On the other hand, is there a reason to assume that they are producing this show with malice and apathy towards Star Trek?
It seems there is a reason for the visual reboot and the producers aren't being honest about it.
- Thread starter Smoked Salmon
- Start date
Exactly. I really doubt they care about having to "fool" anyone into accepting anything.
He doesn't hate Star Trek, he just prefers having shows that generate more money, if Star Trek had NCIS ratings we'd have three Treks on CBS proper.
And for Enterprise: okay ratings and a high budget were a bad combination, that's why it ended.
At the time they were under two million a week, IIRC. That was pretty bad for the time.
They were around 2.5 million iirc which wasn't good but not horrible considering only a few of their scripted shows had more than 3 million. UPN wasn't exactly known for high ratings.
You know I'm right. Some fans get carried away with hating something that they start making assumptions and believe it to be the truth, or even spread the "rumors" that Midnight's Edge started. I've seen this so much in the past. I've seen this especially at the time James Bond rebooted with Daniel Craig. Heck, they're even still around today. When his run had turned out to be successful with his debut, these fans started to chalk it up to masses being "fooled" into seeing the movies, that his films were really not as popular as their box office suggests. I suspect many haters of this show are frustrated that they can't have a reference for things like ratings or viewings to indicate how well DISCOVERY is doing because they'd have likely used those records against the show as "proof" that it was a bomb.
I've seen that example with the opening weekend of CASINO ROYALE, which debuted at #2 under the film HAPPY FEET. Oh boy, did so many haters use that as "proof" that the film was a bomb, that Daniel Craig was an embarrassment to the franchise, and that the producers should be fired. They were so sure that he would not get another film... and then he did three more, with a fifth film on the way.
Sure, they're not replicating the TOS sets. SO MUCH HATRED FOR RODDENBERRY'S VISION!!
Firefly was getting four million when it was cancelled.
IOW, more than the number of new subscriptions STD has brought to All Access.
The industry has changed.
Although "Broken Bow" in it's original two-hour premiere may have been the highest-rated episode of any Trek series since the TNG finale or at the very least the DS9 finale. No Trek episode since has matched the ratings reached by the television franchise on the night of September 26, 2001, though with the structure of CBS All Access and Netflix we may never know the real numbers.
They can probably use the original Enterprise, but they'd probably have to pay Jefferies. It's like how in ENT they could've used the character T'Pau but they had have to pay character creator every time she was used!
So, just like they changed T'Pau to T'Pol to save on royalty expenses, they're changing the look of the Enterprise.
So, just like they changed T'Pau to T'Pol to save on royalty expenses, they're changing the look of the Enterprise.
I actually visited Paramount. They still have at least the Captains Chair from Voyager. I was told that they sold every thing because of financial problems. I can't verify that or provide a source, but that's what I was told.
More accurately, it's probably a financial decision. They can use the original design but they'd have to pay the creator per appearance. A financial cost based on a legal basis. So, combine bean counters with lawyers!
^^^
That assertion was already debunked by CBS - they own the rights to use the original version of the 1701 if they so choose.
Yep, that's probably because I posted my comment before their comment was made public.
Yep, that's probably because I posted my comment before their comment was made public.
But your comment was posted today and CBS’ was a couple weeks ago
Oh winky face
I'd love to sit in that chair.
Um, I'm a time traveler? Yeah, I guess I missed the announcement for awhile. Shoot, I missed this whole discussion for awhile.
I didn't get to sit in in. I only saw it from a distance. It had miscellaneous stuff piled up on it too.
Without the rest of the bridge, it wouldn't be much since it didn't really have a base of its own. I doubt I'd even recognize it.
Similar threads
