Spoilers General Disco Chat Thread

[Lord Garth]

Sure, I guess in the context of our little ST world, it's good. No disrespect to either show but it's interesting what small potatoes ST is in the larger context--on the overall ratings tab for streamers.

I think it also shows that while people bitch and moan about one or the other, it's really the same basic set of people watching all the shows. Yeah, it's not a completely overlapping set but probably mostly so.

I'd also bet the bean counters at Paramount aren't disappointed with Discovery's ratings.

I've said for years that the only versions of Star Trek that John Q Public know about are TOS, TNG, and the Kelvin Films.

Most of my friends who like Star Trek only like TNG, so PIC only came up in my circle of friends because of the TNG connection. Some are saying they've started to watch DSC. But friends of mine don't tend to be Average Joes.

 

[cooleddie74]

 

[SJGardner]

I've said for years that the only versions of Star Trek that John Q Public know about are TOS, TNG, and the Kelvin Films.

Most of my friends who like Star Trek only like TNG, so PIC only came up in my circle of friends because of the TNG connection. Some are saying they've started to watch DSC. But friends of mine don't tend to be Average Joes.

I'm going to our local Comic Con at this moment, dressed in a TNG Season 3+ captain's uniform, and two teenagers just called me Dr. Spock. Some Trek fans definitely overestimate how well-known this franchise and especially any random part of it is.

 

[Quantum21]

I'm the odd-man out, apparently, who likes DSC and PIC, but I do think the Top 10 matters. Hopefully it encourages them to make a Disco TV Movie.

They matter to Paramount. That's what matters.

If Discovery makes the top 10 more than Picard, which is likely, then it means they made the right decision on Sec 31 and Starfleet Academy.

The bean counters have assured Discovery won't make it to season 6, but a TV movie or cinematic one isn't out of the question.

 

[Quantum21]

There is no Trek series except for TNG that had higher viewership at the end than at the start. Call it attrition, attention spans, whatever.

Discovery more than likely over it's 5 years would have shattered the 400 minutes viewed barrier, as there was less competition and lots of excitement. I think the views are down since 2017, but still impressive enough to make this list. Enterprise was making no top 10 lists in 2004. Unfortunately, Paramount was not submitting numbers to anyone in terms of viewership till now so we can't say it with full assurance, though Paramount did have an agreement to use Parrot Analytics numbers, which is another one of a myriad of possible data sets to look at engagement these days. All are useful in some way.

Looking at the longer list at Neilson, Discovery would come in regularly in the top 25-40 on the overall Neilson list as well and with 1000+ streaming shows, Paramount loves it.

Really I don't see how you can think this way.

Now what we know. Picard only was even able to track for episodes 3 -10. We know out of those weeks only 3 episodes made the top 10. 276 million minutes, 310 million minutes and 400 million minutes. Out of the 5 weeks in didn't track the threshold to make the top ten was 402, 409, 334, 337. and 279 million minutes viewed.

What we know of Discovery so far. Its tracked two weeks out of three with one of those weeks. With 256, 241 million minutes. The Threshold to make the top ten in all three weeks was between 228 and 274 million minutes viewed.

To put the numbers that Discovery tracked, and using the tenth place of the week it didn't. There isn't a single week so far (we still have 5 weeks and who knows where the ratings may climb, stay the same or decline during that time) that would have tracked during Picard season 3 (including the two weeks before Paramount started releasing data).

And if anyone remembers the ever so charming poster who used to post about Parrot analysis, and using Canada ratings to indicate US ratings (I honestly don't remember the posters name), you can find many of my posts refuting his statements because they weren't factually based. He would use Canadian numbers to judge how the show did everywhere (statistically speaking there is no value for that). He would use Parrot Analysis which tracked social media as a gauge of Success. Social Media doesn't equal viewers. I mean NCIS wouldn't have lasted 21 years, as it does exceedingly poor in social engagement but as a very large (by today's standards audience). And would use Paramount Plus listing of shows as an indicator. Thats has no real value because to have value you must have numbers that then can be directly compared to other numbers to get a value.

