Oh it absolutely would have.No but it was met with quite a lot of hostility and probably would not have survived had it released in today's climate.
The 7 stages of cope.While others attempt to defend this unsuccessful venture, I see false equivalency after false equivalency (usually, in the form of "Hey, so-and-so older show did or didn't do X, so don't be so sure of yourself.") briefly taking flight before subsequently getting shot down.
Okay, and? You must have missed my next post where I clarified that I wasn’t saying that I expect Starfleet Academy to become a cult phenomenon. I’m not saying “Look, the show is cancelled, too, just like the original, and that means it will be remembered as a global cult classic soon”. No, that would be silly. But it remains true that both shows — the original and SFA — didn’t meet studio expectations. That’s it, that’s all I wanted to say. TRON JA307020 was commenting on how unfortunate it was that the 60th anniversary of Trek started with the cancellation of the newest show. And I was merely pointing out that that’s a fact that both shows have in common. It doesn’t follow that that means I expect SFA to become as big and culturally significant as the original.The original series quickly became a global cultural phenomenon not long after it entered syndication (not taking decades or other series to help its massive cultural footprint), launching an unprecedented franchise and merchandising end. No NuTrek series ever did anything remotely comparable to that, including any of its cancelled series, so when some attempt to make a smoke and mirrors comparison between TOS's cancellation and SFA's, they are purposely leaving out the important details about what TOS became post-first run, which is not going to happen with SFA.
I personally would say, yes, that’s what can reasonably be called a financial flop. And I’m not under some illusion that the show is actually some sleeper hit (as some detractors seem to think about those who “defend” the show). I don't see anyone claiming that secretly the viewership numbers for the show were awesome and that they only cancelled it because of studio politics. But since when does the fact that something is a financial flop mean it won’t find its dedicated fandom? Or that it is actually bad? This just doesn’t add up. And the people who so desperately want for the cancellation to somehow be evidence that the show is “bad, actually”, can’t seem to fathom people who are liking a show despite it tanking financially.Would a series that cost $100 million to make only for it to be cancelled after 10 episodes before an already filmed second season was broadcast be considered a flop then?
How grand for you. Your keen eyes perceive a truth the rest of us are blind to.While others attempt to defend this unsuccessful venture, I see false equivalency after false equivalency (usually, in the form of "Hey, so-and-so older show did or didn't do X, so don't be so sure of yourself.") briefly taking flight before subsequently getting shot down.
I wouldn't consider it to be a flop. Who knows what was in the script for S2? It could be spectacular. Or a total failure, we won't know until next year.Would a series that cost $100 million to make only for it to be cancelled after 10 episodes before an already filmed second season was broadcast be considered a flop then?
And they almost didn't even get that.At least they're committed to letting SNW finish it's five seasons.
as much as I love what Star Trek is doing with it's "1 episode is 1 movie" visuals, it's easier to justify renewing a $50m/season show vs a $100m/season show.
True. However, there are some other major differences: a lot more viewers, much more marketing, merchandise tie-ins, etc.Trek pales next to the $400 million Netflix spent on Stranger Things S5.
Which was probably because they already had contractual obligations in place and it would have cost more to cancel it then it would have to go through with thingsAt least they're committed to letting SNW finish it's five seasons.
Netflix is historically horrible at keeping production costs down.Trek pales next to the $400 million Netflix spent on Stranger Things S5.
Unfortunately merchandising potential kind of sucks for Star Trek's 32nd century since the majority of people only really seem to want stuff from the 23rd and 24th century's.True. However, there are some other major differences: a lot more viewers, much more marketing, merchandise tie-ins, etc.
Tell that to Playmates.Unfortunately merchandising potential kind of sucks for Star Trek's 32nd century since the majority of people only really seem to want stuff from the 23rd and 24th century's.
Playmates newest run was three Discovery figures, a re-release of some old tng/tos stuff, and a half completed Prodigy line that was killed off at about the same time as they pulled the plug on Prodigy.Tell that to Playmates.
So,people are not buying 23/24 century stuff?Playmates newest run was three Discovery figures, a re-release of some old tng/tos stuff, and a half completed Prodigy line that was killed off at about the same time as they pulled the plug on Prodigy.
You eat em!Maybe a few combadges.
If I could walk into my local geek shop and see an Eisenberg class model I would be so sold. The 32nd century is a beautiful time period.
Any Star Trek merch is just so hard to find even venturing to the bigger cities there are barely any mugs or tshirts. Maybe a few combadges.
Forbidden Planet is our biggest one and it's exactly the same as thatAgree with you on the 32nd century ships. I'm gutted I missed out on the eaglemoss replicas.
Also agree on trek merch. In Melbourne we have a very large pop culture store called Minotaur. Their Star trek section takes up half a shelf which it shares with Dr who. The Stars Wars merch on the other hand has like three full bookshelves dedicated to the novels then another couple for all the pop funkos and another row of metal shelving for the models and action figures. The trek shelf is rarely updated with new stock and literally has items that have been there for years. It's a pretty sad state of affairs.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.