to TWOK.
Your claim that all of these other projects are in development because DSC failed is completely illogical, if all we got was DSC season 2 and it was retooled with Kurtzman being gone I'd probably agree that it doesn't look like DSC was a hit but with them going full steam ahead (and the biggest change being wigs on klingons) plus the Picard show, the lower decks cartoon and several others in development it's obvious that CBS considers DSC a success.
CBS has given Kurtzman a Five Year, Mega-Multi-Million Dollar contract to create Trek Shows for All Access based on DISCOVERY's first season.
How the hell does anybody see that as a failure???
He didn't get the contract extension just to do Trek or just to do it. Under his current contract he's developed and produced a lot of successful shows for CBS and will continue to do so.
Because "Me no like Discovery" = "Me no comprehend / accept that what I have is called an opinion, and not a universally accepted fact."
Also, as usual, it's not enough to "not like" something. You have fans who want the object of their dislike to FAIL.
Gotta love those fans.
That it goes beyond Star Trek doesn't matter though, he is in charge of CBS's current and forthcoming Star Trek output, that wouldn't be the case if DSC had been a failure.
It's worth noting that the Mummy was their fourth attempt to do that, after The Wolfman, Dracula Unchained, and I Frankenstein all bombed. Sort of lends credence to the idea that if a studio only has one IP worth a damn they'll take a few swings at franchise-building even if they keep failing at it.
And they of course kept the same creative team all four times.
It very much does, yes.
It doesn't "go beyond Star Trek;" it's that Trek is not nearly the cornerstone of his successful relationship with CBS. It's pretty much the cherry on top.*
*Just to mix up the metaphors...but I couldn't come up with an architectural image there that wasn't somewhat tortured.
DSC has had turnover at the top twice now – first Bryan Fuller, then Berg & Harberts, and now Kurtzman. So....sort of?
He specifically said in an interview that CBS gave him a $25 Million Dollar/5 Year Contract to do more Trek.
He didn't add ... as well as other things ... to his statement and neither did the person who wrote the article.
You are making the assumption that that is the case.
It might be a fair assumption, but it's not what we have been told.
He was quite specific about it.
No, but again, the large point you don't seem to want to acknowledge/concede is that IF ST: D was a big failure; you wouldn't see CBS giving him and his production company (the Producer and Company that made said failure) a 5 year extension on his contract, and creative control to conceive and develop other Star Trek series, which it what he and his company are doing.
Hollywood doesn't reward failure with a larger lucrative contract and more creative control of a tent-pole franchise to someone who failed big time on said tent-pole franchise's latest outing.
Or they increase their control over the final product and micromanage ever detail.
But, yeah, a large reward isn't what usually comes with failure-unless it is tax breaks and loopholes.
No successful business in any industry would do it.
Which apparently is a painful fact for the rationalization / "validate my opinion" crowd.
Man, this thread has totally jumped the shark.
It was specifically Trek
Funnily enough, Kurtzman is on both lists. He unwittingly helped to kill the Dark Universe.
Separate names with a comma.