Poll How positive are you about Discovery now?

[RAMA]

Well not many of them probably watched Game of Thrones from episode 1, having got excited based on the trailer. I didn't even know GoT existed until season 2, and I consider myself quite a genre TV fan. Yet it grew into arguably the biggest genre show of all time. You're not going to be watercooler TV from episode 1, it takes time for this stuff to build. Even the first season streaming hits like OITNB and House of Cards weren't popular prior to release.

That's relative of course. STNG averaged 17 million viewers per week. GoT set a show record with 16.5 million for the finale. STNG's pilot had 27 million viewers. TV was different then.

I do agree with the suggestion DSC will get more popular over time. With the glut of genre shows available to watch, it'll take time for fans to warm up to a series from a franchise that's been off for a generation in TV time. I do think it will get there. I think it will be a critical success, and glossy enough to attract casual fans over time.

RAMA

 

[Noname Given]

Yes but the name originates in the TOS episode "Whom Gods Destroy".

Actually, Axanar was first mentioned in the 1st Season TOS episode: "Court Martial"

 

[tomalak301]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread to ask, but considering we're talking about maybe the show finding an audience over time, do we know if CBS All Access will keep the episodes on the site and they won't be deleted after an x amount of time? I know on the main network sites you only have like 3 weeks to see an episode before it's gone but with All Access, I expect the show to be readily available always with each episode being added to the library.

 

[cultcross]

That's relative of course. STNG averaged 17 million viewers per week. GoT set a show record with 16.5 million for the finale. STNG's pilot had 27 million viewers. TV was different then.

Well yes, different enough that the numbers really aren't comparable. For a show to be getting numbers like that today, and be the sort of show GoT is, a fantasy genre show with swords and sorcery, graphic violence, swearing and boobs, is phenomenal. Weekly office conversations revolve around the show, people make obscure references in non-nerd company and everyone laughs, and there are literally thousands of blogs and podcasts every week about the show. By any fair measure, it has achieved something few genre shows ever do. But the point was that it didn't do it in year 1, and it certainly didn't do it before it had aired on the back of a trailer. It took Ned Stark's death before it exploded into popular culture. Discovery, realistically, will never be that big. But it could be OITNB big, or House of Cards big. It just isn't going to be before its even aired. At most, mild interest is the most we can hope for from the casual viewer, and from a Star Trek show, that would be something in itself.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread to ask, but considering we're talking about maybe the show finding an audience over time, do we know if CBS All Access will keep the episodes on the site and they won't be deleted after an x amount of time? I know on the main network sites you only have like 3 weeks to see an episode before it's gone but with All Access, I expect the show to be readily available always with each episode being added to the library.

Using the only CBSAA example I can think of at this point, The Good Fight, it looks like an episode would be added one at a time, and now the whole season is still available for viewing. From the episode dates, the last one aired on April 16, 2017.

 

[johnjm22]

It's not fan interest that's the concern. The fanbase is interested. Even fans who are very negative about it are interested and will eventually check it out.

It's the general audience that's the concern. Are they interested in it? Do they even know about it? Lots of people who weren't Star Trek fans had interest in ST09. I don't see anywhere the same level of interest in Discovery.

You can't gauge interest in the show based on a Star Trek fan forum.

 

[RAMA]

Unfortunately, the only real inkling for DSC's mass appeal will be the ratings for the pilot on CBS. As pointed out in the Variety article, we won't be able to tell how well it's doing except for the fact that CBS keeps it on.

Contrary to what I had heard originally, only the first hour is going to be shown, not the whole 2 hours. Will it get Enterprise's 14 million viewers? I think it will hover around that mark. This is really rather a clever way of getting millions of people to subscribe for part 2.

Don't forget, STNG was a wild card. Its numbers were generated over a weekend on syndication, and much harder to find--at least at first--for people than GoT is. The fact a sequel scifi show did so well off a network is astounding.

RAMA

Well yes, different enough that the numbers really aren't comparable. For a show to be getting numbers like that today, and be the sort of show GoT is, a fantasy genre show with swords and sorcery, graphic violence, swearing and boobs, is phenomenal. Weekly office conversations revolve around the show, people make obscure references in non-nerd company and everyone laughs, and there are literally thousands of blogs and podcasts every week about the show. By any fair measure, it has achieved something few genre shows ever do. But the point was that it didn't do it in year 1, and it certainly didn't do it before it had aired on the back of a trailer. It took Ned Stark's death before it exploded into popular culture. Discovery, realistically, will never be that big. But it could be OITNB big, or House of Cards big. It just isn't going to be before its even aired. At most, mild interest is the most we can hope for from the casual viewer, and from a Star Trek show, that would be something in itself.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Don't forget, STNG was a wild card. Its numbers were generated over a weekend on syndication, and much harder to find--at least at first--for people than GoT is. The fact a sequel scifi show did so well off a network is astounding.

