DS9 on blu ray?

[USS KG5]

Absolutely. There has to be something more, and IMO the TNG-R sets did have some great bonus material (the previously unseen blooper reels and deleted scenes), but one wonders if it was quite 'enough' for the average consumer... or whether CBS simply didn't advertise the fact loud enough.

Well, lets not limit it to just Trek, typically a niche show that is liked/loved by geeky types, who will most likely be a lot keener than the average consumer on physical media.

Take a movie like The Avengers, in the UK released on Blu with no extra features to speak of, appeared very quickly on Netflix. Avatar, in its first Blu release again totally feature free.

Blu and DVD are on their way to the exit from the mainstream, in the medium term.

 

[Lance]

True. I mention 'average consumers', but the reality that has hit CBS hard isn't actually a lack of general sales, but more that (based on their projections) it seems that the fanbase haven't been sold on the BDs. That's really what Burnett's tweets say loud and clear: that CBS have gotten a splash in the face with cold water, because the "Trekkie audience", whom they'd previously been able to take for granted would go out buy the things automatically, seemingly stopped doing so after the first couple seasons.
(We must remember that the sales drop mentioned by Burnett seemingly didn't happen until part-way through the release run; most reports state that season one in particular sold magnificently.)

I do have some sympathy for Mike S' view above that 'premium pricing' was an issue. But ultimately, at least in part, a problem was that CBS simply failed to sell the fanbase on the benefits of the upgrade.

Either that or, like you say, the surprising speed at which alternative options (streaming etc) have taken hold of the market in just a couple years led to a significant loss of sales in the time frame between when season one got released and when season seven got released.

 

[Praetorian]

I'm so desperate that, after taking of peek at the upscaled footage in TNG's Season 5, and comparing it with the DVD, I'm ready to accept a fully uspcaled DS9 and Voyager BD. The improvement wouldn't be great, but it would be better than nothing.

Though, I suppose that such BD would sell even worse, because the people that cared about the remaster wouldn't be interested, and those who didn't, wouldn't care anyway...

 

[Squiggy]

Is Netflix streaming the remastered version of TNG? If it's not it doesn't matter how good your connection is, it's still not going to look very good.

It is not. It looks pixelated as shit on my 55"

Then you need to get a faster internet connection.

It looks much better than he BBC-America airings, but it's still SD. But it looks like BBC-A might be adding a new HD series per rotation so we're only a couple of months away from season 3. I'd expect to see S4 4-6 months later.

 

[Darren Mooney]

And as far as BD goes, there's a difference between buying new stuff that's coming out on BD, and buying an old TV series that's essentially exactly the same as its DVD counterpart in terms of the actual content of the episodes except for the HD transfer.

And this is another thing where I kind of wish they'd pushed the boat out a little further. For me, the extended version of "The Measure Of A Man" was a BIG draw-card, and I love it. The deleted scenes and blooper reels also have been brilliant, as it's all material we haven't seen before. But when people simply (illegally) upload those things to Youtube within five minutes of buying the sets, and Joe Average can then just go there to watch them, then there isn't any new VAM left worth paying for. So there has to be something more. CBS didn't necessarily do enough to promote the fact that there was previously unseen original material on these discs.

Perhaps finding a way to do more 'extended length edits' with the deleted scenes incorporated into the main body of the episodes would've been a selling point. IMHO consumers will pay for something they've already got when they know they're getting something they've never seen before; but if they just think they're getting the same old episodes they've got on DVD already but just with a nice new transfer, and that they're being charged through the nose for the privlege, they're more likely to say "Meh, maybe someday down the track"..... except that day never comes.

Coupled with the inherent convenience, you can see why physical media is in under a lot of pressure to move in a more specialized, niche market segment in the short to mid term, which means differentiating by offering added content, collector value and the like.

Absolutely. There has to be something more, and IMO the TNG-R sets did have some great bonus material (the previously unseen blooper reels and deleted scenes), but one wonders if it was quite 'enough' for the average consumer... or whether CBS simply didn't advertise the fact loud enough.

I consider myself a bigger fan than the "average Joe" (I feel that just visiting this board proves that ) and have purchased all the Blu-ray's. But, aside from The Measure of a Man extension, I haven't bothered to watch much of the VAM. I certainly don't purchase media for the extra's and I doubt casual fans do. It is plainly the improved picture quality that attracts me to Blu-ray. Cut the "value" added crap and the price - then people will come. Simple.

Well, if you're going to argue that, then the entire remastering itself is just "value added crap."

You can watch the shows for free on Netflix, so the HD picture is really just a way of adding value to the show. It's obviously more value than a memorium feature about Michael Piller, but how do you quantify that?

If if you're going to ask fans - and let's face it, only fans buy physical media of HD remasterings of classic eighties and nineties shows these days - to spend any money on it (and to be honest, extras added about five dollars to the tag, if even?) it needs to be a sizeable upgrade.

Personally, I'd pay more for more commentaries and features, because I know those won't be added to Netflix at any point soon. I think the key question for somebody purchasing a blu ray is, "what does this offer I don't get on Netflix?"

While the remastering itself is obviously the centrepiece of the project, I'm not sure that HD is so infinitely more important than any other material, particularly when people can just wait for that to come to streaming.

 

[dub]

You can watch the shows for free on Netflix, so the HD picture is really just a way of adding value to the show.

Well, Netflix isn't free (other than a free trial offer initially), but I agree. If you already have a subscription to a streaming service and you're not all that eager to own the physical media or watch the BTS stuff, extras and listen to commentary, then sampling or watching the remastered series on Netflix, Amazon or something similar will suffice (I've been really pleased with Amazon lately but still have a subscription to Netflix). With TNG, I'm happy to watch it in HD via streaming. But when it comes to DS9, I'd preorder the BD sets at top dollar. It's just a difference in my level of excitement for each show.

 

[MacLeod]

Is Netflix streaming the remastered version of TNG? If it's not it doesn't matter how good your connection is, it's still not going to look very good.

It is not. It looks pixelated as shit on my 55"

Then you need to get a faster internet connection.

Wait a minute let me check to see if I can get a faster internet connection. Nope, the simple fact is that some people can't get a faster internet connection.

 

[ConRefit79]

I bought the first 3 seasons of TNG. But have had to be more frugal the last few years. I would buy them all, but $57+ per season is too much. For now I can see them all on Netflix. The only reason I would want to own them is for the day when they're no longer broadcast. But even then, who's to say they will continue to have backward compatible players.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Is Netflix streaming the remastered version of TNG? If it's not it doesn't matter how good your connection is, it's still not going to look very good.

It is not. It looks pixelated as shit on my 55"

Then you need to get a faster internet connection.

It looks much better than he BBC-America airings, but it's still SD. But it looks like BBC-A might be adding a new HD series per rotation so we're only a couple of months away from season 3. I'd expect to see S4 4-6 months later.

There's nothing wrong with my internet connection. I stream some shows and movies on Netflix and the quality is damn near close to Blu-Ray. It's just Next Gen, DS9 and Voyager look like shit.

 

[MikeS]

You can watch the shows for free on Netflix, so the HD picture is really just a way of adding value to the show. It's obviously more value than a memorium feature about Michael Piller, but how do you quantify that?

Is Netflix free now? Last I checked I had to pay £5.99 a month which is £71.88 a year. To move to an area that has the internet infrastructure in-situ to watch HD without buffering issues would probably add £150 - £200 a month to my mortgage, £1800 - £2400 a year. I'd also have to hope Netflix didn't remove the content on a whim.

So other than £2471.88 a year, it's free to watch TNG in HD?

I don't quantify the "VAM" - I've not watched any of it other than the MOM extended version. The only VAM I wanted to see wasn't even included on the sets (Best Buy's exclusive of early CGI Enterprise - we don't have Best Buy in the UK). The VAM cost money to produce and CBS will factor into the price.

 

[USS KG5]

You can't get a decent internet connection in Liverpool? I suspect that will improve its rural areas that tend to have an issue. In the UK we are actually quite well served as far as internet cost and speeds go. ☺

 

[Darren Mooney]

You can watch the shows for free on Netflix, so the HD picture is really just a way of adding value to the show. It's obviously more value than a memorium feature about Michael Piller, but how do you quantify that?

Is Netflix free now? Last I checked I had to pay £5.99 a month which is £71.88 a year. To move to an area that has the internet infrastructure in-situ to watch HD without buffering issues would probably add £150 - £200 a month to my mortgage, £1800 - £2400 a year. I'd also have to hope Netflix didn't remove the content on a whim.

So other than £2471.88 a year, it's free to watch TNG in HD?

I don't quantify the "VAM" - I've not watched any of it other than the MOM extended version. The only VAM I wanted to see wasn't even included on the sets (Best Buy's exclusive of early CGI Enterprise - we don't have Best Buy in the UK). The VAM cost money to produce and CBS will factor into the price.

Yes, but by "watch the shows for free" I mean "not budgeting specifically for them." That £6 a month is not buying you just one (or even seven) seasons of TNG. It is buying you a pass to unlimited access to their library, including original content. It's hard to quantify that.

It's not as if Netflix comes out of a Star Trek budget for viewers in the same way that buying a Star Trek blu ray would. £6 a month is expensive, but only if ALL you watch is Star Trek. I think that's a tiny minority, so small as to be insignificant. Same deal with the Internet connection. It's not a cost exclusively for Star Trek, or even exclusively for streaming.

I think the people thinking "this is how much I spend on Star Trek" is minimal. And those who do also have to diffuse that across any other content they enjoy. "This is how much I pay for Luther/House of Cards/Doctor Who/Archer/Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul/etc." It works out much cheaper than investing in all the box sets collectively. I'd argue, if you're capitalising on the system, it is so much cheaper it's practically free.

If you watch one show per night, which seems VERY conservative in the era of binge-watching, if costs 20p. That means the entire first season of Breaking Bad costs £1.60, the entire first season of TNG is £5.20. So maybe not free, but at a price point where blu ray cannot compete.

