scenario

Senior Member
  • Content count

    1,113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by scenario

  1. I hate the idea of a movie with the captains. I kind of like the idea of a movie or miniseries set 15 years after voyager with a mixture of minor characters from NG, DS9 and Voy. Avoid the main characters so no Picard, Data, Sisko, 7 of 9 or Janeway. Also eliminate any character whose dead in the show (Jadzia) or should be (Kes). Then pick one or two characters from each of the show. You could even have a cameo from TOS minor character in the form of a video message.
  2. CBS has three choices with ST. Put it on CBS and have it canceled after one season because it doesn't make enough money for what it costs. Sell or lease the rights to a third party and hope that they can do a better job. Or put it on all access where it doesn't have to make a profit with one or two showings because they can keep making money on it for years. When it comes to the actual show, I'm not making any decisions about it until I see it with my own eyes.
  3. CBSAA is available as an internet-based service right now. My point is that it's looking like all TV service other than local broadcast could be internet based in a few years. The cable company's business model is that they have a local monopoly and they get 75% of the people in their area using their service and they buy channels and set prices based on volume. About 20% of people never got cable. So they had around 80% of people signed up and they charged them through the nose. People now can get a much cheaper service. The industry as a whole is losing customers. If the percentage of people using the service get's too low, they'll get into a death cycle of raising rates/losing more customers or cutting channels/losing customers. It may take 20 years but CBS wants to keep their options open if cable companies start going out of the tv business.
  4. The business model of cable TV as it stands now is unsustainable. More and more people are cutting the cord on cable. As more people use internet TV like Roku and less use traditional cable, the cable companies will be forced to either raise their price,(creating more cable cutters) or drop expensive channels, (Like ESPN, creating more cable cutters) or totally change their business practices. What happens to the people who Don't want to or can't subscribe to CBS All Access when their cable company decides to go out of the TV business and concentrate exclusively on their internet providing business? CBS is taking a risk but the alternatives are being attached to a dying platform, or joining another platform like Hulu and lose their individuality and name or being just an over the air channel and lose most of their customer base or do what they did and create their own platform. To create a new platform they need programs. Star Trek fits the bill. It has a solid fan base. It is a show that doesn't quite fit on a regular network. It's a show that is better off on a network that can afford to care as much about quality than ratings. A really good show that they own outright can draw new fans to the new platform for years. A crappy, flash in the pan, high rating success is great for regular TV but terrible for an internet based TV.(How many people would subscribe to CBS All Access to see reruns of one of the many reality shows.) Smaller more steady paying viewership with high quality shows is the way to go. The show doesn't half to pay for itself with one or two showings when you're going to be showing it for decades. CBS is taking a long view. Discovery is not by itself going to make the network. It's a start. Discovery, American Football and a couple of other new shows make the channel legitimate. I cut the cord a few months ago and my monthly bill went from $100 to $25. I have a difficult time getting CBS over the air. Even if I spend another $7.00 for all access, I'm still saving a lot of money over the old system.
  5. I liked the show. I only like around 5 shows on TV now so I feel the loss. But I'm not super unhappy. The BBC used it as an experiment and showed it in unusual times and places so it's not that surprising that it failed. It's a lot like Firefly that way. Put it on odd times and places and then act surprised when it doesn't make a lot of money. The show itself was good not great but it showed a lot of promise. It killed off several characters and as an ensemble show no one character was crucial to the show so there was a real feeling of danger for the characters since they could really die in the show.
