The "I'm Not Paying" Confessional Thread
- Thread starter USS Triumphant
- Start date
One of the benefits of this is if you "cut the cord" and just use streaming services you like, the overall cost is much less. Using 4 services costs less than $40 here, and I was paying $160 for cable at one point.I already have Netflix in Australia so its all good however CBS just bought one of our commercial stations and said in the announcement they are looking at CBS All Access for Australia. Should be right for the first season of Discovery but will be interesting when season 2 comes around. That would mean i could need 3 pay tv subscriptions to watch everything I like.
Most TV is free (well, ad or licence supported, neither of which you really get a choice over) here, so multiple streaming services is racking up the cost for anyone who doesn't have Sky they can cancel. However, I view it as reduced dvd cost. I used to buy a lot of them, now it's only two to three a year. Still, if I really added it all up, TV licence, plus Netflix, plus Amazon prime, that's over 300 quid a year for TV even if you only have Freeview channels. If you wanted a Sky package as well on top, the costs mount pretty quickly.
What would you think "GoT in space" means, then?
Mother of Gorn, and incestuous Binar, I assume?...
"You know NOTHING, Jon Archer."
Will you be able to steam it at 4K resolution? (IE will CBSAA or any of the platforms it's available on offer/support 4K streaming?)
A shame. Due to compression artifcating and frames being ripped out to reduce streaming size, so much detail is removed that Blu-Ray discs upscaled look better. Which isn't to say 4K is worthless, there's a time and place, but when new technology delivers less yet costs more, aren't people supposed to feel concerned?
Okay, true, a film feel (24FPS) is more desirable, but when streaming rips out ten frames from a videotape (30FPS production) to where it feels far more jittery than film (24FPS), there's already a problem. Add in fuzzy lines, jagged lines, blotted details/overall blurriness, color bleed (especially red), color shift due to reduced palette brought by compression, and so on, 4K - allegedly double that of 1080P - ironically becomes the inferior choice, if one is buying because of the higher alleged resolution. And the more 4K streaming costs, the more one will probably find discs that have better bandwidth that don't magically disappear once you stop paying the monthly rent for the streaming service, faster internet provider necessary, and so on.
Never mind "HDR", which just alters the histogram - which can look good in some circumstances but that's no reason, major or sole or otherwise, to get a 4K TV.
On the plus side, 1080P sets worth getting now cost less than they had two years ago.
(Eventually 4k streaming will get there, and even 480i streaming from VT sources won't need to have frames yanked to the rip-roaring 15FPS people thought was the bee's knees back in 1997 and all...)
My internet speed sucks at the moment. New fiber cabling not due until the back end of 2018
Eventually, I will buy the 4k bluray, so I'm ready for that too. I'm told DSC MIGHT be aired in 4k on Netflix internationally, but know of no details.
I can already see the differences with 4K with better quality blurays and uprezzing. I've also watched native 4k content and it looks as good as I expect it to.
Bandwith is no problem, I can get 250mbps speed here and currently have 150.
RAMA
Bandwith is no problem, I can get 250mbps speed here and currently have 150.
RAMA
Gratuitous violence with no purpose, death at every turn, and nudity for tits and giggles.
What I actually hope it means: Season long story arcs consistent with contemporary production values (not just GoT, by the way), interesting and dynamic characters, with growth, as well as multi-dimension villains.
My concern is this: the "GoT in space" label will color perception and make people less likely to try it out, much the same way concerns about the "TV MA" label has other concerned. It's a perception thing, that has basically become a short hand for "Discovery sucks!"
Considering the popularity of Game of Thrones, that comparison will likely be the thing that drives non-Trek fans to sample the show.
People mistook the quotes about DSC being like Got. What they meant was a gamut of things like "edgier", serialized, big scale. They also meant that unlike past ST shows, where you knew everything would return to normal in the end, all bets are off. Regulars could die, and it allows for twists and turns in the plot. Later on some of the writers clarified the perception, and stated that the violence will not be gratuitous, although increased over past ST shows. As for nudity, I'd rather see naked bodies than people chopped in half, or splashing into huge explosions of blood like Fuller's "America Gods". I don't think we'll see too much of that in DSC.
RAMA
RAMA
Very nice summary.
I was just having lunch with my co-workers and some GOT fans mentioned how sad it is that the new star trek is supposed to be a cheap knock off of their favorite show. I didn't even mention it, apparently everyone (non Trekkies included) already knows that this is GOT in space (regardless if it is or isn't in reality) and their eyes aren't really lighting up with excitement.
In my opinion GOT in space might work and be interesting, GOT is a fantasy show, so nothing about it is grounded in reality, so you might as well have magical fantasy show set in space and it might be good. But it's not Star Trek. If that's what they're going after, they shouldn't have called it Star Trek.
Last edited:
Very little of Star Trek is grounded in reality.
On the contrary, the science of star trek has been explored by dozens of physicists in as many publications. That's what excites us, the audience, the realism of the so called technobabble. Comparative realism is what makes Star Trek great.
Kirk and Spock are what makes Star Trek great. I'm sorry, I see very little of this realism you talk about.
Similar threads
