EXO-6 Star Trek "Discovery" figures

[nanjin]

It sounds like he’s contractually locked into it, from what I understand, based on previous posts. I don’t wish to speak for Nanjin as I don’t know anything behind the scenes but let’s just assume that A) He’s doing this for the love of the franchise and wants to give to all fans or B) CBS/Viacom/Paramount - whomever signs off on these - mandate he releases a Discovery line. If it’s the latter, then it’s like filmmakers who will make a film for a studio if it means that they can work on a dream project next time.

I think people easily forget or don’t realise that there are a lot of behind-the-scenes politics with licensing. I’m personally not a fan of Discovery either, so I won’t get these, but I also see it as an opportunity to take a spending break after putting the best part of $800 down on 4 figures. If Discovery does sell well, then Nanjin CAN give fans of classic trek what they want later if the next 4-5 years go smoothly.

There won't be a break. DSC is DSC, TOS is TOS, TNG is TNG. They are on their own schedule. We can have 3-4 figures per month from different series.

Have no intention to maximize profit but to flood the market with happiness (have what they want) and regrets (missed what they thought they didn't want).

No one can have every Trek except me I think. Just get what you like and ignore all other series.

 

[Kebron]

This is a complete waste of time and will sell terribly. Don't waste the resources nanji, I promise it won't be a good outcome

That quote is going to age poorly by this time next year.

 

[gin007]

I really prefer Michael's hair this season over S1 although not sure I'm in love with the new uniforms.

 

[Kebron]

..... deluded

Yes, you are. Glad you realized that now.

I don't look at anecdotal evidence garnered from echo chambers of people with the same opinion as mine. I look at facts. If Discovery was unsuccessful as you insinuate then there wouldn't be 4 seasons of the show with a 5th being made, There wouldn't be all the other Trek shows currently in production. There wouldn't be merch being made and sold, and their wouldn't be fans at conventions seeking autographs from the actors who are on Discovery.

You might not like something and wish it to fail, but the reality is it's not a failure and it has fans that will buy these figures, and they will sell out.

 

[nanjin]

Discovery just won't appeal to some OG Trek fans. In my opinion, DSC was never intended for us. The show is to path a future road map or a transition for the continuation of Trek. Be realistic, us OG are fading away, without new markets Trek will eventually run out of audiences.

Like some comments above, rational business model, and educated investors won't pay a single dime if something is not profitable. DSC must be providing some kind of benefits, be it rating, return on investment, days trade, or simply a step of the greater business plan.

EXO-6 is using a similar Market approach, and I am using the same tactics that HT used to capture DC and Marvel's and collectors all at the same time.

EXO-6 DSC releases are jump boards for us just like the Trek franchise. It's existence is a lot important than its own success for Trek figures as a whole. Because of its strategic purposes, exceptional quality and appearance are even more important than existing markets in a long run.

Side note: not advertisement but as a Die Hard 1/6 Trek collector, DSC figures looks good. They are more inline with our coming KTL figures

 

[davejames]

I'm curious to see which figure goes up for sale first, Burnham or Saru...

 

[The Green Goblin]

Discovery just won't appeal to some OG Trek fans. In my opinion, DSC was never intended for us. The show is to path a future road map or a transition for the continuation of Trek. Be realistic, us OG are fading away, without new markets Trek will eventually run out of audiences.

Like some comments above, rational business model, and educated investors won't pay a single dime if something is not profitable. DSC must be providing some kind of benefits, be it rating, return on investment, days trade, or simply a step of the greater business plan.

EXO-6 is using a similar Market approach, and I am using the same tactics that HT used to capture DC and Marvel's and collectors all at the same time.

EXO-6 DSC releases are jump boards for us just like the Trek franchise. It's existence is a lot important than its own success for Trek figures as a whole. Because of its strategic purposes, exceptional quality and appearance are even more important than existing markets in a long run.

