|
Duckbag posted:Honestly, the weirdest part of that episode is that they were treating this nice grassy planet with all its pretty jogging aryans as a glorified club med despite not knowing anything about them or their customs. How is that not a violation of the Prime Directive? Besides, even if they didn't have a rule explicitly against that sort of thing, who lets a teenager run around unsupervised on an alien planet? Picard should have been court martialed for that poo poo. It's especially funny because this was the episode about the Prime Directive, but they seem to be rewriting it every five minutes and can't even grasp its most basic implications. It made it blatantly obvious that the Prime Directive was just a lame way of manufacturing fake crises and, frankly, if they'd never mentioned it again, I think the series would have been better off.
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
I'm impressed they even mentioned "The Dominion" in any episode.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:The best use of the Prime Directive is First Contact (the episode, not the movie), which I think serves as a nice mission statement for Star Trek and what the Federation is supposed to represent overall. Also, "Who Watches the Watchers" IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:But DS9 wasn't popular with the masses It's worth remembering, that late in its run DS9 surpassed Baywatch as the most watched first-run syndicated tv show on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Q_res posted:It's worth remembering, that late in its run DS9 surpassed Baywatch as the most watched first-run syndicated tv show on the planet. That's not mutually exclusive. Plenty of shows get forgotten the second they go away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Q_res posted:It's worth remembering, that late in its run DS9 surpassed Baywatch as the most watched first-run syndicated tv show on the planet. Maybe I just know a better class of people and post on better sites, but it seems universal that DS9 was the best, certainly head and shoulders above voyager. Yet it has this reputation as being the black sheep, both in popularity and "trekness". Like you've got some rare good taste to prefer DS9 rather than Voyager, yet maybe 10% of nerds I know think differently. How did the ratings stack up?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:How did the ratings stack up? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Exactly what I would have predicted, tbh
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Oh look it's a trend line for "how interested people are in Star Trek." Am I reading this correctly in that Emissary was the most-watched Trek episode? Edit: I wanna know what that really poorly-rated Voyager episode is. Zurui fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
I want that chart to include TOS to see how ridiculous it'd look for the 'modern Trek' show's ratings compared to when TOS was on and there were only 3 channels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Zurui posted:Am I reading this correctly in that Emissary was the most-watched Trek episode? Yeah, I would expect so. It dropped at the height of TNG's popularity, after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I guess I'm not ready to tackle Enterprise right now. I'll give it another go in a month or so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
The more telling thing about Trek popularity is that at one point in time there were two series running and one in preproduction while movies were happening every few years. Now we get two films a decade and are getting a series one step removed from a fan production.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:The more telling thing about Trek popularity is that at one point in time there were two series running and one in preproduction while movies were happening every few years. Now we get two films a decade and are getting a series one step removed from a fan production. It stinks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Drink-Mix Man posted:Also, "Who Watches the Watchers" IMHO. At least one of those people eating up Picard's "it will be more rewarding if you figure it out yourself" horseshit probably died in agony from an easily curable disease.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
The most interesting thing to me is that all the post TNG shows follow almost the exact same trendline, other than a temporary boost at the beginning of each first season. I mean, it's the common wisdom that if Enterprise had been better quality in its first two seasons that it might have survived, but based on that chart it could have been a hundred copies of "In the Pale Moonlight" and it would have had the same fate. Star Trek was just on for too long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Hah, is that 3rd highest TNG dot Time's Arrow? I think I do remember a strong marketing campaign around Data's detached head. [/spoilers]
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Cons are weird. Actors expect certain questions and requests, and it makes them completely hosed to get something beyond the usual bullshit. So if you ever get to meet some Trek celeb, ask the, like, fifth question that comes to mind to get a more honest answer. Even if it is about rape gangs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
