After several rescheduling moves by CBS, most recently in January of this year, network chairman Les Moonves today projected a new arrival date for Star Trek: Discovery later this year.

Speaking at one the many investor conferences he attends throughout the year – this time, at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference – Moonves addressed a question about the show’s debut.

‘Star Trek’ is going to [come] sometime later in the year; late summer, early fall, we’re looking at, probably, right now.

The good news about All Access is [that] it’s important to get it right. ‘Star Trek’ is the family jewels; we’re not going to rush it in a lot of post-production – but I’m very confident in what I’ve seen so far.

We’re full into production; I’ve seen a little bit of it, and I’m very excited.

Moonves also made mention of his previously-stated view that Discovery is a “perfect” choice for CBS’s streaming platform, citing well-performing streaming numbers on Netflix, the distribution partner for the new show outside of the United States and Canada.

There are clearly millions and millions of Trekkies out there – ‘Star Trek’ fans – that are waiting [for ‘Discovery].’ We get a lot of mail on it every single day, they’re very anxious about it.

We think it’s the perfect show for All Access. We know for a fact that the other versions of ‘Star Trek,’ and there were seven [sic] other series – some of them were great, some of them were terrible – they all did really well on Netflix.

That gave us great confidence that this was the right show to really it the full-court press on All Access.

We’ll see if the predicted timeline holds as 2017 continues.

  • Cabo 5150

    I guess this all depends on your interpretation of “early Fall” (Autumn here in the UK), but, as many of us have conjectured, this does sound like code-speak for late September/sometime in October to me.

    • he said “late summer, early fall”. that is clearly not “code-speak for late September/sometime in October”. the inclusion of “late summer” means august or september.

      • prometheus59650

        But they’re not going to premiere it in August. They’re just not, not when the first episode is slated to air on CBS.

        They’ll premiere it when butts are back on couches for the fall season.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Yep!

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        No, it’s pretty much code speak for late September/early October. That’s the best time to make a new series splash.

      • Cabo 5150

        Thanks for the correction there, brightgeist.

        But as I stated, it’s all conjecture – and I don’t think any of us can quantify what Moonves “means” with absolute accuracy.

        I think August is extremely unlikely now personally, although I had held a slim hope for a possible Summer release before this statement.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Exactly!

    • MattR

      They might as well wait til the latter half of September. The Emmy Awards are September 17th, and they’re actually on CBS this year, so they can use that as a promotional platform if they wanted to. For example, have a couple cast members present an award, and run a handful of promos during the show.

      They should air it after whenever the season premiere of Big Bang Theory is that week, which should be the Monday after the Emmys (and the start of the TV season) if they do the same as last year.

      Soooooo….I’m predicting they show the pilot on CBS on Monday, September 18.

      • Brian Thorn

        I think that is a very, very good prediction.

    • patrick

      Since what we’re talking about in this thread is merely conjecture, he could also be communication this:
      “The production of this series is over-budget, prime-talent from the show has bailed on us and this delay has seriously impacted the GRAND roll-out of our Flagship CBS-Pay-Channel which we had carefully planned. But don’t worry investors, it won’t be as bad as some of our other TREK series, I promise. I promise. So please keep investing – we’ll get this series on the air very soon. Oh, I mean the day after that. Or, maybe a month or two later or… I mean, what the hell, we’ve completely forfeited that 50-Anniversary press-bonanza which we’d tried to capitalize on when we announced the series last year.”

      Lol.

  • GIBBS v2

    As most everyone has agreed, get it right.

    • people just love to complain… if they rushed the series, people would complain that they didn’t take enough time to get it right… now they’re taking their time, and people complain about that too… people are stupid 😀

      • Vger64

        Yup! I totally agree with you!!

      • Jack Watkins

        It’s not that simple. Yes, rushing the show wouldn’t be beneficial; that’s arguably what made Voyager and Enterprise so polarizing. On the other hand, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “To delay a series once may be regarded as a misfortune; to delay twice looks like carelessness.”

        • and to believe that quotes and sayings that sound nice are universally applicable, is foolish 😛

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        You mean like that dude who was whining about Moonves saying it was 7 Trek series to date instead of 6? 😉

        • i was making a factual observation and drawing a logical conclusion 😛 unlike the guy who was complaining about my post 😀

      • GIBBS v2

        Aint that the truth. I’m just happy for some NEW TREK ADVENTURES!

  • Havenbull

    I predict a Jan ’18 premier.

    • prometheus59650

      September 8, 2026.

  • RDB

    what is this now? the third promised premiere date? or the fourth?

    guessing here that DSC will *actually* debut after however long it takes CBS to get to their prescribed number of all access subscriptions.

    i want this project to succeed, but there’s only so many times they can dangle this carrot in front of the fan community before it starts getting old.

    • cyclotis

      First it was January, then May, then “undetermined”, now “late summer or early fall”.

      • Brian Thorn

        “Undetermined” wasn’t a date. It was the second delay with no new date set.

        • cyclotis

          Same difference.

          • Brian Thorn

            No, there can’t be a delay if they didn’t set a new date. This is still the second delay, not a third.

          • cyclotis

            Same difference, but who cares really. The show has been delayed and now maybe there is a final date, and maybe not (as history suggests so far).

            Hopefully it will actually show up in 2017 sometime.

  • so he thinks there have been 7 other STAR TREK series… and “some of them were terrible”… i don’t know, but as the chairman of CBS, shouldn’t he know that there have been only 6 (counting TAS)? and should he think of any of them as “terrible”? i hope he doesn’t have any say creatively when it comes to DISCOVERY.

    • Ace Stephens

      I think he was including this one in his count and just misspoke regarding that. As for thinking some are “terrible,” he’s probably going based on generalized sentiment he’s been informed about (as I imagine he’s not incredibly into Trek himself – maybe I’m wrong on that). “Oh, Enterprise is too early-2000s and is bad…” and “TAS animation is low quality.” and all this.

      I wouldn’t worry about it too much. He’s a busy guy, likely only partially aware of some things surrounding the franchise, and probably stumbles over these things from time to time.

      • TUP

        He’s clearly acknowledging public sentiment about Ent and Voy. And good on him. He’s trying to say we know we under delivered and will do better this time.

        • “public sentiment”? i love ENTERPRISE and VOYAGER, and so do countless other TREK fans. so they don’t matter then?

          • Ace Stephens

            I don’t think anyone was saying “they don’t matter then.”

            I enjoy the Alien vs. Predator films. It doesn’t mean that most hardcore fans of either franchise revere them or that when someone like Ridley Scott pans them I’m likely to take issue. Or that when random people in the general public dislike them, I take it personally.

            I get why many don’t like them, I can understand why some might think they aren’t that good in general, etc. (Admittedly, with these films, they are more a guilty pleasure than something I think is legitimately that good.) But, for those involved in the franchise, I would welcome someone who attempts to acknowledge and address these things regarding any future iterations of either franchise.

            So I think this is kind of the same thing here. And that’s part of why Moonves didn’t “name names” (although we can certainly infer based on our own awareness/preferences/whatever). I think it’s fairly well-established by now that Voyager and Enterprise have their detractors (a bit more than TOS or TNG typically do, for instance).

          • so are you saying what he meant is that he himself (personally, subjectively) doesn’t like those series?

            other than that, i can only assume that you’re saying he’s talking about some kind of “majority opinion”, which is not really a valid measure for the quality of anything.

            aside from that, i would like to see some actual study results that show that a majority of STAR TREK fans find ENTERPRISE or VOYAGER “horrible”. i think most fans enjoy those series very much, and simply do so quietly and without constantly going online and trying to convince everyone to also enjoy those series. so, what you get are a relatively small minority of “fans” who dislike ENT or VOY, and who make a lot of “noise” online about it.

            so, i would need to see some actual scientific data saying that a majority of TREK fans actually find those series “horrible”. and if that data existed, then it would still not make any of those series objectively “horrible”, because first of all there is no such thing as an “objective quality” when it comes to series or movies; and secondly, even if there were something like an “objective quality”, then the majority opinion is definitely the worst data to determine the objective quality of anything.

            and all of that means that i completely reject his statement. he is presenting no data to base his statement on, and even if some kind of majority data existed, then it would still not be an objective measure of the quality of those series.

          • Ace Stephens

            You need to see scientific data to back up a vague generalization stated for non-fans on the basis of further vague generalizations? I’m afraid you’re not following what’s going on here at all.

            “I need objective data but even then it won’t prove anything objective.” is just an absurd stage to take here regarding this subject. Troll elsewhere if you don’t understand how someone can get the impression that some Trek series aren’t held in as high of a regard as others (enough to be comparatively called “terrible”). That’s your deficiency at that rate, much like the wandering, contradictory standards you’re attempting to apply to what myself an others have said which have little relationship to what we have actually said.

            (Aside from yourself) Who said anything about an objective measure? Who said anything proved anything objective regarding vague subjective generalities about comparative vague subjective generalities ?

            You’re all messed up here in terms of logic seemingly because you’re defending a bruised ego which has no reason to be bruised. Why anyone would take some random “business-speak” about generalities of generalities within a specific framework so personally is bewildering.

            You’ve miscontextualized pretty much everything going on here.

          • since you seem to be incapable of having a civilized conversation without constantly attacking the other person, i don’t see any need to reply to anything you said.

          • Ace Stephens

            Attacking you? I’m stating what I believe are reasonable perceptions regarding potential issues with what you’re putting forward. I often see people behaving in ways which appear cynical or inaccurate or on and on regarding various subjects and I tend to point this out. So I don’t know what you’re referring to here exactly egarding “constantly attacking.” The suggestion that you’re not following and this is a deficiency in this case if so? That the standards you’re applying don’t apply in this case, to some degree perhaps even with your own standards otherwise? That your logic is messed up in that regard? You may have a bruised ego if you’re defensive enough to ignore these potential issues with what you’re putting forward? That it’s baffling you’ve taken things personally in that sense (which I guess you’re quite possibly continuing to do here – again when it’s not the case)? That you’ve miscontextualized?

            These are all in a similar or associated realm (with most being roughly restatements of the same general idea) and are things surmised from what you’ve expressed. If they are inaccurate, all you have to do is say so and outline how that is the case in a rather straight-forward manner and we can continue the conversation from there – assuming some concern on your part persists. But if they are accurate or associated – and you’re willing to admit this if so – then they might shed a light for yourself and others upon where your reasoning may be faulted in some regards and how it might be improved in order to more adequately address your concerns otherwise surrounding the subjects present here.

            Ad hominems are not something I engage in. I don’t do “attacks” except out of self-defense (and I usually try to make them at least somewhat humorous or rhetorical in those cases when I do as I am uncomfortable with aggression).

            But if someone is saying something that sounds really cynical, I will suggest that they sound cynical. If they say something that doesn’t fit the context I see, I’ll suggest that they’ve miscontextualized. Etc. If any of these is demonstrably wrong, all they need to do is spell that out and I tend to understand within a reply or two enough to move on to the next thing. That is, assuming they don’t just double-down (appearing to do the exact same thing again) while denying it or things like that which I often come across.

          • nah, your way of communicating with me here is far too much on a personal level. it’s absolutely unnecessary to even mention ME as a person in anything you say. if something i said is incorrect, you can correct it without saying anything about me. but i guess you can’t do that (which is now me making a statement about you), so i don’t think i want to have a conversation with you.

          • Ace Stephens

            I already did point out the issues with what you’re saying and many of what you might construe as “attacks” were in that very realm. The primary issue is that what you’re saying – what you’re seemingly contesting about what’s been said – it’s not based on what’s present here. Therefore, it must be about something to do with you otherwise. Which is why this became about, “You must have miscontextualized.” and “You’re applying contradictory standards…” and all that. Because, when you’re doing that, it’s necessary to point it out so you understand what the issue is. Just like when they say the show’s delayed and somebody immediately lists off a bunch of speculative or “assuming the worst from known (or guessed) information”-stuff regarding why the show will now somehow be the worst thing ever (largely due to just “because” and “I dislike some stuff”-things), it makes decent sense to say, “That seems pretty cynical.”

