Star Trek Discovery SUCKS.

[heisenberg]

I think your assessment is spot on. It's not surprising Netflix has bailed on this money pit. What's surprising is that they were so eager to blindly dump money into it in the first place without having more oversight of the project. It's this "fiscal ignorance" that is going to burst the Netflix bubble at some point. Didn't they dump over $120 million into this one season? So much money wasted. I just don't see how Netflix can sustain itself when it's making such bone-headed financial decisions.

And you're right about them trying to find more of a legit Trek audience. Personally I find it pathetic, cynical and desperate. They've lost not only the Trek audience but a lot of casual viewers also. They won't be returning, certainly not for the Michael Berman story. Maybe if the showrunners do a massive retread and switch to an anthology style where the story is completely new and different, including a different cast that is moral, upstanding and actually heroic, then they might see an uptick in viewers. But I doubt even then that it will be enough to save this turkey.

Netflix is going to continue their cash burning

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/02/16/netflixs-cash-burn-continues-and-the-fire-rages.aspx

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/02/17/if-you-think-netflix-has-cash-flow-problems-wait-u.aspx

 

[heisenberg]

Are you kidding me? Chinese investors not only bankroll many of these blockbuster films, but they also insert their agenda or dictate things to be changed or removed if they are offensive to them. Pacific Rim, Cloud Atlas, and many others out there like the 2012 Red Dawn remake. Instead of China invading America as it was written, the Chinese investors forced the filmmakers to change the invader to north Korea. When I say Chinese investors, I do mean China or groups of individuals in China, not individual investors.

Chinese investors are friggin loaded. This is why the market fell by 5% before the Chinese new year but it gave me a reason to buy some more. They are also the reason why we have managed to make so much progress and well, how far we have come along.

 

[heisenberg]

I'm not sure the entire schedule is up there - but we do know that at least some of the second part episodes were not in the can when they did their test audiences and when the premiere aired.

As to being planned, this is actually the exact opposite. This is CBS reacting to seeing far fewer All Access subs that stayed around than they had projected and Netflix not agreeing to foot the whole bill for Season Two. They need more viewers - where can they find them? The large built in Trek audience is where they are trying to find them.

It would also explain why we have to wait till 2019 till we get season 2.

 

[PussyGalore]

Netflix is going to continue their cash burning

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/02/16/netflixs-cash-burn-continues-and-the-fire-rages.aspx

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/02/17/if-you-think-netflix-has-cash-flow-problems-wait-u.aspx

These are stealth pro-Netflix articles written by people who have a vested interest in keeping the charade going. They even admit as much in their "disclosure" blurb at the end of each article. Typical 21st century investment "thinkology" replete with false comparisons to Amazon, which has a completely different corporate structure and isn't comparable to Netflix.

(Amazon's streaming service is just one part of its company, not the entirety of it like it is for Netflix. Amazon can take a debt hit in regards to their streaming because, as their CEO pointed out, when they get viewers to their streaming service they also sell shoes [an example of additional sales]. Netflix doesn't get additional sales. People sign up and they view crappy content, that's it. Amazon on the other hand offers multiple options for Prime members that encourages them to buy hard goods, etc. And Amazon is nowhere near in debt with their streaming service that Netflix is. In short, the two companies are in no way comparable from an investment perspective. They are two different animals.)

I'm not knocking Heisenberg for posting these articles but I just wanted to point out that they were written by shills who have a vested interest in Netflix. -- And don't kid yourself, these guys are gonna bail on Netflix the very moment they smell blood in the water. They will quietly sell their shares and then will proceed to write articles on what Netflix did wrong all the while forgetting the fact that they were cheerleaders for the false belief that massive debt equals future value.

 

[Overmind One]

These are stealth pro-Netflix articles written by people who have a vested interest in keeping the charade going. They even admit as much in their "disclosure" blurb at the end of each article. Typical 21st century investment "thinkology" replete with false comparisons to Amazon, which has a completely different corporate structure and isn't comparable to Netflix.

