Don't be so critical of you fellow posters. That's just Char's posting style.
SNW Episodes 1-5 Titles and Descriptions
- Thread starter JoaquinSlowly
- Start date
Don't be so critical of you fellow posters. That's just Char's posting style.
It seems they're incorporating a lot of the novels' backstory for Number one. I wonder if she's still going to be a product of genetic engineering.
^^ Could be, or something similar. Her name is certainly a multicultural mix: Latin, Chinese, and Irish. Perhaps she is a mix of genetic traits as well.
Something tells me if any of these characters has genetic engineering in their backstory, it'll be La'an.
I Khan't see why.
"We're gonna one-up Deep Space Nine!"
"How?"
"TWO genetically engineered characters!"
"How?"
"TWO genetically engineered characters!"
honestly, I have always wondered about how many are watching new trek, disney and hbo post their ratings all the time. paramount never does.
also i wonder how much people in 2022 know about new trek. how much are lower decks, discovery, picard and prodigy in the main public consciousness.
yeah, TOS did not get the best ratings, but it had a cult following that hit mainstream and has kept the staying power and TNG was part of classic 90s TV. Star trek 2009, revived strong mainstream intrest in the franchise but that feels like where things has stopped.
I dont need to be a rocket scientist to know that star trek discovery gets very low ratings and unlike TOS, it does not even have the critical acclaim to garner any curiosity.
Last edited:
Disney doesn’t post the numbers for Disney+ series, reports on their ratings are from outside sources like Nielsen, and Samba. And stories have come out as recently as this month about Nielsen streaming ratings being criticized for being an inaccurate representation of the actual numbers.
And yeah, Discovery is such a massive “failure” it’s “failure” has spawned five additional Star Trek series (counting Short Treks), including a direct spin-off in SNW, and was renewed for a 5th season. Being a rocket scientist has nothing to do with common sense, and Paramount isn’t just pouring money down the drain on this era of Trek because it hates having resources, it’s proven profitable for them, regardless of the skepticism of those who aren’t enjoying the current output.
And yeah, Discovery is such a massive “failure” it’s “failure” has spawned five additional Star Trek series (counting Short Treks), including a direct spin-off in SNW, and was renewed for a 5th season. Being a rocket scientist has nothing to do with common sense, and Paramount isn’t just pouring money down the drain on this era of Trek because it hates having resources, it’s proven profitable for them, regardless of the skepticism of those who aren’t enjoying the current output.
Being a financial success and being influential or widely-known are not the same thing. I, too, wonder and am no longer particularly surprised that very few people "out there" really even know that Trek is being made right now. Folks occasionally seem to wonder if there's going to be more Star Trek movies, and that's about it.
We are as much at the mercy of our web search and social networking algorithms where Trek is concerned as we are in matters of politics, etc. - we see a lot about Trek all over the Internet because we're interested in it. But "Kim Kardashian" returns 150,000,000 Google hits, "Gretchen Whitmer" returns 1,800,000, and "Anson Mount" returns around 600,000 - less than a million (Sonequa Martin-Green returns about 700,000).*
*Seth MacFarlane - 2,370,000. Alex Kurtzman - 700,000. Akiva Goldsman - 731,000.
We are as much at the mercy of our web search and social networking algorithms where Trek is concerned as we are in matters of politics, etc. - we see a lot about Trek all over the Internet because we're interested in it. But "Kim Kardashian" returns 150,000,000 Google hits, "Gretchen Whitmer" returns 1,800,000, and "Anson Mount" returns around 600,000 - less than a million (Sonequa Martin-Green returns about 700,000).*
*Seth MacFarlane - 2,370,000. Alex Kurtzman - 700,000. Akiva Goldsman - 731,000.
I've seen some of those worldwide "streaming top 10 lists have Discovery and /or Picard on them in the past, towards the bottom of the top 10. Like you say, I don't know how accurate they are - I think they try to get the information from what the streamers list as their top shows plus online engagement. Picard airs on Prime outside the USA and Canada. According to flixpatrol, Picard is currently the number 2 show on Amazon Prime worldwide - and that's without it airing on Prime in the USA. So I don't think most of the new shows are doing horribly (not sure about Prodigy - which seems to be doing the worst based on its low placement on the paramount plus trending and I'm not sure if it ever made the top 10 of a day unlike the other Trek shows which are consistently at the top).