            So, when it seems you’ve made the issue about you (Because Moonves never cited some “independent study” about the show or anything suggesting it wasn’t his unspecific subjective take, presumably involving generalities about generalities) and – because it’s related to what is viewed as a “negative comment” – you may be doing it out of seeming defensiveness or similar, that type of stuff is also worthy of being pointed out. And it’s not an “attack.” It’s an assessment of the situation, an observation or inference based on available information regarding your behavior as seen by another.

            So then maybe you can self-reflect enough to go, “Oh yeah…” or go, “No, not really…” and then maybe reassess in order to find a way to explain what was misunderstood and present your argument in a manner more aligned with the subject present rather than yourself.

          • still talking about ME all the time… like i said, i will not have a conversation on such a personal basis.

          • Ace Stephens

            Then don’t distort the subject of the conversation by suggesting that plainly “preferential” measurements equate to some statement of objective status. As that’s obviously not the case and, if one insists it is despite all contextual evidence (not literal “solely in the statement deprived of context” evidence), that indicates some personal concern has entered the equation.

          • i am not “distorting” anything. i am making the factual claim that the statement “these series are terrible” is an absolute statement. it is very clear that he is not saying “i find those series terrible”, because he probably didn’t even watch any of them. he thinks he is stating some kind of objective absolute truth about the “quality” of those series. if you can’t see that, then it’s you who is failing to see the context of his statement.

          • Ace Stephens

            he thinks he is stating some kind of objective absolute truth about the
            “quality” of those series. if you can’t see that, then it’s you who is
            failing to see the context of his statement.

            “You’re not reading into this enough!” is subtextually what pretty much every self-involved conspiracy theorist online that I’ve encountered has said when I pointed out that their reasoning was flawed. It didn’t make them more right just because they said, “You’re ignoring the context!”-type things by suggesting that my not associating this and that with some other thing that isn’t directly applicable was a flaw with my stance.

            Them: “This political figure is trying to destroy the world!”
            Me: “What?”
            Them: “Chemtrails!”
            Me: “Where’s your evidence of?”
            Them: “Open your eyes, sheeple!”

            I’ve had conversations along these lines before (obviously longer replies…).

            I am not suggesting that you are a conspiracy theorist in these realms or have significant mental issues or similar that might sometimes be associated with such figures as a generality. But, similar to many of those instances, you’ve stripped something of its context (here due to your personal fixation on a form of grammar, thinking it relates to an objective view of the situation even though it doesn’t) while stressing your own applied one and so you want me to do so as well. And when I point toward the actual, relevant context which is immediately present, you shrug that off.

            I’m not going to misinterpret something just because you insist I should.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I’ll say it one more time. Again (please see my detailed post elsewhere on this board covering this topic), you are confusing the sloppiest, lowest form of subjectivity — the BLIND LOVE subjective opinion that some people have, with the more thoughtfully considered upper echelon of subjectivity — the INFORMED OPINION, that is predominant by many who are able to take in all the information and context and more critically evaluate the merits of these series.

            There are different degrees of subjectivity — your BLIND LOVE definition of subjective opinion just isn’t very compelling, even though it works for you, and a reasonably sized minority of Trek fans.

          • DEEP SPACE NINE
            IMDB: 7,9
            Netflix: 4 stars (out of 5)

            VOYAGER
            IMDB: 7,7
            Netflix: 4 stars (out of 5)

            ENTERPRISE
            IMDB: 7,5
            Netflix: 4 stars (out of 5)

            so, every single one of these results is between 75% and 80%. if that’s “horrible”, then clearly i’m not using the same language as Moonves is.

          • Ace Stephens

            You’re not using the same reasoning as almost any logical read of the situation would provide…apparently because you decided to take personally something which has no personal intent or ill-will. And, regarding fans, it remains the case that some series are not generally viewed in as high of a regard as others. Enough that, if one is generalizing a generality within a comparative “niche” framework, citing that some of them are “terrible” is completely fair.

            If I’m talking about the X-Men film franchise, for instance, ran sentiment (both among hardcore and caual fans) tends to be less for The Last Stand and Origins: Wolverine, with Apocalypse also being questioned. By comparison to the most commonly cited-as “great” ones (X-2, DoFP for awhile, Deadpool), those would reasonably be referred to – without naming names, as “terrible.” Within that framework.

            That doesn’t mean I think they’re terrible. Or anyone, even including a majority of others, must think they are. But my sense of them in terms of communicating a generality of a generality when compared to others (in Moonves’s case for business-associated purposes) is along those lines.

            Objectivity, IMDb, etc. don’t enter into it. And, for all I know, if you were comparing “the best” to “the worst” within it to emphasize a contextual point, you might perceive DoFP as mediocre and The Wolverine as valued within the genralirg..or you might include Logan despite its lack of a current wide release. But since nobody “named names” except those others inferred, that’s up to them to infer and convey personally if they wish.

            But here, you’re misframing what Moonves, myself and others are actually saying. Nobody is saying you can’t enjoy whatever you want, that the majority of people may not like whatever in itself, etc. And nobody needs any objective info to speak generally about generalities they’ve perceived in non-specific terms. Or to simply state their perception of what he may have been referring to within a comparative framework to emphasize his point.

            This isn’t a competition here to determine which Trek is best and it’s not a personal attack to suggest some of them aren’t perceived the same way in generalized terms regarding quality.

          • the only point i’m making is: he’s simply wrong when he says “some of them are terrible”, because that is an absolute statement. he’s saying THEY ARE TERRIBLE. and there is no valid interpretation in which that statement can be correct.

            also, learn to have a conversation without making statements about the other person.

          • Ace Stephens

            the only point i’m making is: he’s simply wrong when he says “some of them are terrible”, because that is an absolute statement.

            No, it’s not. It’s subjective. And you, for some reason, think he’s being “objective.” When that appears to be something you’ve read-into it or projected onto it or…something in that realm.

            and there is no valid interpretation in which that statement can be correct.

            There is no valid interpretation in which a clearly subjective statement should reasonably be interpreted as intending to have objective (as in “factual” and/or “across the board”) validity.

            also, learn to have a conversation without making statements about the other person.

            Learn to converse in ways that are about the subject rather than your own issues otherwise.

          • “No, it’s not. It’s subjective.”

            no, that is not correct. the statement “these series are terrible” is not a subjective statement, it’s an absolute statement, as if he were talking about an objective fact.

          • Ace Stephens

            He is stating an opinion. If I say “Ice cream is great.” that is my opinion because “great” is generally a subjective measure. If you start saying, “Where are your charts and approval ratings for ice cream then? And, even if you have them, that doesn’t mean it’s great…” then you’ve just miscontextualized things entirely (and basically contradicted yourself in an attempt to say, “I’m right no matter what!” about a subject that…is irrelevant since it was never about objective facts).

            That is, you didn’t understand to begin with that what was clearly subjective was subjective. Whether you chose to take it personally or whatever else in that range or not.

          • that is not correct. saying “ice cream is great” is making an absolute statement about ice cream. a statement that is false, because ice cream does not have one absolute quality.

            the only things you can correctly state are “i like ice cream”, “i dislike ice cream”, and similar subjective statements.

          • Ace Stephens

            I am legitimately asking this with no ill-will or negative intent – are you on the spectrum? If so, I can excuse and – to a degree – even understand this rampant inability to process circumstantial elements contributing to context. And your, instead, taking the words for a form of their literal meaning despite the context shifting the actual meaning away from that. Otherwise, I can find no conceivable reason you might continue to do this that isn’t simply because you took it personally that he said it in such a manner since you like all of Trek (or something along those lines) and so you’re fixating on taking it out of context as a result (even if unintentionally). Which means you miscontextualized it since it isn’t a personal attack or similar at all and instead is a preferential generality (regarding his views and/or his assessment of generalities regarding others’ views).

            And it’s abundantly clear as being that even if it seems some are intent to take it personally in some regard.

          • again: stop talking about me on a personal level and address the argument that people are presenting, not the people themselves.

          • Ace Stephens

            So you have no excuse then? Okay.

            I have addressed your argument. You haven’t addressed mine. At all.

            “The context is informal and he doesn’t name names and it’s a value judgment so it’s clearly preferential and therefore not objective.”
            “But it’s an absolute statement!”
            “With a context which makes it not that.”
            “But it is that!”
            “You’re taking it out of context and too literally.”
            “Stop these personal attacks!”
            “That’s not one. That’s an observation.”
            “If you can’t have a civilized conversation…”

            You’re not very good at having one yourself. Or else you might actually address these things, allowing some resolution or meaningful continuation rather than making matters personal which aren’t. They’re actually me trying to help you understand my point.

            For instance, if you have Asperger’s and behave this way, I can understand that. We can shift the way we’re addressing the subject or you can acknowledge that concern if you’re comfortable doing so and say you still don’t see the relevance of these contextual things I point out. And maybe you can say how and I can try to help explain it further there. But if you’re just busy being caught up on taking things personally that aren’t personal and taking things literally that aren’t literal and all this due to distaste for these comments…

            That’s about you for no good reason.

          • Jack Watkins

            Okay, few things:

            1) Ice cream is great. Lactose intolerant people are mutants that have no say in the matter.

            2) Perhaps one should leave Asperger’s diagnoses to those with PhD or MD after their names.

            3) Les Moonves isn’t known as the most enthusiastic proponent of Star Trek; take what he says with a grain of salt.

            4) Let’s channel good ol’ Rodney King and just get along.

          • Ace Stephens

            1. Agreed.
            2. I wasn’t diagnosing. I was asking if he had been diagnosed as some people on the spectrum display issues in a similar realm. It was done out of concern that the misunderstanding was through no fault of his own and belaboring the point as though he held personal responsibility was unfair to him if something in that range was the case. And so, if it was and something like this was acknowledged, we could hopefully find a differing way of addressing the same subject which might allow us to better understand each other.
            3. I know.
            4. I want to get along but, within an issue regarding understanding such as this one, that can only happen when a dialogue occurs. Which, in this case, would require anyone miscontextualizing matters acknowledging that they’re doing so if they can manage. I don’t feel I have done so (or, at least, any degree to which I have hasn’t been made clear to me) so I’m unlikely to do that. Whereas I felt I was making how Brightgeist had pretty clear.

            But my suggestions regarding what might be causing Brightgeist to miscontextualize matters are constantly misconstrued as “attacks” or similar rather than surmised possibilities put forward in an attempt to assist understanding.

          • TUP

            Brightgeist is correct ofcourse. In fact Im going to spend all day today watching season 5 of Enterprise. And then the Voyager movie. Because they were so successful.

            Then Im going to watch Brightgeist’s other favourite TV show, Emily’s Reasons Why Not, which was subjectively a fantastic series.

          • straw-man. i never said they were “successful”. what i’m saying is that Moonves’ statement that some of them are “terrible” isn’t correct, because there is no absolute quality to a series or a movie.

          • TUP

            Which is an anal, obtuse argument made for the sake of arguing because the idea that someone doesnt like your beloved series bruises your ego.

            That or you completely missed the point.

          • i have no problem with someone disliking something i like (or vice versa). the problem is that he made an absolute statement saying “they are terrible”. he didn’t say “i don’t like them”.

          • Ace Stephens

            See, here you’re correct in the assertion that it’s a technical argument (an argument based upon a technicality due to reducing the context beyond the amount which it is reasonable to reduce it to). In this case, missing the forest for the tree.

          • James

            Maybe Moonves cares about the ratings, which were terrible for Ent.

          • Charles Baxter

            Enterprise was NOT the same quality as DS9 by a long shot

          • how do you measure that “quality” you’re talking about?

          • Ace Stephens

            By his personal preference he’s pointing out, it would seem.

          • sounds to me like he’s talking about some kind of “objective quality”, which obviously doesn’t exist.

          • Ace Stephens

            Because you refuse to accept that he is an individual stating a personal assessment which is clear as-such by virtue of him having stated it informally and it relating to a value judgment (“quality” – of apparently indeterminate or undisclosed factors and therefore) outside the objectively measurable?

