Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Amasov, Jun 20, 2020.
Know who was worse than Hitler?
I call Godwin's Law... ;p
I don't believe that the data supports dilution of the viewing audience due to a change in viewing habits. [edit - I mean to say, I don't believe that the data supports the premise that a change in viewing habits was the primary cause for the loss of viewers.]
Gunther Heinrich's "All Star Trek Movies and Episodes in Two Charts" is no longer at http://www.madmind.de/2009/05/02/all-star-trek-movies-and-episodes-in-two-charts/ where it used to be, at least since July. But his chart plotting the ratings for TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT is visible at https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/126469/what-was-the-highest-rated-episode-of-star-trek.
The key feature that I'd like to draw attention to is that, for each of the first three post-TNG series, there was a marked drop in viewership after each premier, a rapid decay over the first few episodes that occurred before the decay rate for each series settled into a flatter, steadier decline. To me, this indicates interest that people had in Star Trek. People tuned in, hoping to find something they would like. But they failed to find what they wanted, and they turned away. Those who remained gradually lost interest over the run of each show.
In other words, many more people would have watched, had they found shows interesting. They actually sampled the shows, but they didn't find them interesting, so they didn't keep watching. The fact that they tuned in to sample the shows runs counter to the premise that the viewing audience was diluted by a change in viewing habits. If viewing habits had been the determining factor of the overall ratings level for each show, this sudden drop from a much higher level of initial viewership would not have occurred.
Heck, the Voyager premier viewership level is right in line with average TNG viewer levels. Then, it tanks, right after.
Seems to me like it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B in that you are right that better quality programming retains premiere numbers at a much better rate through the season but there would also be an element of dilution reducing the hard numbers tuning in as well.
I'll look at the data later but it would be interesting to see the attrition rates and where they were steeper/shallower.
Would also be interesting to see if there were certain trigger points for audience drop offs.
Take a show like Game of Thrones for example - huge cultural phenomenon but its viewing figures are dwarfed by shows, of what many would consider lower quality, from 20 years prior.
There was also the boom of other Sci fi shows in the late 90s/early 00s which would probably - and this is a gut instinct rather than having proper numbers - have taken viewership away or moved them to delayed viewers.
I think your overall premise has merit but do also feel that it was a multitude of factors that impacted it as opposed to just a quality issue
I wouldn't question that. Also, I've clarified what I meant with an edit.
I'll take a look at the numbers - the context they provide will presumably illustrate things better than our qualitative approach.
With that being the case that Voy kicks off at a solid TNG average viewership and then bombs it would indicate a lack of interest.
I don't know American network habits but over here there were issues around the screening of episodes - as I remember it BBC2 got to the end of S3 and then dropped it (same problem with DS9 in S6 or 7) and so availability of the show was reduced. Was there anything like that that you're aware of in the US?
I wonder also why it now ranks so highly for streaming? Maybe tastes now are different such that the issues with in on first release that lead to reduced viewership are no long a concern for people?
Getting streaming data for CBSAA/Paramount+, say in the form of views per episode, is problematic. CBS was keeping those numbers close to the vest. Subscriber levels are more easily available.
I'm looking towards it's popularity on Netflix. Now hard numbers- as you say - but I think it is pretty reliably stated to be their best performing
One thing I've wondered about the streaming numbers is if the 'less popular' shows might not be partially doing well in streaming precisely because they were less popular. Ie, people who never watched the first time around may be using the ease of streaming to give it a second chance.
That, plus access to entirely new viewers is what I had in mind
As much as I like it....a good portion of TNG (and DS9 and Voyager) is ageing like sour milk
TNG Season 1 has two kinds of episodes: great ones and hot mess.
It has taken me years to do a TNG full re-watch. I have all the BR disk sets, and they look and sound amazing....but man...Season 6 and Season 7 were really just dull and unremarkable in spots. It's still better than 85% of anything else on TV (especially at that time)...but it is more of a slog than I ever imagined.
In that way, S1 and S2 of TNG remind me a lot of S3 of TOS. There are great ones, and some vastly underrated ones...but the ones that stink really stand out.
In many ways, I still think S1 and S2 of TNG are better than S6 and S7 of TNG. There are fewer "highs" in those later seasons than there were in the earlier seasons...at least by my read of it.
Drunk or not, that's over the line.
Next time will be a formal warning.
I mean with those three singling any of them out as the "worst" is really an exercise in pointlessness and futility. They all killed and brutalized millions of people, with a good chunk of their victims being their own citizens. You can also ad Pol Pot to make it a quartet.
this is fantastic. Thank you for sharing
Two real rules:
Never take yourself seriously.
Don't sweat the small shit.
Two real principles:
Be excellent to each other.
Don't make us make a rule.
It's a ghodd-damn TV show.
One good thing you can say about Hitler is he killed Hitler.
Separate names with a comma.