Star Trek Discovery

Music and video: analog or digital
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 43431
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: want, but shouldn't, may anyway
Location: Failed State

Re: Mark your starfleet calendars

Post by ukimalefu »

Metacell posted wrote: Star Trek is supposed to appeal to nerds: It's supposed to have a higher message of hope that appeals to our inner spirit of justice. It's not supposed to be a suspenseful action packed adventure populated by everyman approved demigods just like every other superhero flick.


alternate timeline, new rules :p
User avatar
Metacell
Posts: 11003
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:58 am
Title: Chocolate Brahma
Location: Lidsville
Contact:

Re: Mark your starfleet calendars

Post by Metacell »

Cool, you win the "Let's Make a Buck Off the Shmucks" timeline. That's the one where Donald Trump is president.
Remember, people, to forgive is divine. In other words, it ain't human.
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 43431
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: want, but shouldn't, may anyway
Location: Failed State

Re: Mark your starfleet calendars

Post by ukimalefu »

Metacell posted wrote: Cool, you win the "Let's Make a Buck Off the Shmucks" timeline. That's the one where Donald Trump is president.


SO it's all Spock's fault!? :eek:
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 43431
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: want, but shouldn't, may anyway
Location: Failed State

Post by ukimalefu »

The things is, you don't have to like "new trek", but those are the movies you're gonna get.

Unless they make a show where they gave Wesley Crusher his own ship, and Data looks old because "he wants to be more human".

The new tv show happens in the original timeline, 10 years before TOS. Let's hope it's good.

I'd like a Trek TV show in the original timeline, but far into the future and... you may disagree, dark and gritty and with lots of action.

OR, you're gonna disagree with this, a TV show in the new time line. But that could be a different ship and crew. And I'd like to be some kind of Trek cinematic universe, with the show referencing the movies, like Marvel does.

Now, I wonder when new trek is going to remake the trouble with tribbles.

Image
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 43431
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: want, but shouldn't, may anyway
Location: Failed State

Re: Mark your starfleet calendars

Post by ukimalefu »

by the way, have you seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZbKnbWhkzY

it features Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, Robert Beltran, Tim Russ, and maybe others you may recognize, but "it's not star trek", because CBS and Paramount don't want it to be.
User avatar
user
Posts: 29386
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Title: Stupid cockwomble

Post by user »

The only reason Star Trek kept it's bearings at all was that Rodenberry was still running the show. It's surprising it didn't go to human waste earlier after he died.
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.

Science is Truth for Life. In FORTRAN tongue the Answer.

...so I'm supposed to find the Shadow King from inside a daiquiri?
User avatar
DukeofNuke
Posts: 33118
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
Title: FREE RADICAL
Location: Scintillating!

Re: Mark your starfleet calendars

Post by DukeofNuke »

ukimalefu posted wrote: by the way, have you seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZbKnbWhkzY

it features Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, Robert Beltran, Tim Russ, and maybe others you may recognize, but "it's not star trek", because CBS and Paramount don't want it to be.


Star Wars should sue 'em over that bar scene
intellectual/hipster/nihilist

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
DukeofNuke
Posts: 33118
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
Title: FREE RADICAL
Location: Scintillating!

Post by DukeofNuke »

Also, there is an actor listed in the credits, whose actual first name is "Darth".
intellectual/hipster/nihilist

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
user
Posts: 29386
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Title: Stupid cockwomble

Post by user »

Party on.
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.

Science is Truth for Life. In FORTRAN tongue the Answer.

...so I'm supposed to find the Shadow King from inside a daiquiri?
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 38996
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

so a friend of mine explained the whole reboot thing to me ... that basically corporate nonsense resulted in a split in the ownership of star trek

the "reboots" happened because that studio owns the brand but not any of the content, so they can be star trek but aren't allowed to resemble the original series or movies -- hence the splitting off of a whole new timeline, different uniforms, colour palette, and so on

the new series is a part of that, so they're actually not allowed to be a part of the original universe, and yet they need to distance themselves from the reboot series (which has become a financial dud -- the most recent release lost maybe $50 mil), which leaves them in a serious bind

it's almost impossible for them to please trek fans because they can't be too much like the original franchise, yet they can't take the jj abrams route because that has run out of steam

rumour has it test screenings have been a disaster, leading cbs to pretty much give up on the series

nicholas meyer, the driving force behind wrath of khan, is working on a "top secret" trek project, which many think will be a tv anthology (different stories occurring at different points along the trek timeline), possibly serving as a subsequent season to discovery

alas discovery sounds like a mess
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
obvs
Posts: 27454
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:44 pm
Title: Socialist isn't an epithet;it's a badge.

