Star Trek: Discovery on CBS All Access - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 2195Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 06:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
hooked01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 909 Post(s)
Liked: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post
Trek doesn't command broadcast network dollars, most people don't watch Sci-Fi period and never will.
And that's too bad. Good sci-fi conveys a message in allegory with good characters set in alien or futuristic locales. Bad sci-fi is guys in rubber masks carrying laser guns with special effects to replace a good story. If there a good story, what does it matter if the main character drives a hover car instead of a convertible? How many more NCIS, CSI or Law & Order variants do we need?

Another reason sci-fi doesn't make it on network tv is the cost for all those sfx. ABC tried to get in on the Star Wars craze with Battlestar Galactica but the budget was too high and it was cancelled after one year. The network tried to revive it with the truly awful Battlestar 1980 which set on Earth and recycled most of the sfx to save costs.

It seems that more people are watching sci-fi because the SyFy Channel actually decided to tell everyone that their name really does stand for Science Fiction and are recommitting to showing sci-fi shows.
erhurd likes this.
hooked01 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 07:34 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 26,168
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6734 Post(s)
Liked: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post
Trek doesn't command broadcast network dollars, most people don't watch Sci-Fi period and never will.
I don't think that was the point in this case. First, CBS/Paramount holds the rights, so they can do whatever they want with the property. Second, Trek has a rabid fan base of nerdy types that would theoretically follow it anywhere, including a brand new subscription service that literally has nothing else to offer. That gives them an instant "nugget" of subscribers and considering it's Trek, some buzz.

I can see why CBS did it this way, even if I don't like it. But I'm not about to enable them. If this thing is any good, it will show up elsewhere as CBS exhausts its first-run revenue potential and sells it to other suitors (i.e. Netflix). I can wait. And I suggest ya'll do as well. Let this terrible idea die on the vine before every other broadcast network sees they can get away with it and starts doing the same thing.
archiguy is offline  
post #33 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 07:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
hooked01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 909 Post(s)
Liked: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post
I don't think that was the point in this case. First, CBS/Paramount holds the rights, so they can do whatever they want with the property. Second, Trek has a rabid fan base of nerdy types that would theoretically follow it anywhere, including a brand new subscription service that literally has nothing else to offer. That gives them an instant "nugget" of subscribers and considering it's Trek, some buzz.

I can see why CBS did it this way, even if I don't like it. But I'm not about to enable them. If this thing is any good, it will show up elsewhere as CBS exhausts its first-run revenue potential and sells it to other suitors (i.e. Netflix). I can wait. And I suggest ya'll do as well. Let this terrible idea die on the vine before every other broadcast network sees they can get away with it and starts doing the same thing.
Once again, I feel that the studios still don't understand the Star Trek phenomenon and its fans. They think the fans are so dumb that if they put "Star Trek" on anything, they'll get an instant following. The studios don't get that the fans might be fooled the first time, but not for long. The most ardent longtime fans hated the ST reboot and stayed away.

I was disappointed by the JJ reboot. It was ok as a generic glitzy space adventure. It did not have the Roddenberry spirit.

I am curious about Discovery, but I'm not going to pay for a subscription.
erhurd and jazzycat like this.
hooked01 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 08:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
cardoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Beyond The Wall.
Posts: 5,114
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2699 Post(s)
Liked: 3121
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooked01 View Post
Once again, I feel that the studios still don't understand the Star Trek phenomenon and its fans. They think the fans are so dumb that if they put "Star Trek" on anything, they'll get an instant following. The studios don't get that the fans might be fooled the first time, but not for long. The most ardent longtime fans hated the ST reboot and stayed away.

I was disappointed by the JJ reboot. It was ok as a generic glitzy space adventure. It did not have the Roddenberry spirit.

I am curious about Discovery, but I'm not going to pay for a subscription.
Star trek is dead and the new films made loads of money. There are huge legions of fans who will lap up anything Star Trek, spend enough time on ST threads on FB and that is abundantly clear. The fans are getting exactly what they want, which is never really a good thing since most of us fans are morons.
shivaji and Tack like this.

