Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Possibly nothing.

As you said? Paramount+ really doesn’t have much to offer.

Oh there’s all the Star Trek (I think? Maybe no Prodigy?) sure. And yes I’ll happily watch TNG or DS9 at the drop of a hat. But by the time P+ was a thing? I’d already bought those shows on Prime.

Then we get absolute guff like Section 31. A show so bad there’s no argument on Dakka that’s is bad. So terrible that when I, with my well earned and entirely deserved reputation for enjoying Utter Crap, had nothing good to say about it? A portion of Dakka trembled at just how god awful and utterly irredeemable it must be. A moment so rare it’s akin to Frankie Boyle describing a joke as a bit much, or Jack Whitehall saying a joke wasn’t funny.

SNW is…fine. I enjoy it, but seemingly not as much as others.

Other than that? There just wasn’t anything I felt especially compelled to watch. Or at least, pay an extra subscription a month to watch.

Now, let’s do a quick compare to its latest stablemate, HBO Max.

First off the bat? HBO Max is more expensive. £10 a month without ads. But for that tenner? I’ve so far watched Dune Prophecy (fabulous), True Blood S1 and most of S2 (it’s…ok. Not quite getting into it, but it’s perfectly acceptable) and a rewatch of GoT. Actual proper quality telly. Stuff which, whilst I don’t think I’ll subscribe every single month, I’d genuinely don’t mind paying £10 to access when I want.

Paramount+? Trek (own what I want already) and Beavis and Butthead. Except….because feth you, audience only has a select few episode of the original run, and then lost exclusivity on the new ones.

So why would I continue to subscribe? Oh I’ll dip in now and again. For instance, I’m well up for S2 of Academy, provided they don’t tax write off. And I may chip in for the next run of my beloved Beavis and Butthead.

And speaking of cartoon daftness? HBO Max carries Gumball, Regular Show and Uncle Grandpa. So should I feel my brain needs to be cleared of clevers, I’ve some good options there. Especially Gumball. Bloody love Gumball. Also Adventure Time, though I fear that’s been memed to death. Also Jake has the same voice actor and voice as Bender out of Futurama, the least funny animated character ever, which has dented my enjoyment of an otherwise amusing show.

Yeah the only way I can see it working would be if its some kind of undisclosed limit "400,000 who watched every episode without pausing once" or in a very specific timeframe or such.

The number just doesn't make sense otherwise considering that even a poor quality ST show is still a ST show and its still an IP with a huge multi-generation fanbase.

Is weird. When I looked at other Trek shows streaming figures? OK it wasn’t in-depth, but it was expressed not as Viewers, but as Minutes watch. Because cookies and that would provide such minutiae quite easily.

So the 400,000 if anything, must be an extrapolation of the usual data.

And so far as I can tell? A main consideration for a streaming service is less who’s watching what on a show by show basis, and more Subscriber Numbers. You want those to grow first and foremost. That’s your bread and butter income. From there? Ad revenue in the modern day. If people aren’t watching your Platform, you’re less appealing to advertisers. But do they really care exactly what is being watched?

Possibly. I don’t know how it’s arranged. Do I pay advertise on the platform as a whole, with algorithmic assistance to get the right ads to the right eyes, or can I specify shows or a genre?

That could make a difference. If I’ve something I’m confident appeals to Trekkies, do I especially care which Trek shows my ads pop up on? If the classics are still getting millions of minutes of views a week or month, am I, as a source of revenue, especially bothered if the latest show has lacklustre viewing time?

But, if I’m paying an additional premium to ensure My Ads are going on the New Show? Yes, I would then care. Because if that’s not getting my guff in front of enough eyeballs, the premium isn’t worth it,

Paramount+ might have a small resurgence. For a bit, Yellowstone was insanely popular in the US. The show is getting an actual sequel (not some strange quasi-spinoff) in the form of Dutton Ranch (aka the further adventures of Rip and Beth).

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Paramount+ might have a small resurgence. For a bit, Yellowstone was insanely popular in the US. The show is getting an actual sequel (not some strange quasi-spinoff) in the form of Dutton Ranch (aka the further adventures of Rip and Beth).

Really? I felt they had run out of ideas in the last two seasons of Yellowstone already...