Post by obvs »

"Intellectual property" law is so ridiculous. Voyager ended over 15 years ago. DS9 ended almost 20 years ago. TNG ended almost 25 years ago. The original series ended almost 50 years ago. There's no good reason for movie studios, the public, or whoever not to be able to use those characters or the Star Trek universe and backstory as a setting for their own stories.
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 43431
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: want, but shouldn't, may anyway
Location: Failed State

Re:

Post by ukimalefu »

TOS posted wrote: so a friend of mine explained the whole reboot thing to me ... that basically corporate nonsense resulted in a split in the ownership of star trek

the "reboots" happened because that studio owns the brand but not any of the content, so they can be star trek but aren't allowed to resemble the original series or movies -- hence the splitting off of a whole new timeline, different uniforms, colour palette, and so on

the new series is a part of that, so they're actually not allowed to be a part of the original universe, and yet they need to distance themselves from the reboot series (which has become a financial dud -- the most recent release lost maybe $50 mil), which leaves them in a serious bind

it's almost impossible for them to please trek fans because they can't be too much like the original franchise, yet they can't take the jj abrams route because that has run out of steam

rumour has it test screenings have been a disaster, leading cbs to pretty much give up on the series

nicholas meyer, the driving force behind wrath of khan, is working on a "top secret" trek project, which many think will be a tv anthology (different stories occurring at different points along the trek timeline), possibly serving as a subsequent season to discovery

alas discovery sounds like a mess


That sounds great coming from your username and avatar, Mr Harbinger of Doom. /sarcasm

:rollfriendly:

This new series will have spaceships and lasers, that means there's a very good chance I will like it.
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 38996
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Re: Re:

Post by TOS »

ukimalefu posted wrote:
TOS posted wrote: so a friend of mine explained the whole reboot thing to me ... that basically corporate nonsense resulted in a split in the ownership of star trek

the "reboots" happened because that studio owns the brand but not any of the content, so they can be star trek but aren't allowed to resemble the original series or movies -- hence the splitting off of a whole new timeline, different uniforms, colour palette, and so on

the new series is a part of that, so they're actually not allowed to be a part of the original universe, and yet they need to distance themselves from the reboot series (which has become a financial dud -- the most recent release lost maybe $50 mil), which leaves them in a serious bind

it's almost impossible for them to please trek fans because they can't be too much like the original franchise, yet they can't take the jj abrams route because that has run out of steam

rumour has it test screenings have been a disaster, leading cbs to pretty much give up on the series

nicholas meyer, the driving force behind wrath of khan, is working on a "top secret" trek project, which many think will be a tv anthology (different stories occurring at different points along the trek timeline), possibly serving as a subsequent season to discovery

alas discovery sounds like a mess


That sounds great coming from your username and avatar, Mr Harbinger of Doom. /sarcasm

:rollfriendly:

This new series will have spaceships and lasers, that means there's a very good chance I will like it.


i'm simply trying to destroy your hope ... why must you resist?
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
dv
Posts: 30617
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:42 pm

Re: Re:

Post by dv »

TOS posted wrote:
ukimalefu posted wrote:
TOS posted wrote: so a friend of mine explained the whole reboot thing to me ... that basically corporate nonsense resulted in a split in the ownership of star trek

the "reboots" happened because that studio owns the brand but not any of the content, so they can be star trek but aren't allowed to resemble the original series or movies -- hence the splitting off of a whole new timeline, different uniforms, colour palette, and so on

the new series is a part of that, so they're actually not allowed to be a part of the original universe, and yet they need to distance themselves from the reboot series (which has become a financial dud -- the most recent release lost maybe $50 mil), which leaves them in a serious bind

it's almost impossible for them to please trek fans because they can't be too much like the original franchise, yet they can't take the jj abrams route because that has run out of steam

rumour has it test screenings have been a disaster, leading cbs to pretty much give up on the series

nicholas meyer, the driving force behind wrath of khan, is working on a "top secret" trek project, which many think will be a tv anthology (different stories occurring at different points along the trek timeline), possibly serving as a subsequent season to discovery

alas discovery sounds like a mess


That sounds great coming from your username and avatar, Mr Harbinger of Doom. /sarcasm

:rollfriendly:

This new series will have spaceships and lasers, that means there's a very good chance I will like it.


i'm simply trying to destroy your hope ... why must you resist?


