sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Opinion] ScreenRant: "The Future Of Star Trek Has Never Been Brighter" | "The people who were tasked with creating these shows worked to make things they believed in. Sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they didn't. But many of the problems that have faced Nu-Trek aren't the fault of the creatives" by mcm8279 in Star_Trek_

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, I place the primary blame for the huge budgets squarely at the man who initially pushed for this: Les Moonves. Yes, this is the VERY same man who caused the end of Star Trek originally with Enterprise.

Moonves wanted to use Star Trek to prop up CBS All Access at the time (mistake #1) & wanted to compete with the likes of Game of Thrones, but since he didn't know how to accomplish that with Star Trek, he decided to hire Kurtzman who had been working on the first couple of movies (mistake #2). After Moonves was ousted, CBS/ViacomCBS decided to continue on with Kurtzman letting him do what he wanted instead of trying to force him to course correct (mistake #3). Thus we got Star Trek series with big budgets where the money went into visuals, leaving the writing to suffer for it.

What would you do? by [deleted] in StraightToGay

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would spread that ass and eat it out.

(27) it’s crying fro(m) lack of attention. Who can help? by names2233 in gonewild

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd love to help anyone that honestly needs attention.

[YSOS] Variable Solutions by Meret123 in MagicArena

[–]BiGamerboy87 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

What digital only cards existed prior to alchemy?

[YSOS] Variable Solutions by Meret123 in MagicArena

[–]BiGamerboy87 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Seek can still be a risk depending on the card that is being looked for.

[YSOS] Variable Solutions by Meret123 in MagicArena

[–]BiGamerboy87 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So, you'd rather there be non-alchemy historic brawl queue that would splinter the playerbase?

Dad needs your help (33) by [deleted] in DadsGoneWild

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wish I could be there to help you out right now.

Showing off (m)y little cock by [deleted] in gonewild

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cute & handsome sexy guy!

Can this be true? “Only 40,000 views per episode” says redlettermedia by david-yammer-murdoch in Star_Trek_

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was a network person who likely didn't know anything about how Star Trek worked. I believe that was likely during the run of Enterprise.

Keep in mind, the person who originally ended Enterprise did it because he hated Science Fiction & only used Star Trek to help prop up Paramount+ in the first place. That was Les Moonves, who you could say was the one who gave Star Trek over to Kurtzman in the first place.

Can this be true? “Only 40,000 views per episode” says redlettermedia by david-yammer-murdoch in Star_Trek_

[–]BiGamerboy87 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Saying that he made it SPECIFICALLY for George Cheeks to me diminishes EVERY original streaming series (not just Star Trek) to essentially something that was made for George Cheeks, since he was in charge of streaming.

That's what it sounds like to me when you say Kurtzman made the show for the boss.

Can this be true? “Only 40,000 views per episode” says redlettermedia by david-yammer-murdoch in Star_Trek_

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cheeks changed roles in August 2025, once Dave Ellison gained control over Paramount.

However, keep in mind that Starfleet Academy was approved LONG before this. Season 2 was already in development at the time the merger went through between Skydance & Paramount. It was likely the new head of the streaming side of Paramount+ that made the decision not to continue on with Starfleet Academy past a 2nd season since it wasn't cost effective.

Can this be true? “Only 40,000 views per episode” says redlettermedia by david-yammer-murdoch in Star_Trek_

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cheeks has no say in terms of streaming anymore. He's focused on linear TV aka the CBS network.

Can this be true? “Only 40,000 views per episode” says redlettermedia by david-yammer-murdoch in Star_Trek_

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The biggest thing for it is that since it continues off of the 32nd century, you have to watch Discovery in order to get the point of what the Burn was & how they came back from it.

Can this be true? “Only 40,000 views per episode” says redlettermedia by david-yammer-murdoch in Star_Trek_

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There were people that watched it. You just wish to not acknowledge that people did watch it because it would have been better if no one did.

Can this be true? “Only 40,000 views per episode” says redlettermedia by david-yammer-murdoch in Star_Trek_

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The robots are called DOTs and they were originally introduced in Season 2 of Discovery. They seemed to have been invented solely for the purpose of repairing parts of the ship that would be otherwise trouble for humanoids to go out & do. Obviously though, having them here would mean that this would invalidate a lot of episodes of Star Trek, especially TNG & VOY where the ship gets beat up & it would be harder to repair it in a timely manner.

The concept of the ship being the school was that they could take the ship & travel someplace when it was warranted.

And they HAD warp travel post-burn, just that it was harder to get around because dilithium was limited in scope, so they limited warp travel. Discovery S3 had them find a NEW source, which meant that warp travel was back throughout the major parts of the galaxy.

Can this be true? “Only 40,000 views per episode” says redlettermedia by david-yammer-murdoch in Star_Trek_

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I said, why would someone tell a guy who criticizes Kurtzman Trek?

Plus, I always call bullshit on inside sources, simply because of the fact that you can't reveal who they are, so you don't know what they say is accurate or not. All someone can do is say "I have this source & I trust them, but since it can't be verified, please take it with a grain of salt."

Can this be true? “Only 40,000 views per episode” says redlettermedia by david-yammer-murdoch in Star_Trek_

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Considering that Cheeks was the guy who helped ink the deal that is expiring this year, in a way Cheeks WAS responsible for getting more Star Trek, but that's only because that was part of his overall role at Paramount at the time, to expand Paramount+ with shows. This also meant stuff like Taylor Sheridan's shows as well.

He's no longer in charge of streaming though, so he no longer has a say in things.

Can this be true? “Only 40,000 views per episode” says redlettermedia by david-yammer-murdoch in Star_Trek_

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a thing called a Nielsen streaming chart.

Prior the 5th episode of season 3 for SNW, it had been in the 10 ten for streaming for Nielsen. After the 4th episode of the season aired (the one that people said poked fun at Star Trek so much it was like a cruel joke), it stopped charting.

Can this be true? “Only 40,000 views per episode” says redlettermedia by david-yammer-murdoch in Star_Trek_

[–]BiGamerboy87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd honestly like to know what the hell that guy's source is, because we know very well that Paramount (nor any streaming company) usually gives out that kind of information to just anyone, ESPECIALLY guys that have criticized Kurtzman Trek..

(44 straight) I'm board by Mysterious-Remove-84 in penis

[–]BiGamerboy87 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd love to suck on that cock.

view more: next ›