|
The Milky Way has about fifty little satellites. Most of which are in the process of being turn apart by it. Our galaxy is a big momma. That said, all the satellites lumped together wouldn't constitute anywhere near the Milky Way itself. They're all pretty small little blobs of stars. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Dec 30, 2019 |
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
MikeJF posted:The Milky Way has about fifty little satellites. Most of which are in the process of being turn apart by it. Our galaxy is a big momma.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 10:07
|
|
|
I mean a Magellanic cloud is still a healthy billion stars, although only a few of the satellites are that big. Milky Way is just three or four hundred billion. At least. We're still figuring things out since we doubled the radius last year, took it from 75,000ly to 130. (Ironically, it's the hardest galaxy to get a good idea of the structure of, since it's like trying to draw a house from the inside vs looking out the window at other ones)
MikeJF fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Dec 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 11:29
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:I mean a Magellanic cloud is still a healthy billion stars, although only a few of the satellites are that big. Milky Way is just three or four hundred billion. At least. We're still figuring things out since we doubled the radius last year, took it from 75,000ly to 130. (Ironically, it's the hardest galaxy to get a good idea of the structure of, since it's like trying to draw a house from the inside vs looking out the window at other ones) Wow, that's a lot more than I realized. my god it's full of stars
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 11:52
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:Wow, that's a lot more than I realized. No it's actually really cool. Though a lot of those stars are dwarfs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 12:00
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Yeah well uh... um... uh... Like ours, you mean? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
Oh, sorry, I forgot the LMC might be up to an order of magnitude more than any other, maybe ten billion. The total mass of it is 30 billion solar masses, but you've got to take into account stellar size variation and dark matter, so  It's by far the largest, though, and even has a kind of spiral. Other big satellites are probably around a billion, and then there are lots of smaller ones. There's a couple of tiny lil satellites that only have a thousand or so.
MikeJF fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Dec 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 12:27
|
|
|
Astroman posted:My bet is they'll just reboot the movies yet again, with a new cast and close the chapter on the Kelvin verse and have nothing to do with the TV shows. They'll do what we assumed they were doing with Star Trek 2009 in the first place--a total reboot, without the backdoor continuity "other timeline" stuff. It'll also be (yet again) a TOS era show. Counterpoint is what Disney is doing with Star Wars and Marvel where they are making series tightly related to the cinematic universes. If they are successful with Disney+ it's hard to see Treks rightholders not wanting to try and copy it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 12:40
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:As much as I love space its still Just gonna leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 12:43
|
|
to think about how galaxies can have orbiting galaxies. A small galaxy, a captive galaxy. And that's not even zooming out very far.
|
Senor Tron posted:Counterpoint is what Disney is doing with Star Wars and Marvel where they are making series tightly related to the cinematic universes. If they are successful with Disney+ it's hard to see Treks rightholders not wanting to try and copy it. I'm not sure why Disney+ is the bellwether for this. Disney has already established that if you make a tight universe with an entertaining product, people will pay money to see it. The issue is, you have to actually COMMIT to it and take risks. Marvel started the modern franchise one year earlier than Star Trek with Iron Man. By the time Star Trek: Into Darkness came out, marvel already had: The Incredible Hulk Iron Man Iron Man 2 Iron Man 3 Thor The Avengers Captain America: The First Avenger By the time Beyond came out: Thor: The Dark World Captain America: The Winter Soldier Guardians of the Galaxy Avengers: Age of Ultron Ant-Man Captain America: Civil War There is simply no comparing what Disney is doing with Marvel vs how Star Trek has been historically handled. More Marvel movies have been released since the MCU started up to 2016 as Star Trek released in 50 years of history. Throughout all that content plus the TV shows, they've remained tonally consistent and even if not tightly knitted (Netflix shows), still didn't step on each other and plainly worked in the same universe. You felt all of these characters could exist at the same time and place. About the only place they threw that out is with the most recent season of Agents of Shield which got backed into a writing corner due to the snap. You want to really bake your noodle? Star Trek 2009 outperformed Captain America: The First Avenger at the box office (along with The Incredible Hulk, but that doesn't really count.) Star Trek Into Darkness outperformed those two plus Thor. Yet Cap's second outing had almost double the box office take at $714 mil. By the time Beyond came out with its $343 mil box office, the worse performing Marvel movie since 2016 was Doctor Strange with $667 