Image
Image
User avatar
Warin
Posts: 7008
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:34 pm

Re:

Post by Warin »

TOS posted wrote: so a friend of mine explained the whole reboot thing to me ... that basically corporate nonsense resulted in a split in the ownership of star trek

the "reboots" happened because that studio owns the brand but not any of the content, so they can be star trek but aren't allowed to resemble the original series or movies -- hence the splitting off of a whole new timeline, different uniforms, colour palette, and so on

the new series is a part of that, so they're actually not allowed to be a part of the original universe, and yet they need to distance themselves from the reboot series (which has become a financial dud -- the most recent release lost maybe $50 mil), which leaves them in a serious bind

it's almost impossible for them to please trek fans because they can't be too much like the original franchise, yet they can't take the jj abrams route because that has run out of steam

rumour has it test screenings have been a disaster, leading cbs to pretty much give up on the series

nicholas meyer, the driving force behind wrath of khan, is working on a "top secret" trek project, which many think will be a tv anthology (different stories occurring at different points along the trek timeline), possibly serving as a subsequent season to discovery

alas discovery sounds like a mess


If that were true, then there would be no Enterprise, Spock, Kirk, etc. The uniforms use the same colours and symbols. New Trek is pretty much just an updated clone of Old Trek, with the alternate timeline allowing them to use the same characters with shiny new actors. Hell, Nimoy appeared as Spock. I am calling BS on that supposition.
I'm sorry Dave...
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 43431
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: want, but shouldn't, may anyway
Location: Failed State

Re: Re:

Post by ukimalefu »

TOS posted wrote:
ukimalefu posted wrote:
TOS posted wrote: so a friend of mine explained the whole reboot thing to me ... that basically corporate nonsense resulted in a split in the ownership of star trek

the "reboots" happened because that studio owns the brand but not any of the content, so they can be star trek but aren't allowed to resemble the original series or movies -- hence the splitting off of a whole new timeline, different uniforms, colour palette, and so on

the new series is a part of that, so they're actually not allowed to be a part of the original universe, and yet they need to distance themselves from the reboot series (which has become a financial dud -- the most recent release lost maybe $50 mil), which leaves them in a serious bind

it's almost impossible for them to please trek fans because they can't be too much like the original franchise, yet they can't take the jj abrams route because that has run out of steam

rumour has it test screenings have been a disaster, leading cbs to pretty much give up on the series

nicholas meyer, the driving force behind wrath of khan, is working on a "top secret" trek project, which many think will be a tv anthology (different stories occurring at different points along the trek timeline), possibly serving as a subsequent season to discovery

alas discovery sounds like a mess


That sounds great coming from your username and avatar, Mr Harbinger of Doom. /sarcasm

:rollfriendly:

This new series will have spaceships and lasers, that means there's a very good chance I will like it.


i'm simply trying to destroy your hope ... why must you resist?


hope? what is that? :goth:
User avatar
macaddict4life
Posts: 4910
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: Tainan City, Taiwan
Contact:

Re:

Post by macaddict4life »

TOS posted wrote: so a friend of mine explained the whole reboot thing to me ... that basically corporate nonsense resulted in a split in the ownership of star trek

the "reboots" happened because that studio owns the brand but not any of the content, so they can be star trek but aren't allowed to resemble the original series or movies -- hence the splitting off of a whole new timeline, different uniforms, colour palette, and so on

the new series is a part of that, so they're actually not allowed to be a part of the original universe, and yet they need to distance themselves from the reboot series (which has become a financial dud -- the most recent release lost maybe $50 mil), which leaves them in a serious bind

it's almost impossible for them to please trek fans because they can't be too much like the original franchise, yet they can't take the jj abrams route because that has run out of steam

rumour has it test screenings have been a disaster, leading cbs to pretty much give up on the series

nicholas meyer, the driving force behind wrath of khan, is working on a "top secret" trek project, which many think will be a tv anthology (different stories occurring at different points along the trek timeline), possibly serving as a subsequent season to discovery

alas discovery sounds like a mess

Beyond made 158 million at the US box office, on a 185 million budget, according to IMDB. It seems certain that international box office receipts would have pushed that well into the black.
Ernest
User avatar
Metacell
Posts: 11003
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:58 am
Title: Chocolate Brahma
Location: Lidsville
Contact:

Re: Mark your starfleet calendars

Post by Metacell »

After marketing costs, it's considered to have lost c. $50 million.

Incidentally, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is still the highest grossing of the movies, adjusting for inflation (also the most expensive US film made up to that point).
Remember, people, to forgive is divine. In other words, it ain't human.
User avatar
macaddict4life
Posts: 4910
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: Tainan City, Taiwan
Contact:

Post by macaddict4life »

As best as I can tell it made $184 million internationally, which still more than covers 50 million.
Ernest
User avatar
dv
Posts: 30617
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:42 pm

Post by dv »

Hollywood math. If any of the actors or directors were getting a % of the gate as part of their contract, the movie will probably lose money, unless it loses so much money that it makes money.

Some of them lose so much money, they get sequels.
Image
User avatar
Metacell
Posts: 11003
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:58 am
Title: Chocolate Brahma
Location: Lidsville
Contact:

Re:

Post by Metacell »

Hey, look, I'm just reporting what Wikipedia says. Why don't you edit it?
Remember, people, to forgive is divine. In other words, it ain't human.
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 38996
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Re:

Post by TOS »

MacAddict4Life posted wrote: As best as I can tell it made $184 million internationally, which still more than covers 50 million.


those numbers do not show a full picture of production costs ... not even close

even if the numbers you found are accurate, it's still a bad investment to spend close to $200 million to make $50 million
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 43431
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: want, but shouldn't, may anyway
Location: Failed State

Post by ukimalefu »

In other news, there are rumors of a Khan miniseries that would happen between the original Khan episode in TOS, and the Wrath of Khan movie.

Just rumors.

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-tre ... -the-works
User avatar
macaddict4life
Posts: 4910
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: Tainan City, Taiwan
Contact:

Re: Re:

Post by macaddict4life »

TOS posted wrote:
MacAddict4Life posted wrote: As best as I can tell it made $184 million internationally, which still more than covers 50 million.


those numbers do not show a full picture of production costs ... not even close

even if the numbers you found are accurate, it's still a bad investment to spend close to $200 million to make $50 million

Though, if the numbers I'm finding are accurate, that indicates a worldwide profit of $130 million, not $50 million.

And frankly I have no idea if they are.
Ernest
User avatar
Warin
Posts: 7008
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Mark your starfleet calendars

Post by Warin »

It looks like it pulled in 360 million worldwide on a 185 million budget. (Using the IMDB box office figures) I think those numbers are good enough that no onle lost money on it. But it didn't pull in anywhere as much business as Into Darkness or Trek 2009.

Star Trek (1)4 is in production for a 2019 release date, so I would guess that it was enough to keep the series going.

I like the JJverse. I accept it for what it is, an action oriented take on the Trek universe. If you go into it expecting just that, I don't think that it is all that disappointing.
I'm sorry Dave...
User avatar
Metacell
Posts: 11003
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:58 am
Title: Chocolate Brahma
Location: Lidsville
Contact:

Re:

Post by Metacell »

ukimalefu posted wrote: In other news, there are rumors of a Khan miniseries that would happen between the original Khan episode in TOS, and the Wrath of Khan movie.

Just rumors.

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-tre ... -the-works

Khan the character is not interesting. Ricardo Montalbán was interesting.
Remember, people, to forgive is divine. In other words, it ain't human.
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 43431
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: want, but shouldn't, may anyway
Location: Failed State

Re: Re:

Post by ukimalefu »

Metacell posted wrote:
ukimalefu posted wrote: In other news, there are rumors of a Khan miniseries that would happen between the original Khan episode in TOS, and the Wrath of Khan movie.

