Octopus Overlords

Zaxxon wrote:Not in the USA.

Scuzz wrote:

hepcat wrote:I'm guessing it will show up on Netflix for the U.S. and Canada. It will be at least one season behind, but I bet that's part of the deal they made.

How much faith do you have in a show, or how much money do you put behind a show, if those are the platforms for it's being viewed?

Among the revelations Fuller dropped were the news that Discovery will have a female lead, and that the character will be a human but not the ship's captain.Additionally, the show will be set approximately 10 years before Captain Kirk took command of the USS Enterprise, meaning Star Trek: Discovery will exist more or less in the same time period as the original show.

-He confirmed his prior statements from Comic-Con that the show is set in the prime universe (the original universe that is, not the alternate reality created in the current movies series) and stressed again this will be a much more serialized series than Trek has been typically.

-There will "absolutely" be a gay character on the show. Fuller's fellow EP Alex Kurtzman told him they should have a gay character, but Fuller was already planning it.

Fuller hasn’t made it specific in the writing whether the (non-lead) captain is male or female, so that's still to be determined, as casting has not happened yet.

-“We’ll probably have a few more aliens than you normally do in a Star Trek cast,” he said. The aliens will include both new races and some re-imaginings of existing races. He is prepared for some purists to bemoan any alterations of designs from how they originally looked, but felt they had to reflect that they were making the show in 2016, with modern technology and makeup.

Kasey Chang wrote:The only people who's onboard and important enough to be the lead, but NOT the captain, are

* Doctor
* Chief Engineer
* Chief of Security
* XO

Really, that's about it, right?

Blackhawk wrote:

Kasey Chang wrote:The only people who's onboard and important enough to be the lead, but NOT the captain, are

* Doctor
* Chief Engineer
* Chief of Security
* XO

Really, that's about it, right?

Only the way they've written Star Trek in the past. It might actually be interesting to look at things from the perspective of a lower crew member working their way up through the ranks. Maybe a specialist with a certain are of expertise that, due to whatever political situation, makes her a regular advisor to the Captain and drops her on away missions.

Kasey Chang wrote:The only people who's onboard and important enough to be the lead, but NOT the captain, are

* Doctor
* Chief Engineer
* Chief of Security
* XO

Really, that's about it, right?

Isgrimnur wrote:The episodes that moved down the chain were pretty good. Reginald Barclay, anyone?

And yeah, if they wanted to go for realism, the captain should never be the first one down into an unknown situation. Give us a strong representation of the marine security contingent.

Isgrimnur wrote:They should open the series like they did with 007 and Dr. No. Have the captain called in on the carpet for injuries or crew losses because of his insistence that he be in the initial landing parties, with strict orders that he not continue the practice.

Isgrimnur wrote:Everyone has a boss.

Jeff V wrote: Wasn't Spock the Chief Science Officer? Communications Officer has also been prominent in the Star Trek shows.

El Guapo wrote: Maybe this will basically be Star Trek: Redshirts. It'll be a different redshirt as the lead each week commercial break.

Daehawk wrote:Big info dump

Among the revelations Fuller dropped were the news that Discovery will have a female lead, and that the character will be a human but not the ship's captain.Additionally, the show will be set approximately 10 years before Captain Kirk took command of the USS Enterprise, meaning Star Trek: Discovery will exist more or less in the same time period as the original show.

-He confirmed his prior statements from Comic-Con that the show is set in the prime universe (the original universe that is, not the alternate reality created in the current movies series) and stressed again this will be a much more serialized series than Trek has been typically.

March 8, 2016 wrote:CBS, unsatisfied with splitting the broadcast rights to Thursday night NFL games, is in talks to nail down the digital streaming licenses for its online subscription service CBS All Access, CEO Les Moonves said Tuesday.

Isgrimnur wrote:It does include local channel streaming, which someone like Jeff would like, if he found it worth the funds. Of course, he should probably wait until they get the NFL added.

March 8, 2016 wrote:CBS, unsatisfied with splitting the broadcast rights to Thursday night NFL games, is in talks to nail down the digital streaming licenses for its online subscription service CBS All Access, CEO Les Moonves said Tuesday.

tjg_marantz wrote:So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

geezer wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

Assume you only got it for StarTrek. That's 4 hours of original programing a month for $10. $2.50 for an hour of enjoyment. Pirates are assholes.

Jeff V wrote:

geezer wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

Assume you only got it for StarTrek. That's 4 hours of original programing a month for $10. $2.50 for an hour of enjoyment. Pirates are assholes.

Now multiply that by every show you watch in the course of a month and you'll see why people will go way out of the way to discourage this business model.

Jeff V wrote:A case can be made for the communications officer, especially if they are the expert in communicating with new sentient species.

geezer wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

geezer wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

Assume you only got it for StarTrek. That's 4 hours of original programing a month for $10. $2.50 for an hour of enjoyment. Pirates are assholes.

Now multiply that by every show you watch in the course of a month and you'll see why people will go way out of the way to discourage this business model.

