Rescuing Enterprise

While I have issues with DISCOVERY, even I can never claim it had bad ratings for one simple fact.

The ratings of streaming shows are never shown. We have no way of knowing if they are comparable to any season of any TREK from before.

 

I guess my point for saying that we don't know if the viewing numbers now are what they were during ENT, or TNG, or any other time.

 

Well, logic would dictate that they aren’t comparable at all, since network/syndicated past Trek’s measure of success was based on an ambiguous ‘Neilsen’ rating (which is an unrealistic indicator of exactly how many people were watching the show), while Paramount+ Trek’s measure of success is based on how many people have subscribed to their streaming service, ostensibly to watch these Trek series.

 

Even if we did it still would be not a fair comparison because the market is completely different. I agree we don't know, but even if we did know, it's being reduced from TNG era is not accurate either because the audience is split up way differently due to so many streaming services, so many platforms, and options for viewing different shows.

 

When the entire season was aired in 2020, it was getting between 1.4 and 1.9 million viewers, on a Thursday. They also say that DIS initially received 9.49 million viewers.

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/star-trek-discovery-season-one-ratings/

While this site says that when it aired when CBS previewed it all the way back in 2017, DIS received 9.6 million viewers.

https://www.cinemablend.com/television/1706969/how-star-trek-discovery-did-in-the-ratings

I don’t know if its because the preview aired on CBS drew less viewers than Enterprise or Voyager got for their premieres despite Discovery being previewed on a much bigger network, even though its nothing to be ashamed about. And that same preview had more viewers than anything produced after the premieres of both Enterprise and Voyager., a very good sign that people are watching Star Trek, or at least are willing to watching it. But it would have been nice if those defending Discovery’s performance had actually shown their work instead of expecting others to take them at their word. Especially since CBS saw the number DIS initially got and thought it would be a good idea to air the entire first season years later; clearly they had confidence in what they produced. And they saw the ratings DIS received years later and haven't bothered airing any of their shows on CBS since then. There's just no point to with tv ratings as low as that. Which also means that live action Star Trek isn't coming back to traditional tv. Ever.

ENT did good, but had diminishing returns. DIS did good, but had diminishing returns. Is that so hard to admit?

 

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with showing that there are some declines in numbers. ALL shows lose some viewers eventually, but as long as there are a consistent amount of viewers above whatever threshold the suits deem, there is reason to keep a show around. The whole cloak and dagger with regards to the numbers gives people the wrong idea.

Though looking at ENT's viewer numbers, even their final season averaged almost twice the numbers of DISCO. The threshold for streaming shows is obviously much lower, though I don't know what that number might be. It's clearly enough to keep DISCO on the air.

If those DISCO season 1 viewer numbers are accurate, ENT really shattered them in the first season. There could be a couple reasons for that.

1. People really didn't want to tune in.

2. People already saw it streaming and didn't want to be subject to longer commercial breaks on broadcast.


Given that it aired two years after its initial streaming run, if people didn't want to pay for the streaming service, they may not have been interested enough to bother with it airing on CBS.

 

There's a huge fundamental difference in these two statements.

1. "ENT did good, but had diminishing returns.": ENT did good on the worst network on TV at the time. It only survived for four seasons because it was the highest-rated show on the lowest-rated network. And the network that produced it hated it, because it was a very expensive show to produce while only getting minimal returns on its investment. The only reason why it even got a fourth season was so that UPN could sell the show to syndication. And its cancellation marked the death of Star Trek on TV until JJ Abrams's films proved that Trek was still a viable investment.

2. "DIS did good, but had diminishing returns.": DIS was the flagship show for a streaming service that doesn't rely on ratings, that now produces five Star Trek shows because of the popularity of that flagship show, and is still producing that flagship show after five years, whether the same amount of people from five years ago are watching it or not. Not to mention that all of these shows, DIS included, survived the COVID pandemic and were still being produced.

 

Very true about ENTERPRISE.

That show had a LOT of things working against them from the jump. In addition to your points, the tv viewer landscape was already starting to change.

I think there was also less confidence by the viewers themselves because of how lowly regarded the VOYAGER finale was. (And rightfully so.) Knowing that the same people in charge were going to do another series might have already given some fans a sense dread, and could very have not bothered to start due to that.

Rick Berman was right in that there should have at least a year break between the two shows... you can't miss something if it has never left.

Having said that, it goes to show the power of the name STAR TREK that it survived on a network like UPN as long as it did.


Another point to consider regarding DISCO is the season lengths. They are much shorter than ENT seasons. In this era of binge watching and season long arcs, it's not as daunting for people to watch a show. That might actually work in DISCO's favor, despite the fact I don't like their season arcs. It's probably a key factor in why it is still produced.

 

While I also agree that they should have waited, I still think ENT would have been doomed to failure. Berman's original idea was to have the first season take place entirely on Earth, when in fact what he should have done was ditch the whole 'prequel' idea entirely. I'm almost positive he got the idea from the Star Wars prequels, but the concept of the formation of the Federation was a flawed one that they couldn't even stick to, just like how VOY couldn't stick to a show about a ship lost in a strange area of space without constant callbacks to the status quo of the familiar Federation, Klingons, Romulans, Starfleet, etc.

 

Nope, because that's the market.

Because it's not a one to one ratio. It's an attempt to compare elements that are in completely different markets, with completely different expectations of performance. Saying DSC has "diminishing returns" is not accurate because it isn't considering the fact that a, the market moved to streaming, and b, DSC was designed for streaming and had already been put to a streaming platform, with enough support that it kept getting renewed.

I get it. People want to think ENT was viable but we cannot demonstrate the numbers without the context of the market. Star Trek was laready slowly losing viewers on broadcast TV, with ENT seeing that fall continue on. DSC, as Dukhat notes, has overseen a revival of Trek on streaming in the new market, with 4 others shows now being produced.

If DSC was producing "diminishing returns" then there would not be the spending of more money on a failing product. Trek would be canned, or diminished greatly in turns of output and left to cool until someone decides it's worthwhile again.

 

Um, I don’t actually care about making ENT viable in this debate. Otherwise, I would not have cited evidence that the premiere of Discovery had more viewers than anything ENT produced, with the exception of “Broken Bow”. And most of Voyager too. Which is pretty impressive.

I do care about honesty about ENT in that its no longer on the shoulders of that show that Trek is not on tv anymore, and now with recent news regarding the Kelvin series, the theatres. It now centers around Discovery. Its not an anti-Discovery argument either.

 

People had too much Trek at that time. Things go in cycles it seems.

 

I thought the argument was about why ENT failed?

 

Yes. It is. So why are we talking about it as the show that killed Star Trek on tv and whether or not its viable?

It could be rescued now, with a sequel series. But Alex Kurtzman or CBS aren’t asking for anything to be submitted in regards to ENT. Which is a shame, as I think they’d like my pitch.

 

Because it did?

Because it’s not?

I think it’s been demonstrably proven that ENT’s time is behind it, and there is no interest in bringing it back. And there are already sequel series to ENT: DSC seasons 1 & 2, and SNW.

 

I'd love to see Short Treks using ENT and its characters and the Earth-Romulan War, but I'm under no illusions a regular series is coming back.

 

Because that's literally what the thread is about. If your'e going to "bring Enterprise back/rescue Enterprise" then it has to be viable.

Which shows that perhaps they don't think it is viable, which means it can't be rescued.

 

I doubt even Short Treks are coming back.