You can't really compare it tot TOS/TNG because there are just so many entertainment options now and everything is fragmented. Not a lot of things really rise to that "pop culture" status anymore. I think I read there were over 550 scripted English shows in 2020. So many streamers, and other entertainment options like gaming, youtube, music streamers, etc...
Since the streamers do not, AFAIK, make their money by selling advertising time on particular series, they've no reason to be transparent with anyone outside their organizations on what the viewing figures are for particular series. And they tend to be secretive about that stuff.
Which is why random people who know I like scifi asked about trying Discovery.
Anecdotal, sure, but I think the proof is in the continued production.
I was surprised when my sister was watching both Discovery and Picard a few years ago. She's not Trek fan at all, but decided to try them out after getting Paramount (CBS at that time) for some other shows. She liked them both. Again, both shows are doing very well at the streamer compared to their other shows and have high worldwide rankings. Are the ratings low compared to TNG? Yes. Are the ratings good for a streaming environment? Apparently so. Is the goalpost now if it's not as well known as TOS/TNG then it's a failure? Wouldn't that make DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise failures?
Yes, that appears to be the goal post. And it's unrealistic but used as a way to knock newer Trek because it has to ignore the changing media landscape to be relevant.
My observation over the last few years is that a very vocal number of individuals *really* want the new Star Trek shows to fail. There is a happiness in their responses when they read from others that they don't like a "nu trek" show or episode (I see it on twitter all the time). From what I've read it seems like they think if the shows fail then they'll bring someone like Berman back and make shows they like? I dont get it.
My observations is very similar. There is this unquenchable desire, to the point of schadenfreude, when it comes to current Trek productions not reaching certain heights of past Treks, or not having skyrocketing ratings.
In either case, I found it really frustrating because I would hope that more Trek, regardless of personal interest, would be considered a positive. That drawing in more people to explore a facet of the franchise might invite them to participate further.
Maybe that's hopelessly naive or optimistic of me but that's my preference.
@valden
You railroading every discussion you engage with into a whinge about how old Trek was great and new Trek is shit is getting really, really boring, really, really fast.
This is a SNW thread, about SNW titles in the SNW forum. Not ‘Valden’s Tedious Soapbox’. How are the ratings or critical merit of Discovery relevant?
While I’m here though:
Season 1: 82% approval on Rotten Tomatoes
Season 2: 81% approval on Rotten Tomatoes
Season 3: 91% approval on Rotten Tomatoes
Season 4: 92% approval on Rotten Tomatoes
Good job you’re not a Rocket Scientist as clearly you don’t understand how numbers work. Also as four shows have spun off from the success of Discovery and it’s heading into its own fifth Season, it’s clearly doing fine by whatever metric streaming ratings are judged by.
Stop making up bullshit to fit your own weird narrative.
You railroading every discussion you engage with into a whinge about how old Trek was great and new Trek is shit is getting really, really boring, really, really fast.
This is a SNW thread, about SNW titles in the SNW forum. Not ‘Valden’s Tedious Soapbox’. How are the ratings or critical merit of Discovery relevant?
While I’m here though:
Season 1: 82% approval on Rotten Tomatoes
Season 2: 81% approval on Rotten Tomatoes
Season 3: 91% approval on Rotten Tomatoes
Season 4: 92% approval on Rotten Tomatoes
Good job you’re not a Rocket Scientist as clearly you don’t understand how numbers work. Also as four shows have spun off from the success of Discovery and it’s heading into its own fifth Season, it’s clearly doing fine by whatever metric streaming ratings are judged by.
Stop making up bullshit to fit your own weird narrative.
Last edited:
I'll add:
Picard Season 1: 87% on Rotten Tomatoes
Picard Season 2: 92% on Rotten Tomatoes
Lower Decks Season 1: 67% & on Rotten Tomatoes
Lower Decks Season 2: 100% on Rotten Tomatoes
Star Trek Prodigy: 93% on Rotten Tomatoes
Critic reviews look good to me!
TOS Season 3: 50 % on Rotten Tomatoes
Picard Season 1: 87% on Rotten Tomatoes
Picard Season 2: 92% on Rotten Tomatoes
Lower Decks Season 1: 67% & on Rotten Tomatoes
Lower Decks Season 2: 100% on Rotten Tomatoes
Star Trek Prodigy: 93% on Rotten Tomatoes
Critic reviews look good to me!
TOS Season 3: 50 % on Rotten Tomatoes
Numbers that we have zero business in knowing.
Similar threads