Side note: not advertisement but as a Die Hard 1/6 Trek collector, DSC figures looks good. They are more inline with our coming KTL figures

Very true. The Kelvin Timeline movies got me into Star Trek, that led to me watching Discovery, which led to Picard, and I started watching TNG a short while ago.

 

[thecapn]

I agree that DSC must be popular enough for them to continue putting so much money into it. I mean, seriously, the show looks like a major motion picture. That costs $, and they wouldn't put that into it if there wasn't some folks watching.

That said, I'm not 100% sure I agree that that means it's successful, at least, not to the typical standards of what "successful" means.

1. DSC is a business tactic, and an important one. Right now, it's the lynchpin of the Trek model. It's the flagship program that all the other shows revolve around. Without it, those other shows may not exist. And not just Trek even; it's the flagship program for the whole Paramount+ environment. I'm not necessarily saying it's "too big to fail," from a business perspective for CBS, but...it's in that same sentiment. Look at the Paramount+ advertising. DSC is front and center. What else do they have? The only thing I ever see them advertising is DSC, the rest of Trek, Paw Patrol, and RuPaul's Drag Race. Oof.

2. If it was really so good, they wouldn't have re-re-rebooted it. AGAIN. Clearly, something wasn't working, either in terms of the viewership, or upper management pressure, or even just Kurtzman's preferences taking over. But it's literally been soft-rebooted twice already. First, wrapping up the Federation/Klingon war so quickly to move past it. Second, to move it to the future. You could also potentially say adding Pike/Spock/the Enterprise was a soft reboot as well, but that may be reaching on my part. What do reboots mean? Usually, that they're trying to right the ship. Voyager with Seven. Enterprise with the Xindi War, then the mini-arcs in Season 4.

3. While they're not as vocal in the Trek community, I have noticed that there is a sizable amount of people who watch DSC who never watched previous Trek - The Green Goblin above, for example. That doesn't mean these people don't exist, they just probably aren't "one of us/drunk the kool-aid" (lol) just yet. It's all about expanding the fan base, and if it's doing that, then it's successful.

Point is, there's some indication that Discovery is successful. There's some indication that it's not. CBS obviously sees it as successful enough for its purposes.

Nanjin's got his finger on the pulse of it. To someone, somehow, DSC makes sense financially. What that means? Who knows!

 

[Kebron]

I agree that DSC must be popular enough for them to continue putting so much money into it. I mean, seriously, the show looks like a major motion picture. That costs $, and they wouldn't put that into it if there wasn't some folks watching.

That said, I'm not 100% sure I agree that that means it's successful, at least, not to the typical standards of what "successful" means.

1. DSC is a business tactic, and an important one. Right now, it's the lynchpin of the Trek model. It's the flagship program that all the other shows revolve around. Without it, those other shows may not exist. And not just Trek even; it's the flagship program for the whole Paramount+ environment. I'm not necessarily saying it's "too big to fail," from a business perspective for CBS, but...it's in that same sentiment. Look at the Paramount+ advertising. DSC is front and center. What else do they have? The only thing I ever see them advertising is DSC, the rest of Trek, Paw Patrol, and RuPaul's Drag Race. Oof.

2. If it was really so good, they wouldn't have re-re-rebooted it. AGAIN. Clearly, something wasn't working, either in terms of the viewership, or upper management pressure, or even just Kurtzman's preferences taking over. But it's literally been soft-rebooted twice already. First, wrapping up the Federation/Klingon war so quickly to move past it. Second, to move it to the future. You could also potentially say adding Pike/Spock/the Enterprise was a soft reboot as well, but that may be reaching on my part. What do reboots mean? Usually, that they're trying to right the ship. Voyager with Seven. Enterprise with the Xindi War, then the mini-arcs in Season 4.

3. While they're not as vocal in the Trek community, I have noticed that there is a sizable amount of people who watch DSC who never watched previous Trek - The Green Goblin above, for example. That doesn't mean these people don't exist, they just probably aren't "one of us/drunk the kool-aid" (lol) just yet. It's all about expanding the fan base, and if it's doing that, then it's successful.

