Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I know it may seem like I'm stressing about continuity.  It really doesn't bother me as much as it may seem.  I can watch Strange New Worlds and not get bogged down by TOS continuity, particularly since I don't remember much of TOS continuity.  What I'm talking about here is more issues with overall continuity.  If Vulcan is okay in 3190, it is in no danger in 2410 or 2500 or any year in between.  If there's some sort of Federation Civil War in 2600, we know it eventually works out because the Federation survived (in some sense) in the 32nd century.

From a certain point of view, Discovery is now the official Trek "present" and everything else is prequel territory.  Just like TOS became prequel when TNG started.

Now ireactions is right that the future is fluid.  So maybe something will happen that will wipe out Discovery's version of the future.  We've already seen the TOS version of the future (and the past) altered.  Again, not a huge deal.  Just an annoyance.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I've always disliked the idea that timelines get wiped out. I don't like it when the audience reacts to a story with a sense of, as comic book writer Brian Michael Bendis put it, "You're breaking all the toys!" I feel that destroying timelines is like breaking all the toys and throwing out the sandbox. I would prefer that the 33rd century just exist as one of many possible futures for STAR TREK rather than destroy it. However, that may be a minority view.

The post-NEMESIS novels for TNG, DS9 and VOY had a very clean slate and did a lot of ongoing story arcs, only for PICARD to outright contradict them. The publishers elected to end their novel continuity in the CODA trilogy where the novel versions of the TNG, DS9 and VOY casts discover: all timelines are under attack by the Devidians, a race that feeds on energy from destroyed timelines. The heroes realize: the Devidians first began their campaign of destruction when the Borg altered history in FIRST CONTACT, splitting the timelines into disparate paths.

The novel timeline has been what the characters call the Splinter Timeline (media tie-ins), apart from the Prime Timeline (PICARD). The CODA trilogy ends with the novel characters sacrificing their own timeline so that the Prime Timeline and all the other timelines will be preserved while the Splinter Timeline is destroyed.

This is exactly the kind of story I dislike and disagree with. The CODA writers explained that they felt that saying the novel universe continues without ongoing publication would leave things unresolved, and they felt killing everyone off to save the Prime characters was conclusive and final. That may be, but all it did was, as Bendis would put it, "break the toys" and throw out the sandbox. I think that if a writer doesn't enjoy a a toy, they should just leave it alone rather than actively destroy it. Someone else might find a use for it someday.

I think this is just something to address in a throwaway line. "Mirror Georgiou? Again? I thought we were rid of her." "No, she's back from that possible future timeline." Or even a more involved exchange:

LUCSLY: "Hello. I'm Agent Lucsly from the Department of Temporal Investigations. I'm very familiar with you, 'Emperor.'"

MIRROR GEORIGOU: "You think you know me from reading my file, as though my data footprint is all I am and nothing compared to all you represent and all you claim to be. Department of Temporal Investigations. A portentous term bound in administrative pretense, as though time can be curtailed by a flowchart and a briefing. I have seen the end of your civilization, the conclusion of all you exist within, the downfall of all that keeps you upright. I know what is coming for you, what will consume you, what will -- "

LUCSLY: "Uh. No. Sorry. What you saw was one potential future. 38B. The Burn one, right? Yeah, that's not even the worst one. There are like four thousand apocalyptic timelines out of the 20 billion we track every day. But thanks for letting me know that it left you psychologically scarred and that it bolstered your existing narcisissm."

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Really struggling through Patrick Stewart's autobiography where he feels the need to describe what feels like every single stageplay he ever featured in oh my God I get it you felt super-insecure and on edge at all times I understand I think five examples is sufficient do we really need fifteen?

That said, it's pretty clear that Stewart had an untreated anxiety disorder masked by his commanding vocal presence.

I'm sure it'll get more interesting once we get to STAR TREK.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Still reading Patrick Stewart's autobiography...

There's a story where the serious, dour Patrick Stewart was appalled by all the laughter and goofy quipping of his castmates during the first season of STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION and then summoned them all to a meeting where he told them all off for blowing takes and cracking wise instead of solemnly and seriously performing the work of acting. "We are not here to have fun!" he roared at them.