          • i accept that he is making a personal assessment. but his personal assessment is incorrect. his personal assessment is that those series “are terrible”. but those series do not have one absolute quality. his claim is that they do have one absolute quality, namely “terrible”. that claim is incorrect.

          • Ace Stephens

            That claim is not incorrect because it is clearly contextualized as a personal assessment regarding what are likely preferential (and, at the very least, currently undefined) elements here referred to as “quality.”

            Note, you said it sounded like he was talking about some kind of “objective quality” when he never used that term. That’s because you’re making this about you (the filter you – erroneously in some cases – apply) rather than what was actually said in-context.

          • no, his claim is clearly contextualized as a claim about some kind of “objective quality” that those series possess.

          • Ace Stephens

            It is not. You are stripping it of its context. I have proposed various associated rationales as to why you might be doing this – so that maybe you could recognize that and reassess – but you always construe them as “attacks” or similar.

            I have also stressed what the context is, regarding the preferential elements of his wording, the informal nature of the dialogue within the venue, etc.

          • the only one here making everything about ME is you.

          • Ace Stephens

            No. When someone applies an erroneous filter to twist a context, that’s about them.

            And that’s what you did from the start here in thinking clearly preferential vague generalities were intended as some specific objective notion.

          • perhaps this can help you understand it (although i’m beginning to doubt that anything can):

            i usually wear medium (M) sized t-shirts, because they fit me. now, if i were to put on an XL sized t-shirt, and then i made the claim:

            “this t-shirt is wide”

            then that would be a false claim. because the t-shirt itself does not have the quality “wide”. if someone larger puts on that t-shirt, it would fit them perfectly. if someone even larger puts it on, it would be too tight.

            so, the absolute claim “this t-shirt is wide” cannot be true, no matter who says it. because when an absolute claim is made, it has to be true no matter who says it.

            therefore, the only thing i could truthfully say is “this t-shirt is too wide for me”.

            and that is analogous to saying “i like this series” or “i dislike this series”.

            saying “this series is terrible” is analogous to saying “this t-shirt is wide”.

          • Ace Stephens

            But a shirt’s size and an individual’s size can be measured in an objective manner. So this is not the same thing to begin with.

            And when someone says “This shirt is wide.” there is an implicit “I think” there since it is a statement made in relation to a context (in this case, the shirt’s placement/fit on them so any truly objective assessment of the situation notes this). It’s like saying, “Going to the store.” on your way out the door. The subject is you. You don’t have to tell me that part for it to still make relative sense.

            So for you to say something like “Ah, but that’s not a fact because I am not going to the store.” or “But not everyone is going to the store.” or things like this completely misses the point by miscontextualizing what has been said, taking it as some literal, overarching thing it was never presented as. It was always presented in relation to one individual’s interpretation rather than as some attempt at objectivity.

          • “But a shirt’s size and an individual’s size can be measured in an objective manner. So this is not the same thing to begin with.”

            i never said it’s “the same thing”. it was an analogy. are you one of those people you cannot process analogies? then disregard the analogy.

          • Ace Stephens

            I can process analogies rather well (“But OMG, WHY DID YOU JUST ATTACK ME?!”). But noting that quantities being stated and qualities being stated distinguish the objective from the subjective in terms of wordings presented…is pretty important in terms of a distinction here. As it’s one you seem to miss a lot when trying to stuff value judgments or similar into “objective” frameworks they don’t fit in because they were never intended to (or contextually expressed in a manner allowing them to be).

          • everything you claim is based on some “context”, which you make up to fit your claims. there is no talking to someone like you.

          • Ace Stephens

            It’s not “made up to fit my claims.” When someone states something regarding quality which cannot be objectively measured they are stating something preferential (i.e. “subjective”). When they do so in an environment wherein their manner of speaking is informal, it further stresses that they are likely not speaking in terms of fact (or beholden to narrow grammatical views). When it’s about a subject upon which they might easily be generalizing due to the generalities of others, that further indicates it’s probably not intended as being viewed as “objective.” Etc.

          • StuUK

            A fair point… To be honest it does push my buttons the manner in which some fans of Trek (apparently) post on this website comments that demote, downgrade and even condemn entire chapters of the franchise simply because they couldn’t find the love for them.

            Far be it for me to mute the vocal from venting their distaste for a Trek show (or two) but at the risk of coming across as patronising… Really people, you’ve got to learn to present your cases better.
            To say that “the show should be this… The show should be that… “The fans want this… they definitely don’t want that… Enterprise was abysmal… Voyager was crap… Rick Berman was a shocking producer… Those JJ Trek films were all bad…” – Sweeping generalised statements, carrying zero objectivity, absolutely dripping in arrogance and presumption and subjective language and you’ll have the fans of Enterprise, Voyager, Rick Berman and JJ-Trek movies saying: “Well I like them, they were my favourites, you’re flat wrong, you don’t know me or have the admin access to know what it is I like about the show!”

            Simply pre-fixing your comments with “I think this… I think that…”, paint it with a little justification and boom, you actually end up making a point that people will appreciate.
            Goes for those fans who are totally loved up about Trek as well.

          • very well said.

            i have made it a habit for many years to never say “this movie is great” or “this series is bad”. simply because i understood at some point that i cannot truthfully make such an absolute statement. i have yet to find a movie or a series that no-one likes or no-one dislikes. if i ever find one, i might be tempted to call it a “bad” or a “good” movie/series. but as long as one person likes it or dislikes it, there is no-one in the world who has the authority to tell that one person that he/she is wrong.

            it’s simply arrogant and frankly degrading to tell someone “what you like is actually bad”. basically you’d be telling that person that they have horrible taste. which is ridiculous, because after all it IS a matter of personal taste or preferences. and just because you’re in the majority, that doesn’t give you the right to degrade people who are in the minority. it’s pretty much a question of basic tolerance. i don’t personally want to kiss a man, but that doesn’t mean that i go around telling people “being gay is gross”. i would simply say that it’s not what i want to do. just because gays may be in the minority, that doesn’t mean they’re wrong. if there was only one homosexual person in the world, his/her personal preference would still be as valid as the heterosexual preference of the other 7 billion people. and i think we should use the same kind of thinking when it comes to movies and series. there is no “good” or “bad” when it comes to quality.

            the only exception to this is when we’re talking about the values that a movie or series conveys to the audience. if it’s a movie that was made by racists and conveys racist values, then it’s a bad movie in that sense. and if it’s a series like STAR TREK that conveys secular humanist values of tolerance and cooperation and peace, then it’s a good series.

          • StuUK

            I’m probably guilty of using the “this is a GREAT movie” line once or twice but I would almost certainly be inclined to back up such an announcement with a few lines to qualify what it was that I liked about it.

            The context of a discussion is important of course; if a consensus of individuals agree that The Matrix trilogy is a great trilogy, statements to which I might agree, then I think I could get away with a short sharp line like “These are great movies” and leave it at that as I’m not breaking the consensus, bland though such a discussion would be.
            But If I pounced in with, “Nah, it’s a bit overrated,” my values, courtesy, taste, pride would almost certainly demand that I qualify that cat with “IN MY OPINION its problem are its sequels as the bulk of the clever story telling is in the first one!”* – My choice takes nothing away from the consensus so regardless of whether they agreed with me or not it’s likely we’ll still get along afterwards.

            Star Trek Deep Space Nine: Obviously there are fans who cite it as the “Best Star Trek of them all…” Why’s that then? The acting?? The production??? The serialised storytelling???? The Dominion War Arc????? (all of the above?) – I’ve discussed DS9 with fans of the franchise and science fiction in general; plenty would say that those are indeed the reasons to watch the show BUT… There are also a few who say that’s exactly why they stopped watching it! – Who’s ultimately right?

            *I adore the Matrix trilogy by the way! I can watch them over and over!! 🙂

          • exactly 🙂 no-one is “ultimately right” when it comes to movies and series, because there simply is no “right” or “wrong” in regard to what people like or dislike (as long as what they like doesn’t harm others, of course). and i feel the same about the MATRIX TRILOGY, btw 🙂

          • Ace Stephens

            Your take here is so utterly distorted

            If someone says something “sucks,” or is “bad,” they are in no way telling someone who likes it that they are wrong because a subjective view expressed is not taking an objective stance.

            As for only one individual being homosexual, that doesn’t make everyone else heterosexual. There are other sexuality because that’s a false dichotomy.

            And as for a movie made by racists conveying racist values, both times there “racist” is presumably your interpretation…so when you say it’s a “bad movie in that sense,” you’re suggesting that a prevailing social attitude shapes the objective moral value designation of a given thing. Which is absurd. And the same for saying something secular/humanist is good.

            There are things with positive messages (as far as some view them) out there that are garbage in terms of quality as far as many, many people are concerned. And things with negative messages

          • Ace Stephens

            While your statements hold validity in some cases, I find your assertions here to be somewhat odd as most of the people I’ve seen pointing toward how Moonves was likely referencing Enterprise or similar (perhaps “with good reason”) didn’t indicate anything regarding distaste for the show. I find a lot of people make this mistake. For instance, I mention that there were concerns with Enterprise’s quality and people think I didn’t like the show or that I had those concerns. And then stress to me that I should preface what I’m saying with the notion that those are my opinions (when they’re not).

            I get accused of being a fan/proponent or hater/detractor of various things all the time based less on what I’ve said and more on what people have inferred due to my questioning their inconsistent reasoning.

            So I find your noting this concern here rather odd and thought your comment veered a bit into that (possibly mistaken) realm given its mention here, since – while you’re right that numerous fans do present loving/condemning views as though they’re fact – most of those I’ve seen discussing what Moonves might have been referring to are inferring on the basis of their own understanding of the series/fans regarding what Moonves may mean…rather than expressly saying, “This is fact,”-type things or similar surrounding their own point of view.

          • StuUK

            My point wasn’t necessarily to jump on the bandwagon with respect to how genuine or accurate I thought Moonves was being regarding the content (in part or in full) of his statement; I saw something in Brightgeist’s analogy that struck a chord with me, that’s all.

            I didn’t explicitly quantify my assertion by saying “Some are/most are/everyone is guilty of a lack of objectivity in favour of the placement of subjective statements” – But the behaviour is very present on the comments section of countless news items on Trek Core; I see occurrences of it frequently.

            My foot on the bandwagon: It’s not surprising that Moonve’s
            all too brief line about “some of Star Trek being good and some of it
            being terrible” has drawn the focus of the discussion, particularly the
            question of what he might actually have meant when he used the word
            ‘terrible’… I say not surprising because he didn’t expand on that line at all and thus robbed the line of any real substance or context; so some fans have attempted to offer the line some: Wait for it… wait… and here comes “…He probably means Enterprise” [presumptuous speculation].
            Oh does he really and why would you say that?
            “Because Enterprise was just awful!” [subjective opinion].
            Sift through the posts again, the sentiment is there. Odd for me to place spotlight on it? – Sure, if you like.

            If you present to the community a line like: “There were concerns regarding the quality of Enterprise…” and there remains enough room for the community to make assumptions on what it is you actually mean then I submit that you haven’t been explicit enough in your statement. Likewise in the pursuit of accuracy and understanding, it couldn’t hurt for the community to at least ask you specifically what those concerns are and quiz you on who the concerned party actually is. If people leave the discussion with the impression that you didn’t like the show when you haven’t actually said the words: “I hate the show,” then that’s a blatant mistake on their part, pure and simple.

            If when playing in subjective territories on any topic (not just at Trek Core, but the entire forum interest on the internet at large now), I fail to appreciate why so many people find it difficult to make plain that that’s what they’re doing; that what they write is all based on their own opinions, their own personal tastes, their own sense of aesthetics. In this context they may have a consensus backing them up, they might not; it ultimately wouldn’t matter as their statements are formed out of singular points of view at the end of the day. It’s easy to agree or disagree with an opinion as it’s no big deal, although if understanding and a healthy debate is in your interest it never hurts to drop in a line or two of justification of your own point of view on the same subjective topic.
            But I do find the pushing of opinion as though it were fact pretty tiresome; I have to choke down vomit every time I read Xandercom tear down a news item on Star Trek Discovery (a show that he knows very little about) and banging on about “What fans want” like he’s taken a fricken survey!

