Orvillian Media: Wireless Telecommunications Facility

[Morrigan2575]

Well this sucks. I already have Amazon Prime, Cable and Netflix plus I plan to subscribe to Disney+ in November. I really don't want to get a Hulu Membership in top of that. 😒

[Danielg342]

7 hours ago, FrankOFoley said:

Here’s a heads up to SMcF:  in Canada The Orville was shown on Fox broadcast from the US

CityTV also broadcast The Orville in Canada, at the same time FOX did. So I hope they continue to do so.

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Well this sucks. I already have Amazon Prime, Cable and Netflix plus I plan to subscribe to Disney+ in November. I really don't want to get a Hulu Membership in top of that. 😒

Given that your situation is probably very common, it seems likely one or more of those entities will subsume Hulu and maybe make Orvilleans happy. </wishful-thinking>

[Jacks-Son]

38 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

2 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Well this sucks. I already have Amazon Prime, Cable and Netflix plus I plan to subscribe to Disney+ in November. I really don't want to get a Hulu Membership in top of that. 😒

Given that your situation is probably very common, it seems likely one or more of those entities will subsume Hulu and maybe make Orvilleans happy. </wishful-thinking>

Are you aware that the Walt Disney, Co. OWNS Hulu?

[FrankOFoley]

That’s very good to know, Danielg342!

[Morrigan2575]

37 minutes ago, Jacks-Son said:

Are you aware that the Walt Disney, Co. OWNS Hulu?

I knew Disney partially owned Hulu and with the FOX acquisition they took on a larger ownership although I don't know how much they own.  

Edited July 22, 2019 by Morrigan2575

[Jacks-Son]

Make of it what you will.

What’s going to happen to Hulu now that Disney basically owns it?

[Guest]

ADRIANNE PALICKI FILES FOR DIVORCE FROM SCOTT GRIMES

I was surprised to see this headline since I only found out they got married yesterday. I wonder if it’s part of the reason for the season 3 delay. 

3 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I knew Disney partially owned Hulu and with the FOX acquisition they took on a larger ownership although I don't know how much they own.  

Disney owns 2/3rds and Comcast owns the rest. Earlier this year Comcast agreed to sell to Disney in the future and gave Disney full operational control until the sale goes through. A few months ago Disney execs said that Hulu, Disney+ and ESPN+ could be offered in a bundle. 

[FormerMod-a1]

I know it's TMZ, but I thought it's odd that they only mention Friday Night Lights for her, but Scott is "famous for ER and Orville".  I wonder why they didn't list Orville for her, too. 

[Yeah No]

21 minutes ago, Dani said:

ADRIANNE PALICKI FILES FOR DIVORCE FROM SCOTT GRIMES

I was surprised to see this headline since I only found out they got married yesterday. I wonder if it’s part of the reason for the season 3 delay. 

I never thought that relationship had any chance of success.  I could never see them as a couple.

21 minutes ago, Dani said:

Disney owns 2/3rds and Comcast owns the rest. Earlier this year Comcast agreed to sell to Disney in the future and gave Disney full operational control until the sale goes through. A few months ago Disney execs said that Hulu, Disney+ and ESPN+ could be offered in a bundle. 

I wonder why Comcast never offered Hulu.  My smart TV (Panasonic) used to have an app for Hulu, but it disappeared last year.  According to this article Hulu decided to remove itself from Panasonic TVs.  So if I wanted to watch it I'd have to do it on my computer, which sucks.  

Edited July 23, 2019 by Yeah No

[Danielg342]

22 hours ago, Raja said:

It may be the new business model. The networks pay next to nothing for a one year show. The show then goes free agency like an athlete  to the highest bidder streaming service desperate for exclusive content with some of its audience as it tries  to set itself apart from the other services instead of waiting for the end of the run and syndication.

I imagine the networks are going to keep their highest profiting shows for as long as they provide a return, but I could see this happening. Instead of cancelling shows, networks will just pass them on to streaming services, which could have a number of benefits. First, shows will last longer as they're given a new life on the streamers, and second, networks may want to invest in more new shows. This would come about because I believe networks may raise their "cancelling standards" since now they have more options for getting rid of shows that don't return that nice of a profit, meaning they'll have to take on more new shows than they used to in order to fill their time.

That said, while we may have benefits from this, I could also see this backfiring. Networks risk alienating a show's audience by "relegating" shows to streamers, since there will be a portion of the audience who will not follow the show to the new service, which could also impact a show's viability long term.

For myself, unless I feel like a show is "can't miss television", if a show becomes unavailable to me then I'm just going to move on to another show. I might even make that decision even if I am a big fan of a show if- as I fear with The Orville- there's no way I can get access to the show (as Hulu is unavailable in Canada). I'm sure I'm not alone in this regard.

