Star Trek Discovery ***Season 3*** [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

Justin Credible Darts

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

OK, well, if you took it as a personal attack then so be it. Any contrary opinion you consider a personal attack. I simply asked your opinion and gave mine which you were, of course, entitled to disagree with. So not interested in debating so I'm moving on.



Hah. Love that character description. "You must gather the shards of Kabhalath to reforge the Time Crystal so Michelle Yeoh can have her Section 31 spinoff"

sorry Grover, that was a typo, meant to say it wasn't :eek:


All good, floating around the threads typing like a lunatic

jmcc

Rawr wrote: »

The thing about Discovery and any potential cancellation is that since it's an exclusively streamed TV show the rules regarding renewal have a knack of being a bit different compared to broadcast TV.

It certainly has changed the dynamics of how people watch programmes even more than the introduction of the VCR and DVR.

They'll likely try to run Discovery as long as possible to keep their Original Content list a full as possible with new episodes and content. I feel that was the point of the Short Treks. New stuff to pop up in the All Access home screen between seasons, to remind subscribers that they're (hopefully) getting their money's worth.

Being cynical, the Short Treks may have been used to see if there was any demand for an alternative to STD.

CBS will probably keep it going until it's too expensive to justify or have a suitable replacement, like the Pike show as you mentioned.

It does get back to the flagship programme/series idea you mentioned. TOS only had a relatively short run initially but syndication really kept it going. CBS may be hoping that this kind of long tail programming will justify costs over time even if it never has to make another episode. Streaming is, to some extent, eternal syndication. CBS may be betting that the Pike show can replicate some of the old TOS/TNG magic in a way that STD has not.

Regards...jmcc

TheIrishGrover

Yeah, there is a tremendous change in how people watch shows. People almost EXPECT all episodes to be available immediately. Especially for online shows. Even ignoring the sh*tshow that has been 2020 this must be a huge strain on production. Sure, previously you had 22 - 26 episodes a season but you also had an entire year to make these shows. Shows, especially ones without a lot of effects, would often be only completed a few weeks before airing.

You also have to look at production values. There is no comparison between the production quality of a show today compared to previously. Say what you want about Discovery and you may not like the action sequences but those effects and effects like in Game of Thrones (Dragons laying waste) would have been the absolute highlight of movies not very long ago.

Initially, after the strikes a few years ago when many shows went from 20+ episodes to 13 - 15 I thought that we would miss out but now I prefer it. It cuts out a lot of dross and filler episodes. Put it this way, as much as I love DS9 Season 3+ and would have consumed more, if it had 13 episodes in the first couple of seasons I don't think we'd have seen O'Brien and his leprechaun

CBS have been quite upfront about how they want to hinge their All Access service on Trek ("All Trek All The Time") I'm assuming they will basically rotate between Pike's show, Discovery, Picard,Section 31 and the yet-to-be-identified last live action series. Assuming 13 episodes each: 42 weeks. Giving space for Christmas, Thanksgiving etc.

pixelburp

Indeed, it is worth remembering that while we've enjoyed Discovery on one of the largest services in Netflix (and hope that'll continue to be the case into Season 3, but IIRC there's no news on that front), in America it's broadcast on CBS' own streaming service.

God knows what metrics of success are being applied behind closed doors, and in a territory with an already saturated market for streaming services. Trek was presumably chosen for its readymade fanbase - however divided and acrimonious it can be - with the expectation that said fanbase would get subscribers through the door. 3 current shows in production, with a 4th coming in Strange New Worlds. That feels itself saturated and I'd not be all that surprised if one of those shows gets a quick death.

Rawr

pixelburp wrote: »

Indeed, it is worth remembering that while we've enjoyed Discovery on one of the largest services in Netflix (and hope that'll continue to be the case into Season 3, but IIRC there's no news on that front), in America it's broadcast on CBS' own streaming service.