          • Ace Stephens

            I saw something in Brightgeist’s analogy that struck a chord with me, that’s all.

            I can accept that.

            I say not surprising because he didn’t expand on that line at all and thus robbed the line of any real substance or context

            That’s completely intentional. It’s a comparative generality put forward in vague terms for business purposes in order to emphasize that the show will be successful no matter what but he wants it to actually be good too.

            Plus, imagine if he trashed Enterprise openly, by name. Suddenly if someone maybe had a chance to come back and work on more Trek or something else, they might say, “Nah, not with Moonves.” due to that.

            “…He probably means Enterprise” [presumptuous speculation].
            Oh does he really and why would you say that?
            “Because Enterprise was just awful!” [subjective opinion].

            …Or, because, you know, he canceled it and they also don’t like it (or heard some don’t) in some cases.

            I submit that you haven’t been explicit enough in your statement.

            Yes, one has as if one is solely noting that concerns were raised about Enterprise (enough to point out by-comparison in their experience), one isn’t providing their opinion. They had no reason to. They’re providing their analysis of the situation and those concerns relate to potential perceptions regarding “terrible.”

            I fail to appreciate why so many people find it difficult to make plain that that’s what they’re doing; that what they write is all based on their own opinions, their own personal tastes, their own sense of aesthetics.

            When someone states something in varying contexts regarding value judgments, it’s already clear that it’s their view – because they stated it. Why should they “make it plain” beyond that? “That’s stupid.” OH! You mean objectively? Unless the person’s a complete ass, of course not! Since nearly any gauge of “stupid” is relative.

            But I do find the pushing of opinion as though it were fact pretty tiresome

            It is – but there’s a huge difference between that level of self-involvement and what Brightgeist puts forward as though it’s what Moonves did by speaking an “absolute statement.” As though “terrible” isn’t intrinsically relative/subjective.

            As far as…the cynicism displayed toward Discovery…I’ve also seen the poster you mention saying such things…and that’s different to what Moonves did. Which is why, when coupled with some here who go “Enterprise?” on basis of his canceling it and their having heard some fans talking about their distaste for it (perhaps in numbers more than they, personally, saw others do so)…when that’s what Brightgeist speaks out against (Moonves and them)…I don’t think that’s the same thing.

            But, since you say it just struck a chord, I understand why you brought it up as an associated concern regardless.

          • StuUK

            They should make it more plain if they know full well that their remarks lend themselves to being easily misinterpreted by others. “That’s stupid” might be just fine in the midst of a consensus but it’s likely to piss off others if the context is one of division.

            Visit any forum, any news site where there’s a user comments section. Sift through the user comments on YouTube and BBC News and it’s abundantly clear. If you are misinterpreted because you couldn’t be arsed to contribute more than a half dozen words to your remark to reinforce the context of what you mean, to justify your position, to at least make the effort to limit the misunderstanding, the probability of a flamewar will increase; you will be descended upon by the outraged and the vocal about how wrong and out of order you are.

            Your own example in which you said you were being interpreted as a ‘hater’ merely because you mentioned that there were “concerns regarding Enterprise,” is typical of behaviour on the internet; benefit of the doubt appears all but lost.

            Moonves’s remark about ‘terrible’ Star Trek found itself under the microscope by the community because he didn’t elaborate on what the hell he meant; assuming he never intended to invite division between the fans, it was a mistake for him to apply that word to this franchise without clarification.

          • Ace Stephens

            “That’s stupid” might be just fine in the midst of a consensus of people
            who all agree that “that’s stupid” but it’s likely to piss off others…

            In which case, who cares? People who can’t handle the opinions of others can feel free to walk around upset all the time. They shouldn’t be catered to.

            If you are misinterpreted because you couldn’t be arsed to contribute
            more than a half dozen words to your remark to reinforce the context of
            what you mean, to justify your position, to at least make the effort to
            limit the misunderstanding, the probability of a flamewar will increase;
            you will be descended upon by the outraged and the vocal about how
            wrong and out of order you are.

            Personally, I have found that the opposite is the case. People get mad at me for “talking too much” and talk about how I “must have too much free time” or I should “go back and check my thesaurus again to find another word to try to prove how smart I am.” Basically a bunch of assertions intended as insults in order to suggest that I’m too wordy/verbose.

            But when it’s just, “This sucks.” and then “No, it doesn’t. YOU suck!”-type stuff (which is what places like YouTube seem full of)? Those are immature people (that is, people who often behave in an immature manner) in most cases anyway. People who can’t handle differing opinions. If the statements made here are any indication, perhaps some are people who can’t understand what a differing opinion is because they don’t realize that relative or subjective terms being used generally makes the stated view those things.

            Assuming he never intended to invite division between the
            fans, it was a mistake for him to apply that word to this franchise
            without clarification; he probably should have kept that remark to
            himself.

            I disagree. I think people need to learn to behave in a more mature, composed manner rather than overreacting or needlessly reading into things in order to behave self-righteously. Him saying what he said? Fine. That’s his generalized view for his purposes there. Saying, “He probably meant Enterprise.”? Fine. Defensively demanding to know what makes someone think that? …Ridiculous.

            We have far too many people wandering around these days who don’t apply critical thinking in order to discern context. Instead, they just apply whatever context they assume (“He HAD TO have meant Enterprise…” and/or “He thinks it’s fact!”) and ignore reason entirely.

            It’s just a vague generalization of a generalization to sort of stress the show will be successful but he wants it to be good as well. But fans read into it. As soon as I read it, I went, “Oh no. Fans won’t understand.” Because fans like to pick apart minutiae in a lot of cases and this can lead to thinking which misses the overall point due to getting caught up on the specifics within it.

          • StuUK

            “In which case, who cares?”
            To have differing opinions, of course you shouldn’t lose any sleep over those who become agitated by them; I myself advocate the right to be offended, but seldom do I invite offence.
            But if the offence was actually born through misunderstanding, a result that might have been avoided had you offered a little more information (and yes had ‘they’ asked for a little more); would you still call that level of consideration pandering?

            From one verbose poster to another: Having entertained discussions with you before on topics that have in some ways scooped the deep and existential, I will dare suggest that your posts are a little laboured by your choices of vocabulary; your style doesn’t lend itself very well for general forum usage. I don’t think of myself as intellectually fragile but sometimes I have to take you one line at a time to actually score the gist of what it is you are trying to convey and… I don’t always succeed! Sure there might be an intellect gap but that’s besides the point; the point is that I kinda get how there are people out on the forum landscape that are of the opinion that you write lots but convey little.

            Critical thinking and mature attitudes. You know I agree, EVERYBODY should apply critical thinking and a mature attitude to… well everything! – But you know that’s an idealistic expectation; it’s far too easy to be the exact opposite and it’s that side of the broad spectrum of human behaviour and intellect that dominates the internet today. That’s why in a public discussion on any topic I’d say that it is advisable to strive to be as crystal clear as your skills allow on what it is you mean and limit your words potential for misunderstanding, assuming the maintenance of civility and a harmony of participation on these forums is even in your interest. I’d link that it is in mine.

          • Ace Stephens

            No more information was necessary to convey his point here though. He wants them to know it’s a money-maker regardless but will be good so likely make more. It’s business speak that fans are in a “personal” speak realm regarding their interpretation. It does his product/goals no harm to put forward that some variations (of relatively “many”) have been comparatively perceived as “terrible” without specifying.

            So fans being upset or misunderstanding here because they want more or less is basically on them for ignoring why he was there. Context.

            As for difficulty reading my comments, I understand as I do circular thinking (not “circular reasoning”) a lot which requires constant reframing, causing forms of statements to appear (and, in many cases, be) repetitive.

            I used to be very direct in my communication (despite my thinking still being circular) and was constantly misinterpreted as a result. So I began “over-explaining” by showing most of my thought process, repeating context each time I elaborate upon the fundamental ideas I’m trying to convey, and many (some might argue “more”) people still misunderstand or misinterpret. Only now instead of saying I’m too blunt, they say I’m too wordy and long-winded. Used to be “You’re a jerk!” (even though I was rarely intended to “insult” or similar) and now it’s “You’re a pompous windbag!”

            As a result, despite attempting to be reasonable and pragmatic in conversation, I have found that most who engage me online don’t want a conversation – they want an argument (this hasn’t changed how I approach people, although I usually just upvote if I have nothing to add, leading to many of my comments arising from disagreement or adding a point in an attempt to clarify/assist…and, of course, some mistake the latter for the former). I feel the fairly blatant miscontextualization of Moonves’ comments in order to be defensive (what I would argue is “self-involved as fans”) basically coincides with this interpretation.

            It isn’t very considerate of context and therefore lacks a level of compassion regarding the point intended to be conveyed. Why? Because “I LIKE STAR TREK!” Most of us do but I don’t see that as any reason to strip his comments of context while acting like he’s the one being “rude” in his approach.

            Again I stress that he’s just stating a vague generality that helps him make his point and, within a comparative framework (which, sure, may not be expressly fair in itself but is how investors and many “business people” tend to look at things), holds validity.

          • StuUK

            A little insight in to what makes Ace tick there… Thanks for sharing! 🙂

            I too have been told in the past that I have a tendency to repeat a point a number of times; occasionally I even catch myself doing it, as though I’m rehearsing different ways of saying the same thing. I can only guess that it’s all in the pursuit of accuracy in what I’m trying to say and hopefully the achievement of better presenting my points of view. I get the sense that some interpret it as an attempt at being patronising however; the mother-in-law for example thinks I’m right up my own arse and is someone I find impossible to talk to outside of the most basic and mundane topics.

            I write… Then revise. Then tidy up. Then revise. Then delete and re-write… I can spend waaay too much time on this stuff, but again it’s only because I want to be understood.
            And I do wince sometimes at the length of some of my posts; I can knock out 50 lines on a topic, hit Post and be left wondering, is anybody really likely to read any of this stuff? (haha!!).

            I don’t get much shit from others online it has to be said although it surprises me how easily I can be baited in to being say flippant, (gulp) dismissive… Disrespectful? – Sure if the right dick head comes along. I’m not proud of that but I’ve never met anyone who takes well to being mugged off.

          • Ace Stephens

            I get the sense that some interpret it as an attempt at being patronising however, in fact the wife has said as much.

            Yup. This is exactly what happens for me, too. And then I try to cut back on constantly reframing or restating – hoping the context is clear regardless – or change the manner of expression for the party in question…and they wind up getting even more mad because, as I indicated before, I’m “too blunt” or whatever. Maybe I need to find a good middle ground but it’s basically been impossible for years and years now.

            I can spend waaay too much time on this stuff, but again it’s only because I want to be understood.

            That’s what I’m seeking, too. Understanding. I’ve written extremely long posts off-and-on over the course of an hour or two while doing other stuff and don’t realize it’s like ten big paragraphs until people are telling me it’s “tl;dr” or I have no life. And I didn’t even realize it was that long. And I get confused when they’re upset that they might be expected to read it…or they don’t realize that they can just read the first paragraph and get a general idea, the first sentence of each paragraph and get CliffsNotes, etc. You know, the way most things work if not strictly conversational and instead debating a stance. Make your point, clarify your point and emphasize your point. “I don’t need an essay.” Okay then…read the first paragraph to get my point and then ignore the supporting evidence and/or structure but don’t be surprised when I already addressed your concern/counterpoint.

            I don’t get much shit from others online it has to be said although it
            surprises me how easily I can be baited in to being say flippant, (gulp)
            dismissive… Disrespectful? – Sure if the right dick head comes along.
            I’m not proud of that but I’ve never met anyone who takes well to being
            mugged off.

