Octopus Overlords

Just saw this.

A formal announcement with additional details is expected to come later this morning

I'd be really happy, especially if they manage to "get it right."

I've got some ideas on what I'd like to see.

Star Trek: Garak's Adventures

Star Trek: The Garak Family Hour

Star Trek: Search for Garak

or maybe just something simply titled "Garak".

Those are some good names! Maybe they could include one of the Cardassians from DS9. That would be cool.

Something something reboot something.

Odin wrote:Those are some good names! Maybe they could include one of the Cardassians from DS9. That would be cool.

Garak and Gul Dukat always had a great hate/hate relationship. I wouldn't mind seeing them throw down again on screen.

Garak: When the Klingons attacked the station, Gul Dukat and I were fighting side by side. At one point, he turned his back to me, and I must admit that for a moment, he made a very tempting target.
Odo: You'd shoot a man in the back?
Garak: Well, it's the safest way, isn't it?

Yes, this is happening. Pilot airing on CBS January 2017, rest of the episodes on CBS All Access which will cost you $5.99 a month as per Star Trek's website.

pr0ner wrote:Yes, this is happening. Pilot airing on CBS January 2017, rest of the episodes on CBS All Access which will cost you $5.99 a month as per Star Trek's website.

Ah, so it's not really out until it appears on Amazon Prime or Netflix then.

Jeff V wrote:

pr0ner wrote:Yes, this is happening. Pilot airing on CBS January 2017, rest of the episodes on CBS All Access which will cost you $5.99 a month as per Star Trek's website.

Ah, so it's not really out until it appears on Amazon Prime or Netflix then.

Or you solve the complex problem of how to use a tv antenna, or have cable.

hepcat wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

pr0ner wrote:Yes, this is happening. Pilot airing on CBS January 2017, rest of the episodes on CBS All Access which will cost you $5.99 a month as per Star Trek's website.

Ah, so it's not really out until it appears on Amazon Prime or Netflix then.

Or you solve the complex problem of how to use a tv antenna, or have cable.

No, it's only on all-access. Lame.

Who's writing?

We had better get used to this, we are seeing the beginning of the end to free network TV. Free over the air broadcasts are doomed as streaming will eventually pass live broadcast TV. About the only exception I can see, unless things change drastically are live sporting events and such. And even those are at risk.

hepcat wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

pr0ner wrote:Yes, this is happening. Pilot airing on CBS January 2017, rest of the episodes on CBS All Access which will cost you $5.99 a month as per Star Trek's website.

Ah, so it's not really out until it appears on Amazon Prime or Netflix then.

Or you solve the complex problem of how to use a tv antenna, or have cable.

I'm not going to add $6 more to a $220 cable bill. Besides, TV antennas don't work at my house...tried them already.

Well, that sucks. I don't care how good it is, I can't see myself paying an additional $6/month (or any amount, really) to watch one show. It doesn't really even matter if they have "other stuff" that I might want to watch. Netflix and Amazon already have original programming that I could watch, but mostly don't.

Zaxxon wrote:

hepcat wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

pr0ner wrote:Yes, this is happening. Pilot airing on CBS January 2017, rest of the episodes on CBS All Access which will cost you $5.99 a month as per Star Trek's website.

Ah, so it's not really out until it appears on Amazon Prime or Netflix then.

Or you solve the complex problem of how to use a tv antenna, or have cable.

No, it's only on all-access. Lame.

Ah, that is lame. I assumed that since the pilot was on CBS tv, the rest of the episodes would be as well. With the option to also get them on All Access. But if they truly are making it only available via a paid service, that sucks.

Yeah. It's pretty much DOA unless they alter course.

Jeff V wrote:

hepcat wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

pr0ner wrote:Yes, this is happening. Pilot airing on CBS January 2017, rest of the episodes on CBS All Access which will cost you $5.99 a month as per Star Trek's website.

Ah, so it's not really out until it appears on Amazon Prime or Netflix then.

Or you solve the complex problem of how to use a tv antenna, or have cable.

I'm not going to add $6 more to a $220 cable bill. Besides, TV antennas don't work at my house...tried them already.

It helps if you point them towards the sky and avoid setting them up in a basement closet.

rshetts2 wrote:We had better get used to this, we are seeing the beginning of the end to free network TV. Free over the air broadcasts are doomed as streaming will eventually live broadcast TV. About the only exception I can see, unless things change drastically are live sporting events and such. And even those are at risk.

Unless you're lucky enough to get the foreign language programming OTA. We get a few Korean and Polish cannels and have about 5 that rotate various foreign language programming. Not to mention about 8 Spanish language stations.

You begin to see the real value of OTA when you get exposure to Polish gangsta rap and Korean game shows on a regular basis.




While I'm not a hardcore trekie, I have seen all the series (including every single episode of Enterprise and Voyager!). I'd like to watch a new one. But I'd sooner watch a Dark Shadow's marathon on some oldies TV network than sign up for a subscription based commercial TV account to watch Star Trek.

rshetts2 wrote:We had better get used to this, we are seeing the beginning of the end to free network TV. Free over the air broadcasts are doomed as streaming will eventually live broadcast TV. About the only exception I can see, unless things change drastically are live sporting events and such. And even those are at risk.

