Apparently Parrott Analytics doesn't use enough charts for some people. At any rate, I'm far more inclined to believe what they say before what the internet edge lords choose to believe.
Why the hate for Alex Kurtzman?
- Thread starter HotRod
- Start date
And not 20 minutes later, my point is proven. Quelle surprise."Parrot Analytics"
L
O
L
Parrot Analytics metrics are absurd.
According to Parrot Analytics, the canceled Star Trek Prodigy show was one of the most in-demand TV shows in the US.
Not just "one of the most in-demand animated shows" no, "one of the most in-demand TV shows".
Parrot Analytics said that Prodigy had a higher "demand" than Taylor Sheridan shows.
Ridiculous.
In 2018 they said that Star Trek Discovery was the most popular streaming show, when CBS All Access (now Paramount+) had less than 2.5 million subscribers.
Acceptance is the last state of grief.
Star Trek has always been, at its core, a TV property that happened to also have some successful films. Trek movies can be good, but they are never going to be the franchise's bread and butter.Reprint on Yahoo!
The ‘Star Trek’ Franchise Has Made $2.6 Billion for Streaming Services | Charts
Netflix has realized the most global value from the Paramount-owned franchise, but Paramount+ is gaining ground as it expands internationally, grows its subscriber base and pulls back the rights from competing platforms The post The ‘Star Trek’ Franchise Has Made $2.6 Billion for Streaming...finance.yahoo.com
They say the best time to plant a tree was fifteen years ago.
The second best time is Now.
Streaming movies is P+ planting a seed for 5-10 years from now.
So something doesn't support your world view = wrong. What a intellectually bankrupt way to view the world."Parrot Analytics"
L
O
L
Parrot Analytics metrics are absurd.
According to Parrot Analytics, the canceled Star Trek Prodigy show was one of the most in-demand TV shows in the US.
Not just "one of the most in-demand animated shows" no, "one of the most in-demand TV shows".
Parrot Analytics said that Prodigy had a higher "demand" than Taylor Sheridan shows.
Ridiculous.
In 2018 they said that Star Trek Discovery was the most popular streaming show, when CBS All Access (now Paramount+) had less than 2.5 million subscribers.
Especially Youtubers. But everything is like that now. Take the spin various political propaganda YouTubers put on everything under the guise of "news", and apply it to everything in any way popular. Create an enemy, rage like your mum just got spat on, and people of a certain intellect will Lycansubscribe and be happily brainwashed.
It's literally the same process.
It may well be Section 31 appeals to non-hardcore-Trekkie viewers much more than us!
Intellectually bankrupt is it to blindly believe everything that supports your worldview or simply trust an internet source without knowing what the basis of their data is.
I accept data from Samba TV, Luminate or Nielsen, services that actually measure viewership. I discard any statement from Parrot Analytics because their metric ("demand expressions") is based on social media interaction. "Demand" is a total bogus metric that does not line up with actually recorded data.
A few examples:
"The Perfect Couple" "The Gentlemen" "Fallout" and "Griselda" are some of the most viewed streaming shows in 2024.
According to Parrot Analytics these shows have a lower "demand" than "Discovery", "Picard", "Strange New Worlds" or "Lower Decks".
Parrot Analytics' metrics also say that "Lower Decks" and "Star Trek: Discovery" have a higher "demand" than "Special Ops: Lioness", one of Taylor Sheridan's shows and one of Paramount+'s top show.
"Tulsa King" (another Taylor Sheridan show) and "Bridgerton" are, according to Parrot Analytics, only slightly higher in "demand" than "Lower Decks".
Does anyone here believe that "Star Trek: Discovery" or "Lower Decks" are more popular than the most watched Netflix show in 2024 or any other Netflix shows in the 2024 top ten?
That is what Parrot Analytics is asserting.
How gullible, or even outright delusional, do you have to be to believe that? Or anything from Parrot Analytics for that matter?
People talk more about Star Trek shows online than about "Fool Me Once", "The Perfect Couple" or the "The Gentlemen". Online (social media) discussions is what Parrot Analytics is measuring and the basis for their assertions about "demand" and that is their basis for assertions about revenue.
Well, this page took a toll on my scroll finger.
I have not taken the time to read this thread, so I apologize, as I’m sure there are a number of thoughtful responses here that my comments will just be a rehash of.
I think it’s obvious that pretty much anything that doesn’t meet some segment of any fandom’s standards is immediately met with ire, and that segment directs completely irrational negative emotional energy toward whoever was/is “in charge.” Hell, even George Lucas himself was slaughtered by fans during the production of the SW prequels. So, it’s not anything new here. All of this has happened before and will happen again.
That said, I think there are some things in my mind that Alex Kurtzman and his producers have made errors on. And, in this environment of streaming seasons (10-13 episodes, oftentimes with a singular unified story arc), any particular error or miscalculation is magnified.
DSC
It’s hard to “hate” Kurtzman for any of DSC’s supposed shortcomings. We have to remember that this show was created by Fuller, who then left before the pilot had even aired, leaving others holding the bag and causing a major creative vacuum and disconnect. The fundamentals of the show (characters, tech, setting, tone) were designed almost entirely around the arc of the first season. This meant that concluding that season left many of the characters, their functions, their traits, etc all kind of “up in the air" and not necessarily easily translatable to other story arcs that would follow. And, I'd argue that they did not to the best job in closing those gaps in future seasons, and it really shows.
After that, it can be argued that Kurtzman committed some miscalculations that impacted the show. Frankly over-reacting to the criticisms and fan “outrage” and changing the tone, characters, and eventually even setting of the series created a very uneven and disjointed feel to everything. The other miscalculation was obviously assigning Harberts and Berg to run the show in Season 2. We may never know the full story of what happened there, but we can certainly surmise that the disruption caused by their behavior and unexpected departure completely upended S2. The behind-the scenes drama with the production staff, who is by definition led by Alex Kurtzman, gave the entire series a very disjointed and uneven feel when looked back on as a whole.
PIC-
Again, this is more of a matter of preference than it is anything you can particularly “hate” Kurtzman for. Clearly, the producers (including Kurtzman) and Patrick Stewart all had a particular vision for what “Picard” should be, and it’s clear that included putting the Picard character in a humbling, out-of-water situation, showing more of his humanity and exploring his life now that he as “aged out” of his prime.
In much the same way that fans really rejected this approach with Luke Skywalker in “The Last Jedi,” this was not universally a welcome approach to Picard, who was a character that a whole generation (pun not intended) grew up with and admired. I can’t say that you can directly blame Alex Kurtzman for this development, as I actually believe that Patrick Stewart himself had a lot to do with this, and may not have even agreed to do the series if this direction was not taken.
S31-
Section 31 is as much of a universal failure, in terms of fan reaction, as I have ever seen in the franchise. Just looking at the poll on TrekBBS indicates that it is not well received at all (about 50% have voted it in the 1-4 out of 10 range…unheard of!). This project does rest quite a bit on Alex Kurtzman I believe. There’s been a lot of criticism leveled at him about wanting to fundamentally change Star Trek to go after the ever-elusive “modern audience” etc etc…and I do see elements of disregard or even disdain for the style and approach of what had come before in some of Trek’s Paramount+ projects.
But none of them really come across as loud-and-clear as S31 did this past January in that way. S31 has almost nothing to do with the franchise that would make it uniquely Star Trek. It felt like an aggressive and experimental push to see just how far away from the core ideals and style of the original and Berman-era series they could get. And, yes, people are rightfully going to have a problem with that.
I’ve always hated the “NOt STaR TreK” gang…but there does come a point when you have to question just where the line is with something. You can put a lot of different toppings on a burger, and still call it a burger. You can put it in lots of different types of bread or buns…and it’s still fundamentally a burger. But, if you change out the ground beef for seaweed, I’d argue it’s really not a burger any longer, no matter what you want to call it.
I think it’s obvious that pretty much anything that doesn’t meet some segment of any fandom’s standards is immediately met with ire, and that segment directs completely irrational negative emotional energy toward whoever was/is “in charge.” Hell, even George Lucas himself was slaughtered by fans during the production of the SW prequels. So, it’s not anything new here. All of this has happened before and will happen again.
That said, I think there are some things in my mind that Alex Kurtzman and his producers have made errors on. And, in this environment of streaming seasons (10-13 episodes, oftentimes with a singular unified story arc), any particular error or miscalculation is magnified.
DSC
It’s hard to “hate” Kurtzman for any of DSC’s supposed shortcomings. We have to remember that this show was created by Fuller, who then left before the pilot had even aired, leaving others holding the bag and causing a major creative vacuum and disconnect. The fundamentals of the show (characters, tech, setting, tone) were designed almost entirely around the arc of the first season. This meant that concluding that season left many of the characters, their functions, their traits, etc all kind of “up in the air" and not necessarily easily translatable to other story arcs that would follow. And, I'd argue that they did not to the best job in closing those gaps in future seasons, and it really shows.
After that, it can be argued that Kurtzman committed some miscalculations that impacted the show. Frankly over-reacting to the criticisms and fan “outrage” and changing the tone, characters, and eventually even setting of the series created a very uneven and disjointed feel to everything. The other miscalculation was obviously assigning Harberts and Berg to run the show in Season 2. We may never know the full story of what happened there, but we can certainly surmise that the disruption caused by their behavior and unexpected departure completely upended S2. The behind-the scenes drama with the production staff, who is by definition led by Alex Kurtzman, gave the entire series a very disjointed and uneven feel when looked back on as a whole.
PIC-
Again, this is more of a matter of preference than it is anything you can particularly “hate” Kurtzman for. Clearly, the producers (including Kurtzman) and Patrick Stewart all had a particular vision for what “Picard” should be, and it’s clear that included putting the Picard character in a humbling, out-of-water situation, showing more of his humanity and exploring his life now that he as “aged out” of his prime.
In much the same way that fans really rejected this approach with Luke Skywalker in “The Last Jedi,” this was not universally a welcome approach to Picard, who was a character that a whole generation (pun not intended) grew up with and admired. I can’t say that you can directly blame Alex Kurtzman for this development, as I actually believe that Patrick Stewart himself had a lot to do with this, and may not have even agreed to do the series if this direction was not taken.
S31-
Section 31 is as much of a universal failure, in terms of fan reaction, as I have ever seen in the franchise. Just looking at the poll on TrekBBS indicates that it is not well received at all (about 50% have voted it in the 1-4 out of 10 range…unheard of!). This project does rest quite a bit on Alex Kurtzman I believe. There’s been a lot of criticism leveled at him about wanting to fundamentally change Star Trek to go after the ever-elusive “modern audience” etc etc…and I do see elements of disregard or even disdain for the style and approach of what had come before in some of Trek’s Paramount+ projects.
But none of them really come across as loud-and-clear as S31 did this past January in that way. S31 has almost nothing to do with the franchise that would make it uniquely Star Trek. It felt like an aggressive and experimental push to see just how far away from the core ideals and style of the original and Berman-era series they could get. And, yes, people are rightfully going to have a problem with that.
I’ve always hated the “NOt STaR TreK” gang…but there does come a point when you have to question just where the line is with something. You can put a lot of different toppings on a burger, and still call it a burger. You can put it in lots of different types of bread or buns…and it’s still fundamentally a burger. But, if you change out the ground beef for seaweed, I’d argue it’s really not a burger any longer, no matter what you want to call it.
Last edited:
I didn;t read any of that. But at least my scroll finger has a six pack now.Intellectually bankrupt is it to blindly believe everything that supports your worldview or simply trust an internet source without knowing what the basis of their data is.
I accept data from Samba TV, Luminate or Nielsen, services that actually measure viewership. I discard any statement from Parrot Analytics because their metric ("demand expressions") is based on social media interaction. "Demand" is a total bogus metric that does not line up with actually recorded data.
