• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Is it common for adult fans to watch Star Trek Prodigy?

As would the enormous popularity of Star Wars and Doctor Who, which are not labelled "kids shows."

Who says they aren't? At this point, the majority of the screen time of canonical Star Wars productions consists of animated TV series directed at younger viewers. The movies themselves explicitly announce themselves as fairy tales: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." Lucas has never made a secret of the fact that he intended the franchise to evoke the feel of the cinematic adventure serials he watched as a child. A huge part of the franchise's commercial and cultural success has always been driven by its toy and game tie-ins, and indeed a great deal of the universe's lore, such as character and species names and backstories, was created for the toys, not the films or books.

By the same token, the iconic representation of the primary target audience for Doctor Who has always been "children hiding behind the sofa." It's always been seen as something children and their parents watch together, and it's always catered to a young audience with its supplemental materials such as its weekly comic strip, magazine annuals, Children in Need specials, concerts, and merchandise. The whole reason Russell T. Davies created Torchwood as an adult-oriented, "post-watershed' show in the Doctor Who universe is because that's a different target audience than Doctor Who itself has. Granted, there was also The Sarah Jane Adventures aimed at a younger target audience, but there are more than two target age levels.
 
I don't pay much attention to labels. if a show looks interesting to me, I watch it and don't care if someone that I don't know thinks it's for kids. I officially turned "old as dirt" recently, but even before that, I didn't take any real stock in what others said a show was meant for.
I also pay no attention "labels." I can't recall the last time I read a "review" of any media by a "professional reviewer," for just the reason you stated: I don't know anything about the (presumed) person who wrote it. Ergo, reading their "professional review" would serve no purpose.
 
Who says they aren't? At this point, the majority of the screen time of canonical Star Wars productions consists of animated TV series directed at younger viewers. The movies themselves explicitly announce themselves as fairy tales: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." Lucas has never made a secret of the fact that he intended the franchise to evoke the feel of the cinematic adventure serials he watched as a child. A huge part of the franchise's commercial and cultural success has always been driven by its toy and game tie-ins, and indeed a great deal of the universe's lore, such as character and species names and backstories, was created for the toys, not the films or books.

By the same token, the iconic representation of the primary target audience for Doctor Who has always been "children hiding behind the sofa." It's always been seen as something children and their parents watch together, and it's always catered to a young audience with its supplemental materials such as its weekly comic strip, magazine annuals, Children in Need specials, concerts, and merchandise. The whole reason Russell T. Davies created Torchwood as an adult-oriented, "post-watershed' show in the Doctor Who universe is because that's a different target audience than Doctor Who itself has. Granted, there was also The Sarah Jane Adventures aimed at a younger target audience, but there are more than two target age levels.
Yeah I mean you could check on streaming services whether the Star Wars movies or shows or Doctor Who is tagged as a "kids show" as Prodigy is.
 
Star Wars has long been labelled a "kid's show." It was considered lesser fair at the time it was made, and Lucas still called it a franchise for kids, including when he was making Clone Wars.

The fact is, the numbers didn't support Prodigy's continuation, and it didn't move up until it was cancelled and people became fearful of not seeing it again. So, suddenly, with the illusion of scarcity, it became popular.
Source?
 
Yeah I mean you could check on streaming services whether the Star Wars movies or shows or Doctor Who is tagged as a "kids show" as Prodigy is.

Who cares what a streaming service says? These franchises have been around since long before the streaming services existed. Labels don't change reality.
 
Who cares what a streaming service says? These franchises have been around since long before the streaming services existed. Labels don't change reality.
Well, evidently my central point has been lost here, because it seems that you think what you're saying contradicts what I'm saying. It doesn't. My viewpoint is also that no one should care.
 
Well, evidently my central point has been lost here, because it seems that you think what you're saying contradicts what I'm saying. It doesn't. My viewpoint is also that no one should care.

You said Star Wars and Doctor Who were not labeled as kids' shows. While that may be true within the narrow confines of what some streaming service says, it is incorrect in a larger, more meaningful context. Both of them have always, always been intended for children first and foremost, and for adults who aren't too self-conscious about their maturity to enjoy something youthful at heart.
 
You said Star Wars and Doctor Who were not labeled as kids' shows. While that may be true within the narrow confines of what some streaming service says, it is incorrect in a larger, more meaningful context. Both of them have always, always been intended for children first and foremost, and for adults who aren't too self-conscious about their maturity to enjoy something youthful at heart.
I don't disagree with any of that. I was just pondering some explanation for why what I consider to be the best "new" Star Trek show seems to be among the least popular. So I was speculating that some adults may automatically dismiss "kids shows" and that that might partly explain it.
 
I don't disagree with any of that. I was just pondering some explanation for why what I consider to be the best "new" Star Trek show seems to be among the least popular. So I was speculating that some adults may automatically dismiss "kids shows" and that that might partly explain it.
Lack of marketing, poor release coordination with Nickelodeon, and minimal draw from a viewing audience.
 