I have paramount plus free on sky allong side disney and HBOmax.
Only activated it last year and I have been following the new series, first Strange New Worlds (excellent), Academy (good), Lower decks (the new futurama in my house).
Waiting for new seasons I am going through Discovery (part way though season 3 after the Big Jump)- which dispite being mary-sue and the ship of idiots (with Tilly and Reno) is not actually awful as TV, but is seriously wrong for startrek.
What the hell klingons? if only the religous extreme house had the new look and styling it would be odd but allof them?
The mushroom drive.
Mary-sue being a mary sue and related to spock who she overshadows in all acoumplushments...
The mushroom drive.
Half the first season in the mirror universe was fun but a war was on?
the mushroom drive
Mirror universe and end of life in multiverse season1, end of sentient life via skynet in 2? calm down...less coffee and sugar for the 12 year olds writing it.
They wanted a hyperspace drive more or less like in B5 but didnt want to admit copying the notes but an entire subspace of a single fungi? I thought Startrek was one of the harder SF series - disapointed.
Ok the Empress in prime universe was great, but it works better so far in the future if only because they can cause no more damage to canon. Still one psychic and boom - all dilithium reactions explode, see above.

Picard is supposed to be good if you love TNG (its ok for me so I am avoiding picard) So appart from Disco and the directly linked sec31 the rest is contuing the star trek resonable to great depending on series/episode, with lots of internet whining, and still better recieved than the Diseny starwars, which apart from the sequel trilogy has actually also been rather consistantly resonable to great depending. (Apparently They had an overall plan for the trilogy - shame no one told the people making them).

Continuing Strange New Worlds makes sense - its good and feeds in to TOS, and we will have most of a crew to follow after the change over. Dont quite get limiting Academy as the tone will naturally shift as the get though the course and graduate, Its a show about becoming, its in the title, why the little faith?
Oh Yeah... Disco...
After they took the coffee and sugar away maybe the 12 year olds grew up and learnt from the other shows?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So the 400,000 if anything, must be an extrapolation of the usual data.

It's also possible it's just made up.

I bring it up because it's being talked about a lot in fan spaces and youtube and the like, but yeah. It's a low number. It's not verified. It's not like we don't already have a history of people who dislike current trek just plain making gak up for views so *shrug* Those haters have already switched to new topics even with apparent news the sets are being dismantled and sold off being treated as evidence that Kurtzman and his production company are being put out. I don't like most of the work Kurtzman's done myself but like, these people just straight up jump to conclusions and lie and have been for years. Red Letter Media isn't usually that bad but who knows.

Maybe I was wrong to bring it up this much. It really just could be completely made up and the cancellation and lack of news about any new projects could be about contracts, financing or a dozen other things.

Denial is the first stage...

Tends to require facts to deny though.

If it only garnered 400,000 viewers then that’s a pretty poor showing.

But given P+ claims 79,000,000 subscribers? It’s such a tiny number (0.005% tiny) it seems inherently ludicrous. Especially for a big name property like Star Trek, and a perfectly fine entry into said big name property.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tends to require facts to deny though.

If it only garnered 400,000 viewers then that’s a pretty poor showing.

But given P+ claims 79,000,000 subscribers? It’s such a tiny number (0.005% tiny) it seems inherently ludicrous. Especially for a big name property like Star Trek, and a perfectly fine entry into said big name property.

We already know that certain providers include Paramount+ as part of their cable/satellite/streaming package, and some of those customers never watch the channel. It's reasonable to assume that those people are included in the 79 million subscribers, which means you have a TON of subscribers that don't touch the content at all. NOW you take something as niche as Star Trek tends to be, mix that with viewer apathy amongst actual subscribers, combine that with the people who are pirating the shows to "stick it to" that dirty Paramount for whatever political reasons they deem it necessary, and it's pretty easy to see how it got to those numbers. Strange New Worlds has the benefit of quite a bit of character recognition, which is why it didn't do as poorly as SFA. I argue that it's better written and truer to Trek, which is probably ALSO a factor in the lower viewership. And are we considering this metric is an average, where higher people watched the premiere and dropped it afterward?

I'm just saying that maybe the knee-jerk reaction shouldn't be "evil corporations and online trolls of whatever political persuasion killed it, and Paramount catered to them rather than following all the money that this super special bestest show SURELY made."

I mean? Maybe? Possibly?

It’s not that a Trek show got low viewership. God knows Section 31 was a Trek show that well earned low viewership by being Utter Utter Bobbins. Yet Section 31 got 170,000,000 minutes of viewing in its first week, despite universal piss taking at how crap it was.

So again, we see that streaming viewership isn’t measured in viewers, but minutes of viewing. Which adds to suspicion someone, somewhere, just pulled 400,000 out their rear end, for whatever purpose. Because how did they arrive at that figure when it seems that’s not how viewership is reported?

