Report: Michelle Yeoh in negotiations for new Star Trek series


Why don feel like I might regret answering ‘yes’? :sunglasses:

Tbh, I guess I’m not a fan of this webchat monitoring way of judging a show’s longevity. I imagine it’ll make writing an even harder task when producers are demanding the inclusion of things that initiate such webchat.

I’m not predicting that it will happen - I just fear it might.

What Netflix does about season 4 of Daredevil will speak volumes, since imo season 3 was excellent and justifies another spin of the wheel. If they cancel it because the webchat figures aren’t as high as previous seasons and dump it, then I fear for well written and made drama that doesn’t excite the social media addicted millenials.


You do say webchat killed Luke Cage and Iron Fist, but I will point out Disney is launching its own streaming service complete with Marvel tv shows (Loki being the first off the bench), and, if you were in Marvel’s place, would you make series for your competition?


Indeed, I’m sure the cancellations aren’t for any one reason, but a coinciding of circumstance, such as Disney’s own streaming options.

But for me it’s disturbing if Netflix are using web monitoring to rate their shows, as reports like this suggest could be the case:

…“Consumer-insights” company called Crimson Hexagon (via Business Insider) that points to some more social media stats that could highlight just how Netflix makes its decisions regarding renewing or canceling a series.
The report states that the difference in social media chatter on Twitter and Instagram declined dramatically between seasons 1 and 2 of both “Luke Cage” and “Iron Fist.” The first series that was canceled,

If these are credible stats and if streaming platforms take such figures seriously, then would Marvel/Disney really want to exclusively take on production and streaming of these dwindling shows?

The fans may be holding out for a Disney rescue, but it’s far from guaranteed.

My point was that if these stats are indeed the new way of judging a show’s success, then we’re about to see a decline in writing, with producers pandering to social media with stories that revolve around millennial flashpoint topics, rather than character; even more burden placed upon the writer to include everything scoring high on social media at any given time.

Hopefully the likes of HBO and Showtime resist this form of monitoring.


That seems like a slow news day so going for the old standby of trying to make Netflix fit in the Nielsen ratings model of Overnights, demographics and ads tailored for “the all important 18-49 market” (the age group that has proven they will LITERALLY give you money so they don’t have to watch ads)

None of those things actually matter for Netflix or any streaming service as that’s not how the service works, something articles like that know but choose to ignore when it’s a slow news day and they have space to fill.

Basically “Netflix ratings” is to entertainment sites what “Everything that I didn’t watch/read/hear when I was 12 is crap, people who make things don’t want to do it!” is for this forum. Just what happens when there is nothing to actually talk about.


Actually, why would any streaming service care much about webchat? They all have a much better tool to measure success of their product: they know what and when their subscribers watch, down to the second and with pauses; they know what their subscribers search for and even what their subscribers watch on other platforms up to a point. As an analysis tool this is easily the very best data pool you could ever wish for.

Social media interest - the part of it that isn’t already directed by multipliers, professional influence campaigns and such - is a much cruder and less effective indicator. Seriously, the only real use of such monitoring would come into play when judging potential of new productions. Beyond that, when the product is already available on screen, there are simply the figures they already have in their database. No further need for social media interest.


That they do! Just pondering the article at face value.


Also, one easily forgets these days: some stories do run its course and simply should not go on.


Present company (Bond) accepted :wink:




As I said before, I like “Discovery”, and I will check out this other new “Star Trek” franchise series as well.

At the same time I mourn for every original new series which does not get green lighted because studios and networks prefer the BRANDS.


Sad but true, secretagentfan…sad but true.

#23 (via The Wrap) is reporting that the Section 31 series with Michelle Yeoh might not premiere until after “Star Trek: Discovery” ends its run.


I‘ve just watched the season opener “Brother” - not sure why it’s necessary to hinge so much of Discovery on characters from the original series. This show might have profited enormously if it had just used its own independent timeline and left Spock, Sarek and Pine well alone. I have my doubts about Kurtzman’s understanding of Trek in general.

And branching out into different shows with Picard and Section 31/Yeoh…haven’t I heard similar things about Universal’s Dark Universe (Mummy, Frankenstein and so on) and the Amazing Spider-Man franchise? Perhaps it would be a wiser move to first get one Trek show on solid ground and only start new projects once that prime target is achieved.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for trying different and fresh things with Trek. But up to now Discovery shows little evidence for that and seems to lose potential with every new episode. If you want to introduce darker themes, political intrigue and espionage and nuanced characters evolving over time, then Deep Space Nine is still the benchmark. And Discovery, in spite of its promising start, hasn’t delivered a lot on that front. Plenty of room for improvement.


I loved the addition of Pike. The episode itself was amazing. I’m saying this as a huge fan of tos in addition to tng and ds9.


Dustin, your exact concerns are probably why CBS AA is waiting until DSC is over to do the Section 31 series with Michelle Yeoh. They want original Star Trek shows for their service to have a good foundation (i.e. DSC being finished and the Picard series having at least 2 or 3 seasons under it’s belt) before doing Section 31.


Perfectly okay if you liked it. I dare say the show can use enthusiastic fans and support from the more traditional side of the franchise.

That implies Discovery already has a set final number of seasons. Which, in spite of my earlier verdict, is a shame. I was hoping for a longer run. But that’s evidently difficult with a main character already having a firmly set departure in the very near future.

My only hope would be that this show turns out to be from yet another alternative universe where Pike’s fate isn’t already set. Where Sarek smiles and adopts a human girl and Spock’s a brat like J J Abrams’ Kirk…

This way there would be some explanation and room for actual development.


Dustin, I didn’t say that DSC has a set number of seasons planned–I simply said whenever DSC does eventually come to an end (whenever that ends up being).


I think Dustin assumed because you can’t indefinitely hire an actor. They’re freelance by definition, so you need to give windows of when you’ll need them for the sake of them doing other work.


I see, Orion. Thanks for the update.



Either there’s some kind of schedule, however provisional, to the Section 31 project. Or it’s still so early days that production won’t necessarily involve Yeoh; both are possible.

Could also be that the announcement came a bit early and that CBS now - post Moonves - first want to see if and how their Trek investment with Discovery pays off. From what I gather the show needs to work on a solid fanbase and Yeoh’s show would heavily profit from that.

The Picard show probably aims far more for the traditional fans and might reconcile the more critical ones with the new direction. But Yeoh’s show will primarily aim for audiences who already liked Discovery.