[Official] Star Trek: Discovery Thread

[+Biscuits Brown MVC]

15 minutes ago, shockz said:

I'm not sure how many other ways I can rehash what I said... it's not on me to make you understand after the first few posts. I'm not the one that seems to have problems making sense of something.

 

You don't pay for CBS all access though, so not sure what you're getting at with paying for cable, unless of course somehow your cable company has packages that include all-access. Which "again", I've stated will probably be the way of future, as broadcast companies move to the CBS all access method. Fox is already doing this. So is NBC. I also believe ABC might as well. Disney too. etc etc etc. Should you get access to Disney streaming services, because you pay a cable bill that includes the Disney channel? You're comparing Apples to Oranges. It's an entirely different service. You can't get Discovery on cable or local CBS affiliate. Just because it's got CBS in the same doesn't some how make you entitled to get it because you're already paying for cable. That's like saying you want everything FX has to offer because you already pay for FOX on a basic cable package, or again, see Disney arugment. 

 

Btw, have a Snickers. You need it. #facepalm. 

I dont think you are really understanding oldtimefighter. If I subscribe via cable to HBO, I also get HBO streaming via HBO Go (same goes for Showtime and Showtime Anywhere). In addition to paying for premium channels like HBO, I also have to pay to get the local networks (ABC, CBS, NBC etc.) So I am paying for CBS then have to pay again to get All Access so your streaming HBO argument is not quite addressing the issue. Also consider that I currently pay about 100 bucks a month for cable. Now, cut that cord and start paying for streams. I can see a few years down the road, I'll need a CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox accounts. Make them all the same as All Access (and use the no commercial rate) of 9.00/month. HBO 15/mo. Assume Showtime follows suite. There's another 15/mo. Add in Disney. If anyone thinks thats going to be less the 20 bucks a month, they are dreaming. ESPN, well thats not going to be included with ABC so add a bit more, best guess 15/month since sports usually rate a premium. Now add news, Nickelodeon, Comedy and a few others (AMC, SYFY)  and at 9-15 dollars per steam, my entertainment to replace cable will greatly exceed my cable bill AND I will have 20 monthly bills. No thanks. We are really heading in a wrong direction. Death by a thousand subscriptions... 

[oldtimefighter]

33 minutes ago, shockz said:

I'm not sure how many other ways I can rehash what I said... it's not on me to make you understand after the first few posts. I'm not the one that seems to have problems making sense of something.

 

You don't pay for CBS all access though, so not sure what you're getting at with paying for cable, unless of course somehow your cable company has packages that include all-access. Which "again", I've stated will probably be the way of future, as broadcast companies move to the CBS all access method. Fox is already doing this. So is NBC. I also believe ABC might as well. Disney too. etc etc etc. Should you get access to Disney streaming services, because you pay a cable bill that includes the Disney channel? You're comparing Apples to Oranges. It's an entirely different service. You can't get Discovery on cable or local CBS affiliate. Just because it's got CBS in the same doesn't some how make you entitled to get it because you're already paying for cable. That's like saying you want everything FX has to offer because you already pay for FOX on a basic cable package, or again, see Disney arugment. Do you feel that if you're paying for HBO go, does that some how make you entitled to also receive HBO on your actual cable service? Hint: It doesn't work that way.

 

Btw, have a Snickers. You need it. #facepalm. 

I don't care if that is how they all are going to do it "in the future". I am NOT doing that. You must realize this is all a scam to just squeeze more money out of us. Right?

 

Here is a good example of the greed. I am a MMA fan. The UFC puts out events about every 2-3 weeks. To watch all their events I would subscribe to cable or a streaming service to get Spike (now FOX Sports) for most of the events, subscribe to UFC.TV to watch the early prelims, AND do the pay-pre-view for the big events. This means for pay-per-view events one would have to pay for three different services to watch ONE EVENT (pay-pre-view, cable, UFC.TV) I was willing to do that because I like MMA. Now... That is not always good enough because for some events the regular prelims are on a cable channel that is not on the basic cable tier now (on purpose). The media content companies are basically trying to do the same thing. NO THANKS!

