Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons

[Fateor]

The final numbers tend not to adjust that much, unless there are extenuating circumstances. The first two episodes of Orville had larger adjusted because of a delayed start for episode 2, and because both episodes 1 and 2 had multiple airings that were factored in together.

So, if there is an adjustment, it would be at a relatively small amount. So the audience decline could be 39% or 41%, rather than 40%.

We don't even have the full numbers from the Neilson ratings at this point Rojo, let alone the numbers from the DVR, and streaming.

 

[Campe]

Given the full numbers aren't in yet I find it rather amusing that you think it lost 40% of it's audience.

While you’re correct in the fact that the full numbers are in, I don’t think, even with streaming, Live+7 numbers, you’re going to come close to that 40%. Maybe 10. But we’ll see, won’t we?

 

[Mudd]

Of course the show lost a big chunk of its audience when it moved. We'll see how it goes from here.

So, has CBS said how many people it expects will watch Discovery every week on All Access?

 

[Noname Given]

Of course the show lost a big chunk of its audience when it moved. We'll see how it goes from here.

So, has CBS said how many people it expects will watch Discovery every week on All Access?

I've only heard that the hope to get to a total of (including current subscribers which I think they quoted of 2.2 million or so) 4 million subscribers by 2020. <--- That's how they talked regarding CBSAA performance.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

That episode of the Orville was, again, just "fine". The entire series is "OK". I find it a decent way to spend an hour in front of the TV -- but if it was cancelled, I would not miss it.

RE: people calling that episode a "Deddie Downer" episode, I did not feel the same way. What I got out of the end of the episode was a very positive message of "we will still love our child the same way, no matter what gender that child is". It's not like the child has now lost any potential to achieve the greatness of Rodolph the Reindeer. The child still has the same potential.

What was lost was the child's own right to choose, which in itself is a "downer"...
...but that was countered by Bortus' passion to love the child equally no matter what gender the child happens to now be.

I guess that "moral" would be referencing -- say, for example -- a real-life father whose son has undergone gender reassignment surgery or is gay.

 

[Mudd]

I've only heard that the hope to get to a total of (including current subscribers which I think they quoted of 2.2 million or so) 4 million subscribers by 2020. <--- That's how they talked regarding CBSAA performance.

That 4 million number is about what The Orville pulled last night.

Which shows you the difference between the outlets and the business models. CBS will be happy and making money if they pull the same number of viewers that cause concern for a network TV series. I'm sure that factored into their decision to put Trek on their streaming channel.

... it was cancelled, I would not miss it.

I will be disappointed when it's gone. Looks pretty sure that we'll get thirteen episodes, at least, but more would be nice.

But then, my favorite Trek shows never got near that seven-year mark that everyone seems to fret over. Neither did Firefly or Farscape.

 

[Dr. Bashirs protege]

The furniture in The Orville has a decidedly off-the-shelf look to it, becuse I think in some cases, it really IS. The woodgrain tables in their version of Ten Forward, for instance, look like regular tables, nothing purpose-built. I don't think this is a showstopper to enjoying the show, but it does convey a cost-cutting mentality that goes beyond merely copying TNG. TNG at least looked like most if not all the furniture was custom built, like the reclining seats on the Enterprise-D bridge or the illuminated table surface in Ten Forward.

Also, I think Discovery has its own problems in the production design standpoint, which is that it's just busy for its own sake and incoherent. The steampunk transporter room is a great example, and the nerdy Zapp Brannigan outfits with the incredibly dorky looking half-collar and the disco sequin side panels. Looking high-budget is only half the battle. It has to be a genuinely good design. Orville is bland but tasteful whereas Discovery is gaudy and tacky.

Uniform I agree is tacky, but everything else is spot on. Even the steampunk transporter can be seen as an old in between we never saw since the discovery transporter is standard looking. As far as "busy" looking. That's not busy, that's attention to detail, if you're going to make a tv show for 4k EVERY detail is seen, that is no exaggeration. You should look up the thoughts on the hobbit when it was shown in 4k on imax. It was a massive budget movie and it looked off to people because they could even recognize the actors were wearing make up! I have a 65 inch 4k, and even sitting seven feet away you can spot the difference between a show formated for 4k and one made for 4k. That off the shelf wood grain in HD, in 4k you'd literally be able to see the edges in the table top that connect together for the fake photo wood grain. The Orville is going to like a disastor in 4k, just like any other trek besides discovery would. Also, tasteful and Seth MacFarlane in the same ballpark they are not

 

[Noname Given]

That 4 million number is about what The Orville pulled last night.