Just rumors.

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-tre ... -the-works

Khan the character is not interesting. Ricardo Montalbán was interesting.


The whole concept of genetically enhanced humans and the Eugenics Wars is interesting, IMO. The thing is that originally, that happened in the 1990s. Maybe they'll change it to the 2090s.
User avatar
dv
Posts: 30617
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:42 pm

Re: Re:

Post by dv »

ukimalefu posted wrote:
Metacell posted wrote:
ukimalefu posted wrote: In other news, there are rumors of a Khan miniseries that would happen between the original Khan episode in TOS, and the Wrath of Khan movie.

Just rumors.

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-tre ... -the-works

Khan the character is not interesting. Ricardo Montalbán was interesting.


The whole concept of genetically enhanced humans and the Eugenics Wars is interesting, IMO. The thing is that originally, that happened in the 1990s. Maybe they'll change it to the 2090s.


The Trek Official Timeline split off from ours in the '80s. It's a different universe, not a possible future.
Image
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 43431
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: want, but shouldn't, may anyway
Location: Failed State

Re: Re:

Post by ukimalefu »

dv posted wrote:
ukimalefu posted wrote:
Metacell posted wrote:
ukimalefu posted wrote: In other news, there are rumors of a Khan miniseries that would happen between the original Khan episode in TOS, and the Wrath of Khan movie.

Just rumors.

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-tre ... -the-works

Khan the character is not interesting. Ricardo Montalbán was interesting.


The whole concept of genetically enhanced humans and the Eugenics Wars is interesting, IMO. The thing is that originally, that happened in the 1990s. Maybe they'll change it to the 2090s.


The Trek Official Timeline split off from ours in the '80s. It's a different universe, not a possible future.


Shut up, I'm still hoping to see the Vulcans arrive in the 2060s.
DEyncourt
Posts: 17332
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Re: Re:

Post by DEyncourt »

ukimalefu posted wrote:
Metacell posted wrote:
ukimalefu posted wrote: In other news, there are rumors of a Khan miniseries that would happen between the original Khan episode in TOS, and the Wrath of Khan movie.

Just rumors.

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-tre ... -the-works

Khan the character is not interesting. Ricardo Montalbán was interesting.


The whole concept of genetically enhanced humans and the Eugenics Wars is interesting, IMO. The thing is that originally, that happened in the 1990s. Maybe they'll change it to the 2090s.

Yeah, sure, for some. <raises hand to be included>

But Montalbán AS AN ACTOR made it a winner of a storyline.
User avatar
Warin
Posts: 7008
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Warin »

DEyncourt posted wrote:
ukimalefu posted wrote:
Metacell posted wrote:
ukimalefu posted wrote: In other news, there are rumors of a Khan miniseries that would happen between the original Khan episode in TOS, and the Wrath of Khan movie.

Just rumors.

http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-tre ... -the-works

Khan the character is not interesting. Ricardo Montalbán was interesting.


The whole concept of genetically enhanced humans and the Eugenics Wars is interesting, IMO. The thing is that originally, that happened in the 1990s. Maybe they'll change it to the 2090s.

Yeah, sure, for some. <raises hand to be included>

But Montalbán AS AN ACTOR made it a winner of a storyline.

Totally agree. I like Benedict Cumberbatch, but even with his considerable acting chops, he couldn't ooze evil and disdain as effectively as Montalban seemed to do effortlessly in both the TOS episode and WoK.
I'm sorry Dave...
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 25037
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Re: Mark your starfleet calendars

Post by maurvir »

Ricardo Montalbán was an amazing actor through the years. He not only nailed Khan, but also Roarke (Fantasy Island) and he did a very solid bad guy in an episode of Columbo.
User avatar
chikie
Posts: 10219
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:24 pm
Title: The same deviled egg

Post by chikie »

He also made people remember "Rich Corinthian Leather"
mmaverick wrote wrote: I'm just on a fiddlesticks train.
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 25037
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Re:

Post by maurvir »

chikie posted wrote: He also made people remember "Rich Corinthian Leather"


Which never actually existed. It just sounded awesome when he said it, so it stuck.
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 38996
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

Image
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
Ribtor
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:45 pm