Which makes me wonder if this new reality really is good for entertainment. People may not realize this but Seinfeld began as a poorly rated show that was only saved because an NBC executive fought for it. We all know what happened next, but it begs the question- if it debuted today, would networks give it the chance to break out? How many Seinfeld's will we miss out on because network execs don't have to be patient anymore?

It's going to be murky waters for quite some time, it looks.

[DoctorAtomic]

If I didn't already have Hulu, I probably wouldn't be getting it just for this show, and I really like it. It was my favorite of the last season. But, like I want to watch the new Picard show, but I'm just not getting another streaming service. 

I don't how this is going to equilibrate because it's ridiculous to expect consumers to get 5 or 6 services per month. No one has that kind of time.

[Cobb Salad]

6 minutes ago, Danielg342 said:

Which makes me wonder if this new reality really is good for entertainment. People may not realize this but Seinfeld began as a poorly rated show that was only saved because an NBC executive fought for it. We all know what happened next, but it begs the question- if it debuted today, would networks give it the chance to break out? How many Seinfeld's will we miss out on because network execs don't have to be patient anymore?

It's going to be murky waters for quite some time, it looks.

Cheers was another show that rated poorly in its first season.  IIRC NBC that year didn’t have a lot of high rated shows or something like that so it was renewed.   About Seinfeld I remember watching those first few episodes and thinking there is no way this will be around long because I liked it so much.  I ended up taping all the episodes as they aired.  

Anyway, these days I watch a lot of informational type shows like what is shown on NatGeo and the Science channel as well as reruns of old shows.  I agree with what you’ve said about a possible future for first run TV shows and it doesn’t motivate one to want to invest the time to watch these new TV shows.  

[Ms Lark]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

ADRIANNE PALICKI FILES FOR DIVORCE FROM SCOTT GRIMES

I was surprised to see this headline since I only found out they got married yesterday. I wonder if it’s part of the reason for the season 3 delay. 

Less surprised to see this than I was about the engagement/marriage in the first place! Just struck me as an odd couple. Third marriage for him? Hmm. Yeah, not a good track record there.

McFarland's ex-girlfriend Halston Sage left rather quickly. Wonder who'll be leaving this time. My money is on Adrianne.

8 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Well this sucks. I already have Amazon Prime, Cable and Netflix plus I plan to subscribe to Disney+ in November. I really don't want to get a Hulu Membership in top of that. 😒

The only reason I have Hulu is last year's Black Friday/Cyber Monday "$.99 a month for a year" offer they had going. New members only. I'll be cancelling when that ends, but they may offer it again come November. Just in time for Orville S3 perhaps?

[legaleagle53]

9 minutes ago, Ms Lark said:

Less surprised to see this than I was about the engagement/marriage in the first place! Just struck me as an odd couple. Third marriage for him? Hmm. Yeah, not a good track record there.

McFarland's ex-girlfriend Halston Sage left rather quickly. Wonder who'll be leaving this time. My money is on Adrianne.

The only reason I have Hulu is last year's Black Friday/Cyber Monday "$.99 a month for a year" offer they had going. New members only. I'll be cancelling when that ends, but they may offer it again come November. Just in time for Orville S3 perhaps?

November 2020.

[chaifan]

1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

I wonder why Comcast never offered Hulu.  My smart TV (Panasonic) used to have an app for Hulu, but it disappeared last year.  According to this article Hulu decided to remove itself from Panasonic TVs.  So if I wanted to watch it I'd have to do it on my computer, which sucks.  

If you have a smart tv, can't you just use the internet function to pull up hulu.com?  I have an LG smart tv, and I can watch from apps (hulu, netflix) or from the internet function.  Sometimes, though, using the internet the buffering is slow.  If that happens, I just use an hdmi cable and hook my laptop to the tv so I can watch on a big screen.

[Yeah No]

18 minutes ago, chaifan said:

If you have a smart tv, can't you just use the internet function to pull up hulu.com?  I have an LG smart tv, and I can watch from apps (hulu, netflix) or from the internet function.  Sometimes, though, using the internet the buffering is slow.  If that happens, I just use an hdmi cable and hook my laptop to the tv so I can watch on a big screen.

Even if I bring up the page, video won't play anymore on any page (it once did), and despite following instructions from YouTube, the hdmi cable thing won't work.  I called Panasonic about it over a year ago and didn't get an intelligent answer.  I keep meaning to call back.  I also used to be able to "cast" from my laptop to the TV wirelessly on some sites, but even that doesn't work anymore.  It's like not even having a smart TV anymore.  😢 If anyone more tech. savvy than me has any suggestions, let me know.

[Danielg342]

2 hours ago, Dani said:

ADRIANNE PALICKI FILES FOR DIVORCE FROM SCOTT GRIMES

I was surprised to see this headline since I only found out they got married yesterday. I wonder if it’s part of the reason for the season 3 delay. 