(Amazon's streaming service is just one part of its company, not the entirety of it like it is for Netflix. Amazon can take a debt hit in regards to their streaming because, as their CEO pointed out, when they get viewers to their streaming service they also sell shoes [an example of additional sales]. Netflix doesn't get additional sales. People sign up and they view crappy content, that's it. Amazon on the other hand offers multiple options for Prime members that encourages them to buy hard goods, etc. And Amazon is nowhere near in debt with their streaming service that Netflix is. In short, the two companies are in no way comparable from an investment perspective. They are two different animals.)

I'm not knocking Heisenberg for posting these articles but I just wanted to point out that they were written by shills who have a vested interest in Netflix. -- And don't kid yourself, these guys are gonna bail on Netflix the very moment they smell blood in the water. They will quietly sell their shares and then will proceed to write articles on what Netflix did wrong all the while forgetting the fact that they were cheerleaders for the false belief that massive debt equals future value.

Excellent observations. Amazon is diversified, and their Prime Video service is not essential, or they would not just throw it in with Prime Membership like they do. Not only that, there is the new Smart Device Assistant market they have opened for themselves with Alexa and Show and the Fire products. Netflix is just out there and it's sole revenue streams are licensing for Netflix Originals and subscriber numbers. Even the shaky, quicksand-like ground CBS All Access sits on is more stable than Netflix in the long run.

 

[PussyGalore]

I should add that Netflix is recklessly spending as proven by the $120 million that it threw into the hole that is STD. One could argue that not every venture is going to be a success but in the case of STD they foolishly allowed someone else to take that money and do whatever the hell they wanted with it. That is not smart investing. No amount of imaginary future subscribers are going to be able to fix this type of foolish spending.

 

[heisenberg]

These are stealth pro-Netflix articles written by people who have a vested interest in keeping the charade going. They even admit as much in their "disclosure" blurb at the end of each article. Typical 21st century investment "thinkology" replete with false comparisons to Amazon, which has a completely different corporate structure and isn't comparable to Netflix.

(Amazon's streaming service is just one part of its company, not the entirety of it like it is for Netflix. Amazon can take a debt hit in regards to their streaming because, as their CEO pointed out, when they get viewers to their streaming service they also sell shoes [an example of additional sales]. Netflix doesn't get additional sales. People sign up and they view crappy content, that's it. Amazon on the other hand offers multiple options for Prime members that encourages them to buy hard goods, etc. And Amazon is nowhere near in debt with their streaming service that Netflix is. In short, the two companies are in no way comparable from an investment perspective. They are two different animals.)

I'm not knocking Heisenberg for posting these articles but I just wanted to point out that they were written by shills who have a vested interest in Netflix. -- And don't kid yourself, these guys are gonna bail on Netflix the very moment they smell blood in the water. They will quietly sell their shares and then will proceed to write articles on what Netflix did wrong all the while forgetting the fact that they were cheerleaders for the false belief that massive debt equals future value.

I only posted it to show how much they were spending. I don't own netflix or have any desire to own their shares because cashflow IMO is king. If a company isn't as well diversified as Amazon, I am not going to invest in it. I reckon that Hulu will survive but I am not sure about Netflix. Right now Netflix is trying extremely hard to stay relevant but it's burning its reserve like a red giant.

 

[heisenberg]

I should add that Netflix is recklessly spending as proven by the $120 million that it threw into the hole that is STD. One could argue that not every venture is going to be a success but in the case of STD they foolishly allowed someone else to take that money and do whatever the hell they wanted with it. That is not smart investing. No amount of imaginary future subscribers are going to be able to fix this type of foolish spending.

At least with amazon, they are actually making good use of their money. These guys, they are just throwing good money into bad, hoping that it will work.

 

[PussyGalore]

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/02/16/netflixs-cash-burn-continues-and-the-fire-rages.aspx

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/02/17/if-you-think-netflix-has-cash-flow-problems-wait-u.aspx

The more I think about it the more I realize just how sleazy the authors of these articles are. The closing paragraphs of their shill pieces for Netflix reveal just what kind of shitty, disingenuous people they are:

In a fast-growing industry, losses are often a sign that competitors see huge opportunities and profits ahead. While that may not always bear out, Netflix's accounting profits show that video streaming is a sustainable industry. Compared to Hulu and Amazon, it's a mistake to discredit Netflix for its negative free cash flow. At this stage in the game, that's merely table stakes.

