News Complete 1st Season to Air on CBS terrestrial in Sept

[PiotrB]

"Discovery debuted in Canada with a viewership of 2.274 million, but by the end of its first fifteen-episode season, the series only pulled 927,000, for a sixty-percent season total loss.

This lack of interest in the series would bleed over into its second season, as its premiere episode failed to appear in the Top 30 rankings during its debut week, with less than 978,000 viewers.

Viewership numbers would only continue to plummet, as the season two finale couldn’t even manage to draw 816,000 total viewers, the total viewership numbers for The Blacklist, the 30th ranked show in Canada for the week of April 15th to April 21st 2019.

Maybe more interesting is that The Orville beat out Star Trek: Discovery in Canada for the week of April 8th to April 14th 2019. The Orville’s Season 2 Episode 12 “Sanctuary” ranked 29th with total viewership of 841,000. Star Trek: Discovery failed to list in the Top 30."

- Bounding Into Comics

So, we have disappointing ratings, which show that Star Trek isn't the draw it once was. I mean, you can see that from the box office performance of Beyond. Hell, even a Star Trek parody is beating the real thing in re-runs!

Picard costs an average of $8-9 million per episode while Discovery costs an average of $8 million. Between the two series, the network essentially already has a yearly budget of close to $180 million.

What I would do if I were in charge (chuckle) is release four TV movies per year. Draw in fans with old faces, get some big stars and these would be events, like the Voyager two parters that drew in great ratings back in the day. You'd easily get 8-10 million per TV movie.

In computer science there is a concept of gigo or riro[1] in the UK. This article is an excellent illustration of this concept. Based on incomplete data, the author draws conclusions appealing to the target group of Bounding Into Comics. In fact, the series in Canada is also available on Crave, which, according to Wikipedia, had about 2 million subscribers during the DSC broadcasting period, so any conclusions about the actual DSC audience are impossible to draw.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out

 

[BillJ]

It seems that Trek has become a lot more niche than it was in the heady days of the 90's.

Pretty much everything is more niche than it was in the 90’s. Tough to compare now vs. then.

 

[fireproof78]

It seems that Trek has become a lot more niche than it was in the heady days of the 90's

Because we live in a niche world now. Companies don't have to compete for time on broadcast airways but now compete for viewer's subscriptions.

Ultimately, the best proof that these shows are doing well is that CBS keeps making them. I'll put no weight behind interpretations of incomplete data when the market has shifted (and continues to do so) compared to even ten years ago.

 

[RAMA]

Discovery broke records in both season premieres in Canada, and keep in mind, it is also available for streaming in Canada, unlike the USA. So in fact, Discovery had at least double the numbers of any Orville rating. So it's performance is very impressive.

RAMA

"Discovery debuted in Canada with a viewership of 2.274 million, but by the end of its first fifteen-episode season, the series only pulled 927,000, for a sixty-percent season total loss.

This lack of interest in the series would bleed over into its second season, as its premiere episode failed to appear in the Top 30 rankings during its debut week, with less than 978,000 viewers.

Viewership numbers would only continue to plummet, as the season two finale couldn’t even manage to draw 816,000 total viewers, the total viewership numbers for The Blacklist, the 30th ranked show in Canada for the week of April 15th to April 21st 2019.

Maybe more interesting is that The Orville beat out Star Trek: Discovery in Canada for the week of April 8th to April 14th 2019. The Orville’s Season 2 Episode 12 “Sanctuary” ranked 29th with total viewership of 841,000. Star Trek: Discovery failed to list in the Top 30."

- Bounding Into Comics

So, we have disappointing ratings, which show that Star Trek isn't the draw it once was. I mean, you can see that from the box office performance of Beyond. Hell, even a Star Trek parody is beating the real thing in re-runs!

Picard costs an average of $8-9 million per episode while Discovery costs an average of $8 million. Between the two series, the network essentially already has a yearly budget of close to $180 million.

What I would do if I were in charge (chuckle) is release four TV movies per year. Draw in fans with old faces, get some big stars and these would be events, like the Voyager two parters that drew in great ratings back in the day. You'd easily get 8-10 million per TV movie.

 

[JamesRye]

Pretty much everything is more niche than it was in the 90’s. Tough to compare now vs. then.

