What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

It is likewise too broad a brush to lump together all criticism of the shows as formed in a good faith and open minded approach. There's plenty of basis to criticise each Trek series and film, so I have no doubt that some of it is legitimate. However, the aggression and bad faith expression of much of it in recent times - both before and during the series - is striking.

I went through IMDb reviews of Disco S3E4 soon after it aired because I was surprised at its low rating - a third of them were openly bigoted, and several had plainly not even watched the episode. Goodness knows how many others veiled their true feelings.

Past series also did not have the element of YouTubers generating money through negativity, which is a key part of the negative side of fandom these days. That amplifies and spreads negative views of the series even among those who do not watch them, as they are presented with only a biased perspective of them.

To present just one example:
Online reviewer shares a screenshot from Lower Decks to demonstrate how Trek is no longer "smart".
One person replies that:
It's a terrible cartoon that spits in the face of Gene Roddenberry and fans of Star Trek.
CBS/Paramount have ruined Star Trek.
Discovery, Picard, and Lower Decks exist solely to disrespect fans of Star Trek.

Follow the thread down, and he's watched one episode of it, and a handful of the other two shows. A person replying to him agrees with those sentiments, having not watched any of them.

That's the echo chamber in action.

 

I generally follow along with what you are saying but I think one thing missing from your analysis of it is a commentary on the change in viewing habits and the expanding world of TV in the 90s that saw a rapid dilution of viewing audiences.

Coupled also with the wider availability or recording devices allowing people to watch at their leisure (anyone from the UK here remember using the codes in the Radiotimes to programe the VCR and also setting it for long play to get extra recording time on the video when going o holiday?).

The early to mid 90s was an era where time slots were dominated by certain shows and the likes of Seinfeld would have a finale that will never be matched - hell other channels simply didn't run anything against it in some cases - but the back end of the 90s saw a rapid change in viewer habits away from those enjoyed by 80s and early 90s Trek which significantly reduced the reported viewing figures.

 

The Seinfeld finale came out in 1998 -- I watched it on first broadcast -- but otherwise, everything you said is correct.

 

It's true that trolls have completely ruined aspects of criticism - making aggregate ratings on sites like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes useless.

On the other hand, there are way too many people these days who are too personally invested in...everything...to the point that they can't handle legitimate criticism because their identity is built around their taste. This goes for both the people the trolls try to trigger, as well as the trolls themselves.

I am not my taste in movies, TV, music, books, etc. I have an identity independent of that. This is shit I do for fun.

 

The biggest frustration for me is terms of hyperbole that make actual discussion difficult. Star Trek has not been ruined, disrespected, destroyed or forever maligned. If a Star Trek show is good then no future production takes that away.

Also, Star Trek is not so special that it gets reverential treatment.

 

Know who was worse than Hitler?

EXACTLY.

 

I call Godwin's Law... ;p

 

I don't believe that the data supports dilution of the viewing audience due to a change in viewing habits. [edit - I mean to say, I don't believe that the data supports the premise that a change in viewing habits was the primary cause for the loss of viewers.]

Gunther Heinrich's "All Star Trek Movies and Episodes in Two Charts" is no longer at http://www.madmind.de/2009/05/02/all-star-trek-movies-and-episodes-in-two-charts/ where it used to be, at least since July. But his chart plotting the ratings for TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT is visible at https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/126469/what-was-the-highest-rated-episode-of-star-trek.

The key feature that I'd like to draw attention to is that, for each of the first three post-TNG series, there was a marked drop in viewership after each premier, a rapid decay over the first few episodes that occurred before the decay rate for each series settled into a flatter, steadier decline. To me, this indicates interest that people had in Star Trek. People tuned in, hoping to find something they would like. But they failed to find what they wanted, and they turned away. Those who remained gradually lost interest over the run of each show.

In other words, many more people would have watched, had they found shows interesting. They actually sampled the shows, but they didn't find them interesting, so they didn't keep watching. The fact that they tuned in to sample the shows runs counter to the premise that the viewing audience was diluted by a change in viewing habits. If viewing habits had been the determining factor of the overall ratings level for each show, this sudden drop from a much higher level of initial viewership would not have occurred.

Heck, the Voyager premier viewership level is right in line with average TNG viewer levels. Then, it tanks, right after.

 

Seems to me like it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B in that you are right that better quality programming retains premiere numbers at a much better rate through the season but there would also be an element of dilution reducing the hard numbers tuning in as well.

I'll look at the data later but it would be interesting to see the attrition rates and where they were steeper/shallower.

Would also be interesting to see if there were certain trigger points for audience drop offs.

Take a show like Game of Thrones for example - huge cultural phenomenon but its viewing figures are dwarfed by shows, of what many would consider lower quality, from 20 years prior.

There was also the boom of other Sci fi shows in the late 90s/early 00s which would probably - and this is a gut instinct rather than having proper numbers - have taken viewership away or moved them to delayed viewers.

I think your overall premise has merit but do also feel that it was a multitude of factors that impacted it as opposed to just a quality issue

 

I wouldn't question that. Also, I've clarified what I meant with an edit.

 

I'll take a look at the numbers - the context they provide will presumably illustrate things better than our qualitative approach.

With that being the case that Voy kicks off at a solid TNG average viewership and then bombs it would indicate a lack of interest.

I don't know American network habits but over here there were issues around the screening of episodes - as I remember it BBC2 got to the end of S3 and then dropped it (same problem with DS9 in S6 or 7) and so availability of the show was reduced. Was there anything like that that you're aware of in the US?

I wonder also why it now ranks so highly for streaming? Maybe tastes now are different such that the issues with in on first release that lead to reduced viewership are no long a concern for people?

 

Getting streaming data for CBSAA/Paramount+, say in the form of views per episode, is problematic. CBS was keeping those numbers close to the vest. Subscriber levels are more easily available.

 

I'm looking towards it's popularity on Netflix. Now hard numbers- as you say - but I think it is pretty reliably stated to be their best performing

 

One thing I've wondered about the streaming numbers is if the 'less popular' shows might not be partially doing well in streaming precisely because they were less popular. Ie, people who never watched the first time around may be using the ease of streaming to give it a second chance.

 

That, plus access to entirely new viewers is what I had in mind

 

As much as I like it....a good portion of TNG (and DS9 and Voyager) is ageing like sour milk

 

TNG Season 1 has two kinds of episodes: great ones and hot mess.

 

It has taken me years to do a TNG full re-watch. I have all the BR disk sets, and they look and sound amazing....but man...Season 6 and Season 7 were really just dull and unremarkable in spots. It's still better than 85% of anything else on TV (especially at that time)...but it is more of a slog than I ever imagined.

In that way, S1 and S2 of TNG remind me a lot of S3 of TOS. There are great ones, and some vastly underrated ones...but the ones that stink really stand out.

In many ways, I still think S1 and S2 of TNG are better than S6 and S7 of TNG. There are fewer "highs" in those later seasons than there were in the earlier seasons...at least by my read of it.