Now I’ve proven time and again I’m no longer a maths whizz. But for Section 31? If we divide its watch minutes (170,000,000) by its run time (95) we get a viewership of 1,789,473 full viewings.

How that might be affected by people skipping the end credits, I dunno. But if those were say, 5 minutes? That’s still going to effect things (170,000,000 / 90 =1,888,888 viewers)

Hence 400,000 viewers. For a 10 episode season? Just seems near unfeasibly low, especially given how it doesn’t seem anyone that actually watched it was particularly negative about it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I mean? Maybe? Possibly?

What about conceivably? Or is it...INCONCEIVABLE!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just seems near unfeasibly low, especially given how it doesn’t seem anyone that actually watched it was particularly negative about it.

There are shows that get even less so I don't think it is unfeasible but it certainly seems unlikely for an IP of Start Trek's pedigree, even if it were one of the less watched series.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I mean? Maybe? Possibly?

It’s not that a Trek show got low viewership. God knows Section 31 was a Trek show that well earned low viewership by being Utter Utter Bobbins. Yet Section 31 got 170,000,000 minutes of viewing in its first week, despite universal piss taking at how crap it was.

So again, we see that streaming viewership isn’t measured in viewers, but minutes of viewing. Which adds to suspicion someone, somewhere, just pulled 400,000 out their rear end, for whatever purpose. Because how did they arrive at that figure when it seems that’s not how viewership is reported?

Now I’ve proven time and again I’m no longer a maths whizz. But for Section 31? If we divide its watch minutes (170,000,000) by its run time (95) we get a viewership of 1,789,473 full viewings.

How that might be affected by people skipping the end credits, I dunno. But if those were say, 5 minutes? That’s still going to effect things (170,000,000 / 90 =1,888,888 viewers)

Hence 400,000 viewers. For a 10 episode season? Just seems near unfeasibly low, especially given how it doesn’t seem anyone that actually watched it was particularly negative about it.

Perhaps there was a significant # of your speculated 1,888,888 Section 31 viewers who, after being fed crap, just said "No Thanks" concerning Academy?

Given its impact on your IQ, as all sense and reason in the face of drivel? Maybe.

It’s not that 400,000 is inconceivable. It was well received outside of Sad Weird Internet Men Review Bombing It. And frankly, they don’t have the clout they think they do.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It was well received outside of Sad Weird Internet Men Review Bombing It.

I'm not sure that is true as feelings seemed a little mixed and saying it is only "Sad Weird Internet Men" that didn't like it reeks of "you only criticize Ghostbusters (2016) because you hate women" reductionist copium. It appears to fall somewhere between SNW and ST in terms of popularity.

I’ve seen the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

Low reviews do not equal Sad Weird Internet Men. Thats true. Let’s not claim either claimed otherwise.

But when a review is along the lines of “DEI trash” “wOkE”? We can make a reasonably informed guess as to who never actually bothered to watch it in the first place.

And hey, there is a fair amount to criticise in the first episode. S.A.M. is particularly annoying and sticks out like a sore thumb. And I don’t recall it explaining what she is straight away. So there’s one example where I’ve no problem with a dodgy review, or peeps perhaps not watching further beyond the initial debut.

But back on the topic. If it’s 400,000, it’s 400,000. A sad number for a perfectly fine shoe with some really solid Trek moments. It just feels overly low.

https://thatparkplace.com/starfleet-academy-nielsen-ratings/

Suggests the debut got 1.27m viewers worth of minutes. The search result above it claimed 40,000 viewers.

Thatparkplace offered the following quote.

Speaking on a podcast, YouTuber Mike Stoklasa said, “I heard from my source… The entire first season of Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, not individual episodes, the entire season total views, about 400,000,” he said. “Not per episode. Cumulatively, the entire series. About 400,000 views. Which is an average of maybe 40,000 views per episode.”

YouTube bloke, claims a “source”. Not exactly information I’d take to heart myself.

Dunno who the YouTuber is, or what their usual content is. But let’s have a quick peep. Can’t seem to find his own channel, but he seems to be on Red Letter Media.

Even so. As reliable sources go? Some guy said that some guy said, when even before Academy aired we knew no further Trek stuff was in development?

Colour me skeptical. If I’m proven wrong in my skepticism, then fair enough. The world will still turn, and I’ll still enjoy Academy.

You changed your argument. You started with "it was well liked except by Sad Weird Internet Men" but now you are pivoting to "Sad Weird Internet Men exist and they did Sad Weird Internet Men things", which was never a point of contention. We know they are out there but one doesn't have to be a Sad Weird Internet Man to have issues with SFA or to recognize that it had some mixed feelings from the non Sad Weird Internet Men.


