So you still get commercials after paying for All Access? That's disappointing.
What Does CBS All Access Have to Offer Besides Star Trek?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
It's not just disappointing. Because they are not airing over broadcast airwaves, they no longer need to abide by the (I believe) FCC rules that say that a commercial can not be louder than the show it is in. We have our volume on a comfortable level for a show, and then a GEICO commercial comes on and breaks our eardrums. Moonves said in an interview they are researching a commercial free pricing level like Hulu has, and if they do it we will jump on it. At least the ads are less glitchy through the Chromecast than the ads on Youtube, which stutter and skip.
Seeing as how my wife and I currently trying to catch up on NCIS so we can watch the current season, NCIS and TBBT are enough for me to subscribe.
I wouldn't be surprised if CBS pulled all the past Trek series off of Netflix and other streaming services and made them exclusive to CBSAA. Same for other shows in the CBS library. They already have it so that the CBS website is the only place to stream new episodes. (I had to take advantage of that for Supergirl a couple of times, and it's annoying because they show a ton of commercials and don't give you a timer like Hulu does to let you know when the show will come back.)
Ah, the old "It's popular therefore it sucks" gambit.
Funny what the trope picture is...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsPopularNowItSucks
My wife and I were thinking about getting CBS All Access, but decided against it because $72 per year for an ad-infested experience is just too much. I'd rather take that $72, and buy the two or three CBS shows we watch on iTunes.
What I don't understand is why these services don't offer ad-free pricing. How about $5 for an ad-supported tier, and $10 for an ad-free tier. Then let the market decide.
What I don't understand is why these services don't offer ad-free pricing. How about $5 for an ad-supported tier, and $10 for an ad-free tier. Then let the market decide.
Transformers has a lot bigger problems than just being popular.
If you can't see that, it's a little worrying.
No, you just have unreasonably high expectations of a movie in the "giant fighting robots" genre. Here are the actual, meaningful qualifications for judging a Transformers film:
1. Were there robots?
2. Did they change into other things?
3. Did they fight other robots that changed into other things?
4. Were the humans largely irrelevant?
As long as all four answers are "yes," you have an adequate Transformers movie.
If you have low expectations, that's fine, but that doesn't make it a good film.
There's a reason why Pacific Rim, a "giant fighting robots" film, was received very well by critics and fans as well as being a box-office hit, and why Transformers has never gotten a positive review from anyone older than 12. It's a big toy commercial in the guise of an action film directed by a hack of a director.
Stop making excuses for it.
What excuses? Of COURSE that's what it is. That's what it ALWAYS HAS BEEN. That's what the ORIGINAL CARTOON was. A marketing vehicle to SELL TOYS. Stop trying to be Pretentious Film Criticbot 2000.
Commercials for a fee. No thanks. Not even for Star Trek. I'll wait for the DVDs.
I will watch and/or pay for their service under the following two conditions:
1. Payment of a single rate - no tiers - entirely eliminates all ads.
2. The service has ads but is completely free - just like broadcast TV.
If you aim for shit, and hit the mark, then it's still shit.
It's not being pretentious, it's just basic understanding.
Now CBS doesn't even have Supergirl anymore: http://www.ew.com/article/2016/05/12/supergirl-renewed-cw
Remember when he gave The Phantom Menace 3.5 stars out of 4? Yeah... he doesn't always get it right.
Besides, the first Transformers isn't even all that terrible, it's the franchise as a whole and its brain dead sequels that people hate.
Going by Ebert's scale, Transformers is just as good as Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace is apparently superior to all three.
He's a great film critic, but his scores can be off at times. It seems like you were REALLY reaching for a decent score by going to him when the top ratings that appear on Google are 57% on RT and 61% on Metacritic.
It's mediocre, at best. The type of film that appeals to those with a hard-on for Into Darkness.
Last edited:
He's the only critic I've ever really read (since he's gone, I don't read any particular popular movie critics on a regular basis), so his was the first one that came to mind.
Kor
'Right' as in 'always representing the average consensus?' No, not really.
But Ebert's reviews were never meant be that. They simply showed how he regarded a movie, and why he did so.