And, yes, fans might worry about content like that going away and rights issues and so forth, but we're still talking about hardcore fans here.

 

[MikeS]

Thanks for clarifying your position. That makes more sense to me now. I guess I'm just a dinosaur who needs to drag himself out of the nineties.

 

[MacLeod]

You can't get a decent internet connection in Liverpool? I suspect that will improve its rural areas that tend to have an issue. In the UK we are actually quite well served as far as internet cost and speeds go. ☺

Unless as you say you live in a rural area or have an Exchange Only line, though hopefully the BDUK project will close most of that gap over the next 18 months with the final few percent over the next five years to 2020 as more and more councils try to get near 100% fibre coverage.

 

[USS KG5]

You can't get a decent internet connection in Liverpool? I suspect that will improve its rural areas that tend to have an issue. In the UK we are actually quite well served as far as internet cost and speeds go. ☺

Unless as you say you live in a rural area or have an Exchange Only line, though hopefully the BDUK project will close most of that gap over the next 18 months with the final few percent over the next five years to 2020 as more and more councils try to get near 100% fibre coverage.

That and eventually they will do something about the current obscene overcharging for mobile broadband. With 4G and now 5G on the horizon, it could be more economical to roll out than fibre.

A very optimistic outlook would be both networks essentially merging at some point, providing a seamless internet connection for devices for a flat monthly fee, delivered through a mixture of mobile and wi-fi from domestic routers. I won't hold my breath though!

 

[MacLeod]

You can't get a decent internet connection in Liverpool? I suspect that will improve its rural areas that tend to have an issue. In the UK we are actually quite well served as far as internet cost and speeds go. ☺

Unless as you say you live in a rural area or have an Exchange Only line, though hopefully the BDUK project will close most of that gap over the next 18 months with the final few percent over the next five years to 2020 as more and more councils try to get near 100% fibre coverage.

That and eventually they will do something about the current obscene overcharging for mobile broadband. With 4G and now 5G on the horizon, it could be more economical to roll out than fibre.

A very optimistic outlook would be both networks essentially merging at some point, providing a seamless internet connection for devices for a flat monthly fee, delivered through a mixture of mobile and wi-fi from domestic routers. I won't hold my breath though!

Never mind 4G or 5G some areas still don't even have 3G coverage.

http://maps.ofcom.org.uk/mobile-services/

NB: That data is for 2013

Sure you can say it makes sense to concentrate on the more urban areas first, but that's where the regulator should step in and as part of the license for 5G is say that you have to provide coverage to say 95% of the population as part of the deal.

 

[Darren Mooney]

Thanks for clarifying your position. That makes more sense to me now. I guess I'm just a dinosaur who needs to drag himself out of the nineties.

No worries. I should have been clearer the first time around. Apologies.

 

[BillJ]

There's nothing wrong with my internet connection. I stream some shows and movies on Netflix and the quality is damn near close to Blu-Ray. It's just Next Gen, DS9 and Voyager look like shit.

This.

I have a 4K TV and can run Netflix 4K offerings without any issues (full 2160p).

 

[Squiggy]

It is not. It looks pixelated as shit on my 55"

Then you need to get a faster internet connection.

Wait a minute let me check to see if I can get a faster internet connection. Nope, the simple fact is that some people can't get a faster internet connection.

A majority of people can. HD Netflix requires 5mpbs. MOST people can get that. If you don't have enough money or live too far in the boonies then you're never going to keep pace anyway so there's no need to get defensive.

Unless as you say you live in a rural area or have an Exchange Only line, though hopefully the BDUK project will close most of that gap over the next 18 months with the final few percent over the next five years to 2020 as more and more councils try to get near 100% fibre coverage.

That and eventually they will do something about the current obscene overcharging for mobile broadband. With 4G and now 5G on the horizon, it could be more economical to roll out than fibre.

A very optimistic outlook would be both networks essentially merging at some point, providing a seamless internet connection for devices for a flat monthly fee, delivered through a mixture of mobile and wi-fi from domestic routers. I won't hold my breath though!

Never mind 4G or 5G some areas still don't even have 3G coverage.

http://maps.ofcom.org.uk/mobile-services/

NB: That data is for 2013

Sure you can say it makes sense to concentrate on the more urban areas first, but that's where the regulator should step in and as part of the license for 5G is say that you have to provide coverage to say 95% of the population as part of the deal.

You're not going to ever get to that 95% by upgrading Herefordshire before places where people actually live.

Populations centers get dibs on technological upgrades. That's been part of the point of civilization for the past 5000 years.

 

[MacLeod]

If you note I said sure it made sense to concentrate on the more urban areas first but as part of the license for 4G, 5G etc.. technology the operators had to expand coverage to 95% of the population. Sure the more rural areas might have to wait longer but they wouldn't be left out.

The rural areas i.e where the food is grown/raised are just as vital the urban centres, they both need each other, just that the rural areas shouldn't be left behind and the regulators should step in when and where needed to prevent them being left behind.

You could live less than 10 miles away from a city and be classed as a rural location hardly the boondocks.