(TV) Star Trek: Discovery

[Endus]

I did not say it was true, I did say you can drawn the conclusion.

Not if you're claiming to be rational, you can't.

It's exactly the same argument as saying "since we don't have the numbers on how many bears there are in the USA, there's 484 trillion bears there." You're making an assumption based on, literally, nothing. You can't claim that you don't know the numbers, so you do know the numbers. That's nonsense.

[Fantomen]

The CEO says they have 10 million with their two services combined... So I look forward to seeing how you're going to shift this goal post.

Wher do its show Discoverys number? It only say that cbs-all-access have 10 million subscribers. Its like to claim that all individual Nexflix show have 167 million viewer....

[s_bushido]

Wher do its show Discoverys number? It only say that cbs-all-access have 10 million subscribers. Its like to claim that all individual Nexflix show have 167 million viewer....

lol Called it.

So I look forward to seeing how you're going to shift this goal post.

[Fantomen]

You can't claim that you don't know the numbers, so you do know the numbers. That's nonsense.

Do you purposely trying to misunderstand me? fine is it not strange that they do NOT want to show the number. What motive can be behind this?

[Endus]

Do you purposely trying to misunderstand me? fine is it not strange that they do NOT want to show the number. What motive can be behind this?

Because streaming services aren't covered by Nielsen ratings, which are about the only way to cross-compare. And that's just for starters.

Edit: Plus, where we DO have numbers, they directly contradict what you're making up; https://screenrant.com/star-trek-dis...treaming-show/

[Koriani]

It like evrything else, like World of Warcrafts subscribe number. Then the numbers are good they are public, then they are bad they are a secret.

CBS ALL ACCESS do not show the numbers, hence you can draw the conclusion that they are bad.

Then so are the numbers of every other streaming network - Netflix, etc. They don't give out their numbers either.

[Fantomen]

Edit: Plus, where we DO have numbers, they directly contradict what you're making up; https://screenrant.com/star-trek-dis...treaming-show/

Please quote the number for Discovery form your articel becuse I cant find them. What I can find is "According to Parrot Analytics" and "Between April 6 and May 5" "most in-demand digital original series worldwide"

- - - Updated - - -

Then so are the numbers of every other streaming network - Netflix, etc. They don't give out their numbers either.

But Netflix do give out numbers.... then they are good.....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultas.../#119ca0da29df

[Koriani]

Please quote the number for Discovery form your articel becuse I cant find them. What I can find is "According to Parrot Analytics" and "Between April 6 and May 5" "most in-demand digital original series worldwide"

- - - Updated - - -



But Netflix do give out numbers.... then they are good.....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultas.../#119ca0da29df

And yet..
" Netflix has said that 76 million households “chose to watch” The Witcher in the past month. That is a huge number, but there’s a reason “chose to watch” is in quotes. That’s because the phrase is a specific metric Netflix has recently introduced which says that it’s counting a view as at least 2 minutes of a show or movie being watched. This is very, very different than its old metric which declared that a view was 70% of a show or episode being watched instead, which was used when we got figures for say, 26 million households watching 70% of Bird Box in its first week."

From what you linked.

So yea... Netflix, among some of the others, is also notorious for not releasing any of the streaming numbers except the cherry picked ones they want to, of course.

Clearly... that is definitely going on here.

Keeping in mind - I don't think Disco is "all that" nor do I feel CBS All Access numbers are probably really "all that." My point is - the absence of data means nothing at all. As you are the, "We dont know the numbers so they must be bad..." logic. Netflix, like CBS, chose to release numbers WHEN it made them look good.

What that means for any of the REAL meaningful numbers - is nada.

[callipygoustp]

LOL wow this discussion had gone way off the rails.

On topic:
Just started watching this show. Only a couple episodes in this thus far but I'm enjoying the story and looking forward to seeing where it goes. Nice to see another scifi vehicle that has (what's looking to be) a good story, solid acting, and a solid production level.

[Gallahadd]

Just started watching this show. Only a couple episodes in this thus far but I'm enjoying the story and looking forward to seeing where it goes.

First season starts off a little slow, but seriously picks up aroun Mid-season. Second series pretty much hits the ground running, and doesn't stop.

I know it's quite a divisive show, but I'm looking forward to season 3.

[Elim Garak]

Discovery is better than Picard so far

[Gallahadd]

Discovery is better than Picard so far

Eh. Weighing the first 5 Disco against the first 5 Picard, I'd give Picard the edge. Disco had a pretty rough start, for me.