It's the perfect Trek for a person who'd a Trekkie and a parent, because you can watch it with your kid. And even if your kid isn't a Trekkie, it's interesting enough for you, thecadult Trekkie, to watch and enjoy. And maybe your kid will join you.
 
Digressing, in "Preludes", the Vindicator says that the Vau N'Akat's "last remaining Construct" was planted aboard the Protostar. This suggests that the Vau N'Akat had created more Constructs. Did I miss a part in the show where this was explained, e.g., what was their original purpose, how many were there, and what happened to the others?
It was not explained, not in season 1 at least. I assumed that the others were used during the civil war and/or used up in failed attempts to infect Federation vessels (in their own time period, not in the past), but maybe season 2 will shed new light on this.

Star Wars has long been labelled a "kid's show." It was considered lesser fair at the time it was made, and Lucas still called it a franchise for kids, including when he was making Clone Wars.

The fact is, the numbers didn't support Prodigy's continuation, and it didn't move up until it was cancelled and people became fearful of not seeing it again. So, suddenly, with the illusion of scarcity, it became popular.
You have mentioned the numbers for Prodigy a few times here, but did you actually see numbers or a report that mentioned this? AFAIK, we never got solid numbers nor did P+ really elaborate on why Prodigy was dropped, other than the usual platitudes.

While it clearly must have been considered a commercial failure, that doesn't have to mean that the numbers were bad per se. It could have been fairly well watched on P+ (IIRC there were numbers indicating that), but not by the right demographic. It could have done fairly well on P+, but not on Nickolodeon. It could be, as King Daniel claims, that it was meant as a vehicle to sell toys and viewing figures were secondary to the failure to materialise those sales. Finally, it can be that it was meant as a loss leader in order to gain an audience in the future - for the long-term sustainment of the franchise - and that it was dropped as a "nice to have but not necessary now" when the financial situation of P+ worsened.

I don't think it suddenly became popular because of the cancellation, I think the effect was limited to some active online fans that are but a very small part of the overall audience. The numbers were probably there from the start and didn't noticeably increase because some Star Trek fans suddenly wanted to check out the animation for children, that was beneath them earlier.

What may have changed is that Netflix simply has a far larger potential audience, especially among children, and that the sales of physical items like the boxsets did prove that a non-negligible number of viewers were willing to open their wallets in order to get season 2. The sales of physical discs were also a result of the reminder that digital content can be removed by the "rights holders" at any time.

As for Star Wars, it may be sometimes mentioned as being aimed at children, but it is certainly not universally described in that way. When the movies were in theathres, at least around here the audience considered largely of adults. They don't have the stigma attached to them that children animation has.
 
You have mentioned the numbers for Prodigy a few times here, but did you actually see numbers or a report that mentioned this? AFAIK, we never got solid numbers nor did P+ really elaborate on why Prodigy was dropped, other than the usual platitudes.
A hypothesis. And it's fascinating to see the swing from "This is a good show, but cancelled" to "This is the best show!"
As for Star Wars, it may be sometimes mentioned as being aimed at children, but it is certainly not universally described in that way. When the movies were in theathres, at least around here the audience considered largely of adults. They don't have the stigma attached to them that children animation has.
Regardless of what it was accepted as, it was a kid's film in development.
 
Digressing, in "Preludes", the Vindicator says that the Vau N'Akat's "last remaining Construct" was planted aboard the Protostar. This suggests that the Vau N'Akat had created more Constructs. Did I miss a part in the show where this was explained, e.g., what was their original purpose, how many were there, and what happened to the others?
It was not explained, not in season 1 at least. I assumed that the others were used during the civil war and/or used up in failed attempts to infect Federation vessels (in their own time period, not in the past), but maybe season 2 will shed new light on this.

Thanks for answering! I'd thought that it was unlikely anyone would have picked up my question there. I was also thinking the Constructs might have been used in their civil war. Something I caught on a rewatch was how the Diviner said the Federation was responsible for the war not only because the people became divided between anti- and pro-Federation, but ALSO because the Federation "refused to take sides" in the conflict. He's essentially saying that if one side had won quickly (i.e., the side the Federation supported), that might have been less bad for the Vau N'Akat people and Solum than the (presumably) decades-long civil war that did occur. Interesting implication of the Prime Directive, as seen by the Diviner.

Yeah I meant only in season 1. I have not yet been able to watch season 2 as I regrettably do not know French.
 
It was my favorite of the streaming Treks until SNW showed up (and even then, SNW only surpasses it some of the time, not all of the time.) I found it a fresh and fun take on Trek only hampered by its 30-minute format.
But I've only seen PRO S1; S2 could change my feelings, of course.

Oh and I'm officially older than dirt, wending my way through my seventh decade on this ball of dust.
 
I'm 39.

Had trouble getting into it. It's good enough for a kids show, but it really struggled to keep my interest.
 
I'm 39.

Had trouble getting into it. It's good enough for a kids show, but it really struggled to keep my interest.
Are you interested in spending an entire season exclusively following up on a TNG episode that left little room for any further mystery?

I'm sorry, I've had a few.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top