Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
I don't think Discovery will make three seasons.
That's just mean
As Dennis would say: as long as it's making money for CBS they won't cancel it.
But that's every TV show except for those kept alive solely because the network or platform finds them too prestigious to kill off for the time being. Good or bad, DSC will be around for a few years based just on the revenue that CBS is earning from the subscriptions.
Yeah but some shows combine good story telling with budget and profit. They have ratings to prove.
I suspect that one the wrinkles are smoothed out with All Access, Netflix and the BTS drama is gone, Discovery will find its place. They still have to prove their worth to CBS.
Is this another one of those words you like to use even though you don't know or care what it actually means?
It's a sample of the show's FANS, and it shows data you can clearly see with your own eyes. Thus it is empirical evidence.
Perhaps you mean it is not CONCLUSIVE evidence? That's not what "empirical" means.
The day she stopped letting me win.
Because you do nothing but bitch about it in nearly every post. Hence the "negativity" I have observed thus far.
Yes, it fucking well is. As Harlan Ellison famously put it, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
Having evidence is not the same thing as being able to convince someone else.
I believe, for example, that my son loves me and that it would make him very sad if I were to die or otherwise depart from his life. I believe my wife feels the same way. There are lots of things that make me believe these, but if you asked me to actually PROVE this, I would not be able to do it.
So why aren't you referencing what actual critics are saying about Discovery? You seem to be suggesting that the only opinion that should matter to anyone is YOURS.
Exactly this. Just because you believe something doesn't mean you can convince everyone else that it's true, nor does it mean you SHOULD. It's entirely possible for two different people to see the same thing and come to completely different conclusions about it and both of them still be right.
No. This is another word I like to use even though you don't know what it actually means.
Empirical evidence, in this case, would be observational data that can be used to support the assertion you made. That is what you do not have.
No, it's not, because there are no valid generalizations you can draw from it. First of all, it's a self-selected sample, not a randomized one, so you can't say that it's representative of the overall population of the show's fans. As samples go, it's highly susceptible to several forms of bias.
Second, even if it were a random draw, it's too small an N to support meaningful generalizations — no more than a few dozen people for any given episode.
Third, even if it were a large-N random sample, it doesn't actually measure what you claim it does, since the episode-by-episode polls only ever asked respondents to rank the episode on a 1-10 scale (with substantial confusion about the baseline even for that, as within-thread discussion made clear), not to report on whether or not they had problems with the writing.
At the end of the day, the most one could claim here is that "a majority of several dozen TrekBBS subscribers who chose to rate episodes of Discovery (that they may or may not have viewed) consistently rated most episodes in the 6-10 range on a scale of 1-10, as compared to an unspecified baseline of quality." That is a very, very far cry from your assertion that "the majority of Discovery's fans have very few problems with its writing overall."
Of course not. There's no such thing as conclusive evidence of public opinion, unless you actually survey every single member of the population of interest. The best you can manage is a margin of error that's reliable at a statistically significant confidence level. You really don't know jack about how survey research works, do you?
Nonsense. I just summed up quite a lot of my reactions to the show in my previous post, and there's a perfectly reasonable balance of positive and negative. Moreover, as I already pointed out, I offer specific substantive criticisms, not mere "bitching." The bitching around here comes mostly from you; frustratingly, a lot of it doesn't even have anything to do with the show itself (or whatever other topic a thread may have), but instead is random bitching aimed at other posters who are trying to discuss the topics at hand, often precisely because they're trying to discuss those topics and you find them unworthy.
True. That's one reason lawsuits are so complicated.
However, that statement is not a negation of what I actually said. The fact remains that having no evidence is the same thing as being unable to convince someone else. (Unless you're dealing with irrational people. Or religious adherents. But I repeat myself.)
I have referenced, and engaged with, plenty of specific criticism (and praise) that other posters have offered about the show, both from published sources and from their own keen and thoughtful minds. I can't help it if you prefer to hang out on the sidelines and yell at the players rather than getting into the game yourself.
This is getting really personal. Maybe we need to back off?
And I just observed that the majority of posters on TrekBBS have reacted positively to Star Trek Discovery. This is related to the fact that I ASSERTED that the majority of Discovery's fans have reacted positively to the story content of Star Trek Discovery.
Your counter argument is that my observation of this fact is not empirical evidence because:
... so in other words you're saying the data isn't rigorous or totally reliable. That's debatable, sure.
But "Empirical evidence" does not mean the same thing as "scientifically rigorous" or "statistically relevant with respect to the general population." It's a sample of the opinions of a population of people who, on the whole, like Star Trek and want to see/know/discuss things about Star Trek.
If you didn't mean "empirical" maybe you shouldn't have used that word in the first place?
That's a conclusion one could draw from the data, even if the conclusion is factually inaccurate (most of those polls have between 200 and 300 responses). But as a sample of the overall population of Star Trek fans -- a group which may or may not be the same population as Discovery's fans -- it's a datapoint that suggests most of its fans do not have a problem with the writing.
If you are claiming this sample is NOT representative of the broader population, it could only be because you have more accurate data on the broader population that proves THIS observation does not paint an accurate picture of the situation. Surely you did not leap to that sort of conclusion without having solid empirical data of your own, right?
I know that that survey research, rigorous or not, produces empirical data. Did YOU know that?
Your criticisms are as verbose as they are hyperbolic, but that does not make them substantive.
That is literally untrue, particularly in the case of lawsuits. You can present a mountain of evidence supporting your claim and still lose the suit because the defendant provided STRONGER evidence negating your claims and the judge thought his evidence was better than yours.
Hell, I just pointed you with the poll data that suggests a majority of Trek fans don't actually react negatively to Discovery, and you have decided that evidence isn't good enough to form a conclusion despite the fact that you have offered ZERO evidence to support the opposing theory!
So what standard of judgement are you even using? Are you claiming that all opinions MUST be based on empirical evidence? If that's the case, why have you not bothered to PRESENT any?
Sigh. I'm just gonna take Fireproof's advice and leave this be. You're either not understanding what I've written, or just not interested in responding honestly to it. But I have no interest in a flame war, and this isn't the kind of interaction I come here looking for. It's not even one of the more rewarding discussions in this thread. So I'm backing off. And hoping that other posters have more interesting things to talk about. Peace.
I have a question, on topic. If DISCO isn't considered Prime, does that remove the issues many have, i.e. aesthetics, technology, the way Starfleet officers behave, etc?
Absolutely.
It's Prime. It sure doesn't look it, but it's Prime until the chronology and sequence of historical events starts failing to line up with the rest of the Prime series and films.
At some point we're either going to have to grit our teeth as hard as we can and ignore the visual differences in the ships and technology (yeah, I'm not seeing it happening, either) or find acceptable ways to explain them away in-universe, hold our noses and go on (which is only slightly more likely but I wouldn't hold my breath).
At some point we're either going to have to grit our teeth as hard as we can and ignore the visual differences in the ships and technology (yeah, I'm not seeing it happening, either) or find acceptable ways to explain them away in-universe, hold our noses and go on (which is only slightly more likely but I wouldn't hold my breath).
TNG/DS9/VOY went 14 years (1987-2001). If the Star Trek on TV begun by DSC runs 14 years (just as an example) and stays in this timeframe, then 14 years from now we'll have shot through the TOS Era and gone into the TMP Era.
I personally don't rule out Discovery eventually ending up in another time period altogether. To me, that nine-month jump was like Doc sending Einstein into the future. "One minute into the future!" But even if that's not the case, one way or another, what we have might have started as a prequel but, if it lasts, it won't stay a prequel. It will overlap with and pass the original.
I personally don't rule out Discovery eventually ending up in another time period altogether. To me, that nine-month jump was like Doc sending Einstein into the future. "One minute into the future!" But even if that's not the case, one way or another, what we have might have started as a prequel but, if it lasts, it won't stay a prequel. It will overlap with and pass the original.
I think it would, at least as far as them being continuity errors and undermining the intent that it's part of the prime universe/Kelvin timeline canon. Whether one likes the re-imaginings and/or stories as good and/or enjoyable TV in and of itself is another question, but yeah; once it's a total reboot, there can't be discontinuity between it and the other TV shows because there is no intended continuity in the first place.
If it merged seamlessly into a universe that could fit and use all the TMP/TWK styles and just retconned TOS, would that solve any of the problems?
Similar threads
