Get with it or fuck off.

How has that attitude paid off?

I struggle to think that network executives make decisions based of internet reviews and forum comments, but rather key performance indicators like viewership numbers and subscription sales.

I don't bring this up to belittle your point, but to highlight what confuses me.

I was under the impression that this show, and the Kurtzman-era stuff in general, was doing better with the 18-34 demographic than the 35-49 (Essentially, the 90's Trek fans) group and I would imagine that network executives would be chasing that younger group to, to use a phrase, get em hooked while they're young. The SFA specifically seemed targetted at these younger audiences and, from what I understood, it worked!

So if it was well received by critics and the younger target demographic, then I struggle to think that the opinions of the older demographic and their lack of adoption could be enough to nail the coffin shut on the show. But also, if the executives or the showrunners did want to chase that 90's Trek fan base, then their choices were utterly baffling.

I dunno. There's something off about the close of this era of Trek. Then again, it's not like the Berman/Braga-era ended elegantly, either.

Edit: Anecdotally, I know exactly one person in real life who liked SFA and it was my 74 year-old father. He's liked every piece of Star Trek media that's come out besides Enterprise and Lower Decks (he can't enjoy animation, too associated with children's media, so he didn't even try Prodigy). Everyone else I know (other Millennial Trek fans) found it hard to watch. But, this is, like, an informal poll of maybe three or four dozen Trek fans of all the same ages, not really anywhere close to the data sample that a network like Paramount has.

Wishing death on a cohort due to difference of opinion really does not add any value to a conversation or paint you in a good light.

Critically loved apparently has no value if it doesn't translate to high viewership or whatever reason execs truly had to cancel.

Attacking and hoping for the death of others is big energy but why are you focusing it at your peers who aren't enjoying your show? Why not consider the executives who actually did the cancelling? Or may have had a hand in directional choices that impacted reach and viewership.

Streaming has changed, arguably the golden age is over, well received, profitable shows have been cancelled because there are cheaper more profitable alternatives.

It sucks that a trek show is ending and I get you are not happy, but you have to critically think about how we got here. There's no conspiracy that 90-00s trek enjoyers ended it. Ultimately some suits in an office said no to it.

According to your post, having any sort of negative opinion that doesn't align with you is wrong and should be shunned. How are people supposed to have any conversation when you hold that sort of attitude? I haven't watched this show but you come off as vile.

Oh no how dare anyone not like the thing that you like.

It was critically loved.

No it was not.