Listening with Focal Elex headphones, Topping DSD Dac, SENCUN-audio tube preamp with tone control and Modded Little Dot hybrid tube amp with Voshkod 6ZH1P-EV tubes, Dual Discrete Op-Amp SS3602, and Alps Blue Velvet volume pot.

Watching in a room ensconced in velvet.
cardoski is offline  
post #35 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 09:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
shivaji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: So. California
Posts: 2,669
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1318 Post(s)
Liked: 1348
Perhaps, the new show will have a cameo of Admiral Janeway, for her fans and for old time sake.


shivaji is offline  
post #36 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 09:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Aliens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 9,876
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2311 Post(s)
Liked: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post
Blame our boy Aliens. He let the gif/cat outta' the bag for Cardo in the NFL thread. Button his butt.
archiguy and cardoski like this.
Aliens is offline  
post #37 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 10:55 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 17,403
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1241 Post(s)
Liked: 2166
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post
Trek doesn't command broadcast network dollars, most people don't watch Sci-Fi period and never will.
I think we're overlooking the forum that Trek performed the best in: Syndication.

CBS and Paramount seem to think they need to keep Trek in house, when Syndicated runs of TNG and DS9 were the most successful incarnations. Paramount tried to launch a TV network propped up by Voyager, but the network is long forgotten while Voyager still makes money in syndicated airings.

By selling it to every local TV market that wants to air it during afternoon or evening local avails, you collect far more than simply putting it out on a single channel or platform.

CBS seems to think that syndication is a bad word, yet they have some of the most successful shows on the platform.
thehun, erhurd, cardoski and 1 others like this.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #38 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 11:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
hooked01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 909 Post(s)
Liked: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardoski View Post
Star trek is dead and the new films made loads of money. There are huge legions of fans who will lap up anything Star Trek, spend enough time on ST threads on FB and that is abundantly clear. The fans are getting exactly what they want, which is never really a good thing since most of us fans are morons.
Sadly, you're right. TOS and TNG while Roddenberry was still alive had his stamp of optimism for the future and idealist concepts of harmony. But then it became more about space battles and dirty politics.

Nowadays, I see comments about the new show should be about the Romulan wars or some other conflict. I guess the idealism of the 60's is too old fashioned now and people just want to see conflict and subterfuge.

Space battles are cool, but the new Star Trek movies lacked the chemistry and relationships between the characters. The third tried to add that but it felt a bit shoehorned in between all the action. It also didn't make as much money as hoped and I've read articles that if there's a fourth movie, the budget will be slashed.
jazzycat likes this.
hooked01 is online now  
post #39 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 03:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jedimastergrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 3,682
Mentioned: 155 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 897 Post(s)
Liked: 732
Supremely disappointed in the choice CBS is making to force us to pay for a Star Trek television series. This strategy is likely to fail. And it is just unfortunate that it could take down a beloved franchise with it. They got it wrong with the last reboot and I am not sure if the series can stand up to another failure. On the other hand if it succeeds we will be paying for everything that should be on broadcast television. So bad news either way.

Furthermore after watching the trailer for The Orville I can actually say I am more interested in this Star Trek spoof than the real thing! And this is coming from a big time Star Trek fan. I decorated my projector room in TOS stuff. Maybe I need an Orville poster with "CBS can suck it" cleverly hidden somewhere.

Here's hoping after a quick failed experiment they lift the Netflix ban in the US.
jedimastergrant is offline  
post #40 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 04:22 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
TitusTroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 11,508
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5747 Post(s)
Liked: 5263
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post
Let this terrible idea die on the vine before every other broadcast network sees they can get away with it and starts doing the same thing.

