Yep. I remember when the Soviets shot down a Korean airliner. Lots of people thought we were going to war then.
Discovery and "The Orville" Comparisons
- Thread starter Jedi_Master
- Start date
Yep. I remember when the Soviets shot down a Korean airliner. Lots of people thought we were going to war then.
The first season was always planned for thirteen episodes from everything I've heard. I prefer a shorter season, honestly. Though I'm worried about CBS trying to poach writers from it for Discovery.
You almost look normal again.
I don't. I would much prefer a full season. Discovery could end up with only ten episodes next season, (erm, I mean next year
 )
I don't. I would much prefer a full season. Discovery could end up with only ten episodes next season, (erm, I mean next year
Shoot what part of next year?
Next year is when the second third of the first season is released.
Come on, without the fears of the 80's we woulda never gotten such amazing epics as Robot Jox. TOTALLY WORTH IT!
Oops. I mean next, next year.
Maybe it's cause we ditched television for years, but since we got on the whole Netflix thing I've only really been interested in a couple new shows at any given time, most were short lived like hell on wheels.
Right now, the only 2 im interested in are the Marvel shows and Discovery, and the Marvel shows seem to be short with long production times in between which makes it so hard, because I binge them, and then have to wait forever to get my next fix,
Disco may very well go down that road.
Reducing seasons from 26 to 13 episodes is really the best thing to happen to shows. Frankly, Trek needed that.
In another forum there was a thread where fans were tasked to condense Trek seasons by half, so that it would theoretically make the seasons not only more concise but without all the clunkers and filler. So you wouldn't have to endure redundant episodes like "Charlie X", "Miri" and "The Alternative Factor" when going through TOS.
In another forum there was a thread where fans were tasked to condense Trek seasons by half, so that it would theoretically make the seasons not only more concise but without all the clunkers and filler. So you wouldn't have to endure redundant episodes like "Charlie X", "Miri" and "The Alternative Factor" when going through TOS.
Not sure that's the reverse so much as the same basic misconception: that today is always worse than yesterday.
I don't think anything beyond the show being renewed has been confirmed. For now a release date is unannounced.
Which, of course, would have been when that showgirl in 1932 was lamenting that everything was cheap and commercial these days . . . .
Change moves in multiple trajectories, some aspects of life offer improvements and some not. It would be overly simplistic to simply say that the present is all better or all worse than the past. It's a mixed-bag, and not necessarily 50/50. That means acknowledging that things do in fact often get worse.
However, it would also be wrong to think that over a larger time-slice that you can't track the rise and fall of societies. Of course, those who grow up in a crappy time will have never known anything better. They adapt (as well as they can). But I find it highly ageist to suggest that there's no substance at all behind those who reminisce.
It's more forward-looking.
Also, I was thinking of the nostalgic view of the past as experienced by people who actually lived through it, whereas the anxious sense that things are more fraught and dangerous now than in the past is characteristic of folks whose memories don't reach back that far.
A third kind of myopia is romanticizing an era that none of us remember - those lovely movies about knights and pirates.
There was an interview prior to announcing a second season that if there were a second season, they were probably looking at a 2019 release.
Alex Kurtzman- "Ideally, on the early side of 2019."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/li...-boss-gets-candid-big-delays-season-2-1042520
Gosh that means Discovery will have to make fourteen seasons to equate to Voyager. It's already stolen Equinox, slipstream, stuffed up the female Captain thing, but hey ho.
I dunno about that, but I also don't think there's a great deal of logic in a shorter season having less clunkers, and less filler.
Sure, you could go back and remove half the episodes from a TNG season, and keep all the best ones, but you can't then say "see, if we made 13 episode seasons, moving forward, we'd have none of those crappy episodes."
If a TNG season had 2 major clunkers, 6 fillers, and say...4 mediocre episodes; then the 13 episode season could just as easily have 1 major clunker, 3 filler episodes, and 2 mediocre, and 6 or 7 really good, rather than 13. No one ever sets out to make a clunker.
And sometime filler episodes have value. Sometimes, even clunkers have important character development.
There's really only 2 or 3 episodes in each series that people seem to consider irredeemable.
Sure, you could go back and remove half the episodes from a TNG season, and keep all the best ones, but you can't then say "see, if we made 13 episode seasons, moving forward, we'd have none of those crappy episodes."
If a TNG season had 2 major clunkers, 6 fillers, and say...4 mediocre episodes; then the 13 episode season could just as easily have 1 major clunker, 3 filler episodes, and 2 mediocre, and 6 or 7 really good, rather than 13. No one ever sets out to make a clunker.
And sometime filler episodes have value. Sometimes, even clunkers have important character development.
There's really only 2 or 3 episodes in each series that people seem to consider irredeemable.
I enjoy both shows.
The folks at TNG would have killed for another three or four days to work on each script.
Similar threads