I wonder too. I feel sorry for them both, and I hope they're at least cordial with each other. I'd hate to have two cast members have actual animosity towards each other- that's no fun.

[Jacks-Son]

I wish them luck in their future.  Like most of us here, I was caught by surprise at the engagement and didn't see them as a couple. However, I never gave them a marital time frame, and only wished them the best.  I hope neither leaves the show, but I would miss Adrianne more than Scott, who on the show is just a classroom clown, to me.

[Jacks-Son]

2 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Even if I bring up the page, video won't play anymore on any page (it once did), and despite following instructions from YouTube, the hdmi cable thing won't work.  I called Panasonic about it over a year ago and didn't get an intelligent answer.  I keep meaning to call back.  I also used to be able to "cast" from my laptop to the TV wirelessly on some sites, but even that doesn't work anymore.  It's like not even having a smart TV anymore.  😢 If anyone more tech. savvy than me has any suggestions, let me know.

You probably tried all these, but have you tried:

Uninstall and reinstalll the streaming apps on your SmartTV.   Those apps are just like the apps on your phone.  They can  be reinstalled AND upgraded. My Vizio TV had a problem connecting successfully to Netflix. Vizio had me go through the process of reinstalling a clean copy of the app.  When it eventually proved to be a non-Vizio issue, they had me call Netflix.  They couldn't resolve it either.  However, a subsequent automatic firmware update seemed to have resolved the problem.

In case of emergency, break glass:  Reset your entire SmartTV to factory settings.  This is usually an option in the Administrator panel of the main menu. Just a tip, take a photo of each panel of your settings to give you an idea of your starting base when you try to restore the set to your past profile.  Good luck 👍

[paulvdb]

18 hours ago, FrankOFoley said:

Here’s a heads up to SMcF:  in Canada The Orville was shown on Fox broadcast from the US so, just my opinion because I don’t make the big decisions on these sorts of things, unless some sort of deal is made with a Canadian cable company (and I’m looking at you Bell Media) Season 3 of Orville will not be available.

Fox can be watched in Canada, but according to Wikipedia it airs on City TV in Canada. And that should still be the case for season 3.

20 hours ago, Cobb Salad said:

This is Irritating if true.  Doesn’t Star Trek Discovery air via non streaming methods internationally as well or am I misremembering?

Star Trek Discovery streams on Netflix in the rest of the world (except Canada where it airs on Space).

[Ms Lark]

7 hours ago, legaleagle53 said:

November 2020.

Ooopsie. Make that November next year!

[FrankOFoley]

5 hours ago, paulvdb said:

Fox can be watched in Canada, but according to Wikipedia it airs on City TV in Canada. And that should still be the case for season 3.

Star Trek Discovery streams on Netflix in the rest of the world (except Canada where it airs on Space).

I’d be very happy if City TV continues to air it.

In the meanwhile, I mentioned above that FXCanada will be showing  season 2. The date (as of now) is Aug 3 with repeat on the 4th, but, as they say, check your local listings.

[ALenore]

11 hours ago, Yeah No said:

My smart TV (Panasonic) used to have an app for Hulu, but it disappeared last year.  According to this article Hulu decided to remove itself from Panasonic TVs.  So if I wanted to watch it I'd have to do it on my computer, which sucks.  

I watch Hulu on my TV  through the Amazon Fire Stick, it only costs about $35 or $40.  

[Yeah No]

23 hours ago, Jacks-Son said:

You probably tried all these, but have you tried:

Uninstall and reinstalll the streaming apps on your SmartTV.   Those apps are just like the apps on your phone.  They can  be reinstalled AND upgraded. My Vizio TV had a problem connecting successfully to Netflix. Vizio had me go through the process of reinstalling a clean copy of the app.  When it eventually proved to be a non-Vizio issue, they had me call Netflix.  They couldn't resolve it either.  However, a subsequent automatic firmware update seemed to have resolved the problem.

In case of emergency, break glass:  Reset your entire SmartTV to factory settings.  This is usually an option in the Administrator panel of the main menu. Just a tip, take a photo of each panel of your settings to give you an idea of your starting base when you try to restore the set to your past profile.  Good luck 👍

Thanks, I'm not sure I have all that capability but I'll look into it.  There's a little "app store" page and you just select them to add to your TV but other than that it's not like you can do much else.  And Netflix and Hulu have both disappeared from that app store (I still get Netflix from Comcast).  Sucks because it's a fantastic plasma TV like they just don't make anymore and I'm pretty attached to it. 

16 hours ago, ALenore said:

I watch Hulu on my TV  through the Amazon Fire Stick, it only costs about $35 or $40.  

Thank you I'll look into that too.  One of my best friends has talked about that.  Time to give her a call.

