[Rellimie]

I had to look up lower decks it shows it as a single ep from 1994

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Lower_Decks

[Stormy]

Here are some stats I found, and I think it is telling. The stats track number of people who submit ratings for a show, in this case Star Trek: Discovery. Here are the number of clicks and the show's rating for the first and last episode (aired) for each season to this point.

EPISODE------# SUBMITTED------AVG. RATING

S1E1........................5,806......................7.2
S1E15......................2,656......................7.0
S2E1........................2,846......................7.4
S2E13.........................678......................7.8

There are stats for every episode but the declining trend in number of people weighing in on this show is dropping at a ridiculous rate. While a small percentage could probably be relegated to those who just quit rating the show, it's hard to believe a majority of them do. I believe this clearly indicates a dramatic loss of viewership and/or a serious lack of interest in this program.

Now let's look at the average ratings for the show. While you may say "The ratings are going up, proving more people like the show!" I will counter with those who dislike the show are either no longer watching, or they're no longer engaged with rating the show, leaving those who do like it to artificially boost the numbers.

[LogicalLeopard]

I stand corrected. Yes, treason. I will stick to my reasoning for her NOT being placed in command. I believe there is a huge difference between this AND a Starfleet captain with the distinguished career Kirk had when he made his decision and a junior officer attacking her commanding officer. It's like comparing coal to a diamond. Sure, the coal MAY end up a diamond, but at that point, it's still coal.

Everyone is PAINFULLY aware the show is about her... which makes it the most non-Trek show ever created and why it receives such scathing criticism for this series. I am willing to wager, if you are game, that IF "She who shall not be named" is made captain, the show dies the very next season due to loss of ratings.

There is NO "I" in Star Trek.... and there should never be a singularly focused series named Star Trek. It simply is not true TREK. I know I am going to get some flack for this next comment- but I feel the same way IF the new Picard series is named "Star Trek: Picard." Call it "Picard" or "Picard- The Next Adventure" or whatever they like...but not Star Trek: Picard. I would say the same about Kirk, Spock, Archer, Janeway, Sisko, or any other singularly focused show. To coin a Borg term... Star Trek is about the "collective" rather than the individual. It should stay that way.

Thank you for your input. The ability to exchange feelings and opinions without fear of personal attacks is something I have always greatly appreciated about this fleet..... and I've been here since 2011. There is room for all...

Well, first of all, when comparing diamonds to coal, lets compare their deeds. Burnham's "assault" was a humane neck pinch. It doesn't compare to Kirk's actual assault on the security guard when breaking Bones out, which came in the way of a roundhouse knockout punch. Burnham's mutiny lasted about three minutes and was unsuccessful. Kirk successfully stole a starship, used it against a foreign power, blew it up, and stole the starship of a foreign power. Sure the Klingons were trespassing in Fed territory, but since he wasn't operating as a Starfleet officer, he had no authority. What's more, Burnham was tried by law, sentenced, and then pardoned. She was functionally a step below, in that she lost her First Officer position while retaining her rank. Kirk had most of the serious charges against him dismissed in the greatest plea bargain in galactic history, and got a reduction in rank and command of a new ship.

You might say that we already discussed that, but I think it's important to understand the gravity of the two situations, and how Kirk's situation was much, much worse. And the motivations. Burnham did it based on logic and precedent. Kirk did it based on committment to two friends.

If we compare coal to coal though, based on service records and such, you could easily compare Sulus assault on security personnel and conspiracy to steal the Enterprise against Burnham. Or Uhuras. She held an officer at gunpoint and illegally confined him. But you might say they have longer distinguished careers, so let's go Spock and Pike. Spock was an impressive officer, and the best first officer in the fleet, but he risked the lives of every person aboard the Enterprise when he took Pike to Talos 4. It was clear mutiny and violation of a law that carried the death penalty. All for a friend. No trial, no nothing. Let bygones be bygones.

I think though, at this point, we can stop comparing and look at the similarities. We know Star Trek is a TV show and it plays fast and loose with "reality." But if we try to come up with an in-universe reasoning for BOTH situations, I think we arrive at an interesting conclusion: in the future, and especially in TOS time, Starfleet and the Federation believe in rehabilitation and that one bad decision shouldn't hamstring your life or career. They look at the total good you do, and what would happen if they just let your life continue as it was. Kirk is infinitely more useful to Starfleet on the bridge of a ship, rather in a brig. So is Burnham. Actually, I like the way that Burnhams story runs, because although it's not said, I think Burnham was unfairly made an example of, from the context. She's the first mutineer, and got cashiered quickly. It also was during the Klingon war, and we see Burnham get unfairly blamed for starting it all throughout the series. She didn't start the war, and actually, she almost prevented it - had her mutiny been successful, TKuvmas words would have rung hollow to the other Klingons. I think they realized the grief they were giving her, in light of her helping to save the Federation, and saving Starfleet from it's own vile actions on Qonos. She was punished, she endured it, and she was repentant and held onto the values of the Federation.


