Starfleet Academy General Discussion Thread

[StarTrek1701]

Yeah, my days of not taking what you post seriously are definitely coming to a middle.

Don't care either way.

74% of all statistics are made up.
100% of the stats from this statement are also made up.

LOLNO.

I want more Kelvin films too. Didn't happen. That's ok.

For you.

Anything to back this up? I don't necessarily disagree, I just wonder if there's anything concrete to support it.

I hope @Turtletrekker puts me on ignore after this effortposting and @Campe 100% ignores it, but here it comes.

First, let's use DSC as a metric:
DSC - S01 - 373 Reviews
DSC - S02 - 209 Reviews
DSC - S03 - 35 Reviews
DSC - S04 - 17 (!!) Reviews
DSC - S05 - 21 Reviews

You can see with your own eyes, regardless of the popcornmeter, the number of "Pro" reviews drops over 160 reviews from S01 to S02, and drops to an astounding 35 reviews only by S03.
Professional reviewers, whose job it is to actually review new stuff, couldn't be bothered to get back on it year after year.

And there's more:

Out of the five new Trek shows we got (DSC, PIC, LD, SNW, Pro) except for PIC each show were cancelled prematurely, with SNW being the one cancelled two fucking seasons in advance.
But lets look at LD, which was the most beloved of all new Trek:

LD - S01 - 47 Reviews
LD - S02 - 12 Reviews
LD - S03 - 6 Reviews
LD - S04 - 18 Reviews
LD - S05 - 9 Reviews

Again a pattern emerges, reviewers didn't care to review each new season because viewers weren't engaged enough to watch these shows.
If most weren't watching these shows fresh outta the oven, it can be easily surmised these shows aren't being followed up upon after months or years.

I think the realities of streaming production basically assured that none of the new shows would ever attain TOS/TNG levels of cultural relevance - both those series thrived in syndication and existed (and continue to exist) as an omnipresent background presence, whereas streaming shows are by design built around big "moments", serialised arcs designed to stop people cancelling subscriptions, and success is measured by subscriber count spikes, appearing in top ten weekly/monthly data, etc, which obviously doesn't lend itself to seeping into the popular consciousness in the way TOS and TNG were able to do.

You're absolutely right and others that has pointed out that the media landscape whether movies, tv or games, are completely different than it was even a decade ago.
However there has been shows that has taken up space in the cultural mindset even in the last decade, but because of how streaming productions are set even a quick follow up can take years.
Stranger Things, Squid Game, Yellowstone, Dexter, live-action One Piece and Landman are shows that a lot of people are talking about, may be not as much as the shows in the past, but more than any of the new Treks recently.

That's not to excuse the failings of the streaming shows or suggest that they couldn't have landed much more successfully if they were better, but I think the prospect of them settling in popular culture in the way TOS/TNG did was always a non-starter no matter how good they were just because of how TV works now.

If shows are good enough for the general audience it'll create buzz and get a following.
Look at the graveyard of shows from Marvel in Disney+ and the majority of the movies flopped so fucking bad they are dragging Steve Rogers back into the battle.
But No Way Home and Deadpool x Wolverine made over a billion each.
They're gonna make the legacy actors work till they're 90!

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

For you.

Even if it's not ok I cannot change it.

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

most weren't watching these shows fresh outta the oven, it can be easily surmised these shows aren't being followed up upon after months or years.

This is not quite accurate. Viewers often don't leave comments if they are satisfied.

 

[StarTrek1701]

This is not quite accurate. Viewers often don't leave comments if they are satisfied.

They absolutely do.

 

[Firebird]

Using Rotten Tomatoes as a surefire metric for how a show is performing?

 

[Campe]

Don't care either way.

LOLNO.

For you.

I hope @Turtletrekker puts me on ignore after this effortposting and @Campe 100% ignores it, but here it comes.

First, let's use DSC as a metric:
DSC - S01 - 373 Reviews
DSC - S02 - 209 Reviews
DSC - S03 - 35 Reviews
DSC - S04 - 17 (!!) Reviews
DSC - S05 - 21 Reviews

You can see with your own eyes, regardless of the popcornmeter, the number of "Pro" reviews drops over 160 reviews from S01 to S02, and drops to an astounding 35 reviews only by S03.
Professional reviewers, whose job it is to actually review new stuff, couldn't be bothered to get back on it year after year.

And there's more:

Out of the five new Trek shows we got (DSC, PIC, LD, SNW, Pro) except for PIC each show were cancelled prematurely, with SNW being the one cancelled two fucking seasons in advance.
But lets look at LD, which was the most beloved of all new Trek:

LD - S01 - 47 Reviews
LD - S02 - 12 Reviews
LD - S03 - 6 Reviews
LD - S04 - 18 Reviews
LD - S05 - 9 Reviews

Again a pattern emerges, reviewers didn't care to review each new season because viewers weren't engaged enough to watch these shows.
If most weren't watching these shows fresh outta the oven, it can be easily surmised these shows aren't being followed up upon after months or years.

