Discovery Nominated for Peabody Award

[johnjm22]

Sure, if you ignore the publically known attack on the site by 4chan. But lets not let facts get in the way of your narrative.

In order for this to be true, the total quantity of user ratings for TLJ would probably have to be higher overall; you would need lots of negative votes to cancel out the positive votes, which would result in a ballooning of the total number. However, TLJ simply didn't receive very many positive ratings from fans relatively speaking. (This is all in regards to the RT score, BTW).

The mixed reaction to the film isn't just on RT. You see the same thing on metacritic. On Amazon, the films has as many 1 star ratings as it does 5 star ratings, and again the total amount of user ratings isn't all that high.

Anecdotally, everywhere I go I see a mixed reaction to the film. Much more so than with TFA.

 

[The Realist]

Don't get me wrong. INTO DARKNESS is easily the weakest of the reboot movies

Or, you know, the best of them by a considerable margin (not to mention the second best Trek feature overall).

 

[Spot261]

Or, you know, the best of them by a considerable margin (not to mention the second best Trek feature overall).

Oh you crack me up

 

[Spot261]

In order for this to be true, the total quantity of user ratings for TLJ would probably have to be higher overall; you would need lots of negative votes to cancel out the positive votes, which would result in a ballooning of the total number. However, TLJ simply didn't receive very many positive ratings from fans relatively speaking. (This is all in regards to the RT score, BTW).

The mixed reaction to the film isn't just on RT. You see the same thing on metacritic. On Amazon, the films has as many 1 star ratings as it does 5 star ratings, and again the total amount of user ratings isn't all that high.

Anecdotally, everywhere I go I see a mixed reaction to the film. Much more so than with TFA.

Could still work, however, if one simply postulated a low initial vote turn out. There could be many possible reasons but the fact we know the attack happened pretty much makes the whole data set suspect.

 

[johnjm22]

Could still work, however, if one simply postulated a low initial vote turn out. There could be many possible reasons but the fact we know the attack happened pretty much makes the whole data set suspect.

We don't know that, although it's possible. However, if there was an "attack" the objective facts don't support the narrative that it was significant.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Han Solo movie user ratings.

 

[Spot261]

We don't know that, although it's possible. However, if there was an "attack" the objective facts don't support the narrative that it was significant.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Han Solo movie user ratings.

The facts are in sufficient doubt that we can't draw any conclusions though, that's the point. Statistically what qualifies as significant varies depending on sample sizes and if the initial voting sample was as small as you say the attack needn't be all that large anyway.

 

[Wowbagger]

Nobody expected 8 million viewers on a brand new, little-known streaming service with only two original shows, though...

This is true.

Another way of putting this would be, "Nobody expected anyone to watch Discovery." And no one did!

Of course, as I noted in the post, Discovery can be a financial and/or critical success despite having basically no viewers (just look at HBO's Girls, which nobody watched but everybody heard about). I'll note once again that the economics of streaming platforms are pretty different, so Discovery's audience targets are very different. And, once more with feeling, audience size doesn't correlate to quality: Two and a Half Men was America's top-rated scripted show for years.

But it must be conceded that Discovery has a microscopic number of viewers, both as compared to prior Star Treks and as compared to current television programs that have a significant cultural impact (Game of Thrones, Blue Bloods, etc.).

Key word being domestic

I keep looking at domestic because we don't have a whelk's idea in a supernova what the first-run international viewership numbers have been for any Star Trek series, including Discovery. I remember that Enterprise appeared to have really very good audiences in the U.K., Germany, and Israel, and that may well be true of Discovery (perhaps in even more countries, thanks to Netflix's wider reach), but I don't know of any numbers either way. The only ratings I've managed to find were for Canada (which I wrote about), and I did not find any Canadian ratings from 2000-2005 to compare to. So we're stuck talking about domestic numbers for the foreseeable future.

 

[Spot261]

I keep looking at domestic because we don't have a whelk's idea in a supernova what the first-run international viewership numbers have been for any Star Trek series, including Discovery. I remember that Enterprise appeared to have really very good audiences in the U.K., Germany, and Israel, and that may well be true of Discovery (perhaps in even more countries, thanks to Netflix's wider reach), but I don't know of any numbers either way.

We can quite reasonably speculate that the total figure will be way higher than 2.5 million.....

 

[Vger23]

This is true.

Another way of putting this would be, "Nobody expected anyone to watch Discovery." And no one did!

