There is a possibility that what applies to the shows that don't interest you will affect those that do.
New Twilight Zone on CBSAA because of Disco's success
- Thread starter guyute03
- Start date
There is a possibility that what applies to the shows that don't interest you will affect those that do.
As Mr. Spock was known to say, there are always possibilities.
But I think it would be overstating the case dramatically to say that what I do or say will have much effect on any of them. As has been pointed out by other posters, it's the overall numbers that matter, not any one viewer's actions.
As Mr. Spock was known to say, there are always possibilities.
What I mean is that if this incarnation of the franchise becomes profitable for the producers, then they may make future incarnations the same way.
Yeah, but if it didn't, then they might not make more incarnations at all. That's why it's self-defeating to wish for any Trek production to fail.
And of course, they might not make future incarnations "the same way," whatever that means. TNG's success led to DS9; DS9's led to VGR. But all three were quite different from each other.
Doesn't your first sentence contradict your second? The first implies that hopefully STD will fail so that future shows won't resemble it, but it's also a self-defeating wish.
Your second paragraph contradicts your first because if future shows are not made in the same way, then your first two points become irrelevant.
Finally, by "same way," I mean poor writing as seen in STD, characterized mainly by cramming too much content leading to problems with pacing and consistency (e.g., a war against the Klingons almost won, but not exactly so an episode later, and all within a span of only a few episodes), poor character development (e.g., Lorca arguing that one does not go by the book, and a few scenes later argues that one should), etc.
Whaaaaa??? You need to read that sentence again. What I said was that if Discovery failed, there might never be any more Trek shows at all. Studios generally do not follow up a failure with another attempt -- as we just heard recently with the announcement that Universal has put their "Dark Universe" monster-movie franchise on hold after The Mummy bombed. So what's self-contradictory is the belief that the failure of a Trek show could ever be a good thing for the Trek franchise. Sure, somebody would probably take a stab at rebooting it eventually, but perhaps not anytime soon.
You're mistaking two complementary points for a single point. I'm saying that, on the one hand, if DSC failed, then it would be illogical to expect them to make another Trek show after that. On the other hand, if DSC succeeded, then it wouldn't necessarily follow that the next Trek show would be just like it anyway. So from both directions, it's irrational to want DSC to fail. If you want the next Trek show to be done differently, then you should hope for DSC to succeed, because at least then there will be a next Trek show, and it's likely to be done as a deliberate contrast to DSC just as DS9 was done as a contrast to TNG.
This is all very simple and easy to comprehend. But maybe it's hard for the most staunch DISCO haters because they're too vindictive to want to see it succeed.
The problem with your argument likes with the claim that if STD succeeds, then they won't necessarily make a show like it. But what if they do?
The reason why I am critical of STD isn't because I'm vindictive. Rather, it's badly written. The positive views focus on the production set design, special effects, costumes, etc. Notice the same phenomena with many recently released blockbusters?
In light of this topic thread, I noted that it paved the way for a new TZ show not because it succeeded but because Netflix international sales paid for its production cost, and if I'm not mistaken, people subscribe not solely to watch STD but to access lots of TV shows and movies. Logically, funding will continue if it is believed that the presence of the show translates to higher subscription retention or additions.
Given that, the important point to consider is that we are looking at expensive-looking shows (in this case, around $8 million per episode and filled with spectacle and CGI) to be released by streaming (thus, with no more concerns regarding corporate sponsors or time slots) and targeting an international audience (many of whom know something about ST only through the latest movies, which means any concerns by ST fans can be set aside).
Then they will. And what's wrong with that? If the show succeeds, then obviously that means a lot of people do like it, even if you don't. So all those people would also like another show in the same vein. Looked at from an unselfish perspective, that's a good thing for Star Trek and for fandom as a whole.
And from a selfish perspective, if the show succeeds and they keep making more Trek, then you might or might not get future Trek shows that fit your personal tastes. But if the show fails and they stop making more Trek, then it's a certainty that you won't get those shows. Obviously some chance is better than no chance.
Let me put it this way: changes may take place that even you won't like.
In the end, your points are valid but they actually support my views: it's a good thing for the Star Trek franchise owners, not some "fandom as a whole." And they will keep making whatever sells until they can get out as much as they can from consumers, and modify accordingly to maximize profit. In this case, consumers are subscribers from different countries subsidizing a show that should resemble Hollywood blockbusters: mediocre writing (as seen in as much content as possible crammed into the episodes) coupled with great special effects and spectacle to justify the $8 million per episode price tag.
Obviously. That has happened before many times. But I'd be a selfish, egomaniacal child if I believed that my own personal tastes should dictate what every other fan on the planet is allowed to enjoy. If other people like something I don't like, they have every right to keep enjoying it. I'm just one guy. I understand that the universe doesn't revolve around me.
What a strange thing to say. If a television show succeeds, then that means that a lot of people are watching and enjoying it. So of course that's good for fandom as a whole. Fandom means the people who watch and like a show. If a show succeeds, therefore a lot of people like it, therefore it has a robust fandom, even if it's not your particular subset of fandom.
Welcome to America.
I don't think a majority of Netflix subscribers are Star Trek fans. That means future shows will be revised to attract new viewers. That's what happened with the recent Star Trek movies.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are fans of the previous shows. Very likely, they saw the recent Star Trek movies which were marketed to a global audience.
Thus, what you call a "fandom as a whole" is actually an international viewer base that's likely young and new to this franchise, and producers will logically design shows for them that resemble recent Hollywood movies: lots of spectacle and special effects, crammed content, and story lines that are easy to follow.
More important, what's funding this show isn't actually a "fandom as a whole" but Netflix subscribers from many countries, several of whom are likely interested in other TV shows and movies available in the service.
If it is the case that funding was provided by Netflix international sales, then I think it's more than just America that's involved.
Well, yes, of course, where do you think fans come from? Fandom is not a closed system. Any existing fanbase is finite and will inevitably shrink over time due to attrition. So the only way a fandom survives is by broadening its appeal to invite new fans in. That's the whole reason new series are created in the first place.
Which is why I have no patience for the attitude that fandom means being hostile to new fans and treating them as the enemy. That's a corruption of everything fandom is supposed to be. It's also completely missing the point of Star Trek, a franchise whose explicit ethos is to actively seek out and welcome the new and different.
Last edited:
Point taken, although we are the King of Greed, chest-beatingly so.
This only supports my argument. As I said earlier, franchise owners will produce what sells, and unless they are able to release more than one show, then only one group of fans (logically the one that will ensure maximum profits) will be satisfied.
That's why your "fandom as a whole" exists only in name.
As for your last point, I'd like you to think of at least one thing you believe should never happen to the franchise, and then imagine that taking place because there's a large fan base for it. And after that, realize what "new and different" actually means.
The world does not revolve around me. It's not a crime if other people like things I don't. I recognize that because I'm not a spoiled brat.
Exhibit 9365 of why “listen to the fans” is the LAST thing any artistic creator should do. “Fans” are owed NOTHING except the thing itself in exchange for the price of admission. They are NEVER owed satisfaction.