No it doesn't. It shows business model.
Unless you're seriously going to argue Enterprise was more popular than Game of Thrones.
Spoilers General Disco Chat Thread
- Thread starter Lord Garth
- Start date
No it doesn't. It shows business model.
Unless you're seriously going to argue Enterprise was more popular than Game of Thrones.
What is wrong with being a business model? Trek is a product and I was comparing Enterprise to Discovery, not Game of Groans.
Who said anything was wrong with either business model?
The point is you can't point to ENT's episode count as 'proof' that it's more popular than DSC because the two of them have *different* business models. It's like saying the current Star Wars series is more popular than the original because it made five movies instead of three. It's clearly nonsense by any logical analysis.
The most you can possibly say is that if DSC fails to last four years/seasons, then that might be an indication that people got tired of it faster than ENT (though that would fundamentally ignore the fact that ENT was given a highly unusual stay of execution just so it could get that 100th episode and be a viable product for syndication), but you can't actually say that, either, unless DSC actually ends before its 4th season, which obviously hasn't happened so far.
Well I can say that. If Discovery at 15 or 14 episodes per season is not renewed to the equivalent to another show's input then it means the demand was not required.
Last edited:
No, it doesn't, because the standard modern television business model is completely different from what it was 20 years.
Again, I point to Game of Thrones. Less than 80 episodes over eight seasons as basically the most popular tv show in existence. That episode count has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of demand. It's a modern expectation (which can also be found across dozens and dozens of other highly successful shows).
If DSC stays on the air for 10 years, it will have somewhere in the range of 140ish episodes compared to TNG's 180ish, but staying on the air for 10 years would still be a totally unprecedented achievement for a Star Trek series that would fundamentally prove its extremely high popularity.
Discovery would have to be on air for well over ten years to accumulate the episodes other Trek versions has had.
It won't. It is not as popular.
I agree. And that's literally the entire point. You're choosing this obviously stupid metric that has no relevance to popularity whatsoever specifically because you know DSC likely has no chance of ever 'beating it'.
ETA - You added this part after I replied:
For the record, I don't automatically disagree with that either, though I suspect even right this moment it is far less clear cut than you seem to think and only time will tell how well it will shake out overall. In any case, of course, your 'evidence' remains ridiculous and absurd.
Last edited:
Why is it irrelevant? Or stupid? The metric is directly linked to sponsors and revenue. Demand (audience) is an indication of viewer preference and popularity. I'm actually not an Enterprise fan but it was popular enough to last four years at twenty plus episodes, something Discovery is no where near yet.
Well I'm sorry it seems to irritate you but I do see it as clear cut. Numbers speak.
It's irrelevant and stupid because it has nothing to do with demand or sponsors or revenue (except in the purely logistical sense). A tv show which produces 40 episodes in two years is not in any way more 'in demand' than one that produces 40 episodes in 4 years. It is a simple choice of format made for reasons that are all about presentation, NOT demand.
A) Because DSC is only two years in.
and B) The 20 plus episodes as compared to 14 episodes is still totally irrelevant. People who like the show, watch the show they're given. Whether that's 30+ episodes (TOS) or 3 mini-movies (Sherlocke). The question of popularity is entirely determined by how many PEOPLE are watching, not how many EPISODES are made.
Not your language, it seems.
You seem to be getting a little defensive, lol.
Nope. But your empty deflection is nice admission that you have no legitimate argument.
Actually I stand by what I said. If something is popular it is produced. A production will not make episodes if there is no demand for them. That is popularity.
There is no need to be upset by this.
The thing you seem strangely incapable of understanding is that it is being produced. Being produced in one format vs being produced in a different one, however, has nothing to do with popularity, except in the sense that companies which choose a 'more prestigious' format are clearly hoping their show will be more popular than average. But that's still a choice made up front before anyone's seen a single episode (and it's a choice made in DSC's advantage, since the streaming small season model is the prestige format of modern television).
There is also, incidentally, no need to talk down to people and pretend that someone is being hysterical just for disagreeing with you.
Last edited:
Incapable.
True. Fixed.
No, a production makes a number of episode based on how much revenue they will bring in versus the cost of production, as they are in the business of making money. Popularity and revenue aren't the same when it comes to revenue. By your account, the 6:00 news, Tonight Show and any soaps are the most popular things on TV because they make episodes every single day. Also, By your accounting the British Scifi Soap Jupiter Moon was the most popular Scifi series of all time, as it broadcast 108 episodes in its first year alone.
I hope not. As much as I like Martin-Green, I just don't think I can take anymore of her crying.
Similar threads
