test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Star Trek Online General Discussion

Star Trek Discovery Pay For Ads

gholendhorgholendhor Member Posts: 447 Arc User
in Star Trek Online General Discussion
Just read that those who will pay for the streaming service to watch Star Trek Discovery will have to pay for ads as well. That's right you will have to watch ads and commercials.
«1

Comments

  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • farmallmfarmallm Member Posts: 4,630 Arc User
    edited August 2016
    Yep I saw that earlier when I was talking about it being a cash grab. You pay for TV provider and/or net service, you pay for the show, and you pay for 12 minutes of commercials! So wonderful it is!

    And others wonder why I refuse to watch it.
    Post edited by farmallm on
    Enterprise%20C_zpsrdrf3v8d.jpg

    USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
    Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
  • lexusk19lexusk19 Member Posts: 1,415 Arc User
    Wow.. Thats BS...
    5qq2uyi63rep.jpg
  • gholendhorgholendhor Member Posts: 447 Arc User
    This show might turn out to be Star Treks first Flop.
  • theotherscotty#9105 theotherscotty
    theotherscotty#9105
         Member Posts: 385 Arc User
    edited August 2016
    I thought the whole point of paying for paid TV service was so that you wouldn't have ads shoveled at you. I guess that's not the case. Ridiculous.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • gholendhorgholendhor Member Posts: 447 Arc User
    edited August 2016
    I've watched a few videos in the past through Hulu without signing up some how.Now Hulu has two options, limited commercials or no commercials. Now there is a big difference about Hulu. They don't have a network television channel. So I know they have to rely on ad revenue to survive. CBS doesn't have that problem.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    There's a thread in Ten Forward for this topic and it's a pretty big thread.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited August 2016
    This content has been removed.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    azrael605 wrote: »
    I'm subscribed to Hulu, it has ads, and they discontinued free watching. They now have 2 subscription options, regular price with ads, & for additional fee an ad free option.

    Didn't Hulu just do this because of its partnership with Yahoo?

    http://view.yahoo.com/ is the watch for free service now. I think.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • kodachikunokodachikuno Member Posts: 6,020 Arc User1
    old news and belongs in ten forward
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo1_400.gif
    tacofangs wrote: »
    STO isn't canon, and neither are any of the books.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,820 Arc User
    I think only Americans will pay to watch ads, CraveTV doesn't have ads and niether does netflix.

    Its weird, usually Americans have all the good TV previligies, and the rest of the world gets the crappy end of the stick, but this time you Americans get the raw end of deal for a change. Its surprising.
  • khayuungkhayuung Member Posts: 1,876 Arc User
    I don't quite understand you mean you have to pay extra to get rid of the ads?

    "Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.

    Support the "Armored Unicorn" vehicle initiative today!

    Thanks for Harajuku. Now let's get a real "Magical Girl" costume!
  • therealmaddmatttherealmaddmatt Member Posts: 120 Arc User
    Ah, being one of them damn dirty foreigners, I got my hopes up there for a minute for getting it on Netflax, but it's not in Canukastan. Time to fire up the ol' VPN! ;)

    They're supposed to go to camera soon, and I've kept touch with some friends in the industry. I just live a short way from the studio where it'll be shot... still feels weird, Star Trek not being shot in Hollywoodland...
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    khayuung wrote: »
    I don't quite understand you mean you have to pay extra to get rid of the ads?

    In Hulu, it used to be absolutely free to watch things on Hulu, but you had to sit through advertisements. Then they offered a subscription service, that would remove the ads.

    Now they've shifted again. They apparently partnered with Yahoo to offer View Yahoo, which is free. (And looking at it seems kind of limited in choices, but I only skimmed it). And then you can pay what used to be the ad free price for the base Hulu access (with commercials I think). Then you pay a premium price and get it ad-free.

    With the new CBS channel, the original post is suggesting you pay the premium price and only get access to the service, which has advertisements in it.