And of course, anyone who thinks quality equals ratings hasn't paid attention to the historical ratings records gong back since the early days of television. You can even see how I talk about this when I posted the first ever legitimated ratings for the 3 seasons of TOS.

Now one thing we are likely to get from Discovery is that based on the preliminary numbers for streaming (which don't include Paramount data) we are going to continue to have lower than normal thresholds to reach the top ten. Hopefully Discovery maintains ratings high enough to keep getting listed. I love ratings, so any additional information I can get (especially now days were so little is reported) is always something I greatly appreciate.

 

[Tuskin38]

Strange New Worlds Season 2 I think also got to Picard Season 3's numbers.

I know it was Top 10 at least.

 

[Tomalak]

Did TNG regularly make it into the overall top 10th the week, not just syndicated shows?

But I never really understand US TV ratings. Expensive shows keep getting greenlit that pull less than a million viewers and that’s deemed successful.

 

[Lord Garth]

Did TNG regularly make it into the overall top 10th the week, not just syndicated shows?

But I never really understand US TV ratings. Expensive shows keep getting greenlit that pull less than a million viewers and that’s deemed successful.

I'll have to look up network shows of the '80s and '90s and compare them to TNG. (Unless someone beats me to it!)

TNG lucked out in that it always came on over here Saturdays at 7:00pm, the hour before networks were showing their primetime lineups. Every Saturday at 7 without fail. To quote a friend of mine, "It was like clockwork."

I don't think TNG would've survived if it was airing opposite of The Cosby Show, Cheers, The Golden Girls, or anything like that.

 

[Mr Awe]

If Discovery makes the top 10 more than Picard, which is likely, then it means they made the right decision on Sec 31 and Starfleet Academy.

How does that follow?!

 

[Mr Awe]

Strange New Worlds Season 2 I think also got to Picard Season 3's numbers.

I know it was Top 10 at least.

Basically just the same group watching all the shows. Give or a take a few!

 

[Cr0sis21]

Basically just the same group watching all the shows. Give or a take a few!

This isn't surprising in the least. Oh, the same people who watch DSC also watch PIC and SNW?

It's like I've said before: ST as a franchise is a slow and low burner. It won't generate massive revenues like Star Wars or the MCU, but it will reliably hang onto viewership without needing a huge budget.

But no, DSC doing well doesn't mean Starfleet Academy is the right move. I'm not sure it's the right move in ANY time period. But I guess we will see.
I'm hoping, since Taeny Newsome is on the wiring staff, that it will have a more lighthearted, comedic tone to it. Because that's about the only way I see it working.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

But no, DSC doing well doesn't mean Starfleet Academy is the right move. I'm not sure it's the right move in ANY time period. But I guess we will see.
I'm hoping, since Taeny Newsome is on the wiring staff, that it will have a more lighthearted, comedic tone to it. Because that's about the only way I see it working.

I've been against a Academy series ever since people were theorising about it in the 90's. But there's something about it being set in the 32nd century that has me excited for it. I think setting it in a period where the Federation is trying to reclaim it's identity and the subtle hints we've gotten throughout season 5 that the Cadets so far just aren't getting it and are struggling, opens up a bunch of story possibilities that I don't think would really work if the series was set in the 23rd or 25th centuries.

 

[Cyrus]

But I never really understand US TV ratings. Expensive shows keep getting greenlit that pull less than a million viewers and that’s deemed successful.

The total viewers is not the most important number. How many young (18-49) affluent viewers who spend money are watching is what makes money for them. They make money from subscription fees (for streaming platforms) and ad money. So viewers that advertisers like are important.

 

[Mr Awe]

This isn't surprising in the least. Oh, the same people who watch DSC also watch PIC and SNW?

I wasn't suggesting that I was surprised.