I just read two reviews of the Fire Stick from people with Panasonic TVs with the same problem as I have what with Panasonic not supporting so many of the better apps anymore and the issues with video not playing on web pages, and they say it solved all their problems.  So thank you very much!  With that I will be able to watch CBS All Access on my TV too, so I'll be able to watch the new Picard series (I don't watch ST Discovery anymore but that's another story).

Edited July 24, 2019 by Yeah No

[Affogato]

I'm sorry it is moving. I kind of hope they release it an episode a week, it makes it easier to discuss and generally more interesting to me.

[chaifan]

On 7/22/2019 at 9:44 PM, Yeah No said:

I wonder why Comcast never offered Hulu.  My smart TV (Panasonic) used to have an app for Hulu, but it disappeared last year.  According to this article Hulu decided to remove itself from Panasonic TVs.  So if I wanted to watch it I'd have to do it on my computer, which sucks.  

Hulu just removed itself from my LG smart tv.  Yesterday.  grrr.  aargh.

[shapeshifter]

On 7/22/2019 at 8:44 PM, Yeah No said:

According to this article Hulu decided to remove itself from Panasonic TVs.  So if I wanted to watch it I'd have to do it on my computer, which sucks.  

4 hours ago, chaifan said:

Hulu just removed itself from my LG smart tv.  Yesterday.  grrr.  aargh.

And Hulu is "no longer supported" on my first generation iPad Mini.
At least Hulu tells us it's dumping us.
Netflix just ghosted me.

[wknt3]

On 7/22/2019 at 12:52 PM, chaifan said:

I think there's something else going on, as this makes no sense to me.  If they were keeping close to the old airing schedule, this would have been targeted for late fall/early winter premier.  These episodes would be well into production, if not mostly in the bag by now.  So something has to be going on for McFarland to now say they won't be ready until 2020, let alone late 2020.  There are contracts, and deadlines.  I don't think an executive producer can just say to a network, oh hey, our episodes won't be ready in time, so we're just going to take them somewhere else. 

Considering we know there were "creative differences" between McFarland and the network as to how to market this show for Season 1 (It's a space comedy!  No, it's not!) I think there's more to the story.  In any regard, late 2020???  Boo.

On 7/21/2019 at 10:59 PM, Raja said:

It may be the new business model. The networks pay next to nothing for a one year show. The show then goes free agency like an athlete  to the highest bidder streaming service desperate for exclusive content with some of its audience as it tries  to set itself apart from the other services instead of waiting for the end of the run and syndication.

On 7/22/2019 at 9:59 PM, Danielg342 said:

I imagine the networks are going to keep their highest profiting shows for as long as they provide a return, but I could see this happening. Instead of cancelling shows, networks will just pass them on to streaming services, which could have a number of benefits. First, shows will last longer as they're given a new life on the streamers, and second, networks may want to invest in more new shows. This would come about because I believe networks may raise their "cancelling standards" since now they have more options for getting rid of shows that don't return that nice of a profit, meaning they'll have to take on more new shows than they used to in order to fill their time.

I suspect there is more to the story and it does have to do with new business models, but nothing as sophisticated as the shift to streaming. Fox isn't thinking so far ahead. They are scrambling to come up with a workable model in the aftermath of the Disney merger and the spinoff of the network into an independent entity without it;s own studio. After talking about how they didn't need to have their own studio, how their time slots were so valuable that the studios producing their scripted programming would give them ownership stakes, etc. they've suddenly and recently shifted into a scramble for sports. reality, and other live unscripted programming when it turned out that that their PR spin was full of it and the conglomerates who own the studios had other options. I suspect that there were some sort of negotiations over what share of the backend revenues the network would get (quite possibly concerning the other Fuzzy Door co-productions especially Family Guy too) and that this was the fallout. I wouldn't be surprised to see other announced Fox series being shuffled around as well.

[Jacks-Son]

4 minutes ago, wknt3 said:

Family Guy too) and that this was the fallout. I wouldn't be surprised to see other announced Fox series being shuffled around as well.

Just imagine, "Family Guy" airing only on Hulu????  The world will end; people will riot; dogs and cats living together type shit.

[Danielg342]

5 hours ago, wknt3 said:

I suspect there is more to the story and it does have to do with new business models, but nothing as sophisticated as the shift to streaming. Fox isn't thinking so far ahead. They are scrambling to come up with a workable model in the aftermath of the Disney merger and the spinoff of the network into an independent entity without it;s own studio.

In fairness, the strategy to shift to sports and other unscripted programming is a sound one, at least in today's TV landscape. Sports are the last group of entertainment content where the audience prefers to watch it live (as opposed to taping it or watching it later on a streaming service), which is still how broadcast networks make the majority of their money. It also helps that sports tend to be big ratings bonanzas, which makes them even more attractive to advertisers.

