What do I want from Star Trek Lower Decks?

CBS has announced that Star Trek Lower Decks premiers August 6th.  The first animated Star Trek series since the 1970s is also the first Trek series to be produced as a comedy. It tells the story of a group of low-ranking crewmembers of the USS Cerritos, which has a mission of second contact with new "new life and new civilization" which had first contact with some other Starfleet ship.

The very first trailer that came out did not impress me, but I will give Lower Decks a chance because I have seen every Star Trek episode of every series and it's nice to keep the collection complete.  BUT here are some things that will determine whether I keep watching:

• Good continuity.  This animated series is clearly intended for young audiences, but I still want stories that are consistent with the rest of Star Trek continuity.  Don't break the rules that we know so well.
• Social messages. Star Trek is always (or at least usually) about social messages. I want to see thoughtful morals to the stories. Even South Park has worthwhile "messages" embedded in its juvenile humor.
• Interesting characters.  In animation, it is easy to have cardboard cutouts for characters.  I want to see some depth, backstories, and something other than slapstick.
• In-Jokes.  Yes, I do want to see some references to other incarnations of Star Trek, obvious or even better subtle.

This series is set after the final TNG movie, Star Trek Nemesis, a period of time not addressed in detail on-screen, except for the snippets of back history given in Star Trek Picard. That gives them a little elbow room. I HOPE that in catering to children, they don't forget that they are likely to have their grown-up Trek fans watching, as well.

The series was originally announced as being produced for Nickelodeon, but the latest word is that the ten episodes of the first season will be on CBS All Access now, and will appear on Nik sometime in 2021.  A second season of Lower Decks is already in the works.  Curiously enough, ten episodes, one a week, take us up right up the premier of the third season of Star Trek Discovery in October.

Spock's Character Arc

The Star Trek character Spock is one of the best-known and beloved characters in American television. He is a central character in season two of Star Trek Discovery, and he began the story arc more...emotional than we might have expected.

How has Spock's character evolved over the years, spanning multiple series?

We first see Spock as the son of a Vulcan man and a human woman.  In The Animated Series, a seven-year-old Spock is bullied by other Vulcan children for being part human. He struggles with his emotions, particularly when his (very large) pet shelat, I Chaya, is critically wounded in the wilderness.  Spock chooses to allow an animal healer to provide I Chaya a painless death, rather than living on in pain. In doing this, Spock chooses to live his life in the Vulcan way of logic.

But in Discovery, we learn that Spock at a similar age also had affection for his older, human foster sister, Michael Burnham.  Their father, Sarek, had hoped that Michael would help Spock learn to balance the two sides of his personality, the more logical Vulcan alongside the more emotional human side.

But Michael unwisely drove Spock away, out of fear that "logic extremists" who were vexed that mixed-bloods were among them on Vulcan, would target Spock rather than herself. This rift, according to Spock in Discovery, caused him to pursue logic more ardently, but immediately after his youthful confrontation with Michael, Spock experienced a vision from the "Red Angel" telling him how to find the endangered Michael.

Thus we have competing influences in the young Spock that affect his balance between logic and emotion.  Fans generally accept the animated episode as "canon" for how Spock came to embrace the logical side of his makeup.  But the version of Spock who comes from the Discovery writers gives us a Spock who continues to be unbalanced between logic and emotion (as well as possessing a never-before-mentioned learning disability, which must have complicated his young life).

Sarek eventually arranges for Spock to join something the Discovery writers called the Vulcan Expeditionary Group, but Spock joins Starfleet instead. It has long been part of Trek continuity that Sarek actually wanted Spock to join the Vulcan Science Academy, and refused to speak to Spock for 18 years when Spock choose Starfleet. Discovery implies that Spock did not actually attend Starfleet Academy, but joined in some other way.  This is supported by Spock's statement in The Wrath of Khan that he had never taken the Kobyashi Maru test. Michael also did not attend the academy and made her way to a Starfleet commission via an alternative route.

We next see Spock as a lieutenant on the Enterprise a dozen years before Kirk takes command and a couple of years before he appears in Star Trek Discovery, which is set a couple of years AFTER the original series pilot. That pilot episode, The Cage, was the first time Leonard Nimoy played Spock and the character was not yet fully formed, but this Spock grins, often raises his voice, and generally behaves more emotionally that we expect today from a Vulcan character.

In Star Trek Discovery, Spock also begins his the season in a more emotional frame of mind, expressing anger, which Captain Pike, who had known him for some time, finds to be uncharacteristic.  Specifically, something triggers nightmares about the red signals, and Spock goes so far as to check himself into a psychiatric facility at Starbase 5. The writers were never explicit about what triggered this, but the implication is that Michael's mother, using The Suit, somehow triggered it, because it was needed for the overall defeat of Control.

By the Original Series, Spock had become generally logical and unemotional, but with strong friendships aboard Enterprise, presumably prompted by Michael Burnham's farewell admonitions to find people who seem farthest from him and to let them guide him to balance.  This is generally considered to be a foreshadowing of Spock's relationship with Kirk, but it also heralds his sparring friendship with McCoy.

In TOS, however, viewers had repeated hints that, when Spock was under stress, drugged, etc., his emotions were just below the surface.  As we have seen, this is true of all Vulcans.  They are not automatically logical.  They learn to actively suppress emotions.

Indeed, in The Motion Picture, shortly after the end of the Enterprise five-year mission, Spock undergoes the Kohlinar ritual to purge the last vestiges of emotion, suggesting that he wanted to end his balancing act between logic and emotion.  This would have been almost exactly 15 years after the Discovery season finale.

Maybe no longer being shipmates with Kirk, McCoy et al. meant Spock lost the balance they provided, although one would have hoped that the 15-year older Spock would have learned more self-regulation in the intervening years.

Regardless, Spock does not complete the Kohlinar, because Vger mentally calls to him across space, and an emotion, curiosity, gets the better of him. I can imagine Spock thinking, "Again?"  Was he secretly saying "this could be Control, I've got to return to Enterprise to check it out."

In the Motion Picture, Spock mind melds with the pure logic of Vger and finds it to be lacking. He comes to the realization that both parts of his personality, logic and emotion, must synergize. Possibly for the first time, he becomes fully comfortable with who he is and his ability to balance logic and emotion.

Of course, a few years later, he dies, has his katra refused with his body, and has to go through the process of discovering balance all over again.

Later in life, Spock becomes an unofficial ambassador to the Romulans. Because the Romulans were so driven by emotion, reuniting them would have meant the same epiphany for the cultures as Spock earlier had for his own personality. So he becomes a teacher, living in hiding, until possibly after the events of Star Trek Nemesis.