            I’m roughly the same. Although I find that I might be more prone to saying, “Why do you think this? Is it some issue/concern like that?” and people take it as an insult when I meant it as the question presented. Maybe that’s worse? “You actually think I’m a fan of the Transformers movies?! If you’re just going to attack and insult me, I’m done here.” But sometimes people push me enough and I start to make rhetorical points in response which basically spin around what they just said, typically as a means of exposing the issue with their thinking on a personal level beyond just the immediate topic – but I am uncomfortable with aggression so I generally don’t do “attacks.”

          • Rass

            Yes, public sentiment. Both of those shows were widely ripped apart by fans. You may love them, and that’s fine. Hell, so do I. But yes, public sentiment was that the shows weren’t very good.

          • “widely ripped apart by fans”

            what an absolutely wishy-washy claim. i could just as well say they were “widely praised by fans”, and that would be equally true. go into any large STAR TREK group on facebook and ask around, and you will find thousands of fans who love those series. it’s subjective. and that’s why his absolute statement “they were terrible” is false. they are not objectively “terrible”. some people like them, other people don’t.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yea, that’s not debatable. Just go back and look at fanzines and online posts (AOL, etc) from that era. It is what it is.

          • TUP

            Using common sense, if Enterprise was not very good but some fans loved it, those fans will love a better series even more. If a certain segment of the fandom love a poor series and as a result, wont love a better series, then no, they dont matter.

            But logic tells us that if you make a better series, those fans will love it. You’re not trying to service the smaller audience that loved even bad Trek. You’re trying to serve the larger audience that loves good Trek.

          • there is no “good” or “bad” or “better”. it’s all subjective. there are lots of fans who love VOYAGER the most of all the TREK series. there are lots of fans who love DS9 the most. lots of fans who love TNG the most. and lots of fans who love TOS the most. it’s all subjective.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Again (please see my detailed post above on this topic), you are confusing the sloppiest, lowest form of subjectivity — the BLIND LOVE subjective opinion that some people have, with the more thoughtfully considered upper echelon of subjectivity — the INFORMED OPINION, that is predominant by many who are able to take in all the information and more critically evaluate the merits of these series.

          • you’re the one who is clearly very confused about certain things. the enjoyment of a series or a movie doesn’t require an analysis of the filmmaking techniques involved. in fact, it SHOULDN’T. the regular viewer should just sit there and get told an audiovisual story. viewers who sit there and try to analyze the quality of the make-up and the direction and the camera work and the visual effects, in order to come to a conclusion about how “good” the thing is they’re watching, are missing the point completely.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yep, that’s BLIND LOVE — the lowest form of subjective opinion.

        • Locutus

          I read it more as saying, “some of the shows were terrible, and fans still watch them on Netflix streaming.” I think he’s arguing Discovery is a sure bet in streaming no matter how “terrible” it is. Not that he wants it to be terrible, but he is reassuring investors that Trek is a sure thing, not fans that it will be good.

      • pittrek

        He killed ENT

        • Ace Stephens

          I know and I’m not very pleased about that. I’m one of those who feels the fourth season finally found its groove as a show and at least one more could have allowed more appreciative sentiment from fans at large.

          But I don’t want to misjudge him due to personal concerns.

        • Charles Baxter

          No, piss poor rating killed Enterprise. Even TAS had better ratings.

          • pittrek

            Nope. He personally pulled the plug on Enterprise. The show didn’t have “piss poor rating”. For example Enterprise had much better ratings than the rebooted Battlestar Galactica, which was considered a hit.

    • Charles Baxter

      Actually his job is to run CBS, not be the person with all of the answers.

      With that said HIS staff should have caught the error He has to focus on every show on CBS every day.

  • prometheus59650

    Sick of the endless delays and the drama.

    I’m out.

    Have fun. Hope it’s good.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. 😉

      • prometheus59650

        I won’t.

        I just have a life, contrary to nerd stereotypes.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Which explains why you have about 7000 posts on internet sites.

          • prometheus59650

            Yup, which means I don’t have time to spend on television too wrapped up in its own drama to ever bother appearing.

            In any event, I do not, in any way, shape, or form have to justify where I spend my time or how I value it to you.

            Enough now.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Hey, it wasn’t me essentially labeling many of us here as “nerd stereotypes” who don’t “have a life.”

            Conceivably, I could go on a political site, and say “you are alll losers who are wasting your time on these never ending debates because 99% of you are intransigent given your own positions,” but I don’t see a need for me to go be rude to people who are free to spend their time on something they are interested in, even though I personally see it as a complete waste of time.

          • prometheus59650

            I was speaking only of myself and my own nerd-dom. If you inferred that I was saying something about you or anyone else, that’s, again, your inference.

            And, strictly speaking, ego-reinforcement is the only reason any comment section, on any topic, anywhere, exists.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            OK, no problem, dude. Truce!

    • TNG had a troubled start and that was a DISASTER.

      • Ace Stephens

        I hated every second of it every single time I watched it. Over and over again.

      • prometheus59650

        It got better, and had good episodes, but, by all rights it never should have seen a second season and should have bowed out on season 6.

        And it certainly hasn’t aged well.

  • Vger64

    omg… This Mr. Moonves is not up on his Trek

  • The Science Fiction Oracle

    “…some of them were great,”

    Yep — TOS and DS9

    “… some of them were terrible.”

    Yep — Voyager and Enterprise.

    Well said, Mr. Moonves.

    • it’s all subjective anyway… no series or movie is “great” or “terrible”… you either like it or you don’t.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        You obviously never saw “Highlander 2 The Quickening” then.

        😉

        • haha, i’ve seen it at least 5 times 😀 it’s probably the movie that i personally subjectively hate the most of all the movies i have ever seen, but somehow i have to watch it now and then, i get some kind of kick out of it 😀 but i’m sure there are people out there who like it 😉

          • TUP

            I don’t have a problem with him being honest. He’s plainly saying they realize they under delivered in the past and want to fix those mistakes. Maybe they will. Maybe they won’t.

            But if he came out and sing the praises of every series then I’d question his judgement.

          • but “they under delivered” is not an objective assessment, it’s highly subjective. i personally love every single one of the 6 existing series, and i know there are countless TREK fans who feel the same way. it’s all subjective.

          • TUP

            To be honest, its not that subjective. If you apply common sense to the equation.

            I love Star Trek. But Im able to look at Voyager and Enterprise and see that they just werent as good…not nearly as good as TOS, DS9, TNG. Does that make them terrible? Not really. That aspect is subjective.

            But I think Moonves’ motivation here is clear. He’s saying Discovery will be better than their last couple of efforts.

          • “Im able to look at Voyager and Enterprise and see that they just werent as good”

            that is your personal subjective opinion though. i know lots of fans whose favorite series is VOYAGER or ENTERPRISE. it’s all subjective.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            brightgeist, maybe if you post 50 more times on this, through your sheer force of quantity over substance, Enterprise and Voyager will all of a sudden seem less boring as compared to reading post #78 from you giving them a free pass through the cop-out subjectivity “excuse”. So you win in the end, and those shows are suddenly great!

            LOL

          • TUP

            If 1 person liked something and 1 million didnt, this guy would argue that saying it wasnt good is subjective. Cant engage in a reasonable discussion with someone that anal and arrogant who keeps missing the point.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yep

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yep. It’s ludicrous to try to claim that Voyager and Enterprise were “great Star Trek.” Yea, people can claim the “get out of jail free card” with the subjectivity excuse they want, but at the end of the day, 90% of us are able to apply personal “bullshit filters” and pretty conclusively agree on relative comparisons between quality of star trek series.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “i personally love every single one of the 6 existing series, and i know there are countless TREK fans who feel the same way. it’s all subjective.”

            You are confusing “blind love” with “informed opinion,”

            BLIND LOVE:

            “The love-is-blind bias describes the tendency to perceive what we love in an extra-positive, but also less realistic, light. These so-called “positive illusions” were first specifically analyzed by psychologists Shelley Taylor and Johnathon Brown in 1988.”

            INFORMED OPINION

            “What is the value of an opinion? In a world devoid of absolute certainty, everyone’s beliefs have at least a miniscule possibility of being true. While I do not accept that any beliefs are absolutely true or absolutely false, some opinions have more validity — that is, more probability of being correct — than others. These are the informed opinions: those based on observation, rational consideration, and knowledge of the relevant background material.”

            Both of the above are subjective, but the INFORMED OPINION carries a lot more weight, and is considered a much more truthful conveyance of accuracy in thought than the BLIND LOVE subjective opinion.

          • you are confusing your opinion with facts. i don’t “blind love” anything. when i watch any STAR TREK series, the secular humanist values presented make me very happy, because they match my own values. there is nothing “blind” about that. i observe the values presented in the series, and i realize that they are good, non-violent values of reason, cooperation and peace, and it makes me happy that one of the two greatest science fiction series ever conveys these values to the audience. so my appreciation couldn’t be less “blind”.

          • Ace Stephens

            You praise it because it aligns with your values rather than because of its varying qualities across the board (which you seem to mistake with your values, to an extent)? So if someone watches a series and that series aligns with their values (which may relate to hyper-aggression, over-emotionality, needlessly causing conflict – a bit like you do here by ignoring reason as it suits the limitations of your contextual consideration…etc.), no matter what those values might be, that’s just as valid in terms of determining the given quality on their part, right? And it’s just as good that they go all-in on it, right? Because it matches their values so it must all be great! Even if those values oppose everything you value about this property.

            That sounds pretty near to blind love as far as I can tell (if not just massive self-involvement). But, beyond that, it sounds to me like you’re less a fan of discerning appreciation and more a fan of propaganda.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yea, that’s BLIND LOVE for sure. The fact that he is blind to his myopic uncontrolled love of every episode of every Trek series is exactly how someone with BLIND LOVE would behave.

            “i personally love every single one of the 6 existing series, and i know there are countless TREK fans who feel the same way. it’s all subjective.”

            He can’t even realize he’s hopefully reduced to having nothing critical to say on any Trek series…he’s BLIND to it!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “i don’t “blind love” anything”

            You yourself said:

            “i personally love every single one of the 6 existing series, and i know there are countless TREK fans who feel the same way. it’s all subjective.”

            This is the textbook definition of BLIND LOVE.

            Now, do people who exhibit BLIND LOVE think that their love is blind? Of course they don’t. That’s one of the reasons it’s called “BLIND” — because they themselves can’t see it. So of course you are defensive now coming up with reasons why this doesn’t apply to you — further confirming your BLIND LOVE of all Star Trek series for us all.

          • and i said myself:

            i observe the values presented in the series, and i realize that they are good, non-violent values of reason, cooperation and peace, and it makes me happy that one of the two greatest science fiction series ever conveys these values to the audience. so my appreciation couldn’t be less “blind”.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Your response is exactly what I would have predicted here from someone with BLIND LOVE subjective opinion.

          • it is becoming evident that your “predictions” hold no real-world value.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Again, this is exactly how a person with BLIND LOVE would respond……you are completely BLIND to what most people with informed opinions see on these shows….that’s what BLIND LOVE is.

            Don’t sweat it, because you are not supposed to be able to realize that you have this condition…you are blind to it.

            Your denial is exactly what is expected in terms of your response here.

        • M33

          Or ANY of the modern Transformers movies.

      • Ace Stephens

        That’s probably why he spoke in generalities so it came across less as “Some of them actually suck…” and more “They’re not all perfect.” Although, yes, he did say some were terrible. But I think the overall sentiment expressed was…less harsh and more comparative.

        • M33

          No way.

          Every Star Trek is perfect!
          Not a bad show in the whole lot.
          It is entertainment perfection!
          This man is so wrong.

          I jest, of course…

          • Ace Stephens

            Thanks for clarifying at the end. One never knows with some fans…

          • “good” and “bad” is subjective when it comes to series and movies.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Wrong. I can get you any film school grad who can’t point out objective problems with editing, sound, screenplays, cinematography, costumes, special effects, make-up, acting, etc. etc., between films and series’

          • that doesn’t make a series “bad” or “good”.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Sure it does.