Of course, as I noted in the post, Discovery can be a financial and/or critical success despite having basically no viewers (just look at HBO's Girls, which nobody watched but everybody heard about). I'll note once again that the economics of streaming platforms are pretty different, so Discovery's audience targets are very different. And, once more with feeling, audience size doesn't correlate to quality: Two and a Half Men was America's top-rated scripted show for years.

But it must be conceded that Discovery has a microscopic number of viewers, both as compared to prior Star Treks and as compared to current television programs that have a significant cultural impact (Game of Thrones, Blue Bloods, etc.).



I keep looking at domestic because we don't have a whelk's idea in a supernova what the first-run international viewership numbers have been for any Star Trek series, including Discovery. I remember that Enterprise appeared to have really very good audiences in the U.K., Germany, and Israel, and that may well be true of Discovery (perhaps in even more countries, thanks to Netflix's wider reach), but I don't know of any numbers either way. The only ratings I've managed to find were for Canada (which I wrote about), and I did not find any Canadian ratings from 2000-2005 to compare to. So we're stuck talking about domestic numbers for the foreseeable future.

Right. It's a totally different business model, so it's tough to draw conclusions.

 

[Mudd]

This is true.

Another way of putting this would be, "Nobody expected anyone to watch Discovery." And no one did!

Of course, as I noted in the post, Discovery can be a financial and/or critical success despite having basically no viewers (just look at HBO's Girls, which nobody watched but everybody heard about). I'll note once again that the economics of streaming platforms are pretty different, so Discovery's audience targets are very different. And, once more with feeling, audience size doesn't correlate to quality: Two and a Half Men was America's top-rated scripted show for years.

But it must be conceded that Discovery has a microscopic number of viewers, both as compared to prior Star Treks and as compared to current television programs that have a significant cultural impact (Game of Thrones, Blue Bloods, etc.).



I keep looking at domestic because we don't have a whelk's idea in a supernova what the first-run international viewership numbers have been for any Star Trek series, including Discovery. I remember that Enterprise appeared to have really very good audiences in the U.K., Germany, and Israel, and that may well be true of Discovery (perhaps in even more countries, thanks to Netflix's wider reach), but I don't know of any numbers either way. The only ratings I've managed to find were for Canada (which I wrote about), and I did not find any Canadian ratings from 2000-2005 to compare to. So we're stuck talking about domestic numbers for the foreseeable future.

This is, generally, a good analysis.

 

[nightwind1]

Don't you shit posters have something better then do?

"Stop liking what I hate, waaaah"

That is what you sound like.

 

[Wowbagger]

We can quite reasonably speculate that the total figure will be way higher than 2.5 million.....

...but we can also quite reasonably speculate that Enterprse Season 4's total viewership was way higher than 2.9 million/episode. And we can quite reasonably speculate that NCIS puts them both to shame in international markets the same way it does domestically, particularly since Star Trek is notorious for doing relatively weak numbers with international audiences.*

Where does this speculation get us? The same conclusion -- relatively speaking, nobody watches Discovery -- but with muddier evidence and fewer numbers. So I think it is best to keep using domestic audiences as a proxy for international ones.

*(If you've never heard about how Trek "travels badly", consider Star Trek Into Darkness and Fast & Furious 6. They both released in May 2013, both were action movies running slightly over two hours, both stayed in theaters all summer, and both finished domestically between $225 and $240m. But STID earned about the same -- $238m international box office -- while Fast 6 brought in $550m overseas. This is roughly par for a Trek film overseas.)

 

[Spot261]

...but we can also quite reasonably speculate that Enterprse Season 4's total viewership was way higher than 2.9 million/episode. And we can quite reasonably speculate that NCIS puts them both to shame in international markets the same way it does domestically, particularly since Star Trek is notorious for doing relatively weak numbers with international audiences.*

Where does this speculation get us? The same conclusion -- relatively speaking, nobody watches Discovery -- but with muddier evidence and fewer numbers. So I think it is best to keep using domestic audiences as a proxy for international ones.

*(If you've never heard about how Trek "travels badly", consider Star Trek Into Darkness and Fast & Furious 6. They both released in May 2013, both were action movies running slightly over two hours, both stayed in theaters all summer, and both finished domestically between $225 and $240m. But STID earned about the same -- $238m international box office -- while Fast 6 brought in $550m overseas. This is roughly par for a Trek film overseas.)