In the Kelvan timeline, weird things happen. Spock goes back in time and eventually dies. In the main timeline, we do not (yet) know Spock's ultimate fate (the movie rights and the TV rights are held by different companies and they are not obligated to conform to each other, however TV executive producer Alex Kurtzman has been involved in both).

From a storytelling point of view, episode and movie writers have enjoyed placing the logical and unemotional Spock in circumstances that disconcerted him and allowed his emotions to bubble out. From an in-universe perspective, however, we can see that Spock has ebbed and flowed back and forth, between more and less emotional orientations, more and less balance.

Of course, the season finale of Discovery provides a rationale for why Spock has never mentioned Michael, even to his closest friends. Spock is good t keeping secrets - remember that he also had an older half-brother, Sybok, who he did not mention for decades.

At the conclusion id Discovery season 2, Spock's character is ready for the mindset we see in the Original Series and beyond. If by chance a Captain Pike series happens, I hope Spock is fully recognizable as his in-balance TOS self.

(Photos used under Fair Use provision of copyright law, for the purpose of comment and criticism.)

Star Trek Discovery: Saints of Imperfection

Here are observations about the fifth episode of Star Trek Discovery this season, Saints of Imperfection.  There ARE a few minor spoilers below, but not full episode summaries.

1. May refers to transporting Tilly across the "dimensional plane."  So the thing Discovery is temporarily stuck in is basically an inter-dimensional portal.  Like a Stargate event horizon without the actual Stargate. Maybe THAT'S why the parts of the Discovery saucer need to rotate.  Because Stargates rotate in setting the destination address.  (In reality, CBS can't overtly use elements from MGM's Stargate, due to copyright, but the visual portrayals are reminiscent.)
2. Pike is seen entering the bridge from Lorca's Ready Room, even though Pike made a big thing a few episodes ago of not liking it and moving elsewhere. We can still see the stand-up desk through the doorway.
3. Pike and Georgiou were classmates at Starfleet Academy, although maybe not the same class year.
4. When Pike, Georgiou, and Burnham get into the turbolift, it starts going without anybody saying the destination.  In fact several times people get into the turbolift and don't say where they are going in this episode, but this is the only scene in which we see them continually after the doors shut.
5. A reference to "alligators" on Cestus III, was likely a reference to the Gorn, although supposedly Starfleet didn't know anything about the Gorn until the TOS episode Arena.  On the third hand, Lorca appeared to have a Gorn skeleton on display last season.
6. Also a reference to Deneva, one of the first Earth colonies, where Sam Kirk and family eventually live (and some of them die). 
7. Georgiou is eating an apple to show how cool she is, kind of like how the J.J. Abrams Kirk ate an apply in one of the movies.  She drops it when Burnham gets in her face.  She isn't as cocky as she pretends to be. Since they are getting ready to make a series about her, I HOPE that she is a nicer person than she lets on.  Here "oh look at the cute baby" moment last episode gives me some hope.
8. The new chief of security, Commander Nhan, is still wearing the skirt-and-tights version of the Starfleet uniform, except in Discovery blue.  Note that when Pike first came to Discovery, he identified her as an engineering staff member.  Now she's heading security.  Was she Security pretending to be Engineering, as a safety detail for Pike?
9. Once they find Tilly and...what else (spoiler) they find...they fritter away a LOT of time when they urgently need to be heading back.
10. Tyler has a radio integrated in his com badge, like TNG and later comm badges.  Nobody else has ever heard of that before, through the TOS movies.
11. The Section 31 ship does not have invisibility, but apparently is able to make its shields look like a big asteroid.
12. The tractor beams in this episode need a receptor or "tractor rig" to pull against.  The only time I remember the 1701 Prime using a tractor beam was in Space Seed, and they may well have placed a receptor on the Botany Bay, which we just didn't see.
13. Now we have two "we will meet again" foreshadows: Tilly and May, and Pike and Jacob (on New Eden). 
14. Leland is apparently in charge of Section 31, but he made a reference to "control" last week, and now we find out who "control" is.

Note: Photo is a "fair use" screen capture used for purposes of review or criticism, and thus complies with copyright law.

27 Things you may have missed in Star Trek Discovery

Screen capture under copyright fair use

I believe that I have seen every Star Trek episode and movie so far, so of course I am interested in Star Trek Discovery.  I enjoy looking at story lines and visual elements, but I also enjoy watching for the little details that other reviewers often don't mention.

There are no significant spoilers about the story line, but here are some details I notice in the first two Discovery episodes of season two, Brother and New Eden.

1.  Spock told Pike about Michael ("He said you were smart") but not Kirk about Sybok.  Is there a chance that Kirk DID know about Michael, but it never come up on screen? 

2.  Change of command cannot be transferred without DNA authentication witnessed by the entire bridge crew since the war.  Tell that to Matt Decker and that other guy who appropriated Enterprise ten years later.  

3.  Pike served on the USS Antares, poor ship (it's the one that Charlie X blew up). 

4.  The Enterprise "new uniforms" are exactly the same design and cut, except with different colored fabric.  The design makes the Discovery uniforms look like jumpsuits, but the same design makes the Enterprise new uniforms look a separate top and trousers.  The trousers that go with Pike's gold shirt uniform have zippered pockets, by the way, and I believe that e have never seen pockets in a Starfleet uniform before. 

5.  In episode one, Tilly talks about living with ghosts, which actually happens to her in later episodes. Foreshadowing.  

6.  Michael's pillow is on her bed vertically, now horizontally, like most people have their pillows. Maybe it's pre-positioned for sitting up in bed.

7. Their phaser pistols DO have the little phaser 1 on top. They look a lot more like TOS phasers than the ones Pike had on Talos IV.  Plus, why did they take the bigger pistols to New Eden when they wanted masquerade as locals? With no threat obvious, the littler ones would be more inconspicuous. 

8. During the Klingon war, which the Federation almost lost, Enterprise was too far away to come back?  That means months at high warp (or what was high warp back then) because the war lasted at least ten months.  Were all of the Constitution Class ships that far out? 

11. The ships we see outside the window in Brother tractoring Enterprise look a lot like Miranda Class, with old-style nacelles. 

12. When Spock gave up the Kolinahr because he sensed Vyger from a distance, maybe his consuming curiosity came from the fact that he'd been through it all before with the still-mysterious Red Angel. "Wait - another one?"

13. In episode 1, Pike says he needs a new Ready Room.  By episode 2 he has one, and it is apparently NOT right off the bridge, as the old one was.  The new one has a surprising number of decorative items for a temporary captain. 

14 In New Eden, when Michael arrives on the bridge, Tilly says she has been using Michael's station to run calibration modeling programs, but the things she has open on the desktop are Command Training Program manuals, checklists, a "to do" list, and private messages. 