          • no, it does not.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Your are exhibiting BLIND LOVE subjectivity here again — the lowest form of subjective option — so of course you are insistent on this….you are BLIND to critical commentary on these series. As you yourself said:

            “i personally love every single one of the 6 existing series, and i know there are countless TREK fans who feel the same way. it’s all subjective.”

          • i have explained to you several times now the very clear and rational reasons why i love every TREK series. if you simply want to ignore those reasons and keep claiming it’s “blind love”, then i can’t help you.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You are EXACTLY proving my point…you are completely BLIND to what most people with informed opinions see on these shows….that’s what BLIND LOVE is.

            It’s not your fault that you don’t even realize that you are exhibiting BLIND LOVE. In fact, you are not supposed to be able to realize that you have this condition…you are of course blind to being able to realize that you are exhibiting this condition.

          • lol, you are hilarious 😀

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            LOL — exactly!!!

  • patrick

    This is pathetic. Sorry, folks – just my opinion. Unless word of mouth or critical-reaction are extraordinary, I won’t grant CBS-TV a single monthly-subscription. Like UPN, TREk is clearly being (mid)handled by a Studio who merely looks at the franchise as a commodity. TREK is great, sure. But a dozen episodes certainly wouldn’t be taking this long unless there were some serious, unspoken, problems with the production. And we lost producer Bryan Fuller because of his availablity. Yet now the show’s gonna be delayed for early a year?

    I’ll enjoy adding the BluRay set to my collection.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      So you’ll punish CBS by not paying for the subscription, but you will pay $50 (most of which goes to CBS) or whatever for the Blu-Ray set?

      LOL — that’s some punishment you are providing CBS, dude. Freaking hilarious!

      • patrick

        CBS home-video has already been a long-successful venture for that Company. Their attempt to start a Pay-Channel, as an added revenue-stream, is new. I suspect that you know that fans are expected to subscribe to see the shows on air-date and then, as so many of us eager-fans do, we’d ALSO later buy the episodes when released on home video? Yes? So, no, AS I SAID before, unless the pilot or reviews or fan-reaction is enormously positive – why would I reward CBS for a disaster? A disaster not only of their making (because they’ve had a decade to craft a new TREK-series) but because they attempted to cash-in on fans in a more craven way than they’d ever done before – making us pay for unseen-episodes.

        For instance , I’m not a tremendous fan of ENTERPRISE. Yet, on hi-def BluRay, and without 20-minutes of commercials, even this TREK-nerd even enjoys viewing that incarnation of Gene’s vision…

        • Ace Stephens

          Pay for unseen episodes? As with any good pusher, the first taste is free…

    • Ace Stephens

      But a dozen episodes certainly wouldn’t be taking this long unless there were some serious, unspoken, problems with the production. And we lost producer Bryan Fuller because of his availablity.

      Uh…you just covered the serious, spoken problem which probably delayed it by at least a few months. And they’ve talked about wanting to make sure it’s right, which – as far as the info we’ve been given since those issues arose – seems to mean taking the time for casting and post-production effects and all that.

      So what super-secret issues are you suggesting? Because those sorts of things might easily delay the premiere six months or so.

      • M33

        Haha.
        Yep.
        All these hype interviews to keep “the interest going” is rather inane.

        To quote the late George Carlin:
        “It’s all bullshit, folks…”

      • patrick

        Um, I’m afraid I’m too old to accept the sales-pitch of a billionaire. It’s February – the show is in production. Episodes could readily start airing with several months?

        Starting with the departure of BF, we’ve simply been offered the same vague explanations of what’s going on. With a total absence of any real info as to what the problems are? IS it casting? IS it budget-problems? Let’s face it, our awesome STAR TREK books have filled fans in on the backstory of most of our TREK-series. So we know there can be challenges when getting a series up and running. Yet, here, we’re just told, repeatedly, “everything’s okay here, please move along folks – trust us and may we have your credit-card number please”. Lol. By the way, have we even heard much from the new-producers or head-writers? They’re show is floundering about in the press like a shipwreck, yet they’re not hitting the PR-circuit to keep momentum for the series from vanishing? There’s just something not right there?

        There are hundreds of hours of great TREK already available to us all. It weren’t for Nick Meyer’s participation, I’d be content to see this series abandoned until they ditch their craven Pay-TV idea and mount a better planned, proper return-to-TV for TREK.

        • Ace Stephens

          Why would they do the PR circuit much now? Let people in the general public forget and then give it a hard push a couple months before the premiere.

          As far as problems go otherwise, they had a tight schedule set up for May which would likely exclude any reworking of scenes/issues, fine-tuning the effects work, etc. A few months to “clean up” what’s meant to be a “prestige show” heavy on effects work? To last decades as a part of this franchise? And when a half-assed network premiere wouldn’t sell it to audiences very well? No thanks.

          As for what’s “not right” here, as with many fans, I would argue that it may be your cynicism. Not that much of such a thing can’t be justified given various issues with the franchise/series (particularly as far as “handling” goes). But there seem to be some who always go out of their way with the information available in order to present an exaggerated, sometimes “conspiracy”-seeking version of events.

          They want the show not to suck because they want to make a lot of money with it (and a showrunner leaving followed by lining up casting and maximizing effects work…all add to the time necessary). That’s pretty darn cynical in itself. Why people have to push it beyond that, I don’t know.

          • patrick

            I don’t disagree with any of your quite generous explanations for the problems with the production. Sounds like you’ve got plenty of optimistic and full-of-faith explanations for the evident problems with this series. And that you possess a benign opinion of CBS in this matter. Unfortunately, I cannot agree that you’ve offered much substantial evidence for your point-of-view, yet you’re certainly entitled to your point-of-view, AS. Of course, I know that most all of us hope for a new TREK-series which will be a tremendous success.

            I remind you that the same excuses were offered by some fans for the delays in each and every JJ-TREK movie – that the added production-time would yield better films. In the end, even fans of that film-series have acknowledged that those delays didn’t benefit those sequels at all (especially the FOUR-years which STID had to get produced and presented to the public). It’s generally considered, by many, the weakest of the Trilogy.

            Thanks for the healthy-debate – jeez we’re all such GEEKS! Lol.

          • Ace Stephens

            You can assume the films “couldn’t have been worse” if you like but I’ve seen enough garbage to know they could have. So saying delayd might allow for a better film doesn’t seem dishonest or overgenerous to me. Imagine the same films with more plot holes and worse effects.

  • Wes

    The hatred is strong with this one… if fans abandon Discovery like they did with Voyager and Enterprise, CBS might just pull the plug and never make anything official Star Trek again. You want that, haters?! Seriously, do you want that?! Sure seems that way. Well, the fan base doesn’t need your toxicity. Go rip up your Trekkie card and leave the fan base… you don’t deserve to be a fan anymore.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Who the hell are you talking too, man?

      Seriously, pop a Prozac, dude. Sheesh!

      PS: People abandoned Voyager and Enterprise because they kind of stunk, my friend.

    • prometheus59650

      My DVDs work… and 50 years of product following a show that struggled to stay on three years is more than anyone could reasonably expect.

      So if it’s done it’s done.

    • Brian Thorn

      ” if fans abandon Discovery like they did with Voyager and Enterprise, CBS might just pull the plug and never make anything official Star Trek again.”

      Well, until they sell the property to someone else. Trek has already been sold three times. Desilu to Paramount, Paramount to Viacom, Viacom to CBS.

    • It would be a good thing if CBS and Paramount gave up Star Trek. Netflix would do a much better job with the franchise.

    • Ace Stephens

      No, not the Trekkie cards!!!

    • TUP

      If CBS makes a quality Trek series, they wont have to worry about fans abandoning it.

  • Wildcat30

    So…which were the “terrible” Star Trek series that Les refers to?

    I hope we’ll get some info soon to hold us over until the Fall…

    • Voyager and Enterprise.

      • Ace Stephens

        This is my guess as well. But he also seems to know some have more adamant fans (or larger numbers of such) than others and I think that’s generally all he means here.

    • pittrek

      Well he’s the man who personally killed Enterprise, so …

  • M33

    Hmm…
    Let me try.
    I predict… we will be lucky to see the new series in 2017 AT ALL.

    I hope I am wrong.

  • Locutus

    Compared to CBS’s main lineup of shows no Star Trek is terrible. Big Bang Theory, Kevin Can Wait, The Great Indoors, Superior Donuts, Criminal Minds, NCIS, NCIS: Los Angeles, NCIS: New Orleans, NCIS: WTF … yeah, great stuff! I’ll take Star Trek: Enterprise over all that drek any night of the week, and twice on Tuesdays.

    • TUP

      You’d take Ent over several very successful shows? Good thing you’re. It running cbs. Or there would be no cbs.

      • Ace Stephens

        Well, personal preference and business decisions can differ immensely.

        • TUP

          Its not really a debate though. Moonves’ job isnt to sit at home and count a bad Trek series among his guilty pleasures. I dont watch NCIS but only a really really dumb person would choose Enterprise to air on CBS over NCIS. That is simply a fact.

          Again, this isnt saying you’re a bad person for liking Enterprise. Moonves is saying it wasnt good enough and Discovery will be better. Thats a good thing.

          • Ace Stephens

            I didn’t say I liked Enterprise here. I pointed out that your distinction doesn’t hold up – I thought in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way (since it’s rather obvious and presumably something you already knew but was a bit beside your point).

            Someone can say “I’d prefer watching Trek to all this other stuff…” and the notion that, “Well, it’s good you don’t run the company deciding what to air…” is largely irrelevant. Someone can love something and know it’s not best for business.

          • TUP

            Yes but we’re talking about Moonves who does run the company.

          • Ace Stephens

            While obviously the subject of this article (leading them to point out that they don’t like CBS’s lineup), you weren’t when you replied to someone suggesting that they preferred Enterprise to what’s currently on CBS with the suggestion that it’s good they don’t run it. Moonves wasn’t mentioned in those exchanges. What was mentioned was that they prefer Enterprise (to those) and that you think their preference for Enterprise (in such an instance) somehow directly relates to their potential handling of a business. I was just noting, in a rather wry manner, that it doesn’t.

            For all I know, they hate Enterprise but used it as their pertinent Trek example because that’s how much they dislike CBS’s current lineup (in terms of viewing preference).

          • TUP

            When someone takes exception to Moonves’ remarks by suggesting they’d rather have Enterprise over NCIS then its fair game to point out that its GREAT news they dont work for the network.

          • Ace Stephens

            …No, it’s not. Because it’s irrelevant. What they’d prefer to see on the network each night as (presumably) a fan of Trek who is clearly not a fan of CBS’s current lineup don’t directly relate to the position they’d be in if they ran (or worked for) the network.

            I might like rom-coms personally. But if I ran a film studio right now with its hands on some big-name properties, rom-coms would be one of the last genres I would seek to invest money into for theatrical release since I don’t see the (“big enough” sense of a) market for them right now and there are bigger money-makers which could use those resources to achieve even bigger profits. My personal preference and what I might wish to see here and there is not directly related to the decisions I would be making if I ran the business side of things.

            That’s not how these things inherently work. I assumed you knew this to begin with and so you might appreciate a wry comment but you’ve taken that and turned it into a further misunderstanding.

          • TUP

            You’re being deliberately obtuse.

          • Ace Stephens

            No, I’m not. Or at least not in any manner you’ve provided an argument for here.

            I made a comment I thought you might find mildly humorous, having assumed you understood that your sentiment’s literal validity was questionable even if the idea behind it was valid in suggesting that their personal preferences don’t determine a network’s operation.

            You then apparently mistook (misunderstanding) not only that but also my explaining that (it was “somewhat tongue-in-cheek”) for some sort of comprehensive contesting of your comment and now seem to have dug your heels in as far as a literal application of the comment goes (when I didn’t get the impression you meant it that way to begin with and – if you did – my reply there is even more valid only, instead, as something you should actually consider rather than as something minorly flip).

          • TUP

            Are people around here always this determined to start p!ssing contests and always so anal and obtuse? Get over yourself.

