Lack of quality and franchise fatigue aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, one could even argue for a direct correlation.
Poll How positive are you about Discovery now?
- Thread starter Mage
- Start date
That is what I am saying, the viewing public was tired of poor-quality Star Trek. Despite my love for all things Trek, I even bailed for a while during parts of ENT seasons 2 and 3.
Well, I guess I am glad that we were all a little more forgiving in 1987.
Yeah, I can't claim to know anything about JJ's actual thoughts, this is just my impression.
As for Discovery, I don't know that we can fairly judge whether or not it is a half measure until we actually see an episode or two.
Beyond was well in the can (if not all editing was done) by the time Discovery was announced let alone developed, so I doubt Discovery had any impact on the retcon.
Looking at raw Nielson numbers ignores a lot of what else was going on in television.
If you want to rely on ratings, you have to compare their numbers to what would get them renewed - which everything till ENT did well enough on. But clearly ratings aren't the be all and end all.
- When TNG started, there wasn't as much sci-fi on television
- TNG captured wide viewership in syndication, whereas Voyager was the flagship for the fledgling UPN
- As Trek progressed, the cable landscape expanded, and viewership fractured for all networks/shows/genres
- "People moved on" yeah, because the quality wasn't there
You can make up any excuses you like, but there's nothing ambiguous about the undeniable, nearly unvarying downward trend that began in DS9's second week and continued its slide right up to Enterprise's cancellation.
People started leaving Trek almost immediately after DS9 premiered and the audience drain never stopped - no matter which series you like or don't, all the shows sank from week to week.
You've got no quantifiable evidence whatever to support your argument; just a personal opinion of "quality."
Except TNG ratings continued, not at the peak of seasons 5-6, but high.
Yeah, I have no evidence to support my contention, but it is my opinion and all I can do (without some kind of national poll asking 1000 Americans their reason for watching or not watching later day Star Trek) is to support my opinion with argument points and my supporting reasoning. I have also tried to argue that your listing of Nielson ratings is also not direct evidence that there was any franchise fatigue.
But to go further I would ask, is your argument that the premiere of DS9 was sufficient for there to be fatigue throughout the viewership which never recovered?
I think it is more likely that DS9 didn't match what TNG viewers were used to in terms of setting, etc., combined with the first two seasons of DS9 not being as high quality as TNG seasons 5-6 (which would be their most recent comparisons). Those contributed to DS9's initial ratings decrease, and my previous arguments contributed to the continuation and that of Voyager and Enterprise. Even if DS9 has started season 1 with its seasons 3-7 quality, I don't know that it would have kept its initial viewership numbers (though it definitely would have kept more than it did) due to the factors that I mentioned before. I just can't agree in any way that simply having two shows on the air at the same time would amount to viewer fatigue.
Yeah, I have no evidence to support my contention, but it is my opinion and all I can do (without some kind of national poll asking 1000 Americans their reason for watching or not watching later day Star Trek) is to support my opinion with argument points and my supporting reasoning. I have also tried to argue that your listing of Nielson ratings is also not direct evidence that there was any franchise fatigue.
But to go further I would ask, is your argument that the premiere of DS9 was sufficient for there to be fatigue throughout the viewership which never recovered?
I think it is more likely that DS9 didn't match what TNG viewers were used to in terms of setting, etc., combined with the first two seasons of DS9 not being as high quality as TNG seasons 5-6 (which would be their most recent comparisons). Those contributed to DS9's initial ratings decrease, and my previous arguments contributed to the continuation and that of Voyager and Enterprise. Even if DS9 has started season 1 with its seasons 3-7 quality, I don't know that it would have kept its initial viewership numbers (though it definitely would have kept more than it did) due to the factors that I mentioned before. I just can't agree in any way that simply having two shows on the air at the same time would amount to viewer fatigue.
I think that their ratings continued because it was a known quantity, while DS9 and VOY promised to be something different, for good or for ill.
Another factor is that the later shows started encountering more and more competition on TV.
Good point. Should they do another Encylopedia featuring DSC, I imagine they'd have to separate it from the rest similar to how they did the Kelvin universe, due to the visual and technological changes they're making.Not sure it is really an issue now.
Before Discovery was announced to the public, yes.
Also remember Paramount plan/planned more Kelvin movies. Both sides were future-proofing.
I am optimistic about its quality, pessimistic about its prospects for success.
The distribution method in the US, poor management of international TV and film distribution in years gone by (limiting the fanbase for Trek outside the US) and the toxicity of the fanbase online will all serve to limit the show's potential audience.
Add in the somewhat divisive nature of its premise and setting among that dwindling fanbase, and I can't see it succeeding.
The distribution method in the US, poor management of international TV and film distribution in years gone by (limiting the fanbase for Trek outside the US) and the toxicity of the fanbase online will all serve to limit the show's potential audience.
Add in the somewhat divisive nature of its premise and setting among that dwindling fanbase, and I can't see it succeeding.
Being on Netflix everywhere (except US/Canada) works in its favour and negates those disadvantages.
Non-US Netflix has way less stuff on it, so people are more likely to check it out just by the virtue of being something new, and it doesn't really matter how toxic the conversation is right now because if the word eventually goes out that the show is good, people can easily jump in at any time. It's not important that the show finds an audience the same day it premiers, as long as it finds it eventually.