God knows what metrics of success are being applied behind closed doors, and in a territory with an already saturated market for streaming services. Trek was presumably chosen for its readymade fanbase - however divided and acrimonious it can be - with the expectation that said fanbase would get subscribers through the door. 3 current shows in production, with a 4th coming in Strange New Worlds. That feels itself saturated and I'd not be all that surprised if one of those shows gets a quick death.

2 Trek Shows running parallel and the odd movie was how I experienced Trek for most of the 90’s and it seemed like just the right amount of Trek. There might have been room for a 3rd show at the time, but I think they would have been pushing it.

Too many shows to follow might not be the best.
Personally, I used to follow the Marvel Cinematic Universe back in the early days when all you had were Agents of Shield and the movies. Then the whole thing just ballooned in all different directions with loads of different shows to follow and digest. I came back for the final movies, but there was so much content I was actually put off trying to catch up and so I had stopped following the MCU for much of its run.

Too many shows could do the same for Trek if they’re not careful

pixelburp

Rawr wrote: »

2 Trek Shows running parallel and the odd movie was how I experienced Trek for most of the 90’s and it seemed like just the right amount of Trek. There might have been room for a 3rd show at the time, but I think they would have been pushing it.

Too many shows to follow might not be the best.
Personally, I used to follow the Marvel Cinematic Universe back in the early days when all you had were Agents of Shield and the movies. Then the whole thing just ballooned in all different directions with loads of different shows to follow and digest. I came back for the final movies, but there was so much content I was actually put off trying to catch up and so I had stopped following the MCU for much of its run.

Too many shows could do the same for Trek if they’re not careful

It's such a different TV landscape; not least because streaming services protect their "viewing" data jealousy it's very hard to know what are successful shows. Instead it feels like success is more about what shows are talked about on social media; traction based on hashtags and tweets instead of raw viewing numbers - with conversion rates for subscriptions presumably figuring heavily too.

4 Trek shows feels way too much in that environment IMO. Not least because it's fair to say these shows are ... controversial to say the least, and have the Great Unwashed arguing if they're even thematically Trek or not. Not a great start in maintaining audience patience or appetite.

TheIrishGrover

Well, they have confirmed that Pike's show will be more traditional "Monster-of-the-week" type episodic in nature. There will be overriding storylines etc but nothing as serialised as latter DS9 or Discovery. So this should appeal to the more traditionalists: White American Male (Presumably straight) leader. A bit more upbeat.

I presume they'll have a problem with Spock, appearance of the Enterprise, technology, the (hopefylly - Her limited time on Disco and the shorts was great) expanded nature of Number One and any minor deviation of canon. But hey.

But yeah, too many is not a good thing. Typically a Trek series almost handed the baton to the next show. Maybe ran for another year or so in parallel: TNG and DS9, DS9 and Voy.

I would imagine that Picard will finish at 2 seasons. Stewart is no spring chicken and I don't think it had the impact that they expected. Section 31: As has been mentioned in other threads, if it's DS9 Section 31, cool. If it's camp scenery-chewing Disco Section 31 then nah. And I'm assuming that we are looking at 2024 at the earliest for any other live action show.

PERSONALLY I would prefer to see two 16-episode shows running over a year - 15 month period or so: 16 episodes over an 19-20 week period (The odd break for holidays in the US etc). Followed by maybe 3 months break (During Summer) followed by another 16 episodes over another 19-20 week period followed by another break.

Goodshape

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Well, they have confirmed that Pike's show will be more traditional "Monster-of-the-week" type episodic in nature.

Really looking forward to that.

TheIrishGrover

Goodshape wrote: »

Really looking forward to that.

