News Starfleet Academy Nielsen Ratings

[Michael]

There is a difference between "overweight" and "fat". Some people are trying their damnedest to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear; apparently, around these parts, it is a seller's market.

While other people are apparently so bothered by non-slim women on their TV that they make it their whole passive aggressive personality on an internet message board.

We get it, you don‘t like the show. Big whoop. Who gives a toss? No-one‘s trying to make you like it. So cut it with whole “none of you hive-mind plebs have the refined palate it takes to realize how utterly bad this show really is” spiel. It‘s getting really fucking old and awfully close to trolling. Dislike the show all you like, but not every damn post needs to be some condescending drive-by comment subtly telling us how stupid we all are for liking this “rubbish”.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Man, that is a really long distance you've moved that goalpost, here I'll remind you of your actual claim.

My claim since I replied to ragitsu's initial post, is that there is a disparity between the expectations of what is acceptable when it comes to male and female bodies in trek. Apparently overweight men are perfectly fine, but overweight women need to not be seen.

Like wtf are you even talking about? What goalposts? How is stating that trek frequently hires out of shape male actors and then providing examples moving the goalposts?

 

[Cicero]

My claim since I replied to ragitsu's initial post, is that there is a disparity between the expectations of what is acceptable when it comes to male and female bodies in trek. Apparently overweight men are perfectly fine, but overweight women need to not be seen.

Male and female attractiveness (and therefore health norms) are judged differently. For males, underlying muscle is often more important than whether there's fat on top of it (weight can also have a virtue of its own in physical conflict). While for females, additional body fat poses significant risks during pregnancy.

The double standard isn't fair, but it also isn't arbitrary.

Edit: Pregnancy risk isn't what's causing this problem, so I've struck it out. (I'd delete the post entirely if it weren't quoted below. Sorry.)

 

[Detached Nacelle]

While for females, additional body fat poses significant risks during pregnancy.

So it's not an issue then for women who can't or don't want to get pregnant?

 

[Michael]

Male and female attractiveness (and therefore health norms) are judged differently. For males, underlying muscle is often more important than whether there's fat on top of it (weight can also have a virtue of its own in physical conflict). While for females, additional body fat poses significant risks during pregnancy.

The double standard isn't fair, but it also isn't arbitrary.

What a load of nonsense.

But whatever. Let‘s return to the actual topic of this thread (i.e. the ratings for the show) instead of doing the whole “Should there be fat people in Star Trek?“ debate once again.

 

[TRON JA307020]

TOS--before TAS, before TOS-movies and other spinoffs--transformed into a global phenomenon, with reruns breaking records, best-selling merchandise aimed at adults and children and thousands piling into conventions based on the series alone (including a 60 Minutes profile, along with endless other news features on TOS' popularity). Power. That is the reason TAS was greenlit, why Phase II was ever going to be a thing (which eventually jumped to the movies), etc. That was the power of Star Trek's one and only true global cultural phenomenon, yet it happened in the basic analog TV era...that's the pre-streaming, pre-cable, pre-physical media era. Why?

Genuine creative appeal to more than a handful of diehards--something no 21st century ST production has come close to matching, and arguably never will with any future productions. The "why" is clear: notably inferior productions which drive more people away that draw them in, resonating with the average viewer, the way syndicated TOS did over five decades ago.



Where NuTrek is concerned...exactly.

Quite right. Trek had lots of competition in those days. There were sci fi programs, horror anthologies, spy shows and much more. Trek survived them all by the 70s and became a cultural phenomenon. People can deny that today because Kurtzmsn Trek has failed but a show that wasn't such a big deal spawning 7 spinoff live action shows and 3 animated is absolutely a phenomenon. People now are saying it's not because Kurtzman Trek has gotten such low views. Even SNW is losing viewership. It's because of the writing in my opinion. I mean we are going to be treated to a puppet episode this season. Another copy of the buffyverse shows. Too bad really.

 

[Starflight]

Male and female attractiveness (and therefore health norms) are judged differently. For males, underlying muscle is often more important than whether there's fat on top of it (weight can also have a virtue of its own in physical conflict). While for females, additional body fat poses significant risks during pregnancy.

The double standard isn't fair, but it also isn't arbitrary.

I don't think many people's conception of physical attractiveness nowadays factors in "will this man die slightly less quickly than other men in a hypothetical fight with a bear" and "will this woman be more likely than another woman to survive pregnancy".

But if this were the case, most men in Trek fail anyway - Siddig is a very good-looking man but I'm not sure he's packed with "underlying muscle".

 

[Michael]

@everyone: Less talk about kilos, more talk about ratings.

 

[Cicero]

So it's not an issue then for women who can't or don't want to get pregnant?

It gets complicated. We evaluate other humans with the rubrics by which our species judges potential partners. And we are all socialized to fit those roles from the time we're infants.