          • Ace Stephens

            “Get over yourself”? You’re the one not engaging with the subject and instead calling people things like “anal” and “obtuse,” with no clear attempt at progressing forward within the conversation by doing so.

            Again, you said something, I made a joke, you didn’t get it (so if you want to find “obtuse” here, maybe a mirror is better to direct your attention toward) and then you misinterpreted my explanation of it in a manner similar to how you misinterpreted the original comment.

      • Locutus

        Obviously, viewing tastes are a personal preference, and I’m being a hyperbolic to be funny. However, what Moonves regards a “success” is based mostly on ratings. What is popular is not always good. What is unpopular is not always “terrible.”

        • TUP

          Sure but Enterprise was neither good or popular.

          • Locutus

            Enterprise had its moments. Season 4 was good. It certainly was not “terrible.” I like it more than most mainstream shows.

          • TUP

            Season 4 was better than 1-3, but hardly very good. It was like stopping the flow of blood from a fatal wound. You might not be bleeding anymore but you’re still going to die.

          • Locutus

            hahaha that’s a rather bleak view of it! I thought Season 4 was superior to some other seasons of Trek like TNG season 1 or maybe DS9 season 1, a lot of Voyager.

          • patrick

            ENTERPRISE is probably my least favorite series because I’m not much a fan of prequels. I also found the Temporal Cold War ridiculous and, ultimately, so did the Producers since they abandoned any resolution of that story-line. Lol. Finally, as at least one of the cast-members has remarked, with barely 40-minute of actual program-time, constructing and delivery a complex and thoughtful sci-fi drams, set in another time-period from ours, is a thankless challenge. When your future-based show, breaks for a 20th-Century McDonald’s commercial about every 5-6 minutes, your audience will have a tough time staying connected the program and it’s contents.

            Now, to the point I wanted to add. “Popular” is also a relative term, TUP. Just looked at the ratings for ENTERPRISE and even in it’s WORST year, and on an alternative (non top-3) network, it’s ratings exceeded virtually every broadcast program on Monday night of this week. And, as we all know, the original TOS was considered a ratings-failure, yet by today’s ratings-standard, it would be bigger than a Superbowl Broadcast! Hahaha.

            Every TREK has been popular, by any standard. Whether that “popularity” meets with the “standards” of the Ferengi who run TV-networks and movie-studios – obviously that’s a different matter.

  • This man is the one helming the corporation that carries the franchise, one of their “family jewels” and he doesn’t even know the number of shows… and then proceeds to spit on the series?.

    • M33

      The family jewels do sometimes get kicked.

      • you don’t usually kick your own ones though… that’s pretty stupid.

        • Ace Stephens

          You might acknowledge that they’ve been kicked though. And, regarding some fan sentiment toward some series, that seems fair to me here.

          • “some fan sentiment toward some series”

            those same series are getting large amounts of positive “fan sentiment” as well, resulting in the absolutely unsurprising conclusion: some people like them, other people don’t. which is generally true about every series or movie or other piece of entertainment or art.

          • Ace Stephens

            Yes. Which is why, when he is being comparative, contrasting “great” with “terrible” or similar, you know that he’s suggesting there’s a spectrum of sentiment regarding the differing series which – within that “contrasted” framework (of generalities regarding generalities of fan sentiment directed toward given series) – would suggest that the bottom-ranked ones are comparably “terrible.”

          • and the most popular thing is always the “best” thing? lol 😀 i hope i don’t have to start listing examples of that NOT being true…

          • Ace Stephens

            and the most popular thing is always the “best” thing?

            Who suggested this? I didn’t.

            This is what I’m talking about when I say you miscontextualize things and it seems to be more about yourself than what’s present. You kind of take what’s there, put it through this odd filter you have going on regarding yourself at the present time, then state things which are tangential at best as though they have direct relevance to the subject at-hand.

          • and again making statements about me… seriously, learn how to have a civilized conversation.

          • Ace Stephens

            I am doing so. You are the one not even addressing legitimate concerns brought up about your stance since you are not providing logical reasoning (presenting contradictory conditions – “Where’s this measurement? Even if there, who cares?”) and – even when presented with potential rationales – not addressing why you are stripping away the easily-identifiable context here due to a fixation on grammatical elements which, again contextually, are inapplicable in such an instance.

        • M33

          Unless you are in to autoerotic s&m.

          Just sayin…

  • robjoh

    Guess they’re gonna hype it up like mad at Comic-Con then! Panel with the whole cast,some kinda con exclusive trailer,the usual stuff. lol

  • pittrek

    Seven other series, some of them were terrible?

    • His obvious knowledge of Trek gives me absolute confidence…oh wait…

      • pittrek

        It’s especially dumb to publicly say that some of the products your company owns are terrible

        • Ace Stephens

          It’s comparative (so, false dichotomy-wise…”great” and “terrible”) and it’s within the framework of “People love it anyway but we want to get it right.”

          Saying that to investor-types makes perfect sense because that makes them confident that it’s a “can’t lose” situation. It’s a “nice” way of saying “It could suck and make money but we’re going to make sure it doesn’t suck so it will make even more.”

        • Your Worst Nightmare

          Actually, its a very smart move. It gives him the out to be able to come back and say “We don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past by jumping a show to screen and the fans hating it.” (Even though, let’s be honest — we’re Star Trek fans. Some of us are going to hate it.)

  • Lauren Burton

    What an absolute scandal! I perfectly understand the sentiment of wanting to get things right, but if this was any other project in any other industry, someone would be fired for these sorts of delays and incapability to provide an accurate ETA!

    I also jolly well hope that this.. Mr Moonves does not speak openly again about Star Trek, and leaves it to the well-paid PR executives who probably have read up more on Star Trek as a franchise than he has by the sounds of it!

    What I love about this though, what really gives it with a cherry on top, is the irony of how he mentions the series did so well on Netflix.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      What are you talking about? I am in the technology industry, and new technologies and applications frequently experience delays and get to the market later than planned.

      And I can name dozens of other industries that have delays on introducing new products.

  • DEEP SPACE NINE
    IMDB: 7,9
    Netflix: 4 stars (out of 5)

    VOYAGER
    IMDB: 7,7
    Netflix: 4 stars (out of 5)

    ENTERPRISE
    IMDB: 7,5
    Netflix: 4 stars (out of 5)

    so, every single one of these results is between 75% and 80%. if that’s “horrible”, then i guess i’m not using the same language as Moonves is.

    • Ace Stephens

      You’re really not using the same “language” (in this case meaning “terminology”) here since he said “terrible.” Not to mention that he was speaking within a specific, generalized comparative context that never named names. So that kind of further removes what he said from some aggregate statistics you seem to wish to suggest imply quality.

      • terrible, horrible, that’s not the point.

        my only point is: the statement “some of them are terrible” is definitely false, because the quality of a series or a movie is subjective. he could say “i find them terrible”, then that would be valid. he could also say “there are people who find them terrible”, that’s also valid. but it’s simply a false statement to say “they are terrible”.

        • Ace Stephens

          “Some of them are terrible” is clearly a statement of opinion and you’re only taking it “personally” because you’ve decided to for some reason unrelated to what’s presented here.

          He doesn’t walk around claiming to be a fact-spewing machine. He’s human. It would do well for some around here to recall that about others.

          • the statement “some of them are terrible” in itself is an absolute statement. examples of subjective statements would be:

            “i find them terrible”
            “i don’t like them”
            “i hate them”

            but saying “they are terrible” is not a subjective statement.

            maybe it’s easier for you to understand this distinction when you think about the following:

            when someone says “i don’t like them”, and someone else says “i like them”, then there is no disagreement. both statements are correct and can coexist, without the two people having to disagree about anything. the first person can agree with the second person that the second person likes the series. and vice versa.

            on the other hand, when someone says “they are terrible”, and someone else says “they are great”, then those two statements cannot both be true, and they cannot coexist. because something cannot be “terrible” and “great” at the same time. so these two people have to either start debating if the series are “great” or “terrible”, or they have to leave the matter standing on a disagreement.

          • Ace Stephens

            “They are terrible” is a subjective statement when presented informally even if in a relatively formal setting (and, regardless, “terrible” is a subjective measure). This isn’t difficult to understand the context of. Do you believe Moonves thinks himself some kind of omnipotent being and therefore capable of statements of objective fact and so you’re tearing him down somehow from off his high horse? Because it’s quite clear he was just rattling off a comparative generality within his subjective view.

            Does the above cite him producing forms full of facts and figures in order to assert it as 100% factual but then not providing any of the information? Is that an even remotely reasonable assessment of his manner of speaking about the subject? I wouldn’t think so.

            on the other hand, when someone says “they are terrible”, and someone
            else says “they are great”, then those two statements cannot both be
            true, and they cannot coexist.

            Yes, they can, when you do not take things so literally as to strip them of their meaning which is clearly subjective. Which allows the things to be both “terrible” and “great” at the same time, depending upon varying views otherwise. Because the preferential assessments of individuals are implicitly not in the range of objective fact.

          • no, “this is terrible” is not a subjective statement, it’s an absolute statement.

            a subjective statement contains the word “I” or “me” or “my” or “mine”.

            a statement in the form “object is adjective” is by definition an absolute statement without anything subjective in it.

          • Ace Stephens

            The “I” (think) is implicit to the subject’s statement of preference or similar regarding things which aren’t quantifiable.

            There are many sentence structures which omit the subject (such as “I”) and, contextually, sentences may omit other elements when unnecessary to the immediate meaning of the individual sentence. Especially in informal speech/text.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Not only that, Moonves is a very successful TV executive — he is the business of being able to credibly assess whether a series is good or not — he’s an expert in the TV production field. This is an INFORMED OPINION, which, which while subjective, rises to to the case of a credible viewpoint is most probable to be accurate. This, in contrast to brighgeist’s opinion, whose level of subjectivity is (as he indirectly admitted himself) is at the lowest level of credibility — the BLIND LOVE subjective opinion.

          • Ace Stephens

            I just don’t get why it isn’t clear to Brightgeist that it’s subjective despite a literal, grammatical reading indicating it’s an “absolute statement.” I completely agree with you that Moonves has a rather informed sense of this (within the industry) from years and years of experience. And – while some question the “Why would you trash your own thing?”-stuff – I note that he didn’t name names in order specifically to “remain professional” while also noting that, yeah, while each series is beloved by diehards, as a generality, some of these series are viewed with a bit of side-eye even by fans (not to mention casual audiences). To me, that’s honest, sensible and subjective. And it even emphasizes that a series from this property is popular (i.e. “profitable”) even if, in his generalized view of generalized views, it’s terrible – but he doesn’t want this one to be.

            I didn’t realize trying to stress this would turn into 4,000 posts of me saying it over and over again and constantly guessing as to what the concern preventing this rather obvious notion from being recognized was. And that this would always be construed as a “personal attack” rather than someone desperate to progress the communication searching for a rationale as to why the obvious (context) was going completely ignored in favor of a “literal to the point of missing the point” interpretation.

            To me, pretty much everything I’ve said on this subject here and what you just said and what Moonves said…are all quite obvious yet worthwhile observations.

          • “Do you believe Moonves thinks himself some kind of omnipotent being”

            no, i think he thinks that there is some kind of objective quality to things like series and movies, like so many other people do. and he thinks he is making a statement about that “objective quality”.

          • Ace Stephens

            Why would you infer that when he doesn’t even cite which ones he means, instead generalizing things in a vague, comparative manner? That, to me, doesn’t seem like someone 100% aware that, “You know, everybody thinks Enterprise sucks.” (or whichever show it might be).

          • “the preferential assessments of individuals are implicitly not in the range of objective fact.”

            then they should not be worded in the form of absolute statements.

          • Ace Stephens

            No. You need to work on contextual awareness. That’s the issue here. Not other people expressing themselves freely in a clear contextual manner that you seem to unintentionally strip away.

            Those who take things too literally to grasp their meaning are really dragging down online discourse these days. I’m sure some have their reasons regarding things beyond their control. Others just seem to think the world should revolve around them.

