Octopus Overlords

Zaxxon wrote:

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.

First time I watched Into Darkness I was mostly struck by the repeated silly plot contrivances. The second time I saw it (on television) I enjoyed it - if you can set aside some of the leaps of logic it was pretty well done.

In any event, I do also think that television is better suited to Trek than movies, because there's more time to go down ethics / examining humanity rabbit holes in the middle of an overarching story.

Agreed.

Love ST but I ain't paying more for it. At some point it will make it's way to something I am already paying for.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

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.

You're ok with *watching* passive advertising, or you're ok with advertising you can skip through?

FWIW I certainly get your point - it's already annoying to have to subscribe to Hulu, Netflix, etc. etc. etc. as various content providers choose up partners and segment their shows amongst various platforms, and CBS will just be one more platform to manage. (That said, for years I've been listening to people complain that they want to get just ESPN, or just the big networks and add ESPN or CNN or, God forbid, just Fox News or whatever.) Bringing it back on topic, we are now going to have the chance to get 4-5 hours of new Star Trek EVERY MONTH for the price of a Pumpkin Spice Latte, or 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a movie ticket. That hardly seems outrageous.

Grifman wrote:Love ST but I ain't paying more for it. At some point it will make it's way to something I am already paying for.

Your love is truly without bounds, sir. Well, at least as long as that love doesn't cost you more than $6 a month

geezer wrote:

Grifman wrote:Love ST but I ain't paying more for it. At some point it will make it's way to something I am already paying for.

Your love is truly without bounds, sir. Well, at least as long as that love doesn't cost you more than $6 a month

I love a lot of free stuff because it is free. Making me pay for something I used to get free does a great deal to lessen my affections.

My willingness to pay will depend on what my TV setup looks like a year or two from now. If we get a new TV and move from cable to streaming services, then it will also depend on the show's quality. ST was at its best when it was talky, as Zaxxon's clip links demonstrate. It tried to be a little more cerebral than average. If it's straight-ahead pew-pew adventure in the Treksphere, like the reboot movies, I'll watch it for free (because it's ST and I am compelled), but I won't pay.

You lost me at will cost...

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 don't mind paying $1.50 an episode, or even $2, for a good quality show that I want. But then I better be able to keep it. I'm not paying $1.50 an episode just to stream it.

While there's more adventuring in Deep Space Nine, there's a lot of exploring of concepts, more than most of the shows, apart from TNG, IMO.

Grifman wrote:

geezer wrote:

Grifman wrote:Love ST but I ain't paying more for it. At some point it will make it's way to something I am already paying for.

Your love is truly without bounds, sir. Well, at least as long as that love doesn't cost you more than $6 a month

I love a lot of free stuff because it is free. Making me pay for something I used to get free does a great to lessen my affections.

You probably never really got it for free, though. You either paid for it for paying a service, or paid for it in time (eg, watching advertising)

Jeff V wrote:$220 cable bill

Holy hell that's a lot. I hope that includes Internet and Phone with that.

geezer wrote: FWIW I certainly get your point - it's already annoying to have to subscribe to Hulu, Netflix, etc. etc. etc. as various content providers choose up partners and segment their shows amongst various platforms, and CBS will just be one more platform to manage. (That said, for years I've been listening to people complain that they want to get just ESPN, or just the big networks and add ESPN or CNN or, God forbid, just Fox News or whatever.) Bringing it back on topic, we are now going to have the chance to get 4-5 hours of new Star Trek EVERY MONTH for the price of a Pumpkin Spice Latte, or 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a movie ticket. That hardly seems outrageous.

Yeah, it's annoying. It wouldn't be as bad if it were split up by content type than by the network. I wouldn't mind paying $10 for a service that offered a new Star Trek show and similar content (eg, Sci Fi shows and movies).

Defiant wrote:

geezer wrote: FWIW I certainly get your point - it's already annoying to have to subscribe to Hulu, Netflix, etc. etc. etc. as various content providers choose up partners and segment their shows amongst various platforms, and CBS will just be one more platform to manage. (That said, for years I've been listening to people complain that they want to get just ESPN, or just the big networks and add ESPN or CNN or, God forbid, just Fox News or whatever.) Bringing it back on topic, we are now going to have the chance to get 4-5 hours of new Star Trek EVERY MONTH for the price of a Pumpkin Spice Latte, or 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a movie ticket. That hardly seems outrageous.

Yeah, it's annoying. It wouldn't be as bad if it were split up by content type than by the network. I wouldn't mind paying $10 for a service that offered a new Star Trek show and similar content (eg, Sci Fi shows and movies).

The competitive landscape is already pretty well formed - it's going to be various channel / movie bundles (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc.) competing with each other alongside a few channels with enough branding to stand on their own (HBO, ESPN, etc.).

