drawkcabi Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 8 minutes ago, RumHam said: Yeah. I'm curious has CBS been taking it's shows off the established streaming services? I don't know that I've ever followed a CBS show in my life, now that I think about it. Though maybe not...did they do a saturday morning cartoon thing in the late 80's-early 90's? Anyway they clearly have the wrong idea about streaming services. It'd be one thing if CBS were doing this so the show could have HBO/Showtime (or even just FX) type content that wouldn't fly on network TV. (I don't mean like nudity in each episode, but being able to say fuck and have people die in ways that are upsetting would be nice. ) But I doubt that's the plan. Oh, and if there's one thing I want from this show above all else, it's continuity. I don't mean avoiding the the nitpicking shit, just the idea that watching the episodes out of order would be stupid and confusing. Too much would-be-great TV was ruined by the thought that viewers should be able to just "jump in" and watch the episodes out of order. With Fuller I'm fairly confident that won't be an issue. But you never know. I know The Good Wife is or has been available on hulu, probably a couple other shows, but it's been rare unlike ABC, FOX, or NBC shows I can watch most of on Hulu, CBS shows I have to watch mostly on CBS or on Demand. I always hated that they used to describe with pride how Star Trek was a show you could watch the episodes in any order and they strove to continue that, though they got more and more away from it with later series, especially DS9. It was always better for me when they had good continuing arcs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 43 minutes ago, RumHam said: I hadn't considered the boded, but I don't think they're acting ashamed of it. Quite the opposite I think if anyhting they're putting too much faith in it's appeal. They're essentially making the same mistake the UPN made when it counted on Voyager to launch a successful syndication based TV network I don't know that UPN made a mistake exactly. They just didn't have anything else to work with Voyager to carry a network. I think they're putting too much faith in the streaming concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Just now, Jaxom 1974 said: I don't know that UPN made a mistake exactly. They just didn't have anything else to work with Voyager to carry a network. I think they're putting too much faith in the streaming concept. I dunno, I think the concept of streaming video services itself is pretty solid and well established. In ten years kids will laugh at the idea that their parents used to have disks physically mailed to them so they could watch a movie or TV show. I was suggesting that CBS's new streaming platform would suffer the same problem UPN had. Namely that it has nothing going for it but a new Star Trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 6 minutes ago, RumHam said: I dunno, I think the concept of streaming video services itself is pretty solid and well established. In ten years kids will laugh at the idea that their parents used to have disks physically mailed to them so they could watch a movie or TV show. I was suggesting that CBS's new streaming platform would suffer the same problem UPN had. Namely that it has nothing going for it but a new Star Trek. We'll I'm a bit of a dinosaur in that I dislike streaming. Particularly the aspect of it where I know I'm trying to shout over a storm. I think we're agreeing then. Enough of that then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 We probably agree on more than we disagree. I often find myself feeling like a dinosaur, and I'm not even forty yet. Anyway I was thinking about it a bit more, and I think that when it comes to the distinction between "Tivo" and piracy, the barrier tends to be more technical than moral. (If you forgot to Tivo last night's X-Files is it ok to download the torrent? You weren't going to watch the ads anyway...) So I tend to think stereotypical Star Trek fans would be more inclined to pirate a show than your average NCIS viewer. Coupled with the one-streaming-service exclusivity of the show, I see this series having the potential to dethrone Game of Thrones as the most pirated series ever. If it's good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slurktan Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 5 hours ago, Werthead said: It also seems very disrespectful to take your flagship franchise, one of the biggest TV shows ever made and the second-oldest currently-active SF franchise (behind only Doctor Who), and then lock it behind a paywall and away from your mass audience in its 50th anniversary year. A new Star Trek series should be a flagship show for CBS on primetime with a massive budget and marketing spend behind. Instead they're acting like they are ashamed of it. It's totally incomprehensible. Except you know the truth, and that is that it wasn't one of the "biggest shows ever made". It just has a large fanbase due to the original series getting heavily syndicated in the 70's which led to the movies and then to TNG. Star Trek was cancelled after three seasons with low ratings, TNG had good ratings for a syndicated show but were not even close to a real network show. Deep Space Nine had low ratings and Voyager started off with good ratings but then..... it turned into Voyager. The less said about Enterprise the better. Given how the last two series ended and how the 2 movies prior to the Abrams one were flops (and garbage to boot) I wonder at the sanity of some people thinking they'd want to go back to the other canon which failed so hard. They are in the business of making money, and in no way would CBS give a massive budget to a failed franchise, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 6 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said: I don't know that UPN made a mistake exactly. They just didn't have anything else to work with Voyager to carry a network. I think they're putting too much faith in the streaming concept. I think they are failing to realise that Netflix and Amazon have a lot more than a single show to encourage people to use streaming as well. This bares more resemblance to "powers" on the Playstation network - you know that show that no-one talks about. But Star Trek does have more pull. They should probably do some kind of deal with the blu-ray of the next trek film giving people 1 month's trial of the CBS streaming service(assuming the release dates match) 1 hour ago, Slurktan said: Except you know the truth, and that is that it wasn't one of the "biggest shows ever made". It just has a large fanbase due to the original series getting heavily syndicated in the 70's which led to the movies and then to TNG. Star Trek was cancelled after three seasons with low ratings, TNG had good ratings for a syndicated show but were not even close to a real network show. Deep Space Nine had low ratings and