Sign in to follow this  
GustavoLeao

CBS admits Discovery wouldn't cut it on broadcast TV

Recommended Posts

Yeah, but how many science fiction shows do?

Short answer: almost none. 

This.

It's no "admission" when it comes to quality or anything else.It's a simple acknowledgement that the genre has zero traction on network television.

TNG wouldn't have lasted 13 eps on CBS or anyplace else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with headlines like these is that they generate something. First the show gets pushed back to a later air date. Then a half-finished weird CGI trailer appears and we hear "ah it's not done yet don't worry". Then Fuller leaves. And now they say it wouldn't cut it on "normal" TV. News pages don't care about the background or "broader pic" - all they see is negative headlines for the show even before anything substantial is happening, and this creates a rather unfortunate atmosphere. (Makes it more likely that it'll get ripped apart by the critics once it finally airs.) What I'm saying I guess is that maybe, just maybe, CBS should concentrate on trying to actually PROMOTE the show in a GOOD way, especially since they want their customers to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said, Mr. Picard.  

We're getting Star Trek back, but it seems that the online community wants to strangle it in the crib.   We haven't even seen a cast photo, let alone a set picture yet.   Let's try a bit of that patented Phlox optimism! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the above.

There's a whole circus-like, clickbait-y atmosphere building up around Discovery that I'm not enjoying.

I get the feeling I'm being told what to expect, what to feel. Just make the show, CBS, and make it well. And then promote it properly, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer   

I was worried when I saw the headline because I thought that they were admitting that the show was of poor quality. No, he's just saying that Sci-Fi doesn't really cut it on network TV. Network TV is mostly just reality TV and crime/police procedural shows with the occasional sitcom geared towards women, so what he is saying isn't really surprising. It would have worked well on cable like Syfy, but CBS wanted to push their 'service'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Locutus   

I was worried when I saw the headline because I thought that they were admitting that the show was of poor quality. No, he's just saying that Sci-Fi doesn't really cut it on network TV. Network TV is mostly just reality TV and crime/police procedural shows with the occasional sitcom geared towards women, so what he is saying isn't really surprising. It would have worked well on cable like Syfy, but CBS wanted to push their 'service'. 

Misleading headlines are the worst, especially since a lot of people just read the headline and not the actual story.  "TV Exec Says Sci-fi Does Not Work on Network TV."  That's a more accurate headline, but who would read that since it is news to no one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New report

A CBS Exec Just Angered The STAR TREK Fanbase By Saying The New Show Doesn't Belong On TV
 
Before you start gathering pitchforks and torches, check out the logic behind his statements regarding the network's decision to put Star Trek: Discovery on the CBS All Access streaming platform.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New report

A CBS Exec Just Angered The STAR TREK Fanbase By Saying The New Show Doesn't Belong On TV
 
Before you start gathering pitchforks and torches, check out the logic behind his statements regarding the network's decision to put Star Trek: Discovery on the CBS All Access streaming platform.
 

All he's saying is exactly what we've been saying above; very few scii shows last on the major US broadcast networks.  They have a better chance on cable or some other delivery system (as in CBS' experiment with streaming).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New report

A CBS Exec Just Angered The STAR TREK Fanbase By Saying The New Show Doesn't Belong On TV
 
Before you start gathering pitchforks and torches, check out the logic behind his statements regarding the network's decision to put Star Trek: Discovery on the CBS All Access streaming platform.
 

All he's saying is exactly what we've been saying above; very few scii shows last on the major US broadcast networks.  They have a better chance on cable or some other delivery system (as in CBS' experiment with streaming).

This.

Sci-fi. Dies, On network TV.

It does. It just does, It always has. Without herculean efforts even TOS would have died after a season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paramount reluctantly added nods to the 50th year of Trek into Beyond, and did not do any real merchandising for it. They had such a limited view of what the movie could have been that it suffered, even though it made money and it was true to the series ideas. Still in the next let's not do black hat villain and destroy the ship,,,again. I have often gone on about having brand recognition and how making the story is also marketing and having products to buy, to remind people and bring them in.