Re: Mark your starfleet calendars

Post by Ribtor »

neptune's daughter 1949 - esther williams ricardo montalban heart beats faster.jpg
Pyke notte thy nostrellys
User avatar
Metacell
Posts: 11003
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:58 am
Title: Chocolate Brahma
Location: Lidsville
Contact:

Re: Mark your starfleet calendars

Post by Metacell »

So after watching the first episode of Discovery, I have to say I didn't think it was awful or great, but this marketing ploy seems like a great way for CBS to bankrupt itself.
Remember, people, to forgive is divine. In other words, it ain't human.
User avatar
user
Posts: 29386
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Title: Stupid cockwomble

Post by user »

Doubt it'll be worth an extra $6 a month to see it. I hate this trend of networks hosting their own streaming services. It'll just dilute the market.
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.

Science is Truth for Life. In FORTRAN tongue the Answer.

...so I'm supposed to find the Shadow King from inside a daiquiri?
DEyncourt
Posts: 17332
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Re:

Post by DEyncourt »

user posted wrote: Doubt it'll be worth an extra $6 a month to see it. I hate this trend of networks hosting their own streaming services. It'll just dilute the market.

At the CBS.com site there are three options for the CBS All Access app:

1) free but commercial-filled. Presumably this will act like most such apps/programs that I have encountered and these commercials cannot be skipped over in any way. AND it appears that this free version MUST be re-downloaded every month because at the end of the free month you will have to select between the options below.

2) $5.99/month OR $59.99/year for "limited commercials". Also presumably like the above in that these commercials likewise cannot be skipped, but instead of a set of commercials per break there will be only one commercial per break perhaps for an episode or a series sponsor.

3) $9.99/month OR $99.99/year for commercial-free (of course dependent upon CBS' idea of whatever THAT means because they are likely to show promotions for other CBS programs since these are considered NOT "commercials" [most TV networks actually use this definition]).

I THINK that the app is initially the free version but can be upgraded at any time, though it isn't clear to me if the yearly plans may be available ONLY through the web site and not via the app.

Now this is fine IF you are a fan of a lot of CBS programs as "all" of them are included, including many popular re-runs which are no longer being produced such as the original Twilight Zone. On the other hand if you are like me and have basically winnowed down all CBS programming to Discovery (maybe) and "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" all these deals are rather less attractive.

Hmm, I had read somewhere on the CBS site (which I can no longer find) that Discovery's first season will be 15 episodes long (um, maybe 16 HOURS long with a two-hour season finale?) with the first block being shown at an episode per week from now through December, then the second block shown from January through March/April. Maybe what I should do is wait until late March 2017 to sign up with that free version of the app and binge-watch all of season 1 including commercials?

Except that I have found that I REALLY dislike binge-watching. Including unskippable commercials isn't likely to improve that opinion.

-----

I thought that that first episode was OK. There were some bothersome tweakinesses here and there like Lt. Commander Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) applying a Vulcan nerve pinch to her captain (both of whom are human though Burnham was raised from a young child on Vulcan by Spock's father Sarek)? I thought that was a RACIAL characteristic and not something that ANYONE could learn to do, otherwise shouldn't that training be galaxy-wide for ANY species who encountered the Vulcans? Even if the nerve pinch can be applied only on humans because we all know how INVASIVE they can be.

According to someone's notes at IMDB.com Discovery takes place in TOS universe and will have nothing to do with Star Trek movie universe. Something inside of me sighs just at the notion of multiple universes (yeah, recently there have been a lot of such sighs).

I have to admit that the idea of a Star Trek series in which a HOT war is starting between the Federation and the Klingon Empire, where the latter HAD been split into dozens if not hundreds of factions but had gotten inspiration from an uniting leader, just 'cause of the great potential for a lot of BOOM BOOM! as shown in the preview for the second episode.
DEyncourt
Posts: 17332
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Re: Mark your starfleet calendars

Post by DEyncourt »

I should point out something about those yearly plans that didn't quite make sense to me when I first read it. In the notation about the various plans, CBS pointed out that by signing up for a year "you get two months free" (or technically for 9 cents). I suppose that all FUTURE years will not have that discount so whether or not you sign up on the monthly plans or the yearly plans, so for the latter essentially you will save 2 month's fees only for that FIRST year.
Post Reply