So your argument is: A franchise that had not had a new entry on television in over a decade had more engagement not only from audiences but also critics than a series near the end of its run and an animated series that has less engagement, period?

LOL.

More often (not always) than not, a series gets fewer reviews than when it premieres. There’s a lot of attention, a lot of clicks. No one here has ever said that Star Trek is popular. It is a relatively minor cultural touchstone, but has certainly had less engagement since the days of TNG. That point has never been denied.

Treks audience is not getting any younger. I just turned 46. There are fans on this forum who are in their 70s. Each series attracts fewer viewers because the older members, whether that be for dying or just not being interested, are just not tuning in.

People are whining about SFA not being for the older audience. Well, that’s true. It’s trying to cultivate it for a new audience. I’m not expecting it to be what I want. I’m hopeful it’s something that will allow the franchise to continue to a new generation. It might not, hell, the chances are great it won’t be, but it would be amazing if it could.

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

They absolutely do.

They can, but it's unusual. A satisfied customer doesn't go back and review it. I run in to this with business all the time. Customers who are happy don't ruminate over the experience; they just move on.

I don't even thumb up a video that I like. I don't do 5 stars for businesses often. I struggle to get customers to leave reviews for my business even if they compliment me in person.

It simply isn't the default way humans think.

 

[Campe]

It is more common for people to leave negative reviews. That is true.

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

It is more common for people to leave negative reviews. That is true.

It's something retailers and other businesses battle, called negativity bias.

https://medium.com/@markway.eu/the-psychology-of-complaints-why-people-leave-negative-reviews-52519d183d5f

 

[Starflight]

You're absolutely right and others that has pointed out that the media landscape whether movies, tv or games, are completely different than it was even a decade ago.
However there has been shows that has taken up space in the cultural mindset even in the last decade, but because of how streaming productions are set even a quick follow up can take years.
Stranger Things, Squid Game, Yellowstone, Dexter, live-action One Piece and Landman are shows that a lot of people are talking about, may be not as much as the shows in the past, but more than any of the new Treks recently.

Thanks for the effortpost! Definitely, I agree that a modern Star Trek could theoretically be the next Stranger Things/Squid Game, but it's much trickier for sure. The other thing is that TNG and TOS could occasionally put out a few bad episodes and get away with it because of how episodic syndicated TV worked, but a bad season for Discovery or Picard is a disaster (we're still taking the piss out of Picard S2 to this day!).

For ages I've wondered how a new episodic Star Trek might fare on streaming services - apparently old episodic sitcoms still do pretty well. This is just me projecting my own preferences, but I wonder if there's a big audience of people who look at Discovery or Picard's 10+-hour-movies and find them daunting (and tonally dull) but would happily stick on a 45-minute story which requires a much lower investment.

Basically, I wonder if a series nowadays could fill that same "something pleasant to put on in the background whenever you need it" niche, and become a cultural juggernaut through it. The first season of SNW seemed to get a lot of buzz in part because it offered exactly that, while the somewhat more serialised S3 seemed to lose steam with viewers, if the few metrics we have are anything to go by.

 

[Unionized Elf]

216 entries in 8 years around 80% of which has already been forgotten and 70% of which were prematurely cancelled anyways.

Prodigy is the only one which was prematurely cancelled. Picard ended after three seasons of its own accord. And while Disco and Lower Decks had plans for sixth seasons, five seasons can be considered a full run in modern television making it inaccurate to call a show with five seasons "prematurely cancelled."

 

[TRON JA307020]

Prodigy is the only one which was prematurely cancelled. Picard ended after three seasons of its own accord. And while Disco and Lower Decks had plans for sixth seasons, five seasons can be considered a full run in modern television making it inaccurate to call a show with five seasons "prematurely cancelled."

Im relieved there were only 5 missions in std and a lot of episodes were filler to boot. So glad that series is done. I suspect sta will go only have 2 seasons.

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

Prodigy is the only one which was prematurely cancelled. Picard ended after three seasons of its own accord. And while Disco and Lower Decks had plans for sixth seasons, five seasons can be considered a full run in modern television making it inaccurate to call a show with five seasons "prematurely cancelled."

Paramount spends a lot of money on failures.

 

[bdub76]

Thanks for the effortpost! Definitely, I agree that a modern Star Trek could theoretically be the next Stranger Things/Squid Game, but it's much trickier for sure. The other thing is that TNG and TOS could occasionally put out a few bad episodes and get away with it because of how episodic syndicated TV worked, but a bad season for Discovery or Picard is a disaster (we're still taking the piss out of Picard S2 to this day!).