I will agree that Fox's case is a special one with its deal with Disney, and it likely complicated things with its plans for future programming. Fox thought that simply having hours to fill would make it a lucrative option for studios but they didn't realize that, in today's 500 channel, 500 million streamer universe that their available hours don't quite have the weight that they used to. I still think there's some value to Fox's hours- since they're a major network and more widely available than the streamers or even cable- but perhaps Fox overestimated what that value is.

I do think what happened to The Orville is the sign of a trend that will come. Bear in mind The Orville wasn't the first show that went from a network to a streamer- Designated Survivor went to Netflix after ABC cancelled it in 2018, and The Mindy Project went to Hulu after Fox cancelled it in 2015. There may be others but the point is, The Orville isn't the first to move to a streamer from a broadcaster.

What's unique about The Orville is that it's the first time I've heard of a show that was announced as a renewal that was then moved to a streamer. In other words, the streaming service didn't give it a new life, it's just the vehicle where it gets to continue its life. I can't see this development as a one-time thing, especially considering that CBS is trying to build its own streaming service.

Let's not forget, streamers have one advantage that broadcast networks don't- they technically have an unlimited amount of storage space for shows (as opposed to the 24 hours broadcasters get). Whereas networks need to only keep their highest profiting shows, a streamer can keep as many shows as they want, even a show that returns only a modest profit. Plus, streamers' main selling point is the expansiveness of their content, so streamers naturally look to acquire as much content as they can get.

Therefore, borderline network shows that would have previously given networks scheduling headaches don't need to stay on the broadcast schedule- networks can just sell the show to a streamer, get a cut of its revenue and saddle the streamer with the production costs. Or, in the case of CBS and Fox/ABC with Hulu (and eventually NBC), the network can just put it on its own streamer and call it a day.

So I don't see The Orville as an outlier, even though other circumstances may have played a big role in its sending to Hulu. I just hope networks learn from the mistake Fox made with The Orville and at least be honest about the possibility of their shows moving to streaming services. You don't want to anger your audience by blindsiding them with an unexpected move to a platform that they may not have available to them.

[chaifan]

12 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

What's unique about The Orville is that it's the first time I've heard of a show that was announced as a renewal that was then moved to a streamer. In other words, the streaming service didn't give it a new life, it's just the vehicle where it gets to continue its life. I can't see this development as a one-time thing, especially considering that CBS is trying to build its own streaming service.

* * *

So I don't see The Orville as an outlier, even though other circumstances may have played a big role in its sending to Hulu. I just hope networks learn from the mistake Fox made with The Orville and at least be honest about the possibility of their shows moving to streaming services. You don't want to anger your audience by blindsiding them with an unexpected move to a platform that they may not have available to them.

I think the thing that really makes The Orville unique and an outlier is that from the timeline that has been presented to us (decision to go to Hulu was just recently made) means that a network did all the advance work, probably got well through production of an entire season, and then handed off a reasonably successful show to another network/service.  From the time Fox decided to renew this, Fox did all the work - secured contracts for cast & crew, probably paid some upfront, started production, probably have even done some post-production work on some episodes, etc.  Hulu would have to pay dearly for all that.  And, Fox now has a slot to fill that they hadn't anticipated. 

As you noted, the other TV to streaming shows were already cancelled.  The networks washed their hands and were done with them.  So for a streaming provider to pick them up means they negotiate everything from scratch, and set the costs.  To move a show mid-production just seems really weird to me.  I think there's something bigger than business models in play here.

[Bort]

I don't think the Orville has started production at all yet. At best, they have scripts finished and that's it. Most shows are only just now starting production, and those are the ones that debut in the fall.

[Danielg342]

2 hours ago, chaifan said:

To move a show mid-production just seems really weird to me.  I think there's something bigger than business models in play here.

I don't disagree, though as @kariyaki noted, the show may not have actually started filming its episodes yet. Perhaps Fox saw the projected budget of The Orville and decided to shove it off somewhere so they wouldn't have to deal with the costs, or Fox balked at some of the script ideas that Seth had (Seth did say he wanted to be more ambitious in S3). Likely this is a situation where we won't know what truly happened until The Orville is finished, since right now everyone will likely be cordial to each other in public.

That said, I do believe other networks saw what Fox did and they'll consider making similar moves. We probably won't see them happen now (because most shows have started production and schedules have been mapped out) but I predict next May we'll get a flurry of shows that networks will pass off to streamers as opposed to cancelling them outright.

[Jacks-Son]

I thought McF said the problem was that the writers and production team would not be able to deliver a finished project or even begin to work on it until 2020 and Fox balked at the wait, they wanted it sooner.  Not being able to comply within that time frame, the producers began looking at alternatives that would be willing to grant them the time and Hulu stepped up.

[Danielg342]

23 hours ago, Jacks-Son said:

I thought McF said the problem was that the writers and production team would not be able to deliver a finished project or even begin to work on it until 2020 and Fox balked at the wait, they wanted it sooner.  Not being able to comply within that time frame, the producers began looking at alternatives that would be willing to grant them the time and Hulu stepped up.