Agreed. You do still get shows that are watched in huge numbers though, such as GOT, breaking bad and NCIS.

 

[Isaac Lawrence]

It seems that Trek has become a lot more niche than it was in the heady days of the 90's.

Yeah, I remember it being said that Game of Thrones may have been the last "big" thing on TV, and that may well turn out to be true.

I don't see anything (on the immediate horizon, at least) approaching that. Marvel I don't believe are really attempting to try with their shows. Star Wars may have hopes of reaching that level, but who knows what they're actually going to do.

Star Trek can but they'll have to rearrange stuff to do it, everything is a little scattered right now. But do like in the 90s and at least get everything back in the same century.

The goal is to have Star Trek always on, so it'll be interesting (to me, at least) to see Star Trek done in "real time." Have Star Trek running 45 or 50 weeks out of the year, and have multiple shows, but every few weeks or so you jump from one show to the next. You see what's going on for x amount of weeks on a show with a seasoned crew, and when we look in this time we see that they're on their way to whatever (a diplomatic mission to Alderaan... wait), and then you go over and check in for a couple of weeks on a Star Trek show set on earth at Starfleet Headquarters or something. Then go off and follow a new crew for about a month as they begin their new five-year mission. And so on...

So multiple shows still, just have them all flow into each other though instead of 10 weeks on this shows then end of season. Then 12 weeks on this show and then end of season. And then 10 weeks on this show and then end of season.

Do something like that and there's your new Game of Thrones. Or maybe not... one or the other.

Anyway, I agree, current Star Trek really doesn't seem like it gets a huge amount of buzz, even by today's standards. There's really not a lot content though either of the new Star Trek. The aforementioned Marvel has what, like 20 movies that have been continuously running for over a decade. And Star Wars is Star Wars.

But Star Trek is just starting up again. And Star Trek was never on the level of Star Wars, anyway. And Marvel is pretty massive in it's own right too, and 90's Star Trek was never on the level that Marvel is now, I don't think. So Star Trek may be about where it's "supposed to be." Maybe a little less, maybe it can do a little better, I dunno...

What does a massive Star Trek thing look like?

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek can but they'll have to rearrange stuff to do it, everything is a little scattered right now. But do like in the 90s and at least get everything back in the same century.

I mean, why? The goal is Star Trek on all the time, but also to spread it out in a way that it appeals to as many demographics as possible. Shoving it all in to the same century is a step backwards, to my mind.

Not every show will appeal to every fan and that should be the ultimate goal of CBS. That some will like a little bit of A and B, while others will like B and C. It's crafting diversity of storytelling that invites in others who might be put off by one show, or trying to understand the 50+ years of Trek.

 

[Isaac Lawrence]

I mean, why? The goal is Star Trek on all the time, but also to spread it out in a way that it appeals to as many demographics as possible. Shoving it all in to the same century is a step backwards, to my mind.

Not every show will appeal to every fan and that should be the ultimate goal of CBS. That some will like a little bit of A and B, while others will like B and C. It's crafting diversity of storytelling that invites in others who might be put off by one show, or trying to understand the 50+ years of Trek.

You don't have to spread it out, though. You can still have say, five different shows about five totally different things and still set it in the same century.

I do agree that, yeah, don't have five "alien of the week/planet of the week" shows. No, that's stupid. One of those is plenty... maybe two, and that's a big maybe.

I just say same century for ease of storytelling (and I guess production cost, but it's not like it's my money). And storytelling reasons for casual viewers.

And that speaks to having to understand 50+ years of Star Trek. We would know, for example, that this show takes place in the 23rd century, this one in the 24th century, and this one in the 32nd century. Why would you subject that to a casual viewer, though? And the only reason why things are the way they are now is because who knew Pike was going to catch on the way he did. And I guess Picard was only made because Patrick Stewart said yes, otherwise they would done something else (Section 31 or something, I guess)?

Whatever the reasons, after Picard finishes it's second season call it a wrap, and I doubt Patrick Stewart would want to do more anyway. And if he does, say no, we're done. We're not going to have a show about a 90-something year-old android dude flying around the galaxy having adventures. No, we're not going to be doing that.