Point is, there's some indication that Discovery is successful. There's some indication that it's not. CBS obviously sees it as successful enough for its purposes.

Nanjin's got his finger on the pulse of it. To someone, somehow, DSC makes sense financially. What that means? Who knows!

That's the kind of reasoning I like to see. I agree with most of what you said and the parts the parts I don't are so well said it makes me pause to think about them.

I've said it before DISCO isn't my favorite Trek. For the most part it's just not as good as the older Trek. But that doesn't mean its a failure, or that it isn't someone's favorite Trek out there. I'm just so over people being all doom and gloom when DISCO is mentioned.

 

[nanjin]

I agree that DSC must be popular enough for them to continue putting so much money into it. I mean, seriously, the show looks like a major motion picture. That costs $, and they wouldn't put that into it if there wasn't some folks watching.

That said, I'm not 100% sure I agree that that means it's successful, at least, not to the typical standards of what "successful" means.

1. DSC is a business tactic, and an important one. Right now, it's the lynchpin of the Trek model. It's the flagship program that all the other shows revolve around. Without it, those other shows may not exist. And not just Trek even; it's the flagship program for the whole Paramount+ environment. I'm not necessarily saying it's "too big to fail," from a business perspective for CBS, but...it's in that same sentiment. Look at the Paramount+ advertising. DSC is front and center. What else do they have? The only thing I ever see them advertising is DSC, the rest of Trek, Paw Patrol, and RuPaul's Drag Race. Oof.

2. If it was really so good, they wouldn't have re-re-rebooted it. AGAIN. Clearly, something wasn't working, either in terms of the viewership, or upper management pressure, or even just Kurtzman's preferences taking over. But it's literally been soft-rebooted twice already. First, wrapping up the Federation/Klingon war so quickly to move past it. Second, to move it to the future. You could also potentially say adding Pike/Spock/the Enterprise was a soft reboot as well, but that may be reaching on my part. What do reboots mean? Usually, that they're trying to right the ship. Voyager with Seven. Enterprise with the Xindi War, then the mini-arcs in Season 4.

3. While they're not as vocal in the Trek community, I have noticed that there is a sizable amount of people who watch DSC who never watched previous Trek - The Green Goblin above, for example. That doesn't mean these people don't exist, they just probably aren't "one of us/drunk the kool-aid" (lol) just yet. It's all about expanding the fan base, and if it's doing that, then it's successful.

Point is, there's some indication that Discovery is successful. There's some indication that it's not. CBS obviously sees it as successful enough for its purposes.

Nanjin's got his finger on the pulse of it. To someone, somehow, DSC makes sense financially. What that means? Who knows!

Check out their stock movements.

 

[KXG]

Twitter and Youtube channels like Doomcock and Midnight’s Edge would have you believe that CBS/Viacom is in dire straights, with plummeting stock and poor viewing figures for STD (as it’s bluntly put) but you can look to this as sensationalism, as much as any other outlet I suppose.

There does seem to be a vocal fan base, so interesting to see if fans front the cash for Exo releases, but there is also perhaps a bit of stubbornness involved on the studio’s side. As Nanjin says, it must be making some return; there’s only so much money that can be pumped into an apparently dying series before you have to turn the lights off. I imagine a large part of this is also varying politics, from financial to identity and the studio desperately wants more diversity, which Star Trek never had any issue dealing with - it just did it in realistic terms. The difference is that the identity politics in STD - and Picard to that extent - is about as blunt as a hammer to the face.

 

[nanjin]

That's the kind of reasoning I like to see. I agree with most of what you said and the parts the parts I don't are so well said it makes me pause to think about them.

I've said it before DISCO isn't my favorite Trek. For the most part it's just not as good as the older Trek. But that doesn't mean its a failure, or that it isn't someone's favorite Trek out there. I'm just so over people being all doom and gloom when DISCO is mentioned.