mil. The 3-4 year gap between movies was horrible when building a franchise. If they wanted the re-launched Star Trek to be a long term success, they should have had a trilogy plotted from the start because that's the other thing the Star Trek movies lack which are a requirement for a tentpole franchise. Metaplot. People saw Star Trek 2009 and then promptly forgot about it. When Into Darkness finally came out 4 years later, people were like "Huh, I guess they're making another one of these" before the deceitful marketing and plot soured them to future outings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Just make a thinly veiled sentai show where they pilot a Prometheus class derivative. Yeah but even on TV the only place where writers have any comfort doing episodic stories (i.e. comfort doing 20 stories a season) is cop shows it seems- and that's still a way less diverse form of storytelling than good Trek has. At some point I think we'll escape the cultural moment that started after 9/11, and I really hope the next attempt at Trek doesn't happen until then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:I'm not sure why Disney+ is the bellwether for this. Disney has already established that if you make a tight universe with an entertaining product, people will pay money to see it. The issue is, you have to actually COMMIT to it and take risks. If Star Trek becomes more like Marvel, please promise me you'll come and kill me. Look me in the eyes when you pull the trigger.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
What, impressively coherent for the medium and scale? Don't worry, Trek'll never be that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:If Star Trek becomes more like Marvel, please promise me you'll come and kill me. Look me in the eyes when you pull the trigger. This is a bit over the top mate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:This is a bit over the top mate. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
I don't want a million different star trek things that all reference each other, I want *one* that tells relevant, interesting stories and the orville returns later in 2020 so I guess I got it
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:I'm not sure why Disney+ is the bellwether for this. Disney has already established that if you make a tight universe with an entertaining product, people will pay money to see it. The issue is, you have to actually COMMIT to it and take risks. Wasn't Iron Man like a surprise hit though? I wonder how much of the master plan they had to do 20 movies with err drat character was in place before it blew up? I don't think they forsaw a 3rd tier character most people hadn't heard of before outside of comic fans would be a monster mainstream success. I could be wrong, but usually for them it was just Spiderman and Hulk and the X-Men over and over. The idea that the mainstream public could latch onto these characters they didn't know was a gamble, but in retrospect decades of good comic stories and character development to mine for the movies makes it pretty easy. With Star Trek, you're stuck rehashing Kirk and  and McCoy and maybe now TNG. They're not going to take a chance on characters with such a low public awareness like DS9 and Voyager peeps, even though arguably they are no worse known to normies than Ant Man or Black Panther. MCU proves that with a great, well written story and charismatic actors, you don't have to duplicate the top tier to diminishing results over and over, but Paramount/CBS doesn't seem to get that. Instead, they just go the route of the Terminator franchise.  Not to mention they always, since ST:TMP, have treated each film like it was the last, and wouldn't commit to doing another til they saw how the box office went.The sad thing is you're right about not waiting so long between movies and the sadder thing was in the 90s/early 2000s they were in a much better place to do it. They could have easily had a TNG movie one year, a DS9 movie another year, a Voyager movie the 3rd year, maybe spice it up with some one offs like a Captain Sulu movie or a Worf movie. All while being supported on TV by Enterprise. You might say those would never have had big box office, but MCU proves that it's the scope, scale, continuity, writing, and acting that make a hit--not name recognition. I am a sci-fi but not comic fan, and I knew only of Iron Man via osmosis. I only knew he was a rich Batman type guy in a suit that flew and there was some big acclaimed storyline about him drinking. And I went to see the movie anyway and loved it. Black Panther--I knew the name only as some 70s comic, and suddenly it's the biggest film of all time. I'd never heard of Guardians of the Galaxy, but loved it and got my mom to watch it and we saw the 2nd one in the theater, and she likes sci-fi but isn't in to comic book movies at all. When I was a kid (in the US), Lord of the Rings and Doctor Who were hypernerd poo poo. Like the highest level of "nobody but massive nerds are into this stuff." And 20 years later, they are both massive mainstream successes. It was kind of surreal seeing that the public would go see not one, but 3 LoTR movies, and they'd go on to become some of the top grossing movies of the time. And the idea that I could walk into a waiting room and see a magazine with Doctor Who on the cover (especially in the US) would have boggled my mind in 1990. Again, it's the good stories that we always knew were there. Star Trek has had some great stories. They've used those characters to tell both small and large scale plots that make you think and have a lesson. They have heart, they have action. They have humor and charismatic characters. There is no reason we can't have Star Trek be the biggest genre property again, like it was in the 80s. Even bigger. There's no reason we can't have a shared universe of multiple shows and movies with old and new characters telling stories with continuity and canon in our favorite settings. I want to see that, and I hope that Viacom/CBS can pull it off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
It's hard to duplicate Marvel's success, it was a perfect storm of a few different things:
Pretty much the only likely contender is DC, but they've fumbled the execution. With most other IPs it's a huge uphill battle. I think Star Trek already came as close as they're ever gonna get to this with the '90s TV shows, which of course were staggered a few years apart because it's hard to come up with that much material from scratch. And then of course it devolved into TNG rehashes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
The reboot films getting repeatedly delayed (ID and Beyond specifically) hurt things I think. Beyond also had a really lovely first trailer and there was almost no hype or marketing campaign until a month from release. Putting the film out in the middle of the summer squeezed between bigger films was also a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
I know that Star Trek was built on planet-a-day stories, but I really liked the political landscape of the galaxy that TNG and DS9 set up, and I'm disappointed that every Star Trek series since has said "Ugh, these politics are too complicated" and ran as far away from every other Star Trek as possible. You get a lot more depth if you can revisit old material (just look at the Klingons), and if you're gonna make Star Tek stories, might as well make use of things instead of starting anew every time. If you're looking over at Disney, it's worth noting that Thor and Iron Man 2 had already started production before the Marvel acquisition, and the plans for the MCU had been emboldened by the recent success of other movies within the genre like Spider-Man, Batman, and X-Men, and they were buffered from the failures like Catwoman, Fantastic Four, Punisher, or Green Lantern that often sink franchises as investors are scared away since they weren't the same company. Disney's actually had some failure* with Star Wars, and scaled back their plans from their original ideas of putting out a movie every year, and The Mandalorian is actually the result of having to scupper their plans for a Boba Fett movie, and I have no idea what their plans going forth are. There isn't really a Sci Fi boom going like there was with Superheroes, and the way Beyond was received is probably still spooking potential investors, and there ain't nobody who's got the same money to burn on a project like Disney. *Not like "unprofitable" failure like you'd think of as a failure in human terms, but the more corporate "was not as successful as projected" vague concept. Disney execs also seem to care a lot about internet criticism, which you can see from how they're making their weird live action/CGI remakes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Don't try to be a billion dollar multimedia franchise, just be a franchise, and let history make it's own judgements
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I know that Star Trek was built on planet-a-day stories, but I really liked the political landscape of the galaxy that TNG and DS9 set up, and I'm disappointed that every Star Trek series since has said "Ugh, these politics are too complicated" and ran as far away from every other Star Trek as possible. You get a lot more depth if you can revisit old material (just look at the Klingons), and if you're gonna make Star Tek stories, might as well make use of things instead of starting anew every time. What exactly about the Trek "political landscape" do you want further developed? TNG didn't bring a lot to the table as far as astropolitics goes; the Klingon Empire is rotten at the top with corruption, the Cardassian war gets retconned in as this supposedly traumatic conflict, and the Romulans are running around trying to stir poo poo up. The latter two are pretty much just plot devices to drive the actual stories the writer wanted to tell. DS9 does more but aside from Bajorans and Cardassians I'm not really sure they developed much else. The Romulans are still convenient ciphers for whatever the writers wanted to do at a given moment. The Klingons are... maybe less corrupt now. The Ferengi are undergoing a political and economic revolution but that seems like a story that will largely be internal to the Ferengi Alliance. The Dominion are going to stay on their side of the wormhole. I guess I never felt like there was that much substance to begin with - so much of it was just done ad-hoc for the convenience of the episode of the week (which, for those shows, was mostly fine) and I don't see the rich tapestry there that demands continuation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:I mean a Magellanic cloud is still a healthy billion stars, although only a few of the satellites are that big. Milky Way is just three or four hundred billion. At least. We're still figuring things out since we doubled the radius last year, took it from 75,000ly to 130. (Ironically, it's the hardest galaxy to get a good idea of the structure of, since it's like trying to draw a house from the inside vs looking out the window at other ones) Not just from the inside, but from a single point in a single room from the inside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
If Star Trek became marvel hmmmm that's my literal nightmare