Brent Spiner, Jonathan Frakes, Michael Dorn, Marina Sirtis, Gates McFadden and Denise Crosby contemplated this thoughtfully and collectively laughed in his face and with each other, their uncontrollable giggling continuing for a prolonged period at which point Stewart fled for his trailer with his dignity in tatters, realizing that the gang just did not take him very seriously.

There's also a neat anecdote where during Season 3, the married Patrick Stewart was seeing very little of his wife due to his filming in LA and her being in England. Stewart found himself falling in love with guest-star Jennifer Hetrick (Caroline in "Last Days", Claire LeBeau in "The Seer") and dating her while realizing that he wasn't in love with his wife anymore and filing for divorce. Stewart and Hetrick dated for a little while, but the constant pursuit of tabloid photographers was too much for Hetrick, hitting a breaking point when, on a private island vacation, they had to travel separately to get there and lasted two days before Hetrick had simply had enough. Stewart spent five more days alone on the island knowing that his girlfriend was done with him, his ex-wife was furious with him, his children loathed him, and his castmates thought he was a joyless pain in the ass and a joke.

It's so bleak that it's funny. Stewart later recounts that in later years, his TNG castmates will regularly mock-snarl at him, "We are not here to have fun!" which he agrees is extremely well-deserved.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

@ireactions -- was it the trek documentary "The Captains" where Stewart began crying over how he treated his ex-wife?

There was a lot of emotional issues there.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

One of the reasons why we haven't gotten any news on THE ORVILLE's renewal or cancellation: Disney was mulling over whether or not to buy Hulu, on which THE ORVILLE streams. It looks like the purchase will go through which will lead to some clarity as to whether or not Disney, having bought the streamer on which THE ORVILLE streams, will then order another season.

https://bleedingcool.com/tv/the-orville … this-week/

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Has there been any discussion on whether or not the actors would be able to come back?  How does that even work?  I assume none are under contract and are getting work elsewhere.  If only half of them could come back, it wouldn't really be the same.

Although if they just filmed the novel, that would be enough for me.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Seth MacFarlane has promised fans that if there's a fourth season of THE ORVILLE, he will find a way to produce and write it alongside any other commitments he has.

Most of the actors have said that they'll do their best to return, but they can't promise that because they have to take other work to earn a living and could conceivably be engaged elsewhere if Season 4 is ordered. It's possible that MacFarlane might produce and write a fourth season, but be in it less, and a crew composed of available cast members and newcomers might board the bridge.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I miss the Orville and I'm glad there's potentially a path for it to come back.

******

Star Trek: Lower Decks is such a joy.  I still think that it's sometimes too silly for me to really love that it's canon (when characters know things that only a current day Star Trek fan would know), but the show is really such a joy.  And I think the crossover with Strange New Worlds did a great job of showing that a lot of Starfleet officers are Starfleet nerds (and thus Star Trek nerds) and might know things that maybe we think they wouldn't know.

There's a decent chance that Lower Decks is my favorite Trek series of all time, all things considered.  So obviously I'm able to get over the silliness.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

ireactions wrote:

Still reading Patrick Stewart's autobiography...

There's a story where the serious, dour Patrick Stewart was appalled by all the laughter and goofy quipping of his castmates during the first season of STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION and then summoned them all to a meeting where he told them all off for blowing takes and cracking wise instead of solemnly and seriously performing the work of acting. "We are not here to have fun!" he roared at them.

Brent Spiner, Jonathan Frakes, Michael Dorn, Marina Sirtis, Gates McFadden and Denise Crosby contemplated this thoughtfully and collectively laughed in his face and with each other, their uncontrollable giggling continuing for a prolonged period at which point Stewart fled for his trailer with his dignity in tatters, realizing that the gang just did not take him very seriously.

