[Rellimie]

Why are you only interested in those ratings? Very ageist.

Not me! US Advertising. That is the key demographic that a show will be profitable from advertising. Also, only the same day + 3 days pay. Advertisers do not care what days 4+ do.

I don’t make the rules

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_demographic

[Strathkin]

I see people falling in love with the after Pike's subtle gesture to Philippa Georgiou.

Nice.

[Three of Seven]

Not me! US Advertising. That is the key demographic that a show will be profitable from advertising. Also, only the same day + 3 days pay. Advertisers do not care what days 4+ do.

I don’t make the rules

But you're not a US advertiser, so you don't need to follow the rules, you can choose which demographics you are personally interested in.

[Rellimie]

But you're not a US advertiser, so you don't need to follow the rules, you can choose which demographics you are personally interested in.

Yes, however I’m interested in the renewal of The Orville, which means I’m interested in the key demographic.

[Haseo]

it was a good show, despite major bad rep the show has i loved it.

[Rellimie]

I got them from Wikipedia which has their sources listed. To be fair I only looked at the overall viewer number as I have no idea how US TV Ratings work.

But lets not deviate from the topic and make this solely about The Orville. My comment was in reference to Star Trek and how CBS is sitting on a goldmine if they went ahead with a old style trek with Anson Mount as Pike.

If they did a Pike show I doubt they do an old style, episodic format. TV has changed a lot in 25 years. It may when over older fans but their target is to appease long time fans, JJ fans, and to bring in new fans.

[Three of Seven]

If they did a Pike show I doubt they do an old style, episodic format. TV has changed a lot in 25 years. It may when over older fans but their target is to appease long time fans, JJ fans, and to bring in new fans.

The episodic format works for a lot of shows though, just because you don't like it anymore, doesn't mean that it doesn't work anymore. I have mentioned NCIS in the past, there is also The Orville, cult classic Firefly, Stargate, Eureka isn't that old. There is still a market for it, you just personally seem to not want it, which is fine.

[Strathkin]

My comment was in reference to Star Trek and how CBS is sitting on a goldmine if they went ahead with a old style trek with Anson Mount as Pike.

Well I really agree with the above.

I also think an older style Trek given the technology available now, likely would make the period seem very believable, so it's nice having seen Discovery and Kelvin Timeline refresh that which was old. But also excited for the future of Discovery, as well and the Picard series, which announced casting assignments just recently.

[LogicalLeopard]

The fact that we are forced to assume, or make excuses for the story, in order for it to make sense, is a HUGE problem!

The lack of consistency within their own writing, not to mention within canon, is lazy. It hinders the immersiveness of the story they're trying to tell.

It makes me sad, as a lifelong fan of Star Trek, to see such little care put into the plot/writing on Discovery. It feels like it's not aimed at Star Trek fans, but at young, super emotional, over-dramatic, wear your feels on your sleeves types. Details don't seem to matter much. Discovery puts too much emphasis on unnecessary, manufactured emotional plot points. As I've said before, Discovery is a soap opera. The writers are willing to trample over their own story in order to strike an emotional moment.

It's assumed that Star Trek fans will come along for the ride regardless, because this is the only Trek we can get right now. I fall into that category. I've been watching, because I love Star Trek, but honestly, I've been really hating Discovery. I'll watch the Picard series, but if it falls into the same writing pitfall that Discovery has been unable to escape from, I'm going to have to dismiss everything that CBSAA dumps out, until I hear that things have changed. My quitting Discovery is no loss for many of you apparently, given so many glowing reviews, but it disappoints me that CBSAA is turning Star Trek into a super emo shroom trip, where story is secondary to getting the feels about what you're watching. Good writing generates its own emotion at appropriate points within the story, organically, without feeling forced or unearned. Discovery's emotional beats always feel forced, and usually unearned.

I agree that the writing gets lazy in places, and this episode had more of those situations than most episodes. But I don't share your dour view of the series. Sure it's a soap opera. That's not a bad thing in my opinion. The writing mistakes are not unheard of for Trek, and this in my opinion still stands out as being better than the first two seasons of any other show. I dunno, having rewatched it over the years, Voyager might beat it.

Which brings me to a good point. I think your willingness to like a series plays a role on how you like it. I fizzled out of Voyager when it first premiered, and picked it back up during the latter seasons. Maybe 5 years ago, I rewatched the first few seasons a d found that I liked them a lot more. I dunno. Maybe you need to come back to Discovery in a decade or two.

- - - Updated - - -

If they did a Pike show I doubt they do an old style, episodic format. TV has changed a lot in 25 years. It may when over older fans but their target is to appease long time fans, JJ fans, and to bring in new fans.

I think we may get a Pike miniseries rather than a series, but that's my opinion. I think Discovery time jumped because they didn't want to continue coming closer to TOS. A Pike series would do the same. A miniseries or a "movie" might be better, and you could intersperse it through the other show seasons.

[Rellimie]

I think we may get a Pike miniseries rather than a series, but that's my opinion. I think Discovery time jumped because they didn't want to continue coming closer to TOS. A Pike series would do the same. A miniseries or a "movie" might be better, and you could intersperse it through the other show seasons.

Now that I can get on board with.

[Mack]

I think the writers of the show just finally saw how they can't juggle through already existing Canon any further and that they also need more breathing room in terms of creativity and be able to create their own Canon rather than frustratingly stuff your stories in an already set time era.