  6. From http://www.doctorwhonews.net/ "The BBC has announced the cast for the new Doctor Who Spin off, Class, as the series begins filming today. The eight part series will star young new talents Greg Austin, Fady Elsayed, Sophie Hopkins and Vivian Oparah. They will be joined by Katherine Kelly, as she takes the role of a teacher and powerful new presence at Coal Hill School. Time has looked at your faces now. And time never forgets… What if your planet was massacred and you were the sole survivor? What if a legendary figure out of space and time found you a place to hide? But what if the things that want to kill you have tracked you down? And worst of all, what if you haven't studied for your A-Levels…? Like all sixth formers, these four Coal Hill School students have hidden secrets and desires. They are facing their own worst fears, navigating a life of friends, parents, school work, sex, sorrow - and possibly the end of existence. Coal Hill School has been a part of the Doctor Who Universe since the very first episode, but that has come at a price. All the time-travelling over the years has caused the very walls of space and time to become thin. There’s something pressing in on the other side, something waiting for its chance to kill everyone and everything, to bring us all into Shadow. Fear is coming, tragedy is coming, war is coming. Prepare yourselves, Class is coming.Class creator Patrick Ness, says: We searched far and wide for this amazing cast, fantastic actors who understand what we’re aiming for with this show. And how lucky we are to get Katherine Kelly! She’s been stunning in Happy Valley, The Night Manager and Mr Selfridge, just wait until you see her here.Steven Moffat, Class and Doctor Who Executive Producer, says: There’s nothing more exciting than meeting stars that nobody’s heard of yet. We had the read through of the first few episodes last week, and there was a whole row of them. Coal Hill School has been part of Doctor Who since the very first shoot in 1963, but this new show is anything but history. Class is dark and sexy and right now. I’ve always wondered if there could be a British Buffy - it’s taken the brilliant Patrick Ness to figure out how to make it happen.Class is described as a young adult series set in contemporary London. It is scary, funny, and as painful and sharp as youth. It will also shine a light on a whole new corner of the Whoniverse. Damian Kavanagh, Controller, BBC Three, adds: I can’t wait for Class to arrive on BBC Three. BBC Three will always back best young British talent.The series starts filming today and will premiere online on BBC Three this year. Meet the Cast of Class in 360°
  7. A communicator on a planet has more in common with a satellite phone than a cell phone. It's easy to imagine that it has to be bigger and bulkier because it's signal has to go hundreds or even thousands of miles instead of just a few miles to the nearest tower. It also has to be tough enough to work in a lot of different conditions from very cold to very hot. It won't work in a vacuum (no sound waves) but it has to be able to survive there if necessary. It's easy to make up a decent reason why the communicator looks so bulky. Especially if they're using the equivalent of an i-pad on the bridge. They had a bulky version of an i-pad in the early TOS episodes that Yeoman Rand had Kirk sign. If you have both it looks more like there is a reason for the communicators to be so bulky. Thank you for using my warp 75 example.
  8. It seems to make sense to have a thread for people who aren't interested in Discovery and want to say why they aren't. Or people who want to assume that the new Star Trek is going to be bad because of 2 seconds of a promo seemed wrong to them. I really don't have a problem with that because I do the same thing with other programs that I'm only slightly interested in. It makes sense to me to have two main threads. The optimistic thread where there is concern about the way the show is going but hopes it will work out. And the pessimistic thread for people who've basically burned out on Trek and just assume the new show will be a disaster.
  9. I actually think that the B&W episodes in lost and space were the best ones. Later ones became almost a parody of science fiction. I brought this up because the primitive looking Enterprise is basically the same thing as it being shot in B&W. We don't expect that new shows be shot in B&W. We don't expect them to use the same type 50 year old cameras so it will look the same. We shouldn't expect shows shot in 2017 to look like shows shot in 1964.
  10. TOS started in 1966. If it started just a few years earlier it would have been shown in black and white. I wonder how many people now would be complaining because the only real Star Trek is in black and white.
  11. 1) TOS - I grew up watching it and I still like it best 2) DS9 - Best story telling. There's no automatic reboot 3) TNG - Great characters - Stories as good as TOS - A captain who acts more like a real captain would 4) Ent - Some good to very good episodes. Weak at times. Good character development 5) Voy - Recycled stories - Little character development - A Captain whose totally inconsistent.
  12. I'm liking the idea of a reboot in the prime line more. Keep most of the ideas. The tech is mostly the same but looks better. The aliens are basically the same. I don't see why the changed the Klingons, except if it is explicitly said that they are not typical Klingons for some in story reason. If you have a reboot, you get rid of the problems of contradicting a throwaway line in episode y of series z. I'd still prefer it be set later.