Hey! OO is running again. Now I can argue about Star Trek on the internet!

I'm willing to be advertised to, and I'm willing to pay for TV, but nobody is interested in subscribing to twenty different networks. $6 for a show? I am currently following roughly two dozen shows, including older shows, on the air, and off season. $6 each would come out to $144/month. That isn't happening.

On the movies: They were good summer sci-fi films. They were fun movies. They were awful Star Trek.

I will be far less interested in this if it is mindless action and keeps the idea of ditching 40 years of canon. That is, unfortunately, fairly likely.

Blackhawk wrote:Hey! OO is running again. Now I can argue about Star Trek on the internet!

I'm willing to be advertised to, and I'm willing to pay for TV, but nobody is interested in subscribing to twenty different networks. $6 for a show? I am currently following roughly two dozen shows, including older shows, on the air, and off season. $6 each would come out to $144/month. That isn't happening.

On the movies: They were good summer sci-fi films. They were fun movies. They were awful Star Trek.

I will be far less interested in this if it is mindless action and keeps the idea of ditching 40 years of canon. That is, unfortunately, fairly likely.

Strictly speaking it wouldn't be $6 for one show, it would be $6 for CBS's online streaming channel (which would include this Star Trek show, in addition to other offerings).

But I am skeptical that a CBS-only streaming service would be viable.

Blackhawk wrote:On the movies: They were good summer sci-fi films. They were fun movies. They were awful Star Trek.

I will be far less interested in this if it is mindless action and keeps the idea of ditching 40 years of canon. That is, unfortunately, fairly likely.

Amen. That sums up my thoughts exactly.

Once again the Hawk jumps in and says what I tried to say, only more eloquently.

Putting it behind a paywall is an odd decision, seeing as it's contrary to what the franchise really needs, ie eyeballs. Though word is that they plan to have it aired internationally, and I wouldn't doubt it if it ends up being more popular internationally than domestically for that reason.


And oh yes, I agree with Blackhawk. I think a TV series needs a distinct voice separate from the movies.

Also: Once again, the pirates win.

Rumpy wrote:Putting it behind a paywall is an odd decision, seeing as it's contrary to what the franchise really needs, ie eyeballs.

I'm guessing a market analysis was performed and they know the average age of a Star Trek fan, what type of TV programming they watch (Netflix, Hulu, etc...) and how much they spend on Star Trek related paraphernalia each year. And as everyone knows, when you charge a premium for a product it must be of higher quality - not like some low-brow show you'd see on commercial television.

It wouldn't make sense to pay wall a Beverly Hills 90210 reboot, but Star Trek? If this works, prepare for a new wave of "paid-premium entertainment".

Yeah, but you forget that beyond the Trek reboot movies, Star Trek hasn't been very successful recently (or even talked about as much), and putting it behind a paywall would only serve to constrain it from the eyeballs (or even watercooler moments that it will get it talked about) that it needs for it to be successful. It's a Catch-22 situation.

A bit like, dare I say it, sending a Redshirt down to a planet on their first mission...

In theory, yes. But you're looking at taking a well-loved story universe and then "elevating" in terms of quality and production (that's the message) by offering it under select circumstances. It will be sold as a higher-quality product that can *only* be offered as part of premium programming. They're going to acknowledge that previous iterations have been lackluster and by offering it this way, there will be a commitment to quality. Plus it will reinforce the super fan mentality by having a show that is only seen by "true fans" of the series - those that are willing to pay for it.

I think the question is how many people are required to subscribe to make the subscription service viable. Unlike Netflix or Amazon, they don't have to pay licensing fees, so it should require fewer viewers.

Well, they have 1/600th of Netflix's base, so... That's a start?

Smoove_B wrote: Plus it will reinforce the super fan mentality by having a show that is only seen by "true fans" of the series - those that are willing to pay for it.

The problem is that the 'super fans' want new stories in the old setting. They don't want Star Wars Trek.

A fair point. I still believe TV executives smell blood in the water (and by blood, I mean delicious Star Trek money), and there were marketing studies commissioned that support the idea of paid support for the show. Whether that's seeing how people subscribe to Netflix for the Marvel content or Arrested Development, I think entertainment executives are now looking to "mine" the goodwill of fans and make them pay directly. For example, it won't surprise me if the January X-Files 6 episode reboot is just a free hit from a dealer looking to get fans to pay more to have additional content created.

Smoove_B wrote: Plus it will reinforce the super fan mentality by having a show that is only seen by "true fans" of the series - those that are willing to pay for it.

Maybe, but that could also swing both ways. And if the movies were trying to attract new fans, those of which may be casual, then this approach may feel like it's gating them, which seems counter-productive to me. It seems to me like it would only serve to splinter the fanbase even further. It needs to be on a level playing field.

Games go F2P and TV goes subscription.

Bizarro world.

