It wasn't for lack of trying. He choked them and threatened to blow their head off with a fricking laser gun.
Trek 2017 TV Show Teaser
- Thread starter Trek16
- Start date
Yeah, but they're still tied up with trying to get DS9 released on Blu-Ray.
Peter Jackson has been retained to make the Special Edition release, adding at least 10 minutes to every Odo-morphing scene, 5 minutes of Quark rubbing his hands and cackling gleefully about profit, and half an hour of Sisko moping to each episode.
I would rather spend more money once on the physical DVDs/Blu-rays than any ephemeral streaming services. That is my plan for the new Star Trek series. I'll not watch commercials for a fee nor pay extra to omit them (except on optical media I own). Free commercials are okay.
Do you pay to watch commercials?
By the strictest definition, yes.
I will take the strictest definition to mean that one must purchase a TV (or analogous device) to watch commercials. And that is absurd to the discussion. If you mean some other strictest sense, please define.
Someone needs an economics lesson.
Time can be considered a resource, and it takes time to sit through commercials.
And if you're watching on cable, you have to pay money for the service, and still be subjected to commercials.
Kor
As I mentioned above, I pay to watch USA, TNT, SyFy, ESPN, and other cable channels. All those channels show commercials. So yes, I pay to watch commercials. Also, since my cable company pays the broadcast networks for the right to re-transmit their signal, I pay to watch commercials on NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, and CW.
Doesn't count unless you pay a premium for an individual channel within the cable subscription.
Of any individual channels besides CBS Access, which charge a premium above a basic bundle subscription, if any, and show commercials during the show? For example, I think HBO still does not show commercials during the show.
Tubi TV, for example, is a free streaming channel on my Roku. They show commercials - lots of them - but it is free. I don't have a problem with that. I would not view the channel if they charged me and continued to show commercials. Nor would I subscribe if they had a multi-tier subscription where there is a basic fee with commercials and a slightly higher fee without commercials. Free with commercials, or a single rate without commercials is all that I think is fair and acceptable.
It is obvious that I completely disregard broadcast TV, which is free (beyond the pedantic purchase of the TV and bundled basic cable subscription), and any non-premium channel such as USA, NBC, etc. Cable TV is a middleman at a level above the individual channel which is part of why people are unplugging to become more à la carte (with the ironic effect of approaching the the cable bill in cost).
Last edited:
Well, still rather pedantic, so I'll let it go. If you pay for a cable subscription you are paying to watch commercials in some way, shape and/or form. Similarly with Internet and other things. Others have pointed out the cable idea, and I think I will leave it at that.
CBS All Access is not new to this game nor is it doing anything different than any other service.
CBS All Access is not new to this game nor is it doing anything different than any other service.
Yes, they are.
Does HBO play commercials during the show?
I'm a little mystified by the willingness... no... advocacy by a consumer of showing commercials within premium content. A big advantage of cable used to be that the premium channels avoided the commercials of free broadcast TV.
Advocacy? I'm not advocating anything. I am merely pointing that there are plans and subscriptions that involve paying for commercials, even if it isn't framed in that way. I was not aware that this was news or somehow offensive.
I looked up the cost of HBO through my cable company is 15 dollars a month, in addition to Internet fees. And 15 dollars for just their streaming service. HBO may be ad free but also
So, 6 dollars for access to most of CBS shows and archives, even with commercials, doesn't really feel any different to me. In other words, not sure what the problem is.
HBO may be ad free but also... what?
Let's say HBO charges $15 per month without ads. Now they start putting ads in the content. Should they drop the price of a subscription since there is now ad subsidy (broadcast TV is free because it is supported by ads)? Should the price stay the same? Would you readily accept it if they also raised the price of your subscription? How about increasing the quantity of ad time across these permutations?
I suppose it's submissive advocacy by so readily accepting being charged for premium content with commercials. Acquiescence, seemingly for the sake of argument because it is difficult to imagine consumers saying it is okay to pay for a service and then have ads on top of that. I guess it gives the content companies a great excuse to fleece willing customers. The polling data here says customers will love it!
Let's say HBO charges $15 per month without ads. Now they start putting ads in the content. Should they drop the price of a subscription since there is now ad subsidy (broadcast TV is free because it is supported by ads)? Should the price stay the same? Would you readily accept it if they also raised the price of your subscription? How about increasing the quantity of ad time across these permutations?
I suppose it's submissive advocacy by so readily accepting being charged for premium content with commercials. Acquiescence, seemingly for the sake of argument because it is difficult to imagine consumers saying it is okay to pay for a service and then have ads on top of that. I guess it gives the content companies a great excuse to fleece willing customers. The polling data here says customers will love it!
I have a feeling this will not go well...
I think it's okay to have commercials when you are paying for a whole plethora of different tv-channels.
But if you have to pay for one singular channel it better be ad-free!
HBO is a bit more expensive, but they are ad-free and their content is amazing. CBS will have a hard time getting into that market. What besides Star Trek do they have to offer? A Good-wife spin-off? Yeah. If their content would be good enough, they could afford to be more expensive and ad-free. But as of now it seems their content simply comes from them pulling all their old stuff from Netflix and co. to CBS Acces, and basically want you to pay you for something that you already had before. This is a perfect example how to spur piracy... then again I won't have to deal with that since I'm not livin in the States.
*fully expecting CBS Access to fail and be little more than a glorified library of old television shows, and the new Star Trek moving to Neflix with a smaller budget for the second/third season*
I think it's okay to have commercials when you are paying for a whole plethora of different tv-channels.
But if you have to pay for one singular channel it better be ad-free!
HBO is a bit more expensive, but they are ad-free and their content is amazing. CBS will have a hard time getting into that market. What besides Star Trek do they have to offer? A Good-wife spin-off? Yeah. If their content would be good enough, they could afford to be more expensive and ad-free. But as of now it seems their content simply comes from them pulling all their old stuff from Netflix and co. to CBS Acces, and basically want you to pay you for something that you already had before. This is a perfect example how to spur piracy... then again I won't have to deal with that since I'm not livin in the States.
*fully expecting CBS Access to fail and be little more than a glorified library of old television shows, and the new Star Trek moving to Neflix with a smaller budget for the second/third season*