On top of that, you had people tuning in, curious as to a Star Trek anything without Kirk and Spock. That kind of caution or confusion had them tune in, not sure what they were seeing, and staying on (most of them, anyway).

 

[2takesfrakes]

I don't care for the overall Art Direction, from what I've seen of Discovery, so far. However, as a STAR TREK series, I commend it for trying to be its own thing. I am very wary of this offering. Very wary, indeed. However ... I cannot live without new STAR TREK! Tis though CBS has grabbed me by the base of my coco de mer ...

 

[BillJ]

...that we still have no official on-screen picture of our main ship...

That has no bearing on what people think of the show.

 

[Rahul]

Is this not a contradiction in your argument? The fans all vote positive because they're fans, but they lack enthusiasm? If I'm a fan of a franchise and I'm 'positive' about a new instalment in that franchise, I'll definitely be watching it! I can't think many wouldn't. As Jason Isaacs said, even most of those who aren't positive will watch it.

As for general viewing public, well I can't speak for the US because of the extra hurdle of subscribing the CBS AllAccess, I don't know enough about CBS or the popularity of the other shows it offers to comment. But outside the US, where Netflix market penetration is pretty decent already, and 'Star Trek Voyager' is always in the 'trending' list on UK Netflix, I think it will find an audience ready and waiting.

Well not many of them probably watched Game of Thrones from episode 1, having got excited based on the trailer. I didn't even know GoT existed until season 2, and I consider myself quite a genre TV fan. Yet it grew into arguably the biggest genre show of all time. You're not going to be watercooler TV from episode 1, it takes time for this stuff to build. Even the first season streaming hits like OITNB and House of Cards weren't popular prior to release.

There really is no contradiction you try to make up.
It's "cautiously optimistic" vs. "fan enthusiasm". I'm "cautiously optimistic" about Discovery. But tbh there's really nothing making me anything excited about it in the marketing beyond the name 'Star Trek' in it's title. That's either a massive marketing failure, or indeed a bad product. One thing is sure though: I'm not running around telling people there's a new Trek show that I'm excited for. And I'm the easy target.

Compare that to the marketing and producing of the Disney-machine: The Thor: Ragnarok-trailer(s) blow peoples minds! I'm stoked for that. I show friends the trailer and talk about it, and it's already a definite given that I'm going to watch that. And I'm not even a Thor-fan in the first place!

I remember fan interest in 1987, and I think Discovery has surpassed it by quite a wide margin. Think about the negatives from when it was delayed..the very fact so many people were up in arms is because of the sheer impatience for seeing a new Trek show for the first time in 12 years. Pro or con, this is the most widely talked about new Trek show in history.

Yeah, I actually quite do believe the buzz on the Internet today is much bigger than it was in 1987

 

[Rahul]

...that we still have no official on-screen picture of our main ship...

That has no bearing on what people think of the show.

It has insofar, as there's nothing concrete to talk about.
When Voyager premiered, people could point to the ship and say: This is the focus of the show. And the premise is this. (ship lost in space). Same was possible for DS9 (it's Star Trek set on a space station, this one!) or even ENT (It's set on a Enterprise before Kirk, THIS one!)

What do we have for Discovery? The Shenzhou? That's not the main ship! "Just look up some exclusive Comic Con posters or go the merchandise sites to check out what the hero ship looks like!" "What?"
Same for premise. The only thing we know is "war with the klingons". But that this is maybe not the premise for the whole show, just the first season, and that it focuses equally on the klingon side and their 24 houses, probably?

This leaves us with the following:
We have a new show. We don't know anything about the hero ship, the setting and the main focus point of the series. We don't know what the plot will be. And we don't know anything about the tone of the series (will it be super serious? comedic? dark? adventureus?), except it will have lots of explosions. The only thing we have going for it are the actors (genuinly great! But lots of good actors are in bad stuff), and pictures of the corridors/sets - which frankly look a lot like the dark grey/blue sets of DS9/VOY/ENT/Into Darkness.

I don't know about you, but for me that's a failure of marketing, as I have virtually nothing to tell my non-Trek friends about this show, or why they should watch it, except that I personally am into "Star Trek" and like to check out what they do with it.

 

[BillJ]

Same for premise. The only thing we know is "war with the klingons". But that this is maybe not the premise for the whole show, just the first season, and that it focuses equally on the klingon side and their 24 houses, probably?

