Could be, but I'd rather strive for my idea of quality and think everyone else's definition is wrong.
Attended the premiere - no spoilers
- Thread starter Search4
- Start date
Could be, but I'd rather strive for my idea of quality and think everyone else's definition is wrong.
Hey, I'm not a fighter...TOS movies > Star Trek 09 > Galaxy Quest > TNG movies > Into Darkness/Beyond
There. Fight me.
I'm not including Axanar, because that's clearly a fan production, and not a professional, polished product. Galaxy Quest has major props fur very, very elaborate and expensive make-up effects, special effects, and a good blend of costumes and CG for it's aliens. In fact, I'd say it was much more professional than any of the Trek television episodes (although not the movies).
But seriously, including GQ in a 'top Trek movies' list is like including Justin Timberlake's Justified album in a 'top Michael Jackson albums list'.. I mean, WHY..?
Hey, I'm not a fighter...
But seriously, including GQ in a 'top Trek movies' list is like including Justin Timberlake's Justified album in a 'top Michael Jackson albums list'.. I mean, WHY..?
It solves a lot of problems. Like the even-odd-curse (Good Trek movie/bad Trek-movie). It WORKS when you include Galaxy Quest in this timetable (as the "good" Star Trek 10 between the "bad" Insurrection and Nemesis, followed by the "good" ST09 and the "bad" Into Darkness again)
Also, It's clearly the only other "professional" Star Trek movie out there. All other parodies are usually very low-budget (like "The Orville). But Galaxy Quest is a complete, finished movie that works on it's own. It's not a "spoof"-movie like, for example, Spaceballs - which is fine IMO, but I'd never call it a full-fledged Star Wars movie.
Of course it's a professional production, just like about 200 movies a year... but WHY would you include it..?? It's not ST, has nothing to do with ST, I sincerely do not get it, never have, never will...
Of course The Orville will have more viewers, but each viewer for Discovery matter more since they are a direct subscriber and provide revenue directly to CBS. Only viewers 18-49 matter for the Orville, and that is just a factor for advertising revenues.
The Orville has fun, wit and charm that Star Trek has been missing for a really long time.
The original Star Trek and the spinoffs feel like two completely distinct entities to me. One was fun, treating us to a weird, wild galaxy where anything could happen. The spinoffs became progressively more buttoned-down, more worried about believe ability and buying the hype they were doing important social work to make the world better.
I've always been more interested in the original Star Trek and shows like it.
But even TOS completely ignored or retconned aspects of "The Cage":
In "The Cage" Captain Pike says: "Our destination in the Talos Star Group...Our Time-Warp Factor 7..."
^^^
And the ship easily attains Warp 7 and travels all the way to TALOS IV
In TOS - "Arena" (supposedly 12 year sfter "The Cage"), we get this exchange:
^^^
See the bolded part. In "The Cage" Pike ordered Warp 7 like it was no big deal. You mean to say 12 year AFTER that 'Warp 7' is a very dangerous speed? Guess Star Trek technology DOES go backward as the years go forward. (and this line was left in when they made parts of "The Cage" canon in "The Menagerie".)
Still my point is: Even back then they themselves were effectively ignoring or retconning parts of the first pilot because it didn't completely mesh with the changes they made to many aspects of TOS going forward after "The Cage" was produced and rejected by NBC.
I would say that viewers 18-49 are also important for Discovery, as most folks will be buying the $5.99 subscription plan with commercials.
It could still be dangerous, just because they didn't bring it up doesn't mean it wasn't. Maybe Pike's people were better trained than Kirk's?
Somehow, this part makes me really, really worried for Trek...
Orville may have more viewers but Trek may make more money and in the end that is what matters to both CBS and Netflix.
I think they will have different metrics for Discovery. International numbers will play a big part. Currently CBS AA has somewhere between 1.5 to 2 million subscribers. I can’t imagine that they’d expect that number to jump past the regular viewer numbers that FOX has spent thirty years building. The question is will The Orville hold their numbers with the move to Thursday nights?
I'm not so sure Trek will make more money? I can guarantee FOX isn't spending $8.5 million per episode on The Orville.
Or "Time Warp Factor 7" refers to a different scale than "Warp Factor 7."
I'm not going to pretend there aren't issues, and Trek fans are great at rationalizing issues. Hoever, the more consistent something is and the fewer rationalizations are needed the better I will enjoy it. For me that includes big things and minutiae.
It is guaranteed Orville numbers will drop when it moves to a much more competitive Thursday and doesn't have football lead-in. The question is how much.
I wonder if Pike's Enterprise ran on those groovy subspace mushrooms?
Each viewer for Trek is worth more money then a viewer for Orville. Second, Discovery doesn't have to make money to be a success because the point is to build a brand. Netflix is the perfect example - they are in the hole big time money wise but they are making a long play for building the brand worldwide. CBSAA is working to build a brand too and would probably take a few years to build that brand.
When I said they would make more money I was talking revenue side and not profit side. I could very much see Trek generating more revenue then Orville. Profit I'm not sure is a huge consideration right now.
Wise man once said "You're nearly a laugh, but you're really a cry."
This I can understand.
This makes me want to shout "IT'S TELEVISION! IT'S NOT REAL!" But I won't.
