but where are you going to PUT that extra money?
- Into real ground vehicles that add little to the stories and have rarely if ever been seen before
OR
- Feature film (or at least a better) level CGI?
IDK - which one do you think they'll choose?
- Into real ground vehicles that add little to the stories and have rarely if ever been seen before
OR
- Feature film (or at least a better) level CGI?
IDK - which one do you think they'll choose?
So in the original I can't imagine the UAVs would have been cheap but, if I remember rightly, the US military provided them with some kit (whether free or discounted I don't know but certainly not at what it would have been to make the prop themselves) - could well be that a similar deal is struck and a current era military vehicle is provided at a price that makes modifying it for the show suitable economicalbut where are you going to PUT that extra money?
- Into real ground vehicles that add little to the stories and have rarely if ever been seen before
OR
- Feature film (or at least a better) level CGI?
IDK - which one do you think they'll choose?
Both, depending on the show.but where are you going to PUT that extra money?
- Into real ground vehicles that add little to the stories and have rarely if ever been seen before
OR
- Feature film (or at least a better) level CGI?
IDK - which one do you think they'll choose?
To be fair, the characters themselves were making that joke within the episodes by SG-1's third season.
Personally I’d rather spend 200m on 25 shows than 400m on 10 shows. Especially if I were a streamer releasing them once a week.
Give me standing sets, sound stages and day trips any day.
Give me standing sets, sound stages and day trips any day.
Yes, but a joke about something being done frequently should not be mistaken for a literal fact. Exaggeration is a staple of humor.
Of course they will have standing sets in the London soundstages. The location work will be in addition to that. It's not an either-or choice.
It’s an either or choice to spend 5-10m an episode and make 20 episodes or spend 10-20m an episode and make 10 episodes.
Too much location work, too much cgi, not enough episodes. It’s the hallmark of the streaming world.
Money does not make something good. Give me 6 episodes of red dwarf over secret invasion any day of the week.
Too much location work, too much cgi, not enough episodes. It’s the hallmark of the streaming world.
Money does not make something good. Give me 6 episodes of red dwarf over secret invasion any day of the week.
But it's obviously not an either-or choice between soundstages or locations, as your previous comment implied. Now you're moving the goalposts. And obviously that's not a binary choice either, because they could hypothetically spend, say, 6.25-12.5 million each on 16 episodes, or whatever.
No, the talent of the creators does. The new show has some of the same writer-producers as the old shows, people who have experience with working on more modestly budgeted shows, so it's premature to assume they would spend unwisely just because they have more money.
"Let's film in London! Let's film in different parts of the world!"
"Let's hire the guy that worked on the Chris Nolan Batman movies!"
Why would any of that automatically be bad? I'd think people would be getting excited at the prospect of a Stargate TV series with feature-quality talent and production values.
Not everyone agrees with you on this issue. When this project was first announced, I saw a lot of comments on X saying we don’t need a high budget, the number of episodes should be high. And some of these people are probably the same people who will react just because there are gay, Black, and Latino characters in the show.
I'm not taking a side. On the contrary, I reject jumping to any conclusion ahead of the data. It makes no sense to judge something you haven't seen yet. I've seen countless cases where fans were skeptical of something in advance and ended up loving it, or were excited about something in advance and ended up disappointed. All I'm saying is what Sherlock Holmes said: "It is a capital mistake to theorise in advance of the facts."
You are right
The days of twenty-plus episodes a season are over. Even on the networks, it's rare to go over twenty episodes a season, and it's becoming quite common for a season to have less than twenty. Hell, the networks actually consider twenty-two episodes to be an "extra large episode count" these days.
Which is continuing a generations-long trend. In the '50s to early '60s, it was common for seasons to be as much as 35 episodes or longer, only taking time off in summer. By the '70s, a typical season was maybe 26-30 episodes, standardized as 26 by the '80s. In the '90s, the standard length shrank to 22, with the Star Trek shows being just about the only ones I knew of that maintained the 26-episode standard.
It will be gorgeous but what most viewers want is more runtime, not prettier TV.
I've said the same for Star Trek; I love SNW but I think the 10 episodes a season is a disservice. It barely allows time for the characters and the cast to breathe. 20 episodes may be a lot these days but a 200m show can easily accommodate 12-15 episodes if they wanted to.
One of my favorite DS9 scenes came because the writers were 2:30 short for the Way of the Warrior - and the classic Root Beer Scene was born.
That's the climate of television these days. And it doesn't mean a 10-episode season can't be well-written and satisfying. It's not a zero-sum choice. There can be good or bad writing with a small budget, and good or bad writing with a large budget.
Trump has a clause in all his Hollywood locatation contracts, that if you use his shit, you have to take him too.
If its streaming, there is no expectation for episode length, just be aware that if you're making 3 hour long episodes, Game of Thrones and Stranger Things, the Networks are going to cut you to ribbons.
You telling me Trump isn't clearly one of the Goa'uld who took over the Trust?
Similar threads