CBS with Discovery smells of one group really pushing a new series, (former Star Trek alumni) and the studio really trying not to promote it either, (and conversely not interested in the slightest in Star Trek or it being 50), showing only a bare bones teaser or two, and no casting, and that they allegedly made money with advertising the All Access, which I suspect they have not really made as much as they claim. After all, there is no delivery. We're getting it postponed, and now possibly not aired at all.

Let's be brutally honest, gang, you have a 50th anniversary and No conventions in San Francisco, birthplace of Starfleet Academy!

This is weird because sci fi movies are coming back big, and fantasy movies are totally big, like all those Marvel movies, and thinking films like Interstellar or the new Arrival movie (which is excellent actually, and very much reminded me of Darmok), and several space movies are coming in 2017. It's big right now. Networks should eat up the idea of making a sci fi show. They should love it. They should embrace it, market it, and have all the ads.

If as they claim, the studio has made some money with ads on all access, then they should promote and broaden this thing, not pull it back. Even when that Enterprise prequel came out, they promoted the heck out of it.

Why not put it on the CW? That's not a bad idea. It would be like coming back to the UPN. Why not instead of making it all access only, rerun it on the CW and on Netflix, make exclusive content releases to streaming, bluray, and the like.

It's like CBS is pretending the 50th never happened. Sure Meyer and Fuller and them know well it happened, and they know it happened, but they're trying to kill it when they should be trying to save it. They likely see that only diehard fans would watch another prequel show. They don't think outside the box, that going forward IS the ONLY way to go. They can completely ignore Abrams timeline stuff, but somehow he's involved so they don't want to.

I say they should just not address it or make it as a prequel at all. Tell the audience it is Star Trek set in the future. Don't go into the minutia as to what century it is. Then you can have your show and watch it too. Maybe all this postponement means they are rethinking that prequel idea, which will hamstring it and box it into a century that's really not all that interesting. The diehard fans will watch anything. I would. They're trying to market it to fit into the prime timeline and avoid Abrams, but they need to focus on making it a good show, not on that detail.

2316 would be better, on the Enterprise B, in an alternate timeline, or on the Discovery, in 2316. It is 50 years before Picard and because it's the Abrams universe, things happened differently anyway. (Originally this was one of their ideas. They were going to set it after TUC but changed it).

2393 would be even better, set in the 'altered universe' (or prime too) so that would could actually have a cameo by Picard or Riker in the pilot, trying to get the Discovery back. Maybe they wouldn't be the Picard or Riker we know, but would be played by either actor, and a nice nod to the 50th. (They won't do this because of the Star Trek Online game being in 2410 and there being other factors, but they totally could ignore that game and it would be okay).

And if you buy that it had nothing to do with that Axanar thing, don't believe it. It totally did, which was why they bothered to sue that fan film in the first place. (The Axanar people deserved the fan rage though because they did break the rules and then made up new ones, and made money off a fan film, and then ruined it for many other fan films).

2255 is NOT a good idea, CBS. Anytime after 2300 might be.

You (the studio that is likely not reading this) could even pretend it is taking place during TNG but in the Abrams timeline if you're so stuck on that. Don't be though, because that timeline is only good for action movies with black hat villains and young upstart commanders.

Besides, we already know that Number One morphed into Lwuxanna Troi. :) She holds the sacred chalice of Rixx and the holy rings of Betazed.

 

 

Edited by Chimera82405

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer   

Paramount reluctantly added nods to the 50th year of Trek into Beyond, and did not do any real merchandising for it. They had such a limited view of what the movie could have been that it suffered, even though it made money and it was true to the series ideas. Still in the next let's not do black hat villain and destroy the ship,,,again. I have often gone on about having brand recognition and how making the story is also marketing and having products to buy, to remind people and bring them in.

CBS with Discovery smells of one group really pushing a new series, (former Star Trek alumni) and the studio really trying not to promote it either, (and conversely not interested in the slightest in Star Trek or it being 50), showing only a bare bones teaser or two, and no casting, and that they allegedly made money with advertising the All Access, which I suspect they have not really made as much as they claim. After all, there is no delivery. We're getting it postponed, and now possibly not aired at all.

