That’s why it’s pointless to even make an effort to research their claims. It gives legitimacy to an empty position.
Several years? Lol. What claims are you talking about? Frankly I haven't posted much in several years about Star Trek/Sci Fi to be honest. Actually since SFA this is the most ive posted in years about trek. Ive posted the most in the last 6 months. The most in years. Its been so long there are a lot of people ive never met here before. You must have me mistaken for someone else. Right?
You won't be able to explain I have a feeling. Lol.
Several years? Lol. What claims are you talking about? Frankly I haven't posted much in several years about Star Trek/Sci Fi to be honest. Actually since SFA this is the most ive posted in years about trek. Ive posted the most in the last 6 months. The most in years. Its been so long there are a lot of people ive never met here before. You must have me mistaken for someone else. Right?
It is about more than Star Trek. I think you know that.
Ive talked about Superman, The Orville, a little Tron, maybe a bit of star war in these last 6 months. I think you have no idea who I am. Definitely are confusing me with someone else I believe. If not post some of my claims that needed verification in the last several years. Ive only recently talked a bit about ratings. Its a rarity for me. I never claim anything really. So really not sure where youre coming from. Interesting.
Me? I simply asked for proof of their claims and the reason behind wanting that proof. People have track records and because they run away from one forum they can't act like their prior actions don't exist.
Ive barely talked to you or even known you on the boatds i frequent mostly. Ive only started talking to you about SFA recently. You act like i have a record of making wild claims all over the boards for years. Not true at all. Im opinionated when it comes to trek, movies or ill admit that but im not on the boards making claims everywhere. Whatever.
Lies make Baby Jesus cry.
Smh.
No, not you. Or not you alone at the very least. We’ve repeatedly run into this situation because of some wild claim TRON JA307020 is making and then people go around in circles trying to get him to somehow substantiate those claims. Usually they get disproven at some point, which is when he’ll quietly back down, only to then make those same claims again some time later. Rinse and repeat. However exactly it’s happening, and whether it’s due to genuine cluelessness or a willful attempt to subtly troll the board, it always has the effect of turning the entire thread into a circus revolving all around that one poster. We don’t always speak up about it; but I’m doing so now to stop this latest iteration.
So again, this tangent has run its course. Everyone return to talking about the subject at hand.
My question remains why is the cancellation important? If it was unpopular as claimed then wouldn't that be good news and move on to the future of Trek? It seems there is a lingering over the cancellation as though it warrants further scrutiny.
I'm not sure it does.
I'm not sure it does.
I actually did a quick look at comparing SNW season 3 and THE BOYS season 5.
From Trekmovie.com
SNW:
Episode 1 - 471 million
Episode 2 - 471 million (both 1 and 2 premiered the same week, looks like they counted them as one)
Episode 3 - 472 million
Episode 4 - 397 million
Episodes 5-10 - I can't find the numbers, but it never made the top 10 shows again for those weeks, though one Paramount+ show (NCIS: TONY AND ZIVA) did make the chart one week at 371 million minutes, but that was #8 that week. Which means SNW's numbers were definitely smaller than that.
From tvline.com
THE BOYS:
Episode 1 - 899 million
Episode 2 - 899 million (both 1 and 2 premiered the same week, looks like they counted them as one)
Episodes 3-8 - I can't find numbers of viewed minutes.
Not sure I'd call THE BOYS a phenomenon, but the numbers are definitely larger than SNW. The fact it's on Amazon probably helps... it's likely far more people have that as one of their streaming services than Paramount+.
From Trekmovie.com
SNW:
Episode 1 - 471 million
Episode 2 - 471 million (both 1 and 2 premiered the same week, looks like they counted them as one)
Episode 3 - 472 million
Episode 4 - 397 million
Episodes 5-10 - I can't find the numbers, but it never made the top 10 shows again for those weeks, though one Paramount+ show (NCIS: TONY AND ZIVA) did make the chart one week at 371 million minutes, but that was #8 that week. Which means SNW's numbers were definitely smaller than that.
From tvline.com
THE BOYS:
Episode 1 - 899 million
Episode 2 - 899 million (both 1 and 2 premiered the same week, looks like they counted them as one)
Episodes 3-8 - I can't find numbers of viewed minutes.
Not sure I'd call THE BOYS a phenomenon, but the numbers are definitely larger than SNW. The fact it's on Amazon probably helps... it's likely far more people have that as one of their streaming services than Paramount+.
It drew about twice the audience. Then again, people truly forget how niche Trek has always been outside of TNG.
I didn't see this as I was typing up my post, so apologies if the numbers I found run counter to what you just said.
Exactly. SNW is more in line with what Gen V was getting. Worldwide I believe The Boys did even better.
I'm sure Star Trek does better as well when you factor in worldwide audiences.
No, it’s fine. Talking about the viewership numbers is obviously fair game (would be neat if we had any for SFA, though, wouldn’t it?), it’s just that we can’t have the thread devolve into a discussion about one poster and their motives for posting what they are posting.
More people have heard of Trek than they've heard about either of the two shows TRON referenced. I don't care if the streaming numbers are as high. Some network series with so-so rating ran longer than shows that were consistent Top 10 smashes.
Box office and the Nielsens aren't the only metrics of success. And many "hit" shows are garbage aimed at, shall we say, less discriminating viewers.
Box office and the Nielsens aren't the only metrics of success. And many "hit" shows are garbage aimed at, shall we say, less discriminating viewers.
This is one thing that relates to the topic: location of the series.
I was talking with my wife about this not long ago, and we both agreed that one thing that probably hampered SFA from getting more viewers (besides the lack of quality writing) is it's not on a more widely popular or used streaming service.
Maybe STAR TREK would fare better on a different service.
Don't even think of taking the gingham dress.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
