What's the Fandom Menace's take on The Mandalorian? My understanding is they think the Sequel Trilogy sucks because it's "too woke". If they love The Mandalorian, then it confirms a lot of other things too.
How do the new Star Trek shows compare to The Mandolarian?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Pretty sure they love the Mandalorian and it is in line with "Lucas' Vision" (trademark pending). I don't give them the time of day but I see way too many phrases around "it saved Star Wars" and Disney needs to decanoize the sequels and let Filoni and Favreau redo the sequels.
Smacking my forehead.
I had thoughts about giving the series a shot. This just blunted it. A lot. I mean, Hell, I'll give it a chance to judge for myself... buuuuuut, now my mind has shifted to, "If they like it, it must suck." These are basically my Sworn Internet Enemies.
Meh...watch it and judge for yourself. It is done well enough. It isn't risky but it is entertaining.Smacking my forehead.
I had thoughts about giving the series a shot. This just blunted it. A lot. I mean, Hell, I'll give it a chance to judge for myself... buuuuuut, now my mind has shifted to, "If they like it, it must suck." These are basically my Sworn Internet Enemies.
Even though I like The Mandalorian, I don’t think the sequel films need to be decanonized.
Although the producers of those films made a lot of decisions I would not have made, and theoretically they could have Luke Skywalker show what happened in that sequel trilogy as a vision, what done is done. Those films are flawed mainly because those films were produced separately, instead with an arc in mind that spanned the trilogy as George Lucas would have done.
I would just take it as a lesson on the dos and don’ts of developing a Star Wars trilogy and move on.
Just for the record -- works of art that don't have a "moral" can still have a great deal of depth and speak to us on more than a "the spectacle was enjoyable to watch" level. For one example, I don't think The Crown necessarily has a "moral" or "message," but it's certainly a well-written character drama with thematic depth and complexity; I would argue that The Crown is an implicitly anti-monarchist show that explores how the institution of the monarchy visits profound trauma upon the Windsor family, but that's not exactly the same thing as having a "moral" or "message."
I get what you're saying; I just think it's important to not be reductive about art, to remember that artistic depth is about more than a modern version of Aesop.
Alex Kurtzman has a signed multi-year, multi-series deal with CBS. CBS All-Access's subscription numbers have dramatically increased during his tenure as Grand High Potentate of All Star Trek, and CBSAA numbers have especially increased this year after PIC. 2020 is the first year in history where three ST shows are in production, with more on the way.
We are not going to see a big change in who runs Star Trek when CBS All-Access rebrands itself as Paramount+. That rebranding is a function of CBS and Viacom re-merging, not of dissatisfaction with Star Trek on CBSAA. They're happy with Star Trek right now.
What evidence do you have that The Orville is more popular than DIS, PIC, or LD?
Smacking my forehead.
I had thoughts about giving the series a shot. This just blunted it. A lot. I mean, Hell, I'll give it a chance to judge for myself... buuuuuut, now my mind has shifted to, "If they like it, it must suck." These are basically my Sworn Internet Enemies.
The first two episodes are fine. They're a pastiche of spaghetti Westerns in Space with some Star Wars elements grafted onto them. I'll certainly give it a chance to impress me yet, but honestly I think Internet Fanboys are just being disproportionately loud about how "good" it is because it feeds their nostalgia hunger and gives them what they already had in the past instead of innovating artistically.
The Mandalorian is every old Clint Eastwood movie, set in outer space.
Pretty much!
A Fistful of a Dollars; For a Few Dollars More; and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly are among my favorite westerns. I consider Dirty Harry to be an Honorary Western set in the 20th Century, and I like Unforgiven as a distant spiritual sequel with Clint Eastwood being this older version of the characters he used to play.The Mandalorian is every old Clint Eastwood movie, set in outer space.
So good pitch.
Everyone seems to be talking about Baby Yoda, but I'm going to guess it's those people I don't like (that's what we'll call them) focusing on Baby Yoda to the exclusion of all else.
Here's my position-Mandalorian draws heavily off of the serials and Westerns that inspired Lucas in the first place, with a heavy leaning in to Westerns. If you like Westerns then you will probably find an aspect of the Mandalorian to like.
Nope. And I thought it was Paramount+ . IIRC "Paramount Network" is tainted.
I believe it is Paramount+ and I don't see any property rights changing hands.