For ages I've wondered how a new episodic Star Trek might fare on streaming services - apparently old episodic sitcoms still do pretty well. This is just me projecting my own preferences, but I wonder if there's a big audience of people who look at Discovery or Picard's 10+-hour-movies and find them daunting (and tonally dull) but would happily stick on a 45-minute story which requires a much lower investment.

Basically, I wonder if a series nowadays could fill that same "something pleasant to put on in the background whenever you need it" niche, and become a cultural juggernaut through it. The first season of SNW seemed to get a lot of buzz in part because it offered exactly that, while the somewhat more serialised S3 seemed to lose steam with viewers, if the few metrics we have are anything to go by.

You still get some anthology series like Black Mirror, but a lot of people want serialized stories these days. This did happen in the past to with soups at night such as Dallas, 90120, and Revenge. There are a lot more, but those come to mind.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

I daresay franchise bias is going to be a factor that comes into play. The name Star Trek just has connotations when it comes to the type of people expected to be fans of it. And let's face it that image is not one of popular people. Star Wars has managed to escape that curse but even Star Trek that is less pivoted towards the stereotype struggles to resonate on such a level.

When they started, Discovery got attention because it was shiny and new, Trek's first new episodes in 12 years and it was very different to what came before. Picard was the return of a beloved old character. SNW was the return of adventures on the Enterprise. But then they just sort of fade into obscurity and I think that will just be true of anything with the Star Trek name on it.

Star Trek is as much an outcast and misfit as we who enjoy it and while that makes it beautiful it does make using any kind of examinations regarding reviewers unrelible because it's not a level playing field. In an era where all the attention is lavished solely on what is the new big thing, more popular shows get less attention in follow up seasons and Star Trek is just not a name that's going to shine through that storm.

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

I daresay franchise bias is going to be a factor that comes into play. The name Star Trek just has connotations when it comes to the type of people expected to be fans of it. And let's face it that image is not one of popular people. Star Wars has managed to escape that curse but even Star Trek that is less pivoted towards the stereotype struggles to resonate on such a level.

When they started, Discovery got attention because it was shiny and new, Trek's first new episodes in 12 years and it was very different to what came before. Picard was the return of a beloved old character. SNW was the return of adventures on the Enterprise. But then they just sort of fade into obscurity and I think that will just be true of anything with the Star Trek name on it.

Star Trek is as much an outcast and misfit as we who enjoy it and while that makes it beautiful it does make using any kind of examinations regarding reviewers unrelible because it's not a level playing field. In an era where all the attention is lavished solely on what is the new big thing, more popular shows get less attention in follow up seasons and Star Trek is just not a name that's going to shine through that storm.

Indeed. Star Trek lacks that popularity. Growing up in the 80s-90s, liking TOS but not Power Rangers was a quick way to ostracization. It wasn't a fun time. It wasn't great to ask about being a Star Trek fan as a youngster. Even among other Star Trek fans there was the stupid infighting around TOS v. TNG, Kirk v. Picard.

Or DS9 vs. Voyager, and on and on. And never mind the rage over the Kelvin films.

Star Trek moved a bit more in to mainstream consciousness and the fans struggled significantly with that idea of the wrong kind of popularity. It's a weird standard that often times makes no sense to me because last I checked being a fan of Star Trek wasn't about being popular.

 

[Set Harth]

Yes, I'm still mildly annoyed by that even now. No warning, just BOOM. Huge last-act spoiler in the middle of a TV spot.

Same thing happened with Civil War, but in that case the spoiler ad didn't show up until the week after release afaik.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Anything to back this up? I don't necessarily disagree, I just wonder if there's anything concrete to support it.

I think the realities of streaming production basically assured that none of the new shows would ever attain TOS/TNG levels of cultural relevance - both those series thrived in syndication and existed (and continue to exist) as an omnipresent background presence, whereas streaming shows are by design built around big "moments", serialised arcs designed to stop people cancelling subscriptions, and success is measured by subscriber count spikes, appearing in top ten weekly/monthly data, etc, which obviously doesn't lend itself to seeping into the popular consciousness in the way TOS and TNG were able to do.

That's not to excuse the failings of the streaming shows or suggest that they couldn't have landed much more successfully if they were better, but I think the prospect of them settling in popular culture in the way TOS/TNG did was always a non-starter no matter how good they were just because of how TV works now.

It might harder than it used to be, but streaming megahits do exist.

There's just way more competition than there used to be and most Trek (the glory days included) would struggle to compete in the modern era because expectations have risen a lot, too.