A few examples:
"The Perfect Couple" "The Gentlemen" "Fallout" and "Griselda" are some of the most viewed streaming shows in 2024.
According to Parrot Analytics these shows have a lower "demand" than "Discovery", "Picard", "Strange New Worlds" or "Lower Decks".
Parrot Analytics' metrics also say that "Lower Decks" and "Star Trek: Discovery" have a higher "demand" than "Special Ops: Lioness", one of Taylor Sheridan's shows and one of Paramount+'s top show.
"Tulsa King" (another Taylor Sheridan show) and "Bridgerton" are, according to Parrot Analytics, only slightly higher in "demand" than "Lower Decks".
Does anyone here believe that "Star Trek: Discovery" or "Lower Decks" are more popular than the most watched Netflix show in 2024 or any other Netflix shows in the 2024 top ten?
That is what Parrot Analytics is asserting.
How gullible, or even outright delusional, do you have to be to believe that? Or anything from Parrot Analytics for that matter?
People talk more about Star Trek shows online than about "Fool Me Once", "The Perfect Couple" or the "The Gentlemen". Online (social media) discussions is what Parrot Analytics is measuring and the basis for their assertions about "demand" and that is their basis for assertions about reven
You cherry pick sources that align with your hatred of Kurtzman. Enjoy your confirmation bias, much good it’ll do you when he inevitably renews his contract with the studio.Intellectually bankrupt is it to blindly believe everything that supports your worldview or simply trust an internet source without knowing what the basis of their data is.
I accept data from Samba TV, Luminate or Nielsen, services that actually measure viewership. I discard any statement from Parrot Analytics because their metric ("demand expressions") is based on social media interaction. "Demand" is a total bogus metric that does not line up with actually recorded data.
A few examples:
"The Perfect Couple" "The Gentlemen" "Fallout" and "Griselda" are some of the most viewed streaming shows in 2024.
According to Parrot Analytics these shows have a lower "demand" than "Discovery", "Picard", "Strange New Worlds" or "Lower Decks".
Parrot Analytics' metrics also say that "Lower Decks" and "Star Trek: Discovery" have a higher "demand" than "Special Ops: Lioness", one of Taylor Sheridan's shows and one of Paramount+'s top show.
"Tulsa King" (another Taylor Sheridan show) and "Bridgerton" are, according to Parrot Analytics, only slightly higher in "demand" than "Lower Decks".
Does anyone here believe that "Star Trek: Discovery" or "Lower Decks" are more popular than the most watched Netflix show in 2024 or any other Netflix shows in the 2024 top ten?
That is what Parrot Analytics is asserting.
How gullible, or even outright delusional, do you have to be to believe that? Or anything from Parrot Analytics for that matter?
People talk more about Star Trek shows online than about "Fool Me Once", "The Perfect Couple" or the "The Gentlemen". Online (social media) discussions is what Parrot Analytics is measuring and the basis for their assertions about "demand" and that is their basis for assertions about revenue.
We’re done here.
I have a very simple question.
Do you believe in Parrot Analytics' assertion that "Star Trek: Discovery" and "Star Trek: Lower Decks" are more popular, more in "demand", than Amazon Prime Video's "Fallout" show?
Yes or No?
And why wouldn't that be believable? And, again, I will take Parrot Analytics conclusions over the single-minded reality divorced nonsense that comes from internet edge lords with an ax to grind. You question Parrott Analytics credibility, but we're supposed to accept yours?
Get real. Now that's the joke.
Last edited:
All that matters to me is that Star Trek has done well enough to get multiple season runs on shows, including two five season runs that is pretty great these days. I don’t care where the data comes from. I care that I have a good time. I don’t over analyze every piece of data if I want something to fail trying to find that one piece of information that the Hollywood moguls have ignored or missed or disregarded or whatever. Instead, I move on with my life.
Michelle Yeoh and action set pieces at the expense of characterization also gives it that "made for foreign markets" vibe.
This.
None of our palaver will change the direction. Views and minutes will and hate watching still counts as views.
Similar threads