I'm not sure I buy that. If it were a higher rated show, Fox would give it some time. If I recall correctly, Empire had some production delays and Fox gave them time to sort it out without shoving it to Hulu.

[chitowngirl]

Either way, Fox still has a hole to fill in their schedule, so I don’t buy that since the episodes wouldn’t be ready in time, they shuttled the series off to Hulu. I think their is way more to the story.

[Danielg342]

I think something else that we need to consider is that The Orville is probably a very expensive show to produce. Probably the Moclan porn scenes alone cost about as much as several episodes of other shows (if not an entire season), and that's not counting the other special effects the show needs for its production (Kaylon likely wasn't cheap to create). Add to that Seth McFarlane's remarkable ability to land high profile guest stars (Admirals Victor Garber, Ted Danson and Kelly Hu, Bruce Willis playing a plant, Jason Alexander as Olix, Leighton Meester as the girl from 2015, Patrick Wharburton as Alara's temporary replacement, etc.) and you're looking at a show that probably needed to be a ratings gangbuster for Fox to be able to justify its budget.

Simply put, last year when it was among the top shows on television Fox was able to bear the costs, but last year, drawing ratings that would have seen other shows cancelled, Fox must have looked at the costs and called an audible (gotta get a football reference in here).

Now, I grant that I don't know what the actual expense report for The Orville looks like (I bet at least a few things that look expensive probably weren't), and I imagine Seth may have pulled some strings to keep costs down by somehow getting all these big names to agree to appear for a fraction of what they would normally cost. Even still, this can't be a show that doesn't cost a pretty penny to produce- this ain't a police procedural with essentially interchangeable actors and settings you can create in the back lot of a studio. It's a character-driven speculative fiction show that doesn't have sets that are easy to reproduce.

Add to that the fact that The Orville, as a science fiction show, essentially is niche programming and you have the perfect storm for a broadcaster's budgetary disaster.

At some point, all this stuff was going to catch up to The Orville. Unfortunately, it came after things were already announced, leaving a lot of angry fans.

[DoctorAtomic]

I could see the guest stars doing their appearances on the cheap as a favor to Seth though. They don't have huge scenes for the most part.

[ketose]

On 7/21/2019 at 4:23 PM, italianguy626 said:

Also not a current Hulu subscriber. Just had to get CBS All Access because of the AT&T vs. CBS bruhaha. Even if CBS gets back on AT&T services, probably will keep All Access as I discovered that the entire back catalog of Trek shows is available to view as well as the forthcoming Picard show. Also have Netflix, not picking up yet another streaming service while paying for cable (only reason I haven't convinced my wife to cut the cord is that the Hallmark channels she loves aren't yet available on the cheaper streaming services).

1. The Picard show will air on Amazon Prime. CBS kind of burned their bridges with Netflix.

2. Hallmark Channel offers a streaming services with their channels for $5/month. You just need a device or a web browser.

I'm in the "Hulu or cancellation" camp because Orville is expensive, has low ratings and is going to be late by over a year. I'm also interested in seeing if Orville succeeds where Discovery failed in the streaming world.

Even if you prefer broadcast TV, I doubt it will continue the way it is. How does a local affiliate stay running with decreasing viewership and cable companies pulling them off their services? In my ideal world, streaming channels would be replaced by a micro-payment system where you pay directly for the things you watch. Amazon is the only service I can think of that offers both a subscription video model and the ability to pay for individual titles not on the service.

What I heard was that Orville would be airing once a week.

One more thing, deleted scene from "A Happy Refrain"

[Bort]

12 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

Leighton Meester as the girl from 2015,

Not that I don't agree with your sentiment, but I really doubt Leighton Meester was that pricey. Her current job is as part of an ensemble for a really terrible ABC sitcom.

In fact, most of the season 2 guest stars were of the average fame variety, it was the season 1 guest stars (Liam Neeson, Rob Lowe, Charlize Theron) that were probably expensive. 

2 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I could see the guest stars doing their appearances on the cheap as a favor to Seth though. They don't have huge scenes for the most part.

The favor is Seth getting them to even consider it. The big actors are pretty busy and this isn't a day in a sound booth that a Family Guy appearance commitment entails. This is at least a week of work that has to be scheduled around what they're already doing. I'm sure FOX had to pony up some dough.

[wknt3]

On 7/26/2019 at 3:57 PM, chaifan said:

 I think there's something bigger than business models in play here.

On 7/26/2019 at 6:42 PM, Danielg342 said:

I don't disagree, though as @kariyaki noted, the show may not have actually started filming its episodes yet. Perhaps Fox saw the projected budget of The Orville and decided to shove it off somewhere so they wouldn't have to deal with the costs, or Fox balked at some of the script ideas that Seth had (Seth did say he wanted to be more ambitious in S3). Likely this is a situation where we won't know what truly happened until The Orville is finished, since right now everyone will likely be cordial to each other in public.