    At this point, the world is very used to streaming and companies are scrambling to try and make sense of where to go from here. Big cable networks are way more concerned and scared than they ever let on. But the streaming services still don't have a clear direction either. As players of this game you should all be comfortable with the primary concept though ... what you would call a cash grab ... people who offer these services are trying to find the most effective way to monetize it.

    I'm utterly fascinated with this. Because the internet has proven time and time again that its users are far more accustomed to consuming content for very little price or free. And the media in general has been using its pre-internet business model and failing for a couple of decades now in terms of how to interact in the internet.

    Or, put another way, people don't want to pay for access to New York Times articles or ESPN articles. They're likely to not want to pay for access to streaming either, unless it's dirt cheap. So someone stands to make a killing figuring out a way to give the online audience the access it desires while monetizing it in a way that's different than the oft-failing subscription model. Kind of a Free2Play model needs to come up. Hulu had it, but is now shoving it off onto Yahoo. We'll see how that goes. Netflix and Amazon are dirt cheap. So I'm less inclined to pay for Hulu. I've cut the cord on my cable, but haven't gone full bore and added the roku and gone and got the sub services I want for my ala carte experience (HBO Now, and a couple of sports things). But needless to say, the days of big bundles of stations from your cable provider, are fast coming to a crossroads.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • kelshandokelshando Member Posts: 887 Arc User
    edited August 2016
    gholendhor wrote: »
    This show might turn out to be Star Treks first Flop.

    2nd flop.. Enterprise was also considered a flop... but this maybe the frist one that's canceled after one season... if you call only 10 episodes a season...

    So half the episodes per season of the other Star Trek shows....

    Have to pay to watch.. but for NA conusmers they have to pay for a CBS only content service while the rest of the world get it through Netflix.. aka much more content for the price..

    Then found out you have commercials in pay services.. and before other try to defend this.. the reason they said they were doing pay service is so that there would be no interruption of the show much in the same reguard as Game of Thrones on HBO.. who doesn't have commercials.

    What a rip off... and I want it to flop so it teaches these greedy sob's that its no ok to rip of a fan base like this... No matter how much I was looking forward to a new Star Trek shows when rumors started to spread around about years ago... this is just wrong.. and insulting to the Fan base that put Star Trek on the map....
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited August 2016
    kelshando wrote: »
    So half the episodes per season of the other Star Trek shows....

    Sorry man, but in 2016 television has changed in terms of number of episodes per season. The entire landscape is shifting. If you don't recognize the impact that Sopranos and The Wire had on the content and quality of what is being done since then, you should at least recognize how they opened the door for the shortened episode counts.

    Setting aside the fact that, say the BBC, has been successful with far less number of episodes for ages and ages ... the American television landscape is different top to bottom. The network standard of 20 to 30 shows spread out over what is eerily similar to a school year (no new episodes in the summer) is a remnant of the 1980s that is now gone forever.

    First, the networks themselves changed. Summer episodes and half seasons and new windows were created. Then HBO stepped in.

    We now have shows being created by media outside of the big networks. And shows being delivered by means outside of the networks.

    You get a show like Orange is the New Black dropping 13 episodes and binged on Netflix.

    In 2016 Stranger Things, all 8 tiny episodes of Stranger Things, set the internet on fire with critical acclaim. It too was binge watched.

    The pros of this paradigm shift are pretty amazing. You get tighter storylines. You get story arcs and interconnectedness. You get less filler. And ... you get the opportunity to attract big time talent. For instance you get Kevin Spacey, largely a film star and not a TV star, getting involved in a Netflix show. You get Matthew McConnaghey and Woody Harrelson getting involved in a season of a show, then that is followed up with Colin Farrell, Vince Vaughan and Rachel McAdams. Film stars doing TV shows. Because the committment is a smaller window of episodes and the quality of the content is higher.

    This is the legacy of what the Sopranos and other non-network shows have given us. Shorter seasons. But better shows. And access to this content is at an all-time high because you can get it and watch it at your pace, your schedule. That largely leads to binge watching full seasons of Jessica Jones or Daredevil in a weekend, but there are others who take it at their own pace.

    How you feel about CBS' version of this product is certainly a fun topic of debate. They have ads. They have a price tag. They're also offering it in foreign markets in a much more accessible way than the US market. So have at it.

    But you really need to accept the fact that TV moved on from the 28 episode model of network scheduling. And we're all better for it because the quality and the accessibility is vastly different. We get shows we can watch on our schedule, and we get them with better storylines acted out by a mix of the best actors because scheduling their time in between projects is much much easier.

    Welcome to 2016! (I didn't eve.n mention Game of Thrones, Madmen, Baz Luhrman's massively expensive The Get Down, and on and on and on and on)
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • kelshandokelshando Member Posts: 887 Arc User
    edited August 2016
    snoggymack22 wrote: »
    kelshando wrote: »
    So half the episodes per season of the other Star Trek shows....

    Sorry man, but in 2016 television has changed in terms of number of episodes per season. The entire landscape is shifting. If you don't recognize the impact that Sopranos and The Wire had on the content and quality of what is being done since then, you should at least recognize how they opened the door for the shortened episode counts.

    Setting aside the fact that, say the BBC, has been successful with far less number of episodes for ages and ages ... the American television landscape is different top to bottom. The network standard of 20 to 30 shows spread out over what is eerily similar to a school year (no new episodes in the summer) is a remnant of the 1980s that is now gone forever.

    First, the networks themselves changed. Summer episodes and half seasons and new windows were created. Then HBO stepped in.

    We now have shows being created by media outside of the big networks. And shows being delivered by means outside of the networks.

    You get a show like Orange is the New Black dropping 13 episodes and binged on Netflix.

    In 2016 Stranger Things, all 8 tiny episodes of Stranger Things, set the internet on fire with critical acclaim. It too was binge watched.

    The pros of this paradigm shift are pretty amazing. You get tighter storylines. You get story arcs and interconnectedness. You get less filler. And ... you get the opportunity to attract big time talent. For instance you get Kevin Spacey, largely a film star and not a TV star, getting involved in a Netflix show. You get Matthew McConnaghey and Woody Harrelson getting involved in a season of a show, then that is followed up with Colin Farrell, Vince Vaughan and Rachel McAdams. Film stars doing TV shows. Because the committment is a smaller window of episodes and the quality of the content is higher.

    This is the legacy of what the Sopranos and other non-network shows have given us. Shorter seasons. But better shows. And access to this content is at an all-time high because you can get it and watch it at your pace, your schedule. That largely leads to binge watching full seasons of Jessica Jones or Daredevil in a weekend, but there are others who take it at their own pace.

    How you feel about CBS' version of this product is certainly a fun topic of debate. They have ads. They have a price tag. They're also offering it in foreign markets in a much more accessible way than the US market. So have at it.

    But you really need to accept the fact that TV moved on from the 28 episode model of network scheduling. And we're all better for it because the quality and the accessibility is vastly different. We get shows we can watch on our schedule, and we get them with better storylines acted out by a mix of the best actors because scheduling their time in between projects is much much easier.

    Welcome to 2016! (I didn't eve.n mention Game of Thrones, Madmen, Baz Luhrman's massively expensive The Get Down, and on and on and on and on)

    Nice long post of.. fanboyism...

    For one Star Trek was on broadcast TV.. your bring up pay to watch shows.. congrats on totally missing the point...

    Star Trek is not on a pay to watch network.. CBS is a broad cast network.. that's trying to hide it behind a paywall

    You seem to not be able grasp the difference between a broadcast network and a pay network... hint.. HBO, Netflix, Showtime are pay net works... they do not broadcast for free.. like Star Trek did..

    broadcast shows tend to be over 20 episodes.. lets take a look at the 2015 shows on CBS and count the episodes... (unlike you who are using pay TV as your argument.. ill use the Broadcast stations own shows to show the difference..

    The Big Bang Theory: 24 episodes a season... rated number 2 behind NFL football in the country..CBS
    NCIS: 24 episodes a season... rated number 3 in the country.. CBS
    NCIS: New Orleans: 24 episodes a season rated number 4 in the country... CBS
    Madam Secretary: 23/22 episodes a season rated number 9 in the country... CBS
    Criminal Minds: 23/24 episodes a season rated number 10 in the country.... CBS
    Blue Bloods: 22/23 episodes a season rated number 12 in the country... CBS

    There you have it.. Broadcast TV shows that are CBS.. their top 6 shows and where they rated... so please do not talk about pay TV and there limited run seasons...

    So they are in fact giving half the normal season of episodes, behind a pay wall that still has commercial intruptions as well as shafting NA consumers do to having to pay for CBS all access and not allowing them to watch it through Netflix like everyone else.

    Even if you make the claim that because its more expensive to make then other shows do to effect costs.. they are only doing 10 episodes and still hiding it behind a pay wall.. as well as ignoring the fact, TNG, DS9, Voy, ENT all had 22+ episodes... and CGI effects have gotten cheaper and quicker to do because of advancement in technology.... before you spout costs have gone up.. it has not by that much.. as views have all gone up as the population has grown.. what has gone up is the amount used now in movies and shows.. before you would have a CGI fly by now you have interactive CGI effects with the actors.. when you add many a scenes with actors like you do in game of thrones the costs go up.. but Star Ships with no actors being scene from the outside and phaser effects are pretty cheap compared to what it used to cost.... well and now the actors demand more money as well...
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    kelshando wrote: »
    snoggymack22 wrote: »
    kelshando wrote: »
    So half the episodes per season of the other Star Trek shows....

    Sorry man, but in 2016 television has changed in terms of number of episodes per season. The entire landscape is shifting. If you don't recognize the impact that Sopranos and The Wire had on the content and quality of what is being done since then, you should at least recognize how they opened the door for the shortened episode counts.

    Setting aside the fact that, say the BBC, has been successful with far less number of episodes for ages and ages ... the American television landscape is different top to bottom. The network standard of 20 to 30 shows spread out over what is eerily similar to a school year (no new episodes in the summer) is a remnant of the 1980s that is now gone forever.

    First, the networks themselves changed. Summer episodes and half seasons and new windows were created. Then HBO stepped in.

    We now have shows being created by media outside of the big networks. And shows being delivered by means outside of the networks.

    You get a show like Orange is the New Black dropping 13 episodes and binged on Netflix.

    In 2016 Stranger Things, all 8 tiny episodes of Stranger Things, set the internet on fire with critical acclaim. It too was binge watched.

    The pros of this paradigm shift are pretty amazing. You get tighter storylines. You get story arcs and interconnectedness. You get less filler. And ... you get the opportunity to attract big time talent. For instance you get Kevin Spacey, largely a film star and not a TV star, getting involved in a Netflix show. You get Matthew McConnaghey and Woody Harrelson getting involved in a season of a show, then that is followed up with Colin Farrell, Vince Vaughan and Rachel McAdams. Film stars doing TV shows. Because the committment is a smaller window of episodes and the quality of the content is higher.

    This is the legacy of what the Sopranos and other non-network shows have given us. Shorter seasons. But better shows. And access to this content is at an all-time high because you can get it and watch it at your pace, your schedule. That largely leads to binge watching full seasons of Jessica Jones or Daredevil in a weekend, but there are others who take it at their own pace.

    How you feel about CBS' version of this product is certainly a fun topic of debate. They have ads. They have a price tag. They're also offering it in foreign markets in a much more accessible way than the US market. So have at it.

    But you really need to accept the fact that TV moved on from the 28 episode model of network scheduling. And we're all better for it because the quality and the accessibility is vastly different. We get shows we can watch on our schedule, and we get them with better storylines acted out by a mix of the best actors because scheduling their time in between projects is much much easier.

    Welcome to 2016! (I didn't eve.n mention Game of Thrones, Madmen, Baz Luhrman's massively expensive The Get Down, and on and on and on and on)

    Nice long post of.. fanboyism...

    For one Star Trek was on broadcast TV.. your bring up pay to watch shows.. congrats on totally missing the point...

    Star Trek is not on a pay to watch network.. CBS is a broad cast network.. that's trying to hide it behind a paywall

    You seem to not be able grasp the difference between a broadcast network and a pay network... hint.. HBO, Netflix, Showtime are pay net works... they do not broadcast for free.. like Star Trek did..

    broadcast shows tend to be over 20 episodes.. lets take a look at the 2015 shows on CBS and count the episodes... (unlike you who are using pay TV as your argument.. ill use the Broadcast stations own shows to show the difference..

    The Big Bang Theory: 24 episodes a season... rated number 2 behind NFL football in the country..CBS
    NCIS: 24 episodes a season... rated number 3 in the country.. CBS
    NCIS: New Orleans: 24 episodes a season rated number 4 in the country... CBS
    Madam Secretary: 23/22 episodes a season rated number 9 in the country... CBS
    Criminal Minds: 23/24 episodes a season rated number 10 in the country.... CBS
    Blue Bloods: 22/23 episodes a season rated number 12 in the country... CBS

    There you have it.. Broadcast TV shows that are CBS.. their top 6 shows and where they rated... so please do not talk about pay TV and there limited run seasons...

    So they are in fact giving half the normal season of episodes, behind a pay wall that still has commercial intruptions as well as shafting NA consumers do to having to pay for CBS all access and not allowing them to watch it through Netflix like everyone else.

    Even if you make the claim that because its more expensive to make then other shows do to effect costs.. they are only doing 10 episodes and still hiding it behind a pay wall.. as well as ignoring the fact, TNG, DS9, Voy, ENT all had 22+ episodes... and CGI effects have gotten cheaper and quicker to do because of advancement in technology.... before you spout costs have gone up.. it has not by that much.. as views have all gone up as the population has grown.. what has gone up is the amount used now in movies and shows.. before you would have a CGI fly by now you have interactive CGI effects with the actors.. when you add many a scenes with actors like you do in game of thrones the costs go up.. but Star Ships with no actors being scene from the outside and phaser effects are pretty cheap compared to what it used to cost.... well and now the actors demand more money as well...

    And yet 8 small episodes of Stranger Things, and the 13 episode seasons of Game of Thrones seem to garner a lot more traction in pop culture than Big Bang theory!

    Thanks for bringing up the key problem networks have right now in measuring their shows' engagement with the audience ... the ratings system which can not account for the exact paradigm shift in delivery that I've been posting about.

    This not only helps others reading this thread understand the real value in what is happening with the streaming phenomenon, but it also helps us understand how out of touch you are with where television is going.

    If you think Blue Bloods is getting a bigger market share than Stranger Things, you're not quite aware of how television shows have shifted. Again, welcome to 2016!

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • kelshandokelshando Member Posts: 887 Arc User
    snoggymack22 wrote: »
    kelshando wrote: »
    snoggymack22 wrote: »
    kelshando wrote: »
    So half the episodes per season of the other Star Trek shows....

    Sorry man, but in 2016 television has changed in terms of number of episodes per season. The entire landscape is shifting. If you don't recognize the impact that Sopranos and The Wire had on the content and quality of what is being done since then, you should at least recognize how they opened the door for the shortened episode counts.

    Setting aside the fact that, say the BBC, has been successful with far less number of episodes for ages and ages ... the American television landscape is different top to bottom. The network standard of 20 to 30 shows spread out over what is eerily similar to a school year (no new episodes in the summer) is a remnant of the 1980s that is now gone forever.

    First, the networks themselves changed. Summer episodes and half seasons and new windows were created. Then HBO stepped in.

    We now have shows being created by media outside of the big networks. And shows being delivered by means outside of the networks.

    You get a show like Orange is the New Black dropping 13 episodes and binged on Netflix.

    In 2016 Stranger Things, all 8 tiny episodes of Stranger Things, set the internet on fire with critical acclaim. It too was binge watched.

    The pros of this paradigm shift are pretty amazing. You get tighter storylines. You get story arcs and interconnectedness. You get less filler. And ... you get the opportunity to attract big time talent. For instance you get Kevin Spacey, largely a film star and not a TV star, getting involved in a Netflix show. You get Matthew McConnaghey and Woody Harrelson getting involved in a season of a show, then that is followed up with Colin Farrell, Vince Vaughan and Rachel McAdams. Film stars doing TV shows. Because the committment is a smaller window of episodes and the quality of the content is higher.

    This is the legacy of what the Sopranos and other non-network shows have given us. Shorter seasons. But better shows. And access to this content is at an all-time high because you can get it and watch it at your pace, your schedule. That largely leads to binge watching full seasons of Jessica Jones or Daredevil in a weekend, but there are others who take it at their own pace.

    How you feel about CBS' version of this product is certainly a fun topic of debate. They have ads. They have a price tag. They're also offering it in foreign markets in a much more accessible way than the US market. So have at it.

    But you really need to accept the fact that TV moved on from the 28 episode model of network scheduling. And we're all better for it because the quality and the accessibility is vastly different. We get shows we can watch on our schedule, and we get them with better storylines acted out by a mix of the best actors because scheduling their time in between projects is much much easier.

    Welcome to 2016! (I didn't eve.n mention Game of Thrones, Madmen, Baz Luhrman's massively expensive The Get Down, and on and on and on and on)

    Nice long post of.. fanboyism...

    For one Star Trek was on broadcast TV.. your bring up pay to watch shows.. congrats on totally missing the point...

    Star Trek is not on a pay to watch network.. CBS is a broad cast network.. that's trying to hide it behind a paywall

    You seem to not be able grasp the difference between a broadcast network and a pay network... hint.. HBO, Netflix, Showtime are pay net works... they do not broadcast for free.. like Star Trek did..

    broadcast shows tend to be over 20 episodes.. lets take a look at the 2015 shows on CBS and count the episodes... (unlike you who are using pay TV as your argument.. ill use the Broadcast stations own shows to show the difference..

    The Big Bang Theory: 24 episodes a season... rated number 2 behind NFL football in the country..CBS
    NCIS: 24 episodes a season... rated number 3 in the country.. CBS
    NCIS: New Orleans: 24 episodes a season rated number 4 in the country... CBS
    Madam Secretary: 23/22 episodes a season rated number 9 in the country... CBS
    Criminal Minds: 23/24 episodes a season rated number 10 in the country.... CBS
    Blue Bloods: 22/23 episodes a season rated number 12 in the country... CBS

    There you have it.. Broadcast TV shows that are CBS.. their top 6 shows and where they rated... so please do not talk about pay TV and there limited run seasons...

    So they are in fact giving half the normal season of episodes, behind a pay wall that still has commercial intruptions as well as shafting NA consumers do to having to pay for CBS all access and not allowing them to watch it through Netflix like everyone else.

    Even if you make the claim that because its more expensive to make then other shows do to effect costs.. they are only doing 10 episodes and still hiding it behind a pay wall.. as well as ignoring the fact, TNG, DS9, Voy, ENT all had 22+ episodes... and CGI effects have gotten cheaper and quicker to do because of advancement in technology.... before you spout costs have gone up.. it has not by that much.. as views have all gone up as the population has grown.. what has gone up is the amount used now in movies and shows.. before you would have a CGI fly by now you have interactive CGI effects with the actors.. when you add many a scenes with actors like you do in game of thrones the costs go up.. but Star Ships with no actors being scene from the outside and phaser effects are pretty cheap compared to what it used to cost.... well and now the actors demand more money as well...

    And yet 8 small episodes of Stranger Things, and the 13 episode seasons of Game of Thrones seem to garner a lot more traction in pop culture than Big Bang theory!

    Thanks for bringing up the key problem networks have right now in measuring their shows' engagement with the audience ... the ratings system which can not account for the exact paradigm shift in delivery that I've been posting about.

    This not only helps others reading this thread understand the real value in what is happening with the streaming phenomenon, but it also helps us understand how out of touch you are with where television is going.

    If you think Blue Bloods is getting a bigger market share than Stranger Things, you're not quite aware of how television shows have shifted. Again, welcome to 2016!

    There you go again... bring up non-broadcast shows.... congrats you still cant seem to grasp the difference..
  • kelshandokelshando Member Posts: 887 Arc User
    azrael605 wrote: »
    First off it isn't 10 episodes it is 13, same as Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Lucifer, Leverage, and other shows both streaming & broadcast. Secondly it is one continuous story arc across the entire season, a first for Trek. Thirdly, calling people "fanboys" is an instant sign that you are not to be taken seriously.

    Only to those that know they are "fanboys" and have no logic to stand on... and bring up totally ill relivent issues... such as PAY NETWORK shows... when its not a pay network that making Star Trek its a broadcast network... dur...
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    kelshando wrote: »
    snoggymack22 wrote: »
    kelshando wrote: »
    snoggymack22 wrote: »
    kelshando wrote: »
    So half the episodes per season of the other Star Trek shows....

    Sorry man, but in 2016 television has changed in terms of number of episodes per season. The entire landscape is shifting. If you don't recognize the impact that Sopranos and The Wire had on the content and quality of what is being done since then, you should at least recognize how they opened the door for the shortened episode counts.

    Setting aside the fact that, say the BBC, has been successful with far less number of episodes for ages and ages ... the American television landscape is different top to bottom. The network standard of 20 to 30 shows spread out over what is eerily similar to a school year (no new episodes in the summer) is a remnant of the 1980s that is now gone forever.

    First, the networks themselves changed. Summer episodes and half seasons and new windows were created. Then HBO stepped in.

    We now have shows being created by media outside of the big networks. And shows being delivered by means outside of the networks.

    You get a show like Orange is the New Black dropping 13 episodes and binged on Netflix.

    In 2016 Stranger Things, all 8 tiny episodes of Stranger Things, set the internet on fire with critical acclaim. It too was binge watched.

    The pros of this paradigm shift are pretty amazing. You get tighter storylines. You get story arcs and interconnectedness. You get less filler. And ... you get the opportunity to attract big time talent. For instance you get Kevin Spacey, largely a film star and not a TV star, getting involved in a Netflix show. You get Matthew McConnaghey and Woody Harrelson getting involved in a season of a show, then that is followed up with Colin Farrell, Vince Vaughan and Rachel McAdams. Film stars doing TV shows. Because the committment is a smaller window of episodes and the quality of the content is higher.

    This is the legacy of what the Sopranos and other non-network shows have given us. Shorter seasons. But better shows. And access to this content is at an all-time high because you can get it and watch it at your pace, your schedule. That largely leads to binge watching full seasons of Jessica Jones or Daredevil in a weekend, but there are others who take it at their own pace.

    How you feel about CBS' version of this product is certainly a fun topic of debate. They have ads. They have a price tag. They're also offering it in foreign markets in a much more accessible way than the US market. So have at it.

    But you really need to accept the fact that TV moved on from the 28 episode model of network scheduling. And we're all better for it because the quality and the accessibility is vastly different. We get shows we can watch on our schedule, and we get them with better storylines acted out by a mix of the best actors because scheduling their time in between projects is much much easier.

    Welcome to 2016! (I didn't eve.n mention Game of Thrones, Madmen, Baz Luhrman's massively expensive The Get Down, and on and on and on and on)

    Nice long post of.. fanboyism...

    For one Star Trek was on broadcast TV.. your bring up pay to watch shows.. congrats on totally missing the point...

    Star Trek is not on a pay to watch network.. CBS is a broad cast network.. that's trying to hide it behind a paywall

    You seem to not be able grasp the difference between a broadcast network and a pay network... hint.. HBO, Netflix, Showtime are pay net works... they do not broadcast for free.. like Star Trek did..

    broadcast shows tend to be over 20 episodes.. lets take a look at the 2015 shows on CBS and count the episodes... (unlike you who are using pay TV as your argument.. ill use the Broadcast stations own shows to show the difference..

    The Big Bang Theory: 24 episodes a season... rated number 2 behind NFL football in the country..CBS
    NCIS: 24 episodes a season... rated number 3 in the country.. CBS
    NCIS: New Orleans: 24 episodes a season rated number 4 in the country... CBS
    Madam Secretary: 23/22 episodes a season rated number 9 in the country... CBS
    Criminal Minds: 23/24 episodes a season rated number 10 in the country.... CBS
    Blue Bloods: 22/23 episodes a season rated number 12 in the country... CBS

    There you have it.. Broadcast TV shows that are CBS.. their top 6 shows and where they rated... so please do not talk about pay TV and there limited run seasons...

    So they are in fact giving half the normal season of episodes, behind a pay wall that still has commercial intruptions as well as shafting NA consumers do to having to pay for CBS all access and not allowing them to watch it through Netflix like everyone else.

    Even if you make the claim that because its more expensive to make then other shows do to effect costs.. they are only doing 10 episodes and still hiding it behind a pay wall.. as well as ignoring the fact, TNG, DS9, Voy, ENT all had 22+ episodes... and CGI effects have gotten cheaper and quicker to do because of advancement in technology.... before you spout costs have gone up.. it has not by that much.. as views have all gone up as the population has grown.. what has gone up is the amount used now in movies and shows.. before you would have a CGI fly by now you have interactive CGI effects with the actors.. when you add many a scenes with actors like you do in game of thrones the costs go up.. but Star Ships with no actors being scene from the outside and phaser effects are pretty cheap compared to what it used to cost.... well and now the actors demand more money as well...

    And yet 8 small episodes of Stranger Things, and the 13 episode seasons of Game of Thrones seem to garner a lot more traction in pop culture than Big Bang theory!

    Thanks for bringing up the key problem networks have right now in measuring their shows' engagement with the audience ... the ratings system which can not account for the exact paradigm shift in delivery that I've been posting about.

    This not only helps others reading this thread understand the real value in what is happening with the streaming phenomenon, but it also helps us understand how out of touch you are with where television is going.

    If you think Blue Bloods is getting a bigger market share than Stranger Things, you're not quite aware of how television shows have shifted. Again, welcome to 2016!

    There you go again... bring up non-broadcast shows.... congrats you still cant seem to grasp the difference..

    I'm bringing up two of the hottest and most popular shows in the country right now. But hey, again, if you think this old model that is a relic of the 1980s is still valid, maybe the fact that CBS is trying to do its own version of streaming ala Netflix and Hulu and tapping its new Star Trek show to pioneer this move might be evidence that again ... things are different!

    Welcome, yet again, to 2016! You'll likely catch up to the rest of us about the same time Pokemon Go stops being a thing.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • dmb311dmb311 Member Posts: 29 Arc User
    edited August 2016
    Technically, other than the pilot for Discovery, it isn't a broadcast show either.

    Edit: I'm not sure as I always had premium Hulu, but can anyone confirm if 11/18/63 or that show with the guys from Hannibal and the one from Breaking Bad had commercials.... since they were Hulu original programming.
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited August 2016
    This content has been removed.
  • kelshandokelshando Member Posts: 887 Arc User
    azrael605 wrote: »
    Lucifer & Leverage are broadcast network shows, TNT & Fox. So was In Plain Sight, at 15 episodes per season, USA. The Librarians, also a broadcast show, 13 episodes (showrunner Jonathan Frakes), TNT. Seems like you can't be bothered to do basic fact checking.

    WRONG... TnT, USA are CABLE net works AKA YOU PAY TO WATCH THEM.. ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX are free broadcast channels... CBS Star Trek up until now have been on CBS free broadcast...

    I listed CBS free broadcast shows... and there episode count.. and as pre usual to side step that the facboy tactic of using a argument that is totally illrelevent pops up... congrats...

    oddly you proved my point.. as in even if they had StarTrek is only 10 or 13 episodes then the excuse of well its to expensive to put on broadcast TV is totally fasle and bougus claim.. as it would near 50% less episodes.. so there should be no reason to hide it behind a pay wall let alone a paywall with commercials... aka its only to try to milk more money out of a fan base that put them on the map.. has nothing to do with it being feasible to air it on broadcast TV..
Sign In or Register to comment.