How’s that?
How is/isn't Discovery Star Trek?
- Thread starter seigezunt
- Start date
No, just the nature of the business. You paid through your time by watching commercials. But, it is quite accurate to say that TV was never free.
I don’t know if this is what Corporal CorporalClegg meant by television not being free. If it is, it’s disingenous at best. The fact is that there is was no direct financial cost to watch television.
But please, tell me again how it’s perfectly normal that you’re paying $6 a month for each of 42 different channels and viewing services for the family. Or, if you’re Jeff Bezos, for each of the 1000 channels in the lineup.
Last edited:
See I don’t agree that it is consistent. We can infer why Spock doesn’t mention Sarek. We can infer why he didn’t mention Sybok. As yet we can’t infer why he never mentioned Michael. We don’t have enough information yet. We don’t know that Michael is consistent with the House Sarek family dynamic. YMMV of course, but I prefer a more realistic and deeper narrative is all.
Normal changes. Hardly a standard to apply when the viewing habits of humanity have changed substantially in the last ten years.
Spock doesn't discuss his human side. Again, consistent.
Doesn't make it less normal. Doesn't change the fact that TV has always had a cost associated with it, either through commercials, taxes or equipment. We like to believe that things are all free but their not. It's just now we can actually see and decide the cost for ourselves. We have more control and more choices.
I'll not understand how having more choice and control is worse.
Because television has not had a viewing cost previously, and that’s the cost to which Sirtis, critics, and I have been referring. Which you know but chose to distract from.
Because there is neither choice nor control when you can’t afford the service.
And affording this new cost dis-affords you, say, healthcare, or an annual trip abroad.
Because there is neither choice nor control when you can’t afford the service.
And affording this new cost dis-affords you, say, healthcare, or an annual trip abroad.
Yes, it had a cost. Just not in the same way. I know what you are referring to but I disagree about the actual facts of the matter rather than perception.
In essence, what is being argued for is ignorance. I don't want to know the cost just let me watch my entertainment.
Also, the healthcare argument is disingenuous. People are always going to make their choices regarding their finances based upon needs and wants. And Star Trek (or entertainment) is not a need.
For about the last 35 years, it did have a cost. Cable. Unless you had reasons not to, most households viewed their television through cable which had a definite cost. We are moving to a cord cutting frame where you pay for the stuff you actually want to watch instead of a bundle of 500 stations you actually watch 10 of.
Sarek and Sybok don’t comprise his human side. If you mean his family there’s a superficial consistency there, yes. But the reasons in each case are easy to infer. With the exception of Michael - because we don’t have all the facts yet.
If Michael is part of his human side of the family then yes, consistent. Because Spock doesn't acknowledge that side of himself.
There is precedent for both and I don't need any more information to make my inferences.
Since Spock’s human side consists only of his mother (pre-Michael) then I suppose not talking about her is consistent with him not mentioning his mother. But not mentioning his father and step brother would count as the Vulcan side of the family.
But either way, I’d just prefer less of a superficial explanation is all.
But, Spock has always been rather superficial regarding his human side. He takes it as a personal insult if regarded in a human way, he does not acknowledge his human mother unless it is necessary or under the influence.
As for the Vulcan side, Sybox would be a source of shame, and he has a conflict with Sarek. Spock may also extend that conflict to Michael as he might regard her as receiving preferential treatment.
Again, there is enough information to infer reasons that are already consistent with Spock's character. I can understand the desire for an explanation, but I don't see it as a need. Certainly whatever explanation that is presented will still be the source of much consternation.
Broadcast TV is free because viewers are not customers, they are the product. Advertisers are the customers.
That’s not true. People always knew what it “cost” and that wasn’t he problem. The problem is what it costs.
The cost of healthcare has skyrocketed far past wage increase and inflation. It’s now a big business that’s a proxy, dare I say, Eugenics War.
No, it’s a NEW cost.
For over double that, the networks have been free. As was Star Trek in syndication.
Cable was also less than the $6 a channel we’re heading into now, and it allowed for less myopic culture and thought.
I watch about twenty different channels and the others in my household about another twenty. 40 x 6 would be $240 in cable alone, let alone Netflix, Hulu, Prime, etc. There goes the annual trip to Lake Tahoe, kids. You can look at a tree on the Nature Channel.
I don't know what magic cable you use, but when we cut the cord 5 years ago for cable and internet our bill was $180 with Time Warner, it was easily that for cable alone with Direct TV before that. We now have Hulu, Netflix, YouTube TV, and CBS AA and pay FAR less than we were before, because even when we had cable, we were still subscribers of Hulu and Netflix. So all we added was YouTube TV and CBS. That gives us literally all the channels we need. The channels not available (Viacom) we can get FOR FREE from their apps. We were ALWAYS paying for TV. The only Star Trek show that you could argue people did not pay for directly in some way was TOS. By the time TNG came out in '87, cable penetration was very widespread.
No, people didn't know what it cost. People assumed a lot that because they didn't pay anything up front that it didn't cost, which is inaccurate, to say the least.
Irrelevant to this conversation.
No, it's an up front cost.
Absurdity. Who takes an annual trip to Lake Tahoe. Also, false equivalency, since it assumes that some how entertainment costs were never budgeted before.
Free in terms of up front cost. Not free in terms of time or choice.
Similar threads
- Locked