Parts of our disparate treatment stem from how far one has to diverge from one's (expected) socialization to arrive at a particular outcome—so a female person who has gained weight might still be judged more harshly.

(Also, a significant portion of the population doesn't care about what an individuals preferences and/or choices might be, anyway. That's certainly something that should be dealt with by Star Trek.)

What a load of nonsense.

If it helps, my interest in this subject has been motivated by trying to understand why these standards emerge despite our essentially structurally identical brains.

There's basically no intrinsic mental difference between males and females, so everything else about us seems to arise from the social consequences of our physical dissimilarities—which are in turn almost entirely about the selective pressures of reproduction (and have, with some exceptions, been decreasing since we diverged from our fellow apes).

I don't think many people's conception of physical attractiveness nowadays factors in "will this man die slightly less quickly than other men in a hypothetical fight with a bear" and "will this woman be more likely than another woman to survive pregnancy".

But if this were the case, most men in Trek fail anyway - Siddig is a very good-looking man but I'm not sure he's packed with "underlying muscle".

At a very basic level, the criteria for females seems to be whether (or how easily) she can have children, and for males whether he's a winner. There's a lot more variety to success, which accounts for the greater diversity in women's preferences for men.

In this respect, the preferences of women attracted to women and men attracted to men are very interesting, but unfortunately under-researched.

Edit:

@everyone: Less talk about kilos, more talk about ratings.

Sorry

Edit 2: More deletion for inaccuracy.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Male and female attractiveness (and therefore health norms) are judged differently. For males, underlying muscle is often more important than whether there's fat on top of it (weight can also have a virtue of its own in physical conflict). While for females, additional body fat poses significant risks during pregnancy.

The double standard isn't fair, but it also isn't arbitrary.

Societal standards for female attractiveness have ZERO to do with risks during pregnancy Like, what are you even on about. Hollywood has a deep history of women leads needing to be attractive while men can be as dumpy and out of shape as they want. The comedy trope of
fat husband/attractive wife or Roger Moore having the build of a sack of potatoes while bedding much younger, attractive women in bond movies are just two examples of this.

 

[Cicero]

Societal standards for female attractiveness have ZERO to do with risks during pregnancy Like, what are you even on about. Hollywood has a deep history of women leads needing to be attractive while men can be as dumpy and out of shape as they want. The comedy trope of fat husband/attractive wife or Roger Moore having the build of a sack of potatoes while bedding much younger, attractive women in bond movies are just two examples of this.

I do think that beauty standards can be somewhat detached from what the opposite sex actually finds attractive (cf. makeup trends, anorexia, steroid bodies). But they usually have their roots in a distorted vision of either success or fertility.

However, not only is this off-topic, but I frankly feel gross talking about this aspect of humans so much in this kind of context (I was fine commenting briefly, but this is a lot). There are many reasons to be attracted to someone, and they're more the same between men and women than they are different.

 

[Kraig]

There has already been a friendly warning by one moderator to stop going off-topic and discussing beauty standards. Any more discussion along these lines will get Warnings, of the official variety.

 

[Michael]

Re-opening the thread to see if people can behave. Please remember to keep it on-topic, guys. Thank you.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

It is a wonder how much they count viewership figures on a first release of something when it's week by week considering it is quite common for people to wait until everything is out and binge it all

 

[Firebird]

It is a wonder how much they count viewership figures on a first release of something when it's week by week considering it is quite common for people to wait until everything is out and binge it all

Given all the upheavals at the studio level, I think Paramount was looking for any excuse to help clean the old guard's slate.

 

[fireproof78]

Given all the upheavals at the studio level, I think Paramount was looking for any excuse to help clean the old guard's slate.

Give .the large amount of debt Paramount was carrying this doesn't surprise me.

 

[Cicero]

It is a wonder how much they count viewership figures on a first release of something when it's week by week considering it is quite common for people to wait until everything is out and binge it all

From the comments I've seen from advertisers, knowing when an ad will be watched—that you're paying to put it in front of this audience at that time—has value.

An audience that's larger at a specific point in time is also more likely to include viewers who watch less frequently, and are therefore harder to reach (that includes, e.g., young people on television and older audiences on younger-skewing social media).

 

[Mudd]

Interesting piece in Deadline last week about Netflix's apparent strategy to push viewers toward their ad-supported tier - essentially reinventing the old broadcast TV business model for streaming.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

From the comments I've seen from advertisers, knowing when an ad will be watched—that you're paying to put it in front of this audience at that time—has value.

But that isn't relevant to today. £7.99 and Paramount shows me no ads in the middle of an episode and the ad they show before it starts is for a new show on their service which is plastered on the splash page before I even get to what I want to watch.

Even an extremely popular show can make advertisers no money.

 

[Mudd]

Netflix Price Hikes Cheered By Wall Street Analysts: “A Welcome Relief For Investors”