Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?

[Noname Given]

Dude, it is. Star Trek in the 90s was a juggernaut. Think Game of Thrones today, just way bigger. Not just in the US. DIS is literally the least available of all Trek shows, worldwide, and of all time. And the media landscape is completely different: Back then, Trek was one of a handful things. Now you have literally thousands of new shows at the same time.

That's why DIS has not only less viewers than Trek at its peak (TNG) - but less than at its previous low point (ENT). And still is profitable. Because of how this new media landscape works, where they get your money directly.

Your comparison is like saying "iron man" had more viewers than "Casablanca". It's not just factual completely wrong - it misses the entire point as to why these two are not comparable in this metric. And that's entirely without bashing "Iron Man" or calling it a "failure".

LOL! No.

Yes - TNG in the 1990ies WAS popular through it's 7th season yes. The rest that followed not so much.
nd has morew
DS9 was MAJORLY retooled for the 3rd season with the Defiant because viewer numbers were dropping large. The character of Worf was brought in in the 4th season again because they were trying to stop viewer hemorrhaging and hopefully bring back some of those TNG fans who'd moved on.

Do I think ST: D has more viewers than TNG did in it's heyday (Or hell, TOS in its syndication heyday in the 1970ies where some stations aired the syndicated reruns in Prime Time because it was getting nearly the same numbers as some of the less popular Network fare)? Nope. BUT I do think it i more popular and has brought more viewers worldwide (new and 'old fans') then any of the post TNG Star Trek series.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

I'm 40. Four years younger than the average age of the CBSAA's audience. I don't watch anything on network television. Everything I watch, besides Disco, is through Netflix, Amazon, or YouTube.

Network is obviously in big decline, but when given the choice between free or paying for a 3rd subscription just to watch 1 show, most people I know choose free. I'd love it if they put it on Netflix in the States, too.

 

[Rahul]

with a high degree of probability we can assume that 1-2 million US accounts on CBS AA and at least 10-20 million accounts paying for Netflix are the general DSC audience. Even in the most pessimistic case it gives a rating worse only than the best TNG results in the USA and better than DS9, VOY not to mention ENT.

Dude, you're pulling these numbers right out of your ass. We HAVE the numbers. Even only DIS' potential viewership is below that of ENT in the US, it's actual VERY much below, and it's availability in the rest of the world is a joke compared to the past.

DIS is - by a very wide margin - the least watched Trek series we ever had. But that's okay. Because it operates on an entirely different business model. No need to make 1 + 1 = 3 over it...

LOL! No.

Yes - TNG in the 1990ies WAS popular through it's 7th season yes. The rest that followed not so much.
nd has morew
DS9 was MAJORLY retooled for the 3rd season with the Defiant because viewer numbers were dropping large. The character of Worf was brought in in the 4th season again because they were trying to stop viewer hemorrhaging and hopefully bring back some of those TNG fans who'd moved on.

Do I think ST: D has more viewers than TNG did in it's heyday (Or hell, TOS in its syndication heyday in the 1970ies where some stations aired the syndicated reruns in Prime Time because it was getting nearly the same numbers as some of the less popular Network fare)? Nope. BUT I do think it i more popular and has brought more viewers worldwide (new and 'old fans') then any of the post TNG Star Trek series.

Again: No. DIS has less provably less viewers than not just TNG, but ENT in the US. You just want to believe the rest of the world makes up for that. But that isn't the case. In fact, it can't even be - simply because it's accessability is already so low compared to previous series. ALL previous series.

 

[Rahul]

I really don't get that sentiment that "DIS has less viewers than ENT" is somehow a controversial statement. There is no argument to be made. This is a verifiable fact.
Here are other facts: The media landscape is entirely different than back then. CBS continues to support DIS. DIS gets a third season. That means they deem it a success.

None of these are debatable.
Of course you might feel like one or the other of these are not true. Ory ou even might want one of these not to be true. But trying to argue these aren't true, only based on a gut feeling and intense personal like/dislike, isn't going to change that. It's the exact thing "Midnights' edge" does, where they are are convinced the show is a burning disaster pile, while some here believe the show is the most popular thing in the world since sliced bread. It isn't. But it's doing okay. That's fine.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Network is obviously in big decline, but when given the choice between free or paying for a 3rd subscription just to watch 1 show, most people I know choose free. I'd love it if they put it on Netflix in the States, too.