Yeah, I mean I like something to get my teeth into which is why DS9 is my favourite and why I like Discovery also but I am still really looking forward to this also. I think it's a good call

Goodshape

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Yeah, I mean I like something to get my teeth into which is why DS9 is my favourite and why I like Discovery also but I am still really looking forward to this also. I think it's a good call

A good serialized story would be nice but too often they seem to have a faint whiff of an idea for a season-long arc, then proceed to tease and cliff-hang, make up the rest as they go, then scramble together an unsatisfying "conclusion". It's a problem in a lot of modern television and was a real low point of Discovery seasons 1, 2, and Picard.

Evidence suggests that they aren't willing to give anyone the freedom to really define and properly execute an interesting arc, so I'd much prefer they didn't try. As it is it's just a cheap trick to get people tuning in next week.


Also I was watching a couple of episodes of TOS while I worked yesterday and it was great. No huge commitment, just a couple of familiar episodes. Didn't need to worry about remembering some plot points which may or may not ever be elaborated on in episodes to come.

I'm not sure I'll ever be bothered to watch any Discovery or Picard again. They just don't work like that.

Stark

Goodshape wrote: »

A good serialized story would be nice but too often they seem to have a faint whiff of an idea for a season-long arc, then proceed to tease and cliff-hang, make up the rest as they go, then scramble together an unsatisfying "conclusion". It's a problem in a lot of modern television and was a real low point of Discovery seasons 1, 2, and Picard.

Doctor Who is the worst offender for that imo.

TheValeyard

Stark wrote: »

Doctor Who is the worst offender for that imo.

But sometimes it really worked with Doctor Who like the Impossible Astronaut or that crack thinge. Worked very well.

Goodshape

Stark wrote: »

Doctor Who is the worst offender for that imo.

I've not watched it in a few years but with Doctor Who I think it was usually easier to ignore the "something bigger going on" which they sprinkled throughout each season and just enjoy the episode. I imagine Pike's show will still have a bit of that tbh.

Far more of Discovery and Picard were just edging towards an "epic conclusion"

ilovesmybrick

New trailer

Evade

Is there going to be a 3-4 year timeskip after they get to the future? That's an impractical amount of hair.

TheValeyard

Interesting.........they must be lifting ideas from that cancelled Federation show concept.

ilovesmybrick

It has me more interested than the previous trailers anyway, but I'm a sucker for a good spaceship crash landing! I'm wondering if they're giong to try and tie this into the temporal cold war stuff from Enterprise? Nowhere near my favourite trek story line, but it occurred shortly (well, a few centuries) before they arrive and might be part of the rapid fall of the federation? From what we saw in Voyager and Enterprise the Federation seemed to be doing well up to the 29th century, so it would have to be something massive to break it.

Goodshape

Looks different enough to the last two seasons anyway. Here's hoping.

pixelburp

ah can't beat the ominous threat of The Big Noun. "The Burn". Oh dear, the federation collapsed because of collective heartburn?

Good trailer and yup, looks like they're going for an Andromeda rip off, with Discovery the lone ship trying to build the galaxy again. Not mad keen on Burnham making more impassioned speeches but some moments suggest the stick has been removed from her butt.

There's also the pertinent question of the captain. I presume it's Saru. It better be Saru.

Any word if we're getting this on Netflix or Amazon though?

Goodshape

pixelburp wrote: »

Any word if we're getting this on Netflix or Amazon though?

Yeah, Netflix on the 16th October.

StarTrek.com wrote:

premiering October 15, exclusively in the U.S. on CBS All Access, in Canada on Bell Media's CTV Sci-Fi Channel and streams on Crave, and on October 16 on Netflix in 188 countries.

https://intl.startrek.com/videos/star-trek-discovery-season-three-trailer

Stark

pixelburp wrote: »

ah can't beat the ominous threat of The Big Noun. "The Burn". Oh dear, the federation collapsed because of collective heartburn?

I was waiting for "The Burn..................Ham. Yes, everything went to **** after someone burnt some ham". "But that doesn't make any sen.." . "Sssh, we move to action scene now".

Goodshape

"The bern was the day the galaxy took a hard left"

Evade

B... B... But Star Trek is a socialist paradise, it couldn't fail like all the others.

