The "I'm Not Paying" Confessional Thread

[cultcross]

Indeed. For those interested in such things, Krauss's The Physics of Star Trek is a good overview of how the science and tech depicted in Trek is pretty much impossible in the way in which it is depicted.

Kor

Indeed - Andre Bormanis, the Berman era science consultant wrote a book on the subject too, which will be quite outdated these days but was entertaining enough at the time. Star Trek writers wrote stories, and then got someone like Bormanis to find a tech-the-tech concept that would do what they wanted it to do. Very few Trek stories went the other way or yielded to physics if the answer wasn't what they wanted. Trek is loosely based at best on real world science, and in fairness, so is most of Game of Thrones. And when it isn't, there's certainly little in it that we haven't seen on Trek with a different label.

Besides, this 'GOT in space' thing is nonsense anyway.

 

[BillJ]

Indeed - Andre Bormanis, the Berman era science consultant wrote a book on the subject too, which will be quite outdated these days but was entertaining enough at the time. Star Trek writers wrote stories, and then got someone like Bormanis to find a tech-the-tech concept that would do what they wanted it to do. Very few Trek stories went the other way or yielded to physics if the answer wasn't what they wanted. Trek is loosely based at best on real world science, and in fairness, so is most of Game of Thrones. And when it isn't, there's certainly little in it that we haven't seen on Trek with a different label.

Besides, this 'GOT in space' thing is nonsense anyway.

So many of the complaints are coming down to "Trek isn't doing what it has done before", yet like the Abrams films, Trek seems to be doing pretty much what it has always done. With the exception of the season arc, but... that was done during Enterprise season three.

Everything new is old again!

 

[fireproof78]

Which popular science literature on Star Trek tech have you closely acquainted yourself with?

I read a great article about how Khan's augmented blood could actually work.

I wasn't aware that Star Trek's scientific accuracy was the cornerstone upon which all of Star Trek was built.

 

[nutshell]

Long time lurker, first time poster. I must be exactly who CBS is targeting because I will not hesitate to purchase CBS All Access so I can watch the show. I cut the cable a few years ago. I currently have Netflix and Amazon. I dabbled in Hulu awhile back. I joined HBO Now for a free 30 day trial so I could see what Game of Thrones is all about. I'm hooked and will likely pay for a couple months to get all caught up on GoT. I'd much rather pay for these subscriptions here and there as needed than have a huge cable bill for hundreds of channels I don't need. To each his own!

 

[dahj]

GOT is a fantasy show, so nothing about it is grounded in reality

Have you seen GoT?

Its whole shtick is that it's grounded in characters, political intrigue, medieval warfare and historical realism rather than straight-up fantasy. Heck, the magical aspects are something that even the in-universe characters often don't believe in...

 

[Beagleman]

I'd say over the years ST has done a lot, a lot more fantasy than GoT. (At least the technology on GoT is plausible.)

 

[gamer1]

If someone says GoT in space, that will mean:

More character development then ever before.
Stronger stories.
Stories that might not always end up on a happy turn.
Events that will actually matter in the long run.
MUCH better backstories.
Emphasis on the story instead of the "point" of the episode.
Great casting
Great CGI
Great costumes, settings, budget.
Realistic stories in their setting.
No technobabble.
No rediculous Aliens of the week or a silly alien who will be the "outside view on humanity" on the ship.(Looking at you Neelix)
Great story arcs

Yeah I think I can handle some violence and a sex scene if I get the above stuff in a Star Trek show and I think that's exactly what's needed to make Star Trek popular again.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

If someone says GoT in space, that will mean:

No rediculous Aliens of the week or a silly alien who will be the "outside view on humanity" on the ship.(Looking at you Neelix)

Aliens of the week are debatable at best. Nothing like that exists on Game of Thrones because GoT exists on a small section of a single world. There isn't room for anything to show up and disappear that easily. Star Trek, existing in the depths of space, very logically should involve some encounters that don't necessarily have any follow-up.

And Game of Thrones is full of outside view characters: Danaerys and Jon are outsiders among Westeros politics who take a very different view of how things should work. Sam Tarly is an outside view character - the good but weak man surrounded by soldiers. Almost every wildling is an outside view character who repeatedly talks about what they think of the Westerosi. The Dothraki tend to do the same. Missandei is an outside view character who literally does the ST shtick of not understanding Westerosi culture at all, because she's from the other side of the world. Tyrion is the character who gives you a view of what it's like to be a constant target in Westeros. Etc, etc.

 

[gamer1]

Even if people like Jon, Tyrion or even MIssandei are characters who are some sort of "outside view". They all have not only great back stories, but are also EXTREMELY important to the story. Whereas the latter characters of the Star Trek shows were fluff, and had very lose backstory at best. The difference being, that Neelix et al were created for one purpose, whereas if you think Missandei is a character that has an outside view, that is secondary for her purpose to the story. But that's not saying you can't have good characters on Star Trek, it was mainly Voyager and Enterprise that lost the ball on this. Spock, Data and Especially Odo were all great characters and very important to the story.