That said, I do believe other networks saw what Fox did and they'll consider making similar moves. We probably won't see them happen now (because most shows have started production and schedules have been mapped out) but I predict next May we'll get a flurry of shows that networks will pass off to streamers as opposed to cancelling them outright.

I think it will definitely be more common as all the other networks will have their own streaming services so they can take the shows they own that their research shows have loyal fanbases that may be too small for the network to make money on. I'm not sure that they will be following Fox as much just responding to the new market forces.  And we very likely will never know the whole truth, since those involved in show business economic decisons like this are usually lying to each other, their bosses, their investors, and themselves. By the time the show is finished they are likely to reveal more, but they will also be trying to position themselves for the next deal and convince us that they knew that the series was going to fail/succeed all along. 
 

13 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I think something else that we need to consider is that The Orville is probably a very expensive show to produce. Probably the Moclan porn scenes alone cost about as much as several episodes of other shows (if not an entire season), and that's not counting the other special effects the show needs for its production (Kaylon likely wasn't cheap to create). Add to that Seth McFarlane's remarkable ability to land high profile guest stars (Admirals Victor Garber, Ted Danson and Kelly Hu, Bruce Willis playing a plant, Jason Alexander as Olix, Leighton Meester as the girl from 2015, Patrick Wharburton as Alara's temporary replacement, etc.) and you're looking at a show that probably needed to be a ratings gangbuster for Fox to be able to justify its budget.

Simply put, last year when it was among the top shows on television Fox was able to bear the costs, but last year, drawing ratings that would have seen other shows cancelled, Fox must have looked at the costs and called an audible (gotta get a football reference in here).

Now, I grant that I don't know what the actual expense report for The Orville looks like (I bet at least a few things that look expensive probably weren't), and I imagine Seth may have pulled some strings to keep costs down by somehow getting all these big names to agree to appear for a fraction of what they would normally cost. Even still, this can't be a show that doesn't cost a pretty penny to produce- this ain't a police procedural with essentially interchangeable actors and settings you can create in the back lot of a studio. It's a character-driven speculative fiction show that doesn't have sets that are easy to reproduce.

Add to that the fact that The Orville, as a science fiction show, essentially is niche programming and you have the perfect storm for a broadcaster's budgetary disaster.

At some point, all this stuff was going to catch up to The Orville. Unfortunately, it came after things were already announced, leaving a lot of angry fans.

It's been reported that the show has received very generous production tax credits from California and that had played a big role in making the series economically viable despite the ratings. Of course  as I mentioned before that was before the spinoff of the Fox network so it's possible that even with the tax credits there's simply not enough money to divide up in such away as to make everyone happy.

55 minutes ago, kariyaki said:

Not that I don't agree with your sentiment, but I really doubt Leighton Meester was that pricey. Her current job is as part of an ensemble for a really terrible ABC sitcom.

In fact, most of the season 2 guest stars were of the average fame variety, it was the season 1 guest stars (Liam Neeson, Rob Lowe, Charlize Theron) that were probably expensive. 

The favor is Seth getting them to even consider it. The big actors are pretty busy and this isn't a day in a sound booth that a Family Guy appearance commitment entails. This is at least a week of work that has to be scheduled around what they're already doing. I'm sure FOX had to pony up some dough.

I suspect that many of the guest stars are cheaper than you might think. Some of the bigger names are just voice work like Bruce Willis or Norm MacDonald. Jason Alexander is a huge Star Trek fan and has talked about his love of playing an alien. Ted Danson has a longstanding relationship with Seth (they are went to the same school as kids, Seth has helped Ted with fundraisers for his environmental causes, and has worked with him on other projects). Wharburton has worked with Seth a lot too and has made tons of money from that work. And while their roles were bigger time commitments than voice roles, all of them are in a position where they can take less without hurting their earning power and in roles that could be done around their higher paying work. So it's quite possible that they weren't making any more than your average in demand character actor would have. In any case casting is likely a very small part of the budget issues compared to the effects and action sequences and even the music.

[legaleagle53]

14 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

At some point, all this stuff was going to catch up to The Orville. Unfortunately, it came after things were already announced, leaving a lot of angry fans.

And there's the rub. The show's fans would, I think, have been more understanding and accepting of the move if they'd been given some advance warning ahead of the renewal that the show might (or would) move to Hulu or to another streaming platform if it was renewed, because at least that way they'd have been prepared to deal with it. To announce it out of the blue AFTER renewal is nothing more than an unwarranted and unfair blindside to them and a slap in the face to them as a reward for their loyalty in fighting for a renewal. As I said, it doesn't affect me because I'm already a Hulu subscriber, but I can definitely empathize with the angry fans who feel that Seth gave them a raw deal by announcing the move AFTER renewal.

