Drop the S31 show for a Captain Pike show?

[Gonzo]

I'm gonna take a bit of a leap here and guess S31 is going to replace Discovery, which may possibly end with season 3.

Hard to say until we see S3 and the direction it takes, although I must admit the jump to the future feels like they wanted to get the Discovery out of the way, at the moment the only character we know that is returning is Georgiou.

Does anyone know when the casts contracts are up for renewal.

 

[Rahul]

Season 3 is definitely happening with the old cast and crew. And not only are they filming in Iceland, DIS will be (right after the Picard show) their major attraction for Comic Con. Where they booked the f-in main hall for Star Trek. Remember when they last time booked hall H for Star Trek? Yeah, me neither.

Now let me put it this way: The market today is extremely different than in the 90s or 00s. DIS' has miniscule audience numbers compared to previous Trek shows (even ENT), and less than "The Orville" on television. But those people are directly paying. Not through advertisement. But directly cash in the hand.

Now, all streaming tv IMO is currently jsut a giant money-dump. That includes Netflix and Disney+. Right now, they're investing, investing, investing, in hope for future returns.And CBS is in that game, and commited.

If I had to make a personal prediction: DIS season 3 will be the last one. But not in a "surprise cancelled" way. They will phase it out with a plan, and a big bang at the end. I guess the show hasn't been the success they hoped for - they're betting on the Picard show for their golden goose now, because it's new, and exciting, and they're going all in for that, with posters, a Comic Con appereance and a really big frikkin' marketing campaign. DIS will be the one "also on" show, to sell the service as more than one show, but a universe. And they're intent to go out in style, probably with a direct replacement (S31, Pike, or both) as a follow up. And I personally guess the Picard show will be planned as a 3-season thing right from the start. I doubt we will see a 7-season series anytime soon again - except if they introduce a new "flagship show" with a big crew set on a single ship (probably after PIC has already ended though). But 3 seasons seems much more managable for a streaming service. Also, Stewart only commited to 3 seasons on TNG(!) (that's why they kept their options open with the cliffhanger in "Best of both worlds"). No way he signed on for 7(!) seasons at his age. The future is probably more, but a lot shorter series, with new series every few years that take over elements from previous short series.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm gonna take a bit of a leap here and guess S31 is going to replace Discovery, which may possibly end with season 3.

Not sure I'd go that far. But Section 31 is definitely taking Disco's place as the 23rd century series, now that Disco's 900 years in the future. And since Section 31 will follow a top secret black ops agency, that takes care of any and all canon problems, of which are suddenly important to Kurtzman for some reason.

 

[Noname Given]

Now let me put it this way: The market today is extremely different than in the 90s or 00s. DIS' has miniscule audience numbers compared to previous Trek shows (even ENT), and less than "The Orville" on television. But those people are directly paying. Not through advertisement. But directly cash in the hand.

Given 4+ million subcribers on CBSAA - the show airing on Canadian cable, and WORLDWIDE Netflix viewership, I say your belief tht th Discovery viewing audienc is smaller than post TNG Trek of the 90ies (which were ALL bleeding viewers season to season) - and that it's lower than the TNG redux that is "The Orville" is woefully inaccurate.

 

[Rahul]

Given 4+ million subcribers on CBSAA - the show airing on Canadian cable, and WORLDWIDE Netflix viewership, I say your belief tht th Discovery viewing audienc is smaller than post TNG Trek of the 90ies (which were ALL bleeding viewers season to season) - and that it's lower than the TNG redux that is "The Orville" is woefully inaccurate.

No.

You're completely off. Just look at the Nielson ratings:
http://www.madmind.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/startreknielsenratingaverage2.jpg

Even ENT started out with more viewers than All Access ever had any subscribers. And ENT is by far the least watched Trek series (pre-DIS). And there is no way all 4 mio. of CBS subscribers watch DIS - maybe half, more likely way less. The other ones are people that already had All Access before, to watch NCIS or Big Bang Theory. And people in Canada or Europe watched Star Trek in the past, too. And those old series are on Netflix, too. The Orville has currently between 3 and 5 mio. actual viewers, and started out with way more. (https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/the-orville-season-two-ratings/)

Don't get me wrong: DIS is absolutely not the "failure" some conspiracy theorists like it to be. CBS puts quite some money into the Star Trek brand, and they're not doing that out of pity.

But in terms of actual raw viewer numbers?
Yeah, DIS is provable the least watched Trek series, ever.
But part of the reason for that is also a completely different, splintered new media landscape.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Yeah, DIS is provable the least watched Trek series, ever.

In the United States. It's not like viewers outside the US don't count or don't generate revenue.

The world is a lot bigger than it was in the 90's. Things that happen in other parts of it matter. Nielsen ratings mean less than ever before.

 

[Rahul]

In the United States. It's not like viewers outside the US don't count or don't generate revenue.

The world is a lot bigger than it was in the 90's. Things that happen in other parts of it matter. Nielsen ratings mean less than ever before.

People watched Star Trek outside the US previously as well.
And you might not know - but in the rest of the world, not as many people have Netflix as in America. Most of the rest of the world still has "regular" television be their main television, streaming is (comparatively) rare. And DIS is ONLY on Netflix - whereas all the other shows have been on regular television. And it's not as if DIS were big in China or anything.

Really, if anything, the audience gap between "old" Trek and DIS is MUCH bigger in the rest of the world than in the United States. In Germany for example, DIS is basically non-existent. And Germany was one of the main international markets for Star Trek.

 

[Gonzo]

In the United States. It's not like viewers outside the US don't count or don't generate revenue.

The world is a lot bigger than it was in the 90's. Things that happen in other parts of it matter. Nielsen ratings mean less than ever before.

Nielsen ratings don't mean a thing any more, the broadcast networks all know that those days are history but they may as well leave the boxes in place.

Its a shame the networks hadnt wised up faster as some excellent and popular shows wouldnt have been cancelled.

The whole Nielsen system was poor from the start, if you are going to measure viewing figures and base business decisions on it the only way to do it properly is for everyone to have a nielsen box but that simply wasnt possible with the technology at the time.

 

[F. King Daniel]

but in the rest of the world, not as many people have Netflix as in America. Most of the rest of the world still has "regular" television be their main television, streaming is (comparatively) rare.

Do you have anything to back this up? I have friends in Germany who watch Netflix and Amazon pretty much exclusively. All my friends in England watch Netflix, NowTV and others.

 

[Rahul]

Do you have anything to back this up? I have friends in Germany who watch Netflix and Amazon pretty much exclusively. All my friends in England watch Netflix, NowTV and others.

https://www.statista.com/statistics...r-of-netflix-streaming-subscribers-worldwide/

As of 2019, Netflix has over 148 mio. subscribers worldwide, a whopping 60 mio. of that in the U.S.
Meaning the entire rest of the world shares one and a half times the amount of people (88 mio.) as in the US alone that have Netflix. Definitely not as prevalent as "regular" television households in the rest of the world, even back in the 90s.

 

[F. King Daniel]

https://www.statista.com/statistics...r-of-netflix-streaming-subscribers-worldwide/

As of 2019, Netflix has over 148 mio. subscribers worldwide, a whopping 60 mio. of that in the U.S.
Meaning the entire rest of the world shares one and a half times the amount of people (88 mio.) as in the US alone that have Netflix. Definitely not as prevalent as "regular" television households in the rest of the world, even back in the 90s.

Perhaps less prevalent than "regular" television, but without Trek's global viewing statistics in those times it's kind of meaningless in this context. Yes, more people had access, but how many actually watched?

 

[Rahul]

Perhaps less prevalent than "regular" television, but without Trek's global viewing statistics in those times it's kind of meaningless in this context. Yes, more people had access, but how many actually watched?

Way, way, WAY more than today.

 

[PiotrB]

Way, way, WAY more than today.

I don't think so. Maybe in those few countries where it was broadcast it had a higher audience in a few cases, but certainly not on a global scale. Never before has any ST series been as globally available as DSC. Besides, you assume that the previous series were just like in the USA available on free television and broadcast at prime time, which is not true. In addition, there is the fact that in every country there was a broadcasting of all seasons at all (Answer: no).

 

[Rahul]

I don't think so. Maybe in those few countries where it was broadcast it had a higher audience in a few cases, but certainly not on a global scale. Never before has any ST series been as globally available as DSC. Besides, you assume that the previous series were just like in the USA available on free television and broadcast at prime time, which is not true. In addition, there is the fact that in every country there was a broadcasting of all seasons at all (Answer: no).