I don't watch much broadcast television shows (outside of sports) but this definitely sets a bad precedent which hopefully the other broadcast networks will not follow...imagine ABC, NBC and FOX putting a lot of their best shows on some crappy subscription service...99% of the quality shows are on cable so I don't really care as much about CBS All-Access but in terms of how it will impact the overall television landscape I am worried...especially now with all the cord cutters networks are trying new models to get viewers back

speaking of CBS All-Access isn't one of their other popular spinoff shows also on that all-access channel- The Good Wife spinoff?...I wonder how that show is doing in terms of viewers
jazzycat likes this.
TitusTroy is online now  
post #41 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 05:24 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
VisionOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Carrboro, NC
Posts: 14,547
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 2398
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooked01 View Post
Sadly, you're right. TOS and TNG while Roddenberry was still alive had his stamp of optimism for the future and idealist concepts of harmony. But then it became more about space battles and dirty politics.
That's because we are in the future and know that the exact opposite is true.

Before the world was connected 24/7 it was easy to only see as far as the borders of your home town and assume the rest of the world follows. Now you know exactly what the rest of the world (and behind the facade of your home town) is like. It's full of @##holes. It doesn't help when you have world leaders who have no clue or interest in science either.

Plus Trek was written by some visionary sci-fi authors and the concepts since then have been covered hundreds of times. When you have new ideas it's easy being first, for everyone that follows you are just unoriginal.
mike1812, Keenan and jazzycat like this.



Last edited by VisionOn; 05-20-2017 at 05:27 PM.
VisionOn is offline  
post #42 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 05:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
Ted Sheckler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 292
This isn't a fan made trailer?

📺 Sony (XBR-55X930D)
📻 Yamaha (RX-A780)
🎶 SVS (PRIME)

🔊 SVS (PB-1000)
SVS (PC12-NSD)
📀 Sony (UBPX700)
🎮Switch▪️PS4▪️Xbox One X 2.5TB
Ted Sheckler is offline  
post #43 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 05:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HDMe2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kittrell, NC
Posts: 6,553
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 861 Post(s)
Liked: 667
People like good stories. When bad dramas come out, they don't stop making dramas... bad comedies and they don't stop making comedies... but a bad western, super-hero, or sci-fi? They conclude "nobody likes that anymore" and try to stop making them for a decade!

Make good sci-fi, and people will watch... and it doesn't have to be about the F/X budget either, if the story and the acting are solid.

They could also make good Trek if they really wanted to make good Trek... but too often they fall into the pattern of slapping "Star Trek" on it and then just doing whatever they want and figuring it will sell... then when it doesn't, they declare no one likes Star Trek anymore.

As always, it's why we can't have nice things.
HDMe2 is offline  
post #44 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 05:42 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
TitusTroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 11,508
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5747 Post(s)
Liked: 5263
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post
They could also make good Trek if they really wanted to make good Trek... but too often they fall into the pattern of slapping "Star Trek" on it and then just doing whatever they want and figuring it will sell... then when it doesn't, they declare no one likes Star Trek anymore

Trek still has some very unique characters and mythology that is ripe for a good adaptation...they just need to find a good writer who understands the shows history...the Borg and Klingons are still some of the coolest sci-fi villains ever
jazzycat likes this.
TitusTroy is online now  
post #45 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 05:47 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
VisionOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Carrboro, NC
Posts: 14,547
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 2398
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post
People like good stories. When bad dramas come out, they don't stop making dramas... bad comedies and they don't stop making comedies... but a bad western, super-hero, or sci-fi? They conclude "nobody likes that anymore" and try to stop making them for a decade!
Because bad comedies and bad dramas are as cheap to make as good ones. Until the stars get too expensive, then you can just make another one. No big deal. You'll be building a fake living room set or shooting on the street anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post
Make good sci-fi, and people will watch... and it doesn't have to be about the F/X budget either, if the story and the acting are solid.
But you still need money and a crew scrambling weekly to make effects happen. Unless you are going to set everything in the now. But the closer you do the more it becomes a drama and less sci-fi. Which ironically makes it more popular because it is exactly like the generic stuff most viewers watch. Look at recent years and you can see the most original and out there sci-fi shows fail, while the dull procedural based ones succeed. Relatively speaking.