  13. They're kind of stuck because of the advances in technology in the last 15 years. There's no way to make Discovery 10 years before TOS without either ignoring how TOS really looked or assume that the audience can suspend their disbelief and believe that TOS always looked like this. But its not a whole lot better if you set it 15 years after the series ended. I doubt that Star Fleet and all of the other groups completely upgrades every ship in 15 years. Large ships today like Cruise ships and large military ships last 30 or 40 years. At least some of Star Fleet will last even longer. If you want to make it realistic, you're going to have a mix of ships. Some like the NCC 1701E and others like Discovery. How much would Klingon ships change in 15 Years? Not every species is going to want to completely change their ships every few years. So you end up with established fans saying wow, a real Klingon Cruiser and new fans saying how'd that piece of junk get into this show. You really need to make a pretty big leap forward if you want to redesign everything. 100 years or more.
  14. I think the problem isn't just the fact that it's setting, its also time. Star Trek hasn't been on the air for more than 10 years. Technology, especially computer technology has come a long way since 2005. In 2005, Sony introduced a cell phone that could also played music!!! 12 years later a $10 burner phone can do that and a lot more. Because of the massive changes in computer technology since even Enterprise went off the air, ST technology just looks backwards to anyone younger than about 30. There has to be an upgrade in the look of ST no matter when it was set. Even if you set it 15 years after the last ST episode was set, there would still have to be major changes in the look. To me, the look is unimportant, how it works is. If transporters in Kirk's day can't do something, then transporters shouldn't be able to do it in the Discovery era. I sometimes read older science fiction. Some of the stories from the 1940's and 50's are good but they kick me out of the story when they say that they have to change the vacuum tubes on the spaceship. Vacuum tubes were phased out in the 60's. I don't want younger views of ST kicked out of the story because of how it looks. My sympathies Robin
  15. I've watched ST since the 70's reruns of TOS and I've got no problem with the change in the look. TOS had hand held flip phone communicators, Dsc has hand held flip phone communicators. Who cares if the newer ones look better? The Klingons look different. No big deal. There's already two types of Klingons, why not three? What I want to see is if the Klingons act like Klingons. TOS Klingons and the NG Klingons are similar but not really the same. As long as the new Klingons act similar to the older Klingons I'm fine with it. What I don't want to see is the new ships traveling at warp 75 or they have new technology we haven't seen before. I really don't care if the ships and equipment look different as long as they function the same.
  16. Welcome aboard
  17. It looks promising. My favorite ST series is TOS and I don't have any problem with the update. As long as they have actual communicators and tricorders rather than some kind of ring or something, I've got no problem.
  18. At least now I know that Mudd is a guest appearance rather than a semi regular. I guess I could stand the character for one episode if he is the villain and they don't try to make sexism funny again.
  19. I have the remote control for my DVR burner with TV tuner and a second one for my Roku. I have to turn the TV on and off by hand but that's not really a problem. The reason why I don't want a remote is because many TV's with remotes do away with controls on the TV. So if I want to adjust anything on the TV and the remote is broken, I have to buy a new remote and wait a few weeks to watch TV. I've had stuff like this happen more than once. Turn TV on. No sound because it is muted. Look for remote to turn sound back on. Can't find. Look on tv for sound controls. No controls on tv. All controls are on remote. Tear room apart looking for remote. Can't find. Meanwhile show I've been dying to watch for three months is playing mute in the background. I am recording the show but with no sound. Finally, three days later I find the remote in a pants pocket in the dirty clothes hamper when I go to wash clothes. I haven't bought a new TV in years and have no intention of buying a new one until the old one breaks.
  20. I can see it. I've gone months without turning on my TV. If you almost never turn on the tv but want to be able to watch one or two shows or have it for an emergency, why would you want to spend money buying a newer fancier one? I'm one of the weird people who prefers a tv without a remote control. Try to find one of them with a newer set.
  21. It's not really love for low tech. I find it difficult to focus on a hi def picture and trying to do so for more than a few minutes at a time gives me pretty severe headaches.When I try to watch a high def picture its like the picture goes in and out of focus. Its very disorientating. I can look at a computer that's close up but looking at a picture further away frequently gives me a migraine.