Voyager started off with good ratings but then..... it turned into Voyager. The less said about Enterprise the better. Given how the last two series ended and how the 2 movies prior to the Abrams one were flops (and garbage to boot) I wonder at the sanity of some people thinking they'd want to go back to the other canon which failed so hard. They are in the business of making money, and in no way would CBS give a massive budget to a failed franchise, This is kind of how I feel. I really like DS9 and next gen but they did go out of their way to "destroy" the universe by making a series of sub-par shows and films. If Trek had continued to be a popular tv show it would probably have remained on air in one form or the other. While the TV shows could rescue the concept I can see why they restarted the films and can see how there may be resisitance to having a mixture of Treks in film and TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 14 hours ago, polishgenius said: Bryan Fuller is making another TV show. You all are being moaning gits. PG, Having zero interest in the "10 minutes from Earth to Vulcan/Interstellar transporter" JJverse is being "moaning gits"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSumm Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Having zero interest in the "10 minutes from Earth to Vulcan/Interstellar transporter" JJverse is being "moaning gits"? There just isn't any evidence this will happen in the series though. The reasons people disliked the JJ films don't really transfer over to tv. It might be interesting to explore some kind of Donnie Darko style tangent universe reintegration.....say, 50 years after the JJ verse and 50 years before this series (it's roughly a century I think), the 29th century time federation people showed up and had to fuse the two universes before they destroyed one another. Maybe there's some odd artifacts from each timeline, maybe some sectors have differing memories, maybe some complex political situations have arisen where two species have incongruous accounts of peace treaties or wars.......I dunno. You could even just vaguely mention this bizarre incident that some of the older admirals remember but nobody fully understands. It'd certainly offer an alternative to pissing off one or other of the fan bases, by simply stamping the issue with a big fat 'sort of'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 DS, Given the narrative problems in the JJverse... why use it at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: DS, Given the narrative problems in the JJverse... why use it at all? So much this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawkcabi Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: DS, Given the narrative problems in the JJverse... why use it at all? Just now, Jaxom 1974 said: So much this. Well Slurk's argument is because the Prime Universe failed miserably with the last two series and movies. And it's a valid point, I just still don't believe the Abrahmsverse is the answer. Voyager and Enterprise were massive pieces of shit series (yes with moments of greatness here and there but not enough overall). But like Scot kind of is saying, Abrahamsverse seems just as messed up in its own way so why not go back to the original with the fanbase that will keep giving Trek chance after chance to make good because when it is good, it is sooooooo good. Prime Universe done right is what many really want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I think "failed miserably" is a bit strong. I think the issues of Voyager are, occasionally, overblown and partly a result of issues with UPN. Enterprise faltered in a few ways, but a big one was it didn't shift it's basic storytelling model to fit the altering tastes and expectations of the television going public...the course correction in season four coming too little too late... I think that's a long winded way to say that, yes, deal with the prime universe. But tell the stories in a manner that is more to the sophisticated manner that television, good television, is expected to have these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSumm Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: DS, Given the narrative problems in the JJverse... why use it at all? Well, kind of answered now but.....3 years ago, the JJ verse took $467 million at box office. 11 years ago, people stopped watching the prime universe in large enough numbers to not bother making it anymore. Slight technicality in that Enterprise is both, but you get the point. And narrative problems (subjective ones) don't get inherited when you make a series in the same universe. Or at least, I hope they don't. You could also argue that, regardless of whether you liked it, the JJ verse is just how things are now. There's no mention of the old one still existing, no mention of alternate timelines existing alongside others in the same way the mirror universe does. Maybe the old timeline just doesn't exist anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 DS, Can we go back to better production design? Does the Enterprise really need to look like a giant brewery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Honestly, who care what universe they set it in? I don't think either of the nu-Trek movies were very good, but then again, most of the Star Trek movies and most of the shows have been pretty bad too. It all comes down to the quality of the writing and storytelling. If they can tell good sci-fi stories, it doesn't matter to me a whole heck of a lot which universe it's set in, although I will say that the nu-Trek universe has a lot less baggage than the old universe, and it probably makes a lot of narrative sense to start with a cleaner slate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 48 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: DS, Given the narrative problems in the JJverse... why use it at all? The idea that the "narrative problems" in the nu-Trek verse are any worse than Trek Prime is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Nestor, Alright asthetically I prefer the Prime universe. As I said above the Enterprise in the JJ verse looks like a brewery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvinus85 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Nestor, Alright asthetically I prefer the Prime universe. As I said above the Enterprise in the JJ verse looks like a brewery. No, Ser Scot, like I mentioned in a different thread, even the Enterprise, with it's technological marvel of a warp reactor, still needs a steam turbine setup to convert the energy from the reactor into simple electrical energy. You simply refuse to believe that boiling water is the final frontier in electrical energy conversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Corvinus, So, the matter/anti-matter drive with its "dilithium crystals" is all there to boil water? No wonder Picard liked tea so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.