It's like I've said before: ST as a franchise is a slow and low burner. It won't generate massive revenues like Star Wars or the MCU, but it will reliably hang onto viewership without needing a huge budget.

Agreed. It's something they'll generally make but not put a ton of resources in to it.

But no, DSC doing well doesn't mean Starfleet Academy is the right move. I'm not sure it's the right move in ANY time period. But I guess we will see.
I'm hoping, since Taeny Newsome is on the wiring staff, that it will have a more lighthearted, comedic tone to it. Because that's about the only way I see it working.

I have a hard time seeing it as a good move. I'll give it a chance though. As you say, we'll see.

 

[Mr Awe]

I've been against a Academy series ever since people were theorising about it in the 90's. But there's something about it being set in the 32nd century that has me excited for it.

The pretend century it's set it won't make the concept any better.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

The pretend century it's set it won't make the concept any better.

I think it will

 

[flandry84]

I’m a die-hard Trekkie but the Academy show is one I will not be watching.
The Disco episode featuring Tilly and the stranded cadets was perhaps the most excruciatingly rote episode I’ve ever watched.
Everyone’s a winner! Yay!

 

[Tomalak]

I've been against a Academy series ever since people were theorising about it in the 90's. But there's something about it being set in the 32nd century that has me excited for it. I think setting it in a period where the Federation is trying to reclaim it's identity and the subtle hints we've gotten throughout season 5 that the Cadets so far just aren't getting it and are struggling, opens up a bunch of story possibilities that I don't think would really work if the series was set in the 23rd or 25th centuries.

Yeah, I was never interested when the concept was “young Kirk and Spock”, or the TNG equivalents, so a load of new characters in the future is the only way to do it.

The only thing is that Prodigy has maybe done the concept in a more interesting and fulfilling way. But I’m interested to see what it’ll be like.

I’m assuming it’ll be a show in the Sabrina/Wednesday style aimed at a Gen Z audience. But they will really struggle to get that demographic to watch it if it’s stuck on Paramount+. Perhaps the Prodigy deal means Netflix is back on the table?

 

[PiotrB]

Another trip into the Neilsons for Discovery

Reported from site Trekcentral. Direct link:

https://www.nielsen.com/data-center/top-ten/

Correction: not top 10 overall, only in the originals subsection. So, it's much lower down than 10th. And interestingly DIS is losing to the 3 Body Problem, which isn't perfect but I did like more.

Yes, Originals is the category all the Trek shows are reported in.

Also, they're not losing to anyone. It's not a sport. Any show in the top 10 is successful. The context here is there are about 1000 streaming shows. A top 50 show is doing pretty OK.

Some originals do make it to the true top 10.

Currently, Fallout, Unlocked, and Baby Reindeer are originals that made into the real top 10. DIS is pretty far below those.

Fortunately, I don't base my opinion of shows on the ratings, just my own enjoyment.

Here, where you're presenting actual information (not opinion), you should strive for accuracy.

Well, if it makes you feel better thinking it's highly rated, sure go for it.

Personally, I don't care about the ratings. Fortunate, because Discovery's ratings are tiny compared to the shows in the real top 10.

I am somewhat amused to see the ratings in the same territory as the much-hyped Picard S3. When that made the ratings, there was plenty of talk about how it showed it was what The Fans wanted. Now that it's Disco, of course, it doesn't matter.

I don't know what it is due to, but the discussion of the Nielsen US Streaming Video Top 10s ranking always gives the impression that the discussants do not realise that they are comparing the incomparable. Out of the 10 TV series, only 2 are released episode by episode on a weekly basis and furthermore each episode has a different duration. Without bringing them to a common denominator, this comparison favours series with longer episode durations and more new episodes. Thus, DSC's score is very good under these conditions and without a detailed recalculation only Shogun and Fallout had better results from 15.04-21.04.

 

[Tuskin38]

The Disco episode featuring Tilly and the stranded cadets was perhaps the most excruciatingly rote episode I’ve ever watched.

Nothing says the series will be like that.