Of course, considering you brought up the Metacritic scores, I should point out that the MC consensus there is also that Transformers is better than TUC. TPM on the other hand, has the exact same score as TUC.
The difference is because Metacritic keeps tabs on how much critics liked a movie, whereas RT only keeps track of how many critics score a movie over 6/10.
So for eg: Movie A get's 10 reviews. 5 are 10/10, 5 are 5/10.
RT- 50% (Rotten)
MC- 75%
Kinda like TWOK appealed to a lot of the people who saw the original Transformers movie and (God forbid) Star Wars?
Last edited:
For your first point, I was only using those as examples. As they were the first results on Google. They're not very accurate, but they can usually pinpoint whether a film is received well or badly. When you compare scores, that's when the problems arise.
The Wrath of Khan was a submarine film in space, with excellent writing and a director who understood what Star Trek was.
Into Darkness is a dumb plot-hole ridden mindless action blockbuster film, and if that's The Wrath of Khan for this generation, then I guess that just shows how far this genre has fallen in terms of quality.
This kind of sums it up:
If that's how you see it, whatever. At least that film wasn't trying to make a sci-fi nerd fantasy "cool" and "hip".
The Wrath of Khan was a submarine film in space, with excellent writing and a director who understood what Star Trek was.
Into Darkness is a dumb plot-hole ridden mindless action blockbuster film, and if that's The Wrath of Khan for this generation, then I guess that just shows how far this genre has fallen in terms of quality.
This kind of sums it up:
Except comparing scores showed no problems. There's was overlap in the measurable critical reception, and god knows they all did well enough in BO 'reception'. Eberts opinion on those movies didn't match yours, or some other peoples. That's all.
Which leads us to this:
I always laugh when I see this applied to Nick Meyer.
The man didn't (and apparently still doesn't) like TOS and TMP, and at the time that was all 'what Star Trek was.' When he was working on the final script, I don't think he'd even seen the series through (Bennett had). Meyer purposefully overhauled the whole thing to suit his personal taste, and in the process changed what the Trek franchise became.
Hence why so many people (including Roddenberry) had/have such a big fucking thorn in their ass about the guy.
My issue was not with your opinion on Transformers, STID or whatnot, and I'm certainly not going to get into the 5000th 'Old Trek v NuTrek' argument. (There's a special level of hell for people who still derail conversations into that recess of futility). I was criticzing the expression of that opinion via a judgement of its fans. For eg. Roger Ebert was 'wrong', fans of STID must love Transformers etc.
You could be talking about Fifty Shades of Grey fans, and I'd have said the same thing. That sort of comment is an attempt to lump individuals together so that their varied motives and opinions can easily and collectively be dismissed. In terms of defending an opinion, it's lazy and (most importantly) presumptive and judgemental.
Which leads us to this:
I always laugh when I see this applied to Nick Meyer.
The man didn't (and apparently still doesn't) like TOS and TMP, and at the time that was all 'what Star Trek was.' When he was working on the final script, I don't think he'd even seen the series through (Bennett had). Meyer purposefully overhauled the whole thing to suit his personal taste, and in the process changed what the Trek franchise became.
Hence why so many people (including Roddenberry) had/have such a big fucking thorn in their ass about the guy.
My issue was not with your opinion on Transformers, STID or whatnot, and I'm certainly not going to get into the 5000th 'Old Trek v NuTrek' argument. (There's a special level of hell for people who still derail conversations into that recess of futility). I was criticzing the expression of that opinion via a judgement of its fans. For eg. Roger Ebert was 'wrong', fans of STID must love Transformers etc.
You could be talking about Fifty Shades of Grey fans, and I'd have said the same thing. That sort of comment is an attempt to lump individuals together so that their varied motives and opinions can easily and collectively be dismissed. In terms of defending an opinion, it's lazy and (most importantly) presumptive and judgemental.
FWIW -- since someone brought it up earlier -- CBS cancelled Person of Interest but I guess they'll probably still have past seasons on All Access. They are rebooting MacGyver, though, so there's that.
Similar threads
