Temis the Vorta wrote:
C.E. Evans wrote:
Only if you're a fan of Beverly Hills Cop. For Star Trek fans, not really.
Mmmm...I couldn't help notice the way Star Trek
was included in both statements, despite not actually having anything to do with the topic at hand. Corporations never do stuff like that by accident.
Who knows if BHC
will even go to series. I'm not interested in that series, I'm more interested in what it means for the Kremlinology of figuring out what these guys might be up to.
It's not like we have anything else of substance to talk about.
Maybe there will be more clues when Abrams' movie comes out and becomes another big hit. That seems like the next link in the chain. Doing a series based on an old, inactive Paramount franchise seems a lot less appealing than a series based on one that is putting butts in movie theater seats right now. (Working against Star Trek,
as always, is the budget and lack of an obvious place for it to live.)
Star Trek's budget on TV is likely to be less than a network show with "big names" and the budget they do have can go into the look, at least until the cast becomes popular.
I doubt that. ENT's budget was generally on par with network shows with big names commanding high salaries, but it was pulling in fewer viewers.
In a world where wrestling is on Syfy(and syfy is called syfy!!), STNG is on BBC Amercia, and pseudoscience appears on nominally "scientific" channels such as Ancient Aliens, Ghost Hunters, etc, you talk about an OBVIOUS place for it to be???? Time to start thinking out of the box.
That's just a case of cable networks evolving from their original small origins to something that can compete with the broadcast networks. They're all trying to get as many viewers as they can.
But to be fair, BBC America is based in New York and is really just an American network that carries BBC programming that tends to do well among most Americans.