There's also a neat anecdote where during Season 3, the married Patrick Stewart was seeing very little of his wife due to his filming in LA and her being in England. Stewart found himself falling in love with guest-star Jennifer Hetrick (Caroline in "Last Days", Claire LeBeau in "The Seer") and dating her while realizing that he wasn't in love with his wife anymore and filing for divorce. Stewart and Hetrick dated for a little while, but the constant pursuit of tabloid photographers was too much for Hetrick, hitting a breaking point when, on a private island vacation, they had to travel separately to get there and lasted two days before Hetrick had simply had enough. Stewart spent five more days alone on the island knowing that his girlfriend was done with him, his ex-wife was furious with him, his children loathed him, and his castmates thought he was a joyless pain in the ass and a joke.

It's so bleak that it's funny. Stewart later recounts that in later years, his TNG castmates will regularly mock-snarl at him, "We are not here to have fun!" which he agrees is extremely well-deserved.

funny anecdotes.  I have no reason to read his book as he's pretty much been highly open about his career and life over the decades.

611 (edited by RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan 2023-11-16 08:46:54)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

It's kinda idiotic to me why people would question wearing a mask in a crowd at a hockey game. 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/actor-wi … ll-a-thing

It's not like he was wearing it outdoors.  Some people don't care if they don't get sick but some people do.  If you do, then the time to still mask is in a large crowd.

I've heard of people getting sick after attending sporting events.  I don't know really to what degree sporting events are places where transmission would be high because arenas/domes have huge ceilings and stadiums are open air.  They are not small enclosed spaces.  But if you are sitting next to the wrong person for 2 hours, well that might be an issue.

Anyway, it's weird that will wheaton had to explain himself but I do give him credit for the grace at which he answered this when the conversation shouldn't still be having to be had.  And that's not to say one shouldn't respect those who do the opposite. Live and let live, make choices right for you.  Anyway, I admire the way Wheaton handled this.  He's a good guy.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Bit late, but PRODIGY has been picked up by Netflix which will stream the first season and then, in 2024, the second season.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv … 235615236/

613 (edited by RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan 2023-11-17 08:39:58)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

ireactions wrote:

Bit late, but PRODIGY has been picked up by Netflix which will stream the first season and then, in 2024, the second season.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv … 235615236/

I didn't watch the show but this is great to see. 

Paramount Plus just wasn't going to succeed as a platform for kids. 

netflix must be to tv for the younger generation as what kleenex is to us for tissues.

Paramount Plus just didn't register nor count to them.  And the costs to make it so are just too great.

It's good to see that a viable show didn't die just because the platform wasn't right for it.  It's a similar idea with Girls5Eva moving from peacock to netflix.  New half hour comedies really weren't working well enough on peacock.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan wrote:

It's kinda idiotic to me why people would question wearing a mask in a crowd at a hockey game. 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/actor-wi … ll-a-thing

It's not like he was wearing it outdoors.  Some people don't care if they don't get sick but some people do.  If you do, then the time to still mask is in a large crowd.

I've heard of people getting sick after attending sporting events.  I don't know really to what degree sporting events are places where transmission would be high because arenas/domes have huge ceilings and stadiums are open air.  They are not small enclosed spaces.  But if you are sitting next to the wrong person for 2 hours, well that might be an issue.

Anyway, it's weird that will wheaton had to explain himself but I do give him credit for the grace at which he answered this when the conversation shouldn't still be having to be had.  And that's not to say one shouldn't respect those who do the opposite. Live and let live, make choices right for you.  Anyway, I admire the way Wheaton handled this.  He's a good guy.

COVID baloney.  It's just simply Wil Wheaton.  Forever, he was one of the biggest grouches at conventions, and had a 100% NO TOUCHING policy.  He's parlayed his warped hatred towards his immediate family into his shtick.  I could 1000% imagine Wil Wheaton not only doing the (now completely overdone) virtue signaled masking, but then never missing an opportunity to be Mr. Outrage and furthering his own cause, "grace" or otherwise.  Honestly, I had to begrudgingly force myself through the Trek post-show's that he's hosted, as I'm sure most of his old co-stars have as well, with him there.  He's not exactly part of that "family."

ireactions wrote:

Bit late, but PRODIGY has been picked up by Netflix which will stream the first season and then, in 2024, the second season.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv … 235615236/

Mehhh

615 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-17 13:16:09)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Again, my recommendation to any Trek fan is to give Prodigy a chance.  I had no interest, but I heard it was good and gave it a shot.  It's definitely the most kiddie Trek, but it's not a baby show.  It's not edu-tainment.  The characters are somewhat young, but there's a decent amount of adult material.  If you like Voyager, it's a direct sequel to Voyager in a lot of ways.

