--

We're your average trans wolf girl(s) furry artists.
Stuck in ๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ท
Always open for commissions!!

Minors DNI๐Ÿ”ž

--
Contact info:
Signal: Foxtrot68.67
Discord: foxtrot_68
Telegram: @Foxtrot_68

--

ๆ–‡ๆณ•ใฎใ”ใ‚ใ‚“ใชใ•ใ„ใฎๆ‚ชใ„

--

therian box in two shades of blue, the text reads "this user's theriotype is a gray wolf", there's a picture of a gray wolf on the left and the therianthropy symbol on the top right corner.


โ˜• Ko-fi
ko-fi.com/foxtrot68
๐Ÿพ Patreon
www.patreon.com/foxtrot68
You must log in to comment.

in reply to @Foxtrot68's post:

i don't know if i can find a definitive source on this but i feel like star trek absolutely had a higher budget. they filmed everything in colour on actual 35mm film as opposed to doctor who's black and white videotape (which they had to wipe and re-record for budget reasons), they made around 25 45-minute episodes per season each with a standalone story while doctor who made around 40 25-minute episodes divided into around eight multi-part stories (for set reuse reasons). i think star trek probably almost got cancelled because it cost so much and doctor who kept going because it was such a hit on such a low budget.

somebody on bsky gave me some numbers, apparently Doctor Who cost "$8000 per 25 minutes in 1966 as opposed to Trek's about $200,000 per 50 minutes" you're onto something, Star Trek was insanely more expensive than Doctor Who and it still to our modern eyes looks like it had a shoestring budget that they were always running out of. on one hand it's good because it allows us to have the show in HD today and a lot of really old doctor who isn't around in full anymore right?