[oldtimefighter]

6 minutes ago, Zag L. said:

I dont think you are really understanding oldtimefighter. If I subscribe via cable to HBO, I also get HBO streaming via HBO Go (same goes for Showtime and Showtime Anywhere). In addition to paying for premium channels like HBO, I also have to pay to get the local networks (ABC, CBS, NBC etc.) So I am paying for CBS then have to pay again to get All Access so your streaming HBO argument is not quite addressing the issue. Also consider that I currently pay about 100 bucks a month for cable. Now, cut that cord and start paying for streams. I can see a few years down the road, I'll need a CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox accounts. Make them all the same as All Access (and use the no commercial rate) of 9.00/month. HBO 15/mo. Assume Showtime follows suite. There's another 15/mo. Add in Disney. If anyone thinks thats going to be less the 20 bucks a month, they are dreaming. ESPN, well thats not going to be included with ABC so add a bit more, best guess 15/month since sports usually rate a premium. Now add news, Nickelodeon, Comedy and a few others (AMC, SYFY)  and at 9-15 dollars per steam, my entertainment to replace cable will greatly exceed my cable bill AND I will have 20 monthly bills. No thanks. We are really heading in a wrong direction. Death by a thousand subscriptions... 

Exactly! Thank You.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

It's strange, I thought this was a thread about Star Trek Discovery? Maybe create a thread elsewhere to discuss the idea of these services? Future posts in here discussing it will be hidden.

[shockz]

35 minutes ago, Nick H. said:

It's strange, I thought this was a thread about Star Trek Discovery? Maybe create a thread elsewhere to discuss the idea of these services? Future posts in here discussing it will be hidden.

How exactly does streaming services not relate to Discovery? In essence it could be the make or break for this show? We're talking about the core complaint of why people are put off with Discovery, naturally streaming discussions are going to stem from it.

Edited September 26, 2017 by shockz

[George P Global Moderator]

5 hours ago, John. said:

It did make me giggle when she shot off towards the asteroid field, as the thrusters were only on her back I couldn't help thinking her limbs would just be in bits flailing behind her. 

That's right out of the Star Trek Motion Picture, Spock does the same thing at one point, though it's more flashy in Discovery, it's not exactly something new to the show.  

[Nick H. Supervisor]

Just now, shockz said:

How exactly does streaming services not relate to Discovery? In essence it could be the make or break from this show? 

I agree that they relate, but the distinction is using Discovery in a general thread discussing streaming services as an example rather than using a thread about Star Trek Discovery to discuss streaming services in general. Personally I come in to this thread to read about and discuss the show, I don't give a hoot about opinions on streaming services.

[LaP]

Guys just do what you do for other shows. Download it. Legally of course

[George P Global Moderator]

2 hours ago, margrave said:

I am rather upset with the whole CBS access streaming.

 

I enjoyed the two episodes, but I already pay for Xfinity, too much, and Netflix. Enough is enough. The fact that it's on Netflix in other countries is nothing more than an insult. I would gladly watch it, but I'm not paying EXTRA for it.

 

And to me the Klingons have been made into space orcs now. 

I can understand that but the rumor out there is that they're spending somewhere around $8 million per episode, no way that money gets spent if it's on regular CBS, not without massive ratings to justify it, and putting it behind a streaming service is a easier way to pay for things.   Just think if it was on normal CBS and the budget was your typical tiny trek budget?  Then people would be up in arms over the lack of any effects and that it looks "cheap".

[The Evil Overlord]

40 minutes ago, Nick H. said:

 Future posts in here discussing it will be hidden.

Spoilsport

Cyber bully

CYBER BULLY!!

2 minutes ago, LaP said:

Guys just do what you do for other shows. Download it. Legally of course

I remember a joke I once made about Amazon video, and twisted it to make it sound illegal, you post just reminded me of that.

13 minutes ago, Nick H. said:

I agree that they relate, but the distinction is using Discovery in a general thread discussing streaming services as an example rather than using a thread about Star Trek Discovery to discuss streaming services in general. Personally I come in to this thread to read about and discuss the show, I don't give a hoot about opinions on streaming services.

Well we are only 2 episodes in, we needed something as a filler

Incidentally, I agree.

[Morisato]

Anyone notice Michael Burnham's perky nips during her hearing?

 

[LaP]

17 minutes ago, Morisato said:

Anyone notice Michael Burnham's perky nips during her hearing?

 

 

Perv

[George P Global Moderator]

47 minutes ago, Morisato said:

Anyone notice Michael Burnham's perky nips during her hearing?

 

Well we all did now, thanks I guess?