Those who didn't like DSC should be mostly Trek fans. Trek fans only like their own versions of Trek, and the franchise segmented into different generations. For example, my niece husband, started as VOY fan, zero interest in TOS, said it belongs to museum, laughable props, practically nothing good from his TOS comments. Only interested in Picard, some interest of DS9, and knew everything about ENT. Didn't like DSC but love PCD because of Seven.

Trek friends are segmented. I see this as a Fact, a conclusion of my observation. Therefore, approaching these segmented audiences with one single approach is wrong. EXO-6 tackles this by approaching the segmentated fans according to the series that they like and not as Star Trek as a whole.

From the audience standpoint, exo-6 is jumping around along the Trek timeline. But from EXO-6 standpoint we are not. We are targeting each segmented Trek fans individually.

In positioning, it is clear that I am doing the same approach as Alex Kurtzman, targeting new audience using the classic Trek fans as base audience for Paramount + (available resource) then using this base they create new audience (this is an unknown future). I am doing the same thing. Using the already existed 1/6 Fan base to support our venture into other series. Remember Paramount + makes more money and a lot more important for the future of ViacomCBS than Star Trek. Star Trek is only a tool for them to launch Paramount + and make their money through Stock value. See picture, calculate how much money they made just by make announcements. The entire year income was earned in a week.

We don't need to build fan base. They are here for 55 years, just gather them to form a strong base, then approach new territories. Paramount+ bottom line looks a lot better with a large number of Trek subscribers.

I am doing the same thing. See how much attention EXO-6 had created with FC Data and Picard, once the audience attention is acquired, we can begin separating the customer base with the captains. Janeway release secured the future of the entire VOY line. From this point onward, VOY will move on its own. EXO-6 is doing this for each series.

 

[Astra]

Nanjin, just so you know - with you showing that Archer sculpt some days ago you have me become suddenly VERY interested and I am about to watch Enterprise for the very first time - originally to determine whether or not to buy him, but that is alredy settled.
So, it's all your fault!

There are many different ways to get people into Trek. I started to watch TOS after realizing there were many nods for fans in the Kelvin movies that I did not get and so I went back to the beginning.

 

[davejames]

I agree that DSC must be popular enough for them to continue putting so much money into it. I mean, seriously, the show looks like a major motion picture. That costs $, and they wouldn't put that into it if there wasn't some folks watching.

That said, I'm not 100% sure I agree that that means it's successful, at least, not to the typical standards of what "successful" means.

1. DSC is a business tactic, and an important one. Right now, it's the lynchpin of the Trek model. It's the flagship program that all the other shows revolve around. Without it, those other shows may not exist. And not just Trek even; it's the flagship program for the whole Paramount+ environment. I'm not necessarily saying it's "too big to fail," from a business perspective for CBS, but...it's in that same sentiment. Look at the Paramount+ advertising. DSC is front and center. What else do they have? The only thing I ever see them advertising is DSC, the rest of Trek, Paw Patrol, and RuPaul's Drag Race. Oof.

2. If it was really so good, they wouldn't have re-re-rebooted it. AGAIN. Clearly, something wasn't working, either in terms of the viewership, or upper management pressure, or even just Kurtzman's preferences taking over. But it's literally been soft-rebooted twice already. First, wrapping up the Federation/Klingon war so quickly to move past it. Second, to move it to the future. You could also potentially say adding Pike/Spock/the Enterprise was a soft reboot as well, but that may be reaching on my part. What do reboots mean? Usually, that they're trying to right the ship. Voyager with Seven. Enterprise with the Xindi War, then the mini-arcs in Season 4.

3. While they're not as vocal in the Trek community, I have noticed that there is a sizable amount of people who watch DSC who never watched previous Trek - The Green Goblin above, for example. That doesn't mean these people don't exist, they just probably aren't "one of us/drunk the kool-aid" (lol) just yet. It's all about expanding the fan base, and if it's doing that, then it's successful.