As far as your bet, I'll take it. Most people watching Discovery probably dont have an issue with Burnham, I would think, or they wouldn't be watching. What difference would it make if she was Captain anyway? She's already the star. Making her Captain would just make the focus seem more appropriate. I personally would rather Saru be captain, because I'd like to see him be the first Alien captain, and I think he has better stuff to be Captain, and Burnham is an ideal, challenging First Officer.

Others have elaborated better on why a different focus doesn't make this show "not Trek," so I won't go into that.

And no problem! There's no need for personal attacks, we're just people discussing a show willingly. I'm guessing neither of us have CBS stock, or are related to any cast members, so there's no need for cyber fisticuffs! *L*

[Bridger]

As someone who does not use Social Medial all that much, how do you tell if something trends or not?

There is a list of topic that are currently trending, for example on twitter it is on the left side called Trends, for example right now Game of Thrones is trending.

[LogicalLeopard]

There is a list of topic that are currently trending, for example on twitter it is on the left side called Trends, for example right now Game of Thrones is trending.

Seems like Discovery would never trend on Twitter. When you watch Star Trek, where does the average Trek fan run to talk about it? Places like this, TrekToday, I use Disqus, those sorts of places. Trek is more niche than wildly popular, like Game of Thrones. I think the social media site where Discovery gets the most love is probably Tumblr.

[Bridger]

Seems like Discovery would never trend on Twitter. When you watch Star Trek, where does the average Trek fan run to talk about it? Places like this, TrekToday, I use Disqus, those sorts of places. Trek is more niche than wildly popular, like Game of Thrones. I think the social media site where Discovery gets the most love is probably Tumblr.

Star Trek Discovery is a high value production and watched by the millions according to CBS so if that is true it would trend at least once yet it has not.

[Sul-Matuul]

Talking about stats and numbers of reviews is meaningless here. We don't have those numbers and nobody can say why the reviews dropped off other than they did drop off. By contrast to the drop off in numbers you could argue that the average review actually went up; so were most of those additional reviews just all the people screaming how terrible the show was and they got bored of doing that?
Nobody knows so it’s probably not worth discussing it.

What we do know is that a 3rd season was given the green light when we weren’t even half way into this one. That to me shows a network willing to keep the show going, they’d not do that if it was failing and doing them harm.

[JByb04]

There is a list of topic that are currently trending, for example on twitter it is on the left side called Trends, for example right now Game of Thrones is trending.

I think the reason GoT is trending is because of the long wait between seasons and it's had 7 Seasons of excellent story telling behind it.

I have said it before and I will say it again. CBS placing Star Trek behind a paywall is holding the franchise back. If it were on network TV I think the show would do better. Plus we would have actual ratings and numbers to reference in these debates.

As it stands CBS is depending on Star Trek to keep All Access afloat.

[Sul-Matuul]

I think the reason GoT is trending is because of the long wait between seasons and it's had 7 Seasons of excellent story telling behind it.

cough, cough Sand Snakes & Dorne....cough cough


On topic though, I do agree the paywall is doing more harm than good. Older Trek shows were on TV of some form in most countries. It allowed people to just hop on to a channel and get into something very easily. These days these paywall streaming services means it's very hard to get into something without forking out a fortune for a million different services.
I think they are seriously harming their potential audience by limiting the ability of people to just casually drop into the series.

[Strathkin]

Here's a page from CBS with limited (highlights) shown, so visit the original site for more:
https://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-...ery-season-2-/
Or visit the website HERE - on what the critics are saying.


Image of Pike having walked onto the Discovery, Start of Season 2 in revised TOS yellow, in the Chair with Red stitch·ing more subtle humor.

For those commenting on viewers, a lot of information hasn't been shared, but CBS seems very happy so far:
https://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-...-for-season-3/

While the information wasn't updated since it was published Feb 27th, Following the April 11th 5:30 EDT broadcast, they did change one image and I believe replaced it with:


▪ Denote how it references Season 3 of Discovery, yet now shows the Enterprise? Not suggesting anything, but this Thursday's Episode many will want to catch.

[Petrarch]

In that particular photo of Pike, there's definitely more than a whiff of a young William Shatner/Kirk going on.

[LogicalLeopard]

Star Trek Discovery is a high value production and watched by the millions according to CBS so if that is true it would trend at least once yet it has not.

It's also streaming, and not live, so why would it trend on Twitter? GOT trends because it's the biggest show on television, and there are a lot of people who watch it RIGHT when it comes out. I don think it's the same for Discovery, and I dont think Discovery fans go to Twitter to discuss it, they are more likely to go to Trek oriented sites to discuss it. GoT is water cooler discussion, which makes it more suited for Twitter. It has transcended nerddom to pop culture.

- - - Updated - - -

I have said it before and I will say it again. CBS placing Star Trek behind a paywall is holding the franchise back. If it were on network TV I think the show would do better. Plus we would have actual ratings and numbers to reference in these debates.

As it stands CBS is depending on Star Trek to keep All Access afloat.

Yeah, I think both of those things are true and I think CBS does not care about ratings, but cares about subscribers brought in by Star Trek. They are trying to keep CBSAA afloat and profitable, and keeping their most valuable property behind a paywall is the only thing that will help that. It sucks for growing Star Trek, but it's great for growing CBSAA.

- - - Updated - - -

What we do know is that a 3rd season was given the green light when we weren’t even half way into this one. That to me shows a network willing to keep the show going, they’d not do that if it was failing and doing them harm.

What's more, they're launching spin offs and other shows. If it wasn't doing well, they could have just said, "Yeah, we're just going to wrap up this Discovery story and move forward with the Picard series."

[Morris]

What we do know is that a 3rd season was given the green light when we weren’t even half way into this one. That to me shows a network willing to keep the show going, they’d not do that if it was failing and doing them harm.

Yeah, I think both of those things are true and I think CBS does not care about ratings, but cares about subscribers brought in by Star Trek. They are trying to keep CBSAA afloat and profitable, and keeping their most valuable property behind a paywall is the only thing that will help that. It sucks for growing Star Trek, but it's great for growing CBSAA.

- - - Updated - - -



What's more, they're launching spin offs and other shows. If it wasn't doing well, they could have just said, "Yeah, we're just going to wrap up this Discovery story and move forward with the Picard series."

I don't believe that Discovery was renewed early because of great ratings. LogicalLeopard is stepping on, and around the right answer.

Discovery was renewed, and new series are in development, not because of Discovery's ratings, but because Discovery is CBS All Access' biggest subscriber maker. When Discovery's season is over, I'll bet that CBSAA subscribership drops drastically until Discovery's next season.

Through the development of new Star Trek-related series, CBSAA hopes to retain their Star Trek fan subscriber base by keeping Star Trek-related content on for most of the year. It's disappointing that it's behind a paywall, but it's doubtful that we would see this much (if any) Star Trek development, if Discovery was on broadcast television. Discovery would have probably been cancelled after its first season because of insufficient ratings, if not for it being a CBSAA property.

It's a double-edged sword.

Do you want to pay for Star Trek-related content, or have limited content (or none at all) for free!

[Rellimie]

I have said it before and I will say it again. CBS placing Star Trek behind a paywall is holding the franchise back. If it were on network TV I think the show would do better. Plus we would have actual ratings and numbers to reference in these debates.

As it stands CBS is depending on Star Trek to keep All Access afloat.

I have the exact opposite thinking. Streaming is the future of television. The reliance on advertising revenue has killed so many genre shows. If Firefly was a streaming show that premiered in 2018 it never would have been canceled. SyFy canceled The Expanse, a streaming service saved it. If The Orville was on a streaming service Season 3 would have already been announced.

Adhering to advertising is killing television as they really only care about certain demographics......direct subscribers paying money for content they want is a much cleaner way of making sure that shows like Star Trek, The Expanse, etc.. stay on the air.

- - - Updated - - -

Discovery was renewed, and new series are in development, not because of Discovery's ratings, but because Discovery is CBS All Access' biggest subscriber maker. When Discovery's season is over, I'll bet that CBSAA subscribership drops drastically until Discovery's next season.

I'm not sure what the difference is here. Either Discovery is bringing in a ton of subscribers or it's not. If it's bringing in subscribers and then canceling after the season is over, are they not watching Discovery? In streaming there are now "ratings". It's subscribers and viewers, no other metric is needed really.

[WelshAvenger]

Streaming is the future of television.

You're right about that. I fee l that the networks are run by dinosaurs who want to have their cake and eat it. "Netflix is earning tonnes of cash, let's make our own version of the platform!" instead of, "Let's pitch this to Netflix and maybe they'll cover the costs of production. We'll have global distribution on their bandwidth, including the US and Canada." Alas we know which way they went.

I also wonder what will happen when people realise that the shows that they want to see across the different services, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Crave, etc and Disney and Apple coming soon, are going to cost a fortune to maintain subscriptions?