If it's not for you, that's fine.  If you watch it and don't like it, that's fine.  But if you're open to it, give it a shot.  It can only help the Trek brand

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I responded to the mask comments in the political thread:
https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 908#p14908

Grizzlor wrote:

... Wil Wheaton.  Forever, he was one of the biggest grouches at conventions, and had a 100% NO TOUCHING policy.  He's parlayed his warped hatred towards his immediate family into his shtick... Honestly, I had to begrudgingly force myself through the Trek post-show's that he's hosted, as I'm sure most of his old co-stars have as well, with him there.  He's not exactly part of that "family."

I don't doubt that Wheaton has done something to enrage you at least once in person. And it's perfectly fine to find Wheaton's screen presence and persona irksome. However:

I don't think you can project your own distaste for Wheaton onto his castmates unless you actually have some quotes or social media posts or anything beyond you assuming your dislike of Wheaton is universal to all.

Wil Wheaton -- or anyone, for that matter -- has the right to say he doesn't want strangers touching him.

Wheaton has made accusations towards his mother and father of abuse and labour exploitation: that they forced him to act, took all of his earnings and co-opted all of his residuals. Given that Wheaton was selling Wesley action figures to avoid foreclosure despite STAR TREK residuals likely to have paid him six figures annually, well after the show was cancelled, just on the seasons he worked the show, this is clearly true. I have a summary of Wheaton's claims here:
https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 149#p13149

Wheaton's claims are not only extremely serious, they are extremely common: child actors are frequently used as the family living by parents or managers or accountants who use the children, steal their earnings, and gaslight the kids into thinking that it's correct and appropriate. Other survivors of such exploitation of child labour include Danielle Harris, Natanya Ross, Macaulay Culkin, Jennette McCurdy, Shirley Temple, Ariel Winter and plenty of names big and small, some of whom have signed autographs and taken pictures for you.

Wil Wheaton has every right to use his minor celebrity platform to share his trauma and grief with his fans.

Wil Wheaton may have blown his nose into your Jerry O'Connell photos and burned your Kari Wuhrer pictures and stolen your dog and drank your last ginger ale and snapped John Rhys-Davies' walking stick and stolen Sabrina Lloyd's paintbrushes and told Cleavant Derricks that he can't sing. That could all be true and Wheaton would still be a victim of exploitation from his parents.

The denial that his mother issued to the press was nonsensical, claiming that she and Wheaton had always been close (which is obviously not true since he's accusing her of stealing all of his residuals).

Wheaton may be a jerk. I've never met him, Grizzlor clearly has.

But even if Grizzlor is right, Wheaton would still be a jerk who was squeezed and robbed by his mother and father, who has the right to not be touched, who has the right to tell his story. And Grizzlor would still have every right to dislike him.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Grizzlor wrote on STAR TREK: PRODIGY:
Mehhh

It's odd that you have such disdain for projects that you, by your own admission, haven't watched.

I myself was not keen on watching PRODIGY because... I didn't want to watch it if it were going to get cut off in mid-storyline by Paramount Plus writing it off. I'll watch it now that Netflix will stream it.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

ireactions wrote:

Seth MacFarlane has promised fans that if there's a fourth season of THE ORVILLE, he will find a way to produce and write it alongside any other commitments he has.

Most of the actors have said that they'll do their best to return, but they can't promise that because they have to take other work to earn a living and could conceivably be engaged elsewhere if Season 4 is ordered. It's possible that MacFarlane might produce and write a fourth season, but be in it less, and a crew composed of available cast members and newcomers might board the bridge.

So apparently Adrianne Palicki was on Michael Rosenbaum's podcast "Inside of You" and essentially said the Orville was done.  She said she hasn't really heard anything official on it, but that it was really hard to work on because there was so much time between seasons.  They only did 36 episodes, but it's been 6 years.  So the pay ended up being really low for the amount of time that they were doing the show.  Sounds like that frustrated a lot of the actors.