Let's be brutally honest, gang, you have a 50th anniversary and No conventions in San Francisco, birthplace of Starfleet Academy!

This is weird because sci fi movies are coming back big, and fantasy movies are totally big, like all those Marvel movies, and thinking films like Interstellar or the new Arrival movie (which is excellent actually, and very much reminded me of Darmok), and several space movies are coming in 2017. It's big right now. Networks should eat up the idea of making a sci fi show. They should love it. They should embrace it, market it, and have all the ads.

If as they claim, the studio has made some money with ads on all access, then they should promote and broaden this thing, not pull it back. Even when that Enterprise prequel came out, they promoted the heck out of it.

Why not put it on the CW? That's not a bad idea. It would be like coming back to the UPN. Why not instead of making it all access only, rerun it on the CW and on Netflix, make exclusive content releases to streaming, bluray, and the like.

It's like CBS is pretending the 50th never happened. Sure Meyer and Fuller and them know well it happened, and they know it happened, but they're trying to kill it when they should be trying to save it. They likely see that only diehard fans would watch another prequel show. They don't think outside the box, that going forward IS the ONLY way to go. They can completely ignore Abrams timeline stuff, but somehow he's involved so they don't want to.

I say they should just not address it or make it as a prequel at all. Tell the audience it is Star Trek set in the future. Don't go into the minutia as to what century it is. Then you can have your show and watch it too. Maybe all this postponement means they are rethinking that prequel idea, which will hamstring it and box it into a century that's really not all that interesting. The diehard fans will watch anything. I would. They're trying to market it to fit into the prime timeline and avoid Abrams, but they need to focus on making it a good show, not on that detail.

2316 would be better, on the Enterprise B, in an alternate timeline, or on the Discovery, in 2316. It is 50 years before Picard and because it's the Abrams universe, things happened differently anyway. (Originally this was one of their ideas. They were going to set it after TUC but changed it).

2393 would be even better, set in the 'altered universe' (or prime too) so that would could actually have a cameo by Picard or Riker in the pilot, trying to get the Discovery back. Maybe they wouldn't be the Picard or Riker we know, but would be played by either actor, and a nice nod to the 50th. (They won't do this because of the Star Trek Online game being in 2410 and there being other factors, but they totally could ignore that game and it would be okay).

And if you buy that it had nothing to do with that Axanar thing, don't believe it. It totally did, which was why they bothered to sue that fan film in the first place. (The Axanar people deserved the fan rage though because they did break the rules and then made up new ones, and made money off a fan film, and then ruined it for many other fan films).

2255 is NOT a good idea, CBS. Anytime after 2300 might be.

You (the studio that is likely not reading this) could even pretend it is taking place during TNG but in the Abrams timeline if you're so stuck on that. Don't be though, because that timeline is only good for action movies with black hat villains and young upstart commanders.

Besides, we already know that Number One morphed into Lwuxanna Troi. :) She holds the sacred chalice of Rixx and the holy rings of Betazed.

 

 

Yeah, I think that if they go to the future in the Prime Timeline, it would be like saying the Kelvin timeline doesn't matter or exist from a canon standpoint. I agree that's probably why they came up with the horrible idea of setting the show 10 years before TOS. They don't step on JJ's toes, while still being able to call it the Prime timeline. That time frame is only going to appeal to TOS fans. The furthest ahead we've seen on screen, aside from the Temporal Cold War garbage on Enterprise, was Spock attempting to stop Romulus from being destroyed by its star. Set the show at any point past this event and keep Romulus destroyed as a nod to JJ. The Prime timeline wouldn't stop existing after the events of ST09. I'm just not interested in another iteration of 'Adventures in the Alpha Quadrant'. This is all well tread ground. At least DS9 and Voyager showed us parts of the Gamma and Delta Quadrants. I don't care to find out how we met Alpha Quadrant species that we later encounter on TNG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Any fan that thinks otherwise is delusional. Obviously the show wouldn't cut the mustard in Primetime network TV.  The headline of the first article is most certainly misleading. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paramount reluctantly added nods to the 50th year of Trek into Beyond, and did not do any real merchandising for it. They had such a limited view of what the movie could have been that it suffered, even though it made money and it was true to the series ideas. Still in the next let's not do black hat villain and destroy the ship,,,again. I have often gone on about having brand recognition and how making the story is also marketing and having products to buy, to remind people and bring them in.