    • Your Worst Nightmare

      Quality is subjective.

      You suggest that these shows get 75-80% rankings from IMDB, but of how many viewers? What are the demographics of those viewers? If you actually click on the ranking, you can get a little bit more information regarding demographics from IMDB’s voters.

      However one thing this doesn’t take into account is fandom. Out of the 35,901 individuals who ranked DS9 (I’m not going to look at the others), how many of these people are Star Trek fans? How many of them are casual viewers? Trek fans are probably not likely to rate a series lower.

      Polls like this are hard to take seriously, because its easy to avoid ranking them. You typically go out of your way on IMDB to rank shows. Also on the site, DS9 has 25,476 male voters, with 4,407 female voters. (The remaining 5,000 or so did not identify.) To begin with this, sample is flawed as there’s a large disparity between the number of male and female voters, not to mention other demographic issues. Also, this is over history since the site started ranking TV and movies. It’s been years. How many people have voted multiple times because of lost account information? How many have died? How many watched a few episodes and thought they were amazing or terrible but didn’t actually watch the whole thing? How many liked the show because it was something that their ex-boyfriend watched and now they hate Star Trek? Am I getting a little ridiculous? Sure. But so is putting a tremendous amount of stock in an IMDB poll. It’s almost as easy to take a poll like this seriously as it is to say 100 Star Trek fans in a room decide what the best movie is. (In other words: not very.)

      Like I said, quality is subjective. If you enjoy a series, fantastic! Don’t let other people color your judgment one way or another. Personally? I think there’s some really, really good Star Trek and quite a bit of okay to really bad Star Trek. Doesn’t make me less of a fan. I’ve just become more discriminating in my old age. :p

      • i agree absolutely that quality (of series and movies) is always subjective. that’s my whole point. i’m not making the statement that these series “are great”. it’s subjective. i’m just pointing out that his statement “they are horrible” is definitely false.

        • Your Worst Nightmare

          In his opinion, some are. I won’t deny anyone their opinion, even if I disagree with it. Could he have worded it better? Sure! But its his choice of words. I don’t understand why this is such a big deal

          • he worded it incorrectly. it’s not a big deal. but when someone says something incorrect, i usually point it out. that’s all.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            There’s a difference between poor wording and being “correct.” How is someone’s opinion correct or not?

            And it’s not just you. It’s a lot of Trek fans who are taking it very personally. It has nothing to do with us. Just our opinions and our egos, which frankly have nothing to do with this.

          • you are completely misconstruing what i’m saying here. i’m not saying his opinion is incorrect. i’m saying his statement is incorrect. the statement “these series are terrible” is inherently incorrect, because no series has an absolute “quality” to it.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            I’m going to agree to disagree with you on this. We’re splitting hairs here.

          • it takes two to agree, and i never “agree to disagree”, because i find that intellectually lazy. making an absolute statement about the “quality” of a series simply cannot be correct, because series and movies have no absolute quality. there is no “good” series and no “bad” series. some people like it, other people don’t. and no-one has the authority to tell anyone else that they’re “wrong” in their like or dislike of a series, not even if you’re in the absolute majority.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            You’re being obtuse. You know its this guy’s opinion but yet you continue to argue the point. Then you say it doesn’t matter. But you keep arguing. I give you an out. You keep arguing.

            I really don’t care anymore. Fine, you win. His opinion is “incorrect.” Whatever. Now if that makes me stupid or intellectually lazy, then so be it. I. Don’t. Care. You just need to be right and I’m done arguing with you.

          • so you wanted me to shut up so that you could have the last word… got it. well, sorry, i don’t do that. i don’t let you force an “agree to disagree” on me, because i don’t “agree to disagree”. what he said is simply an incorrect statement in itself. it’s not a matter of opinion whether he’s right or wrong. his statement simply is inherently incorrect.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            We’re not going to come to an agreement on what his statement is and that’s fine. It’s not lazy. It’s coming to a compromise. You have a different viewpoint than I do. You have a different choice of words than I do. I’ve come to realize I can’t change that. And vice versa. And that’s fine. That’s what “agreeing to disagree” is!

          • Ace Stephens

            He did this to me as well. He put forward contradictory standards so I pointed out that they didn’t make sense, he seemed to take things personally so I pointed out how/why he might have done so, etc. I explained multiple times that, despite a literal reading causing him to misinterpret what was expressed, a contextual one made it completely clear that what was said was subjective…

            But he just wanted to argue and claim I was attacking him when I questioned or proposed various things which may have contributed to his mistaken take here.

            He doesn’t want to listen to reason and he doesn’t want to understand anything beyond his own myopic perspective. If he did, he would have heard your/my concerns and considered them rather than taking up a (needless) defensive position – just like he and various others did immediately in response to Moonves’s comments.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            Exactly. Hence why I was just trying to walk away. Some people just gotta be right.

    • TUP

      How many people from the general public vote? Im not a Lord of the Rings fan so I havent visited the IMDB page for those films to vote. In fact, the few TV and films I’ve voted are ones I like because thats why I visited the page.

      So the ratings you’re seeing are generally Star Trek fans who probably were on IMDB to discuss the show on their forums.

      Same goes with Netflix. And for a niche program, I bet there are a ton of “10” votes. So to get a 7.5, there are a bunch of “5” as well.

      Lets not be goofy about this. Its okay to like Enterprise and Voy but they werent that good. That’s just simple fact. We all have movies we like that we know arent great but we enjoy them anyway.

      Splitting hairs with Moonves’ comment is ridiculous. Because even if you disagree, why isnt he allowed his opinion? Quite frankly, its refreshing to hear him admit the last couple of shows werent good enough.

      • “they werent that good. That’s just simple fact.”

        no, that’s simply subjective.

        • TUP

          No it isnt. If you liked them, thats cool. But you’re in denial if you thought they were good.

          • Ace Stephens

            Ugh. Brightgeist is way off elsewhere here in terms of how he’s framing matters but you’re way off in this instance.

            One can’t argue it as (objective) fact that they “weren’t that good.” It’s clearly subjective.

          • TUP

            If you discount common sense, I guess. People thinking Enterprise was good are outliers to the general consensus, thus making the lack of quality a fact.

            Also, one could use “successful” or “popular” in place and good and perhaps that would have resulted in less anal responses.

          • Ace Stephens

            People thinking Enterprise was good are outliers to the general consensus, thus making the lack of quality a fact.

            No, that’s not the case. Even if a measurement was available indicating that it was the minority view to think Enterprise was good, only stating such a thing would be fact. Not stating “the lack of quality.”

            As for “successful” or “popular,” these are still relative/comparative/etc. terms and open to (or purely within the realms of) subjective interpretation as a result.

          • TUP

            I suppose that makes sense if you’re writing a thesis on the subjective popularity of Enterprise.

            But people who arent anal or obtuse can simply discuss the generally held view of the show as “good” or “not good” without getting their panties in a bunch over semantics.

          • Ace Stephens

            Sure they can! Which is why when someone says that it’s “fact,” demonstrating that they aren’t talking about generalities but objective truths, they are in the wrong to have done so (in that it’s inaccurate).

          • Leopold Nienhaus

            Have you ever watched Andromeda? Now, that is how a bad Star Trek show looks. So far, we’ve been pretty lucky. Enterprise had problems, but was never really bad. It improved greatly upon its second half. And even the first season is better than the first season of TNG imo.

          • Ace Stephens

            I liked Enterprise. And saw Andromeda from time to time. But I hate that people assume I love or hate the show (Enterprise) because I make points about how it may be generally perceived among Trek fans and non-fans and whoever else there may be. My concern discussing things like this typically isn’t pushing my opinion.

          • i would never make the statement “they were good”, because absolute statements like that about series or movies are always false. no series or movie is “good” or “bad”. it’s all subjective.

            so you’re using a straw-man now. i never said “they were good”. i said that it’s subjective.

          • Leopold Nienhaus

            If you think they are bad, you haven’t seen an actually bad show, yet.

          • TUP

            Ive seen many bad shows, Enterprise and Voy included.

            Is your Uncle Rick Berman? Its not personal. If you enjoyed them, great. But you’re in serious denial if you dont think they could have been a lot better.

  • James

    I wonder if this news is related to the break up of CBS’s in house VFX team? I understand that Pixomondo, who worked on the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies and Game of Thrones are taking over?

    The truly shocking CGI rendering of the Discovery might have prompted this response – the quality wasn’t there.

  • Thomas W.

    “Early fall”, all right. But: what year?

  • TrekRules

    Debut late summer/early fall 2017, cancelled before spring of 2018. And none of the other series were terrible – if that is what he think and he thinks Discovery is great, we might be in trouble.

  • Harry Kane

    What an idot Les Moonves is, suggesting that some Star Trek Series are terrible, JJ Trek is terrible and your Discovery will be terrible!

  • i have made it a habit for many years now to never say “this movie is great” or “this series is terrible”. simply because i understood at some point that i cannot truthfully make such an absolute statement. i have yet to find a movie or a series that no-one likes or no-one dislikes. if i ever find one, i might be tempted to call it a “bad” or a “good” movie/series. but as long as one person likes it or dislikes it, there is no-one in the world who has the authority to tell that one person that he/she is wrong.

    it’s simply arrogant and frankly degrading to tell someone “what you like is actually bad”. basically you’d be telling that person that they have horrible taste. which is ridiculous, because after all it IS a matter of personal taste or preferences. and just because you’re in the majority, that doesn’t give you the right to degrade people who are in the minority. it’s pretty much a question of basic tolerance. i don’t personally want to kiss a man, but that doesn’t mean that i go around telling people “being gay is gross”. i would simply say that it’s not what i want to do. just because gays may be in the minority, that doesn’t mean they’re wrong. if there was only one homosexual person in the world, his/her personal preference would still be as valid as the heterosexual preference of the other 7 billion people. and i think we should use the same kind of thinking when it comes to movies and series. there is no “good” or “bad” when it comes to quality.

    the only exception to this is when we’re talking about the values that a movie or series conveys to the audience. if it’s a movie that was made by racists and conveys racist values, then it’s a bad movie in that sense. and if it’s a series like STAR TREK that conveys secular humanist values of tolerance and cooperation and peace, then it’s a good series.

  • Christopher Roberts

    So CBS’s CEO thinks some of their product is “terrible”? Spoken just like a businessman with a 1st from Trump University.

  • Fiery Little One

    I kind of like that they haven’t pinned down a new release date. That
    way they won’t disappoint us if they have to move it again.

  • PSWallace

    “some of them were great, some of them were terrible”

    I presume by “terrible”, and “seven”, he means the Star Trek Christmas Special that never aired? Was supposed to be in the second hour slot after the Star Wars Holiday one, but CBS panicked at the end of Lucas’s masterpiece and pulled the feed, denying the world the Spock and McCoy musical number called “Logic is a Lark”?

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      The musical numbers from the Christmas Special were actually eventually filmed, and both Uhura’s moon song and the Big 3’s Row Your Boat made it into STV.

  • TUP

    Didnt “Michael” say he was going to drop some spoilers today? Lets have em!

    • Justin Olson

      His “spoilers” are all of his own invention.

  • Gen. Chang

    Moonbeam is…….what? Several adjectives come to mind, but just one wont do, I think. Imagine the rant from Nation Lampoons “Christmas Vacation” and that may come close.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=66nSZzBNkTU
    He has the nerve to call the franchise,
    “Family Jewels” yet he and the network completely screwed the pooch for Star Treks 50th Anniversary. Defecated on fans in multitudes of ways over the last year, then acts like he’s proud of this Iconic Franchise. Give me a break! Refer back to rant above.

  • Pedro Ferreira
  • Leopold Nienhaus

    Seven other shows? Obviously he counted the animated series. But what about show No. 7? Did he count Phase II? Final Frontier (animated from 2005)? I guess the Abrams films qualify as a new show… Discovery already? Hmm…

    Jokes aside, typical corporate BS. And I don’t blame him. Let’s just hope the writers, directors, actors and designers get it right and that this guy won’t meddle too much with the show.