But as far as most people are concerned, "free" network TV isn't free. It's just another set of channels on my FIOS line-up. The fact that I COULD get them for free, in theory (I tried an antenna once for a non-FIOS-connected TV and it didn't work at all), isn't terribly helpful to me. Now, if FIOS wants to add "CBS All-whatever" as another channel, without bumping up the cost of my service, it would certainly give me another reason to stick with them as the temptation grows to ditch cable and move to alternatives. But pay extra for it? Not likely.

rshetts2 wrote:We had better get used to this, we are seeing the beginning of the end to free network TV. Free over the air broadcasts are doomed as streaming will eventually live broadcast TV. About the only exception I can see, unless things change drastically are live sporting events and such. And even those are at risk.

But as far as most people are concerned, "free" network TV isn't free. It's just another set of channels on my FIOS line-up. The fact that I COULD get them for free, in theory (I tried an antenna once for a non-FIOS-connected TV and it didn't work at all), isn't terribly helpful to me. Now, if FIOS wants to add "CBS All-whatever" as another channel, without bumping up the cost of my service, it would certainly give me another reason to stick with them as the temptation grows to ditch cable and move to alternatives. But pay extra for it? Not likely.

rshetts2 wrote:We had better get used to this, we are seeing the beginning of the end to free network TV. Free over the air broadcasts are doomed as streaming will eventually live broadcast TV. About the only exception I can see, unless things change drastically are live sporting events and such. And even those are at risk.

But as far as most people are concerned, "free" network TV isn't free. It's just another set of channels on my FIOS line-up. The fact that I COULD get them for free, in theory (I tried an antenna once for a non-FIOS-connected TV and it didn't work at all), isn't terribly helpful to me. Now, if FIOS wants to add "CBS All-whatever" as another channel, without bumping up the cost of my service, it would certainly give me another reason to stick with them as the temptation grows to ditch cable and move to alternatives. But pay extra for it? Not likely.

People want quality original content, want to skip the advertising but refuse to pay a buck fifty for an hour of someone's work. This is why we can't have nice things.

People want quality original content, want to skip the advertising but refuse to pay a buck fifty for an hour of someone's work. This is why we can't have nice things.

hepcat wrote: It helps if you point them towards the sky and avoid setting them up in a basement closet.

I don't even have a basement and I tried every window of the house, upstairs and downstairs.

hepcat wrote: It helps if you point them towards the sky and avoid setting them up in a basement closet.

I don't even have a basement and I tried every window of the house, upstairs and downstairs.

geezer wrote:People want quality original content, want to skip the advertising but refuse to pay a buck fifty for an hour of someone's work. This is why we can't have nice things.

I hate that I agree with this, but I do.

Will this only be available to watch on CBS's streaming, or will they make it available in other locations after some amount of time (eg, a week?)

If it's only available on the subscription service, I would wait until most of the season is done, and then subscribe for a few months. While there are some other stuff available on it that I'd be interested in, there wouldn't be enough to justify $6 a month for an extended period of time.

And hopefully, it sticks with the substance of the other TV shows (and the earlier movies) and concentrate on substance and thought over style and action of the recent movies.

Defiant wrote:And hopefully, it sticks with the substance of the other TV shows (and the earlier movies) and concentrate on substance and thought over style and action of the recent movies.

My hopes are low, considering it's being spearheaded by the dude that wrote the last two movies. To quote Vox.com:

And Kurtzman's contribution to the franchise as a screenwriter has been precisely to water down what's uniquely Trek about Trek in favor of a more broadly appealing sci-fi romp. Star Trek's return to television should be a triumphant moment for the franchise's fans, but it might be the nail in the coffin that ensures that the unique tone set by Gene Roddenberry ends up firmly buried beneath generic action/adventure space cowboy stories.

geezer wrote:People want quality original content, want to skip the advertising but refuse to pay a buck fifty for an hour of someone's work. This is why we can't have nice things.

I already pay $1.83 per hour, assuming 4 hours per day (a number that does not change)...watching this show means not watching something else that I am probably stuck paying for regardless. Why should I pay even more?

Jeff V wrote:

hepcat wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

pr0ner wrote:Yes, this is happening. Pilot airing on CBS January 2017, rest of the episodes on CBS All Access which will cost you $5.99 a month as per Star Trek's website.

Ah, so it's not really out until it appears on Amazon Prime or Netflix then.

Or you solve the complex problem of how to use a tv antenna, or have cable.

I'm not going to add $6 more to a $220 cable bill. Besides, TV antennas don't work at my house...tried them already.

Right, the trick there is to cancel the $220 cable bill. This is a good trend - it means that increasingly we'll be able to put together a monthly package of movies + geek shows + sports + whatever, rather than paying $220 a month to subsidize Hepcat's Wild Amish Revue.

I'm skeptical that CBS will be able to maintain a commercially viable CBS-only online streaming service, to be sure. It's also unclear how a flagship show would give more than a temporary boost, since it's hard to see how they avoid people subscribing for one month to watch the show then canceling. But everyone's figuring out the details of this stuff, so we'll see.

