His ass?
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
Oh, and with respect to the data in Valden's doom post:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/nielsen-streaming-data-1234971637/
And from the above link:
And no, that situation hasn't changed. The only actual Stream data Nilsen gets from those services Are via they Nielsen Family system; and assuming a Nielsen Family HAS one of those streaming services. (And no, Streaming penetration isn't 100% - and some people have gone back to cable subscribing as well.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/nielsen-streaming-data-1234971637/
And from the above link:
^^^
And no, that situation hasn't changed. The only actual Stream data Nilsen gets from those services Are via they Nielsen Family system; and assuming a Nielsen Family HAS one of those streaming services. (And no, Streaming penetration isn't 100% - and some people have gone back to cable subscribing as well.
Oh no. The streaming numbers aren't what they "should be."
QUICK, EVERYBODY ACT BEFORE THERE'S STILL TIME.
QUICK, EVERYBODY ACT BEFORE THERE'S STILL TIME.
What we need are CHARTS.
From CANADA!
From CANADA!
Oh please!?!?! didn't we finally lose that painful twatwaffle?
I have set a GoPayMe for money to come directly to me to address these concerns.
Trek has never been as big or respected as any of its contemporaries. The closest Trek got there was maybe TOS with Leonard Nimoy getting nominated for all three seasons of the show. Not even Patrick Stewart could snag a nomination back with TNG. That’s how underestimated Trek has been for a long time.
It’s kind of ironic, given how much Trek itself has become an institution, yet it can’t even reach the respect an unremarkable show like ANDOR gets from the industry.
It’s kind of ironic, given how much Trek itself has become an institution, yet it can’t even reach the respect an unremarkable show like ANDOR gets from the industry.
While I agree with you that Star Trek has almost never received the level of respect from the critics and awards establishments that it deserves, I firmly disagree with your assessment of Andor. Andor is quite a remarkable piece of radical, antifascist art dressed up in the guise of genre I.P. The essential story would not have been out of place had it been set in, say, Pinochet's Chile or Argentina or Brazil under their respective juntas.
Edited to add:
I personally don't think that Star Wars should do remarkably radical, antifascist works of art for adults like Andor, because I tend to object to canonical installments for adults of franchises that are supposed to be for children. But Andor is an exceptionally high-quality series that executes that premise very well, even if I wish it had not been set in the Star Wars Universe.
I mean, at it's core Star Wars is a rebellious narrative, and whether it's for children or not, the children have grown up and still look at Star Wars as a typology that doesn't always unpack the grim realities of war and rebellion. Clone Wars actually did this more often than I think many realize. One Youtube channel that I appreciate, even if I disagree sometimes, unpacks this idea a little more in depth:
And while I believe strongly in stories for stories sake, I think installments like Andor are fine because it's not the whole world. It would be one thing if all of Star Wars media, or Star Trek media, were consumed by one approach. But, to the credit of production companies (yes, yes, I know...) they are looking at diversifying the menu to have things like Andor and Bad Batch. Or Picard and Strange New Worlds or Prodigy. It allows various facets of the world to be approached at a level appropriate for them. Which, in my mind, is a good thing.
And while I believe strongly in stories for stories sake, I think installments like Andor are fine because it's not the whole world. It would be one thing if all of Star Wars media, or Star Trek media, were consumed by one approach. But, to the credit of production companies (yes, yes, I know...) they are looking at diversifying the menu to have things like Andor and Bad Batch. Or Picard and Strange New Worlds or Prodigy. It allows various facets of the world to be approached at a level appropriate for them. Which, in my mind, is a good thing.
Probably because they are the streaming platform that has the most views in the first place. Yellowstone airs on paramount plus and the paramount network. yet the show is a big hit, we hear this all the time, with actual viewership. i think yellowstone draws about 13 million viewers on tv and when it airs on streaming paramount says it is their highest rated show....not like SNW they always say it is their highest rated star trek show.
I am not saying SNW is a big flop, i think the show is something paramount may be able to afford for about 5 seasons, however my point is that the show seem to exist in a much much smaller space than the hype machine we were getting weekly.
Another good possible indicator of the show ratings may be looking at audience rating amount on rotten tomatoes and IMDB. So for example a marvel show can rate a series 7.9/10 with 200,000 viewers that rated it that score whereas SNW gets a rating of 8.2 with 10,000 viewers on IMDB, so that should give an idea of SNW viewership compared to a marvel or star wars show. compared to that, you can tell SNW viewership is very low.
If the ratings are as low as i think, despite the hype it will make good sense to me as i feel the show dropped the ball on the way they have chosen to handle a lot of characters, stories and even the star trek brand as the let me tell you how cool we are now as a franchise that is becomes way too try hard.
i think star trek brand is intellectually more highly regarded than star wars, however we have not hard intellectual star trek in a long time not since Enterprise.
As for Andor, yes the show is far superior to SNW with better quality writing. better acting and production value. Andor did picl up major nominations Emmys. Golden Globes, Producer/Director Guild. the last time any thing trek got close to this was star trek 2009.