I don't really understand how any of that works, and I'll admit I'm one of those simpletons that assumes that anyone that works on a network TV show is a multimillionaire.  I know that's not the case, and I can see why it would be difficult to be stuck to a show that seems to be moving so slowly.

I still think the show is really great, vastly underrated, and I hope it can come back and take care of the actors on the show.  Ms. Palicki didn't seem to think that was realistic, though.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

THE ORVILLE situation for actors is financially untenable. They were getting what looks like three years of moderate TV pay for six years of work. I think that is probably holding up a renewal as well: THE ORVILLE would not be workable on its original Season 1- 3 budget because the studio would need to pay the actors for 12 - 18 months -- probably the equivalent of 20 episodes -- in order to make six episodes of TV. Even with the pandemic delay, the fact that Season 3 took three years to produce 10 episodes is (probably) due to Seth MacFarlane writing all the scripts.

So what could be done? Well, either they could pay the actors their holding fees, or they could negotiate that Season 4 is 7 - 10 episodes and all scenes with actors must be filmed within a six month schedule even if post production takes longer; this enables the actors to take on other jobs to earn a living.

In addition, I think Seth MacFarlane would need to hire a writing staff and do outlines for other screenwriters to produce teleplays which MacFarlane would then revise. Given MacFarlane's workload on other projects, I don't think he would have much choice but to do this anyway to produce another season of THE ORVILLE.

I really enjoyed Season 3 of THE ORVILLE, but subtracting the pandemic year, did those 10 episodes really reflect the need to spend two years filming those 10 episodes?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

There was a writing team, including Brannon Braga & Andre Bormanis, but Seth handled the majority.  The reason for the impasse prior to season 3 was that Seth did not want to continue filming the series in his role.  He offered to write it, but FOX declined, so it was shelved for awhile, before production was again halted from COVID halfway through S3.  They released it on Hulu rather than the network, following the Disney acquisition.  Seth is onto other things, but this is what he does, start and stop, shuffles to another property, etc.

I can commiserate with the actors on that show.  I do not expect it to return, and if it, does probably would be something very very limited.  Maybe a movie.  The show was not a ratings hit, and frankly the third season was a bit of a slog compared to the exciting S2.  Not to mention how I didn't understand why Halston Sage was replaced.  I'd welcome its return, but doesn't sound likely.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

ireactions wrote:

In addition, I think Seth MacFarlane would need to hire a writing staff and do outlines for other screenwriters to produce teleplays which MacFarlane would then revise.

Grizzlor wrote:

There was a writing team, including Brannon Braga & Andre Bormanis

This is correct. I mistakenly repeated Adrianne Palicki referring to "Seth" taking a long time to write Season 3 as a fact when it was in fact a generalization. The Season 3 writing staff featured David A. Goodman, Brannon Braga, Andre Bormanis, Cherry Chevapravatdumrong and MacFarlane. Furthermore, it looks like writing on Season 3 began in May 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GusqtdZOGE

In August 2019, four months later, they'd finished... five scripts. Most writing teams for streaming shows would have written 8 - 10 scripts in that same amount of time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyqstSk … e=youtu.be

Of the 10 episodes, MacFarlane has sole credit for four; Goodman wrote one, Chevapravatdumrong wrote one, and Braga and Bormanis wrote four. MacFarlane also wrote "Sympathy for the Devil" and then a novelization of the unfilmed script. Effectively, of 11 scripts for Season 3, MacFarlane wrote five, or 45.45 percent.

"Shadow Realms" and "Mortality Paradox" strike me as the most unlike MacFarlane. "Shadow Realms" (Braga and Bormanis) is a stock VOYAGER plot of DNA mutating people into monsters and very much of the Brannon Braga handbook. "Mortality Paradox" (Chevapravatdumrong) is a lot of high dollar set pieces and not much sense. David A. Goodman's "From Unknown Graves" has the twisted perspective that I'd expect from him after his FUTURAMA work.