Point is, there's some indication that Discovery is successful. There's some indication that it's not. CBS obviously sees it as successful enough for its purposes.

Nanjin's got his finger on the pulse of it. To someone, somehow, DSC makes sense financially. What that means? Who knows!

As to the second point, I think it's a stretch to call any of those things "reboots". The Klingon War lasted through the first season, and then they shifted to a different storyline for the second, which seems pretty standard for any modern TV series.

And it's pretty clear they had been building up to that jump to the future since the beginning, what with all those mysterious time crystals we saw in the opening credits (although apparently the original plan was to only jump forward 300 years instead of 1000). And Kurtzman also hinted numerous times that they had a plan to resolve the canon issues people were having, with the spore drive, Spock's sister, etc that no one mentions later on.

So I just see these as the writers shaking things up and constantly trying to keep the show fresh. Because modern series can't get away with the super formulaic storytelling we used to always see in the 80s or 90s.

 

[BACON!]

Michael's got a bobble head vibe going on in that shot, very Robot Chicken.

Saru looks great though.

Unfortunately for me though, I can't get one without the other. I will have to really think about these.

My sentiments exactly. EXO-6 needs to find a sculptor that can accurately render female heads. Burnham and Janeway, 2 of my fave Star Trek characters, are both a no-go for me due to the head sculpt

 

[thecapn]

As to the second point, I think it's a stretch to call any of those things "reboots". The Klingon War lasted through the first season, and then they shifted to a different storyline for the second, which seems pretty standard for any modern TV series.

And it's pretty clear they had been building up to that jump to the future since the beginning, what with all those mysterious time crystals we saw in the opening credits (although apparently the original plan was to only jump forward 300 years instead of 1000). And Kurtzman hinted from the start that they had a plan to resolve the canon issues people were having, with the spore drive etc that no one mentions later on.

So I just see these as the writers shaking things up and constantly trying to keep the show fresh. Because modern series can't get away with the super formulaic storytelling we used to always see in the 80s or 90s.

Ehhhh....I'm not so sure I buy that it was "planned from the beginning," though Kurtzman would probably like you to believe that.

Remember the upheaval that plagued DSC behind the scenes from the beginning. Bryan Fuller is the showrunner, plans out the first few episodes, then leaves. He's said in interviews that he WANTED the show to be an Anthology (like American Horror Story), with each season tackling a different part of Trek we haven't really seen before, with the first season being the Federation/Klingon War, and that's how the first few episodes were originally written; but CBS didn't like that (it's harder to market that way, which I completely understand). Then there were the other two showrunners that came in, Harberts and Berg, and shifted it away from the Klingon War as soon as they could - it was pretty clear there was a shift in focus around the 4th episode or so (as soon as Fuller's scripts were finished shooting - there was pressure to get the show out the door, so they had to shoot what they had). The War didn't even last through the first season, if you recall; it got wrapped up with a bow around episode 10, only for them to proceed to wrap up the first season with an extended stay in the Mirror Universe.

I agree it may be reaching that the Enterprise/Pike/Spock addition in season two may not have been a soft reboot (I said so in my last post too). It IS common to try to add popular existing characters to a show that's struggling (see Worf in DS9, for example. Q in Voyager). But I'm not 100% sure that's what was happening.

Anyway, Harberts and Berg set up season two and even gave interviews about what they were planning with a scientific mystery, and it's clear they set the original starting point for the second season and had a significant amount of the season-long arc in place. Then they were fired, supposedly over harassment, and Kurtzman took over, and has been in charge ever since. To me, it's pretty clear that Kurtzman was the one that changed the direction of the second season toward leading to a future jump, and that was his soft reboot.

Maybe it's possible that Harberts and Berg intended for there to be a time jump too? And that's why those crystals are there in the credits? I don't see much evidence of that in the scripts, but it's definitely possible. But, as you yourself said, Kurtzman definitely at least adjusted that plan from their original idea (300 to 1000 years). I definitely applaud him for it. I think DSC has gotten a lot better post-jump, and it finally reconciled for the most part with canon.