  22. The one thing I hate about this is everything going HD. I find that HD channels give me a headache. I don't know what I'm going to do when my old analog tv finally breaks down. My wife has a new digital tv and I can't watch it for more than 5 or 10 minutes at a time.
  23. When cable companies were first set up, they were set up to deliver TV. To get access to TV channels they had to pay a basic fee and a fee per customer. So if Disney charges $1 million per year plus $20 per customer, the cable company cannot offer the service a la cart because it has to spread the cost of the $1 million dollar fee over as many customers as possible to make a profit. But the media companies know that the cable companies are between a rock and a hard place. If they canceled Disney, and all of its services, they will lose customers. They cannot make a profit without enough customers. The company also had to charge enough of a fee to keep the infrastructure going. Internet is a different market. Delivering internet service is a fixed cost for a certain area. So if it costs the company $100 million dollars a year to maintain the infrastructure in a certain area and there are a hundred thousand households in this area that buy internet service from them, they have to charge $100 per year, per customer to break even. No third party can force them to raise their prices. They are now a utility with a small but nearly certain profit margin. They're costs will rise and they will have to raise their prices but they are at the whim of the marketplace like every other company for things like electricity,but not at the whim of the content providers. Cable companies would then be mostly internet providers. The cost of keeping the cables working is paid for by a steady, sure income. They could split the internet and TV parts of the business. They could then start offering their TV services in many small bundles and tell the content suppliers that they will no longer pay a yearly fee to provide your channel. If you don't like it fine. Our customers can get your service from one of many sources on the internet. We don't need you anymore. Let the content provider set the price and the internet provider add a small fee for their profit. If Disney wants to charge $50.00 a month for the Disney channel and various ESPN's, they can and let the consumers decide. That is free enterprise. Before I switched, I paid $60 a month for internet,$10 for Netflix and $100 for TV. Now I pay $60 a month for the internet and $25 for basic tv channels, and $10 for Netflix. I saved $75 a month. I can buy All Access for $6.95 a month and get my football which is the only thing I have watched on CBS for at least 10 years. If CBS all access has a backlog of the last 50 years of TV programs, documenaries, etc. it would be well worth paying for. The cost of content should be separated from the cost of distribution because a small minority of people can dictate what content is provided for everyone. Also with the Trump adminstrations plan to allow the internet providers to spy on their customers and sell the information for a profit, internet providers will become more profitable.
  24. I'm not sure about that. In my area the telphone company and the cable TV company both offer internet access and TV. Once you buy the internet access you have many options for TV besides the telphone company and cable TV. Once people stop buying tv from the cable company, it would be difficult for them to raise their rates for internet access substantially more than the telphone company charges for the same service. The telephone company doesn't really have to raise their rates because TV was never really a core business. Plus both of them are regulated by the government. If the cable companies loose too many subscribers, I could see them just getting out of the TV business and stick to internet. The cable company charges a lot because they have to pay a lot for some channels, mainly Disney products such as ESPN. I would bet that of the hundred dollars a month I paid for basic internet about 1/2 of it went to a handful of stations, like espn, Nesn, and Sports Channel. While I love watching sports, I can't see spending $40 or 50 dollars a month for the right to watch. The cost of sports TV has shot up and because it's blended into the cable companies bill people didn't notice. Internet TV allows for a la cart purchasing much more easily than cable did. At one point, power companies were looking into offering internet access though power lines. If we can get 4 or 5 companies to offer internet service, the price will stay low. I hear people talking about free enterprise all the time but the people who talk the loudest encourage monopolies the most.
  25. If you talk about land area, a lot of the U.S. doesn't have broadband access. But much of that area is sparsely settled farmland or unsettled (much of Alaska). The problem is more economic. There are many people, especially elderly, who do not have cable or internet access who rely on over the air broadcasts because they cannot afford to pay. When its a choice of internet or bloodpressure medication, most people choose medication. Once everything goes on the internet, people who cannot afford the internet get further and further behind. So, while I believe that having Star Trek on an internet service is good, especially for cord cutters like me, it is a problem for people who either cannot afford the internet or are stuck with cable for some reason and cannot afford another monthly bill for one show.