Yep, it took a letter writing campaign to bring TOS back for the third season and the third season ended up being some of the worst Trek in history.
Spoilers Season 3 Comic-Con reveals
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
I don't think Discovery is doomed, or was doomed from the start. I do think however that as the amount of Trek content increases - and the possibility arises that one of the other new trek shows may have higher viewership - Discovery is going to have to do quite a bit more to justify its continued existence.
I also think that while the series flaws mostly come down to execution, the biggest flaw by far is that it repeatedly bites off more than it can chew. The series really should have had a first season which was a relatively low-stakes "kick the tires" sort of affair, where they worked out the characters personalities and motivations, and went up against a relatively small-level antagonist. Instead they've gone "epic" twice, with galaxy/multiverse wide repercussions, and screwed up the arc both times in the conclusion due to what I can only presume is relatively poor planning. The third season may be better - probably will be better - but as people have mentioned they've sort of painted themselves into a corner by having time travel involved - to the point that people are already musing that they'll somehow erase the whole future timeline once Discovery is over.
I also think that while the series flaws mostly come down to execution, the biggest flaw by far is that it repeatedly bites off more than it can chew. The series really should have had a first season which was a relatively low-stakes "kick the tires" sort of affair, where they worked out the characters personalities and motivations, and went up against a relatively small-level antagonist. Instead they've gone "epic" twice, with galaxy/multiverse wide repercussions, and screwed up the arc both times in the conclusion due to what I can only presume is relatively poor planning. The third season may be better - probably will be better - but as people have mentioned they've sort of painted themselves into a corner by having time travel involved - to the point that people are already musing that they'll somehow erase the whole future timeline once Discovery is over.
They could've gone epic if the show had been set in the future in the first place. We know the multiverse will be just fine so it takes out all the stakes. Enterprise was set far enough before TOS that there was room for things to change and evolve or be forgotten, i.e. Ferengi. Discovery takes place just ten years before TOS and even has original series characters. IMO it just made things a lot more messy.
Nope.
Nope what?
Good lord 
Discovery isn’t going anywhere any time soon. Just because you may dislike it, doesn’t mean that it’s bad, or under performing. It’s the most successful Trek show since TNG. The only reason we are getting all these new Trek shows is because Discovery is a success. The show is one of the Top 3 most streamed shows worldwide.
Get a grip.
Discovery isn’t going anywhere any time soon. Just because you may dislike it, doesn’t mean that it’s bad, or under performing. It’s the most successful Trek show since TNG. The only reason we are getting all these new Trek shows is because Discovery is a success. The show is one of the Top 3 most streamed shows worldwide.
Get a grip.
Sorry, I was just giving my opinion. Didn't mean to get you worked up.Good lord
Discovery isn’t going anywhere any time soon. Just because you may dislike it, doesn’t mean that it’s bad, or under performing. It’s the most successful Trek show since TNG. The only reason we are getting all these new Trek shows is because Discovery is a success. The show is one of the Top 3 most streamed shows worldwide.
Get a grip.
If they stay in the future, with no impact on their past, that would be fine.
Without Discovery, we wouldn't even have the leverage to get Picard. Safe to say it's a hit. Although in the past, we had Anson Mount, Jason Isaacs, etc. anchoring the cast while Burnham's character gained her footing. Sonequa's a fine actress so it's not on her but on how Burnham is written, but I'm not yet sure Burnham can carry a show without said anchors.
Good lord
Discovery isn’t going anywhere any time soon. Just because you may dislike it, doesn’t mean that it’s bad, or under performing. It’s the most successful Trek show since TNG. The only reason we are getting all these new Trek shows is because Discovery is a success. The show is one of the Top 3 most streamed shows worldwide.
Get a grip.
Successful is kinda a subjective term. However, it's almost certainly the case there are less people watching Discovery than watched DS9 or VOY. Both of these shows had generally downward trajectories in terms of ratings while they were on the air, but generally had ratings between 10 and 4 (meaning somewhere between 10% and 4% of the total viewing audience at the time watched them. CBS All Access only had about 4 million subscribers as of February, meaning the highest possible Nielsen rating equivalent Discovery could have if every single subscriber watched was maybe 3.3. Thus way less people are watching Discovery than watched either one of those shows.
Of course, it's not the same now as 20 years ago, insofar as there are more viewing options and very few shows get good ratings. In addition, since Discovery is on a subscription-based service, the "revenue per eyeball" for the show is much greater, meaning it can get away with much lower viewership and still turn a profit. At the same time it needs to be recognized that science fiction is not a cheap genre to produce - particularly space-based sci-fi with the huge number of effects shots Discovery has. The show could be very popular but still not be popular enough in the longer run to break even.
My own two cents on this is basically that CBS felt that reviving the Trek brand was integral to making CBS All Access work for them, and that CBS All Access was essential to their future, as they see the death of broadcast coming and don't want to just become a studio that sells content to the bigger players. Fuller's firing before Season 1 kinda put them in a lurch because Discovery was so integral to their future plans. So whereas in another time and place they would have canned the series immediately and gone back to the drawing board with a new option, they felt the need to shuffle along with the show. There was essentially no chance the show wouldn't get at least its first 2 seasons for the same reason - it takes time to put together production on an entirely new series, and even if Discovery was a failure, it was better to keep it going and have some Trek than have a gap with no Trek in sight.