So, I stand by what I say. There's no way Kurtzman could've planned anything from the beginning, because he wasn't there. Fuller point-blank said what his plan was, and everything after the War wasn't it. So from my viewpoint, that's at least two soft-reboots (one from Fuller pivoting to Harberts and Berg, another pivoting from them to Kurtzman).

Now, all that is really about behind-the-scenes drama. It's possible that none of this has anything to do with viewership, or anything outside the writer's room, and that it has nothing to do with how successful the show is. It just...doesn't look good from a "how successful is this show?" point-of-view.

Short version - Here's the breakdown:

1. Shows often add new/popular existing characters to boost viewership
2. Shows often soft-reboot to boost viewership
3. DSC has done both
4. 1 and 2 do not necessarily mean DSC is unsuccessful
5. Without viewership numbers, we know NOTHING beyond anecdotal evidence, so this really means NOTHING.

Maybe we just disagree about what a soft reboot is, and that's cool too

 

[davejames]

Yeah there's definitely been a lot of behind the scenes drama, but creatively I just don't see any wild shifts in style or sense any of this panic over falling ratings from the network or producers that the show's haters like to constantly read into things.

Most of the changes just feel like the show naturally growing and evolving over time like most shows do, as the writers and producers decide to try out new things. In fact I would argue TNG and DS9 changed a whole lot more in their first few years than DSC has so far, when it comes to the general tone and style of the show. And that wasn't done so much for ratings but because the writers just didn't think things were working quite right creatively.

 

[Kebron]

1. Shows often add new/popular existing characters to boost viewership

I think Pike/Spock/Enterprise was a little of what you said but more about trying to get more TOS like show out. I really feel that all along they wanted to do some sort of Enterprise show, and introducing the Pike era Enterprise in DISCO and giving viewers a whole season to get to know Pike was a way to launch the spinoff with the new audience they gained with DISCO.

Wasn't Fuller's Trek show suppose to be all multiversal too. Not just the mirror universe, and Kelvin, but more like what the MCU is now moving towards.

 

[Kebron]

In fact I would argue TNG and DS9 changed a whole lot more in their first few years than DSC has so far, when it comes to the general tone and style of the show.

Voyager too. All that Maquis/Starfleet tension disappeared quickly.

TNG changed due to Roddenberry passing and the writers being able to get out from under his reigns.

DS9 from my understanding was due to the studios paying less attention to them, so they could start doing exactly what they wanted to.

 

[thecapn]

All fair points. DS9, TNG, and VOY all also changed showrunners and overturned the writing staff during their runs as well. My point was just that it was happening. Not that it meant anything.

There is ONE wild shift in style IMHO with regard to DSC, and that's how they dealt with the Klingons at the beginning. It definitely felt like the intent was to show the war from both sides and that the Klingon characters were going to be main characters as much as the DSC crew was - at least, that's how it felt in the first few episodes. Which was different from what we've seen before - we usually see things mainly through the eyes of our Starfleet crew, with minor changes here and there. The whole setup of DSC, where we saw a lot of the political infighting within the Klingon houses, the torchbearer, all that stuff - we wouldn't have seen that on another show.

And we didn't see it again after those first few episodes either.

With that said, that's the only real shift in style I can think of. Michael's character has completely changed over the course of the show, but that's to be expected as a show grows (she went from struggling with her Vulcan upbringing and her emotions to...well, just being emotional and pretty much ignoring all of that).

The jump to the future may not be stylistically different - it still feels like the same show - but it definitely changes the narrative completely, enough that I'd call it a soft reboot, considering that it appears that they intend to stay in this new normal - adding Book and Adira, Book's ship, the new Federation, etc.

Changing the subject, I know most don't agree with me on this - but man, VOY season two was really great, with the recurring minor characters, Hogan, Seska, Jonas, Suder - then they just said eff it, let's kill them all and make it the Seven of Nine show. UGH. Such promise wasted...