• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?

As for a dying fanbase, the fanbase of TNG, DS9 and VOY aren't that old.

Typically, media aims for audiences 18-35. I was 7 when TNG premiered in 1987. I am now 46. I am outside of what media aims for. I am well aware of that. Fans of the TNG era are now largely past that 18-35 range. Those who were 35 at the start of TNG are now in their 70s. So for those who were present for the entirety of the TNG era they would be between their mid 40s and up.

Just to keep in mind.

Wouldn't it be nice if Star trek could be an alternative to that for the newer generation.

I see both Prodigy and SFA as good jumping on points for the newer generation. Both extremely optimistic and geared largely towards younger audiences. And no need to reply and say you disagree with me here. I am well aware.
 
Typically, media aims for audiences 18-35. I was 7 when TNG premiered in 1987. I am now 46. I am outside of what media aims for. I am well aware of that. Fans of the TNG era are now largely past that 18-35 range. Those who were 35 at the start of TNG are now in their 70s. So for those who were present for the entirety of the TNG era they would be between their mid 40s and up.

Just to keep in mind.



I see both Prodigy and SFA as good jumping on points for the newer generation. Both extremely optimistic and geared largely towards younger audiences. And no need to reply and say you disagree with me here. I am well aware.

I always recommend TOS first to younger people. The reason?? I want them to see how it all started. Some find it boring. Which I understand. It's tough for it to compete with higher production shows. Then I say Any order after TOS. Though production order would be preferable.
 
Please no if it is a joyless experience with a wooden main character.

Robert Beltran had entered the chat.

While not all subscribers watch either show, it’s hard to get close to the numbers you want them to reach without increasing their subscriber count.

Guess it's better for Trek to be on broadcast or cable TV then, if we want it to be competitive with shows like Andor.

Trek has always been more niche than Wars, regardless of the quality of the story.

And...

I do not find Cassian an enjoyable main character.

Irrelevant. My point was to the popularity of the show. I want commenting on the story telling.
 
Guess it's better for Trek to be on broadcast or cable TV then, if we want it to be competitive with shows like Andor.
I still can't figure out why this isn't already the case - network shows seem to annihilate streaming shows in viewership (even on streaming services - on P+ network procedurals and old sitcoms are reigning, and I've read that TOS is ahead of SNW and SFA).

It's odd; Star Trek being made in the "10-hour movie split into chunks" streaming model seems entirely ideological from Paramount, rather than a production necessity. I wonder if a move to network television could actually be key in reviving the franchise and restoring public interest.
 
I always recommend TOS first to younger people. The reason?? I want them to see how it all started. Some find it boring. Which I understand. It's tough for it to compete with higher production shows. Then I say Any order after TOS. Though production order would be preferable.

Which is why I suggest Prodigy or SFA. TOS is great, but hard for younger viewers. My 6yo loved Prodigy. Couldn’t finish an episode of TAS. If he liked it then I’d recommend TOS.
 
From this data we can see that all franchises hit a peak around year 10 and lose their viewers' enthusiasm around their 15th year due to over familiarity... except for James Bond, which released The Spy Who Loved Me and was doing fine.

Well, The Spy Who Loved Me was a sort of reset, due to the not-too-pleasing reaction to 1974's The Man with the Golden Gun, so the Bond franchise was in gamble mode with the 1977 film.


First, who gets to define what one means by “former glory?”

Movie and TV series / franchises generally have some period of production more widely considered its best than another part of the series. For examples, I doubt it is a stretch to say the first 3 Universal Frankenstein films were the glory days of that series, as opposed to the last half of monster-mashes and the creature ending up in a comedy. Then, there's the Star Wars movies--a series most certainly having what is considered its glory days now thought to be long gone. IOW, it is possible to define a "former glory" period.
 
Which means that the audiences simply won’t be as large. Though I’m betting that you knew that…

Actually I wasn't thinking about the disparity in the subscription base. I should have chosen a more popular P+ show.