Meanwhile, "Gently Falling Rain", "Midnight Blue" and "Domino" from Braga and Bormanis don't resemble Braga's work and I would hazard a highly uninformed guess that MacFarlane rewrote most of the scenes. It would seem to me, although I could be wrong, that MacFarlane was writing five scripts and rewriting every scene of at least three. That strikes me as way too much for the showrunner if he's also the lead actor.

A lot of this seems to be MacFarlane insisting on having all scripts ready before filming so that he didn't have to do any on-set rewriting alongside acting.

Then there's the production schedule: six to seven weeks to film each episode -- and that was before pandemic restrictions slowed things down. Again, while I really enjoyed Season 3, I'm not sure this show needed seven weeks per episode. I'm not sure what that was about. https://youtu.be/qlqpogkCp3I?si=FkTUetUoNg5w0bjN

I recognize that THE ORVILLE is more effects-heavy than a cop show episode filmed in a week, but is THE ORVILLE really six to seven times more complicated than a cop show? 

I'm not sure what the reason is for why filming would have taken a year and a half for 11 episodes even without COVID. It's something I should ask about when I find some time for it.

I think if there is to be a Season 4, it might be necessary for MacFarlane to delegate his showrunner duties to a trusted subordinate who can match MacFarlane's style and sensibilities, who can shepherd scripts to completion that MacFarlane can easily do a quick polish on, whom MacFarlane can trust to be the on-set writer to do revisions during filming... and THE ORVILLE's episodes need to be filmed in 2 - 3 weeks per episode at most.

I'm not sure if the results would be the same as Seasons 1 - 3, but the way in which Seasons 1 - 3 were made seems unsustainable.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

SIX to SEVEN weeks to SHOOT an episode?!?!?!?  Is that true?  Seth's vaunted Star Trek TNG episodes were given barely TWO weeks to film, often less!  That's outright lunacy.  Also, effects mean nothing as most are done in post via CGI.  The show has limited location filming, it's 90% on the ship set.  I could see it taking seven weeks from first shot to post being completed, but not filming, that is horrendous. 

In fairness, like I said, Seth asked to be allowed just to write the show, and be replaced on screen, the studio refused.  I do not expect to see the series return.  At this point, with whatever Discovery plans to spew onto peoples' wi-fi, this seems to leave SNW as the lone "outer space" TV series?

623 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2023-12-06 09:32:30)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Discovery ends in 2024.  Strange New Worlds is working on Season 3.  There's whatever Section 31 project they're working on.

I think that's it as far as live action goes?  Lower Decks will be back, and Prodigy is getting their shot on Netflix.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I think Sec 31 is just a movie to stream on P+.  I'm shocked that Yeoh agreed to go forward at all, after the Oscar win.  I suppose Picard could return as a movie as well, and Matalas has been pushing for a "Legacy" show, which I would love to see, but who knows?  Paramount is heavily in flux.  They're essentially shutting down Showtime, and there's been talk of them selling pieces.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Grizzlor wrote:

SIX to SEVEN weeks to SHOOT an episode?!?!?!?  Is that true?

Hmmm. Looking at it more closely: THE ORVILLE was filming from October 21, 2019 to March 13, 2020. Over the course of 144 days, they completed filming for five episodes (but not editing or effects). This translates to about four weeks (28.8 days) to film one episode.

Grizzlor wrote:

Seth's vaunted Star Trek TNG episodes were given barely TWO weeks to film, often less!  That's outright lunacy.  Also, effects mean nothing as most are done in post via CGI.  The show has limited location filming, it's 90% on the ship set.  I could see it taking seven weeks from first shot to post being completed, but not filming, that is horrendous.