Somehow I suspect George Costanza is behind this.

The next chapter of the Star Trek franchise will also be distributed concurrently for television and multiple platforms around the world by CBS Studios International.

Seeing as Canada is "international" we might get lucky and see it on TV.

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).

CBS All Access might get you their NFL broadcasts.

Defiant wrote:You probably never really got it for free, though. You either paid for it for paying a service, or paid for it in time (eg, watching advertising)

Yeah, I do know that, you know. But I think you know what I meant without getting all pedantic on me

I read a news story about the return of ST that said the new show would run on their pay channel "initially," which implies to me that they might be broadcast later on the regular CBS network for us plebes. I'd be fine with seeing them months later, or even a whole season later. I'm in no hurry.

Guess who just started watching Game of Thrones on DVD?

geezer wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

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.

You're ok with *watching* passive advertising, or you're ok with advertising you can skip through?

I'm ok with being shown passive advertising because I understand that it pays for the content. I don't use an adblocker. I've never had TIVO or a DVR (though that's more because I've never liked committing to a scheduled show, even if I can record it). If I can't bear the ads I don't watch the content. Is there a chance I'll get up and get a drink during an ad? Sure. But I don't fast forward.

geezer wrote:FWIW I certainly get your point - it's already annoying to have to subscribe to Hulu, Netflix, etc. etc. etc. as various content providers choose up partners and segment their shows amongst various platforms, and CBS will just be one more platform to manage. (That said, for years I've been listening to people complain that they want to get just ESPN, or just the big networks and add ESPN or CNN or, God forbid, just Fox News or whatever.)

It's crazy. It's the app-ization of everything. I have a single "app" on my computer that lets me watch Netflix, trade stocks, manage bank accounts, play casual games, read news, chat, text, manage photos, etc. It's called a browser. On my phone I have 15 apps to do the same thing. Everyone wants you in their ecosystem.

People do want a la carte but they don't want to eat each item in a different restaurant.

geezer wrote:Bringing it back on topic, we are now going to have the chance to get 4-5 hours of new Star Trek EVERY MONTH for the price of a Pumpkin Spice Latte, or 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a movie ticket. That hardly seems outrageous.

I'd be hard pressed to watch 5 hours every month. There might be one weekend where I can watch 5 hours in a single sitting but those weekends happen like once or twice a year. I'd much rather pay for what I watch when I watch it. If that means paying $6 for 5 hours, that's fine. If it means watching a bunch of annoying ads, fine. What I don't want to do is pre-pay in the event I might end up watching something (and Star Trek is the only think I would want to watch on CBS online) and continue paying every month.

Subscriptions are great for the balance sheet but for the consumer are just another slow bleed.

LawBeefaroni wrote:Subscriptions are great for the balance sheet but for the consumer are just another slow bleed.

You have to be prepared to manage things to your advantage. The Game of Thrones crowd is managing that. I figure channels like HBO with seasonal shows will be tracking subscriber growth and loss around these event shows in addition to standard viewer numbers to manage their schedules.

Isgrimnur wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:Subscriptions are great for the balance sheet but for the consumer are just another slow bleed.

You have to be prepared to manage things to your advantage. The Game of Thrones crowd is managing that. I figure channels like HBO with seasonal shows will be tracking subscriber growth and loss around these event shows in addition to standard viewer numbers to manage their schedules.

That's almost as bad. Subscribe, cancel, subscribe, cancel...hardly what I'd consider an advantage.

I guess it does keep the retention call center folks employed.

With HOB Now, I was able to add it and cancel it without any human contact, which I consider a plus.

Isgrimnur wrote:With HOB Now, I was able to add it and cancel it without any human contact, which I consider a plus.

Can you sign up for HBO Now and watch it on a computer without a separate subscription to services with Optimum or Verizon?

I looked into this a few weeks ago, and found getting that answer to be surprisingly difficult. Seems like your options are either to subscribe through an HBO Now app (which I don't think is usable on a regular computer, though I am not certain) or to subscribe through "providers", which seems to be limited to Optimum or Verizon (neither of which I have accounts with).

How are you subscribing to HBO Now, and are you using it on your computer?

El Guapo wrote:Can you sign up for HBO Now and watch it on a computer without a separate subscription to services with Optimum or Verizon?

Yes.

El Guapo wrote:How are you subscribing to HBO Now, and are you using it on your computer?

They want you to subscribe through an app, but can view it on PC through the website once you're subscribed.

Isgrimnur wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Can you sign up for HBO Now and watch it on a computer without a separate subscription to services with Optimum or Verizon?

Yes.

El Guapo wrote:How are you subscribing to HBO Now, and are you using it on your computer?

They want you to subscribe through an app, but can view it on PC through the website once you're subscribed.

Why do they want you to subscribe through an app, rather than through a website like God intended?