15. Identifying the location of the New Eden red signal needed better technobabble. Discovery uses a momentary warp jump to get closer to a signal in order to pinpoint its location, but being in maximum warp for five seconds is inconsequential compared to the 51,450 light years away the signal actually was. This compares to the roughly 70,000 light years Voyager was swept by the Caretaker, past the Beta Quadrant into the Delta Quadrant. Did Captain Janeway ever consider going to the known human colony on New Eden?   

16. Nice that Discovery mentions the ban on human genetic engineering that was featured in Star Trek Enterprise episodes and that resulted from the Eugenics Wars. 

17. "Be bold, be brave, be courageous" sounds like an embryonic catchphrase. 

18. The Discovery is under red or yellow alert, little motion graphics appear at the upper left and right of the bridge view screen to remind everybody. Presumably Black and Blue alerts, also.

19. Saru can determine how long the radio message has been transmitted based on "audiophonic degradation"?  Technobabble failure. 

20. Lots of people have comments on the reference to reframing Arthur C. Clark's third law. Suggesting that "any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God" pretty well lays out that this a YAGLA story arc (the term used by fans for "Yet Another God-like Alien"). 

21. Tilly referred to her metreon-charged asteroid and metreon-charged dark matter.  Metreons have mentioned several time in Star Trek's past, including as particles that interact with dark matter.  Nice technobabble continuity. 

22. In Brother, Michael has several holographic candles burning in her room, whereas in the New Eden church, real candles are burning during the day, plus flaming torches outside at night, with none of the locals around. Apparently the locals have plenty of candle-making and oil refining capability.  In addition, the basement lights are bright and have wires running to them.  They can keep them lit, but not the lights upstairs? Plus the power to run the transmitter for years and years?  Inconsistent portrayal. 

23. It looks like each of the seven red signals is leading Discovery to a rescue mission, but each of them seems to be a manipulated event - by May or somebody else?  Seven signals equals half of the season.  Will the second half of the season be a different story arc, like last season? 

24. I don't get how the entire 365 degree ring is heading toward the planet, but pulling away just some of the debris in one place pulls all the debris everywhere away.  By the way, the "donut in a starship" wasn't all that great a special effect.  A donut is a 360 degree skid.  Sorry, producers - the visual effect didn't pay off. 

25. Transporters can't lock on to the Metreon asteroid rock (Brother) but tractor beams can (New Eden)? Plot device. 

26. There did not appear to be a bell in the church belfry.  They should have one, plus lights there.

27.  The episode preview at the end of New Eden shows the Discovery commissioning plaque.  She is Crossfield Class, presumably a reference to famous pilot Scott Crossfield, the first pilot to fly at twice the speed of sound.

So, yes, these are the kinds of things I look at when each new Star Trek episode, along with the more obvious things like story line, script, visual presentation, and acting.

Star Trek's Borg are reflected in today's society

I wrote this in 2018, but given the extraordinary growth of white nationalism in American society, it's worth considering again.

Star Trek's ultimate bad guys, the Borg, are a metaphor. As we see them from today’s perspective, they are placeholders for white nationalists and for invasions of our privacy by technology.

The Star Trek Enterprise episode Regeneration was on the other evening, and it made me think again about the Borg, their original role in Star Trek storytelling, and how they speak to us today.

From its beginnings in the 1960s, Star Trek has told stories of computers and technology overshadowing human freedoms.

• The Ultimate Computer made the captain and crew unnecessary
• Several aliens, like Trelane and Apollo, used hidden technology to amplify their god-like powers
• Landru and Vaal were computers that controlled entire planetary societies
• Androids imprisoned Harry Mudd
• Nomad and Vyger just wanted to kill everybody

These stories were clearly rooted in the concerns that were common in the 1960s that computers were turning us into numbers and taking away our individuality. It was a time when computer databases were first used to automate and track the interactions of people, and errors were often made due to lack of sophistication.

The Original Series plots served as metaphors for these societal concerns, generally showing the defeat of the computers/technology through the cleverness of the captain and crew, including confusing the computer with logic or illogic, getting it to calculate π to the last digit, etc.

These social anxieties about computers and technology have never completely gone away, and we see them resurgent today in the news about hacking and tracking and deceiving people via their social media and smartphones.

When The Next Generation producers were looking for a nemesis, they reportedly first considered a society of space-going insects, but settled on cyborgs, i.e. the Borg.

The Borg drones are humanoids that have extensive technology implants and replacements of body parts, but the technology suppresses their individuality. They are the ultimate of a peer-to-peer network, with no central control (the Borg Queen is simply a mouthpiece for the collective) and no individuality, hardly even individual consciousness.

But Borg is not just a cybernetic society.  It aggressively assimilates species after species, claiming to want to improve their quality of life, which requires taking away their individuality.  They are the ultimate of conformity to a black-and-white values system, with "you must comply" as their mantra.

The drive for conformity was powerful in 1950s America.  In the 1960s, the pendulum swung the other way, at least among young people, and "do your own thing" was the standard wisdom, along with great distrust of "the establishment", prompting the "don't trust anyone over 30" rule.

These twin youth culture rules had largely faded away by the time the Borg were introduced in The Next Generation.  Their original proponents were in or near their 40s, were settled down with children, and most had establishment jobs. But in Star Trek's positive multi-cultural view of a future embracing technology, it is not surprising that the great antihero (the Borg) misuses technology in a mono-cultural and deeply utilitarian society that has no respect for those who are different, including those who embrace individuality.

Based on Seven of Nine and other drones separated from the collective, Borg drones find great comfort in never being alone, in being immersed in the cacophony of the thoughts of billions of Borg.

I can't help note that many people today seem to be unable to stand being disconnected from their smartphone "friends" and are endlessly pressured to conform by forwarding memes, playing "games", and being guilt-tripped by statements like "only 1 in 147 people will share this, but do it to prove that you are my friend."

But the Borg are not just representative of today’s marketing in which loss of privacy and sharing of data leads to improved quality of life.  They are the powerful majority, suppressing the weaker minority.

The great underlying message of all Star Trek is multi-culturalism. The Borg are not just compelling bad guys. They are the antithesis of a multicultural society. In today’s terms, they are the White Nationalists, who are really interested only in power.

The dominant white culture, they believe, is polluted by the differentness (individuality) of the immigrants, just as the Borg cannot abide by individuality, forcing individuals to perfectly integrate into their cyborg society.  I wish we could simply order THEM to calculate π to the last digit.

Rick Berman (executive producer of four Star Trek series) said recently:

“If you believe in the values of Star Trek, you need to vote in November, and to get everyone you can to vote. Trek and apathy don’t fit.” 

