- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
New Star Trek Series
Posted on 11/2/15 at 11:24 am
Posted on 11/2/15 at 11:24 am
Headed to CBS.
The catch is that it appears only the pilot will air on the tv channel. You will need to subscribe to their online service to watch the whole series.
LINK
Not sure if I am reading that right.
The catch is that it appears only the pilot will air on the tv channel. You will need to subscribe to their online service to watch the whole series.
LINK
Not sure if I am reading that right.
This post was edited on 11/2/15 at 11:26 am
5
Posted on 11/2/15 at 11:25 am to TigerMyth36
bullshite
Posted on 11/2/15 at 11:26 am to athenslife101
Another article states the episodes will air on tv and through their VOD service.
Posted on 11/2/15 at 11:29 am to TigerMyth36
<-Skeptical as hell.
ETA: Kurtzman seems to be the main guy. If legitimate, I pass.
ETA: Kurtzman seems to be the main guy. If legitimate, I pass.
This post was edited on 11/2/15 at 11:31 am
Posted on 11/2/15 at 11:39 am to TigerMyth36
A new Star Trek series needs to back to the regular TNG - DS9 - Voyager universe and not this alternate universe set up by Abrams.
Posted on 11/2/15 at 11:55 am to GetCocky11
I bet they go with the new universe just to piss Ace off. 
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 11/2/15 at 11:57 am
Posted on 11/2/15 at 12:12 pm to TigerMyth36
Will only watch if Chris Pine is involved
Posted on 11/2/15 at 12:21 pm to The Godfather
quote:
Will only watch if Chris Pine is involved
Patrick Stewart at 75 years old > Chris Pine
Posted on 11/2/15 at 12:31 pm to TigerMyth36
If I can watch this w/o subscribing to CBS All Access I'll give it a shot.
If there is no other way frick that noise.
errybody says they want a ala carte but they dont seem to see that this is the kind of thing that will become common place if it ever does fully go that route.
Everything will be spread the frick out and you'll end up paying more for less content. You won't save on subscribing to less channels or stealing either b/c we'll end up w/shite arse internet data caps as the standard so the cable companies who own the ISPs dont lose profits.
If there is no other way frick that noise.
errybody says they want a ala carte but they dont seem to see that this is the kind of thing that will become common place if it ever does fully go that route.
Everything will be spread the frick out and you'll end up paying more for less content. You won't save on subscribing to less channels or stealing either b/c we'll end up w/shite arse internet data caps as the standard so the cable companies who own the ISPs dont lose profits.
Posted on 11/2/15 at 1:20 pm to Dr RC
quote:
If I can watch this w/o subscribing to CBS All Access I'll give it a shot.
If there is no other way frick that noise.
errybody says they want a ala carte but they dont seem to see that this is the kind of thing that will become common place if it ever does fully go that route.
Everything will be spread the frick out and you'll end up paying more for less content. You won't save on subscribing to less channels or stealing either b/c we'll end up w/shite arse internet data caps as the standard so the cable companies who own the ISPs dont lose profits.
This is accurate. CBS All Access is $6/month. When you pay for cable, it does include a retransmission fee paid to CBS, but it is not close to $6/month. Only ESPN can charge $6/month per subscriber to the cable providers.
People complain about their cable bill but don't realize it is easily the best bang for your buck. You get an immense amount of content for it. I made the mistake of cutting the cord, but trying to cobble together what I watched on cable is a pain in the arse and pricey. And I still don't get anywhere close to the amount of content I got on cable. So I am going back on the cord for that reason.
Posted on 11/2/15 at 1:25 pm to Dr RC
quote:
errybody says they want a ala carte but they dont seem to see that this is the kind of thing that will become common place if it ever does fully go that route.
Yeah - if you want 20 channels - and 20 channels only - and the cable company would go get them for you for even $3 a piece, you'd probably be happy.
BUT, if you get Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu - You're sitting pretty close to $30 a month right there and you don't have HBOGo or any of these other a la cartes yet. You'll be at $100 with very little effort and, while a lot of content, you'll pay proportionally more.
What I object to is paying for all this content AND ads on top of that. That model is coming as well - as we see with Hulu.