CBS with Discovery smells of one group really pushing a new series, (former Star Trek alumni) and the studio really trying not to promote it either, (and conversely not interested in the slightest in Star Trek or it being 50), showing only a bare bones teaser or two, and no casting, and that they allegedly made money with advertising the All Access, which I suspect they have not really made as much as they claim. After all, there is no delivery. We're getting it postponed, and now possibly not aired at all.

Let's be brutally honest, gang, you have a 50th anniversary and No conventions in San Francisco, birthplace of Starfleet Academy!

This is weird because sci fi movies are coming back big, and fantasy movies are totally big, like all those Marvel movies, and thinking films like Interstellar or the new Arrival movie (which is excellent actually, and very much reminded me of Darmok), and several space movies are coming in 2017. It's big right now. Networks should eat up the idea of making a sci fi show. They should love it. They should embrace it, market it, and have all the ads.

If as they claim, the studio has made some money with ads on all access, then they should promote and broaden this thing, not pull it back. Even when that Enterprise prequel came out, they promoted the heck out of it.

Why not put it on the CW? That's not a bad idea. It would be like coming back to the UPN. Why not instead of making it all access only, rerun it on the CW and on Netflix, make exclusive content releases to streaming, bluray, and the like.

It's like CBS is pretending the 50th never happened. Sure Meyer and Fuller and them know well it happened, and they know it happened, but they're trying to kill it when they should be trying to save it. They likely see that only diehard fans would watch another prequel show. They don't think outside the box, that going forward IS the ONLY way to go. They can completely ignore Abrams timeline stuff, but somehow he's involved so they don't want to.

I say they should just not address it or make it as a prequel at all. Tell the audience it is Star Trek set in the future. Don't go into the minutia as to what century it is. Then you can have your show and watch it too. Maybe all this postponement means they are rethinking that prequel idea, which will hamstring it and box it into a century that's really not all that interesting. The diehard fans will watch anything. I would. They're trying to market it to fit into the prime timeline and avoid Abrams, but they need to focus on making it a good show, not on that detail.

2316 would be better, on the Enterprise B, in an alternate timeline, or on the Discovery, in 2316. It is 50 years before Picard and because it's the Abrams universe, things happened differently anyway. (Originally this was one of their ideas. They were going to set it after TUC but changed it).

2393 would be even better, set in the 'altered universe' (or prime too) so that would could actually have a cameo by Picard or Riker in the pilot, trying to get the Discovery back. Maybe they wouldn't be the Picard or Riker we know, but would be played by either actor, and a nice nod to the 50th. (They won't do this because of the Star Trek Online game being in 2410 and there being other factors, but they totally could ignore that game and it would be okay).

And if you buy that it had nothing to do with that Axanar thing, don't believe it. It totally did, which was why they bothered to sue that fan film in the first place. (The Axanar people deserved the fan rage though because they did break the rules and then made up new ones, and made money off a fan film, and then ruined it for many other fan films).

2255 is NOT a good idea, CBS. Anytime after 2300 might be.

You (the studio that is likely not reading this) could even pretend it is taking place during TNG but in the Abrams timeline if you're so stuck on that. Don't be though, because that timeline is only good for action movies with black hat villains and young upstart commanders.

Besides, we already know that Number One morphed into Lwuxanna Troi. :) She holds the sacred chalice of Rixx and the holy rings of Betazed.