It really was a long road.  Downhill. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:The most interesting thing to me is that all the post TNG shows follow almost the exact same trendline, other than a temporary boost at the beginning of each first season. I mean, it's the common wisdom that if Enterprise had been better quality in its first two seasons that it might have survived, but based on that chart it could have been a hundred copies of "In the Pale Moonlight" and it would have had the same fate. Star Trek was just on for too long. Space sci-fi also hit a big lull during the 2000's. Farscape died ingloriously, Firefly was a ratings dud, the prequels blew goats, and the only two other space movies of note were Solaris and Sunshine (both of which flopped hard). If anything, it's a testament to the success of NuTrek that it was able to draw crowds to a movie about pew pew spaceships. Battlestar Galactica is the exception that proved the rule: it succeeded by being a drama first and a space show second (entire episodes were filmed where the only exterior shots were establishing ones).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
CharlieWhiskey posted:Hah, is that 3rd highest TNG dot Time's Arrow? I think I do remember a strong marketing campaign around Data's detached head. [/spoilers] Ballparking it because it's so compressed, I think that might actually be Relics or Cause & Effect. Or maybe Unification.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
That little green guy on the bottom there? That's "Juggernaut" which perfectly combined a lame retread of TNG concepts with moving out of the timeslot for a week. Highest-rated of TNG were: - All Good Things (17.4) - Encounter at Farpoint (15.7) - Unification I/II (15.4) - Aquiel (14.1) (wtf)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Aquiel wtf. I think that may be the one TNG episode I can't sit through.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Well, you could make a pretty strong case that "All Good Things" was the best TNG episode by a country mile, so it's pretty cool that it drew the most viewers, in a way. And not many shows go out on top, drawing more viewers in its final episode than ANY other episode. We also ought to remember that there was no such thing as viral marketing back then and ad saturation would only get you so many viewers - ESPECIALLY for a show like TNG at the time which was in first run syndication and not a proper network show. I am mystified by the presence of Aquiel, though - that was one of the lamest and most forgettable episodes in the entire canon of *all* star trek series
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
kaworu posted:I am mystified by the presence of Aquiel, though - that was one of the lamest and most forgettable episodes in the entire canon of *all* star trek series Well, Nielsen ratings just measure how many people tuned in the day it aired - how could any of those people have known that the episode wouldn't be good? Most likely there's some other explanation, like it got a lead-in from a premiere of some other show that had a lot of hype, or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Q_res posted:It's worth remembering, that late in its run DS9 surpassed Baywatch as the most watched first-run syndicated tv show on the planet. That was also the very tail-end of the first-run syndication model as new series were starting up on the babby networks (WB and UPN), and basic cable (FX, Sci-Fi). It was a strange era, but first-run syndication basically kept genre TV alive for a while (X-Files notwithstanding, and a fair number of X-Files knockoffs were syndicated.) Your Hercules, your Xena, hell, your Highlander. They're never going to release Kung Fu: the Legend Continues on a home format, are they? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
DarthJeebus posted:Aquiel wtf. I think that may be the one TNG episode I can't sit through. Aquiel is the one where Geordi hangs out in a dead girl's room, drinking her favorite drink, petting her dog and listening to her personal logs, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:Aquiel is the one where Geordi hangs out in a dead girl's room, drinking her favorite drink, petting her dog and listening to her personal logs, right? Yep. I don't think it's all that bad of an episode, I just love it for being such a perfect study on everything Geordi does wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Zurui posted:Space sci-fi also hit a big lull during the 2000's. Farscape died ingloriously, Firefly was a ratings dud, the prequels blew goats, and the only two other space movies of note were Solaris and Sunshine (both of which flopped hard). If anything, it's a testament to the success of NuTrek that it was able to draw crowds to a movie about pew pew spaceships. Battlestar Galactica is the exception that proved the rule: it succeeded by being a drama first and a space show second (entire episodes were filmed where the only exterior shots were establishing ones). If I remember right, BSG wasn't even that big a ratings hit, it was just pulling good ratings compared to the shovelware that Syfy was (is?) normally making GBS threads out. I think strong DVD sales were a big part of why they started splitting the seasons up. That, and it was a hit with critics, so I think Syfy also valued it for letting them say "see, we're not purely the channel of pro wrestling and ultra-cheap monster movies where any relative of a Syfy exec can become a director!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
