Just out of curiosity: We will have the Nielsen ratings for the pilot of DSC but how will we know how the show is doing after that? Will CBS release the numbers of new subs/viewers? Will Netflix also release data?
The number of subscribers for CBS All Access needn't be more than peripherally related to ST:D. For instance, there are a lot of people who are fans of, for instance, NCIS, and might subscribe when the ST:D push makes them aware that CBS All Access even exists (for my wife, it's nice to be able to watch whatever episodes she wants, and more importantly not watch the ones she doesn't watch - she's not a big fan of Kate). And some who sub for ST:D might stick around for, for instance, the entire run of Twilight Zone or I Love Lucy. Remember, after all, that the service gives you access to just about the entire CBS catalog, not just the one recent show...
I love Lucy and all of Twilight Zone and many more are on Hulu right now sans NCIS and BBT. I really dont see the value in All Access with so much of CBSs library on other platforms. You could also just DVR the missing ones OTA if needed. Maybe Im just old and dont see the value in subbing to multiple services for a certain show on each. TV was much simpler when there were only 3 VHF and a few UHF channels to choose from lol. My point though was how are they going to gage DSC's success or failure? Subs or views or reviews?
Yes, but if Discovery isn't popular, I would hazard a guess that it will be removed from the listing and replaced.
"replaced" in an online digital catalog? not likely. worst case scenario they stop producing more.
Shatner, Frakes, Billingsly, DeBeor, The Okudas, Nichols, are the only alums that I know as of now that have seen it. I didnt see anyone else during the live stream.
Just out of curiosity: We will have the Nielsen ratings for the pilot of DSC but how will we know how the show is doing after that? Will CBS release the numbers of new subs/viewers? Will Netflix also release data?
The number of subscribers for CBS All Access needn't be more than peripherally related to ST:D. For instance, there are a lot of people who are fans of, for instance, NCIS, and might subscribe when the ST:D push makes them aware that CBS All Access even exists (for my wife, it's nice to be able to watch whatever episodes she wants, and more importantly not watch the ones she doesn't watch - she's not a big fan of Kate). And some who sub for ST:D might stick around for, for instance, the entire run of Twilight Zone or I Love Lucy. Remember, after all, that the service gives you access to just about the entire CBS catalog, not just the one recent show...
I love Lucy and all of Twilight Zone and many more are on Hulu right now sans NCIS and BBT. I really dont see the value in All Access with so much of CBSs library on other platforms. You could also just DVR the missing ones OTA if needed. Maybe Im just old and dont see the value in subbing to multiple services for a certain show on each. TV was much simpler when there were only 3 VHF and a few UHF channels to choose from lol. My point though was how are they going to gage DSC's success or failure? Subs or views or reviews?
So, you're telling me that rather than paying $5.99 a month for limited-commercial CBS All Access, I should really be paying $7.99 a month for Hulu. Or, if I want to go commercial-free, I should get Hulu's $11.99 plan, not CBS' $9.99 plan.
Now, I don't have a degree in economic theory or anything, but Hulu doesn't look like a very good deal from that perspective. Particularly in light of the fact that for ongoing shows like NCIS, if I want to watch an episode from this season, I have to wait until it goes on Hulu next year, as opposed to just watching it on CBS' service.
I dunno, that just doesn't pencil out for me for some reason...
Yes, but if Discovery isn't popular, I would hazard a guess that it will be removed from the listing and replaced.
"replaced" in an online digital catalog? not likely. worst case scenario they stop producing more.
Shatner, Frakes, Billingsly, DeBeor, The Okudas, Nichols, are the only alums that I know as of now that have seen it. I didnt see anyone else during the live stream.
Just out of curiosity: We will have the Nielsen ratings for the pilot of DSC but how will we know how the show is doing after that? Will CBS release the numbers of new subs/viewers? Will Netflix also release data?
The number of subscribers for CBS All Access needn't be more than peripherally related to ST:D. For instance, there are a lot of people who are fans of, for instance, NCIS, and might subscribe when the ST:D push makes them aware that CBS All Access even exists (for my wife, it's nice to be able to watch whatever episodes she wants, and more importantly not watch the ones she doesn't watch - she's not a big fan of Kate). And some who sub for ST:D might stick around for, for instance, the entire run of Twilight Zone or I Love Lucy. Remember, after all, that the service gives you access to just about the entire CBS catalog, not just the one recent show...
I love Lucy and all of Twilight Zone and many more are on Hulu right now sans NCIS and BBT. I really dont see the value in All Access with so much of CBSs library on other platforms. You could also just DVR the missing ones OTA if needed. Maybe Im just old and dont see the value in subbing to multiple services for a certain show on each. TV was much simpler when there were only 3 VHF and a few UHF channels to choose from lol. My point though was how are they going to gage DSC's success or failure? Subs or views or reviews?
So, you're telling me that rather than paying $5.99 a month for limited-commercial CBS All Access, I should really be paying $7.99 a month for Hulu. Or, if I want to go commercial-free, I should get Hulu's $11.99 plan, not CBS' $9.99 plan.
Now, I don't have a degree in economic theory or anything, but Hulu doesn't look like a very good deal from that perspective. Particularly in light of the fact that for ongoing shows like NCIS, if I want to watch an episode from this season, I have to wait until it goes on Hulu next year, as opposed to just watching it on CBS' service.
I dunno, that just doesn't pencil out for me for some reason...
No need to get snarky. I wasn't telling you to do anything. I was simply pointing out certain shows are already on other platforms and that Hulu has more content than All Access. I understood what you were saying but in my case All Access is not worth it for me like it is for you.
Film reviewers tend to be average guys. Science Fiction consumers tend to not be average guys.
@silverlobes: You are not average, and thus your opinions differ greatly from those of people specifically chosen because they are average! Average viewers want soap operas and crime dramas. Average viewers are totally uninterested in engaging their grey matter for entertainment; instead they want to turn it off and just be entertained passively. A show that makes you think makes the average viewer uncomfortable, and a show that challenges the accepted beliefs of an average viewer makes them angry.
But this is exactly what you seek in film, and therefore the standard Hollywood reviewers may miss details you enjoy finding. The average reviewer needs no financial support to cause him to write a bad review because on the one hand science fiction is inherently thought provoking, and Mr. Average doesn't want his thoughts provoked, and on the other hand, being an average guy, concepts that are embedded in sci-fi and easily understood by those of us who grew up reading Paul French are to him vague and esoteric concepts. So Mr. Average is hit with a double whammy of not really understanding what he just saw coupled with a bias against anything that challenges his preconceptions.
It is no accident that every positive The Orville review came out of gamer and sci-fi reviewers. Because The Orville is not a reality show, not a crime drama, not a soap opera, and requires the viewer to do a little thinking.
One should never attribute to malice that which can easily be explained through ignorance. And the most obvious proof of my thesis is the grasping at straws these reviewers did to explain why they didn't like The Orville. It is patently obvious that the reviewers themselves failed to understand why they didn't like it. They just knew they didn't, and so they went a-hunting. And they proved to me that they are unqualified to review science fiction.
Given this logic, Discovery would be foolish to place the fate of their show in the hands of people who have an unacknowledged bias against similar products. The Orville had to: reviewers let advertisers know ahead of time how popular a show is going to be, and thus how much an endorsement during that show could be worth. Discovery has no need to attract commercial product placements because their funding is not derived from commercial ads. If one gains nothing by taking a risk, why take the risk? Sun Tzu might have said that.
That's an interesting perspective, and I certainly wouldn't argue it. What does concern me, is the idea of people who are unqualified to review, posting reviews on professionally finished webpages, which others may then indeed consider to be qualified review, due to said professional presentation.
True, Discovery doesn't need to court advertisers, but it does need to court subscribers: If not for itself specifically, at least for the platform upon which it is appearing (CBS All Access) If it fails to draw subscribers, and to achieve reasonable streaming hits, its 'place in the list' will be given to something else which will. For all I know, Discovery might be awesome, but from what I've seen so far, my impression is that CBS are well and truly 'crossing everything' that this will be positively received. I find the positive 'responses' from Gates McFadden and Nicole deBoer, every bit as biased as those reviews which were critical of The Orville. Who, in their situation, is going to post a disparaging comment? It's not worth their while, and, as someone else mentioned, the silence from the other alumnus, is equally telling
The subscriber courtship however - don't they show the first episode on regular TV?
It is not like there will be never reviews of Discovery.
Maybe the strategy is more. We don't show a review before the first episode has been aired. People that will be influenced by reviews and don't watch it before will then get them after the show is no longer freely available, so if the reviews are good and thye want to see what it's about, they'll have to subscribe.
People that don't need reviews will just watch the first episode and if it's good enough, they'll subscribe to see the rest.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Yes, but if Discovery isn't popular, I would hazard a guess that it will be removed from the listing and replaced.
"replaced" in an online digital catalog? not likely. worst case scenario they stop producing more.
Shatner, Frakes, Billingsly, DeBeor, The Okudas, Nichols, are the only alums that I know as of now that have seen it. I didnt see anyone else during the live stream.
After experiencing CBS All Access for the past couple of days (watching "Mission:Impossible" the original from 1966)...the only issue I notice is: streaming is a bit wonky and I get that spinning wheel quite a bit and loading is slower than when streaming from other sources (Netflix, NFL, Amazon Prime, and MLB).
Soooo...hopefully, CBS can get that issue resolved before Star Trek: Discovery starts up.
"Spend your life doing strange things with weird people." -- UNK
“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin
that's not an issue with all access, that's an issue with you not having enough internetz
i get the same problem with netflix when loading a webpage with large amounts of images on them - it'll start freezing up before eventually degrading in quality (if a youtube thing is playing) until the webpage finishes loading everything
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Film reviewers tend to be average guys. Science Fiction consumers tend to not be average guys.
@silverlobes: You are not average, and thus your opinions differ greatly from those of people specifically chosen because they are average! Average viewers want soap operas and crime dramas. Average viewers are totally uninterested in engaging their grey matter for entertainment; instead they want to turn it off and just be entertained passively. A show that makes you think makes the average viewer uncomfortable, and a show that challenges the accepted beliefs of an average viewer makes them angry.
But this is exactly what you seek in film, and therefore the standard Hollywood reviewers may miss details you enjoy finding. The average reviewer needs no financial support to cause him to write a bad review because on the one hand science fiction is inherently thought provoking, and Mr. Average doesn't want his thoughts provoked, and on the other hand, being an average guy, concepts that are embedded in sci-fi and easily understood by those of us who grew up reading Paul French are to him vague and esoteric concepts. So Mr. Average is hit with a double whammy of not really understanding what he just saw coupled with a bias against anything that challenges his preconceptions.
It is no accident that every positive The Orville review came out of gamer and sci-fi reviewers. Because The Orville is not a reality show, not a crime drama, not a soap opera, and requires the viewer to do a little thinking.
One should never attribute to malice that which can easily be explained through ignorance. And the most obvious proof of my thesis is the grasping at straws these reviewers did to explain why they didn't like The Orville. It is patently obvious that the reviewers themselves failed to understand why they didn't like it. They just knew they didn't, and so they went a-hunting. And they proved to me that they are unqualified to review science fiction.
Given this logic, Discovery would be foolish to place the fate of their show in the hands of people who have an unacknowledged bias against similar products. The Orville had to: reviewers let advertisers know ahead of time how popular a show is going to be, and thus how much an endorsement during that show could be worth. Discovery has no need to attract commercial product placements because their funding is not derived from commercial ads. If one gains nothing by taking a risk, why take the risk? Sun Tzu might have said that.
That's an interesting perspective, and I certainly wouldn't argue it. What does concern me, is the idea of people who are unqualified to review, posting reviews on professionally finished webpages, which others may then indeed consider to be qualified review, due to said professional presentation.
True, Discovery doesn't need to court advertisers, but it does need to court subscribers: If not for itself specifically, at least for the platform upon which it is appearing (CBS All Access) If it fails to draw subscribers, and to achieve reasonable streaming hits, its 'place in the list' will be given to something else which will. For all I know, Discovery might be awesome, but from what I've seen so far, my impression is that CBS are well and truly 'crossing everything' that this will be positively received. I find the positive 'responses' from Gates McFadden and Nicole deBoer, every bit as biased as those reviews which were critical of The Orville. Who, in their situation, is going to post a disparaging comment? It's not worth their while, and, as someone else mentioned, the silence from the other alumnus, is equally telling
The subscriber courtship however - don't they show the first episode on regular TV?
It is not like there will be never reviews of Discovery.
Maybe the strategy is more. We don't show a review before the first episode has been aired. People that will be influenced by reviews and don't watch it before will then get them after the show is no longer freely available, so if the reviews are good and thye want to see what it's about, they'll have to subscribe.
People that don't need reviews will just watch the first episode and if it's good enough, they'll subscribe to see the rest.
"Give it a try, kid, but only the first hit's free..."
I can see what you're meaning, but here's my issue with that:
There has already been rumours that test screenings were not well received. Maybe only rumours, but still concerning. There's an embargo on reviews, yet they allow invited guests of a very narrow focus, to tweet positive things about the experience.
That's a double-standard and lazily obvious move to control of the narrative.
That suggests to me, that the CBS execs are crossing everything that Discovery will be well-received, and after the negative receptions to the ship design(s) costume choices, aesthetic choices, test screenings etc, I can understand why. But it comes across as it being a show which they're betting the farm on, but aren't confident about, and while I understand exactly how and why they are marketing it this way, it gives me pause.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
that's some of the most labored reasoning to hate something I've ever seen....
'Labored'?
Dude, as a student back in the days before social media, I majored in advertising and marketing. I understand the subject in a different way to people who are strictly consumers, and because of my education in the subject, I see marketing strategies in the same way someone who plays chess can 'read the board'.
I can at least give reasons why I don't like the way the Discovery marketing has been handled, all you've done, is attack an opinion you disagree with.
Please explain why you think think my reasoning is 'labored'
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
that's some of the most labored reasoning to hate something I've ever seen....
I agree. CBS isn't doing anything that any other business (or individual for that matter) does when they markets themselves or their product(s).
No they aren't, but it's a case of Desired Result X, so Employ Strategy C to achieve Desired Result X, and having been trained in that field, I (and anyone else with a marketing background will also) see it from that perspective, rather than simply being triggered into Desired Result X, as most run-of-the-mill consumers are
People who work in sales will know when they're getting good or bad service. Someone who's worked in a call center will know when a call is being bounced round the office rather than answered. Someone who works in coding, will understand the way a game procs in a way which a player might not. We all have our own careers and areas of expertise
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
that's not an issue with all access, that's an issue with you not having enough internetz
i get the same problem with netflix when loading a webpage with large amounts of images on them - it'll start freezing up before eventually degrading in quality (if a youtube thing is playing) until the webpage finishes loading everything
That's very strange... I never come close to hitting the bandwidth allowed for my system.
And I did mention: no problems with Netflix, Amazon Prime, MLB or NFL...with or without the Amazon Firebox.
Hmmm....maybe that is the ticket...try CBS All Access app directly on my Samsung Smart TV and not via Firebox. It could just be a wonky app for the Amazon interface.
"Spend your life doing strange things with weird people." -- UNK
“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin
No they aren't, but it's a case of Desired Result X, so Employ Strategy C to achieve Desired Result X, and having been trained in that field, I (and anyone else with a marketing background will also) see it from that perspective, rather than simply being triggered into Desired Result X, as most run-of-the-mill consumers are
I don't think you need a degree in marketing to see it to be honest. It's common sense to know they are doing their best to put their best foot forward. I don't fault them for it.
'Need', no, but it definitely helps, and it also makes such strategies as clear as any chess strategy would be clear to an expert chess player. I don't know chess well enough to give any specific examples, so I'll keep it Trek: Think of the lesson where the dude was training Kes in her telekinetic abilities, and told her not think about picking up the glass, but to think about taking a drink. Consumers in general see the glass moving. People trained in the psychology of advertising and marketing, understand not only why the glass moves, but how to make consumers thirsty enough to want to drink
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
that's some of the most labored reasoning to hate something I've ever seen....
'Labored'?
Dude, as a student back in the days before social media, I majored in advertising and marketing. I understand the subject in a different way to people who are strictly consumers, and because of my education in the subject, I see marketing strategies in the same way someone who plays chess can 'read the board'.
I can at least give reasons why I don't like the way the Discovery marketing has been handled, all you've done, is attack an opinion you disagree with.
Please explain why you think think my reasoning is 'labored'
Since you asked so nicely...
Exhibit A:
rumours that test screenings were not well received. Maybe only rumours
Rumors that you know to be of dubious accuracy.
Exhibit B:
There's an embargo on reviews
Misinformation. It can't be an embargo since there was never any reason for there to be reviews at all. You can try to claim it's standard practice, but really, it's not. It's a marketing gimmick.
Exhibit C:
yet they allow invited guests of a very narrow focus, to tweet positive things about the experience.
Letting industry insiders see a preview IS standard practice.
Exhibit
That's a double-standard and lazily obvious move to control of the narrative.
Invoking a double-standard where none exists.
As for your conclusion based on this? Well, as an old saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out". Conclusions are usually just as defective as the information used to draw the conclusion.
Also, suddenly your earlier dissertations on "fair play" and "stacking the deck" make more sense. You were parroting stuff from your university professors. Why do I think it's just professors? you don't sound like someone with practical experience.
that's some of the most labored reasoning to hate something I've ever seen....
'Labored'?
Dude, as a student back in the days before social media, I majored in advertising and marketing. I understand the subject in a different way to people who are strictly consumers, and because of my education in the subject, I see marketing strategies in the same way someone who plays chess can 'read the board'.
I can at least give reasons why I don't like the way the Discovery marketing has been handled, all you've done, is attack an opinion you disagree with.
Please explain why you think think my reasoning is 'labored'
Since you asked so nicely...
Exhibit A:
rumours that test screenings were not well received. Maybe only rumours
Rumors that you know to be of dubious accuracy.
I don't know the rumors to be of dubious accuracy, and neither do you. We know that there are rumors. That's not to say that they have to be taken as Gospel, but by the same token, they shouldn't be disregarded, because that's just closed-minded cognitive dissonance shutting out anything not Of The Narrative.
Exhibit B:
There's an embargo on reviews
Misinformation. It can't be an embargo since there was never any reason for there to be reviews at all. You can try to claim it's standard practice, but really, it's not. It's a marketing gimmick.
CBS outright said 'no reviews', did they not?
How do you equate pointing that out, with misinformation?
I don't think witholding reviews is a standard practice at all, and think that it suggests a deliberate retention of unfavorable information. Think tobacco companies and the health risks which they were aware of. Different subject, different stakes for sure, but it's the same practice.
Exhibit C:
yet they allow invited guests of a very narrow focus, to tweet positive things about the experience.
Letting industry insiders see a preview IS standard practice.
Correction: It's standard practice to let industry insiders see a preview and then openly discuss what they saw, to generate interest through transferred credibility/endorsement and word-of-mouth. By saying 'no reviews', but allowing positive 'observations' to be released. Dude, you're intelligent enough to see that for the double-standard it is.
Exhibit
That's a double-standard and lazily obvious move to control of the narrative.
Invoking a double-standard where none exists.
Please see above...
As for your conclusion based on this? Well, as an old saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out". Conclusions are usually just as defective as the information used to draw the conclusion.
Also, suddenly your earlier dissertations on "fair play" and "stacking the deck" make more sense. You were parroting stuff from your university professors. Why do I think it's just professors? you don't sound like someone with practical experience.
So now you have to resort to ad hom: Can't refute the message, so try and discredit the messenger.
As for my conclusions, I've acknowledged all along that I may be wrong about Discovery and it may indeed be great, but I at least know why I hold the opinions of the marketing strategies which I do. You try and diminish my words for use of figures of speech, but do the exact same thing yourself with 'garbage in, garbage out'. That's the best laugh I've had all day
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
'Need', no, but it definitely helps, and it also makes such strategies as clear as any chess strategy would be clear to an expert chess player. I don't know chess well enough to give any specific examples, so I'll keep it Trek: Think of the lesson where the dude was training Kes in her telekinetic abilities, and told her not think about picking up the glass, but to think about taking a drink. Consumers in general see the glass moving. People trained in the psychology of advertising and marketing, understand not only why the glass moves, but how to make consumers thirsty enough to want to drink
You're over complicating it IMO. Anyone who has ever been on a job interview them self or interviewed anyone for a job knows that people put their best foot forward when selling them self. Same goes for any business.
I'd disagree that I'm over-complicating it, I'm trying to simplify things. I may not be succeeding in doing so, but that's my intention. I guess this is why I don't have tenure
I don't know the rumors to be of dubious accuracy, and neither do you. We know that there are rumors. That's not to say that they have to be taken as Gospel, but by the same token, they shouldn't be disregarded, because that's just closed-minded cognitive dissonance shutting out anything not Of The Narrative.
Actually, you are supposed to disregard rumor since the source(s) cannot be verified.
Anonymous sources, leaks, and tip-offs are a perfectly valid 'thing'. Like I said, doesn't mean we take it as Gospel, doesn't mean we disregard it. Critical thinking demands that we be aware of the information, and file it for future review and comparison as more facts become available.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
By definition, rumors are of dubious value. Like the song says,
Someone said someone said
Somethin' about somethin' else
Someone might have said about her...
Using rumors as a data point will likely lead to a false conclusion. (Note: not "certainly" - as another saying has it, even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally - but the odds are stacked against.)
By definition, rumors are of dubious value. Like the song says,
Someone said someone said
Somethin' about somethin' else
Someone might have said about her...
Using rumors as a data point will likely lead to a false conclusion. (Note: not "certainly" - as another saying has it, even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally - but the odds are stacked against.)
Simply pointing out the pattern in how this series release has been handled (Announcement > Lacklustre response/outright hostility > Studio revision) and drawing my conclusions based on my education of the subject.
Not saying I think/know any better than anyone else, just explaining why I think the way I do about the situation, and the education which shaped those conclusions
As for ignoring rumors, like I said: Not taking anything as Gospel, not disregarding anything because it's not what I want to hear, but being aware, 'making a note', and making decisions accordingly
At this point, it doesn't matter if the rumors about the poor test-screenings're true or false, as what's released won't be the same material
At the end of the day, I'm not Midnight'sEdge, I'm not the one with the reputation to worry about (we all already know that my thoughts and reputation round these parts is about as valued as toilet paper that's been used both sides )
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
It really depends on what you want to do with the information. Examples:
I heard today that Mercedes automobiles are being recalled because of faulty brakes. (By itself this unsubstantiated rumor might be cause to investigate further because if true you might die or kill someone.)
I heard today that Discovery Klingons have miniaturized transporters installed in their rectums so they never need toilets. (This might explain why there is only one toilet on the Galaxy class ships, but whether true or false makes no real difference.)
So, except for news reporters, who aren't supposed to publish anything they cannot substantiate, rumors can be useful. But in this case we're talking about a TV show, so what harm could possibly result if the rumor is untrue? It's just gossip. Enjoy.
They think TOS is dated, and think the fans don't care.
More precisely, they think fans will watch it no matter what, just because of the name. And they're probably right.
To be perfectly fair, if the show is going to pay off, it's going to have to appeal to an audience a lot more general than 50 year old plus TOS fanatics.
Because most shows tend to reflect the sensibilities of the time. The problem is them trying to make it a prequel that is in an era with a look defined (the Cage is set like 10 years before the regular TOS and so close to Discovery)
For whatever reason, they've just been resistant to advance the timeline past Voyager's ending. First with Enterprise and now Discovery, even if it's at odds with earlier shows
It gets rid of the magic tech of TNG and later and most of the space gods.
It really depends on what you want to do with the information. Examples:
I heard today that Mercedes automobiles are being recalled because of faulty brakes. (By itself this unsubstantiated rumor might be cause to investigate further because if true you might die or kill someone.)
I heard today that Discovery Klingons have miniaturized transporters installed in their rectums so they never need toilets. (This might explain why there is only one toilet on the Galaxy class ships, but whether true or false makes no real difference.)
So, except for news reporters, who aren't supposed to publish anything they cannot substantiate, rumors can be useful. But in this case we're talking about a TV show, so what harm could possibly result if the rumor is untrue? It's just gossip. Enjoy.
Touchy subject these days...
Now, regardless of the rumor about the poor test-screening results, there's no denying the situation with the Discovery's design revelation. Or that people have had concerns about how the series will align with canon, and the revelation that there are specialists on the writing staff to ensure compliance. So that's two examples of where something has been released to the masses, not received well, adjusted by the studio, and re-presented: The pattern I described earlier
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
They think TOS is dated, and think the fans don't care.
More precisely, they think fans will watch it no matter what, just because of the name. And they're probably right.
To be perfectly fair, if the show is going to pay off, it's going to have to appeal to an audience a lot more general than 50 year old plus TOS fanatics.
meow, someone's got a chip on their shoulder about tos and tng it seems. ~does a cat paw gesture~
Comments
I love Lucy and all of Twilight Zone and many more are on Hulu right now sans NCIS and BBT. I really dont see the value in All Access with so much of CBSs library on other platforms. You could also just DVR the missing ones OTA if needed. Maybe Im just old and dont see the value in subbing to multiple services for a certain show on each. TV was much simpler when there were only 3 VHF and a few UHF channels to choose from lol. My point though was how are they going to gage DSC's success or failure? Subs or views or reviews?
original join date 2010
Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!
Shatner, Frakes, Billingsly, DeBeor, The Okudas, Nichols, are the only alums that I know as of now that have seen it. I didnt see anyone else during the live stream.
original join date 2010
Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!
Now, I don't have a degree in economic theory or anything, but Hulu doesn't look like a very good deal from that perspective. Particularly in light of the fact that for ongoing shows like NCIS, if I want to watch an episode from this season, I have to wait until it goes on Hulu next year, as opposed to just watching it on CBS' service.
I dunno, that just doesn't pencil out for me for some reason...
I saw a picture with Gates McFadden there.
No need to get snarky. I wasn't telling you to do anything. I was simply pointing out certain shows are already on other platforms and that Hulu has more content than All Access. I understood what you were saying but in my case All Access is not worth it for me like it is for you.
original join date 2010
Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!
The subscriber courtship however - don't they show the first episode on regular TV?
It is not like there will be never reviews of Discovery.
Maybe the strategy is more. We don't show a review before the first episode has been aired. People that will be influenced by reviews and don't watch it before will then get them after the show is no longer freely available, so if the reviews are good and thye want to see what it's about, they'll have to subscribe.
People that don't need reviews will just watch the first episode and if it's good enough, they'll subscribe to see the rest.
My character Tsin'xing
Soooo...hopefully, CBS can get that issue resolved before Star Trek: Discovery starts up.
“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin
i get the same problem with netflix when loading a webpage with large amounts of images on them - it'll start freezing up before eventually degrading in quality (if a youtube thing is playing) until the webpage finishes loading everything
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
I can see what you're meaning, but here's my issue with that:
There has already been rumours that test screenings were not well received. Maybe only rumours, but still concerning. There's an embargo on reviews, yet they allow invited guests of a very narrow focus, to tweet positive things about the experience.
That's a double-standard and lazily obvious move to control of the narrative.
That suggests to me, that the CBS execs are crossing everything that Discovery will be well-received, and after the negative receptions to the ship design(s) costume choices, aesthetic choices, test screenings etc, I can understand why. But it comes across as it being a show which they're betting the farm on, but aren't confident about, and while I understand exactly how and why they are marketing it this way, it gives me pause.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
My character Tsin'xing
Dude, as a student back in the days before social media, I majored in advertising and marketing. I understand the subject in a different way to people who are strictly consumers, and because of my education in the subject, I see marketing strategies in the same way someone who plays chess can 'read the board'.
I can at least give reasons why I don't like the way the Discovery marketing has been handled, all you've done, is attack an opinion you disagree with.
Please explain why you think think my reasoning is 'labored'
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
People who work in sales will know when they're getting good or bad service. Someone who's worked in a call center will know when a call is being bounced round the office rather than answered. Someone who works in coding, will understand the way a game procs in a way which a player might not. We all have our own careers and areas of expertise
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
That's very strange... I never come close to hitting the bandwidth allowed for my system.
And I did mention: no problems with Netflix, Amazon Prime, MLB or NFL...with or without the Amazon Firebox.
Hmmm....maybe that is the ticket...try CBS All Access app directly on my Samsung Smart TV and not via Firebox. It could just be a wonky app for the Amazon interface.
“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Exhibit A: Rumors that you know to be of dubious accuracy.
Exhibit B: Misinformation. It can't be an embargo since there was never any reason for there to be reviews at all. You can try to claim it's standard practice, but really, it's not. It's a marketing gimmick.
Exhibit C: Letting industry insiders see a preview IS standard practice.
Exhibit
As for your conclusion based on this? Well, as an old saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out". Conclusions are usually just as defective as the information used to draw the conclusion.
Also, suddenly your earlier dissertations on "fair play" and "stacking the deck" make more sense. You were parroting stuff from your university professors. Why do I think it's just professors? you don't sound like someone with practical experience.
My character Tsin'xing
CBS outright said 'no reviews', did they not?
How do you equate pointing that out, with misinformation?
I don't think witholding reviews is a standard practice at all, and think that it suggests a deliberate retention of unfavorable information. Think tobacco companies and the health risks which they were aware of. Different subject, different stakes for sure, but it's the same practice.
Correction: It's standard practice to let industry insiders see a preview and then openly discuss what they saw, to generate interest through transferred credibility/endorsement and word-of-mouth. By saying 'no reviews', but allowing positive 'observations' to be released. Dude, you're intelligent enough to see that for the double-standard it is.
Please see above...
So now you have to resort to ad hom: Can't refute the message, so try and discredit the messenger.
As for my conclusions, I've acknowledged all along that I may be wrong about Discovery and it may indeed be great, but I at least know why I hold the opinions of the marketing strategies which I do. You try and diminish my words for use of figures of speech, but do the exact same thing yourself with 'garbage in, garbage out'. That's the best laugh I've had all day
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Anonymous sources, leaks, and tip-offs are a perfectly valid 'thing'. Like I said, doesn't mean we take it as Gospel, doesn't mean we disregard it. Critical thinking demands that we be aware of the information, and file it for future review and comparison as more facts become available.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Someone said someone said
Somethin' about somethin' else
Someone might have said about her...
Using rumors as a data point will likely lead to a false conclusion. (Note: not "certainly" - as another saying has it, even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally - but the odds are stacked against.)
Not saying I think/know any better than anyone else, just explaining why I think the way I do about the situation, and the education which shaped those conclusions
As for ignoring rumors, like I said: Not taking anything as Gospel, not disregarding anything because it's not what I want to hear, but being aware, 'making a note', and making decisions accordingly
At this point, it doesn't matter if the rumors about the poor test-screenings're true or false, as what's released won't be the same material
At the end of the day, I'm not Midnight'sEdge, I'm not the one with the reputation to worry about (we all already know that my thoughts and reputation round these parts is about as valued as toilet paper that's been used both sides
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
I heard today that Mercedes automobiles are being recalled because of faulty brakes. (By itself this unsubstantiated rumor might be cause to investigate further because if true you might die or kill someone.)
I heard today that Discovery Klingons have miniaturized transporters installed in their rectums so they never need toilets. (This might explain why there is only one toilet on the Galaxy class ships, but whether true or false makes no real difference.)
So, except for news reporters, who aren't supposed to publish anything they cannot substantiate, rumors can be useful. But in this case we're talking about a TV show, so what harm could possibly result if the rumor is untrue? It's just gossip. Enjoy.
To be perfectly fair, if the show is going to pay off, it's going to have to appeal to an audience a lot more general than 50 year old plus TOS fanatics.
It gets rid of the magic tech of TNG and later and most of the space gods.
Touchy subject these days...
Now, regardless of the rumor about the poor test-screening results, there's no denying the situation with the Discovery's design revelation. Or that people have had concerns about how the series will align with canon, and the revelation that there are specialists on the writing staff to ensure compliance. So that's two examples of where something has been released to the masses, not received well, adjusted by the studio, and re-presented: The pattern I described earlier
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
meow, someone's got a chip on their shoulder about tos and tng it seems. ~does a cat paw gesture~