 

 

Yeah, I think that if they go to the future in the Prime Timeline, it would be like saying the Kelvin timeline doesn't matter or exist from a canon standpoint. I agree that's probably why they came up with the horrible idea of setting the show 10 years before TOS. They don't step on JJ's toes, while still being able to call it the Prime timeline. That time frame is only going to appeal to TOS fans. The furthest ahead we've seen on screen, aside from the Temporal Cold War garbage on Enterprise, was Spock attempting to stop Romulus from being destroyed by its star. Set the show at any point past this event and keep Romulus destroyed as a nod to JJ. The Prime timeline wouldn't stop existing after the events of ST09. I'm just not interested in another iteration of 'Adventures in the Alpha Quadrant'. This is all well tread ground. At least DS9 and Voyager showed us parts of the Gamma and Delta Quadrants. I don't care to find out how we met Alpha Quadrant species that we later encounter on TNG.

Still, Disney let JJ Abrams reboot Star Wars and set it 30 years after the last movie, so the CBS people could have done whatever they liked also. It's not like JJ is working for them. It's the other way around.  

Any fan that thinks otherwise is delusional. Obviously the show wouldn't cut the mustard in Primetime network TV.  The headline of the first article is most certainly misleading. 

Not delusional. Misinformed perhaps. It might be wise to put it on all access in the long run, but really there is reason to find a TV network slot also. The shows did best in syndication in the 1980s-1990s. It was in decline in the mid 2000s because the UPN experiment was kind of a hot mess and train wreck, and they knew it. Advertising was silly for Enterprise, often promising some kind of action flick, or a steamy romance. It was bound to fail with that kind of buzz.

I am not running it obviously, but I would put it on the CW or SYFY and promise to return it to space show roots, and none of the ads would be misleading. You would get it.

Sure they will not go back to the prime timeline, as it would be too fan oriented. Then I suggest they set it in 2393...in the JJ timeline. You don't have to pay homage to anything. Suppose Picard was now grand admiral, and it was grittier but not too much, and the ship was the Discovery? I can see why they're not doing it. It is too much fan service.

Actually considering that Picard's character was born in 2305, he would now in 2393 be over 88 years old, he would likely not be an active admiral. (I know Stewart is only in his 70s).

Edited by Chimera82405

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

I don't have as much problem with the time setting. Space is big. Set it on the opposite side of the Federation, where the Klingons and Romulans are a few weeks or months journey away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Any fan that thinks otherwise is delusional. Obviously the show wouldn't cut the mustard in Primetime network TV.  The headline of the first article is most certainly misleading. 

Not delusional. Misinformed perhaps. It might be wise to put it on all access in the long run, but really there is reason to find a TV network slot also. The shows did best in syndication in the 1980s-1990s. It was in decline in the mid 2000s because the UPN experiment was kind of a hot mess and train wreck, and they knew it. Advertising was silly for Enterprise, often promising some kind of action flick, or a steamy romance. It was bound to fail with that kind of buzz.

I am not running it obviously, but I would put it on the CW or SYFY and promise to return it to space show roots, and none of the ads would be misleading. You would get it.

UPN was a mess, but it also had most of it's programming focuses on entirely different demographics than Trek brings in...so it just never fit in there. Your argument that Trek did well in Syndication is precisely why going Online only makes more sense to me.  Web Originals are sort of where Syndication was in the 90s. You can do different kind of shows and get your audience,, because they don't reuqire as many network notes and aren't as reliant on "winning their timeslot."  Trek would lose it's timeslot in broadcast TV.  And the CW has more younger skewing shows, even it's sci-fi/fantasy/superhero stuff is all aimed at Young Adults/20-somethings. Trek wouldn't, and in my opinion shouldn't, fit in exactly there.  SyFy is owned by NBC, so that is a non-starter as far as CBS is concerned.  I think the thing with Trek is CBS may see it as a hot brand, and something they can really make money off of...but they also seem to know if they give it a CW budget and aim it at a hot young audience (the same audience the movies were being aimed at), they could lose it long term.  I think going online is the correct route...whether All Access is the correct platform or not?  Time will tell.  I would've preferred a Netflix or something, because I already have it...but I understand why they are doing what they are doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares where and what it airs on if it exists? It just needs to be accessible. The TV landscape is changing weekly, daily. When we realised we no longer watched broadcast TV, we cut the cord. Much cheaper. Shows'll turn up on Hulu or Amazon or whatever the next day, anyhow. And we get our UK news services, so, great. The money we saved, I can afford CBSAA now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Who cares where and what it airs on if it exists? It just needs to be accessible. The TV landscape is changing weekly, daily. When we realised we no longer watched broadcast TV, we cut the cord. Much cheaper. Shows'll turn up on Hulu or Amazon or whatever the next day, anyhow. And we get our UK news services, so, great. The money we saved, I can afford CBSAA now. 