And Strange New Worlds... do that for two seasons, maybe three, and by then the novelty will have worn off. Because people will see Discovery 1000 years ahead of it and wonder why are we still d*cking around in 23rd century? So do your "planet of the week/alien of the week" show in the 32nd century instead of the 23rd century. It'll be cooler. Pike is cool, Spock is cool, they're not 32nd century cool, though.

So by all means still do your diversity of storytelling. Do that, yes. Just make it easy on people, though. Have it all take place during the same time period. It worked in the 90s. So do it again, just do it better.

 

[fireproof78]

Because people will see Discovery 1000 years ahead of it and wonder why are we still d*cking around in 23rd century?

I find it hard to believe that enough people will wonder what to make a difference. That's a rather odd opinion if the story is entertaining.

Do that, yes. Just make it easy on people, though. Have it all take place during the same time period. It worked in the 90s. So do it again, just do it better.

No, don't do the 90s again. Do different, do different stories, different eras and the like. Making it "easier on people" is not necessary. The audience is smart-don't treat them as too dumb to understand different eras.

 

[BillJ]

You don't have to spread it out, though. You can still have say, five different shows about five totally different things and still set it in the same century.

Further apart they are, the less likely they trip over each other.

 

[The Wormhole]

the Canadian ratings suggest that it hasn't been able to hold viewers interest, sadly.

Don't read too much into the Canadian ratings. The thing about Picard and Lower Decks is that the episodes are available in Canada on the Crave streaming service over twelve hours before they air on CTV Sci-Fi. And there are some cable providers in Canada which provide Crave free with their on-demand content. It's possible the low ratings don't reflect a lack of interest in those shows so much as they reflect the fact that more people are watching them on Crave than CTV Sci-Fi.

 

[Isaac Lawrence]

No, don't do the 90s again. Do different, do different stories, different eras and the like. Making it "easier on people" is not necessary. The audience is smart-don't treat them as too dumb to understand different eras.

Fair point.

And there's of course two ways of going about it. Over at Marvel they're telling an ongoing story where everything is connected over multiple characters and movies (and now TV shows) and so on. And now it looks as though DC is going to try a "We're just going to try and tell a good story, period" approach.

Both have their pros and cons.

Further apart they are, the less likely they trip over each other.

No, that would be the point, to make the world bigger, to make the story bigger. Make it more epic.

In that, you like what's going on here? Okay, here's what's also going on over there right now. And over here this is what's also happening... And now you have a universe that's alive instead of a collection of stories.

Anyway, I've perfectly happy with different eras. But if I had my choice, yeah, connect it all, make it big.

 

[fireproof78]

Anyway, I've perfectly happy with different eras. But if I had my choice, yeah, connect it all, make it big.

People need to stop trying to be Marvel. It doesn't feel big-it feels very small, with everyone connected to everyone else. Even Marvel pushed it too far with Captain America knowing Tony Stark's dad. It becomes so small that people can't go 5 minutes without running in to some one else.

As much as I love DISCO Burnham being Spock's sister is too much and doesn't allow any of the characters to truly stand on their own. Interconnectedness does the opposite of making it big. It makes it quite small.

 

[CorporalClegg]

As a rule, small universe syndrome is almost always about casual fans. By keeping things/names/places/concepts condensed, it makes it easier for people to follow and eliminates the need to add superfluous characters.

In fact, I would argue the best thing the franchise could do is trim most of the fat.

And it was fine that Burnham was Spock's sister in an of itself. The problem is they ultimately made it so simply for the sake of it. Her familiar ties ultimately added nothing to the narrative. It was completely arbitrary.

I just watched Enola Homles last night (Highly recommend.) The story there works so well specifically BECAUSE she's is Sherlock's sister. It's the core of her arc. And I think it makes for a good comparison to Burnham.

 

[The Habs Fan]

"Discovery debuted in Canada with a viewership of 2.274 million, but by the end of its first fifteen-episode season, the series only pulled 927,000, for a sixty-percent season total loss.

I like how you’re using Bounding Into Comics as a source.. a notorious Kurtzman Trek hater. Everything they report about Trek has a negative slant. Let’s look at the facts shall we. Here’s an old thread detailing the season 1 ratings in Canada:

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/ratings-in-canada.293329/

The ratings are very good actually. And here’s a couple of things the article you copy and pasted from forgot to mention:

1) Star Trek in Canada is on a cable channel, not a network channel and most episodes of the first season were in the top 30. On those occasions, it was the only cable show to accomplish that. The Orville is on a network (not a cable channel). So the fact that The Orville possibly beat it in the ratings once in season 2 actually is pretty pathetic for The Orville.