And if it's good, it will.
TNG was a success and built a fan base unique to it, who stayed with it through its run.
Those folks never all moved in to any other Trek show. A lot sampled DS9 for the first few weeks, then dropped it.
I think TNG was just more appealing to the mainstream audience, they took one look at DS9 (as evidences by high viewing numbers for "Emissary") and decided this isn't for them. Only the hardcore fans remained, and even some of them left because DS9 wasn't "traditional" Trek in several ways and was ahead of its time. Franchise fatigue came later.
These two posts basicly tell us everything we needed to know about the decline of viewers in Star Trek. People didn't like the boldy staying the f*** here aspect of DS9, and didn't watch. They prefered TNG. TNG ended, Voyager came along. Again, it wasn't TNG enough (which is ironic, since VOY basicly became TNG-Lite after a while) and people didn't like it. Enterprise came along and holy shit did hardcore fans blew some fuses!! Nothing looked like a TOS prequel should, how dare they!! So, people didn't watch.
After a while, in reruns or Netflix, or cheap dvds on Amazon. However, for ratings and studios, this does two things; Jack and Shit.
The new movies atleast showed there was still some interest in Star Trek, and CBS decided to give it another shot.
http://trekmovie.com/2017/08/02/stl...star-trek-discovery-is-telling-our-war-story/
http://trekmovie.com/2017/08/03/tur...ry-jason-isaacs-is-looking-for-a-catchphrase/
So personal and interpersonal drama will drive the series? And the series was named Discovery, because it is about the characters "discovering" themselves? The more I see and read about DIS, the less I am looking forward to it.
http://trekmovie.com/2017/08/03/tur...ry-jason-isaacs-is-looking-for-a-catchphrase/
So personal and interpersonal drama will drive the series? And the series was named Discovery, because it is about the characters "discovering" themselves? The more I see and read about DIS, the less I am looking forward to it.
Character driven fiction? Thank you!
I'm very optimistic about Discovery. I'm really liking what I see. I think this is what iss needed to continue with the revitalization of Trek. Personally didn't care much for DS9 or ENT even though I do like some episodes. TOS, TNG & VOY are my favorites along with the movies.
I know many rag on the rebooted movies but I like e them. I think they did bring new life to a dying franchise. I think Discovery has that same potential. What I fear is that some fans that are too hardcore will stick their noses up at it and not even give it a chance. The very definition of pre-judging something.
I know many rag on the rebooted movies but I like e them. I think they did bring new life to a dying franchise. I think Discovery has that same potential. What I fear is that some fans that are too hardcore will stick their noses up at it and not even give it a chance. The very definition of pre-judging something.
There is no denying that TNG had the best ratings and that much of its audience didn't move to DS9. DS9 went too far outside the box for fans who had come to enjoy the safe routine that they got from TNG every week. There was real conflict amongst the cast, Starfleet could be corrupted, the good guys weren't morally superior to everyone, the Captain of the show was questioning earth and its paradise, not every episode was wrapped up in a neat little bow, serialised and multipart episodes were introduced, ......It was just too different for them. Then again I know many fans of the TOS who couldn't stand TNG. Different strokes for different folks
I don't know. I know none of this is really important, but…
Paramount’s principal photography on Beyond ended October 15, 2015 so the script was done by then (reshoots adding the Kirk/Paris interactions would happen in March 2016). CBS announced the new show November 2, 2015 with Kurtzman (who wasn’t involved in Beyond) and Kadin as exec producers. Fuller was announced as showrunner in February 2016, and we know from his interviews that CBS didn't have a concept for the show when they approached him - Fuller brought the idea (it wouldn't even be announced that the show was called Discovery until July 2016). So to me this says that Discovery was a very new development as of the end of Beyond's principle photography in October. No way Pegg and Jung knew of it back when they were scripting the movie. They made it to cover the issues that arose from Orci and Kurtzman’s scripts for 2009 and Into Darkness and I would agree that, yes, the recton was also to allow them leniency for whatever differences they wanted to make in the future, but not because of Discovery.
I think this is probably the most correct. TNG hit something special in terms of timing vs other sci-fi and other contemporary TV, built up interest by long term fans of TOS and the movies, and eventually high quality. Even TNG didn't hold on to all the TOS fans who checked it out.
Its success wasn't as replicate-able as the powers that be assumed, and a number of factors contributed to the overall decline of ratings through the end of ENT. I still don't see it as 'fatigue'; more of a one-hit wonder in which subsequent shows could have been more successful with fixes to the behind-the-scenes issues I mentioned before.
I know right???? No more anomoly of the week, or alien-with-problem-to-fix! We're actually getting stories about people!
http://trekmovie.com/2017/08/02/stl...star-trek-discovery-is-telling-our-war-story/
http://trekmovie.com/2017/08/03/tur...ry-jason-isaacs-is-looking-for-a-catchphrase/
So personal and interpersonal drama will drive the series? And the series was named Discovery, because it is about the characters "discovering" themselves? The more I see and read about DIS, the less I am looking forward to it.
I suppose they could make another show filled with weird technobable and alien of the week. You know, Star Trek Voyager? The last time Star Trek was actually about the characters, was the later season of DS9. Where the characters were more important than what happened to them.