Things will begin changing however for CBS soon, with Picard, Lower Decks, Section 31, and potentially other projects coming down the pike. If any of these series eclipse Discovery in terms of popularity (which admittedly is a big if) and the studio thinks they have something else they can slot into that gap in Trek programming, I could easily see them retiring Discovery. It's not like a 3-4 season run is all that bad by the standards of modern television.
Last edited:
These series take two years to launch on average, it seems. So that means Discovery will go at least four seasons. The fifth season will probably be the first one where Star Trek has its full line-up on CBSAA. If DSC runs five seasons, then I don't care. I'll miss it, but it won't be perceived as a short run.
More than likely, PIC will be the one to go first. Its third season would be the same year as DSC's fifth, and it looks like PIC will only run for three. Might it run longer? Sure. But there's also Patrick Stewart's age to consider. A problem that wouldn't exist with DSC.
Last edited:
G
Gonzo
Guest
I think it was going to be somewhat of an anthology with each season showing a different era in Starfleet with a different ship and crew front and centre.
At the end of the day we dont know all the details of what went on behind the scenes, whatever it was it had a profound effect on the direction of the show.
Dont mind the others, they are very protective of the show and tend to go overboard any time anyone criticises it even if its a fair comment, trolls tend to wind them up on purpose as well which makes them rather prickly at times.
Personally I am not a do or die fan like some so I can live with the issues without having a meltdown over the colour of the chairs or the specific lights they use on terminals.
At the end of the day nothing posted on this site will ever have any effect on the future of the show, it will always be about bottom lines, budget costs, viewer numbers and just how badly CBS wants to have a Star Trek show to headline CBS All Access.
Discovery isnt going anywhere for now, partly because none of the other shows are ready to replace it, the only one that could potentially do that would be a Pike/Enterprise show and there is no guarantee that will even happen.
With all that being said Discovery has been useful in showing CBS what does and does not work and any Star Trek shows that follow will benefit from it, mistakes have been made in many area now we will have to see what effect moving to the future has, especially as some viewers started watching because of the time period the show is set in as they have an attachment to the ToS era.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Lorca in S1 and Pike in S2 helped a lot to anchor the show, the cast are great and not the issue its the scripts and over arcing plot lines that left a lot to be desired.
Like I said before I hope they know what they are doing moving it into the future its liable to cause as many problems as it fixes.
Plus we know their actions will affect the past as Georgiou (at least) will be going back at some point.
It does look like its going to be Andromeda again, with Burnham using the suit to undo it.
Oh ok. Now I remember. I'd forgotten about that.
While there are certainly people who intentionally wind up fans of this show, I've noticed that some people consider any criticism of the show to be trolling. I don't even know what trolling is anymore to be honest. It's such a broad definition.
It can be broad. I tend to go with "posting something to bait someone or to deliberately upset them." Some trolling is more obvious than other forms. But I don't think of criticism of the show as trolling. The simple question you have to ask yourself is, "Does the comment add to the discussion or does it take away from it?" or "Does the comment seem intended to stay on topic or does it look like it's meant to derail, especially into the personal?"
Last edited:
G
Gonzo
Guest
Yeah, essentially these days trolling can mean "stop saying that or I will have to go to my happy place again".
I must admit I havent seen the term used incorrectly much on this forum at all, although I dont spend anything like as much time here as some do.
If a person is clinging on to a particular ideal or viewpoint they dont like that to be challenged, it doesnt even matter if the comments you make are pointed at them in reply or not they cant help but jump in and respond, its normally always the same members who do it even though they know its better if they just let it go (you know who you are
).Sometimes this forum can seem like a battleground with members defending their favourite shows or episodes like its their territory and that critical comments will endanger those shows future (which is silly), its just loyalty though, the problems start when loyalty becomes blind.
That's the internet for you.
Good lord
Discovery isn’t going anywhere any time soon. Just because you may dislike it, doesn’t mean that it’s bad, or under performing. It’s the most successful Trek show since TNG. The only reason we are getting all these new Trek shows is because Discovery is a success. The show is one of the Top 3 most streamed shows worldwide.
Get a grip.
It depends on how you define "most successful". I bet DIS is the least watched Star Trek show worldwide since TNG. Being behind a paywall everywhere guarantees this.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Yeah, having it behind a paywall is not going to help viewer numbers, most who watch it already use CBS All Access for other shows or subscribe to All Access just to watch it and then unsubscribe which explains why CBS wants a Star Trek show on the platform all year round, it doesnt really matter if we think its a success or not, its whether or not CBS think it is, would be interesting to find out what they expected in the viewing numbers compared to what they got.
We never will though as they would never release that kind of information.
Discovery wont be going anywhere until they have something to replace it with, I do think its a shame about the forward time jump though, would have been nice to have Discovery and the S31 or ideally a Pike/Enterprise show in the same time period, we havent had that since TNG/DS9/Voyager and crossover episodes are almost always a winner.
In a way S2 was one big crossover with Pike/Spock and Enterprise and it really helped the show, regardless of my thoughts on the overall story arc of the season which felt cobbled together at the last minute.
From a business perspective, the goal is to get people to pay and continue to pay for your product. Star Trek is a business. So, I’d say they’ve hit their goal, regardless of what my personal opinion of the material is.