Dude, it is. Star Trek in the 90s was a juggernaut. Think Game of Thrones today, just way bigger. Not just in the US. DIS is literally the least available of all Trek shows, worldwide, and of all time. And the media landscape is completely different: Back then, Trek was one of a handful things. Now you have literally thousands of new shows at the same time.

That's why DIS has not only less viewers than Trek at its peak (TNG) - but less than at its previous low point (ENT). And still is profitable. Because of how this new media landscape works, where they get your money directly.

Your comparison is like saying "iron man" had more viewers than "Casablanca". It's not just factual completely wrong - it misses the entire point as to why these two are not comparable in this metric. And that's entirely without bashing "Iron Man" or calling it a "failure".

 

[fireproof78]

 

[Boris Skrbic]

DSC is merely one of many stumbling, average streaming shows, with little in the way of entertainment media coverage, word of mouth or industry awards. It may be well-funded and more available than ST ever was, but that’s just a consequence of technology.

Also, how can anyone claim that ST was more available before? Even in Germany where Star Trek is popular I could never watch a season immediately, only months or years later, and even then only in German. These days, if you don’t have Netflix, at least there are Blu-rays and DVDs, not just store-bought VHS imported from countries like the UK (some people would also have friends from the US send them recorded NTSC tapes).

Access is better than ever: it’s just Star Trek that needs fixing.

 

[PiotrB]

Dude, it is. Star Trek in the 90s was a juggernaut. Think Game of Thrones today, just way bigger. Not just in the US. DIS is literally the least available of all Trek shows, worldwide, and of all time. And the media landscape is completely different: Back then, Trek was one of a handful things. Now you have literally thousands of new shows at the same time.

That's why DIS has not only less viewers than Trek at its peak (TNG) - but less than at its previous low point (ENT). And still is profitable. Because of how this new media landscape works, where they get your money directly.

Your comparison is like saying "iron man" had more viewers than "Casablanca". It's not just factual laughably wrong - it misses the entire point as to why these two are not comparable. And that's entirely without bashing "Iron Man" or calling it a "failure".

No. There is no hard data globally on how popular the ST was outside the US. You don't give it yourself, you just believe it was popular everywhere. From a simple probability calculation it is impossible that the then audience of the series sold in syndication abroad would be even comparable to the audience in the USA. At that time they were simply the USA with known audience data and at best a dozen or so other countries in which ST would have to have a rating close to 60-100 to equalize the audience with the USA. This does not seem possible. Since we know this graph and more or less know what results Netflix considers a success worth paying 100 million USD for distribution rights with a high degree of probability we can assume that 1-2 million US accounts on CBS AA and at least 10-20 million accounts paying for Netflix are the general DSC audience. Even in the most pessimistic case it gives a rating worse only than the best TNG results in the USA and better than DS9, VOY not to mention ENT.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

Access is better than ever: it’s just Star Trek that needs fixing.

Access is not better than ever for people who don't want to pay a subscription fee, especially for CBS-AA. On top of Netflix, Hulu, etc., the idea of shelling out for yet another subscription is nauseating for a lot of folks. I would love to see the numbers if CBS were to put DSC onto its network in prime time, but we all know they won't do that disservice to their streaming service.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Access is not better than ever for people who don't want to pay a subscription fee, especially for CBS-AA. On top of Netflix, Hulu, etc., the idea of shelling out for yet another subscription is nauseating for a lot of folks. I would love to see the numbers if CBS were to put DSC onto its network in prime time, but we all know they won't do that disservice to their streaming service.

But who watches network television in DSC’s target audience? The year is 2019.

 

[Lord Garth]

But who watches network television in DSC’s target audience? The year is 2019.

I'm 40. Four years younger than the average age of the CBSAA's audience. I don't watch anything on network television. Everything I watch, besides Disco, is through Netflix, Amazon, or YouTube.

EDIT: I personally wish Discovery was on Netflix in America, only because then it wouldn't be stuck behind a CBSAA wall that not everyone will pay for. But I'd never want it on CBS Proper. It would be disposable one-and-dones and it would've ended after a season. Two if we were really lucky.