CBS Is Right To Make Us Pay For 'Star Trek: Discovery'
- Thread starter Qonundrum
- Start date
They may in small doses like if a character is popular bring them back but on a broader scale they are going to tell the story they want to tell. In fact IMO a lot of times what fans think they want are not would actually work the best on a TV show with the classic example being when shippers whant two characters together. In most cases, when it happens it doesn't work well.
Keep in mind that All Access is 3 years old-having started in 2014, and has already been working, drawing in close to 2 million subscribers thus far. Its success is not dependent on DISC. As far as CBS is concerned, the service is performing well for them.
Supergirl is owned by Warner Bros, and they have not allowed their "made for the major network series", to be streamed on those network's websites. So CBS couldn't just take the show and place their online service.
Market cap is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not a Star Trek show is "affordable". What matters is if the show brings in more money than it costs to produce. CBS feels that this is more likely to happen with streaming, particularly in the long-run as broadcast becomes less and less relevant. They have to start building the streaming service now if they want to survive.
Your quote is, as I said earlier, at best a misunderstanding of how things were paid for. We indirectly paid for Star Trek in the past by watching ads. The value of ads on broadcast TV is going down. There has to be some revenue stream to replace it.
It's funny that I've never heard fans of "The Good Wife" make these complaints about "The Good Fight". Maybe they're just not as intelligent as you are since they like programming that is "below the average Star Trek fan", or maybe they're happy that their loyalty has been rewarded with a spinoff of a show they like.[/QUOTE]
I would agree that fans of The Good Wife are probably not as smart as I am
There is ZERO value in paying to watch one tv program. Why are people in the United States being forced to pay for it? Are you truly happy about that? Is that a way to treat the loyal fans in the United States?
I'd agree if it wasn't so many having an issue that have zero issues with every other app they use, like myself.
Netflix, amazon, general streaming from websites works great.
there is something wrong with their app if their app works so spotty.
6 bucks a month for 4 or 5 episodes a week? that and the streaming of every other show on the network, doesn't sound too bad to me.
Last edited:
Yeah whatever, I never wrote a check or had to break out my credit card to watch Star Trek in the past. Thus, I got it for free... Sure, there were commercials, but I didn’t pay for them. I probably took a bathroom break when they came on.
I’m giggling (and so are the executives at CBS) at the comment about “directly showing support” by paying to watch Discovery. That is exactly what every $23 Billion corporation wants to hear.
Honestly are you happy about this? Do you truly want to pay to “directly show your support”?
As I stated before there is ZERO value in paying to watch one program on a crappy app with crappy programing that if I wanted to see (that programming) I could watch it for free on broadcast CBS.
As a Star Trek fan I hope Discovery is great, but I won’t be held hostage to purchase CBS All Access while every other country on earth gets to see Star Trek on a superior service.
So you don't pay for cable? You didn't pay to watch the movies?
You've never paid for Cable/Satellite TV service and still get everything over the air via HD aerial antenna?
I know I aint the one you asked your question to but I'm pretty sure star trek was on regular channels for as long as I can remember that didn't require cable.....
You wouldn't pay 1 cent to watch a TV show? Your time must be worthless and your electricity must be free.
If you bought or own an antenna and a television and pay utility bills, you've written a check or broke out a credit card to watch Star Trek (and/or any other television program available on traditional broadcast television.
At some point, every person who has ever watched Star Trek on television has paid to do so, although perhaps not as directly as what CBS is asking people to do now (but that's where the industry is headed).
you're WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overextending the concept.
Owning an antenna, and paying an electric bill isn't reasonably considered " I pay to watch this or that tv program " no one reasonable is making that leap when discussing free TV vs cable tv.
I'm really not.
There's no such thing as "Free TV".
If you are watching TV, even with an antenna, you paid to be able to do so. This is just a fact, and it's not "unreasonable" to point that out ( although it's a bit sad that I actually had to in order to cut through the BS of arguing that one has never paid money to watch Star Trek before).
First, everyone around the world is being forced to pay for it. Second, six dollars a month (or eleven in my case) is nothing compared to what I've spent on Star Trek over the years.
I had to have cable to bring in UPN in my area. That was eleven seasons of Star Trek that I had to pay out money in order to watch.
if I buy a car, and drive up the the indians / cardinals spring training ball park to see Guardians of the Galaxy without paying a ticket, like I did a couple weeks ago, just park, walk in and watch, it's considered free. No one is saying "well it wasn't free cause you paid for the gas and the car"
I aint the boss of you and can't tell you how to look at it.
But I think most people when discussing the difference between paying for cable, and using the rabbit ears know the difference.
Buying the tv set, and buying the antenna, and watching a show without paying FOR THE SHOW, is considered by most people, as not paying to watch the show.
Shouldn't the question be. Why pay for CBS-All_Access instead of Netflix,Hulu,HBO GO, Disney when they get started and etc. If everyone has their own streaming service why should anyone choose CBS over others with much better content? Is 1 show on All Access worth the 10 to 20 shows you can get on Netflix?
I know they want "Discovery" to be their "House of Cards" but at least Netflix was a brand name with good content already when they did that show. CBS is known for cookie cutter network stuff that appeals to a older audience that most likely has no interest in "Discovery." So if the show isn't going to win over your basic CBS watcher and if younger people would prefer to invest in more popular apps then doesn't that mean the show will fail to be a hit? CBS basically needs to change it's entire image or it needs to be happy with what it is and try make money off of them. I don't see how they can be both.
Jason
I know they want "Discovery" to be their "House of Cards" but at least Netflix was a brand name with good content already when they did that show. CBS is known for cookie cutter network stuff that appeals to a older audience that most likely has no interest in "Discovery." So if the show isn't going to win over your basic CBS watcher and if younger people would prefer to invest in more popular apps then doesn't that mean the show will fail to be a hit? CBS basically needs to change it's entire image or it needs to be happy with what it is and try make money off of them. I don't see how they can be both.
Jason
There is no difference; the notion of "getting TV for free" is exactly that: a notion.
You're missing the point
"if I buy a car, and drive up the the indians / cardinals spring training ball park to see Guardians of the Galaxy without paying a ticket, like I did a couple weeks ago, just park, walk in and watch, it's considered free. No one is saying "well it wasn't free cause you paid for the gas and the car"
On the same note using that same logic, getting anything for free isn't free as long as I have to drive a car to get there.
If I get a free ipod, well it's not free because you need electricity to charge it. If someone sends me a photo as a Christmas gift, it wasn't free cause I need light to see it, and the light costs money.
Yes if you own a tv, and the rabbit ears, and you're watching regular tv, you're not paying for it, it's just as free as that free movie I watched on the lawn of that ballpark.
I'm not missing your point; I'm rejecting it.
There are very few things in this world that are actually "free".
Similar threads