Rawr

pixelburp wrote: »

There's also the pertinent question of the captain. I presume it's Saru. It better be Saru.

I second that. He’s the most Starfleet of the bunch. One of the few elements I constantly liked in the show. Capt. Saru would be a good thing.

Also, fun Michael? Can it work? Maybe, but I couldn’t help but feel that I might end up annoyed by her delivery again. Could just be the trailer though...they really like to mash the “epic” button a lot in them (maybe a little too much)

Finally, did they retool the logo? Could this really be a soft reboot?

TheValeyard

Wonder is the Burn those big bad AI from Picard?

Evade

TheValeyard wrote: »

Wonder is the Burn those big bad AI from Picard?

What if it's a V-ger. Not the actual V-ger but something else that contains the word burn that's an absolute disaster, say a certain commander hurtling through time.

TheIrishGrover

pixelburp wrote: »

...Not mad keen on Burnham making more impassioned speeches but some moments suggest the stick has been removed from her butt....

Was thinking the same myself (About both points). Especially as the monolog went on I kept thinking of the trailer for Picard "Yeah, they said you do like giving your speeches" or something

But yeah, she.... she laughed.. And smiled.

Obviously some time has passed (Hair, Dune-style still-suits etc.) so that will be interesting.

And yeah, I did roll my eyes at.... DA BUUUUURRRNNNNN (Exclamation point). Will be a Doctor-Who buildup to a 2-part finale where it will be all revolving around Burnham/Discovery: "Because you weren't there, the Klingons took over and then. Um... later, there was no Federation to stop the Dominion and ummm. Data and that AI merged with The Borg" (I'm not a writer )

I sound harsher than intended. I liked the look of it. Like that new character (The love interest). Seems to have a bit of weight to him... So he's gonna die. And like the little fun bit with Stamets and engineer.

pixelburp

They should leave The Burn as nothing. Let future canon decide what it precisely is; and if Season 3 truly wants to move forward then the plot should let The Burn be defined within our imaginations. Were I writing Season 3 (how's that for hubris) I'd leave it as something mythological; a fairytale told by people of a time long ago when things were great. Abstract to the point where people can't be sure what precise year it happened so most doubt there ever even WAS a "Federation". That also serves the purpose of the Season, 'cos then there's a resting antagonism towards their mere presence - or attempt to reform something already considered fictional.

The trailer seems to hint at the galaxy a little post-apocalytpic in styling, so a general sense of ignorance of the past would be easier to maintain. While it allows Discovery to essentially say "look, it doesn't matter right now. What matters is how Discovery moves onwards". If the plot of Season 3 consists of finding a way back "home" - or worse, to the point of The Burn - then that'll be a big misstep IMO. As someone says above, this can be a Soft Reboot if they want. But it has to start with the script essentially telling everyone that there's no way back to the past.

TheIrishGrover

pixelburp wrote: »

They should leave The Burn as nothing. Let future canon decide what it precisely is; and if Season 3 truly wants to move forward then the plot should let The Burn be defined within our imaginations. Were I writing Season 3 (how's that for hubris) I'd leave it as something mythological; a fairytale told by people of a time long ago when things were great. Abstract to the point where people can't be sure what precise year it happened so most doubt there ever even WAS a "Federation".....

Yep: It happened. The Great Reset. Natural thing unrelated to anybody and unavoidable: Galactic Dark Age and only re-emerging over the last 100-200 years or so.

Supermassive blackhole believed to be at the centre of our galaxy pulses through subspace yadda yadda yadda - Maybe last episode of Picard last season ends with everything going dark.

Queue blank screen: Text fades in: Burn Date 00:00:00 00:00:01

But you know it's gonna be Discovery-centric or solvable.

expectationlost

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

New trailer

cant find a copy that isn't geoblocked https://twitter.com/NetflixshowsMo1/status/1303430824755425284