Which shows you the difference between the outlets and the business models. CBS will be happy and making money if they pull the same number of viewers that cause concern for a network TV series. I'm sure that factored into their decision to put Trek on their streaming channel.

The thing is - MONEY is the bottom line - and I believe CBS says they make significantly of one subscriber then the do per captia on advertiser sponsorship; so however the numbers work out with ST: D CBS doesn't care how many "watch" - they care how many subscribe to the service and how well said service retains the paying subscriber. So yes, very different model.

And that's also why I think we'll see ST: D season out on Blu-Ray/DVD after a Season's initial run. CBS will want to tap every revenue stream it can. Plus I'm sure it'll be on Cable TV (SyFy or some CBS sponsored cable outlet) at some point too years down the road as I'm sure CBS realizes there will be a large interested audience that didn't wasn't interested enough to go though the hassle of downloading/installing an app and paying a subscription; but will still tune in to watch -- so yeah, CBS can still do the 'traditional' syndication route down the line.

There's no question that this version of Star Trek is already profitable (even with the high production cost) for CBS before it premieres on Sunday 9/24 (and Monday 9/25 Internationally). The only question CBS is awaiting an answer for is "How profitable."

[Oh, and yes, Millennials' (yes, this isn't directed at the person I quoted as he's an 'old fart Baby Boomer' like me ) -- while many are streaming TV and cutting the Cable/Satellite cord; there are STILL way more people watching TV 'the old fashioned way <--- And that form of TV and the ad revenue profits it brings won't be disappearing anytime in the near future.]

 

[Mudd]

The thing is - MONEY is the bottom line - and I believe CBS says they make significantly of one subscriber then the do per captia on advertiser sponsorship; so however the numbers work out with ST: D CBS doesn't care how many "watch" ...

Exactly.

For what seems like years now I've been seeing people all of the Internet saying that they don't understand why CBS is putting this on streaming, and being angry about that or predicting failure. But it certainly looks to me like this was the way for them to go.

 

[tenmei]

What was lost was the child's own right to choose, which in itself is a "downer"...
...but that was countered by Bortus' passion to love the child equally no matter what gender the child happens to now be.

I guess that "moral" would be referencing -- say, for example -- a real-life father whose son has undergone gender reassignment surgery or is gay.

Except - using your comparison to being gay or transgender - the message at the end of the episode that came over to me is actually that society will only accept the individual if they live a heteronormative cis life and that conforming to those expectations are in the childs best interest.

 

[Dr. Bashirs protege]

Exactly.

For what seems like years now I've been seeing people all of the Internet saying that they don't understand why CBS is putting this on streaming, and being angry about that or predicting failure. But it certainly looks to me like this was the way for them to go.

To me it's the TNG straight to syndication thing all over again. Not to mention, the subsequent season WILL be cheaper. They pumped so much money right away that could have theoretically been spread over years that it's like they specifically planned it that way. I read somewhere that in the trailers it shows 5 distinct classes of federation ship? What were their, like four in all seven years of TNG? Lol. Not to mention uniforms weapons etc. All one time costs

 

[MvRojo]

To me it's the TNG straight to syndication thing all over again. Not to mention, the subsequent season WILL be cheaper. They pumped so much money right away that could have theoretically been spread over years that it's like they specifically planned it that way. I read somewhere that in the trailers it shows 5 distinct classes of federation ship? What were their, like four in all seven years of TNG? Lol. Not to mention uniforms weapons etc. All one time costs

The Eaglemoss guy said that there are more Federation and Klingon ships in the first two episodes than in the entirety of TNG. And he clarified that he meant ships that made appearances in TNG, and not just new ships created for TNG.

 

[Campe]

The way I look at it is: the investment CBS is making in season one of this series is huge. They likely have done cost analysis in what they can pay for a Star Trek series in 2017, what that series needs to be a success (read: not necessarily profit) in advertising, subscriptions and licensing to both foreign markets and actual merchandise. CBS, at the end of the day, is taking, what in their eyes is, an acceptable risk for this series. They know what they're doing. Far more than the armchair network execs who think this series will fall flat on its face. This is a brand new world for Star Trek. And we can't look at success for it the same way as we did with the series of the past.