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Jows posted:Not just from the inside, but from a single point in a single room from the inside. Aren't we also real close to one edge of the Milky Way too, so the stuff we can see blocks 10 times more stuff?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Technowolf posted:Aren't we also real close to one edge of the Milky Way too, so the stuff we can see blocks 10 times more stuff? Not that close. Halfway or so, maybe 2/3. We're roughly in the middle of the galactic habitable zone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
Technowolf posted:Aren't we also real close to one edge of the Milky Way too, so the stuff we can see blocks 10 times more stuff? Kinda sorta not really. We're kind of in the galaxy's "mid-latitudes".  Also in this image: the actual present-day galactic coordinate/quadrant system, centered on us instead of on the galactic center like in Trek. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/285/the-milky-way-galaxy/
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
Pick posted:If Star Trek became marvel hmmmm that's my literal nightmare Yeah, 10 years of enjoyable consistent quality really would feel too alien for Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
If you want the experience of Star Trek like the Marvel franchise just watch the 2009 Trek 4 times a year. Your welcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
My prediction is they are going to do a Kelvin timeline movie version of the most popular non-TOS Star Trek, which is of course Voyager. But there will be an easter egg for DS9 fans where we see a young commander Sisko get brutally killed in the opening scene.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
Genuinely would not be surprised if they made the entirety of deep space 9 a Q hallucination. "Tapestry 2: deep space 9" on all future merchandising* *none, as it is deep space 9
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
marktheando posted:My prediction is they are going to do a Kelvin timeline movie version of the most popular non-TOS Star Trek, which is of course Voyager. He says something ironic like "the Black experience matters" before being sucked in to space
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
Pick posted:If Star Trek became marvel hmmmm that's my literal nightmare Stop taking that literally. Marvel is a template on how you build a large cinematic universe. No one is saying literally copy and paste star trek characters into the same bombastic action heavy movies. Yeah, Iron Man was a 3rd tier character and it was a surprise hit, but they were already going to make more even before it blew up big. That's the commit part. Star Trek 2009 shouldn't have been "Ok, that's a wrap, let's start thinking of developing the next one." It should have been, "we're in the final drafts of scripts on how we want to continue this story, we're shooting in 6 months." Interstellar made $667 million. The Martian made $630 million. Inception made $828 million The three apes movies made $481, $710, and $490 million. Don't tell me there's not a market out there for thoughtful scifi. They are not going to be billion dollar movies, but they will make money and hopefully keep excitement for the franchise up. Paramount brought in JJ Abrams because he was the hot talent, hoping that he was just going to 'fix it.' When all JJ Abrams really wanted to do was make Star Wars (which he jumped ship for.) There was no real plan. Best move now would be to jettison the Kelvin timeline, rebuild the brand around Picard and whatever Discovery morphs into for the 3rd season, build out that universe to the point where they can create a unique event story in it to tell on the big screen with new characters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Pick posted:Genuinely would not be surprised if they made the entirety of deep space 9 a Q hallucination. Don't you understand? It's real! IT'S REEEEEEEEEAL
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Stop taking that literally. Marvel is a template on how you build a large cinematic universe. No one is saying literally copy and paste star trek characters into the same bombastic action heavy movies. Can't wait to get online after the next Trek movie and talk about how impressed I was when Spock drew a billion dollars from the Chinese box office.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
Captain, I've come across a unique event story. Scan for characters All new Put it on (big) screen
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:Don't you understand? It's real! IT'S REEEEEEEEEAL
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
It's too early to say, but it'd be funny if JJ Abrams killed both Star Trek and Star Wars. I mean they probably would've just stayed dormant without him but... still kinda funny
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:It's too early to say, but it'd be funny if JJ Abrams killed both Star Trek and Star Wars. Extra funny is that he will have plenty of work still, even from Disney
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
It seems like the Mouse's recipe for success was to make a decent product, market it heavily, and then not stop doing part one even when they encountered hitches and bumps.They do have unique strength for "marketing it heavily" but it seems you can apply that principle in other realms. From a  perspective I imagine part of the issue for Star Trek is that it has less potential to make massive blockbuster films which allow them to make one very large product and then convert it into a billion dollars. It is the comfortable duplex housing of sci-fi. You're glad it's there, it fills an amazing social role, and hardly any one makes more of it because the percentages are better on giant garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 21:47
|
|