Zaxxon wrote:

Defiant wrote:And hopefully, it sticks with the substance of the other TV shows (and the earlier movies) and concentrate on substance and thought over style and action of the recent movies.

My hopes are low, considering it's being spearheaded by the dude that wrote the last two movies. To quote Vox.com:

And Kurtzman's contribution to the franchise as a screenwriter has been precisely to water down what's uniquely Trek about Trek in favor of a more broadly appealing sci-fi romp. Star Trek's return to television should be a triumphant moment for the franchise's fans, but it might be the nail in the coffin that ensures that the unique tone set by Gene Roddenberry ends up firmly buried beneath generic action/adventure space cowboy stories.

If it helps, Kurtzman apparently isn't writing the show - I think the writer is TBD. Though that's still of some concern.

Zaxxon wrote:Yeah. It's pretty much DOA unless they alter course.

Even if we have streaming by then, I'll wait and rent the DVDs. I don't mind being a season behind. Six bucks a month for one show ain't gonna happen.

El Guapo wrote: Right, the trick there is to cancel the $220 cable bill.

I would love to do so. Please tell me how to get sports without it (don't say "satellite"). I can only manage a handful of OTA channels, and all of the football channels (Fox, NBC, CBS) are missing.

Hanging out at bars to watch sports would easily eclipse $220 in less than a week. (not to mention be completely unacceptable to my wife).

Jeff V wrote:

El Guapo wrote: Right, the trick there is to cancel the $220 cable bill.

I would love to do so. Please tell me how to get sports without it (don't say "satellite"). I can only manage a handful of OTA channels, and all of the football channels (Fox, NBC, CBS) are missing.

Hanging out at bars to watch sports would easily eclipse $220 in less than a week. (not to mention be completely unacceptable to my wife).

I believe the current solution is streaming ESPN with Sling TV for ~$20 a month. I don't sportsball, though, so I can't elaborate.

geezer wrote:People want quality original content, want to skip the advertising but refuse to pay a buck fifty for an hour of someone's work. This is why we can't have nice things.

I'm OK with passive advertising, what I don't want is a bunch of discreet subscriptions. And I certainly don't want a pay subscription full of ads. If having to subscribe to each network/content producer is what it takes to get content, I'm happy to not watch. I don't feel it's my right to torrent or whatever, I'll just pass on it.

Jeff V wrote:

El Guapo wrote: Right, the trick there is to cancel the $220 cable bill.

I would love to do so. Please tell me how to get sports without it (don't say "satellite"). I can only manage a handful of OTA channels, and all of the football channels (Fox, NBC, CBS) are missing.

Hanging out at bars to watch sports would easily eclipse $220 in less than a week. (not to mention be completely unacceptable to my wife).

Sports is probably the trickiest part of cable cord-cutting, to be sure. Have you bought an antenna, as opposed to relying on your TV's OTA capability? I bought one off of Amazon which gets all of the OTA football channels fine (though a toddler breaking off part of the antenna has recently diminished the reliability somewhat).

Baseball you can watch via MLB.tv (for $130/season) if you're willing to watch local games on a one-evening lag. Though as a practical matter I just don't watch that much in-season baseball anymore on account of the hassles.

Are you all sporting goatees of evil in this alternate dimension I'm in where Star Trek threads devolve into sports talk?!

El Guapo wrote:If it helps, Kurtzman apparently isn't writing the show - I think the writer is TBD. Though that's still of some concern.

That's helpful. Although I'm doubtful that in 2015 we'll get much of what made Trek Trek: exhibits A, B, C, and D.

I'd love to be wrong, though.

wonderpug wrote:Are you all sporting goatees of evil in this alternate dimension I'm in where Star Trek threads devolve into sports talk?!

It's more devolving into streaming talk.

No comment on the evil.

Zaxxon wrote:

El Guapo wrote:If it helps, Kurtzman apparently isn't writing the show - I think the writer is TBD. Though that's still of some concern.

That's helpful. Although I'm doubtful that in 2015 we'll get much of what made Trek Trek: exhibits A, B, C, and D.

I'd love to be wrong, though.

You also wonder how much of the recent movies are Kurtzman vs. JJ Abrams vs. the studio vs. whatever else. And the recent movies, while more "cowboys in space"-ish than traditional Trek, were at least pretty well done and executed (IMO).

But of course, the people cry out for more DS9.

El Guapo wrote:You also wonder how much of the recent movies are Kurtzman vs. JJ Abrams vs. the studio vs. whatever else. And the recent movies, while more "cowboys in space"-ish than traditional Trek, were at least pretty well done and executed (IMO).

The first one I enjoyed for what it was. The 2nd I found to be a mess. I can't even remember why--I've apparently unconsciously wiped it from my memory...

But of course, the people cry out for more DS9.

In my case, not more DS9 but more Trek. Trek was never just about gallivanting around space having adventures--it was about examining humanity / ethics / random lofty shit. I found the reboot movies to be mostly just gallivanting.