VisionOn is offline  
post #46 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 05:51 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
VisionOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Carrboro, NC
Posts: 14,547
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 2398
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitusTroy View Post
Trek still has some very unique characters and mythology that is ripe for a good adaptation...they just need to find a good writer who understands the shows history...the Borg and Klingons are still some of the coolest sci-fi villains ever
Voyager and Enterprise killed Borg. They watered them down or changed them to be irrelevant now. Their canon was fairly limited to begin with and there isn't much more to say about them.

I can never forget the parallel someone made to the Cenobites when the Borg first appeared either, which always makes me think someone stole the idea from Clive Barker. The Borg fly around in a giant Lament Cube and the crew is a collection of disfigured and tortured collection of souls in S&M gear.
shivaji and unretarded like this.



Last edited by VisionOn; 05-20-2017 at 06:39 PM.
VisionOn is offline  
post #47 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 06:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HDMe2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kittrell, NC
Posts: 6,553
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 861 Post(s)
Liked: 667
People talk about money... but we have a Big Bang Theory where they have multiple people making nearly a million dollars per episode for a 30-minute show... It's a show with relatively no F/X to speak of... but they blow their budget on the cast because of the popularity of the show.

So... I again assert that IF they made a quality show, people would watch... and if people watch, they'll have a bigger budget to work with and can add F/X to it. The problem is, they will blow an initial budget on flash and glitz and forget to craft compelling story or cast good actors or provide proper direction... then the show fails and they blame it on the budget costing too much for the F/X.

Dramas and Comedies CAN be cheaper... but when they get popular and have to pay their stars... suddenly those shows aren't cheap anymore either. So that logic goes out the window too.

Make a good show. People will watch a good show. Don't make a bad show and then try to turn it around and blame fans for not watching... that's what networks usually try and do.
HDMe2 is offline  
post #48 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 06:21 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 26,168
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6734 Post(s)
Liked: 7578
That's why BSG was so great. They started with compelling characters, put them in a literally life & death, epic-scaled situation, add brilliant writing, and voila! Tee-vee excellence. Plus, they found a young, eager vfx shop in New Zealand called Zoic Studios who did incredible work on a shoestring budget. But that was just icing on the cake.
ltownsend and jazzycat like this.
archiguy is offline  
post #49 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 06:33 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
VisionOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Carrboro, NC
Posts: 14,547
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 2398
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post
People talk about money... but we have a Big Bang Theory where they have multiple people making nearly a million dollars per episode for a 30-minute show... It's a show with relatively no F/X to speak of... but they blow their budget on the cast because of the popularity of the show.
Which is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

First couple of seasons it had mediocre ratings but the more generic and lazy it became shilling the usual Chuck Lorre sitcom tropes the more popular it became. It's not popular because it's sci-fi, it's popular because it stripped out all the nerdiness it had. It's a typical Lorre sitcom and occasionally someone will throw in a (obvious and well-known) reference to something nerdy to keep up the pretense.

girlfriend joke - boyfriend joke - sheldon is clueless - darth vader - girlfriend joke - sheldon doesn't get it - we read comic books - girlfriend joke - atoms are a thing we know about - boyfriends are stupid - sheldon doesn't get it - Bernadette gets mad etc ...

Meanwhile you had Community that skewed so hard into nerdiness and sci-fi that it was nominated for a Hugo, that nobody watched except nerds.
mike1812 likes this.