I'm unmoved. I mean, let's assume you have 10 shows you absolutely, positively have to watch each month. That's 100 bucks, but more importantly, that's *40 hours* of time. WTF? Who can do that in addition to all the free stuff that's available? (And if you can, 100 bucks is nothing for an entire workweek of entertainment.)

stessier wrote:

geezer wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

geezer wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

Assume you only got it for StarTrek. That's 4 hours of original programing a month for $10. $2.50 for an hour of enjoyment. Pirates are assholes.

Now multiply that by every show you watch in the course of a month and you'll see why people will go way out of the way to discourage this business model.

I'm unmoved. I mean, let's assume you have 10 shows you absolutely, positively have to watch each month. That's 100 bucks, but more importantly, that's *40 hours* of time. WTF? Who can do that in addition to all the free stuff that's available? (And if you can, 100 bucks is nothing for an entire workweek of entertainment.)

Who would do that when you could get cable for $100/ month and get 168 hours * 200 channels = 33,600 hours worth of entertainment options? Their cost structure is ridiculous.

geezer wrote:

stessier wrote:

geezer wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

geezer wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

Assume you only got it for StarTrek. That's 4 hours of original programing a month for $10. $2.50 for an hour of enjoyment. Pirates are assholes.

Now multiply that by every show you watch in the course of a month and you'll see why people will go way out of the way to discourage this business model.

I'm unmoved. I mean, let's assume you have 10 shows you absolutely, positively have to watch each month. That's 100 bucks, but more importantly, that's *40 hours* of time. WTF? Who can do that in addition to all the free stuff that's available? (And if you can, 100 bucks is nothing for an entire workweek of entertainment.)

Who would do that when you could get cable for $100/ month and get 168 hours * 200 channels = 33,600 hours worth of entertainment options? Their cost structure is ridiculous.

Someone who feels the 4 hours of entertainment is worth $9.99. To be clear, I don't have any problem with people thinking that the price/value calculation doesn't work for them (even if I think the idea that 4 hours of a marquee property and its attendant production costs are worth less than a stupid cup of "gourmet" coffee is at least as ridiculous, but I digress) . I have a problem with people wanting the content and stealing it because they think they should be the arbiter of what the creator gets to charge for it. As a consumer your valid options are to compensate the producer and receive the product or choose not to.

El Guapo wrote:

geezer wrote:

stessier wrote:

geezer wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

geezer wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

Assume you only got it for StarTrek. That's 4 hours of original programing a month for $10. $2.50 for an hour of enjoyment. Pirates are assholes.

Now multiply that by every show you watch in the course of a month and you'll see why people will go way out of the way to discourage this business model.

I'm unmoved. I mean, let's assume you have 10 shows you absolutely, positively have to watch each month. That's 100 bucks, but more importantly, that's *40 hours* of time. WTF? Who can do that in addition to all the free stuff that's available? (And if you can, 100 bucks is nothing for an entire workweek of entertainment.)

Who would do that when you could get cable for $100/ month and get 168 hours * 200 channels = 33,600 hours worth of entertainment options? Their cost structure is ridiculous.

Someone who feels the 4 hours of entertainment is worth $9.99. To be clear, I don't have any problem with people thinking that the price/value calculation doesn't work for them (even if I think the idea that 4 hours of a marquee property and its attendant production costs are worth less than a stupid cup of "gourmet" coffee is at least as ridiculous, but I digress) . I have a problem with people wanting the content and stealing it because they think they should be the arbiter of what the creator gets to charge for it. As a consumer your valid options are to compensate the producer and receive the product or choose not to.

You guys might be arguing past each other. I don't think Jeff V (or stessier) is justifying pirating the CBS content, they're just arguing that CBS is (planning on) overcharging for it. As a consequence, large number of people aren't going to buy it. And naturally some percentage of people will inevitably pirate it, though I don't think anyone is endorsing that.

Punisher wrote:I am hoping the give the first episode for free so that we can see if it's interesting, but even with that, I am more likely to wait for the end of the season, then pay for one month an watch them all then cancel...

Zaxxon wrote:The first episode will be on CBS.

stessier wrote:CBS has added a no commercial streaming option - $9.99 (up from $5.99).

That is a lot of money for one station's worth of content.

There are some caveats to CBS’ “commercial-free” option. CBS isn’t spending much time highlighting these asterisks, but they tell you interesting things about the TV ecosystem in 2016:

-If you stream a CBS show live, when it first airs, you’ll still see ads — the same ones you’d see on conventional TV, depending on the local TV market you’re in.

-CBS says “select on-demand shows will include promotional interruptions.” I talked to a CBS rep for a translation: The “promotional interruptions” will be brief, but un-skippable, promos — 15 seconds at most, and no more than two promos per half-hour — for other CBS shows. They’ll show up in about 10 percent of CBS’ episodes, and about 20 percent of its titles — generally its newer shows. That’s because CBS has sold on-demand rights to some of those shows to subscription services like Amazon or Netflix, and in some cases those services have exclusive rights to an ad-free “window” for those shows.

Rumpy wrote:And isn't that false advertising? How can they claim one thing and do something completely different while making people pay more for it?