But it wouldn’t be free since you “pay” by letting advertising influence your purchasing decisions, which is annoying for this day and age compared to a reasonable third subscription fee. On the other hand, if I lived in the US and weren’t into DSC for the lore, I could see myself waiting for the Blu-ray or iTunes releases to see it properly and all at once (not here, though, since the quality is great and only Netflix has the show in Dolby Vision).

 

[PiotrB]

Dude, you're pulling these numbers right out of your ass. We HAVE the numbers. Even only DIS' potential viewership is below that of ENT in the US, it's actual VERY much below, and it's availability in the rest of the world is a joke compared to the past.

DIS is - by a very wide margin - the least watched Trek series we ever had. But that's okay. Because it operates on an entirely different business model. No need to make 1 + 1 = 3 over it...

You can believe what you want, but your faith won't change the facts. Have some regard for your co-discussers and don't prove that Netflix is covering, according to some information[1], even 100% of the cost of a series that costs 8 million per episode with less than 10 million paying accounts. At the same time, with so few viewers, this series manages to be in the top ten of the most popular series on the platform.

1. https://redef.com/original/5b81f41dcbfd8a70442b3e8b

 

[fireproof78]

But it's doing okay. That's fine.

You heard it here first, folks. DSC is doing "OK"

 

[Rahul]

You can believe what you want, but your faith won't change the facts. Have some regard for your co-discussers and don't prove that Netflix is covering, according to some information[1], even 100% of the cost of a series that costs 8 million per episode with less than 10 million paying accounts. At the same time, with so few viewers, this series manages to be in the top ten of the most popular series on the platform.

1. https://redef.com/original/5b81f41dcbfd8a70442b3e8b

You're not getting it, aren't you? This is not about beliefs. This is about straight up facts.

DIS was never in the top 10 of Netflix EVER. What it was, was place 5 in the single category of original series for the single month of April in 2019 in the UK. That's it. DIS was never anything big at Netflix, ever.

Source (scroll up to see the actual top 10 for that single month, where DIS was able to crack a single rank):
https://mobile.twitter.com/netflixuk/status/1126434287375536128?s=21

That being said: Even stuff like "Stranger Things" is watched by only veeeery few people, compared to its cultural impact. Because that's the nature of streaming: Not that many people watch it. But those that do, directly pay for it, and that model allows for lots of creative freedom, awards, and therefore influence.

But DIS had never, nor will it ever, crack the raw audience numbers of ENT, even at its lowest point. Not even taking about TNG, TOS, DS9 or VOY. Not because it's bad or something. Again: DIS is doing pretty okay. But simply because of the business model itself.

That's not an opinion, not belief. But straight up facts. You are personally allowed not to believe in facts, but that has no bearing on reality whatsoever.

 

[Noname Given]

You're not getting it, aren't you? This is not about beliefs. This is about straight up facts.

DIS was never in the top 10 of Netflix EVER. What it was, was place 5 in the single category of original series for the single month of April in 2019 in the UK. That's it. DIS was never anything big at Netflix, ever.

Source (scroll up to see the actual top 10 for that single month, where DIS was able to crack a single rank):
https://mobile.twitter.com/netflixuk/status/1126434287375536128?s=21

That being said: Even stuff like "Stranger Things" is watched by only veeeery few people, compared to its cultural impact. Because that's the nature of streaming: Not that many people watch it. But those that do, directly pay for it, and that model allows for lots of creative freedom, awards, and therefore influence.

But DIS had never, nor will it ever, crack the raw audience numbers of ENT, even at its lowest point. Not even taking about TNG, TOS, DS9 or VOY. Not because it's bad or something. Again: DIS is doing pretty okay. But simply because of the business model itself.

That's not an opinion, not belief. But straight up facts. You are personally allowed not to believe in facts, but that has no bearing on reality whatsoever.