 

[SPCTRE]

Yeah I think I can handle some violence and a sex scene if I get the above stuff in a Star Trek show and I think that's exactly what's needed to make Star Trek popular again.

a little incest now and then will spice things up for sure

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Even if people like Jon, Tyrion or even MIssandei are characters who are some sort of "outside view". They all have not only great back stories, but are also EXTREMELY important to the story. Whereas the latter characters of the Star Trek shows were fluff, and had very lose backstory at best. The difference being, that Neelix et al were created for one purpose, whereas if you think Missandei is a character that has an outside view, that is secondary for her purpose to the story. But that's not saying you can't have good characters on Star Trek, it was mainly Voyager and Enterprise that lost the ball on this. Spock, Data and Especially Odo were all great characters and very important to the story.

Wasn't trying to defend Voy or Ent. I agree Spock, Data and Odo were all very well done. I'd throw in Kira and Worf, too, albeit to a lesser extent.

 

[Cinema Geekly]

I won't be paying for it. As much as I love Trek I don't want to have to pay for it twice (the blu-rays will eventually be added to my collection) but we are already paying for Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu and we would have to scrap one of those to fit in CBSAA into our monthly budget and CBS already has a number of their shows on all of these other outlets (not that I'm overly interested in them) but basically it comes down to "not worth it for one show" but its also not worth it for CBS only content when the other services offer such a huge variety.

 

[seigezunt]

As it turns out, I may be on both sides of the fence. I'm all in and supporting the new show, and have signed up for CBSAA, but I've noticed the image quality is pretty crappy on my TV because of my DSL. Which is surprising to me because I've always been told that Netflix is a bandwidth hog, and I get Netflix just fine.

So now I'm pondering some way of acquiring or recording the show from some better connection so I can play it back on my TV. I'd prefer not to have to watch it on my computer.

The irony would be pirating it while subscribed to CBSAA at the same time. Hopefully I can figure something else out. Upgrading to a better connection is not an option for a number of reasons including financial.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I don't understand. Why is the picture quality better on your computer than on you TV?

 

[seigezunt]

I don't understand. Why is the picture quality better on your computer than on you TV?

It's more that I could take my laptop somewhere with a better internet connection.

 

[BillJ]

As it turns out, I may be on both sides of the fence. I'm all in and supporting the new show, and have signed up for CBSAA, but I've noticed the image quality is pretty crappy on my TV because of my DSL. Which is surprising to me because I've always been told that Netflix is a bandwidth hog, and I get Netflix just fine.

So now I'm pondering some way of acquiring or recording the show from some better connection so I can play it back on my TV. I'd prefer not to have to watch it on my computer.

The irony would be pirating it while subscribed to CBSAA at the same time. Hopefully I can figure something else out. Upgrading to a better connection is not an option for a number of reasons including financial.

I've noticed a quality difference between All-Access on my Xbox One when compared to Netflix/Hulu.

 

[galad2003]

As it turns out, I may be on both sides of the fence. I'm all in and supporting the new show, and have signed up for CBSAA, but I've noticed the image quality is pretty crappy on my TV because of my DSL. Which is surprising to me because I've always been told that Netflix is a bandwidth hog, and I get Netflix just fine.

So now I'm pondering some way of acquiring or recording the show from some better connection so I can play it back on my TV. I'd prefer not to have to watch it on my computer.

The irony would be pirating it while subscribed to CBSAA at the same time. Hopefully I can figure something else out. Upgrading to a better connection is not an option for a number of reasons including financial.

Nah - Netflix does a phenomenal job at low bandwidth. My room mates will slam my internet sometimes and if I try to stream Netflix, Youtube or Amazon Netflix is the only one watchable.

 

[Tesophius]

Have you seen GoT?

Its whole shtick is that it's grounded in characters, political intrigue, medieval warfare and historical realism rather than straight-up fantasy. Heck, the magical aspects are something that even the in-universe characters often don't believe in...

I have, but perhaps you haven't. It's a magical fantasy world full of gods. It's not medieval at all, it's not even Earth. You seem utterly confused.

 

[Tesophius]

If someone says GoT in space, that will mean:

More character development then ever before.
Stronger stories.
Stories that might not always end up on a happy turn.
Events that will actually matter in the long run.
MUCH better backstories.
Emphasis on the story instead of the "point" of the episode.
Great casting
Great CGI
Great costumes, settings, budget.
Realistic stories in their setting.
No technobabble.
No rediculous Aliens of the week or a silly alien who will be the "outside view on humanity" on the ship.(Looking at you Neelix)
Great story arcs

.

Viewers like you are the reason why this Star Trek has a high chance of failing.

 

[cultcross]

It's a magical fantasy world full of gods

Full of people who believe in gods, but so is ours. Only the Lord of Light has ever been shown to have any real demonstrable power. The Seven are bullshit, the Many Faced God is just a personification of death, the Drowned God is, as far as we know, bullshit, and the Old Gods are just, well, old. There's no indication they're real either. Magical powers have certainly been seen, but nothing that doesn't have a parallel in Star Trek, and many of the characters dismiss magic as either historical, or nonsense.
While yes it isn't set in the real medieval Earth, it is heavily based on medieval Europe in storyline, politics, characters and setting. The main inspirations include the Wars of the Roses.

You seem utterly confused.

Viewers like you are the reason why this Star Trek has a high chance of failing.

Please keep the personal remarks out of your replies. It's fine to disagree, but disagree with the content.