ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Media Center (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Movies and TV CBS: Star Trek (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=295820)

Fire Me Boy! 11-04-2015 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 11863863)
Right. I can't even remember how it was enumerated.

I refused to see it in the theater because of Lindelof's involvment but did purchase the DVD last holiday season for $3.99.

It took me like three nights to get through that piece of crap. $3.99 was $3.98 too much.

My wife likes it, but I don't think she'd ever seen any ST until I showed them to her... so you can't call her a "fan."

BigRedChief 11-04-2015 02:40 PM

**** CBS. This isn't 1999. I'm not buying a subscription to your new service just to watch Star Trek sight unseen. You are not the NFL. Even the NFL ran into wall trying to worm their way into the basic channels. This reeks of arrogance and dipshittery.

DaneMcCloud 11-04-2015 02:46 PM

CBS, Paramount and Les Moonves don't get it.

They think that the name "Star Trek" has so much value that people will drop their pants and bend over for $5.99 a month when Into Darkness sucked, Enterprise wasn't good until the final season and they've had far, far more misses than hits with the franchise.

They need someone who's a huge Star Trek fan to produce the program, not another guy with no vision, whose TV shows quickly fall out of favor with fans.

This has disaster written all over it.

Jamie 11-04-2015 03:53 PM

I started to write something about how this is a dumb idea, but it occurs to me that it's also a step toward what TV is going to be in the future.

Eventually all the CBS content you can watch on other platforms (like Star Trek reruns) will only be available on this CBS service. And Fox will have one, and ABC will have one, and so on, and we're going to have to subscribe to all these mini-Netflixes to get access. It's why Netflix is investing so heavily in original programming, because they know someday their original programming is all they'll have.

Deberg_1990 11-04-2015 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamie (Post 11864113)
I started to write something about how this is a dumb idea, but it occurs to me that it's also a step toward what TV is going to be in the future.

Eventually all the CBS content you can watch on other platforms (like Star Trek reruns) will only be available on this CBS service. And Fox will have one, and ABC will have one, and so on, and we're going to have to subscribe to all these mini-Netflixes to get access. It's why Netflix is investing so heavily in original programming, because they know someday their original programming is all they'll have.

Well yes. Its becoming more "ala carte" which is what people have been asking years for.

Deberg_1990 11-04-2015 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! (Post 11863841)
No. They blatantly ripped of Wrath of Khan, but did it poorly and insulted ST fans everywhere. Into Darkness is an abomination; Wrath of Khan is the best ST movie ever made.

I thought 'Into Darkness' had moments approaching greatness.

But yes, it was the stupid script/Khan reboot idea that was its undoing.

They would have been better off coming up with an original idea than attempting a Khan ripoff.

RealSNR 11-04-2015 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 11864018)
CBS, Paramount and Les Moonves don't get it.

They think that the name "Star Trek" has so much value that people will drop their pants and bend over for $5.99 a month when Into Darkness sucked, Enterprise wasn't good until the final season and they've had far, far more misses than hits with the franchise.

They need someone who's a huge Star Trek fan to produce the program, not another guy with no vision, whose TV shows quickly fall out of favor with fans.

This has disaster written all over it.

Ron Moore needs to be that guy. He's got experience of producing quality sci-fi shows, knows how to write, and most importantly, knows Star Trek. Hell, he practically created half of the universe himself. He knows how to create intrigue and curiosity about new alien species, and how to refresh and give a facelift to the old ones. You give him the power to make ALL the calls, and Star Trek will succeed.

Unfortunately... yeah... Paramount.

I have a feeling we're going to regret these Star Trek reboot movies for a long, long, time.

BigRedChief 11-04-2015 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamie (Post 11864113)
I started to write something about how this is a dumb idea, but it occurs to me that it's also a step toward what TV is going to be in the future.

Eventually all the CBS content you can watch on other platforms (like Star Trek reruns) will only be available on this CBS service. And Fox will have one, and ABC will have one, and so on, and we're going to have to subscribe to all these mini-Netflixes to get access. It's why Netflix is investing so heavily in original programming, because they know someday their original programming is all they'll have.

Public TV stations operate on licenses. If they went to an all pay format, I'd suspect there would be pushback. But, the big boy networks all own major cable stations also. They could just put their worse shit on free TV and sell their best stuff

DaneMcCloud 11-04-2015 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 11864199)
Public TV stations operate on licenses. If they went to an all pay format, I'd suspect there would be pushback. But, the big boy networks all own major cable stations also. They could just put their worse shit on free TV and sell their best stuff

Two problems remain, however:

1. No one knows what's "good" until it connects with an audience. If network execs knew what was going to connect, they wouldn't spend $250 million a year doing pilots. No one every knows beforehand.

2. While subscription services are great and give businesses like Netflix, Amazon and now Hulu (not to mention HBO Go! and Showtime's new app) opportunities to create original programming, the overwhelming majority of revenues come from Over The Air advertising on the Big Four networks.

BigRedChief 11-04-2015 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 11864210)
Two problems remain, however:

1. No one knows what's "good" until it connects with an audience. If network execs knew what was going to connect, they wouldn't spend $250 million a year doing pilots. No one every knows beforehand.

2. While subscription services are great and give businesses like Netflix, Amazon and now Hulu (not to mention HBO Go! and Showtime's new app) opportunities to create original programming, the overwhelming majority of revenues come from Over The Air advertising on the Big Four networks.

They can put it on free TV and if its a hit, move it to pay TV.

007 11-04-2015 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 11864164)
Well yes. Its becoming more "ala carte" which is what people have been asking years for.

If the Internet is the only way to get ala carte then they are not listening to the consumer.

Bowser 11-04-2015 07:35 PM

Looks like this show will have to be a downloaded show off a torrent site if I want to watch it. I pay too ****ing much to TWC a month to ship off more money for a service where I receive just one show of interest. They can blow it out their ass.

DaneMcCloud 11-04-2015 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 11864288)
They can put it on free TV and if its a hit, move it to pay TV.

There's far more money with OTA networks than the subscription model.

When shows like The Big Bang Theory and Two and a Half Men draw 20 million viewers per week, the network is earning hundreds of millions per season and even more when it goes to syndication (if it's produced by the network). They'd lose that money moving to a $5.99 per month subscription model.

For example, HBO complains about the $60 million dollar budget for 13 episodes of Game of Thrones, yet NBC had no problem paying the six "Friends" one million per episode for a 24 episode season, or $144 million per season, just for the actors. They did it for ER, too.

Streaming just can't compete with that at this time.

keg in kc 02-09-2016 02:24 PM

Potentially great news: Bryan Fuller's one of the showrunners.

Deberg_1990 02-09-2016 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 12073362)

That's great. Hannibal was amazing


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.