Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
Your Facebook is a bubble. Everyone's is. It's that old line attributed to Pauline Kael, repeated 2 billion times: "How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him."
Star Trek Enterprise is most famous for its low ratings, its low mainstream penetration, and its early cancellation do to the first two. Nevertheless, it is inarguable that Enterprise at its lowest point had substantially more mainstream viewership in the United States than Discovery does -- likely by a factor of two or more.
Riverdale's ratings are also quite weak, but probably good enough (and young enough), on a weak enough network, that the CW will renew. Still, genuine strong-but-not-dominant mainstream programs like Blue Bloods and Grey's Anatomy routinely have almost 10 times the viewership. Even The Orville (whose success is often overstated on this board; it's surviving on a weak network but is no hit) rakes in more than double Riverdale's audience, and way more than Discovery.
(Of course, as stans keep pointing out, Discovery doesn't need broad mainstream appeal to survive in its walled garden on CBS AA; the profit equation is wildly different for them there. But this doesn't change Discovery's basic failure to penetrate popular consciousness.)
OTOH, Discovery has enough critical appeal to make it relevant in certain circles. It's kind of like HBO's Girls. For a while there, it felt like the entire media blogosphere was about to collapse in a singularity caused by the suffocating mass of Glris thinkpieces. You couldn't throw a stick at Slate or The Federalist without running into somebody's take on Girls. It really felt like a mainstream show, if you mostly read New York writers and hung out with upper-class New York folks. All this, despite the fact that nobody actually watched Girls -- never once in its 6-year run did it ever reach a million viewers. Stargate SG-1 Season 9 -- after they got rid of Col. O'Neill and "everybody" stopped watching -- still had vastly more reach and mainstream impact than Girls. Yet the power of mass media is such that it can create the illusion of mass appeal when actually it's just a few Manhattan elites who care.
I won't argue DSC is mainstream but I think we have to accept that audiences will keep getting smaller until they eventually plateau, whenever that is. TNG wouldn't even get TNG's ratings today. What exactly is mainstream these days? Serious question.
The Big Bang Theory has 14.3 million viewers but its rating for audiences 18-49 is 2.8. (link) I know one Nielson Rating point isn't the same as one million viewers but that makes it look like most of the people watching are over 50. If the bulk of the audience watching regular Network TV is over 50, what does that say about the future if it stays over 50 and they keep getting older and eventually die off?
If this continues, I think television is going to become increasingly more niche. It started in the '80s and '90s but it's getting worse than ever.
The Big Bang Theory has 14.3 million viewers but its rating for audiences 18-49 is 2.8. (link) I know one Nielson Rating point isn't the same as one million viewers but that makes it look like most of the people watching are over 50. If the bulk of the audience watching regular Network TV is over 50, what does that say about the future if it stays over 50 and they keep getting older and eventually die off?
If this continues, I think television is going to become increasingly more niche. It started in the '80s and '90s but it's getting worse than ever.
I think there's just SO MUCH content out there that people's attentions are spread thin. So I think the kinds of viewership numbers and other metrics of a "successful" show channels expect to see on cable don't apply in a world of streaming services. The old rules just don't apply anymore.
Last edited:
Good points both. Indeed I'm astonished that anyone would even try to invoke his/her FB feed as an indicator of what's "mainstream." (In my feed, Donald Trump lost the 2016 election by an overwhelming landslide.)
I recognize that I live in a bubble, just like everyone else. The thing is, we live in such an information-saturated culture that it's almost impossible to avoid — there's no way to take it all in. Where television in particular is concerned, it's a meme at this point that we live in the era of "peak TV"... where there's so much being produced (and even so much good stuff being produced) that there's literally not enough time to keep up. (Even for professional TV critics!) For my own part, for instance, I had literally never even heard of Blue Bloods before this discussion thread.
If I had a Facebook full of sci fi geeks, then fair enough. But the person I responded to was trying to make out it's a show nobody has noticed or is talking about, when that's not the case. Netflix has promoted it quite well in the UK, enough for it to be considered a mainstream show. When BARB releases its unofficial ratings, we'll know how popular it actually is.
He/she didn't say "nobody has noticed," just that it's not "mainstream." Different things. FWIW I actually do have a FB feed (and a real-life circle of friends) that includes a fair helping of SF geeks, and nevertheless it's not been talked about much... indeed, I've had conversations with people in recent weeks who were unaware it even existed.
Game of Thrones is mainstream. Or Handmaid's Tale. Or Stranger Things. Discovery, not so much.
Granted, the level of awareness might be different in the UK. Here in the US it's not a Netflix show, for one thing, so obviously Netflix hasn't been promoting it. CBSAA is a lot more "niche."
Game of Thrones is mainstream. Or Handmaid's Tale. Or Stranger Things. Discovery, not so much.
Granted, the level of awareness might be different in the UK. Here in the US it's not a Netflix show, for one thing, so obviously Netflix hasn't been promoting it. CBSAA is a lot more "niche."
Last edited:
I have friends and family cut across multiple demographics and economic statuses who all watched the show. My wife has 3 co-workers in her immediate office area who watch. And DSC is a regular Monday conversation.
I think it's neither the smashing mainstream success nor the resounding failure most hope for.