I just wish the series woulda continued immediately post nemesis. But I'm curious to see how they treat Star trek in 31st/32nd Century and definitely now they have the full Canon freedom.

As far as the series ending goes, an episode of Star Trek Galactica. I'm not even sure if I liked the episode. Control was a nanotechnolgy AI with no connections to Borg and just... died. For all the trouble it caused it died just like that. So Federation already kinda had developed something like the Borg... Eh.

The action was what the episode was all about. If anything I think they did a good re-imagining of constitution class, bridge, corridors and the color schemes minus the r2d2 and Galactica viper launching stuff.

I really loved Anson Mount, Number One and Spock. Captain Pike series would do good. There is a lot to explore here, Captain Pike did serve as a Starfleet Captain for 15 years and there's so much to do. More than that, they were true to the character's canon and I feel confident they would be able to work and build up on him.

[Sul-Matuul]

Control was a nanotechnolgy AI with no connections to Borg and just... died. For all the trouble it caused it died just like that. So Federation already kinda had developed something like the Borg... Eh.

The hint i got was that it wasn't really defeated. It wasn't just one person (Leyland) it was a computer program and there's no reason for it to all be in one place.
And they never showed that admiral's face in the final few scene of the interrogations for some reason. Does that hint that there was more to those scenes that first meets they eye?

[Mack]

The hint i got was that it wasn't really defeated. It wasn't just one person (Leyland) it was a computer program and there's no reason for it to all be in one place.
And they never showed that admiral's face in the final few scene of the interrogations for some reason. Does that hint that there was more to those scenes that first meets they eye?

I really didn’t think of the ending in such detail, since I assumed this debriefing was classified in some fashion, that perhaps could be why the Admiral’s face was hidden.

From what I understood, control would stop evolving if it had no means to access the sphere data. Since it still would be around, it definitely would read all the lost in action logs, after action reports and condolences letters to families. I suppose this way it would have suffered a decaying dormant death, or so I assume was the intention of the writers.

Ofcourse, since they left it as a cliff hanger they have several ways to pull this up in season 3, like how it stayed dormant in Starfleet systems till 32nd century?

[Dentari]

The fact that we are forced to assume, or make excuses for the story, in order for it to make sense, is a HUGE problem!

I don't feel that I've made any unreasonable excuses for the story so far - I may need to re-watch the show to confirm that though. Fandom is a very personal thing, so it's actually pretty awesome that we can have these differing opinions and discuss them in such depth. I've found no part of Discovery to be so out of place that it jarred me out of enjoying it in the moment. A franchise like Star Trek, with literally hundreds of hours of content (tv series only), is bound to be full of plot points and stories that can't be fully fleshed out and rely on the willingness of the individual viewer and community to fill the gaps.

The sheer quantity of Star Trek content makes it difficult for new shows to stay within the bounds of canon - something which I think Discovery has navigated really well for the most part. They explained the absence of any reference to Discovery or Michael throughout any other series in a really satisfying way. Obviously we know why Michael wasn't mentioned in previous iterations of Trek; whether you like it or not we the audience must choose whether or not to make an excuse for the story in this case. I do think the show gave us a really satisfying and justifiable reason as to why Spock, Pike or any other longstanding Trek character never mentions Discovery though:

Classic Trek TiMe TrAvEl!

Things I liked:

• Sweet battle
• Blue phasers
• Pike
• Michael/Spock relationship
• Stamets/Culber relationship
• Admiral Cornwell

[Sul-Matuul]

I don't feel that I've made any unreasonable excuses for the story so far - I may need to re-watch the show to confirm that though. Fandom is a very personal thing, so it's actually pretty awesome that we can have these differing opinions and discuss them in such depth. I've found no part of Discovery to be so out of place that it jarred me out of enjoying it in the moment. A franchise like Star Trek, with literally hundreds of hours of content (tv series only), is bound to be full of plot points and stories that can't be fully fleshed out and rely on the willingness of the individual viewer and community to fill the gaps.

The sheer quantity of Star Trek content makes it difficult for new shows to stay within the bounds of canon - something which I think Discovery has navigated really well for the most part. They explained the absence of any reference to Discovery or Michael throughout any other series in a really satisfying way. Obviously we know why Michael wasn't mentioned in previous iterations of Trek; whether you like it or not we the audience must choose whether or not to make an excuse for the story in this case. I do think the show gave us a really satisfying and justifiable reason as to why Spock, Pike or any other longstanding Trek character never mentions Discovery though:

Classic Trek TiMe TrAvEl!

Things I liked:

• Sweet battle
• Blue phasers
• Pike
• Michael/Spock relationship
• Stamets/Culber relationship
• Admiral Cornwell

I think tbh its easy to argue about DSC's story because it's the current new "thing" in Trek but i'm almost certain that if we went back through the thousands of hours of Trek TV shows and films there would be tonnes of questionable moments of writing and plot holes and areas of canon seemingly ignoring other areas etc.
It's the nature of such a massive universe that has been created that the creators on the shows/films cannot be expected to learn every minutiae of detail to match it all up perfectly; and tbh Trek has ALWAYS played it loose with canon continuity, even back to the TOS era.

Coming up with ideas to link story areas on your own is half of the fun tbh, you can create your own in-universe reasons why things happen for your own enjoyment.