The trailers pretty much tell you the premise for the first season, Burnham and the Klingons and that they are related. We'll seen the ship, heck, it was the very first thing shown.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

There really is no contradiction you try to make up.
It's "cautiously optimistic" vs. "fan enthusiasm". I'm "cautiously optimistic" about Discovery. But tbh there's really nothing making me anything excited about it in the marketing beyond the name 'Star Trek' in it's title. That's either a massive marketing failure, or indeed a bad product. One thing is sure though: I'm not running around telling people there's a new Trek show that I'm excited for. And I'm the easy target.

Compare that to the marketing and producing of the Disney-machine: The Thor: Ragnarok-trailer(s) blow peoples minds! I'm stoked for that. I show friends the trailer and talk about it, and it's already a definite given that I'm going to watch that. And I'm not even a Thor-fan in the first place!



Yeah, I actually quite do believe the buzz on the Internet today is much bigger than it was in 1987

First, it shows that everyone's tastes are different: I think the Thor trailers are hideously overblown video game clips! I'm not even planning on seeing it in the theatres or at all.

Second, you quote something that doesn't mention the internet at all for 1987. He said "fan interest".

 

[Rahul]

The trailers pretty much tell you the premise for the first season, Burnham and the Klingons and that they are related. We'll seen the ship, heck, it was the very first thing shown.

So then, tell me who's Burnham?
Beyond the colour of her skin or that she has a connection to Sarek.
What's she like as a person? Why should we care about her? What's her story? What's her character? And what has anything of that to do with the klingons?

That's something a good trailer should make clear. For literally any other property, wether it's "Stranger Things" or "Guardians of The Galaxy", the trailers tell you at least something about their characters and stories.

I now want you to tell me the same things about Discovery. See if you can do this.

 

[BillJ]

I now want you to tell me the same things about Discovery. See if you can do this.

Burnham is someone with a score to settle, but realizes it isn't simple and learns the values of "Star Trek" along the way. This has all been discussed in painful detail over and over and over...

 

[KirkusOveractus]

So then, tell me who's Burnham?
Beyond the colour of her skin or that she has a connection to Sarek.
What's she like as a person? Why should we care about her? What's her story? What's her character? And what has anything of that to do with the klingons?

That's something a good trailer should make clear. For literally any other property, wether it's "Stranger Things" or "Guardians of The Galaxy", the trailers tell you at least something about their characters and stories.

I now want you to tell me the same things about Discovery. See if you can do this.

I will let who you asked the question of the chance to answer, but may I ask of you if you could define Peter Quill from the first "Guardians" trailer? What's he like as a person? Why should we care about him? What's his story? What's his character? What does it have to do with the other sequences shown?

If a trailer shows all of that and answers all of those questions, then there is no purpose in seeing the rest of the movie or series.

 

[Rahul]

First, it shows that everyone's tastes are different: I think the Thor trailers are hideously overblown video game clips! I'm not even planning on seeing it in the theatres or at all.

Second, you quote something that doesn't mention the internet at all for 1987. He said "fan interest".

The point is not specific taste. The point is general excitement (which the marketing should have curbed).

I have seen way more enthusiasm about the new Black Mirror trailer. THe casting of the new Doctor. Or even just announcements for other series like Stranger Things season 2. I have yet to see anyone mentioning "Discovery" as something they are looking forward to outside of a Trek forum.

To be fair, trailers can be misleading (see: Suicide Squad) and aren't always a good indication for the quality of the final product. But as of now, DIS doesn't make too good an impression in that department...

 

[BillJ]

I will let who you asked the question of the chance to answer, but may I ask of you if you could define Peter Quill from the first "Guardians" trailer? What's he like as a person? Why should we care about him? What's his story? What's his character? What does it have to do with the other sequences shown?

Exactly.

If you ask me, we have wayyyy too much information about Discovery at this point in the game.

 

[Rahul]

I will let who you asked the question of the chance to answer, but may I ask of you if you could define Peter Quill from the first "Guardians" trailer? What's he like as a person? Why should we care about him? What's his story? What's his character? What does it have to do with the other sequences shown?

If a trailer shows all of that and answers all of those questions, then there is no purpose in seeing the rest of the movie or series.

Just watch this:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

YOu don't need to like it. But you need to notice it introduces to a few things: first and foremost the characters, second the tone, and small snippets of plot to keep people excited and guessing.

The DIS-marketing does none of that. It shouldn't copy this trailer (it's it's own, specific thing), but it SHOULD make us familiar with those few things (character, tone, and story). Instead we have s'plosions!