I would go a step further and say that if you believe in the values of Star Trek, you have to take a stand against those who oppress minorities.

Don’t engage in violence, but vote, call out ethical and moral failures and don’t assume it is going to happen without getting yourself involved.

(Image from: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Borg_dockingstation.jpg)

Facebook

There has been a lot of angst recently about how Facebook uses data from user profiles. But pretty much every organization that uses advertising does essentially what Facebook does, i.e. collecting information about customers and using it to target advertising messages to them.  So how do we make sense out of current events in social media?

Yes, Everybody does it

It is a standard postulate of advertising and marketing that we respond most favorably when the messages we receive are relevant to our interests. So ALL advertising companies do research to find out where their preferred customers (and prospects) hang out in the media, and they advertise in those locations.

They also do various kinds of research to understand us better.  For example, the bar code scanning in our favorite supermarket.  Everything goes into a database, and if we pay by credit card for check, they know a lot about us, personally.  Have you ever noticed that the coupons that print out while we're checking out are usually for something we already buy (or a competitor)?

Data collection about customers is not new, by any means.

• For centuries, newspapers and later radio and TV created interesting content in order to get people to also see advertisements.
• Starting in the 1970s there was an explosion of specialty magazines, allowing advertisers to reach audiences they knew was already interested in the specialty products the advertiser sells. 
• The hundreds of cable channels now provide this same pre-selection of specialty interests for advertisers.
• When businesses started using the WEB, the same thing happened -- specialty websites sprang up allowing advertisers to find the audience interested in their particular specialty products.

Modern mobile technology has certainly taken this way of doing business to new heights, like knowing your exact location so they can text you discount coupons when you are near a certain store. But it is more of the same and NOT something unprecedented.


How does Facebook Advertising work?

When you make a post on a Facebook business page, some people see the post "organically" because they already follow the page, or they see a friend comment or like the post.

But as page administrator, you also have the opportunity to pay money to extend the post so more people see it.  You can select friends of your current followers, or use a variety of other criteria, such as geographic area, age, and gender.  Facebook also watches what members post, like, and share, so you can select people based on a variety of interests which Facebook has identified, resulting from your history of posting.

In doing this, Facebook does NOT actually share your data.  The advertiser provides the criteria, and Facebook does the match internally in its system, and "serves" the post (advertisement) to the people who match the criteria.


So how did Cambridge Analytica get the data?

According to this article, the researcher, Dr. Kogan, made an agreement with Facebook which allowed collection of data for research purposes, but forbade transferring the data to third parties.

At face value, this is reasonable.  Academic researchers collect personal data all the time, but ethical research does not allow the identities of the participants to be known by anyone outside the study. Institutions have mechanisms in place to ensure this, called "Human Subjects Institutional Review Boards."  I have served on HSIRB at my school and have written proposals seeking approval for my research plans.

In keeping with this, Facebook prohibits collected data from being sold or transferred “to any ad network, data broker or other advertising or monetization-related service.” Dr. Kogan apparently collected the data, then violated the agreement with Facebook and transferred the data anyway.


What was the real failure here?

One can certainly argue that Facebook needs a stronger way of enforcing it's terms of service policy than simply trusting people to comply.

One can argue that websites and apps on which we post personal data should not be allowed to use that data, but this has been happening for 20 years or more on almost every commercial online platform you visit.  It is the REASON they exist, i.e. to make money (not to "serve the public.")

One can argue that users need more warnings about "the information you are about to post may be used for advertising, and delivered back to you in individually-targeted messages."  Most people will still ignore the messages, as they do the terms of service and other warnings.

One can argue that the people in Congress who are charged with regulating this stuff have no clue about what they are trying to regulate (a fact made clear by the questions from members of Congress to Mark Zuckerberg).

I wish I could boil this all down to a single failure with corresponding solution, but the social media environment is too complex.

The vast majority of these web and app systems are for-profit undertakings, meaning that they either need to charge fees, or depend on advertising.  The tried and true business model is to attract an audience with interesting content, and then expose them to advertising, ideally focused to the interests of the audience because what is advertised aligns with the content.

But most consumers conceptualize these content sources as "services" and do not understand that they, themselves, are an audience being sold to advertisers.  This makes them gullible and prone to impulse when they encounter memes, quizzes, and other means of data collection.

There is no simply way to change this paradigm, but public education is part of it.  Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware) is critical.  Stop and think what information you are entering into the app or website.

If you don't want the entire world to know something, don't put it on the Internet (including ANY communication transmitted via technology).

2018: A critical year in Star Trek History

SS Botany Bay

We don't know a lot about the early 21st Century from historical references made on-screen in Star Trek, but we know something BIG happened in 2018 - the invention of Impulse Engine Drive.

One of the things that has always appealed to me about Star Trek is how all of the timeline and historical references fit together, an important part of the overall continuity of the multiple Trek TV series.  From the beginning, the producers have worked hard to ensure that they remember what they have said previously, and everything (usually) holds together well. 

So, this essay is based on many tidbits of what onscreen characters have said about 2018, and this general era in Star Trek history.


Star Trek is not in OUR Timeline

First, we have to admit that we do not live in the Star Trek universe.  As early as the 1990s, things happened in Star Trek history that did not happen in our own.  Specifically, the Eugenics Warshappened, in which genetically engineered "supermen" conquered a lot of countries and ruled as dictators.  Khan was one of them.

The Eugenics Wars are a fixed point in time in Star Trek history.  So what can we infer, based in this fact?

Humans, at least in one secret laboratory somewhere, had genetic engineering technology in the 20th Century that was already well in advance of what we have today.  The Original Series referred to Khan as the result of "selective breeding" but The Wrath of Khan and later TV episodes amended that to "genetic engineering."  Assuming that Khan and the supermen aged at normal speed (not TV magic rapid aging) means that somebody had advanced genetic engineering capability in the 1950s or 60s, which in our timeline we didn't have.


DY-100 Space Craft

We know that in 1996, the last of the supermen was overthrown, and Khan and 81 of his followers escaped Earth in the sublight DY-100 class SS Botany Bay. The Botany Bay, pictured above, appears to be a cargo ship, vaguely like the Hermes in The Martian, with detachable cargo pods. The Botany Bay was a sleeper ship, putting passengers in suspended animation for the months-long trip to Mars or other places int eh solar system.

Having an operational inter-planetary craft in 1996, with functional suspended animation, was certainly beyond what we were capable of in our own timeline.  This implies that humans were capable of transporting heavy cargo to the Moon, Mars, and maybe other places (you don't need a sleeper ship to go to the Moon).