Taken as a whole, these metrics show that Netflix's strategy is working. While investors will rightly continue to watch the cash burn, Netflix said, "We are increasing operating margins and expect that in the future, a combination of rising operating profits and slowing growth in original content spend will turn our business FCF positive."

From what I've seen, I think they'll succeed.

1. "losses are often a sign that competitors see huge opportunities and profits ahead"

LOL, what? What does this even mean??? If I'm the CEO of Burger King and I see that McDonald's is losing its ass on promoting their new McTurd sandwich I'm not going to think that there are huge opportunities and profits to be found in the turd sandwich market. Seriously, this is a profoundly stupid statement the author makes.

2. "it's a mistake to discredit Netflix for its negative free cash flow"

Um no, no it's not a mistake. A gargantuan negative free cash flow (which Netflix clearly has) is a giant red flag. If you're an investor who plans to keep your money in Netflix for the long haul you need to be worried about the huge amount of debt the company is carrying. There is no easy fix for such a large amount of debt. None.
Counting on potential future subscribers to bail you out is insane, especially when dealing with a completely new industry (the streaming market).

3. "these metrics show that Netflix's strategy is working"

No, these "metrics" are vague and skewed towards what the author wants to promote, which is obviously investment in Netflix. And more importantly, the streaming industry is brand new and the metrics to measure them are still being developed. (And from what we've seen with STD the metrics in use are easily skewed and biased in favor of
the ones doing the measuring.)

4. "investors will rightly continue to watch the cash burn"

Wow, this is such a ridiculous statement that part of my brain melted when I read it. Yes, spending money on infrastructure and product is a required part of business. But there is a huge difference between spending money in order to build the business verses indiscriminately "burning" it. Netflix is doing the latter, and to an insane degree. Unless a miracle happens, it will be their undoing. (Intelligent business owners don't rely on miracles to sustain their businesses. They deal in reality, unlike the brass at Netflix and The Motley Fool.)

5. "From what I've seen, I think they'll succeed."

From what I've seen you need to get your eyes checked. But then again you're clearly a shill for Netflix so your opinion on this matter is about as believable as the existence of the Tooth Fairy. Nice try though. Now do the world a favor and get a real job that doesn't involve dispensing laughably bad investment advice that includes watching companies "burn" through cash.

 

[Overmind One]

The more I think about it the more I realize just how sleazy the authors of these articles are. The closing paragraphs of their shill pieces for Netflix reveal just what kind of shitty, disingenuous people they are:






1. "losses are often a sign that competitors see huge opportunities and profits ahead"

LOL, what? What does this even mean??? If I'm the CEO of Burger King and I see that McDonald's is losing its ass on promoting their new McTurd sandwich I'm not going to think that there are huge opportunities and profits to be found in the turd sandwich market. Seriously, this is a profoundly stupid statement the author makes.

2. "it's a mistake to discredit Netflix for its negative free cash flow"

Um no, no it's not a mistake. A gargantuan negative free cash flow (which Netflix clearly has) is a giant red flag. If you're an investor who plans to keep your money in Netflix for the long haul you need to be worried about the huge amount of debt the company is carrying. There is no easy fix for such a large amount of debt. None.
Counting on potential future subscribers to bail you out is insane, especially when dealing with a completely new industry (the streaming market).

3. "these metrics show that Netflix's strategy is working"

No, these "metrics" are vague and skewed towards what the author wants to promote, which is obviously investment in Netflix. And more importantly, the streaming industry is brand new and the metrics to measure them are still being developed. (And from what we've seen with STD the metrics in use are easily skewed and biased in favor of
the ones doing the measuring.)

4. "investors will rightly continue to watch the cash burn"

Wow, this is such a ridiculous statement that part of my brain melted when I read it. Yes, spending money on infrastructure and product is a required part of business. But there is a huge difference between spending money in order to build the business verses indiscriminately "burning" it. Netflix is doing the latter, and to an insane degree. Unless a miracle happens, it will be their undoing. (Intelligent business owners don't rely on miracles to sustain their businesses. They deal in reality, unlike the brass at Netflix and The Motley Fool.)