Meet the new boss...
Posted on 11/2/15 at 1:28 pm to Ace Midnight
CBS is an over the air channel though. Free.
That is what bugs me about them putting a show on a subscription based over the internet setting.
That is what bugs me about them putting a show on a subscription based over the internet setting.
Posted on 11/2/15 at 1:34 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
What I object to is paying for all this content AND ads on top of that.
The funny thing is that, until cable came along in the 80's or so, the common knowledge was that no one would ever actually pay for the entertainment. It had to be 100% ad-supported. That was the radio model and became the TV model. Then cable proved people would actually pay for content, and now people no longer want ads.
Since the late 90's, you could avoid ads entirely if you wanted to via TiVo.
If ads go away, subscription fees will go up since ad revenue can be up to 50% of a media company's revenue. Media companies are also finding ways to insert ads. As we move to a 100% online model, data mining will result in ads being delivered to you that might actually pertain to you. So 20 year single men won't get tampon commercials and 40 year single women won't get toy commercials, etc. So I do not expect ads to be eliminated entirely. HBO has been ad-free for 25+ years. That has not become the adopted model by any stretch.
Speaking of Hulu, which I use, there is ad-free option, but it is about 60% more per month than the ad-supported option. That is an indication of how much being ad-free will cost you.
Posted on 11/2/15 at 3:23 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
A new Star Trek series needs to back to the regular TNG - DS9 - Voyager universe and not this alternate universe set up by Abrams.
I want one set after Enterprise but before TOS.
Enterprise could have been great if half the episodes weren't about the damn temporal cold war.
I want it in the original timeline as well.
Or maybe a new Next Generation with Admiral Data.
(You know Brett ain't doing shite)
Posted on 11/2/15 at 3:23 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
. This TV rebirth follows the two latest movies, and though the press release says nothing about when or where the new series will take place, it seems safe to say that the show will exist in the new continuity created by JJ Abrams' 2009 Trek film.
Posted on 11/2/15 at 3:24 pm to LeonPhelps
You guys are counting Hulu, Prime, Netflix as extras. I had those and cable so yes, cutting cable and picking up Sling did drastically cut my total bill with little to no disruption.
Oh, another site is also claiming that only the premiere will be over the airwaves and you will need All Access to watch the show.
Should they really be trying this model first with a show made for geeks and nerds? This show might surpass GOT as the most pirated show out there.
Oh, another site is also claiming that only the premiere will be over the airwaves and you will need All Access to watch the show.
Should they really be trying this model first with a show made for geeks and nerds? This show might surpass GOT as the most pirated show out there.
Posted on 11/2/15 at 4:52 pm to LeonPhelps
quote:
I made the mistake of cutting the cord, but trying to cobble together what I watched on cable is a pain in the arse and pricey.
Dude you did it wrong. I haven't had cable in 15 years. I assure you I watch everything I want to watch with ease....including sports.
Posted on 11/2/15 at 5:17 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
I bet they go with the new universe just to piss Ace off.
Might be worth it.
Or they could have a Star Trek series set entirely on Earth. It's no more rediculous than a Stargate series where they don't use a Stargate.
Posted on 11/2/15 at 5:24 pm to LeonPhelps
quote:
I still don't get anywhere close to the amount of content I got on cable. So I am going back on the cord for that reason.
I am flexible on a number of things, but at 60, I am also set in a few of my ways. I would just as soon keep the cord and worry about one bundle bill. About the only thing I am going to cut is the landline, which I needed for fax and alarm system. However, there are plenty of e-fax services when needed, and I can now buy a modem to attach to my WiFi modem that will allow Suddenlink to continue monitoring my alarm system. Alarm model ought to pay for itself in about seven months.
A lot of folks like cutting the cord. It's just not my thing.
Posted on 11/2/15 at 5:34 pm to TigerMyth36
I have Hulu, Netflix, Prime and Cable.
I can't bring myself to cut the cord.
I'll cut smoking first, that's $200 a month. Much easier to cut.
I need my TV.
I can't bring myself to cut the cord.
I'll cut smoking first, that's $200 a month. Much easier to cut.
I need my TV.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News