VisionOn is offline  
post #50 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 06:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HD-Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bronx
Posts: 1,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked: 754
All those flashy effects and it will be stuck on CBS All-Access...with 2.0 audio.
shivaji and Actionable Mango like this.
HD-Master is offline  
post #51 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 11:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by shivaji View Post
Perhaps, the new show will have a cameo of Admiral Janeway, for her fans and for old time sake.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF74RbqXr-U
Not likely. Discovery is 10 years before Kirk & Co. Voyager is in the TNG timeframe, 75 years after Kirk, 85 years after Discovery.
darknite9099 is offline  
post #52 of 2097 Old 05-20-2017, 11:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HD-Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bronx
Posts: 1,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by shivaji View Post
Perhaps, the new show will have a cameo of Admiral Janeway, for her fans and for old time sake.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF74RbqXr-U
Quote:
Originally Posted by darknite9099 View Post
Not likely. Discovery is 10 years before Kirk & Co. Voyager is in the TNG timeframe, 75 years after Kirk, 85 years after Discovery.
Janeway cameo...

dreamer, archiguy, BGLeduc and 5 others like this.
HD-Master is offline  
post #53 of 2097 Old 05-21-2017, 12:08 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
VisionOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Carrboro, NC
Posts: 14,547
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 2398
Quote:
Originally Posted by darknite9099 View Post
Not likely. Discovery is 10 years before Kirk & Co. Voyager is in the TNG timeframe, 75 years after Kirk, 85 years after Discovery.
Like that would matter.
  • Transdimensional conduit.
  • Wormhole.
  • Q (even though Q was first encountered in TNG - maybe an exiled Q who changed his name to X)
  • Borg time tech just lying around from a previous (but strangely unreported) encounter. Maybe it was found in the Antarctic this time.
  • Slingshot around a star.
  • Magic mirror.
  • Teleporter malfunction.
  • Temporal hole/distortion/wave.
  • Temporal Integrity Agents.
  • The entire series is told in flashback by Janeway as a recreation on Voyager's holodeck.
  • <insert new technobabble ratings booster excuse here>
thehun, ltownsend, shivaji and 1 others like this.



Last edited by VisionOn; 05-21-2017 at 12:11 AM.
VisionOn is offline  
post #54 of 2097 Old 05-21-2017, 02:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HD-Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bronx
Posts: 1,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 660 Post(s)
Liked: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post
Like that would matter.


  • Transdimensional conduit.


  • Wormhole.


  • Q (even though Q was first encountered in TNG - maybe an exiled Q who changed his name to X)


  • Borg time tech just lying around from a previous (but strangely unreported) encounter. Maybe it was found in the Antarctic this time.


  • Slingshot around a star.


  • Magic mirror.


  • Teleporter malfunction.


  • Temporal hole/distortion/wave.


  • Temporal Integrity Agents.


  • The entire series is told in flashback by Janeway as a recreation on Voyager's holodeck.


  • <insert new technobabble ratings booster excuse here>


Or...all other Star Trek crews and adventures were merely a dream had by one lone Discovery character. Cue the snow globe.
mike1812 likes this.
HD-Master is offline  
post #55 of 2097 Old 05-21-2017, 04:03 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 8,622
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1380 Post(s)
Liked: 1027
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post
People talk about money... but we have a Big Bang Theory where they have multiple people making nearly a million dollars per episode for a 30-minute show....
It is worse than that. The average episode is always less than 20 min long and many times barely over 18 minutes.

"VCR was in the closet. Still works. Can't get the clock to stop blinking, though."
Angela - Animal Kingdom - 7/16/19
My 2017 Total Solar Eclipse Photos
mrvideo is offline  
post #56 of 2097 Old 05-21-2017, 04:06 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 8,622
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1380 Post(s)
Liked: 1027
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitusTroy View Post
speaking of CBS All-Access isn't one of their other popular spinoff shows also on that all-access channel- The Good Wife spinoff?...I wonder how that show is doing in terms of viewers
Yes, The Good Fight. I don't know if CBS is releasing viewer info. But, it was only 10 episodes long.

"VCR was in the closet. Still works. Can't get the clock to stop blinking, though."
Angela - Animal Kingdom - 7/16/19
My 2017 Total Solar Eclipse Photos
mrvideo is offline  
post #57 of 2097 Old 05-21-2017, 10:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post
Like that would matter.
  • Transdimensional conduit.
  • Wormhole.
  • Q (even though Q was first encountered in TNG - maybe an exiled Q who changed his name to X)
  • Borg time tech just lying around from a previous (but strangely unreported) encounter. Maybe it was found in the Antarctic this time.
  • Slingshot around a star.
  • Magic mirror.
  • Teleporter malfunction.
  • Temporal hole/distortion/wave.
  • Temporal Integrity Agents.
  • The entire series is told in flashback by Janeway as a recreation on Voyager's holodeck.
  • <insert new technobabble ratings booster excuse here>
Like that would matter..... Yeah, but it should. There were huge gaps between TOS and TNG so they could be truly separate and not dependent on characters from another series/time period to be successful. And the whole series as a flashback was stupid when Riker and Troi showed up on Enterprise, lets not beat the dead horse. (The sad one trick pony guest shot)
jazzycat likes this.
darknite9099 is offline  
post #58 of 2097 Old 05-22-2017, 03:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HDMe2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kittrell, NC
Posts: 6,553
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 861 Post(s)
Liked: 667
Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOn View Post
Which is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

First couple of seasons it had mediocre ratings but the more generic and lazy it became shilling the usual Chuck Lorre sitcom tropes the more popular it became. It's not popular because it's sci-fi, it's popular because it stripped out all the nerdiness it had. It's a typical Lorre sitcom and occasionally someone will throw in a (obvious and well-known) reference to something nerdy to keep up the pretense.
Sorry, my fault for not being more specific about the point I was trying to make... I wasn't bringing up Big Bang for sci-fi... just for an example of a show that is expensive to produce. I could just as easily have cited Friends, which also had multiple main stars making a million an episode in later seasons.

My point was... if they can make a 30-min comedy profitable enough to pay main stars millions of dollars... then surely someone could make a 60-min sci-fi program and put some of that money into the F/X budget. That was all I was saying. People act like Sci-Fi is "too expensive" but then fail to notice that some dramas and comedies end up with big budgets because of the stars even without F/X costs.

I stick to my guns that IF we had more quality sci-fi stories, then sci-fi shows would do well on TV. The problem is that any time a sci-fi show fails the genre is crushed harder... whereas a comedy or a drama fails and two more take their place... like Hydra! So they keep getting chances to get it right... but sci-fi doesn't get to fail on the same scale.
jazzycat likes this.
HDMe2 is offline  
post #59 of 2097 Old 05-22-2017, 03:34 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
WilliamR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 13,160
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2158 Post(s)
Liked: 2935
I am such a HUGE star trek geek but I am so pissed the only way to watch this is to pay extra to see it, especially when there is nothing else I want to see on CBS, its not like my Netflix subscription where I can watch a bunch of other shows that come out.
jazzycat likes this.

WilliamR is offline  
post #60 of 2097 Old 05-22-2017, 04:34 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
VisionOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Carrboro, NC
Posts: 14,547
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 2398
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post
My point was... if they can make a 30-min comedy profitable enough to pay main stars millions of dollars... then surely someone could make a 60-min sci-fi program and put some of that money into the F/X budget. That was all I was saying. People act like Sci-Fi is "too expensive" but then fail to notice that some dramas and comedies end up with big budgets because of the stars even without F/X costs.
Paying a few people a lot of money is still not the equivalent to managing a lot of people who have to do a lot of tasks in a short time frame. The time is a cost too. Same thing happens with movies. Pay the star and cheap out on everything else because a well-known face earns more for a studio in an easy way than a team of people working behind the scenes.

Then of course the reason TBBT stars get that is because it also sells well overseas. Again, generic sitcom content translates. Sci-fi is still a niche sell no matter what country you are in.


VisionOn is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Programming

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off