Discovery will be fine. I would be shocked to not see if get a second season. A third season, I'm a little leery on at this juncture, but we will see for sure!

The Eaglemoss guy said that there are more Federation and Klingon ships in the first two episodes than in the entirety of TNG. And he clarified that he meant ships that made appearances in TNG, and not just new ships created for TNG.

So, maybe 40 of the same class like Excelsior in TNG.

 

[MvRojo]

So, maybe 40 of the same class like Excelsior in TNG.

Oh, sorry. I short-handed it. He meant new ship designs.

 

[Campe]

Oh, sorry. I short-handed it. He meant new ship designs.

I figured. I was joking.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Except - using your comparison to being gay or transgender - the message at the end of the episode that came over to me is actually that society will only accept the individual if they live a heteronormative cis life and that conforming to those expectations are in the childs best interest.

That was not the attitude of everyone in that episode. Just like the current attitudes of the real world, there are some people who feel like Klyden and Moclans did and there are some people who feel like Bortus, Mercer, Kelly, et al. did.

However, the episode ended with a father (Bortus) promising to love and support his child the same even if that child underwent a gender change.

That's a positive message that could be transfered to a real-world situation where a father is suddenly faced with having a teenage son who tells him he's gay, or a son who undergoes gender reassignment surgery. That message being that the child is still the father's child, and thus should be equally loved and supported as any of that father's children should be.

On top of that, the father should love the child even if some within our current society might seek to ostracize that child in certain ways.


EDIT TO ADD: And to Campe98 (above me) -- Nice Avatar! Although I'm a Beatles fan, I like my Trek-themed one better ).

 

[Dr. Bashirs protege]

The way I look at it is: the investment CBS is making in season one of this series is huge. They likely have done cost analysis in what they can pay for a Star Trek series in 2017, what that series needs to be a success (read: not necessarily profit) in advertising, subscriptions and licensing to both foreign markets and actual merchandise. CBS, at the end of the day, is taking, what in their eyes is, an acceptable risk for this series. They know what they're doing. Far more than the armchair network execs who think this series will fall flat on its face. This is a brand new world for Star Trek. And we can't look at success for it the same way as we did with the series of the past.

Discovery will be fine. I would be shocked to not see if get a second season. A third season, I'm a little leery on at this juncture, but we will see for sure!



So, maybe 40 of the same class like Excelsior in TNG.

And honestly their are two kinds of bean counters in these situations. One kind that says "my god you've lost so money, don't renew and save your money". And the second kind "well you've lost ALOT of money at this point you call it a loss or do some cost cutting measures for season 2 and try to make it back". Now I picked two extremes since discovery has Infact already made money but you get my point. And since CBS is putting this on their digital future I'm gonna bet they're much more in long term investment mode than make a buck mode.

 

[Mudd]

...the message at the end of the episode that came over to me is actually that society will only accept the individual if they live a heteronormative cis life and that conforming to those expectations are in the childs best interest.

The message at the end of the episode is that people will usually reject evidence that conflicts with their ingrained customs and prejudices.

 

[Krandor]

Exactly.

For what seems like years now I've been seeing people all of the Internet saying that they don't understand why CBS is putting this on streaming, and being angry about that or predicting failure. But it certainly looks to me like this was the way for them to go.

At the $5.99 level CBS makes $8.50/subsciber. $5 from their subscription fee and $3.50 from advertising. That is a pretty good amount per person.

 

[Krandor]

The way I look at it is: the investment CBS is making in season one of this series is huge. They likely have done cost analysis in what they can pay for a Star Trek series in 2017, what that series needs to be a success (read: not necessarily profit) in advertising, subscriptions and licensing to both foreign markets and actual merchandise. CBS, at the end of the day, is taking, what in their eyes is, an acceptable risk for this series. They know what they're doing. Far more than the armchair network execs who think this series will fall flat on its face. This is a brand new world for Star Trek. And we can't look at success for it the same way as we did with the series of the past.

Discovery will be fine. I would be shocked to not see if get a second season. A third season, I'm a little leery on at this juncture, but we will see for sure!



So, maybe 40 of the same class like Excelsior in TNG.

CBSAA is a long term play. I think if subscribers numbers keep going up they will keep on even if there is a short term loss. Let's not forget Netflix operates at a HUGE loss due to trying to build up content. While I dont' expect CBS to go to that extreme, profit/loss by itself won't determine things. Subscription trends likely will.