Well, when someone claims "In the 1990ies - Trek was a Juggernaut..." <--- Sorry but that wasn't the case, it just wasn't. So sorry if I find a lot of your 'fact finding' questionable at best.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Trek in the 1990s was much more on the radar but never as near-mainstream as LOST or Game of Thrones. When ENT aired in 2001 people were rightly talking about The Sopranos.

 

[Rahul]

Well, when someone claims "In the 1990ies - Trek was a Juggernaut..." <--- Sorry but that wasn't the case, it just wasn't. So sorry if I find a lot of your 'fact finding' questionable at best.

Star Trek was about this big in the 90s:

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

Also, I didn't just claim it was an unspecified "a juggernaut" - I gave specific data
http://www.madmind.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/startreknielsenratingaverage2.jpg

TNG was the most watched genre show of it's time - like the X-files later, it was a household name. They voted Patrick Stewart as "sexiest man alive" based on his Picard role. Even people today that have never watched Trek know the characters and at least the premise of VOY and DS9 through cultural osmoses.

You can post as much about how you "feel" Star Trek was alwas irrelevant in the past and DIS is the most popular show of our time, and try to mingle words instead of content - but it's not going to change the raw data and cultural impact we have on this subject.

 

[The Wormhole]

Star Trek was about this big in the 90s:

TNG was that big, but Trek in general? I mean, TOS remained a pop culture icon, but as far as the rest of the franchise is concerned, it more or less peaked in 1994 with the end of TNG.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

TNG was that big, but Trek in general? I mean, TOS remained a pop culture icon, but as far as the rest of the franchise is concerned, it more or less peaked in 1994 with the end of TNG.

Yes, that was pretty much the peak of whatever rebirth it had achieved in the 1990s, which again was nowhere near what LOST, let alone GoT managed later on.

 

[Rahul]

Yes, that was pretty much the peak of whatever rebirth it had achieved in the 1990s, which again was nowhere near what LOST, let alone GoT managed later on.

Actually, no. LOST had higher raw audience numbers (between 10 an 20 mio. viewers):
https://lostpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Ratings

But even friggin' VOY's first four seasons had a higher Nielson rating than LOST had:
http://users.telenet.be/WebTrek/Voy/Ratings/ratings.html

That means of the percentage of households that owned a television at home, at the given time each show aired - a higher percentage was watching VOY back then than they were watching LOST a decade later. Even though the total numbers are lower. The reason for that is, obviously, that in the time between VOY and LOST television devices became much cheaper and more widely available.

TNG was that big, but Trek in general? I mean, TOS remained a pop culture icon, but as far as the rest of the franchise is concerned, it more or less peaked in 1994 with the end of TNG.

So yes, if you count "LOST" as a cultural juggernaut - then so was even VOY. And that means DS9 by proxy, and TNG much more.

Star Trek really WAS that big.
That's the reason why Hollywood is still so willing to pump so much money into it even today - not because producers are so convinced of the concept. But because it simply was that big of an IP, that even mainstream audiences today remember it.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

You’re looking at numbers but I’m thinking of impact based on quality beyond the expected genre audience. By your criteria the original Battlestar Galactica was big, absolutely… but only as a critically panned Star Wars comfort-clone until the Moore/Eick version came along (not that the publicity surrounding the former didn’t have a hand in initiating the latter). It doesn‘t really matter if people were made aware of VGR because of its status as a flagship for UPN: the question is who watched it and who talked about it afterwards.

 

[Rahul]

You’re looking at numbers but I’m thinking of impact based on quality beyond the expected genre audience. By your criteria the original Battlestar Galactica was big, absolutely… but only as a critically panned Star Wars comfort-clone until the Moore/Eick version came along (not that the publicity surrounding the former didn’t have a hand in initiating the latter). It doesn‘t really matter if people were made aware of VGR because of its status as a flagship for UPN: the question is who watched it and who talked about it afterwards.

The problem with that approach is usually that this is wildly subjective.
Like, if you're online, you might think "Firefly" was the most influential SF series ever produced. If you look at influence on producers, every SF show today seems to try to be a rip-off of either nuBSG or Farscape. Almost no one watched friggin' Farscape. But those that did - apparently all work in Hollywood now.