Edited July 28, 2019 by legaleagle53

[Bort]

I don't really consider it a slap in the face. They gotta do what they gotta do. Not having it at all is worse. But I still steadfastly refuse to pay for all those extra streaming platforms. I'll watch it borrowed from the library on DVD two years later. It's ok, I'm patient.

[Cobb Salad]

15 minutes ago, kariyaki said:

I don't really consider it a slap in the face. They gotta do what they gotta do. Not having it at all is worse. But I still steadfastly refuse to pay for all those extra streaming platforms. I'll watch it borrowed from the library on DVD two years later. It's ok, I'm patient.

Best part of all that waiting to see it on DVD is setting aside enough time to binge watch it instead of waiting a week for the next episode.  

My library has a copy of the 1st season of Star Trek Discovery, now all I have to do is go down there, get it and set aside some time to watch ...

[Danielg342]

8 hours ago, kariyaki said:

I don't really consider it a slap in the face. They gotta do what they gotta do. Not having it at all is worse. But I still steadfastly refuse to pay for all those extra streaming platforms. I'll watch it borrowed from the library on DVD two years later. It's ok, I'm patient.

Myself, it feel it's a slap in the face. I was excited and fully expecting to be able to see The Orville return to Fox some time next season and to learn that it is moving to Hulu is a major letdown. As a Canadian resident, Hulu isn't available to me at all so I don't know if I'll be able to watch The Orville when those episodes first run (like I was able to when it was on Fox), so I feel undervalued as a viewer.

Furthermore, I feel that Fox shoving The Orville to Hulu is them trying to wring more money out of the fans, and that doesn't sit well with me. I'm not Seth McFarlane or any of the Fox suits where a streaming subscription would be a drop in the bucket- every dollar I earn counts. I sure don't like the feeling that Fox believes I'm made of disposable income that they feel entitled to.

I at least would have liked Fox to have been more open about moving The Orville to Hulu because then I can at least anticipate and plan ahead. Sure, it may not make the official move until November 2020, but that doesn't make up for the fact they made me believe one thing and did something else. If Hulu was the plan all along, the least they could do is be honest about it.

10 hours ago, ketose said:

In my ideal world, streaming channels would be replaced by a micro-payment system where you pay directly for the things you watch.

That would be my ideal too- instead of paying $200 for hundreds of channels that wind up not being watched, I'd more gladly pay $1/episode or $12/season (or, say, $50 for an entire network's season) for the shows that I will watch. I wonder if, economically, such a system is viable but it's more efficient from a customer standpoint anyway.

[Yeah No]

6 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I at least would have liked Fox to have been more open about moving The Orville to Hulu because then I can at least anticipate and plan ahead. Sure, it may not make the official move until November 2020, but that doesn't make up for the fact they made me believe one thing and did something else. If Hulu was the plan all along, the least they could do is be honest about it.

I don't know half as much as the good people here about back room TV series renewal negotiations, but my usually very good gut instinct is telling me that originally they were being open and the plan was to keep the show on Fox, but that something changed somewhere along the line that forced Seth to move it to Hulu.  As others have said, there must be more going on that we don't know.

I'm still pissed but considering my options.  I'm either going to get the Amazon Fire Stick or another one that works off a smart phone and is app based.  I like that idea too.  My friend is considering getting Hulu.  I told her maybe we could split the cost.  I have another friend that's considering going in on it with us so it would be a 3-way split.

[Raja]

8 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

That would be my ideal too- instead of paying $200 for hundreds of channels that wind up not being watched, I'd more gladly pay $1/episode or $12/season (or, say, $50 for an entire network's season) for the shows that I will watch. I wonder if, economically, such a system is viable but it's more efficient from a customer standpoint anyway.

Unless some streaming service provider desperate to get eyeballs to their site in a last ditched effort swings such a deal you will never see that price. It is already double that for previous years content when they forget the exclusive deals and try to get  money from all sources.

[chaifan]

When Orville does go to Hulu, I hope it isn't a full season dump.  I actually like episodes being parsed out on a "traditional" weekly schedule. 

As I posted above, Hulu discontinued it's app on my LG smart tv just last week.  So I figured I'd just use the browser function to pull up hulu.com.  Nope, hulu has that blocked, too.  When I called Hulu to figure that part out, they did offer me 3 months free as compensation for the "devaluation" of my subscription.  So now I'll have to go get a roku, or just continue to hook up my laptop to the tv via hdmi cable. 

[Jacks-Son]

18 minutes ago, chaifan said:

So now I'll have to go get a roku, or just continue to hook up my laptop to the tv via hdmi cable. 

Can you "Cast" your video streaming from your laptop to your TV without an HDMI cable? Not knowing your setup, you may be able to VideoCast using either GoogleCast (Android) or AirPlay (IOS/MacOS)?