Disney however did report Andor is their least favourite watched star wars show
https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/star-wars-andor-lower-viewership/
But the tables turned
https://www.jeditemplearchives.com/2022-12-24-andor-gets-huge-ratings-boost-with-finale/
Disney can afford the honesty with Andor. that is the difference with disney and paramount, paramount cant afford to be really honest because they need SNW to succeed more than disney needs Andor.
However this may give a clue on how low the ratings of SNW may be, if Andor is..was the lowest viewed star wars show but it is still likely getting better ratings than SNW.
Last edited:
No it doesn't.
Not only does it not give us a clue about something in which I have no vested interest but it doesn't even concern me.
The numbers are strong enough to make Season 2 and pour money into it. That tells you all you need to know.
The numbers are strong enough to make Season 2 and pour money into it. That tells you all you need to know.
yes it does because it show in number how many people may actually have seen the show in the masses. for example
On IMDB
She Hulk: Attorney at law has a rating of 5.7/10 on IMDB. 171,000 people rated it at an average of 5.7/10
Strange New Worlds is rated 8.2/10. 32,000 people rated it 8.2/10
So this is a very strong indicator that a show like she hulk gets way better audiences viewership than SNW.
Any chance all you ratings-cravers and ramblers can please beam over in some dedicated ratings thread?
Would be much appreciated.
Would be much appreciated.
As long as enough people watch it to justify P+ making more of it, I couldn't give a flying fuck how it compares in viewership to She Hulk or even Love Island.
I loved ENT and enjoyed large chunks of VOY and neither series ever set the Nielsens on fire. I don't need my shows to be "popular."
Precisely this. Numbers I have no power over. Enjoyment is all that matters. If I enjoy a show I'll be there until the last. If I don't, doesn't matter if everyone else loves it; I won't watch it.
I'm sure someone sees value in these numbers. I fail to see it though.
All I can say is that I don't think that's something Star Wars should do. I think Star Wars has a few particular narrative conceits that constitute its essence, and one of them is that it doesn't get too deep into the grim reality. Star Wars is at its heart a fantasy for children, and I disagree with attempts to make it more sophisticated because I get frustrated at the tendency to "adult-ize" children's franchises (at least in canonical installments -- I don't care about an obviously alternate version like Velma).
I suppose what it boils down to is that I don't think Star Wars should be a big, sprawling, ongoing franchise with lots of nooks and crannies (except for the Expanded Universe novels that everyone else can safely ignore). I think it should be a much more limited thing consisting of a few movies and a few TV shows that maintain a consistent set of creative conceits (even if those movies are themselves much bigger cultural events than other franchises' installments).
But, ultimately this is a sidebar. The real issue is not, "Should Star Wars do a sophisticated show for adults?" but, rather, "Does Andor deserve the critical respect it's received?" One can disagree with a premise and still respect the work for how it executes that premise. Whether or not I think Andor should have been set in the canonical Star Wars universe, it was, and it executed its premise extremely well. Andor is a sophisticated work of art that deserves the respect it's getting.
I think you are vastly over-stating the intellectualism of Star Trek. I love ST, but most of it is thoroughly middlebrow.
You mean the show with the sexy green women who make men so horny they obey the green women's every command? The one where the evil lizard men want to blow up the Earth because reasons? And the alien space Nazis want to change history? The one where the show periodically stopped the narrative so that its actors could rub baby oil on one-another in their underwear?
C'mon, man. ENT was hardly "intellectual."
I mean, Andor and Strange New Worlds are doing completely different things, so I don't really think it makes sense to say either one has "better" writing or acting. They have different creative goals and different styles of writing and acting are appropriate to different creative goals, and they both execute their creative goals extremely well.
I reject the idea that Andor has better production value. Both have excellent production value, but you can also see where their budgets still had some limitations. (The buildings on Ferrix in particular feel very limited by the budget; similarly, you could literally see the Ukrainian flag in the "alien" riot footage in the SNW pilot.)
I mean, ultimately both Disney and Paramount have been losing money on their respective streaming services. The question is whether or not those initial losses will grow into profitability after they've each built up enough of an archive and schedule of ongoing shows as to attract a sustainable number of subscribers. That's yet to be seen for both.
Well, yes and no. The various streaming services for the past few years have been, essentially, a bubble -- with studios pouring money into their streamers at an initial loss in an attempt to build up enough of an archive and enough of a schedule of ongoing new stuff as to attract enough subscribers to become popular and therefore profitable. We're starting to see that bubble burst in some places -- hence the Great Purge over on HBO Max and its possible collapse. Paramount's put a lot of money into its Star Trek shows since ST fans tend to be a very dedicated audience base and they want to keep Trekkies subscribing all year round. The question is whether or not the combination of reliable Trekkie subscribers and the general audience subscriber base is going to be large enough for Paramount to keep sustaining the losses it has with Paramount+.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll