SNW truly respects TOS continuity!

[HotRod]

You are wrong.

These are the official numbers from Numeris, the Canadian equivalent of Nielsen, for broadcast TV, including CTV Sci-Fi.

Examples:

PIC S01E01:

DIS S03E01:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFlAPjSXwAY9-KX?format=jpg&name=orig


These are not the numbers for Crave.

But don't worry, I'm keeping an eye on Crave as well.

Currently, SNW is ranked 15 in "TV Shows Trending Now".

On the day of the release of a new episode SNW usually reaches the Top 5 but drops down very quickly.


I find it ironic that you accuse me of using data from Crave.
When I post these numbers, usually it's the other way around, people accuse me that I don't use/include the viewership numbers from Crave.

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/season-one-vibes.310942/page-3#post-14129332
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/discovery-renewed-for-season-5.310296/page-15#post-14048466

A) Viewership numbers from Crave are not freely available. The only information that is publicly available from Crave is "Trending Now" date.
B) Crave only has a 16% market share.

Fair enough. I may be wrong, but that still leaves me to wonder why you are using Canada, a country with a population less then the state of California, as some kinda barometer for the success of Strange New Worlds.

Nevermind that you are willing to devote what appears to be a significant amount of time and energy into proving it to be some kind of abstract failure.... to which I ask, why?

The show is clearly popular among fans and critics, yet you pull numbers from a tiny market to prove some kinda twisted point. Why?

 

[cooleddie74]

But don't worry, I'm keeping an eye on Crave as well.

Whew. I can sleep safely now.

 

[HotRod]

Well hey, look what just popped up on my social media, an article from Buisness Insider about how Strange New Worlds was one of the top streaming shows last month.

But I'm sure a certain someone is far more in "the know" then Buisness Insider.

https://www.businessinsider.com/top...ent&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

 

[fireproof78]

Well hey, look what just popped up on my social media, an article from Buisness Insider about how Strange New Worlds was one of the top streaming shows last month.

But I'm sure a certain someone is far more in "the know" then Buisness Insider.

https://www.businessinsider.com/top...ent&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

Clearly CBS paid them off.

Honestly, at this point, all it is is confirmation bias. The only reason to be with such numbers is some sort of devilish satisfaction at the failure of one's supposed favorite franchise.

 

[NCC-73515]

Wake me when the Chart Kaiser has US data

 

[Mudd]

Well hey, look what just popped up on my social media, an article from Buisness Insider about how Strange New Worlds was one of the top streaming shows last month.

But I'm sure a certain someone is far more in "the know" then Buisness Insider.

https://www.businessinsider.com/top...ent&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

People who are determined to hate a thing are rarely open to competing information.

 

[David cgc]

Fair enough. I may be wrong, but that still leaves me to wonder why you are using Canada, a country with a population less then the state of California, as some kinda barometer for the success of Strange New Worlds.

Well, that's obvious, it's the same reason the drunk looks for his keys under the lamppost: that's where the light is. If the closest thing to U.S. or global hard viewership data available is from Canadian TV, then that's all you've got to work with, aside from always-fawning press releases from the streamers themselves, and outright guesswork like the Parrot Analytics service that the BI article is citing, which looks at everything but the actual number of people watching the show to try and figure out how many people watch a show. It's easy to see how TV ratings in Canada could seem like a better proxy for viewership than number of Twitter hashtags times number of Tumblr shitposts, divided by YouTube reaction videos, to the power of Memory Alpha updates, averaged with the Rotten Tomatoes score, plus torrent downloads equals the "demand score."

 

[Mudd]

Drunks never find their keys that way. They're people with a more fundamental problem than lost keys - they are their problem.

All streaming numbers available are guesswork in one respect or another, and not nearly as revealing to people not in the business as the Nielsen network numbers were (are?). The reason is that most of the streaming companies have no business need to share the numbers and formulae upon which they base their programming decisions with people outside their company. Selling airtime to sponsors required disclosure to outsiders. Tracking and analyzing one's subscription base does not.

But fans and those bloviating YouTubers treat the current business model and available data as somehow parallel to the old, because otherwise they've got nothing upon which to base putting themselves forward as the keenly perceptive tellers of truth and experts that they are not.

 

[Turbo]

Here's the only way we can really tell whether a show is successful or not - is Paramount+ renewing it for another season? They've done it with all the current Trek shows thus far.

They had enough faith in SNW to renew it for a second season before this one even aired. We won't know how well or not well it's doing for them until it comes time to renew it for a third season. Disco S5 was the latest renewal any of the current Trek series has gotten a renewal, well into S4's airing, so it's clearly not always going to be automatic.

 

[David cgc]

As Serveaux says, the rules are different now, which makes it pretty much impossible to make any kind of appeal to popularity. It's interesting, abstractly, to know which shows are more or less popular, if they're gaining or losing viewers, but it's all guesswork based on Canadian TV ratings (where the information isn't, but you can see what is there) or analysis of trending hashtags (where the information is, but it's impossible to actually find), but even if we did know the hard numbers, their practical effect if a show is going to be renewed, retooled, or cancelled is pretty diluted compared to earlier generations.

Analytics make it disturbingly straightforward to target your production spending (remember the story about how "House of Cards" became Netflix's first original show? Netflix saw a big chunk of their subscribers liked, or would like, David Fincher, Kevin Spacey, and the UK "House of Cards," and decided to put all those things in a blender, and it worked). There's always been an element of strategy to a show's survival (lower-rated shows might be expected to have a long life in reruns, or sell well on home video, or fulfill some kind of contractual obligation), but now it's an even bigger factor; if people are only subscribing to P+ for new Star Trek, and are willing to cancel their subscriptions when new Star Trek isn't coming for a few months, then the popularity of any given Star Trek isn't much of a concern, so long as it's Star Trekky enough to keep people who want to watch Star Trek enough to pay for the privilege from dropping their subscriptions when their favorite show isn't putting out new episodes, and isn't so bad it's actively repelling them, the shows will continue, and the more popular individual shows will subsidize the less popular ones because, as far as P+ is concerned, it's really just one giant lump of Star Trek-brand Content that needs to be putting out episodes year-round. I'm sure the ultimate goal is to wean themselves off of their dependance on Star Trek by having enough other stuff people want to watch that they no longer have to keep using high-budget sci-fi as a loss-leader and they can trust there's enough other stuff there to keep people subscribed during breaks in Star Trek (or even, gasp, if Star Trek went away entirely again).

 

[gvn2fly]

Don’t we call what Charts is doing cherry picking?

My favorite is when he was saying Disco was a failure for not being in the top 10 on P+, but when it's one of the top shows on the service months after the finale or had many days when it was #1 then he's silent LOL

 

[cooleddie74]

All hail Graphus Minimus!!

 

[yotsuya]

I personally am a purist. I think TNG, DS9, and Enterprise revisited the TOS era the right way. I think In A Mirror Darkly and Star Trek Continues proved that you can create new content using the 1960's Enterprise designs and not have them look ridiculous. So as far as I'm concerned, if you can't do at least that, you should set your stories in that era. However, I love a good reboot. I think Discovery started off horribly (Seasons 1 and 2). So horrible that I have no desire to watch more. I love Anson Mount's Pike and Rebecca Romijn's Number One (and Peck's Spock) and I love every moment of Strange New Worlds. It is as great as Discovery is bad. Sure it is following the same visual look, but it has nailed the stories. But I'm seeing that even it isn't sticking strictly to TOS canon, but I don't care. Since they are following the Discovery visual design I consider it a reboot and they can adhere or stray from the TOS canon as they like. They are not straying from the story format and have proven that it still works and is relevant today. It is the best series since TNG.

 

[gvn2fly]

My favorite is when he was saying Disco was a failure for not being in the top 10 on P+, but when it's one of the top shows on the service months after the finale or had many days when it was #1 then he's silent LOL

'

Yesterday Discovery (which hasn't aired a new episode in almost 3 months) was the #2 watched show on Paramount Plus in the USA and has been the second most watched show on the service in June. Strange New Worlds has been the 4th most watched show on the service this month as per https://flixpatrol.com/top10/paramount-plus/united-states/2022-06/

 

[Tuskin38]

TOS era the right way

The cheap way. No imagination.

 

[yotsuya]

The cheap way. No imagination.

No idea what you mean. There is nothing inherently cheap about the TOS sets. They were going for a particular style. The Phase II sets were going to be very similar. Plain does not equal cheap. It is a design choice. It was not cheap or easy to build TOS sets in later productions. It was quite expensive to do it right. And when you are revisiting a past era, you aren't supposed to have imagination in what you are revisiting, but you can have a lot in expanding what was done originally, like In A Mirror Darkly did. Normally people are pretty picky about such things. What you can change is lighting, camera angles, and up the production quality like In A Mirror Darkly did. And it is funny that other franchises can do this and have the support of fans.

 

[fireproof78]

No idea what you mean. There is nothing inherently cheap about the TOS sets. They were going for a particular style. The Phase II sets were going to be very similar. Plain does not equal cheap. It is a design choice. It was not cheap or easy to build TOS sets in later productions. It was quite expensive to do it right. And when you are revisiting a past era, you aren't supposed to have imagination in what you are revisiting, but you can have a lot in expanding what was done originally, like In A Mirror Darkly did. Normally people are pretty picky about such things. What you can change is lighting, camera angles, and up the production quality like In A Mirror Darkly did. And it is funny that other franchises can do this and have the support of fans.

Other franchises are not Star Trek. Star Trek updates, moves it's timeline and adjusts to be consistent with the idea of our future. It does not hold on to the past, save for brief forays in to fan service, which is what In a Mirror Darkly was.

Other franchises can do what they like. That is not Star Trek's way. Never has been, and likely never will be.

 

[yotsuya]

Other franchises are not Star Trek. Star Trek updates, moves it's timeline and adjusts to be consistent with the idea of our future. It does not hold on to the past, save for brief forays in to fan service, which is what In a Mirror Darkly was.

Other franchises can do what they like. That is not Star Trek's way. Never has been, and likely never will be.

Funny how you say it never has been when that is only the last 14 years of a franchise that is 56 years old. Even in TMP when they changed the Enterprise, they wrote it into the script. Why? Because they knew how obsessive some fans are with the visuals. Paramount, when they were solo, wanted to make the fans happy. CBS cares more about selling more items so they wanted all the designs to be different. So it isn't about Star Trek, it is about CBS and corporate greed. Star Trek used to care about such things as a franchise.

 

[fireproof78]

Funny how you say it never has been when that is only the last 14 years of a franchise that is 56 years old. Even in TMP when they changed the Enterprise, they wrote it into the script. Why? Because they knew how obsessive some fans are with the visuals. Paramount, when they were solo, wanted to make the fans happy. CBS cares more about selling more items so they wanted all the designs to be different. So it isn't about Star Trek, it is about CBS and corporate greed. Star Trek used to care about such things as a franchise.

I don't think they did at all. It's always about corporate greed, from GR going forward.

What changes were identified in TWOK? How was that built in to the script? What about "Where No Man Has Gone Before?" I know, I know, that past Trek daliances in discontinuity do not justify current work. I just don't think there is as much justification in keeping old designs as fans like to think. Being obsessive doesn't mandate not changing things.

 

[Mudd]

No idea what you mean. There is nothing inherently cheap about the TOS sets.

Not in the essential designs, no.

They're using them to good effect right now on SNW.