2) not only are Discovery, Picard, and Lower Decks on a cable channel, they are also on Crave (Bell’s streaming service). It actually drops on Crave at the same time it does on CBS All Access. So how many people watch it that way rather than waiting until 9 PM to watch it on TV with commercials?

The fact that most Discovery episodes are in the top 30 in Canada is actually very impressive.

 

[fireproof78]

As a rule, small universe syndrome is almost always about casual fans. By keeping things/names/places/concepts condensed, it makes it easier for people to follow and eliminates the need to add superfluous characters.

I think that grossly underestimates the audience, even casual fans.

The problem is they ultimately made it so simply for the sake of it. Her familiar ties ultimately added nothing to the narrative. It was completely arbitrary.

For me, I think her ties to Sarek are far more important than her dies to Spock. I do think that she was tied to Spock for the familiarity as you note. But, I think her relationship with Sarek did add to the narrative and was worthwhile in Season 1. Season 2 just showed her as being too important in Spock's life and ultimately felt more superfluous, but it ended up working out.

My over all point is that small universe shouldn't be a goal. Yes, I understand why it is done, but there is a balance to be struck in order to build the world in a way that serves the story. Burnham is an example of both, to my mind.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I think that grossly underestimates the audience, even casual fans.
.

Not at all. There's only so much brain RAM any one person can allocate to pop culture pablum. And in the era franchise over-saturation and the perpetual pressure of FOMO, it's easy for people to become overwhelmed.

 

[fireproof78]

Not at all. There's only so much brain RAM any one person can allocate to pop culture pablum. And in the era franchise over-saturation and the perpetual pressure of FOMO, it's easy for people to become overwhelmed.

Alright. I highly doubt that but I am not tuned in to the pop culture so I'll take your word for it.

 

[Isaac Lawrence]

People need to stop trying to be Marvel. It doesn't feel big-it feels very small, with everyone connected to everyone else. Even Marvel pushed it too far with Captain America knowing Tony Stark's dad. It becomes so small that people can't go 5 minutes without running in to some one else.

As much as I love DISCO Burnham being Spock's sister is too much and doesn't allow any of the characters to truly stand on their own. Interconnectedness does the opposite of making it big. It makes it quite small.

Okay, I see what you're saying, I just wasn't thinking about it along those lines.

To use a direct Star Trek reference, say Discovery stayed in the 23rd century. Now add Strange New Worlds to that, and add a Section 31 show as well. And also add, say a Starfleet Academy show. Now all of these are taking place at the same time in the 23rd century.

The way I'm looking at it, or talking about it or whatever, is that this makes that particular time period bigger, not smaller. Smaller to me would be say, Discovery encompassing all of that in it's own one show, where we see bits and pieces of Strange New Worlds and bits and pieces of Section 31, and bits and pieces of Starfleet Academy. Spread it out over four shows though and it's bigger by like... definition.

This is what I'm talking about.

I guess if you're talking about bigger as in spanning time, then yeah, putting them in different eras would do that, no question. Such as, four separate shows, set in four separate eras, encompassing everything in each respective era... I can see that, I can see it being bigger in that sense. You obviously can't go as deep into any specific era by doing it that way, but it's big in that sense.

So breadth versus depth, in a way. Where I'm saying bigger by way of depth and you're saying (I assume) bigger by way of breadth.

 

[fireproof78]

The way I'm looking at it, or talking about it or whatever, is that this makes that particular time period bigger, not smaller. Smaller to me would be say, Discovery encompassing all of that in it's own one show, where we see bits and pieces of Strange New Worlds and bits and pieces of Section 31, and bits and pieces of Starfleet Academy. Spread it out over four shows though and it's bigger by like... definition.

I guess it is how it was handled. If you're staying in the same era and everyone is referencing everyone else then it is smaller. If you are tackling different facets of the same era without referencing other shows then maybe it could work that way.

Mostly I am talking bigger in the sense that not everyone knows everyone else. The galaxy is big, even in one era, and having Pike know everyone is making it small.