Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"

Have people not realized yet that streaming is good for genre shows? Would swamp thing, doom patrol get good enough rating on regular tv to survive? Unlikely. Expanse got cancelled and picked up by streaming.

These streaming services running genre shows in a good thing. They can survive with lower numbers and they’d never get the huge numbers on network tv.

 

Honestly it just got very different. That said even Mr. Berman admits maybe he played it too safe at the end of his run.

 

Honestly what you have just described is how Seth MacFarlane approaches scripting The Orville (and no, this isn't meant as a 'drive by' comment as it would explain the ratings decline that show saw in it's second season. People are already tiring of the TNG retread, except for a small hardcore group. If not for the CA tax breaks the show probably wouldn't have been renewed.

 

Does...this mean we get to burn our thread cards?

 

Streaming may provide the opportunity to produce a show with a limited audience, but that doesn't automatically result in a good show. Economics 101 says that the best show probably won't be produced, if the audience size is firm no matter what is delivered, because there'll be no incentive to do better or invest more. That's basically what he said, and it's true.

edit - OK, @Serveaux went further than that and said the writing was lousy. I agree with that as well, but I agree that's subjective. However, that doesn't negate the part I already said.

 

Except for what people consider to be a good show is highly subjective. Discovery tends to get a lot of fans enjoying it and a small minority disliking it and constantly saying it's terrible. But if we held a vote, it would probably be decided to be a good show. Even critical responses tend to be positive. But there are always going to be some who say it's terrible because they personally don't like it. Everything has it's haters.

 

ENT was once openly despised. Today it's a favorite amongst Trekkies who stream and binge-watch the different series online. Time can change how we perceive any series or film.

Episode I: TPM seems to be considerably more respected and even popular today than it was 10-20 years ago. Hindsight and a chance to critically evaluate a new show or movie free of the initial hype and even controversy can lead to somebody more deeply appreciating it even if they never grow to actually "love" it.

 

We don't actually know how many people who are plausibly Star Trek fans actually think Discovery is good. We don't even know how many people watch DISCO. Based on statements from CBS, there's a reasonable estimate that US viewership based on CBSAA subscriptions is somewhere between 3 and 4 million. We know it's a show that's discussed a lot online.

 

If we limit it to the people on this site, the episode polls tend to be positive. It’s a poor sample size, but I tend to only see hate on this site and from the same handful of people.

 

Precisely so. Now it can target niche audiences and allow for more variety.

It surprises me that there is poor recognition that genre shows can benefit greatly from a streaming platform and smaller audience numbers. And, it means a greater mix that can appeal to many people. All of this is a net positive.

 

Literally no one has denied that that genre shows can benefit from streaming to smaller audiences than are needed for cable productions. What has been observed though is that when you've got a sure audience, this delivery model eliminates market forces that were integral in the earlier network and cable network models to drive innovation.

 

Since I see no innovation of late anyway due to fear of the market I regard this as a symptom rather than a larger cause.

 

There are innovative shows out there. Killing Eve (BBC) for example, which incidentally is one of the two shows that CBS is using to hype the Section 31 show as resembling (the other is Mission: Impossible). Happy! (SyFy) is innovative. Legion (FX) and Mr. Robot (USA) make four, though these two are concluding this upcoming season.

 

So innovation can only come by appealing to a wide audience? Wasn't one of the complaints of ST09 that it tried to be appeal to too large a base by making it so action adventure.

So if a small niche audience is bad and a wide audience is bad, what audience level is not bad?

 

I'll amend and say "limited innovation." I don't think streaming caused that.

It's all bad, unless you're paid by CBS

 

Damn it, They forgot to send me a check again this month!

 

That's literally not what was said. It's about how dynamic audience size is, to use different words to repeat what was actually said.

To rephrase, that statement was that a static audience provides no incentive to improve a show, because in the extreme situation when the audience is absolutely static it's not even possible to attract new viewers. You need a dynamic audience for that, one that can increase when you produce something people like and one that shrinks when you produce something they don't.

What CBSAA has in its DISCO audience is one that's both relatively small and relatively static. Making more shows (STP, S31, LD, etc.) provides an opportunity for audience growth, and that's where it actually potentially becomes a good thing for ineffable show "quality." Or maybe, the audience will stay the same size, but not as many will cut off their subscriptions while DISCO isn't on. We don't really have data out here on the outside to know how that works. But either way, it sounds like the potential for growth: rewarding CBS for good productions, and potentially punishing them for bad productions, as each subscriber sees fit. Not a gimme just because it's an official Star Trek product, because again that short circuits the feedback mechanism of rewarding vs punishing the producer.

 

Long ago. There's a lot of great genre stuff streaming - and on cable, for that matter.

It's a pity that STD looks so lame next to what other writers and producers have done there with the freedom.

TrekBBS is a self-selected group of enthusiasts. Saying that a show called Star Trek is popular here is saying nothing about its overall acceptance. It's certainly true that it's not nearly as popular as Trek was twenty years ago, as Corporal Captain pointed out.

During the late 80s and early 90s, TNG was more or less a mainstream hit. Most people who like a show, though, just like that show - they're not looking to buy into a TV franchise or become part of a fannish cult, so when the show ends they don't necessarily follow the sequels. Some sequels succeed on their own merits as entertainment (Frasier) and some fail (every spinoff of Mary Tyler Moore or M*A*S*H).

DS9 launched with TNG numbers and quickly lost a good percentage of that audience, continuing to bleed viewers through its run. The same was true of Voyager and Enterprise. Viewers moved on after TNG. Given that Trek toys were so profitable during the 80s and mid-90s* it's clear that a big percentage of the viewership were children whose tastes changed dramatically as part of growing up.

*Real toys for children, not high-end collectible shit for older folks with credit cards.

 

And we can loudly chant in protest
"Hell no, we won't boldly go!"

 

I think, "largely liked on some level, if not gangbusters, and hated by a vocal minority" is a fair assessment.


https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5171438/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt