(TV) Star Trek: Discovery

[Elim Garak]

DS9 wrapped 21 years ago.

You might have missed it, but the XO/Captain for the majority of this show so far has been a non-human character. A character whose non-human traits and experiences have been very important to the stories he's been part of...

The only human main character was O'Brien I guess - if you consider Irish to be humans, that is.

[s_bushido]

The only human main character was O'Brien I guess

um... Sisko? Bashir?

Unless I'm missing the joke (other than the one at the expense of Irish people).

[Elim Garak]

um... Sisko? Bashir?

Unless I'm missing the joke (other than the one at the expense of Irish people).

Sisko is not (fully) human as we learn from the story.
Bashir is superhuman - hence his interest in the Irish.

[Myradin]

I will say one thing I didn't like about Saru is they made dealing with his species into a weakness. I can understand getting a bit emotional about it, considering his species have changed a lot from a pretty terrible way of life. Its just an odd message. Usually having a member of another species creates interesting scenarios, good and bad, when interacting with that species. Instead it felt like Saru couldn't be trusted if his species was involved.

Meanwhile, Burnham being a not-vulcan means she's always the best person to talk to vulcans.

[Koriani]

I enjoy the show.

And I'm the one who said, in several paragraphs, that the characters had very little actual development.

As someone else pointed out, and I agree with, they have a lot of things happening TO them - but that it not character development. The characters themselves, inside their minds, their logic, how they respond, hasn't changed and continues to not change - the ONLY exception to this so far is Saru's character, that I've seen. A few other characters appeared to have development in Season 1 though - but its all been lost/tossed/went no where.

And I also disagree that characters didn't change over the course of TNG - they did. They didn't become fundamentally different people, but there was definite growth, for more than just one or two characters, over the course of the seasons directly related to events happening in episodes. I can't speak to TOS - its been 20+ years since I watched those episodes; but they did only have what - 3 seasons? 4? before being pulled (again can't remember sorry!) But they had big character growth over the course of the movies after TOS was cancelled. (Hell, they spent entire movies based around some of the characters' growing pains.)

I still enjoy the show (DISC), but that 'little character growth' that is (or isn't) happening may end up destroying my enjoyment of the rest of the show. As I explained in prior posts.

Its possible to enjoy a show and still acknowledge and discuss its flaws. That's not hate mongering or hate watching; and neither is it 'only joy of the show.'

Sorry, I don't want to see only posts about how 'joyful' the show makes someone anymore than I want to see posts about hate-watching. I'd rather have posts that can discuss the positives AND NEGATIVES. That keeps discussion going. Keeps it interesting.

And apparently since some people think it has any relevance to this discussion - I also enjoyed TOS, TNG, and DS9 (so many seasons...lol). I did not enjoy Voyager or Enterprise. (Did I miss a series? I may have... I can't remember.) I enjoyed the original movies (all of them - to varying degrees of course lol), and I also enjoy (all) the reboots (to varying degrees - not saying all movies are equal here lol).

[Kithelle]

Says it all right here, lowest rated show on the network and Kurtzman's other project is right down there with Discovery...but I know reality isn't some of your guys strong suit.

https://imgur.com/a/2NhvyT1

[Yayeet]

Says it all right here, lowest rated show on the network and Kurtzman's other project is right down there with Discovery...but I know reality isn't some of your guys strong suit.

https://imgur.com/a/2NhvyT1

Those numbers don't really matter anymore, as it's primarily driven by netflix, both the budget and the numbers.

It's already said that in a decade streaming platforms will overtake television channels entirely.

The only thing that will remain is news and sport channels, but all regular channels will be absorbed into streaming entirely.

[Ivanstone]

Looks like it got more views than the 2 shows above it, at least.

Whatever you want reality to be, not sure what you're actually replying to, if I enjoy watching Discovery, I enjoy watching Discovery. So I'll also watch S4 whenever we get that.

The fact Young Sheldon is so high is the real tragedy.

So what is the Imgur poster and Kithelle not stating?

Oh right, these are the demo numbers for when the show is aired and therefore renewal decisions are driven by ad sales for their time slots.

DSC revenue is mostly from streaming. It’s total viewership is not really well defined like most streaming shows but shows do get cancelled if the numbers aren’t there.

I don’t really expect honest posts from racist conspiracy theorists which is why only partial information from a blurry image is posted.

Here’s the original source which took me 10 seconds on google to find.
https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/c...eason-ratings/

[Wyattbw09]

Says it all right here, lowest rated show on the network and Kurtzman's other project is right down there with Discovery...but I know reality isn't some of your guys strong suit.

https://imgur.com/a/2NhvyT1

A few questions: How are they even getting a rating for a streaming show? Second are they ranking a straight streaming show aginst network programming? How do these even compare?

[Fencers]

If streaming content doesn't retain or drive subscriptions relative to the cost of production, then it is a loss. A streaming platform is unlikely to order new episodes if there is stagnation of the product. That's exactly why Netflix cancels series after a few seasons- they largely serve their purpose in 2-3 seasons. After that, you are unlikely to see growth unless it's a breakout show such as "Stranger Things" or "The Mandolorian". Discovery doesn't make money from "streaming". That's not how it works.