 

Agreed. We also cut the cord...my wife and I did so when we moved in together just before we married. Saved us a bundle.  And luckily Netflix started producing their original content not too long after...and the benefits began to really show themselves. You can get high quality entertainment for less these days. And since we actually split our Netflix account with my brothers, we actually save a lot as it goes from like $12 a month to only $4 (though, one brother tends to give us Netflix Gift Cards each Christmas, paying everyone's part...so for the last few years Netflix has costed me personally nothing). There are a few shows on over-the-air channels we like and watch, but often we just forget to watch and end up watching it later online. 

Wait...what are we talking about?  I'm getting off track now!  Anyhow...the point is, Discovery need not be on regular TV...as it really doesn't matter as much as it once did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares where and what it airs on if it exists? It just needs to be accessible. The TV landscape is changing weekly, daily. When we realised we no longer watched broadcast TV, we cut the cord. Much cheaper. Shows'll turn up on Hulu or Amazon or whatever the next day, anyhow. And we get our UK news services, so, great. The money we saved, I can afford CBSAA now. 

 

Agreed. We also cut the cord...my wife and I did so when we moved in together just before we married. Saved us a bundle.  And luckily Netflix started producing their original content not too long after...and the benefits began to really show themselves. You can get high quality entertainment for less these days. And since we actually split our Netflix account with my brothers, we actually save a lot as it goes from like $12 a month to only $4 (though, one brother tends to give us Netflix Gift Cards each Christmas, paying everyone's part...so for the last few years Netflix has costed me personally nothing). There are a few shows on over-the-air channels we like and watch, but often we just forget to watch and end up watching it later online. 

Wait...what are we talking about?  I'm getting off track now!  Anyhow...the point is, Discovery need not be on regular TV...as it really doesn't matter as much as it once did.

I think being on regular TV would hurt it more than help it at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Who cares where and what it airs on if it exists? It just needs to be accessible. The TV landscape is changing weekly, daily. When we realised we no longer watched broadcast TV, we cut the cord. Much cheaper. Shows'll turn up on Hulu or Amazon or whatever the next day, anyhow. And we get our UK news services, so, great. The money we saved, I can afford CBSAA now. 

 

Agreed. We also cut the cord...my wife and I did so when we moved in together just before we married. Saved us a bundle.  And luckily Netflix started producing their original content not too long after...and the benefits began to really show themselves. You can get high quality entertainment for less these days. And since we actually split our Netflix account with my brothers, we actually save a lot as it goes from like $12 a month to only $4 (though, one brother tends to give us Netflix Gift Cards each Christmas, paying everyone's part...so for the last few years Netflix has costed me personally nothing). There are a few shows on over-the-air channels we like and watch, but often we just forget to watch and end up watching it later online. 

Wait...what are we talking about?  I'm getting off track now!  Anyhow...the point is, Discovery need not be on regular TV...as it really doesn't matter as much as it once did.

I think being on regular TV would hurt it more than help it at this point. 

A most likely true sentiment that CBS seems to agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares where and what it airs on if it exists? It just needs to be accessible. The TV landscape is changing weekly, daily. When we realised we no longer watched broadcast TV, we cut the cord. Much cheaper. Shows'll turn up on Hulu or Amazon or whatever the next day, anyhow. And we get our UK news services, so, great. The money we saved, I can afford CBSAA now. 

 

Agreed. We also cut the cord...my wife and I did so when we moved in together just before we married. Saved us a bundle.  And luckily Netflix started producing their original content not too long after...and the benefits began to really show themselves. You can get high quality entertainment for less these days. And since we actually split our Netflix account with my brothers, we actually save a lot as it goes from like $12 a month to only $4 (though, one brother tends to give us Netflix Gift Cards each Christmas, paying everyone's part...so for the last few years Netflix has costed me personally nothing). There are a few shows on over-the-air channels we like and watch, but often we just forget to watch and end up watching it later online. 