2018, "The Year Everything Changed" 

In 2018 in the Star Trek universe, humans invented the first generation of Impulse Drive. Eventually, Impulse engines would be able to propel a starship close to the speed of light. Even the primitive 2018 first generation would likely have dropped the Mars trip to only weeks, or maybe even days.

(In our own timeline, a possible Electromagnatic Thuster is being tested. If it is proven to actually work, it might be something that could be scaled up to serve as our own version of an Impulse engine.)

The consequences of Impulse Drive in the Trek universe are not discussed on screen but it is clear that a small fleet of DY-100 or similar DY-500 ships, upgraded to employ Impulse engines, would have opened up the solar system to exploration and eventually to colonization.


What Comes Next

In 2037, Earth launched a mission outside the solar system, the Charybdis, which was large enough to carry planetary shuttles and an extensive library, arriving in the Theta 116 star system in 2044. To achieve interstellar distances in seven years certainly required speeds close to the speed of light, i.e. Impulse Drive. 

The 2030s is about the time when Zefram Cochrane was born, who would go on to invent Warp Drive in 2063, after a nuclear war a decade earlier. Within a few more years, the starship Valiant reached the "edge of the galaxy," a century before Kirk and Spock.

So, 2018 is a BIG turning point in the Star Trek parallel universe.  Maybe it will also be in our own. 


Image from: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/bQgAAOSwTglYkpSy/s-l400.jpg

5+1 Tips for Good Photographs

I am getting ready to teach photography again this coming semester, and I also have some friends with new cameras. So I have been reviewing my basic rules for taking good photos, whether by smartphone or a more elaborate camera.

Here are tips, plus a bonus, to help YOU take better photos (and the rules apply to video photography, also).


1. Tell a story 

Your photo will have the most impact when it tells a story.  What are the people doing? What is happening around them?

2. Don't pose (or at least don't let your shot look posed)

Posed pictures are boring.  Better to take candid or impromptu photos that feel more spontaneous.

3. Plan your time and place

Often being at the right place and time makes the difference between a boring photo and a powerful one.  At events, figure out what the most interesting things are and figure out what the right angle to capture them is.  Wait patiently for just the right moment.

For outdoor photographs, time of day can also be important.  Early morning and late afternoon light is warmer and less harsh.   But also, avoid facing the sun while you shoot.  This will increase the odds of ending up with a silhouette (unless that is what you want).  It is often still a matter of finding just the right moment.

4. Take lots of shots and choose the best.

"One-and-done" is not the way to get great photographs.  Take a photo, look at it, and analyze "how could it be better?"  Then take another shot that makes it better.  Do this from several different angles, or in ways that capture several different elements of what is going on.

5. Don't center everything in your photo! 

This is the biggie, and is a principal you see across many realms of art. It is called the Rule of Thirds.  You mentally divide your shot into thirds, both horizontally and vertically.  Then you use these lines, in two complimentary ways.

One: The MAIN thing you are depicting should be at one of the intersecting points of those imaginary lines.  The rest of the shot should provide balance. Don't put everything right in the middle.

Two: Often, there will be a logical dividing line in a photo.  Outdoors, it might be a horizon line, or the edge of a tall building.  Indoors, it might be more than one person's face forming a sort of line.  Put those actual dividing lines along one of your imaginary thirds lines in a way that provides balance.  If people are facing left, put them at the RIGHT vertical line.  If you have a horizon line, decide what is more important, the sky or the land and choose your imaginary line accordingly.

Combining these two elements...matching horizontal and vertical lines in your shot with the imaginary lines of thirds, and putting your prime subject at an intersection of the lines...will give you strong, memorable photos.

6. Bonus: For cameras that are not in smartphones -- explore the menus and learn the settings, such as the various focus and exposure options.  Often the fully automated mode will not produce the best photos for advanced photographers.


There is a lot more to being a great photographer, but these 5+1 tips (rules) will help you stay on the right track.

Formula Scripts in TV and Movies

The growth of original series on streaming video services and cable has resulted in an explosion in the demand for scripts and "pitches" for series, not to mention movies, many of which never end up getting produced.

Nevertheless, many of these scripts, as diverse as they are, follow the same basic formulas.  One could argue that a "formula script" lacks creativity...but creativity actually resides in how new it feels, i.e. what is different, as opposed to what is similar to other uses of the formula.

Here are three storytelling formulas that we see over and over, including one that I consider to be particularly troubling:

1.  The Hero's Journey.  

In the 1940s, Joseph Campbell studied myths from many cultures (mostly Western) and found common elements.  A young reluctant hero is called to a journey that takes him out of his ordinary experience and discovers a villain or threat to which he has a hidden connection.  He has fellow travelers who help him as he is tested, and an older mentor.  The older mentor is taken away, and the young hero most stand up to the villain alone, eventually triumphing and returning to his ordinary life.

Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings are all basically this same "Hero's Journey" story.  Even the original Die Hard movie used a lot of elements from this formula.

Because this formula is so familiar, writers use it all the time, or at least elements from it. The familiarity allows readers/listeners/viewers to easily engage in the story.

2.  Save the Cat

Save the Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You’ll Ever Need by Blake Snyder
was published in 2005 and rapidly became the "bible" for many movie writers.  Save the Cat software is even available to help writers structure their story to Snyder's sequence of "beats."  If you know what to look for, you can find these "beats" in many movies and even TV shows.

At one level, Save the Cat is an interpretation of how to translate Joseph Campbell into visual storytelling terms.  At another level, it allows writers to make use of the psychology of the audience in terms of primary and secondary (A & B) stories, major milestones in the plot, and pacing.

Follow those links and you may be surprised.

3. Dystopia

Dystopia is the opposite of Utopia.  In dystopian stories, times are dark, there is little hope, and people are generally bad.  Such stories are often set in the future, with totalitarian governments, dehumanized citizenry, rampant crime, and environmental disaster.  Brave New World, 1984, and Lord of the Flies were dystopian, but in the last decade, we have been deluged by dystioian settings for movies, books, and TV shows.  Sometimes the heroes are admirable, but sometimes not.

Science Fiction writer and futurist David Brin has call dystopian stories lazy, cliched, and cookie cutter.  They are easy stories to tell, resonate with conspiracy theory and suspicion of authority, and they often do not require nuanced characters, which makes it a lot easier for the writers to create.

What does it mean?

The main goal of the movie, television, and publishing industries is to make money.  To make money, they need to produce content that audiences will buy.

That is why so many stories today follow the Hero's Journey, Save the Cat and Dystopian structures.  They resonate with people and gain acceptance more easily than some unusual storytelling approach, but to their foundation of familiarity.