On network television, a low-performing show can stick around if it commands a good demo share.

Unless Discovery drives subs; it would be dropped from streaming too. Discovery has a season in (post)production already and there is a fifth season planned. So take from that what you will.

Discovery has a poor demo share (this is the MOST important metric) and low viewership on the network. There are no two bones about that and really is just that.

- - - Updated - - -

A few questions: How are they even getting a rating for a streaming show? Second are they ranking a straight streaming show aginst network programming? How do these even compare?

They don't. Nielsen tracks streaming and network broadcasts separately.

https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top-ten/

https://deadline.com/2021/04/nielsen...gs-1234741647/

https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/soluti...video-ratings/

Streaming ratings are somewhat delayed compared to network ratings, which is basically overnight.

[Ivanstone]

Discovery doesn't make money from "streaming". That's not how it works.

It makes money from streaming. If a streaming service is willing to pay money for the rights to air a new show, then the shows production costs are effectively underwritten by the streaming service. There may be additional reasons why they show is still being made such as:
Reed Hastings is a closet Trekkie
King Abdullah is bank rolling the whole thing
Kurtzman has sheep pictures of *insert executive here*

The most shocking thing about Discovery’s demo rating is that it has one at all. I was under the impression that it was strictly streaming.

[Fencers]

It makes money from streaming.

Yes and no. But at a basic level, yes. That doesn't get to what I was commenting on though.

[s_bushido]

Whatever you want reality to be, not sure what you're actually replying to

Dude's had a hate-boner for the show since pretty much day 1. 3 seasons later and he's still watching something he thinks is the worst thing ever put to television. It would be fascinating if it wasn't so sad.



But like...all other shows on that list are on network television, and not some dedicated subscription service. Is anyone surprised that more people are going to watch shows that they don't have to pay extra to see? Especially if it's just mediocre sci-fi schlock and not the pop-culture phenomenon of the week.

[Elim Garak]

Those numbers don't really matter anymore, as it's primarily driven by netflix, both the budget and the numbers.

It's already said that in a decade streaming platforms will overtake television channels entirely.

The only thing that will remain is news and sport channels, but all regular channels will be absorbed into streaming entirely.

Streaming platforms are television channels. It's just different technology in use. Don't let it confuse you. Your Smart TV can already stream those channels. And Gaming Consoles are TV boxes that you can hook up to Stupid TVs - to watch TV. just because you placed your TV on your desktop and called it a monitor - doesn't change a thing - it's just a TV. And your PC is just a TV box. Mobile phones, mobile TVs.

The unified cable - Ethernet, or go satellite TV via Wi-Fi. You don't pay for the special hardware box to watch TV - you pay to the TV company to let you stream their channels.

[Stormspark]

I haven't seen season 3 of Discovery yet. Waiting for it to come out on DVD since I do not use streaming services. I don't quite want to see it badly enough to go the yar har har route, I can wait.

[Twdft]

Discovery has a poor demo share (this is the MOST important metric) and low viewership on the network. There are no two bones about that and really is just that.

That's a problem with scifi shows in general. The Expanse is arguably the best show in that genre for decades and it still got cancelled by SyFy for low viewership.

I really enjoyed Discovery so far. As a scifi show. It is not however, "real" Star Trek IMO. The Orville is ten times more Star Trek than Discovery.

[Puri]

So three days before the planned release CBS and Netflix go separate ways, and there is no way to watch the forth season of discovery when there is no CBS/Paramount+ streaming service available in your country, which includes pretty much half the world:

https://twitter.com/StarTrekOnPPlus/...14366265823239

Here in Germany it will go online in spring as part of Sky, which costs at least 30 euro/month with a mandatory 12 months subscription. No way this is worth for me, and instead of boosting the Discovery sales I fear this will cause the international profit of Discovery to plummet, which is no good thing to happen to any series.

[Diaspar]

Yep, just saw the news last night and it is a major bummer even though I have not seen season 3 yet. But as soon as it and the other Star Trek shows are gone from Netflix - guess I am simply never going to watch them again. 0 interest in Paramount+, 0 interest in getting and paying for overpriced cable.

It is especially shitty how they just decided to do it overnight.


Edit: Oh my, ST: Discovery is already gone from German Netflix! The other shows and new movies are still there. This feels like the whole HBOMax fiasco again.

[Skulltaker]

Here in Germany it will go online in spring as part of Sky, which costs at least 30 euro/month with a mandatory 12 months subscription. No way this is worth for me, and instead of boosting the Discovery sales I fear this will cause the international profit of Discovery to plummet, which is no good thing to happen to any series.

You sure? I read that Paramount+ goes global early 22, and that 'we get to see it there!' Not that I'd even bother getting it otherwise.

Shame about Lower Decks not being on Amazon Prime anymore in the future, probably, that show really grew on me. Oh well. All good things...

Curious to see how well it goes for them without their Netflix crutch.

[Elim Garak]

Well, it's officially crap for me, this show had a good run for 2.5 seasons and the first episode of season 4 killed it for me