Wait...what are we talking about?  I'm getting off track now!  Anyhow...the point is, Discovery need not be on regular TV...as it really doesn't matter as much as it once did.

I think being on regular TV would hurt it more than help it at this point. 

A most likely true sentiment that CBS seems to agree with.

Kenman, that was a useful post because I didn't know Netflix gift cards existed! And that's what I'm gonna ask for...! We got HBO too and Hulu. It's still a hell of a lot cheaper than what we were paying with Verizon FiOS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Who cares where and what it airs on if it exists? It just needs to be accessible. The TV landscape is changing weekly, daily. When we realised we no longer watched broadcast TV, we cut the cord. Much cheaper. Shows'll turn up on Hulu or Amazon or whatever the next day, anyhow. And we get our UK news services, so, great. The money we saved, I can afford CBSAA now. 

 

Agreed. We also cut the cord...my wife and I did so when we moved in together just before we married. Saved us a bundle.  And luckily Netflix started producing their original content not too long after...and the benefits began to really show themselves. You can get high quality entertainment for less these days. And since we actually split our Netflix account with my brothers, we actually save a lot as it goes from like $12 a month to only $4 (though, one brother tends to give us Netflix Gift Cards each Christmas, paying everyone's part...so for the last few years Netflix has costed me personally nothing). There are a few shows on over-the-air channels we like and watch, but often we just forget to watch and end up watching it later online. 

Wait...what are we talking about?  I'm getting off track now!  Anyhow...the point is, Discovery need not be on regular TV...as it really doesn't matter as much as it once did.

I think being on regular TV would hurt it more than help it at this point. 

A most likely true sentiment that CBS seems to agree with.

Kenman, that was a useful post because I didn't know Netflix gift cards existed! And that's what I'm gonna ask for...! We got HBO too and Hulu. It's still a hell of a lot cheaper than what we were paying with Verizon FiOS.

Glad to help! Yea my brother has gotten them for me and my other brother for the last couple years (the gift card to the other brother is then handed off to me, the actual owner of the account), but essentially, he has paid our Netflix the last 2 years entirely himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares where and what it airs on if it exists? It just needs to be accessible. The TV landscape is changing weekly, daily. When we realised we no longer watched broadcast TV, we cut the cord. Much cheaper. Shows'll turn up on Hulu or Amazon or whatever the next day, anyhow. And we get our UK news services, so, great. The money we saved, I can afford CBSAA now. 

 

Agreed. We also cut the cord...my wife and I did so when we moved in together just before we married. Saved us a bundle.  And luckily Netflix started producing their original content not too long after...and the benefits began to really show themselves. You can get high quality entertainment for less these days. And since we actually split our Netflix account with my brothers, we actually save a lot as it goes from like $12 a month to only $4 (though, one brother tends to give us Netflix Gift Cards each Christmas, paying everyone's part...so for the last few years Netflix has costed me personally nothing). There are a few shows on over-the-air channels we like and watch, but often we just forget to watch and end up watching it later online. 

Wait...what are we talking about?  I'm getting off track now!  Anyhow...the point is, Discovery need not be on regular TV...as it really doesn't matter as much as it once did.

I think being on regular TV would hurt it more than help it at this point. 

A most likely true sentiment that CBS seems to agree with.

Kenman, that was a useful post because I didn't know Netflix gift cards existed! And that's what I'm gonna ask for...! We got HBO too and Hulu. It's still a hell of a lot cheaper than what we were paying with Verizon FiOS.

Glad to help! Yea my brother has gotten them for me and my other brother for the last couple years (the gift card to the other brother is then handed off to me, the actual owner of the account), but essentially, he has paid our Netflix the last 2 years entirely himself.

My sister finally got Netflix to watch the Gilmore Girls revival (her favorite show); I should get a few for her as a stocking stuffer.

Great idea, Kenman! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this