The question media critics and even psychologists must ask is how these stories affect our psyches. The media has incredible power to influence people's perceptions and actions.  Heroes, like Luke, Harry, and Frodo, may well subtly influence people to do what is right in the real world, not just what is easy.

But how about the modern dystopian orientation of story after story? Does it subtly influence people to see conspiracies everywhere, distrust authority, accept thoughtless ideology, and expect people to conform to the dictates of the perceived majority?

Waves of dystopian fiction usually come during times of social unrest and war.  Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 459, and Animal Farm all stemmed from the Cold War and deep concerns about communism. Today's stories are written against a background of seemingly endless war, unstoppable terrorism, and fake news.

This recent New Yorker article suggests that for every present-day dilemma, there is a dystopian novel to match it, and that the resulting "radical pessimism" has resulted in the unravelling of trust in science and the weakening of a commitment to political pluralism.

I think that dystopian story after dystopian DOES affect our national mood and makes "the ends justify the means" more and more acceptable, when it shouldn't be. So if the "heroes" are unlikable and do unethical things to each other, don't expect me to watch.

Why you SHOULDN'T watch your favorite shows on-the-air (or cable)

If you REALLY want to help a TV show you love, don't watch on the networks (including cable). Watch a (legal) streaming feed or DVR.  Why?

TV series live and die by the ratings, but many people do not realize that weekly ratings that lead to cancellation or renewal are only collected from the top 50 markets (cities) in the country.

On top of that, only a random sample of homes with "people meters" actually get counted, and then are project statistically.

So, if you live in a big city, but do NOT have a people meter, you don't get counted.  If you live anywhere else you do not get counted...if you watch your show over-the-air or on cable, that is.

On the other hand, ratings today take into account how many people streamed or DVRed the show in the seven days after the network/cable broadcast.  When you stream or DVR the show you DO get counted.

(Of course, this means streamed legally, or DVRed with a system that can "phone home" to report your viewing.  Bootleg copyright infringed streams, downloads, and old-style home video recorders don't get counted.)

The reality is, there are some shows that get twice or more as many views via legal streaming/DVRing than they do in the network/cable feeds. This is particularly true when you look at certain desirable demographics, like 18-49-year-olds. A three-times increase is not unheard of.

Because these streaming/DVR viewers still get commercials, the networks make money from every commercial you see, and profitability and return on investment is what gets a series renewed, or canceled if the return is too low. 

So the "broadcast plus seven" ratings are influential, and streaming/DVRing allows you to contribute to the ratings of the shows you like.  Or, if you still like the context of gathering for the broadcast at a specific time, watch the live feed but make sure you also stream it again, at least once, before seven days are up.

(Of course, this does not address original series from Netflix, etc, that are never on the broadcast and cable channels.  They are not counted in any ratings, other than the company's internal tracking of hits, downloads, and streams, which they rarely reveal.)

So again, of you REALLY want to help your favorite shows, make sure you stream them at least once in the seven days following the original network/cable feed and add your ratings into the renewal calculations.

"Deconstructing" Star Trek Discovery

There’s been a lot of talk about Star Trek Discovery, but I haven’t seen anybody yet really analyze the story.  Ergo, here is my “deconstruction” of the first two episodes.

First let me say that in 1990s, when The Next Generation was on the air, it was common for fans to go onto the message board and work through many fine details and nuances of the episodes.  As I said, I do not see that level of analysis as often today, which is why I am providing this example.

Many of my comments could come across as negative, or as complaints, but that it not what they are. They are observations concerning the many decisions made by the writers and producers. They are what they are, because Discovery is a completed work of art, which is unfolding week-by-week.  So I am looking at what the writers and producers did, how they did it, and why they did it.

There ARE spoilers below, for episodes 1 and 2.

About the Plot

T’Kuvma is a cult leader, having gathered together outcasts and those marginalized by Klingon society. He found his father’s crashed ship, repaired it, and has fixated on the Federation as the enemy of the Klingon people.

“They are coming. They will coil around us.  And take all that we are,” he says.

So, he lures the USS Shenzhou, NCC 1227, to the fringe of Federation space and provokes a conflict.  It is Stardate 1207.3, or May 11, 2256 on Earth.

Specifically, T’Kuvma ignites a huge beacon, both in visible light and subspace signals, that attracts representatives of the 24 “houses” of Klingon society.  He cites legendary Klingon leader Kahless, and essentially says, “Make Klingon great again.”  

Battle results between Klingon and Starfleet ships.  T’Kuvma is killed, and it is asserted in the episodes that killing him makes him a martyr that the Klingon people will rally around, setting the stage for the war storyline in the remainder of the series.

The main character of Discovery is Michael Burnham. This black female first officer of the Shenzhou was raised by Spock’s father after her parents were killed in a Klingon raid.  This is a little confusing because the episodes also establish that virtually nobody has heard from the Klingons in a century.  Maybe it will be clarified in future episodes.

Michael displays some Vulcan traits if employing logic and analysis, but emotions also influence her.  She is the one who actually kills T’Kuvma after he kills her captain, Philippa Georgiou.  Therefore, it is Michael who triggers the entire war, because she allows her emotions to overrule her logic, exacting revenge for her captain’s death.  Saving her captain and crew is more important to her than Starfleet’s principals, which appears to be a remarkably emotional reaction, for one trained by Vulcans.  

Apparently, they have never heard of setting phasers on stun.

Michael gets in big trouble, is court martialed, and sentenced to life in prison.


The Klingons

One of the biggest continuity issues is that Klingons in this era did not have head bumps. 

In Star Trek Enterprise, the Klingon people were infected with a deadly virus, and the cure removed their head bumps.  They only got them back after The Original Series.  This was done in Enterprise to rationalize why Klingons in The Original Series had no head bumps, but before and after, they did.

The Klingons in Discovery would not be as threatening and exotic, if they conformed to established continuity.  This is a question of design esthetics over rigid continuity, but it is one of the things long-term fans will grumble about.  

The assertions about “coming in peace” or firing on first contact were not persuasive to me.  If you fire on a Klingon, the Klingon will fire back.  I do not see that as leading to respect from the Klingons. Klingons respect honorable behavior, like the Enterprise-C defending innocent Klingon civilians from the Romulan raid.  Firing first and asking questions later would not fit Klingon ideas of honor, I believe.

A threat display MIGHT have impressed the Klingons. However, in a threat display, you would fire your weapons in different directions, not at the people you want to impress.  What Michael was advocating, firing first, would just make them mad and ready to defend their own honor against an unreasonable attack.  

Honor IS important to the current generation of Klingons. At one point, T’Kuvma talks about honor, but the other Klingons say he has not earned it. It is interesting that we see flashback scenes that show he had been bullied as a child, which appears to have been part of his stimulus to restore honor, as he saw it, to the entire Klingon people. 

