That isn't what she said.
How is/isn't Discovery Star Trek?
- Thread starter seigezunt
- Start date
That isn't what she said.
Pretty much this. The idea that it never cost the consumer something is just ignorance of how it works. It's like saying radio is free. Perhaps its splitting hairs but having encountered plenty of people expecting media for free I can't help but wonder if there is a failing of understanding how media works.
Yep. Some folks have trouble comprehending what they've read.
No, just plain ol' facts.
First of all, televisions themselves were never free. Back in the day, the really good ones cost bucks. For the extra one, so that us kids could watch Star Trek when mom and dad wanted to watch something else, we had to settle for a black and white. The good televisions still cost non-trivial amounts of money, but it's easier for one person to move them around the house than it used to be.
Which brings us to the point that watching TV entails opportunity cost in terms of how to use one's house, but I digress.
Then, there's the electricity. And aerials cost money.
Then, there are the ads which one had to endure with no fast forward or pause back in the day, and the funding for public TV (donations and subsidies).
These days, if I don't pay my cable bill, they'll cut me off. I understand that satellite TV has a similar arrangement.
TV never has been free, and it still isn't.
Evidence Discovery is Star Trek:
1. It's called Star Trek
2. It's made by people who own the license to Star Trek and they call it Star Trek
3. It takes place in the Star Trek universe
Evidence Discovery is not Star Trek:
1. Some people on the internet do not like it
2. It's not free
3. Something something SJWs
1. It's called Star Trek
2. It's made by people who own the license to Star Trek and they call it Star Trek
3. It takes place in the Star Trek universe
Evidence Discovery is not Star Trek:
1. Some people on the internet do not like it
2. It's not free
3. Something something SJWs
Immediately hilarious, because she is not someone to give a damn about this kind of dispute, lovably so.
1. Lacks charm
If charm is an essential for it to be "real Star Trek," I think some of the more recent shows aren't going to fare well.
Only the last 30 seconds of TOS episodes where Kirk, Spock, and McCoy make a joke is canon.
Tilly and Culber aren't charming?
Whelp, that gets rid of TNG Season 1 then.
Leave a thread for a couple days... I'm going to reply to this one only:
This has been addressed upthread. People are not annoyed at, my God(!), having to buy a television or, mon dieu(!), watching commercials. Nor are they at having to pay extra for some premium channels. Trek could be on HBO; that's not the point. But when every channel is a premium channel (costs extra) that adds up. If maintaining the same standard of living is harder because TPTB have found that people, lacking other recourse, will pay for it, that's not kosher.
This has been addressed upthread. People are not annoyed at, my God(!), having to buy a television or, mon dieu(!), watching commercials. Nor are they at having to pay extra for some premium channels. Trek could be on HBO; that's not the point. But when every channel is a premium channel (costs extra) that adds up. If maintaining the same standard of living is harder because TPTB have found that people, lacking other recourse, will pay for it, that's not kosher.
It's all Star Trek. If we pick and choose based on what we don't like, where does the line get drawn? Not that it would matter, since no one would even agree anyway.
So, yeah. It's all Trek. That's not up for debate. Whether or not it's all Good Trek, on the other hand, can be debated all day, all night, all week, all month, all year, all forever.
So, yeah. It's all Trek. That's not up for debate. Whether or not it's all Good Trek, on the other hand, can be debated all day, all night, all week, all month, all year, all forever.
i think it gets rid of most of tng. It was many things but charming wasn't one of them
Actually, that's untrue; speak only for yourself please. I am always annoyed at the presence of commercials, which both occupy my time and in many instances imply the presence of cuts in the programs I watch. As for being annoyed at having to buy a TV, I am annoyed that high-end TVs aren't at a price level where I can justify the expenditure. Do I whine about it? No. But that's not the same thing.
A little math shows that a new TV every five years costs about as much as CBSAA, but still way less than cable. Of course, that's not the way TVs are paid for. There's actually a lot to be annoyed about all around.
I don't know what your point is, but the point that TV isn't free even without CBSAA has been more than settled as far as I'm concerned. At no point did I say that paying for CBSAA shouldn't be a problem.
The point is that you ALWAYS had to buy a TV or watch commercials. Even when you're paying for premium channels, you're watching commercials for the channel. What's DIFFERENT now, is that you're also paying for the content.
And it's not premium content; it's network television. (And it's also cheaper and easier now to create content than ever, so networks can product content even with lesser viewership.)
Another poster above said that he didn't know that network television was free once upon a time. Well, it was. For everyone. The content was paid for by selling ad time (commercials). You ONLY paid for cable.
We've got new generations of people thinking that you have to pay for things that don't need to be paid for. Who does that profit?
It's not just entertainment. I brought up healthcare. The costs in healthcare have skyrocketed in recent years, not having anything to do with inflation or even an increase in life expectancy for it. It's pure price gauging, for no added return.
You mentioned televisions being expensive. Although that's true, because TV now competes with computers for viewers' eyeballs, the cost of TV's has actually gone down in recent years. And why shouldn't it? It isn't a new technology. What's interesting though is that the price of food has gone up. Again, nothing to do with inflation. Again, because people will pay for it.
So if you're paying more for entertainment, healthcare, and food, yes, you're going to be perturbed at the state of things now. a. days.
I'm only perturbed by two of those as they are necessities. Entertainment can cost as much as it wants-I don't need it. Let the market bear it out as the market has changed.
Except it's always cost money to watch TV. That's been put to bed. It may have been "free," but not everybody could afford it.
Is this part of a CBS All Access discussion that had been going on before?Except it's always cost money to watch TV. That's been put to bed. It may have been "free," but not everybody could afford it.
Those for it arguing that the experience of watching TV always cost some time and money in laces vs those against saying that’s nonsense because the money it cost wasn’t the issue, but the ADDITIONAL money being added now behind a NEW paywall is? I just don’t see how this discussion has continued this long.
In the 80’s you could buy a shitty TV if you were working class and watch it for free. No television provider. I don’t buy the argument that TVs cost so much money that it made them something beyond the reach of as many people as it’s being argued here. And the nuisance of commercials (which nobody likes) proves that TV costs money, just like CBS All Access. No.
Further the shitty TV from the 80’s could last a couple decades, like three of ours did; forget the 5-year lifespan of a fancy one mentioned upthread, if that’s accurate. Hell, we still have a working Frigidaire brand refrigerator in the basement that we bought 45 years ago.
Slightly off topic: if we’re all getting our “facts” and cultural touchstones from different sources, talking past each other without meaning to, are we a society any more? Are we able to communicate with each other in meaningful, efficient ways?
Similar threads
- Locked