Sooo... popularity is fine even if it's an unlikable character?

No matter which show I picked someone would have come up with this same logical fallacy argument. My focus was that numbers are the only steady way we have to measure the popularity (and therefore success) of the streaming series in question.

Subjective opinions on the quality of the entertainment are irrelevant to this point.


I still can't figure out why this isn't already the case - network shows seem to annihilate streaming shows in viewership (even on streaming services - on P+ network procedurals and old sitcoms are reigning, and I've read that TOS is ahead of SNW and SFA).

I think it was the same reason they made Voyager a network show on UPN after TNG and DS9 thrived in syndication. They wanted to attract a hard core fan base to support their new network. It was a tent pole, so to speak.

They try and try and try to use Trek as this sort of attractor. Trek just isn't popular enough to do this sort of heavy lifting on its own. It's never going to be strong enough to attract people to a theme park or a Star Trek themed experience or bar or casino in the long term. Of course, even Galaxy's Edge appears to be scaling back and The Galactic Cruiser hotel has burnt up in orbit.

Of course, it seems like the stuffed suits are always out of touch. They want profit over everything else.
 
No matter which show I picked someone would have come up with this same logical fallacy argument. My focus was that numbers are the only steady way we have to measure the popularity (and therefore success) of the streaming series in question
Alright, so Canada ;)


The bigger question is how do you do the appeal to that broad audience? The risk of Andor is that many Star Wars fans didn't enjoy it because it was slow and plodding at first. It lacked a hook like some are used to.

As @Campe would note if you ask 10 fans about Star Trek and what makes it "good" you'll get 24 different answers. Some, that appeal to popularity always strikes me as a fool's errand.
 
The bigger question is how do you do the appeal to that broad audience? The risk of Andor is that many Star Wars fans didn't enjoy it because it was slow and plodding at first. It lacked a hook like some are used to.
I feel like if someone was already into Rogue One that was the hook.
 
Which is why I suggest Prodigy or SFA. TOS is great, but hard for younger viewers.
What age group are you referring to?

I'm genuinely curious, because I haven't watched either show and am still figuring out if I want to. (I probably will, once I get a break from teaching.)

In your previous post, you mentioned the 18-35 demographic, which is quite a wide range, in my opinion. Judging strictly from the premises of these shows, I'd say both seem more geared toward viewers under 25. Wouldn't SNW be a better fit for the older half of that demographic?

I agree that TOS can be a little challenging for many even in that age category (depending on their general background, of course). But I also think a lot of people over 25 wouldn't find series about teenagers and cadets all that enticing.
 
What age group are you referring to?

I'm genuinely curious, because I haven't watched either show and am still figuring out if I want to. (I probably will, once I get a break from teaching.)

In your previous post, you mentioned the 18-35 demographic, which is quite a wide range, in my opinion. Judging strictly from the premises of these shows, I'd say both seem more geared toward viewers under 25. Wouldn't SNW be a better fit for the older half of that demographic?

I agree that TOS can be a little challenging for many even in that age category (depending on their general background, of course). But I also think a lot of people over 25 wouldn't find series about teenagers and cadets all that enticing.

I’m 46 and have enjoyed both series. Neither series is strictly for a younger audience.

What I mean for 18-35 is generally, the majority of mainstream media is designed for that age range. They are typically the group that advertisers reach for as they have more disposable income. I agree that the target demographic for SFA is probably 18-30, while Prodigy is for 6+ but certainly can speak to older audiences as well.

I love SNW. I just am not sure it’s a great on-ramp for new fans.
 
Except Paramount Plus doesn't care about advertisers -- the demographic they care about is people who subscribe to it.
 
Only product placement I've noticed in Trek was in NuTrek when Uhura ordered a "Budweiser Classic". Really took me out of the movie.

And of course there's the hilarious yellow pages one in the voyage home

Certainly haven't seen any in SFA
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top