One thing that's not quite as fair to that ratings graph is that it doesn't correct for general ratings decline across the board. The premiere of Enterprise had nearly as many people tuned into it as the most recent season of Big Bang Theory which is considered a ratings juggernaut. TV ratings in general have been cratering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yep. I don't think it's all that bad of an episode, I just love it for being such a perfect study on everything Geordi does wrong. Galaxy's Child is the "better" study, since it not only shows how big a goon he is around women, but also hits the "becomes a raging rear end in a top hat the minute anyone not of the Body intrudes on ~*his engine room*~" note.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:The premiere of Enterprise had nearly as many people tuned into it as the most recent season of Big Bang Theory which is considered a ratings juggernaut. Holy poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:Aquiel is the one where Geordi hangs out in a dead girl's room, drinking her favorite drink, petting her dog and listening to her personal logs, right? Makes perfect sense for the chief engineer to spend all of his time creeping on some dead girl. Not like he has a whole engineering section to run.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
I really want to like Star Trek Continues but uhhgg the acting and the pacing is so bad. I could handle one, but not both. Every scene just drags on with people slowly awkwardly delivering their lines. Some of them aren't bad and do pretty good impressions but others seem really miscast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Zurui posted:Space sci-fi also hit a big lull during the 2000's. Farscape died ingloriously, Firefly was a ratings dud, the prequels blew goats, and the only two other space movies of note were Solaris and Sunshine (both of which flopped hard). If anything, it's a testament to the success of NuTrek that it was able to draw crowds to a movie about pew pew spaceships. Battlestar Galactica is the exception that proved the rule: it succeeded by being a drama first and a space show second (entire episodes were filmed where the only exterior shots were establishing ones). Yeah, aside from Battlestar Galactica, the space opera genre pretty much died during the 2000s. I think a big part of it was because NASA had become a shell of its former self and people became less interested in space exploration as progress was slow and we no longer had the Soviet Union to compete with. That, and 9/11 crushed all feelings of optimism in America. During the 2000s, high fantasy, sword & sorcery things like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and the World of Warcraft reigned supreme. Now that it's the 2010s, those have fallen out of style and now we mainly get comic book superheroes and remakes of 80's movies. I know people love to play up some infantile rivalry between franchises, but the release of Star Wars literally saved Star Trek. If it weren't for Star Wars, we would have TOS and TAS and that would be it. Maybe if we're lucky, Star Wars might be able to save Star Trek again. Well, that is... until people get sick of Star Wars again. This is Disney we're talking about, here. Star Wars is on the way to becoming the next Marvel. Within the next few years, we're going to have so many Star Wars movies that none of us are going to get excited about a galaxy far, far away, anymore. Which is... you know, pretty similar to what happened with Star Trek, a series that had multiple TV shows running on air at the same time for many years while mediocre movies were steadily pumped out. It's almost like these things are cyclical...
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Hell, I'd be happy to see other space opera settings emerge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Hell, I'd be happy to see other space opera settings emerge. Hey we got The Expanse
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
We did get Mass Effect, even though it was a video game. I liked Mass Effect because it was a hell of a lot like Star Wars and Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Hell, I'd be happy to see other space opera settings emerge. The Expanse, Dark Matter, Killjoys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
We've also had John Carter of Mars, Jupiter Ascending, and a couple other big space opera flops. I'd say the more successful sci-fi of late has been the "realistic" sci-fi (Gravity, The Martian, Interstellar). And we've got Arrival and The Passengers coming up this fall/winter (along with more Star Wars).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:41
|
|