Sad Weird Internet Men

I think the main problem is that people have a hard time understanding that not everyone likes what they like, and that a fan of a franchise isn't beholden to support a show simply on the merits of it belonging to the franchise. So when their thing turns out to be rather unpopular and unsuccessful, they can't rationalize it. I got that wake up call when the Ultraverse failed. I didn't live in denial about it, I just made peace with the fact that not everybody likes what I like. If they did, you'd all play the editions I play. And we all know that you do NOT.

Mate. I’ve an entirely deserved reputation that I’m intensely proud of on Dakka for enjoying what I enjoy.

I’ll even offer some kind of reason why I’ve enjoyed something others didn’t. Not in a “I are smart” way. Go look for my Mad Doc Defends threads as supporting evidence.

If something is crap? Like, objectively crap? Section 31 for instance? I’ll bloody well say so. Look back in this very thread for supporting evidence.

If I’ve enjoyed something though? The next person not enjoying it is…entirely fair enough. I see no point, merit or value in telling someone to stop enjoying a thing just because I don’t enjoy it, or vice versa. That would be a waste of everyone’s time.

For instance? Rick and Morty. Can’t stand it. Hate it. Lower Decks? Can’t stand it. Hate it. Mighty Boosh? Can’t stand it. Hate it.And in those cases I’m slightly baffled that others do. But….i ultimately don’t care. Again, I can offer my reasons as to why for the sake of conversation if asked. But I’m not actually bothered that others do. Again, that would be a waste of everyone time.

But here? The claim of just 400,000 viewers seems daftly low. And so far? Tracks back to Some Guy Told Some Guy A Thing. And so, as I believe the kids say? I’m pressing X to doubt.

If it did only get a total of 400,000 viewers? That doesn’t impact my enjoyment of it one iota. But for now, I’ll do what I do and point out the internet is full of many claims, and just because someone looks like they might be connected, doesn’t in fact mean they are connected, or telling the truth, or haven been lied to.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
You changed your argument. You started with "it was well liked except by Sad Weird Internet Men" but now you are pivoting to "Sad Weird Internet Men exist and they did Sad Weird Internet Men things", which was never a point of contention. We know they are out there but one doesn't have to be a Sad Weird Internet Man to have issues with SFA or to recognize that it had some mixed feelings from the non Sad Weird Internet Men.


Sad Weird Internet Men

Fair, my wording should’ve been better in the original post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also? From the source I shared above?

Earlier article claims the equivalent of 1,270,000 full views for its two episode debut. Based on Nielsen reports.

It then quotes That Guy That Says Some Source Told Him it garnered 400,000 viewers total across 10 episodes.

Now. I’m not going to claim either as gospel. End of the day, two claims, one source. Doesn’t mean either is right.

But? There’s clearly a mismatch of information there.

One is based on alleged verifiable information though, the is Some Guy Told Us That Some Guy Told Him. I’m going to prefer the one with allegedly verifiable information, yeah?

Unless someone has an Unviewing Device which can suck out memories of having seen things, and so retroactively reduce viewer numbers. If they do? Bags me next because good lord there’s lots of stuff I’d like sooked out my bonce.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also also? It didn’t, according again to source? Its viewing figures were low. I’ve no problem accepting that. I genuinely don’t care that others didn’t enjoy the thing that I enjoyed.

But when one ostensibly verifiable claim is 1,270,000 million full views for two out of ten episodes? And the other claim is “less than a quarter of that is all it got across ten episodes”? I remain extremely doubtful the viewing figures were as low as the second claim.

I watched Section 31 becauseof MDG.

I wanted to see if the Irish Vulcan was as awesome as described.

It was amazing!

The rest of the film wasn't terrible. It just was a crap film that took place in the STU.

Kinda like how Kurt Russel's Soldier is in the same universe as Blade Runner.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The claim of just 400,000 viewers seems daftly low.

And I agreed with you on that.

it certainly seems unlikely for an IP of Start Trek's pedigree

So its a shonky number from a nonreliable source from a comment from an unknown third party.

I think ignoring it is best intill actual reliable inteligence comes in.

Been a while since I compiled one of these.

I can believe there are probably episodes of SA that have only hit 40k viewers. It feels doubtful to me that it is bringing in new fans and recently my wife, younger daughter (15), and myself have been watching old episodes of Trek on Heroes & Icons (an over-the-air station that plays Star Trek from 8 PM-1 AM Sunday-Friday). Watching old Trek feels so cozy compared to anything called "Trek" since 2009.

Well, getting back to the fun things of Trek?