   
I overshot when I said six to seven weeks (that was Tom Costantino's estimate, but it must have included editing). Still, a month to shoot one episode of a set-bound show even before pandemic protocols is bizarre.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I have no explanation for that, a month is totally ridiculous.  The other possibility which the actors kind of alluded to, is that they might have been filming the episodes at normal pace, but there were gaps in between.  Perhaps Seth was re-writing taking his sweet old time?  I doubt they were paid a ton to begin with, outside of MacFarlane, so for their sakes maybe the show ought to stay "grounded," which I expect to happen anyway.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

regarding the Orville
https://screenrant.com/the-orville-seas … acfarlane/

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I know Palicki spoke negatively about her experience, but I assume if they pay her properly for her time (including any time she's not working), I assume she would come back.  She hasn't really worked much since the Orville ended (which may be her choice), but even if it was some sort of smaller role, I don't think she'd just not come back.  At least, that's not what I got from her interview with Michael Rosenbaum.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I know Palicki spoke negatively about her experience, but I assume if they pay her properly for her time (including any time she's not working), I assume she would come back.  She hasn't really worked much since the Orville ended (which may be her choice), but even if it was some sort of smaller role, I don't think she'd just not come back.  At least, that's not what I got from her interview with Michael Rosenbaum.

I think that was the issue for her.  The contracts I guess put a hold on the actors to ensure their availability, which basically means the actors can't work other gigs because the schedules may conflict then once the orville needs them.  To go into production, it's a lot of moving parts (and uncertain shooting schedules) and the contracts want to ensure availability from the actors.

I am not sure though if I misinterpreted your post.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

No, you didn't misinterpret.  I'm just saying that I assume she'd come back if the contract makes it worth her time.  I hope she comes back - she's a good character and fairly vital to Ed's story.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

No, you didn't misinterpret.  I'm just saying that I assume she'd come back if the contract makes it worth her time.  I hope she comes back - she's a good character and fairly vital to Ed's story.

Oh I see, sorry.

So the actors are no longer contract I guess?   Well, that would make sense.

I hope the show continues. I know its not a massive hit but there's nothing else quite like it on tv.

I saw this having not watched a lot of the latest episodes and with a lot of catching up to do, so I guess I'm talking out  of both sides of my mouth.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Well, I guess I don't know.  The way Palicki talked, it didn't seem like she was under contract anymore or thought the show would continue.  The article implied she wouldn't be back, but I don't know if that's necessarily true.  I'm sure she's upset, but work is work.  And as long as they don't make her sign something that holds her hostage, I think she'd be willing to come back.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

https://trekmovie.com/2024/01/24/michel … s-want-it/

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Well, I guess I don't know.  The way Palicki talked, it didn't seem like she was under contract anymore or thought the show would continue.  The article implied she wouldn't be back, but I don't know if that's necessarily true.  I'm sure she's upset, but work is work.  And as long as they don't make her sign something that holds her hostage, I think she'd be willing to come back.

I think that clickbait article writer just saw an excerpt of Adrienne Palicki's podcast appearance on Inside of You and assumed Palicki was saying she was done with the show as opposed to merely being done with Season 3 as contracted. At the end of the day, Palicki wants to work for a living wage and if a fourth season of ORVILLE pays her for her work and for her availability (as opposed to merely her work), she'll probably sign on.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

You could argue that she's the biggest star on the show.  Budget might restrict their abilities to fully take care of every one of her demands, but I'm sure they understand that.  The Orville is an ensemble cast and could survive it even if she didn't want to come back (for whatever they're able to pay her or however they want to work), but I think her presence would be missed, maybe more than anyone but Ed.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Terry Matalas has been hired to work on a Vision show for Marvel.

I guess we aren't getting Star Trek: Legacy

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I don't think it's happening soon.

It seems like Paramount Global is having financial issues.
https://trekmovie.com/2024/04/02/alex-k … his-hands/

Matalas won't be on VISION forever.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Yeah I'm not saying that it won't happen ever, but it doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon.  They've already greenlit some other things (including another reboot film?) and they're moving ahead with the Starfleet Academy show.  So my guess is Picard Season 3 either didn't perform or they didn't like working with Matalas?  Because I think if Picard worked well (or if they liked Matalas), they'd do Legacy before they did Starfleet Academy.

But maybe they'd committed to Academy and that's all they can afford to do.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I actually really enjoyed the final season of Discovery.  I wish there was more mission of the week stuff, but I thought the season was engaging and fun.  I maintain that the future setting is a much better playground for these characters, and I thought the show ended up being a lot of fun.

The finale, released today, has a lot of fun character moments and a couple fun little reveals.  After not loving the start of it, I think it's a nice inclusion in the canon.  It just needed to find its true home.