Which effectively simply tells us trek is a middling sized franchise with a disproprtionate cultural footprint, which we all knew anyway. Discovery is no exception there, but neither is it a failure. Whatever those figures are, they justified a second season, either because it was turning a reasonable profit, because CBS had enough faith in the star trek brand to make it profitable, or because they had enough faith in the creative talents involved.

In either case it is hardly a failure and nor is "nobody watching"

 

[Mudd]

Which effectively simply tells us trek is a middling sized franchise with a disproprtionate cultural footprint

Well, it was that at one time. At its zenith, I suppose. It's pretty much culturally irrelevant at this point and becoming more so.

It's hard to have much of an impact when very few people watch.

 

[cultcross]

particularly since Star Trek is notorious for doing relatively weak numbers with international audiences.*

This is a totally different international scenario than any previous Trek show though. We are getting it day of US release, on Netflix, without commercials, advertised and available for on demand watching. As far as audiences outside the US are concerned, this is the best we've ever had it. By a long way.

 

[Spot261]

A diminishing cultural impact? In just the past few years we've had:

1. The release of a 13th major motion picture (Beyond)
2. The establishment of a Star Trek set tour in Ticonderoga NY
3. The first season of any new Star Trek television since 2004 (Discovery) which, as we've been discussing, has carved out its own little niche of success with some award nominations and it's top spot in the demand expressions data (again, not the end all be all, but an expression that the significance of the show's presence is not lost on people)
4. Black Mirror's USS Callister, a direct homage to Star Trek
5. Seth M's "The Orville" series, a direct homage to Star Trek
6. A reinvigorated set of marketing / tie-in items (Eaglemoss ships, t-shirts, wand company props, Diamond Select releases, novels, documentaries, etc)
7. An alive-and-well convention scene (Vegas, Creation, Cruises, etc)


I'd say Star Trek hasn't been THIS much on the cultural radar since 1994ish when DS9 was just hitting it's stride, and GEN was getting it's hype as the TOS/TNG crossover was about to happen.

So no, I don't think it's insignificant and falling. I think we're in a good spot. Yeah, if you're going to compare it to MU movies and Star Wars 857, then I suppose it's not as popular or impactful. But, for a 50-year old franchise with a cranky fanbase...? We're doing ok.

Don't forget this place....

 

[Vger23]

Well, it was that at one time. At its zenith, I suppose. It's pretty much culturally irrelevant at this point and becoming more so.

It's hard to have much of an impact when very few people watch.

A diminishing cultural impact? In just the past few years we've had:

1. The release of a 13th major motion picture (Beyond)
2. The establishment of a Star Trek set tour in Ticonderoga NY
3. The first season of any new Star Trek television since 2004 (Discovery) which, as we've been discussing, has carved out its own little niche of success with some award nominations and it's top spot in the demand expressions data (again, not the end all be all, but an expression that the significance of the show's presence is not lost on people)
4. Black Mirror's USS Callister, a direct homage to Star Trek
5. Seth M's "The Orville" series, a direct homage to Star Trek
6. A reinvigorated set of marketing / tie-in items (Eaglemoss ships, t-shirts, wand company props, Diamond Select releases, novels, documentaries, etc)
7. An alive-and-well convention scene (Vegas, Creation, Cruises, etc)


I'd say Star Trek hasn't been THIS much on the cultural radar since 1994ish when DS9 was just hitting it's stride, and GEN was getting it's hype as the TOS/TNG crossover was about to happen.

So no, I don't think it's insignificant and falling. I think we're in a good spot. Yeah, if you're going to compare it to MU movies and Star Wars 857, then I suppose it's not as popular or impactful. But, for a 50-year old franchise with a cranky fanbase...? We're doing ok.

 

[Vger23]

Don't forget this place....

Right...the fact that there's still a passionate fanbase discussing (arguing / bitching about at times hahaha) the ins-and-outs of the franchise!

 

[Jedi_Master]

Well, it was that at one time. At its zenith, I suppose. It's pretty much culturally irrelevant at this point and becoming more so.

It's hard to have much of an impact when very few people watch.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The shadow of Disney/Marvel covers us all, but Trek is certainly not culturally irrelevant.

 

[Mudd]

I wholeheartedly disagree. The shadow of Disney/Marvel covers us all, but Trek is certainly not culturally irrelevant.

Seriously? Who pays any attention to it? The Franchise is way behind the curve on...absolutely everything.

It's culturally relevant to the same extent that Blue Bloods or NCIS or any other CBS fodder