We know that Transporter use a data buffer. And thanks to Scotty’s genius and various “why the bloody hell would anyone use one” holosuite whoopsies that the resulting data patterns can be stored in the buffer for an indeterminate amount of time.

Scotty managed several decades on an emergency basis, even if I think it was two others didn’t make it. But clearly the application exists, and can therefore be perfected with protocols and sufficient memory storage.

Something I hope shows up in S2 of Academy is the result of someone having done the maths and technological development to create an Evacuation Buffer. Even if it’s a specialised loadout, like how the Reliant Class had interchangeable Mission Pods? It just seems like a logical development of the techs potential.

Not necessarily to the degree of “one ship hoovers up an entire populace”. But a way to “easily” maximise evacuation potential.

 Overread wrote:
Yeah the only way I can see it working would be if its some kind of undisclosed limit "400,000 who watched every episode without pausing once" or in a very specific timeframe or such.

The number just doesn't make sense otherwise considering that even a poor quality ST show is still a ST show and its still an IP with a huge multi-generation fanbase.

I dunno man, a lot of that "huge multi-generational fanbase" seem like they're kinda done with it, at least in its modern incarnation and for now. It only took a couple of press releases prior to release to let me know with absolute certainty that Academy wasn't for me, I didn't even know it had come out until I read about it being cancelled, and when I asked a buddy who's actually a pretty Centrist Dad type when it comes to nuTrek(liked Picard S3, SNW except the musical guff, and Lower Decks, thinks the rest is dreck) he couldn't make it through the first episode.

All the owners of "nerd franchises" seem to have been betting on the idea you're referring to that at the end of the day there's no level of quality they can sink to that fans won't grumblingly accept and watch anyway, and I think we're at the limits of that now; purportedly poor viewing figures on recent nuTrek, a real lack of buzz around the Mando movie, people seem kinda over it. I know the popular wisdom is that all the nerds are actually super happy and it's just a few "grifters" on youtube stirring the pot, but pretty much nobody I know who's a fan of this kind of stuff is that hype these days.

I mean when you think about it, in all the years of nuTrek we never actually got what for my money is a "proper Star Trek show": new hero ship, new ensemble crew, continuing the story into a new time period that follows on from the previous ones and just telling interesting one-off or small arc stories. Some nuTrek shows have had some characteristics of that ideal, but none have met the standard; you know, where's the Current Year equivalent of TNG? I know there were rumblings about that Legacy show that seem to have fizzled, but that seemed more like Picard Season 4 and a continuation of that show's weird kinda fashy and nonutopian Federation than of the franchise as it was.

There's probably an element of burn-out too. In fairly recent times we've had Discovery, Picard, SNW, Lower Decks, Academy and Section 31 (and probably at least one I'm forgetting). The quality of those has been highly variable and too many of them have leaned on nostalgia rather than really trying to continue the core message of Trek.

One of the things that made previous ST shows memorable was that they felt like an event. This is probably mainly down to them happening before streaming was a thing, but I remember the announcements for Voyager and Enterprise and the huge excitement that followed. When it feels like you're getting a new show literally every year you lose that excitement.

Ya, but just a few years ago I was complaining how there was no Trek at all. So I don't take any of it for granted now.

Of those, it’s really only Picard S3 that gave me what I wanted - a follow up on post-Dominion War Alpha Quadrant.

Now to be fair, S1 and S2 did provide some backstory and events so I don’t want to write them off entirely. But S3 had the themes and feels I wanted.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Of those, it’s really only Picard S3 that gave me what I wanted - a follow up on post-Dominion War Alpha Quadrant.

Now to be fair, S1 and S2 did provide some backstory and events so I don’t want to write them off entirely. But S3 had the themes and feels I wanted.

For me that was Lower Decks and Prodigy, and the first season of SNW. That's at least something.

I enjoyed Picard but it REALLY needed

1) A pre-season to Season 1 that covers the whole of the Romulan situation. It suffers like Starwars 7 in building in a huge time jump which unsettles the viewer as character and world changes are big, but not something you were along for the ride for so its really hard to connect for many people.

2) A bit more inter-season connectivity. Eg where DID that massive fleet from season 1 go; why didn't they reach out to the friendly Borg for help with a Borg takeover in season 3 etc...



And the biggest failing, which is still fixable - where the HECK is the new season for Seven and her captaining her own ship!


Otherwise I see it as a great followup to a lot of the darker DS9 era Startrek and a peek at the underbelly of the Federation.
Alongside that yeah we got Lower Decks which is your more classic upbeat, optimistic ST series.