"Cultural impact" is therefore a very subjective unit. Like, TNG was bigger than TOS ever was. But nowadays? People think more TOS when somebody mentions "Star Trek". We will see how that changes once PIC arrives. This forum right here has a big love-boner for DS9, that willl win every poll here - even though it's not that well remembered outside. Netflix 10 most re-watched Star Trek episodes was made up exclusively of TNG and.... VOY! Who would have thought? (https://intl.startrek.com/article/netflixs-top-10-most-re-watched-trek-episodes) The problem with "cultural impact" is that it's really hard to measure. Does "sexiest man alive" count? That you will find the Star Trek insignia in literally every NASA or ESA office on a cardboard somewhere? That Seven of Nine and Xena were the "genre babes" of their time? Everything says yes. Star Trek's cultural impact really started to fade with the end of VOY and ENT, and now with DIS is almost non-existent. But - CBS booking Comic Con main hall for Star Trek? Maybe it's coming back, baby!?

 

[fireproof78]

But those that did - apparently all work in Hollywood now.

Best news I've heard all day.

 

[Lord Garth]

Things were different in the '90s than they are today. Even Picard won't match the ratings of any Star Trek episodes that came out in that decade (1990, 1999, it doesn't matter). It won't happen. What Picard will do is show the highest amount of viewers a Star Trek series these days will be able to draw, and that's on the strength of Patrick Stewart. Which is why calling the show Star Trek: Picard was their best bet. You can't miss who the star is if you hear about it. "Look! It's Picard!"

The Section 31 show -- regardless of what you think about the concept (let's not get into this again) -- will show how much Star Power will be able to bring to the table. I think you'll get a lot of Michelle Yeoh fans who aren't Star Trek fans and wouldn't even bother watching if Michelle Yeoh wasn't in it. Especially overseas where the CBSAA streaming service isn't an issue. So they're trying to branch out. That show will probably cater less to American markets and more towards Asia.

 

[The Wormhole]

if you count "LOST" as a cultural juggernaut

Which I don't. It was a popular TV show, perhaps a very popular TV show, but that's it. It's cultural legacy was inspiring a deluge of long-term arc based "what the hell is going on here" mind-fucks to be green-lit.

 

[Rahul]

Things were different in the '90s than they are today. Even Picard won't match the ratings of any Star Trek episodes that came out in that decade (1990, 1999, it doesn't matter). It won't happen. What Picard will do is show the highest amount of viewers a Star Trek series these days will be able to draw, and that's on the strength of Patrick Stewart. Which is why calling the show Star Trek: Picard was their best bet. You can't miss who the star is if you hear about it. "Look! It's Picard!"

Fully agreed!

The Section 31 show -- regardless of what you think about the concept (let's not get into this again) -- will show how much Star Power will be able to bring to the table. I think you'll get a lot of Michelle Yeoh fans who aren't Star Trek fans and wouldn't even bother watching if Michelle Yeoh wasn't in it.

Especially overseas where the CBSAA streaming service isn't an issue.

Actually, overseas this weird streaming business can be an isse: Like, in Germany, DIS is shown exclusively on Netflix. Wheras PIC will be shown exclusivelx on Amazon Prime.

Which is... baffling... to say the least. Splitting your one IP up over multiple paid streamijg services - meaning if you have to pay for two(!) services if you want to watch all currently produced Star Trek! That is extremely stupid. And I guess the situation will become even worse once All Access tries to enter new markets where the Trek license(s) have already been sold. All in all, a big clusterfuck, that's probably gonna' drive up piracy a whole lot.

So they're trying to branch out. That show will probably cater less to American markets and more towards Asia.

I doubt. Asia is really not into "black ops"-type of shows. This show has American rightwing conservative wet-dream values as it's identifying stamp. The rest of the world - especially the countries that usually have been the victims of these aggressive meddlings and toppling of their gouvernments - won't like that one single bit. This is a show with a premise very exclusive to the American market.