5. "From what I've seen, I think they'll succeed."

From what I've seen you need to get your eyes checked. But then again you're clearly a shill for Netflix so your opinion on this matter is about as believable as the existence of the Tooth Fairy. Nice try though. Now do the world a favor and get a real job that doesn't involve dispensing laughably bad investment advice that includes watching companies "burn" through cash.

 

[PussyGalore]

View attachment 33851

One of the authors admits Netflix is burning cash right in the title, and then goes on to state "I think they'll succeed".

The term "burning cash" is a negative one. It literally means a fast, indiscriminate waste of money. Any investment guru who thinks burning cash is a path to success is a moron that no one should take advice from. Seriously, this guy is an idiot.

When The Motley Fool started many, many years ago it had a reputation for dispensing genuinely good investing advice. Obviously that integrity no longer exits as proven by the shill jobs they're cranking out now.

 

[Overmind One]

One of the authors admits Netflix is burning cash right in the title, and then goes on to state "I think they'll succeed".

The term "burning cash" is a negative one. It literally means a fast, indiscriminate waste of money. Any investment guru who thinks burning cash is a path to success is a moron that no one should take advice from. Seriously, this guy is an idiot.

When The Motley Fool started many, many years ago it had a reputation for dispensing genuinely good investing advice. Obviously that integrity no longer exits as proven by the shill jobs they're cranking out now.

It's a first class example of business-to-business spinning. It's the same thing the studios do with their turds, hiring "journalists" to spin the turd into art in an effort to get people to tune in to the turd. In this case, it's the same, but it's Netflix spinning it's bloated, indebted business obligations to the investors, in an effort to stave off massive selling of shares or a hostile selloff by the investors groups to another company.

 

[PussyGalore]

It's a first class example of business-to-business spinning. It's the same thing the studios do with their turds, hiring "journalists" to spin the turd into art in an effort to get people to tune in to the turd. In this case, it's the same, but it's Netflix spinning it's bloated, indebted business obligations to the investors, in an effort to stave off massive selling of shares or a hostile selloff by the investors groups to another company.

I love the way these shills talk about using "metrics" in the streaming industry when the truth is it's such a new industry that objective metrics have yet to be implemented. Right now the only metrics being used are ones that erroneously give numbers in favor of the company using those metrics. Case in point CBS No Access and their laughably fake ratings success for STD.

An objective third party streaming metric has yet to emerge and be used as the industry standard. Until that happens we will get nothing but lies and fake numbers from the companies that are promoting their own products.

 

[Overmind One]

I love the way these shills talk about using "metrics" in the streaming industry when the truth is it's such a new industry that objective metrics have yet to be implemented. Right now the only metrics being used are ones that erroneously give numbers in favor of the company using those metric. Case in point CBS No Access and their laughably fake ratings success for STD.

An objective third party streaming metric has yet to emerge and be used as the industry standard. Until that happens we will get nothing but lies and fake numbers from the companies that are promoting their own products.

The Prospectus reveals the truth. And that means the investors know as well. If Discovery were breaking any sort of records or if they had made CBS All Access confident, we would never hear the end of it. We would be hearing how Star trek Discovery is the most profitable addition to CBSAA, how the fans have overwhelmingly accepted it, etc. We are getting none of that. I think Netflix has less than 5 years left in it's present form. There will still be a Netflix later, but I doubt it will be owned in the same way as it is today.

 

[Lord Ba'al]

I actually hear people say they like Star Trek Discovery in real life. These are not people like us science fiction fans.

 

[Overmind One]

I actually hear people say they like Star Trek Discovery in real life. These are not people like us science fiction fans.

I have heard it too, but the couple I heard talking about it was just saying how they thought it was cool there was a woman Captain of Discovery (lol!) and that they use profanity. Nothing about space exploration or science. Lots of people liked the sparkly vampires in Twilight too.

 

[heisenberg]

The more I think about it the more I realize just how sleazy the authors of these articles are. The closing paragraphs of their shill pieces for Netflix reveal just what kind of shitty, disingenuous people they are:






1. "losses are often a sign that competitors see huge opportunities and profits ahead"

LOL, what? What does this even mean??? If I'm the CEO of Burger King and I see that McDonald's is losing its ass on promoting their new McTurd sandwich I'm not going to think that there are huge opportunities and profits to be found in the turd sandwich market. Seriously, this is a profoundly stupid statement the author makes.

2. "it's a mistake to discredit Netflix for its negative free cash flow"

Um no, no it's not a mistake. A gargantuan negative free cash flow (which Netflix clearly has) is a giant red flag. If you're an investor who plans to keep your money in Netflix for the long haul you need to be worried about the huge amount of debt the company is carrying. There is no easy fix for such a large amount of debt. None.
Counting on potential future subscribers to bail you out is insane, especially when dealing with a completely new industry (the streaming market).

3. "these metrics show that Netflix's strategy is working"

No, these "metrics" are vague and skewed towards what the author wants to promote, which is obviously investment in Netflix. And more importantly, the streaming industry is brand new and the metrics to measure them are still being developed. (And from what we've seen with STD the metrics in use are easily skewed and biased in favor of
the ones doing the measuring.)

4. "investors will rightly continue to watch the cash burn"

Wow, this is such a ridiculous statement that part of my brain melted when I read it. Yes, spending money on infrastructure and product is a required part of business. But there is a huge difference between spending money in order to build the business verses indiscriminately "burning" it. Netflix is doing the latter, and to an insane degree. Unless a miracle happens, it will be their undoing. (Intelligent business owners don't rely on miracles to sustain their businesses. They deal in reality, unlike the brass at Netflix and The Motley Fool.)

5. "From what I've seen, I think they'll succeed."

From what I've seen you need to get your eyes checked. But then again you're clearly a shill for Netflix so your opinion on this matter is about as believable as the existence of the Tooth Fairy. Nice try though. Now do the world a favor and get a real job that doesn't involve dispensing laughably bad investment advice that includes watching companies "burn" through cash.

If I was a smart trader, I would so trade netflix haha...The amount of money you could make good lord loool.

I'll tell you why Technology stocks like nvidia/facebook/apple/netflix are going up. It's because your official cash rate is so low that investors and people with a lot of money aren't getting value for their money so that's why they are not putting money in government bonds, but the trouble with that is that it is a disaster waiting to happen with recession looming.

 

[YJ02]

I love the way these shills talk about using "metrics" in the streaming industry when the truth is it's such a new industry that objective metrics have yet to be implemented. Right now the only metrics being used are ones that erroneously give numbers in favor of the company using those metrics. Case in point CBS No Access and their laughably fake ratings success for STD.

An objective third party streaming metric has yet to emerge and be used as the industry standard. Until that happens we will get nothing but lies and fake numbers from the companies that are promoting their own products.

i know its a diff industry, but we are talking one company scratching backs for another in hopes of getting some cash in return..or something

reminds of 10 yrs ago or more when banks may have been pushing investors into buying stock and other products in subprime mortgages and credit default swapping.

different mechanisms then entertainment i know, but IMO it is the same mentality (playing with other peoples money,etc) behind both

 

[YJ02]

more for the "Explain-o-verse"

<<< note-- I would love to see some sub set of Klingon society come into play. say if these guys in STD did some kind of gene therapy (because in canon we know they have already played with that) so their bodies matched their archaic klingon beliefs...(but that wouldn't work either...they say they worship Kahless but we know what he looks like already--though TPTB's could say the Kahless we saw in DS9 just manifested himself that way to match those klingons) it would a new dynamic to the klingon thing--that there is a faction of old school klingons who are a pain in the ass for the majority. but i have not read or seen where this is the case by end of season 1. maybe they will write it in to s2 >>>

 

[YJ02]

just an aside here

whatever became of the Khitomer agreement's "federation will assist in the evacuation of Kronos" after Praxis exploded?

did they evac and there is a new Kronos by the time of TNG? Did they not evac and the planet was stabilized?