Yeah, I think that's a fair statement. It's not as if it sank without a trace... but OTOH, it hasn't caught on enough to be "popular" either. It's got clusters of people who follow it. Probably a lot more would if they knew about it or had easier access to it, but that's not the route CBS decided to take.
You know (spoiler alert
) but I haven't embraced what I've seen with Discovery, and only speaking for myself, but do you really think people hoped it would fail? I wanted to like it and actually still hope it might win me over.That being said the only other person I know who has watched here (I live in Australia) is my brother-in-law. He has Netfllix and I suggested he give it (Discovery) a go.
I have enough experience with fandoms and trek forms to tell you 100%, there are people who hoped it would fail.
You know (spoiler alert
That being said the only other person I know who has watched here (I live in Australia) is my brother-in-law. He has Netfllix and I suggested he give it (Discovery) a go.
I don't think at all that you wanted it to fail. You were simply let down and disappointed.
But there are others who actively wanted it to tank. Some screaming that it is some kind of "awful feminist SJW" show, and therefore offensive to their values or whatever. Others who were really vehemently opposed to the business model of being behind a paywall. They had an agenda beyond their own tastes.
There's a big difference between those two amongst Trek fans. One (feeling disappointed due to personal expectations and tastes)is understandable, and I can respect even if I myself am on the other end of the spectrum. The other is absolutely deplorable in my book.
Three million votes. That's in the feed called "reality."
Yes, this has been the unfortunate reality for every series. My own mother wanted TNG to fail at the start, because she didn't want there to be Star Trek that didn't include her beloved Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. But TNG won her over pretty quick. DS9 had the haters who thought the grimmer tone was a betrayal of Roddenberry (although, in retrospect, DS9 is incredibly bright compared to modern TV, particularly Disco) and the haters who didn't like serialization. VOY's haters all just seemed to despise mediocrity, and I guess VOY had a lot of that (but so did TNG? so I never quite got that), and I suppose they thought that there would be better Trek if VOY got out of the way first. ENT haters were a curious combination of canonistas (who objected to how much the show messed with past Trek) and rebooters (who wanted ENT replaced by a new grim Galactica-inspired serial adventure... and I guess, with Discovery, they've finally got their wish).
But, yeah, Trekkies actively wanting shows to fail, even from the outset, is an old and unfortunate tradition for our fandom.
(Personally, I would be overjoyed if Discovery turned into a show I liked, but it is weird to find myself having such a visceral dislike for new Trek, when that's the thing I've wanted most on TV for over 10 years.)
In table top RPG and Wargaming this is called Edition warring. It is pretty common and not limited to trek fans.
Well, sure, in terms of the national popular vote, those are significant numbers. But that's not quite the same as the (roughly) 30-to-1 ratio against him in my FB feed (and among my real-life friends, for that matter).
I've never hated a Trek show so much that I actively want it to fail. On the other hand, while "Star Trek" in the branding does predispose me to give something the benefit of the doubt, it doesn't necessarily guarantee that I want it to succeed, either.
Basically, what I want from new entertainment (in or out of the Trek franchise) is A) something that I can enjoy on its own merits, and B) contingent on A, for that thing to become a popular success, so I'll get more of it. Without A, though? I'm basically just indifferent to how it does in the market. (Case in point: Voyager.)
This right here is a perfect example of how having so many friends with similar beliefs to each others' changes our perception of what a general opinion is. Don't worry, I won't make this political. I'm driving it back to Discovery.
We might hang out with people who have never heard of DSC, visit sites that are anti-DSC (or "anti-STD" as they'd put it), and come away with the impression everyone thinks Discovery sucks and no one watches it. Or we might hang out with people and some of them have heard of DSC, visit sites that are pro-DSC, and come away with the impression people like Discovery and it is being watched.
Then without solid numbers beyond how many people are subscribed to CBSAA and without exact figures from Netflix abroad, we're stuck with one perception versus the other.
The interesting thing is, my circle of friends is really incredibly diverse, by almost any demographic criteria. Trump's support base, OTOH, really isn't... and just happens to be built on a demographic that's not heavily represented among my friends.
When it comes to DSC, things don't seem to break down as clearly pro- and con- as you posit. I have a lot of friends who enjoy SF stuff, and a fair number of them like Trek. Those who like Trek have mostly at least given DSC a try — contingent on convenience (e.g., not many are subscribing to CBSAA just for that). Those who aren't Trek fans (whether through indifference or antipathy), on the other hand, may not even be aware that DSC exists, and if they do know nothing about it has inspired them to give this particular version of the franchise a try. Among those who've watched it, though, I haven't actually noticed many people having strong opinions (pro or con).
On these forums, it can seem like a polarizing show. In the world at large? Not so much.
When it comes to DSC, things don't seem to break down as clearly pro- and con- as you posit. I have a lot of friends who enjoy SF stuff, and a fair number of them like Trek. Those who like Trek have mostly at least given DSC a try — contingent on convenience (e.g., not many are subscribing to CBSAA just for that). Those who aren't Trek fans (whether through indifference or antipathy), on the other hand, may not even be aware that DSC exists, and if they do know nothing about it has inspired them to give this particular version of the franchise a try. Among those who've watched it, though, I haven't actually noticed many people having strong opinions (pro or con).
On these forums, it can seem like a polarizing show. In the world at large? Not so much.
In the world at large not that many people notice or care.
It's true. They're doing better things than this on a Friday Night.
Similar threads