CBS still only had a 6% growth in 2020 which puts them next to dead last. Only Showtime did worst. Well and Quiby as well. They are not even close to getting up their to DisneyPLus or Netflix and also HBOMAX is likely to grow a lot now that they are on Amazon and Roku. It hurts that the one thing they are known for is Trek and the Trek stuff is bad to average. Nothing that has made any kind of cultural impact. I think their was some real buzz when Picard was announced but that has kind of faded.
Jason
I mean, of course they would want more market share, but cultural impact is a nebulous concept.
According to ViacomCBS's press release of 6 November 2020 on their third quarterly earnings this year, domestic subscribers to CBS All Access are up 72% year-over-year at 17.9 million, with streaming revenue up 56% year-over-year:
They don't need to be near those numbers to be successful, nor do they need to be at those numbers for them to be satisfied with Kurtzman's performance. The level of growth they've already had under a brand that people aren't nearly as attached to as Disney or Netflix is solid; I'm curious if rebranding to Paramount+ will lead to faster growth.
It is true that Paramount+ will need to develop more original properties besides just Star Trek to grow faster, but DIS, PIC, and LD all range from "good" to "excellent."
You have to be Star Wars or Marvel to make a cultural impact these days. Media is too fragmented for that to be a realistic possibility. You might as well complain that a comfortable middle-class family hasn't won the lottery yet.
You have yet to provide any evidence for your assertion that The Orville is more popular than Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Picard, or Star Trek: Lower Decks.
I think if The Orville had Huge Cultural Impact, FOX wouldn't have let it switch to Hulu. FOX, historically, does NOT want to let go of shows it considers to be a huge hit. FOX will run those shows into the ground and then still keep running them long afterwards. Look at what happened to The Simpsons and The X-Files as two of the most obvious examples. And how long was it "1979" on That '70s Show because FOX didn't want it to end?
And from FOX's point of view, they were misled with The Orville. They wanted a sitcom version of Star Trek. But Seth MacFarlane really just wanted to make his own version of TNG with juuuuuust enough MacFarlane humor so that it could be classified as a comedy, even though it's not. I only watched the first season of The Orville, but my impression of it was that it's basically "TNG for Dudebros" with Seth MacFarlane living out his fantasy of being The Captain.
Lower Decks actually is what a lot of people thought The Orville would be: Star Trek as a sitcom. As far as The Orville, if I want to watch TNG, I'll watch TNG.
No one I know personally IRL watches The Orville. Some family members watch Discovery and some of my Trekkie friends watch it.
But when I look at people I know IRL and my friends who I wouldn't normally consider to be huge Star Trek or Star Wars fans, the only two shows that any of them have mentioned to me out of all of these are The Mandalorian and Picard.
And from FOX's point of view, they were misled with The Orville. They wanted a sitcom version of Star Trek. But Seth MacFarlane really just wanted to make his own version of TNG with juuuuuust enough MacFarlane humor so that it could be classified as a comedy, even though it's not. I only watched the first season of The Orville, but my impression of it was that it's basically "TNG for Dudebros" with Seth MacFarlane living out his fantasy of being The Captain.
Lower Decks actually is what a lot of people thought The Orville would be: Star Trek as a sitcom. As far as The Orville, if I want to watch TNG, I'll watch TNG.
No one I know personally IRL watches The Orville. Some family members watch Discovery and some of my Trekkie friends watch it.
But when I look at people I know IRL and my friends who I wouldn't normally consider to be huge Star Trek or Star Wars fans, the only two shows that any of them have mentioned to me out of all of these are The Mandalorian and Picard.
Last edited:
Fox is also notorious for cutting shows too early. Like Futurama, Family Guy (although they reversed this decision), Arrested Development, Firefly, etc...
I’ve found that when people watch The Orville with an actual open mind instead of just “ugh, I hate Family Guy, I’m gonna hate this” they end up liking the show even if it’s just a spin on Berman Trek.
I’ve found that when people watch The Orville with an actual open mind instead of just “ugh, I hate Family Guy, I’m gonna hate this” they end up liking the show even if it’s just a spin on Berman Trek.
Orville and LD hit me in exactly the same way: fine to watch, even fun at times...but massively derivative and entirely (and almost immediately) forgettable.
They are also inherently shielded from intense Trek fan criticism and scrutiny by their very nature- one is NOT Star Trek and the other is animated and silly. If either were live-action Star Trek shows, the fan wrath would be off the charts. So, while I do like them both, they are hard for me to respect as anything other than clever cheats.
Similar threads
