At least a fantastic series resulted from that spending.
Spoilers All Things STAR WARS - News, Speculation & Spoilers Thread
- Thread starter Reverend
- Start date
Lando makes a good point.
"Content not viewable in your region"
Yeah, so Imgur has been blocked in the UK as of a few months back, which is a bit of a bugger given that was the image host I preferred to use too. Oh well!
It is interesting that it's the most LFL has spent on any project at least to me. Especially given the lower use of aliens that people often associate with Star Wars.
Plus 24 total episodes as opposed to just 6-10.
Sets were pretty elaborate. A lot of depth and detail.
Yup, exactly this (but also what eddie and Myk said). The primary reason why (completely unrelated) Sense8 was canceled wasn't because of bad reviews or bad viewership numbers, but because the extensive location shooting killed their budget (granted, across the globe but still).
As I understand it some of them were real places.
They did a lot of location shooting, yes.
Yeah, location shooting is always going to be more expensive than stage shooting, for very obvious reasons. Add to that the sheer volume of shooting taking place compared to a movie. Speaking of . . .
So a more reasonable way to frame it isn't: "this whole thing cost more than one single movie!" but rather: "they made the equivalent of six movies for the price of two!"
Funny how suddenly it seems a lot less of a lavish expense, and a lot more like it was an efficient production that the movies should have a lot to learn from. Almost as if the article is deliberately slanted or something . . .
But it's a false comparison since "project" is such a nebulous term. The entire sequel trilogy was "a project" unto itself. What was the price tag of that whole thing again? Because I promise it's waaaay more than Andor cost, especially when factoring in the marketing budget, and Andor provided easily twice as much content, and the kind of critical acclaim those movies could only dream about.
So a more reasonable way to frame it isn't: "this whole thing cost more than one single movie!" but rather: "they made the equivalent of six movies for the price of two!"
Funny how suddenly it seems a lot less of a lavish expense, and a lot more like it was an efficient production that the movies should have a lot to learn from. Almost as if the article is deliberately slanted or something . . .
Last edited:
I guess.
I found it interesting in so far as Andor was expensive and people are clamoring for Trek to be made cheaper.
Which people? First I've heard of that.
Mind you, I stopped hanging out in the Trek forums here many years ago.
The people wanting more episodes in a season. "Just make it cheaper. We don't need expensive episodes. Also, make Trek as popular as other sci-fi shows,"Which people? First I've heard of that.
Mind you, I stopped hanging out in the Trek forums here many years ago.
There's really not much of a connection between a show being good and having a high budget. By which I mean that if the writing isn't there, then no amount of location shooting, lavish sets, or VFX is going to make it better. It's nice when a show has both (like Andor), but the writing is what matters in the long run.
I've also been avoiding the Trek forums here for well over a decade at this point, so I'll keep this brief: modern Trek's successes and failures have nothing to do with production budgets, and again everything to do with the quality of the writing. A low episode count should be an advantage as it makes is easier for the writing to be consistently good, and plot a coherent narrative.
If you're still getting stinkers in a 10 episode order, then your problem isn't in the production office, it's in the writers room. Partly the writers themselves, partly the story editors giving poor guidance.
The best work they've managed to put out in this era has been in animation, and I'd take another season of 'Lower Decks' or 'Prodigy' over seven more of either Discovery, Picard, Strange New Worlds, and probably the new Academy show too.
The franchise is in a really weird place when the comedy show channeling Futurama has a better grip of what makes for a good Star Trek show than any of the live action reboots, prequels, spin-offs and revivals combined.
To bring this back to Andor: Gilroy could have spread this out over 5 seasons, but since neither he nor Luna wanted this show to take over their lives for a decade and change, they opted for a two season, 24 episode run that allowed the show to be lean, mean, and to the point. Zero stinkers.
I've also been avoiding the Trek forums here for well over a decade at this point, so I'll keep this brief: modern Trek's successes and failures have nothing to do with production budgets, and again everything to do with the quality of the writing. A low episode count should be an advantage as it makes is easier for the writing to be consistently good, and plot a coherent narrative.
If you're still getting stinkers in a 10 episode order, then your problem isn't in the production office, it's in the writers room. Partly the writers themselves, partly the story editors giving poor guidance.
The best work they've managed to put out in this era has been in animation, and I'd take another season of 'Lower Decks' or 'Prodigy' over seven more of either Discovery, Picard, Strange New Worlds, and probably the new Academy show too.
The franchise is in a really weird place when the comedy show channeling Futurama has a better grip of what makes for a good Star Trek show than any of the live action reboots, prequels, spin-offs and revivals combined.
To bring this back to Andor: Gilroy could have spread this out over 5 seasons, but since neither he nor Luna wanted this show to take over their lives for a decade and change, they opted for a two season, 24 episode run that allowed the show to be lean, mean, and to the point. Zero stinkers.
Last edited: