Picard is back!

[Eldan]

Switzerland is big on bureaucracy. Like, very big. Everything is regulated, and then the regulation regulated. And the banking industry is only a medium-sized part of our economy, our tech industry, heavy industry and chemical and pharmaceutical industry are probably each about as big as our banking. One of the big reasons why we don't want to be in the EU is that we'd have to give up some of our economical regulations.

As for netflix, basically, at some point it was thought that it was a good idea that single TV stations bought the rights to various movies being shown in this country. And only that TV station. So, if you want to watch, I don't know, Die Hard, only one TV station can show it. Which means we also can't legally stream it. At least for now. I think they are working on it.

[Metahuman1]

Switzerland is big on bureaucracy. Like, very big. Everything is regulated, and then the regulation regulated. And the banking industry is only a medium-sized part of our economy, our tech industry, heavy industry and chemical and pharmaceutical industry are probably each about as big as our banking. One of the big reasons why we don't want to be in the EU is that we'd have to give up some of our economical regulations.

As for netflix, basically, at some point it was thought that it was a good idea that single TV stations bought the rights to various movies being shown in this country. And only that TV station. So, if you want to watch, I don't know, Die Hard, only one TV station can show it. Which means we also can't legally stream it. At least for now. I think they are working on it.

... ... ... something about this hurts my brain.

[Darth Ultron]

So why does something as amazing as the spore drive, which allows ships to jump tens of light-years in seconds, never show up at any point later in the prime timeline?

I only sat through the horror of the show once...but there was some Technobabble about the space mushrooms breaking and needing time to regenerate, or something.

Also, from the shows preservative they seemed to be doing the ''ok, no more magic mushrooms or other stupid Kidz stuff. We got the Kidz attention with all that cool stuff and now we can make a more normal show...and the Kidz will still watch!"

Along with "Oh, but we will ruin the show by keeping it like a handful of episodes and separating the seasons by years"

[Cikomyr]

I only sat through the horror of the show once...but there was some Technobabble about the space mushrooms breaking and needing time to regenerate, or something.

Also, from the shows preservative they seemed to be doing the ''ok, no more magic mushrooms or other stupid Kidz stuff. We got the Kidz attention with all that cool stuff and now we can make a more normal show...and the Kidz will still watch!"

Along with "Oh, but we will ruin the show by keeping it like a handful of episodes and separating the seasons by years"

That is your judgemental bullcrap. Dont put words in other people's mouth. Its infantile and rude as heck.

[Peelee]

Streaming subscription services aren't going away, it's where all TV is going, so we might as well all get used to it.

Streaming subscription services aren't being railed against here. Streaming subscription services for only one channel are. And those certainly will go away if they fare poorly enough.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Streaming subscription services aren't being railed against here. Streaming subscription services for only one channel are. And those certainly will go away if they fare poorly enough.

Not knowing anything about the technical capabilities/limitations and what the individual network's idea of success in the short-term is, I remain skeptical of this.

[Peelee]

Not knowing anything about the technical capabilities/limitations and what the individual network's idea of success in the short-term is, I remain skeptical of this.

If they toss enough money at producing shows and don't make enough from 'em, I'd be surprised if they last long. Single station subscriptions will likely become one of those "remember back in the teens" things in the future.

[Darth Ultron]

That is your judgemental bullcrap. Dont put words in other people's mouth. Its infantile and rude as heck.

Short ''not'' seasons of like ten shows is worse then real seasons of 20 plus.

And to put a show out in one year...then make people wait years for a second season.

Both are great ways to ruin your show.

[Excession]

So why does something as amazing as the spore drive, which allows ships to jump tens of light-years in seconds, never show up at any point later in the prime timeline?

Spoiler: Discovery

Show

1. Interfacing with the spore drive requires genetic modification of a human navigator, which is highly illegal.
2. The mycelial network appears to be sentient, which is likely to complicate things.
3. Evil Captain Lorka fell into the spore reactor before he died from his stab wound. I think he's probably part of the network now, and that will come up in season 2.
4. If the mycelial network turns out to be the Q continuum I wouldn't even be surprised.

I also don't really see Michael as a "prodigy". Trying to teach a human to suppress all emotion turns them into a sociopath, not a functional member of society. I'm on Team Tilly anyway.

[BeerMug Paladin]

If they toss enough money at producing shows and don't make enough from 'em, I'd be surprised if they last long. Single station subscriptions will likely become one of those "remember back in the teens" things in the future.

I suspect they're willing to lose a bit of money to begin with. Figuring that after a while a good number of people holding back on the basis of not wanting to support their business model will cave.

Although part of the reason I'm skeptical is the fact that the already-set-up streaming services are all producing their own content now in order to compete with one another. If that works with netflix, hulu and others, then why couldn't it work for a television station with years of broadcast history and its own collection of publicly adored IP to mine for nostalgia?

[factotum]

The problem is, the viewing public's money and time is limited. This is why traditional TV services bundle a whole bunch of channels together and charge a single fee for it--can you imagine how difficult and expensive it would be if you had to separately subscribe to every single channel? Yet that's exactly what the big studios seem to be expecting everyone to do, and there's only so far people are likely to follow them down that road.

Speaking personally, I have Amazon Prime for the Grand Tour and because it makes Amazon deliveries cheaper, so even if I never watch it I'm getting a benefit. I got Netflix to watch the Expanse, because that's the channel it's on in the UK. Those two subscriptions are about as far as I'm willing to go--I see no point in signing up to a third subscription just to watch a single show, I've already done that twice!

[Cikomyr]

Short ''not'' seasons of like ten shows is worse then real seasons of 20 plus.

And to put a show out in one year...then make people wait years for a second season.

Both are great ways to ruin your show.

Oh yhea. I know your posting history. THAT is certainly the reason you won't watch Discovery.

[Thrudd]

I have no idea if individual network subscriptions will last as a business model, I'm not saying it isn't annoying. But I do think it is less annoying than paying for a cable package with 100 channels, only about ten of which you will ever actually watch, all full of advertisements day and night. And if the new model means networks will take risks and put more money into more quality content, like Netflix and Hulu and HBO are doing, that's a win for worthwhile entertainment.

My strategy for streaming subscriptions right now is to split the cost with friends and family. IE, I sign up for Hulu, they sign up for CBS, we split the bills and share the logins. Just make sure the service has enough simultaneous streams/screens for the households sharing it.

[Androgeus]

Short ''not'' seasons of like ten shows is worse then real seasons of 20 plus.

I’ve always found the 20+ episodes in an American shows ludicrously long.

[2D8HP]

I have no idea if individual network subscriptions will last as a business model, I'm not saying it isn't annoying. But I do think it is less annoying than paying for a cable package with 100 channels, only about ten of which you will ever actually watch, all full of advertisements day and night...

In my case I watch none, I don't/won't subscribe to television, so no cable or other forms of paid TV.

[Peelee]

I have no idea if individual network subscriptions will last as a business model, I'm not saying it isn't annoying. But I do think it is less annoying than paying for a cable package with 100 channels, only about ten of which you will ever actually watch, all full of advertisements day and night. And if the new model means networks will take risks and put more money into more quality content, like Netflix and Hulu and HBO are doing, that's a win for worthwhile entertainment.

Except there's no reason to believe they'll suddenly take risks and put more money into more quality content. To take one of your own examples, HBO certainly has been around for a long time without spurring this change on.

[Thrudd]

Except there's no reason to believe they'll suddenly take risks and put more money into more quality content. To take one of your own examples, HBO certainly has been around for a long time without spurring this change on.

Yeah, that's fair. They might not. I'm just guessing the success of the streaming services original content might encourage other networks that are normally more risk averse to startcopying their model. I've noticed more shows with 10-13 episode seasons on other networks that are much more manageable to binge (that incidentally tend to have tighter story arcs as well).

But I don't really care about CBS. I honestly would not subscribe to a service just for Star Trek. I didn't even know about it before we got CBS. My wife just loves Big Brother, she would split the cost of the live feeds with her son every year when it came on. Since All-Access started, that means we get the whole shebang, with live TV as well, not just Big Brother and old episodes. So they just decided to keep it year-round, and it so happened that this Star Trek show appeared, and it was something to watch, and it turned out to be pretty good.
Now I'm looking forward to the new season, and the new series with Picard. If we end up dropping the subscription, well..I'll find a way.

[Reddish Mage]

Except there's no reason to believe they'll suddenly take risks and put more money into more quality content. To take one of your own examples, HBO certainly has been around for a long time without spurring this change on.

HBO’s thing is very few shows of very high quality. In that way they don’t take that many risks. Still, it has it shares of expensive flops (remember Vinyl? Neither does anyone else).

Netflix has put out many quality and award winning shows among their offerings, but they put out an awful lot.

Hulu has done quite a bit with quality content. Didn’t handmaid’s tale run away at this year’s emmy’s. Also, Runaways is the best Marvel show IMO.

Now...CBS...there’s Discovery...and that’s it (ok there are five other shows that no one’s heard of, and Big Brother). Now they’re doing something with Patrick Stewart.

It looks like DC’s streaming will get us a live-action Titan’s show (I’ve given my opinion of the trailer in another thread).

Disney’s streaming service will no doubt include original content, the question is how much and of what value?

From what I’m seeing, fragmented streaming is at best producing specialized channels with much less content and only a couple of originals to draw people. Some of these originals really deserve to be shows regardless and the premium pricing is going to mean smaller audiences (or check out how many people in the Picard thread say they won’t pay for Discovery or even the new show starring Patrick Stewart as Jean Luc Picard).

[Psyren]

In my case I watch none, I don't/won't subscribe to television, so no cable or other forms of paid TV.

...Grats I guess?

Except there's no reason to believe they'll suddenly take risks and put more money into more quality content. To take one of your own examples, HBO certainly has been around for a long time without spurring this change on.

Please tell me you're joking. HBO had a ton of famous original programming, long before the likes of Game of Thrones and Westworld even. Ever hear of Sopranos? True Blood? Sex and the City? Six Feet Under? Whatever you may personally think of those shows, they were definitely household names, and their existence was due to HBO being able to use them as a value proposition to sell subscriptions as well as keeping the proceeds from their merchandising.

The change now is that they've finally decoupled their streaming service from the dying cable packages of old. In spite of this though, the risk of producing their own programming remains the same, if not being even higher now that they're not one of the few games in town hawked by every cable provider/ISP.

[Darth Ultron]

If that works with netflix, hulu and others, then why couldn't it work for a television station with years of broadcast history and its own collection of publicly adored IP to mine for nostalgia?

The old networks just don't make enough online content. Like sing up for CBS...and you can watch Discovery, but that is the only Star Trek show and only real 'sci fi' show....so you get one show.

Netflix, Hulu and the rest you get a TON of shows, plus movies.

Plus CBS does the ''oh we will release one episode a week" trick, and not the ''here is the season" that say Netflix does.

I’ve always found the 20+ episodes in an American shows ludicrously long.

Really? I always found them perfect. If done right.

The big thing Discovery lacks is character episodes....and they can't even do them as they only have like ten shows and must do the arc. Not to mention like a third of some episodes is just the ''not klingons" grunting to each other for like 15 minutes.

And, the really odd thing is....they heard me complain? Like when ever Discovery comes back (2020?) we will get a Saru movie, and some other characters too. But like four movies...maybe hour and a half each? Well, that is getting closer to the ''20'' for the season.


I wonder if adverting will kill of the streaming services? I know I'm not the only one who wants exactly zero advertisements during a TV show. And this is, in fact, the only way I watch TV shows. But you just know the advertisers will beg and throw money and then have commercials that you 'must watch' in all streaming TV shows.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Ever hear of Sopranos? True Blood? Sex and the City? Six Feet Under? Whatever you may personally think of those shows, they were definitely household names, and their existence was due to HBO being able to use them as a value proposition to sell subscriptions as well as keeping the proceeds from their merchandising.

I seem to recall there being a show called Oz that was big at the time it was produced/aired, even though it seems largely forgotten now. Also, wasn't Tales from the Crypt one of theirs? That seems like it was pretty notable at some point in time, even if its notability occurred around the time it appeared in syndication on broadcast TV.

[Thrudd]

The old networks just don't make enough online content. Like sing up for CBS...and you can watch Discovery, but that is the only Star Trek show and only real 'sci fi' show....so you get one show.

Netflix, Hulu and the rest you get a TON of shows, plus movies.

Actually, you can watch every episode of every Star Trek series on CBS, even the animated series. Discovery is the only "All Access Exclusive" show, but they have the back catalogue of all current and a lot of their older shows. Any sci fi show that has ever been on CBS is on there. They have some movies, too, but not a lot of good ones.

[factotum]

Oddly enough, Discovery is on Netflix in the UK--I guess CBS can't be bothered to extend their own streaming service over here?

[Aotrs Commander]

Oddly enough, Discovery is on Netflix in the UK--I guess CBS can't be bothered to extend their own streaming service over here?

I suspect we In Foreign Parts (to the US) and especially in the UK, are much more likely to get away with this sort of thing... For one, the networks really don't have any kind of infrastructure here and oe imagines trying to essentially set-up a TV station for every country in the world (because they are really, still trying to be telly, not internet, for which - for once, is working in our favour) is just not worth the effort. As my Dad often points out, too, collecting money takes money, and they'd have to have customer services, currency conversion... One imagines it's much easier in those instances to just take the money from Netflix on the basis that there's no practical way they're going to get anything otherwise (except flack and/or encouraging piracy).

But we should, I guess, at least take some comfort in them not trying to just do a DVD Region on everyone (BOY was that ever just an anti-consumer excuse).

[2D8HP]

...Grats I guess?.

Nah, it's a pain.

Once I could watch Doctor Who (on PBS) but no more.

Once I had two Star Trek series, Angel, and Buffy to look forward to but now?

Nothing.

Still, I'm not going to pay to support changes I'm against (this whole pay to watch programming, especially programming that has commercials!).

[Velaryon]

Nah, it's a pain.

Once I could watch Doctor Who (on PBS) but no more.

Once I had two Star Trek series, Angel, and Buffy to look forward to but now?

Nothing.

Still, I'm not going to pay to support changes I'm against (this whole pay to watch programming, especially programming that has commercials!).

Perhaps you can get DVDs of shows that sound interesting from your library? You have to wait a little longer that way, but you can still experience them and you don't have to pay.

[2D8HP]

Perhaps you can get DVDs of shows that sound interesting from your library? You have to wait a little longer that way, but you can still experience them and you don't have to pay.

DVD's that my wife got from the library is how I've watched Game of Thrones, The Soprano's, and the like, and it is a bit frustrating that by the time I've watched any GoT's episodes the threads about them are dead

Probably moot now anyway as most of the TV time goes to entertain my two years old son, or my wife watches DVD's on her laptop alone in the bedroom while I babysit.

It's just that when things were broadcast I could get to watch them because they were on, but no more.

[Peelee]

Please tell me you're joking. HBO had a ton of famous original programming, long before the likes of Game of Thrones and Westworld even. Ever hear of Sopranos? True Blood? Sex and the City? Six Feet Under? Whatever you may personally think of those shows, they were definitely household names, and their existence was due to HBO being able to use them as a value proposition to sell subscriptions as well as keeping the proceeds from their merchandising.

Not joking, just maybe not being clear enough, since I totally agree with you; as you point out, HBO put out a lot of quality content. And they were a premium station, and charged for it. This didn't spur other stations to try to emulate it. Now that companies like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon have started making quality original content, in addition to all three platforms' rights to content that they did not produce, it is unlikely that mainstream cable networks like CBS will be successful trying to emulate this, especially if they try to supersaturate the market. They didn't try to compete when HBO was the only game like that in town, and now there's a lot more heavy hitters, so making their content harder and pricier to access with little extra benefit seems doomed to failure, is what I'm saying.

When I said, "HBO certainly has been around for a long time without spurring this change on," I figured "in other stations" would be understood. My bad.

[Darth Ultron]

Not joking, just maybe not being clear enough, since I totally agree with you; as you point out, HBO put out a lot of quality content. And they were a premium station, and charged for it. This didn't spur other stations to try to emulate it.

Yes it did, Showtime, Starz and Cinimax all made quality content. And so did the 'basic cable' stations like AMC, TNT, USA, and Scy-FY.

Now that companies like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon have started making quality original content, in addition to all three platforms' rights to content that they did not produce, it is unlikely that mainstream cable networks like CBS will be successful trying to emulate this, especially if they try to supersaturate the market. They didn't try to compete when HBO was the only game like that in town, and now there's a lot more heavy hitters, so making their content harder and pricier to access with little extra benefit seems doomed to failure, is what I'm saying.

Too many people pay well over a $100 for Cable/Satellite, and mostly get junk they will never watch. The vast majority of people have dumped cable/satellite as way too expensive. Now, for like 1/10th or more then cable cost, you can get Netflix and it's full of new movies, new shows, and tons of quality content.

CBS, and the rest, seem to be stuck on the 'old model' that people will still want to pay $100 for ''TV", but will now split that up between like five streaming services. And I doubt many people will want to do that.

And, i'm sure we will see a kick back from advertises too.

[Metahuman1]

Doesn't sound that far off the mark to me. Particularly since you've got company's like AT&T and Comcast in the US who refuse to sell internet unless you buy Cable with it or pay x4 the combo deal price for just the internet and slower internet at that.