The Klingon cloaking device is also troubling. It is a one-off technology developed by T’Kuvma, so I HOPE we will NOT see Klingon cloaking technology later in the in this series.  It is well established that the Klingons eventually obtain cloaking technology from the Romulans, a dozen years in the future after Discovery.


The Shenzhou

The Shenzhou, of course, is named after the current real-life Chinese manned spacecraft.  

The bridge of the Shenzhou is huge – much larger than a Galaxy Class bridge decades later.  I don’t mind the modern set design not being anything like the Pike/Kirk Enterprise, but to me the various workstations seem spread out too for effective teamwork and collaboration.

By the way, the bridge is on the bottom of the saucer, with real windows, or at least transparent view screens.  

The assertion that the Shenzhou has no shuttle maneuverable enough to navigate the accretion ring is a plot device. Going fast and dodging stuff is hard, but provides dramatic footage.  Going slow makes it not so hard to dodge stuff, but is more boring, even though a shuttle would give more protection from radiation, because it has shields.  

In addition, why didn’t Philippa move Shenzhou closer when they knew Michael was in critical condition?  Yes, there was some debris, but they have shields, and in one wide-angle scene, they were clearly well away from the debris, where they were parked.  It is a standard law of radio that if you cut the distance in half, you quadruple the signal strength between two locations.  They didn’t do this, again, to heighten the suspense.

It will be interesting to radio folks, like me, that a Shenzhou graphic shown while Michael is missing near the Klingon Ship says the transmitters are using 100 watts with an antenna length of 8 meters, but radiated power is a whopping 12,599 watts. In the radio business, we call that a lot of “gain.” 

Nevertheless, why are they using faster-than-light Subspace Radio (subspace frequency 1142) to talk to a ship that is within viewing range, at the most a light second or so away?  Plain old VHF or HF radio would have solved many of their problems. 


The Other Ships

Several Federation starship names had cool associations.  The T'Plana-Hath is named after a Vulcan philosopher mentioned in Spock’s testing at the beginning of The Voyage Home.  The Yeager is named for legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager.  The Ride is presumably for the astronaut Sally Ride.  Many people seem to think that the Edison was named for the inventor, but I think it was for the long-lost Balthazar Edison, a character in the third JJ Trek movie.  The Europa, NCC 1648, is a reference to either Europe, or the moon that may harbor life (and by Michael’s time, they will know whether Europa has life).

By the way, all the ships zapping at once does not make sense.  Surely they came from different distances.  Why would some fly extra fast and some unusually slow so they all arrived POP at the same time. It is a dramatic visual, evoking the new Battlestar Galactica fleet arrivals or departures, but not very likely in the Star Trek universe, where even decades in the future the Enterprise is often the “only ship in the quadrant.”


The Uniforms

I also don’t mind that the uniforms don’t look like Pike/Kirk Enterprise uniforms, again because of modern design expectations.  The uniform side panels appear to reflect position - gold for command, silver for science, and I think maybe bronze for positions like navigation and helm.  If you look closely, they are made of a mesh of very tiny Starfleet insignia.  The Starfleet insignia on the chest also has different colors to reflect divisions, and that is where the rank insignia pips are in this incarnation of Trek.  The space suit helmet liner also had Starfleet insignia fabric. Note that the admiral’s insignia is different and does not have pips.

Yes, I know that in this era, every starship has a different insignia, and what I call the Starfleet insignia is really only assigned to the Enterprise.  But I do like the visual continuity that its consistent use provides.  


Professionalism in Starfleet

The entire first officer nerve pinching the captain, mutinying, and then the captain pulling a phaser on the first officer doesn’t really work very well.  It is part of the set-up of Michael is a disgraced convict, about to be pulled into risky events, but it isn’t how Starfleet officers behave in MY Star Trek universe.  

Nobody in Starfleet would imagine themselves getting away with this.  Spock didn’t even imagine himself getting away with hijacking the Enterprise to Talos IV, although his plan allowed him to not get caught for longer.


The Galactic Vicinity

We’re told that the Andorian colony at Gamma Hydra is six light years away. Gamma Hydra is where the Enterprise was going in the Kobyashoi Maru exercise. This means that the double star setting of these two episodes is near the location of the future Klingon neutral zone. Gamma Hydra is also mentioned in passing in other past Trek episodes.

Really, the whole basis for the conflict in Discovery is a bit strained. 

“This is Federation space.  Retreat is not an option.”  Who says its Federation space?  

It’s an uninhabited binary system with stars still forming.  There is no indigenous species. The implication is that the Federation just out-and-out annexed it by fiat. 

I was also troubled by the Sarek-Michael telepathic conversation while they were 1,000 light years apart. Sarek says that part of his Katra is in her, which of the Vulcan consciousness.  Basically, Michael is apparently like one of Voldemort’s horcruxes?  

Oh, and 1,000 light years away, Sarek already knew that there was a “new star in the sky” after only a few minutes?  That is not a reference to invisible subspace signals, but rather to light, which would take, oh, 1,000 years to get to him.


Formula Plot Elements

There were several elements of this story that draw on common screen writing formulae that you see all over the place, if you know what to look for.  

Formula scenes include the opening scenes that set the tone of the story, the catalyst that changes everything, the main character making a choice that defines the “journey,” The Dark Night of the Soul in which the main character struggles with hopelessness (the brig scene), and others.

I can see many of these elements in episodes 1 and 2.  Of course, the story continues for 11 more episodes, so they may be stretched out, or we may see the formula being repeated time after time in the subsections of the story.

However...formula plot elements are not automatically bad.  Because they contain elements of familiarity, the audience relates to them easily, making it easy to engage with the story.  (For more information on a very widely-used formula, see this link.)    


Final Thoughts

There are plenty of additional things from these two episodes that could be mentioned.  But I think I have given an example of productions such as Discovery working on many levels, and having many factors that affect them.

Discovery plays fast and loose with certain points of Star Trek continuity.  The richly developed world defined by this continuity is what appeals to many long-term fans. Bit I think my many examples show that in every case where Discovery deviates, it is for a practical “works better for the audience” reason, and as I have shows here, the audience they are catering to is the newer fans they hope to attract, not the entrenched long-term fans.

First Reaction: Star Trek Discovery

Star Trek Discovery offers some things for long-term fans, but really is Trek for a new generation, and I don't mean that figuratively.  

It is designed to match the experiences and viewing habits of younger people, who are considerably different from the older, veteran fans.

(Spoilers three paragraphs below this point.)