[LOC Veteran]

lol maybe it was just the outfit on the edges there being crimped or something. But yeah, thanks for noticing I guess also?  

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

1 hour ago, LaP said:

Guys just do what you do for other shows. Download it. Legally of course

bawhahahaah

 

i thought the first two eps were pretty decent, wasn't expecting it to be better than the new movies, but it is, not quite up to the standard of enterprise though, but there's time to improve...

 

anyone know how the captain returns? she's listed for 15 episodes....but after what happened...how??

[techbeck]

2 minutes ago, Slarlac249 said:

anyone know how the captain returns? she's listed for 15 episodes....but after what happened...how??

Flashbacks maybe?  I hope there are not that many flashbacks tho.

[margrave]

2 hours ago, George P said:

I can understand that but the rumor out there is that they're spending somewhere around $8 million per episode, no way that money gets spent if it's on regular CBS, not without massive ratings to justify it, and putting it behind a streaming service is a easier way to pay for things.   Just think if it was on normal CBS and the budget was your typical tiny trek budget?  Then people would be up in arms over the lack of any effects and that it looks "cheap".

You do make a point; however, no reason to not be on NetFlix, or Amazon video.

4 hours ago, shockz said:

No different than a show ending up on a premium channel like HBO or Showtime... HBO go is thriving, and just as All Access gains more exclusive material, so will it. Cable is going the way of the dino, CBS is ensuring it won't end up like blockbuster. I'm betting everything will be streaming in a decade or so, that or cable companies will have packages that contain all these new streaming services.

 

Get with the times, otherwise you'll really have no shows to watch except your local news and re-runs.

I am with the times. I love my Netflix, and Amazon Video. Xfinity On Demand is great too, No reason for it to NOT be on one of these existing streaming services.

[George P Global Moderator]

36 minutes ago, techbeck said:

Flashbacks maybe?  I hope there are not that many flashbacks tho.

I think the season will be very much character driven by Michael, so I expect to get flashbacks with the captain from time to time whenever there's some moral dilemma.   They should be short though and fill in the gaps and give us the needed character development.

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

not really a fan of flashbacks...oh well

[Steven P. Administrators]

1 hour ago, Slarlac249 said:

not really a fan of flashbacks...oh well

ohh 

 

[techbeck]

2 hours ago, Slarlac249 said:

not really a fan of flashbacks...oh well

Just as long as they don't over do it,  should be fine. 

 

and how people say ST:TNG, or ST:TOS...  I guess Discovery will be ST:D...... 

[LaP]

12 minutes ago, techbeck said:

Just as long as they don't over do it,  should be fine. 

 

and how people say ST:TNG, or ST:TOS...  I guess Discovery will be ST:D...... 

Sound right in line with @Morisato comment XD

[techbeck]

6 minutes ago, LaP said:

Sound right in line with @Morisato comment XD

Well crap, I didnt go back and read the whole thread.  Guess great minds think alike...haha

[Nick H. Supervisor]

Yeah, when I was writing something yesterday I shortened it to "STD"...then erased it and went with "Discovery."

[George P Global Moderator]

You know, after having seen the first two episodes and having it sink in a bit, the argument about the hologram communication parts not matching up with old canon level tech.  Yeah I think I can let that slide, I mean lets see where we are now, there's a big push with VR and AR now.  Holograms are a real thing even today, though used for fancy music concerts and so on, so, taking todays tech as a building block, a scifi show set hundred+ years in the future using holograms the way they showed on discovery is actually pretty logical even if it doesn't match the older shows which came before and were using ideas people had for future tech at that time.   TOS is a product of the 60s and what they expected tech will be like, likewise TNG is a product of the 80s and early 90s.    

 

For example, TOS still used buttons, actual physical buttons for controls, no one back then had an idea of using touch displays,  then TNG came later, when tech was kicking off and figured you don't need physical buttons.   Looking at where we are today, touch screens in use everywhere, it makes zero sense to make discovery go back to using the old physical button way that TOS had just so it can match up with some purist fan views of trek design wise.  Likewise with the use of holograms IMO.   Shows have to keep up and take into account the current level of technology, real time video communications as shown back in TOS and other shows via a view screen was futuristic, back then.  Now I can skype, facetime, facebook video chat with anyone  on my desktop, TV, phone and the way things are going, maybe even a watch soon.   The concept isn't exactly futuristic anymore.