[Kokolums]

I don't know if this got posted here but I'm not reading 90 pages to find out.

[Endus]

I don't know if this got posted here but I'm not reading 90 pages to find out.

He's speaking for himself, not Star Trek.

And let's revisit some actual Original Series Trek, shall we?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0bClUp9I6w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SK0cUNMnMM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ_fnxPMS7I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_c1Odol9xw

Sure, it's usually Kirk swinging fists, but Spock's in there too. The only real difference between TOS and modern Trek in this regard is that we've got better fight choreography now. So the scenes aren't laughably awful, as the above mostly are.

Edit: And this is just me picking actual hand-to-hand brawls. If we want to expand to ship-to-ship combat, or phaser fire, TOS had plenty of both.

[cyberglum]

The only real difference between TOS and modern Trek in this regard is that we've got better fight choreography now.

The difference is good writing vs. bad writing.

You do these comparisons all the time, calling-out people for having the "wrong" opinion all the while missing the point entirely.

[Endus]

The difference is good writing vs. bad writing.

You do these comparisons all the time, calling-out people for having the "wrong" opinion all the while missing the point entirely.

Kokolums' point was clear; he was arguing that Star Trek wasn't about fisticuffs and using violence to solve problems.

He was objectively wrong on that claim.

And people generally can't actually explain what's "wrong" with Discovery's writing, in any objective sense. "I don't like Star Trek any more" is a much different opinion than "the writing in this show is awful and no one should like it". You're arguing the latter.

[Gallahadd]

And people generally can't actually explain what's "wrong" with Discovery's writing, in any objective sense. "I don't like Star Trek any more" is a much different opinion than "the writing in this show is awful and no one should like it". You're arguing the latter.

OMFG, Star Trek's writing is so terrible these days, they're murdering the franchise.

Really? Howso.

Erm, because... Discovery is bad. And. SJWs. Pandering!

"The writing is bad" is one of the most overused, and most often incorrectly used criticisms I see. I feel like people throw it out there when they don't have an actual complaint, and just want an excuse for why they hate a show/movie.

70%+ of the time, when I ask people to explain why the writing is bad, they can't.

When I ask how they would have done things differently, they can't.

bonus points if they reply wth "Hey, I'm not a writer, it's not my job to fix their mistakes!" That one always cracks me up

[Endus]

OMFG, Star Trek's writing is so terrible these days, they're murdering the franchise.

Really? Howso.

Erm, because... Discovery is bad. And. SJWs. Pandering!

"The writing is bad" is one of the most overused, and most often incorrectly used criticisms I see. I feel like people throw it out there when they don't have an actual complaint, and just want an excuse for why they hate a show/movie.

70%+ of the time, when I ask people to explain why the writing is bad, they can't.

When I ask how they would have done things differently, they can't.

bonus points if they reply wth "Hey, I'm not a writer, it's not my job to fix their mistakes!" That one always cracks me up

It rankles me, too, because I can point to things I'd have done differently, as a writer;

1> Burnham wears that mutiny for the rest of her career. Starfleet never trusts her again. It might be willing to recommission her in the aftermath of events like S1, with her fellow officers backing it (Saru in particular, in that case), but it would be a special non-rank and she'd never get promoted. She'd be a specialist of some sort, but she's never getting a command position again.

2> No Spore drive. It's silly, even for Trek. The instant teleportation of the ship is fine, it's that particular explanation that bothers me. Exploiting cracks in the fabric of space-time, and their use is widening the cracks; there we go, same basic effect/risk, no galactic mushroom network insanity.

3> Have yet to see S3 yet, but they seemed to indicate Burnham would be Captain. Fuck that. Saru's Captain. And his predatory instincts are coming into full blossom. Given the circumstances, Burnham can become his First Officer, getting around the stuff in #1 because they're in the far future and fuck the rules.

But I'm not the writer, and I'll take what I can get, honestly. I just pile those ideas into my own writing.

[Ealyssa]

The difference is good writing vs. bad writing.

Instead of pointless statement, why not arguing about what is actually badly written in discovery ?
Do you have exemples of its bad narration or dialogues ?

[Spike`]

the problem in Discovery is Burnham, too much of her and like Endus said it didn't make any sense after she did her having so much "power" on the bridge

also her having Vulcan education doesn't show, she is just a whinny that is there to steal everyone performances around here

make the show following the other characters and also them resolving the problems instead of 99% of the problems being resolved by Burnham and will be alot better

if in S3 they make her captain i just wont watch it