Before we go any further, we need to accept that this new incarnation of Star Trek exists to make money. It is not a "service" for fans. It is not a reward for the long wait since the last "new" Trek episode, May 13, 2005.  

It was created to be a profit center.

Let me say it another way: The ONLY reason that CBS decided to make Star Trek Discovery is the likelihood of return on investment and profitability. 

The problem is that while Trek has been a cash cow for the studios over the years, the spendable income in the United States today resides in the younger demographics, such as 18-49.  So, to succeed, the new series must appeal to them, as the current generation of "customers."

So we [spoilers] get a 13-episode story arc about war with the Klingons, with the main character being a court-martialed and jailed Starfleet officer who apparently becomes central to the outcome of the war.

To the veteran fans, Star Trek has done extended war stories before, in Deep Space Nine and Enterprise. We have even had main characters convicted and sent to prison. So this comes off feeling like a retread of things past.  

But the younger fans have been weaned on a diet of Game of Thrones, and endless similar Dystopian story lines. Their frame of reference in fiction is anti-heroes and, more generally, unlikable people doing unethical things to each other.

The producers had a huge challenge to a) create something that could legitimately be called Star Trek, but also b) create something that would feel familiar, and therefore appeal to the generation that made Game of Thrones, The Hunger Games, Divergent, and Twilight hits 

So we have a disgraced Starfleet Officer who gets pulled into the cauldron of wartime events, in a context that is generally based on past Star Trek -- the Federation, Klingons and Vulcans, generally familiar weaponry and technology, and other side allusions and terminology that are derived from past Trek.

The point I made about familiarity is very important. Familiar situations are easy for viewers to relate to.  That is why all starship bridges look roughly the same, across Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica (both of them), Star Wars, GalaxyQuest, Forbidden Planet, etc.  That is why cthe chains of command on starships are always more or less the same.  Commanders always have chairs.  It is familiarity factor.

The characters also tend to be familiar -- the captain, the first officer, the engineer. In general terms, we know what they are going to do before they do it, because it is all familiar.

Therefore, our stories don't need to explain all of that.  We can just move ahead to the elements of the story that are unique to us.  It is these innovations, or things that are different from all the other stories, that are seen as being "creative."

For Discovery, it is not what is familiar to the old folks who don't spend as much money.  It is the younger 18-49 year old demographic that has the money to spend on Trek stuff, and on the things the advertisers want them to buy.

But these things are not the only way that Star Trek Discovery is customized to the younger folks.

Did you notice that there was no To be continued at the end of the episodes?  They just stopped, and the next episodes pick up at the same place.  That is the binge watching dynamic. Yes, the new episodes will come out week-by-week, but CBS clearly expects the long-term revenue to be from binge watchers.

About 9.6 million people watched the premiere episode on the broadcast CBS network. That doesn't sound bad, but the adults 18-49 rating/share was a 1.9/7, which is only decent, not fantastic. CBSAllAccess had a record number of sign-ups, but we have no information about the demographics, i.e. the ages of people paying to see Discovery up-front.

So I am sorry to say that many of the long-term Star Trek fans may not be as interested in Discovery.  But the series is not made for them.  It is made for people young enough that previous Trek was before their time.

Because new fans means new merchandising, new streaming revenue, and highly desirable audiences for advertiser commercials.  Plus some of those folks may be intrigued to check out the older Trek series and merchandise as well, thus refreshing that demand, also.

Killjoys renewed, Dark Matter canceled - It's just business

Fans are scratching their heads because the Syfy Channel has announced the cancellation of Dark Matter, but the renewal of Killjoys.

This is a perfect example of the disconnect between how the fans see entertainment TV, and how the networks are actually run.

The simple truth is that every TV network, cable channel, and streaming service exists to make money.  Decisions about programming are always driven by considerations of profit.  Serving the audience with good programming is HOW they make money, but the business GOAL is making money, not serving the audience. It's just business.

I have been looking through the ratings information at tvseriesfinale.com and trying to understand the Syfy decision to renew one series but cancel the other.  Both were promoted in 2015 as the cable channel returning to its roots of space-based science fiction.  Both were outside acquisitions, not projects developed internally by Syfy.

Dark Matter averaged 614,000 viewers this season compared to 676,000 viewers last season. Killjoys averaged 627,000 viewers this season, down slightly from 644,000 last season. Industry-wide, declines of 25% are not unusual, as more and more people "cut the cord."

Those totals seem pretty close together, and it may seem bewildering that Syfy has renewed shows with considerably fewer total viewers, like The Expanse (562,000), Channel Zero (543,000), and Wynonna Erp (499,000).

But when we look at ratings from the 18-49 demographic, it makes a lot more sense. Advertisers love the 18-49 demographic because they are most likely to spend money. It's just business.

Killjoys captured an average of 17% of all television households in its timeslot this past season, which is down 5.56% from the previous season. Dark Matter got 15% of television households, down 12.67%, compared to the previous season.

Dark Matter WAS getting high viewership in online and time shifted viewing via DVRs and trackable (non-pirated) streaming views, sometimes doubling its audience or more, compared to the "live" cable feeds.  But such additional viewers may not be as valuable to the Syfy revenue stream.  

Syfy has renewed every current show getting 17% or higher of television households, and canceled every show with 16% or lower.  There is obviously some sort of threshold above which they consider a series to have profit potential, and below which there is not enough return on investment.  It's just business.

Television IS a business (broadcast, cable, and streaming). They spend money to develop and air series, or to purchase outside productions, and they need a return on investment from those expenditures. They make money by selling advertising. Advertisers spend their money on shows that will give them the best audience for their specific products, at appropriate cost. It's just business.

If the ratings of a show are too low, meaning not enough people watch, Syfy can't sell enough advertising in the program, because it's not a good enough deal for the advertisers. Or they have to charge less, meaning Syfy makes less money.  When Syfy makes less money, the investors also don't make as much money, and they consider firing the executives who didn't make enough money.  It's just business.

Syfy is owned by NBCUniversal, which also owns NBC, The Weather Channel, E!, Oxygen, Bravo, and the USA Network, among others.  Each one provides advertisers with a different demographic, not just in terms of age, but also in terms of interests that advertisers can match with their products.

Note that the network and advertiser analysis of ratings includes online viewing within a week of the cable broadcast (via legal DVR and streaming services).  But if your plan is to wait a few months and then binge-watch a series, your viewing is NOT part of the calculation about whether to renew or not.

Consumers generally to not understand these business considerations.  Cost versus revenue, and return on investment, however, are the primary considerations for which series are picked up and renewed, and which are not.  It's just business.

If you are interested in more about the Dark Matter decision, read this blog post from executive producer Joseph Mallozzi.