Today we all too often consume entertainment in a fruitless attempt to fill the gnawing emptiness in our souls. Consumption, the olden “wasting-disease”, takes on a new meaning.
We need to stop and wonder about the larger issues - about all the hours we increasingly waste and squander on all these entertainment options. Hours wasted. Lives wasted. Is this what a full and meaningful life is all about? Is this the best way to use the precious amount of time we all have left? Or is a living death? An imitation of life?
So many of us are passive players, distracted and diverted from real life and people, continually seeking the addictive escape of ersatz entertainment "experiences".
Are we afraid of being alone with ourselves? Are we afraid of quietly turning inward, of knowing ourselves and our real needs? Instead, we continually consume through the eyes and minds of others - living their lives instead of our own.
Rather than being self-driven, we are immersed, wrapped up, and warped by an imaginary world, puppets of puppets, divorced from reality, while so much of the real world is crying out for our attention, as we close the door and retreat.
For the inner self is starved and lost in all of this. We literally lose ourselves in the never-ending pursuit of outside entertainment and distractions. We escape from what should be most important to us, our lives, and those we love.
Please hand me the remote, honey.
2
Very true. I myself simply have a Netflix subscription, and a digital antenna to catch over the air channels. And that is it! On occasion I go for a week/month trial of Hulu or Amazon prime or pay for one of them for just a month after a show I want to watch comes on them and binge watch. And my main source of entertainment is still YouTube. Thankfully most shows I care about (Late night shows, like those of Conan, Colbert, Sam Bee, SNL and John Oliver) put most if not all of their shows on YouTube. So I get to watch most of what I want to watch on TV for free via YouTube.
I guess people with very varied tastes and interests may have a harder time watching all the shows and movies they want to watch for a low cost. But I am good thanks to the Internet, especially YouTube.
Any dedicated SciFi fan needs to vote with their wallet to encourage networks, streaming services, and other media companies to invest in and support high-quality, challenging science fiction.
The new Star Trek on CBS is just that. The Expanse on SyFi is another.
Most of us can afford to pay for online CBS and SyFy subscriptions.
I will certainly do so until they stop producing good stuff.
It’s fine for cheapskate Star Trek [so-called] fans not to pay to see CBS’ latest series...but they’d better not complain if and when the latest Star Trek series gets cancelled for lack of support.
1
I bit the bullet and subscribed. Star Trek has served as a bonding agent for me and my teenage kids for years and the cost is worth the happy, animated conversations we have every Sunday (which I know will grow rarer as they move toward ultimate independence.) HOWEVER, I’m bitter at CBS for forcing this expense on me. I’m even more disgusted that so few people have seen what I believe to be the absolute best Star Trek series ever made. I’ve seen every episode and movie since TOS and Star Trek: Discovery is the series we’ve been waiting for. That it is restricted to a tiny subset of the population with more disposable income is a crying shame.
So yeah, CBS, you may have my bucks, but at the cost of my long term disdain. Put that on your balance sheet.
3
You have to think about what a la Carte means. Let's say you join today and you don't get a free month like I did. You can finish The Good Fight and Star Trek in one or two months. I almost did it in a month but there are a few new episodes yet to air. But I went online and said I wanted to cancel at the end of my month trial. Guess what they did, they asked me if I wanted another free month. Yes, please.
If they offer something good, I will choose that until it is no longer offered and will cancel. That is what al la carte means to me in this world of no contracts and no sign up fees. You keep it as long as there is something you want to watch and then you end it until they have something again.
You can do the same with Hulu or any other streaming service. It is a fact that most shows are on over the air channels in the fall and winter and on the cable channels in the spring and summer. You can record and watch over the air with an antenna and only sign up with say, Sling when the cable shows are on. If you miss a couple, they are usually available On Demand.
We are done adding subscriptions to more web TV services. Basic cable plus Netflix and Amazon Prime and occasional HBO for a few months out of the year is adequate. However, we may drop one or more of these if it continues to get harder to justify the cost for a lot of fragmented content and just plain crap.
2
Thank you for the article. I feel the same way but can't help the feeling I'm missing out on a new and exciting series. But I'll feel just fine when its available on Netflix or Amazon and I can enjoy it without complicating my subscription list.
1
I haven't watched television in years. Instead I watch You Tube from my laptop. There are hundreds of old film noir and detective movies from the 1940s to watch. Somehow AMC can't find them and has to show the same movies over and over.
Old cartoons. I never knew there was a Tom and Jerry who weren't a cat and mouse and every one of them is musical. I didn't know that Betty Boop started out as a poodle.
Fortunately for me I've never had an interest in sports.
There's also interesting documentaries and lots of BBC programming.
Someday I might even want to pay for You Tube to get the extras. Nah!
3
The entire industry of "entertainment" is heading for a rude shock as they try to have it all — cable, streaming aggregators, individual streaming services. Cable remains the best solution because it reduces management of content to one place, with universal recording. There are streaming services that are on demand with no ads...at additional cost, of course, but you'll need several or more to receive all the desired content. Cable cutters have to manage multiple sources with individual payments to each. What's the point?
The economic and practical realities of viewing entertainment on television and devices are that one has to exert control and discernment. I can live without 98 percent of what is available, but I actually have most cable channels and premium cable channels (as a package) along with Netflix, so I don't need any of the other streaming services. I'm willing to pay for convenience and recording for time shifting.
The concept of à la carte entertainment needs to be rethought before it will provide both reasonable value and rational management of choices. That seems a long way off.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Thank you thank you thank you! Delighted that I am not the only tech-competent watcher whose brain is spinning over all this. Doesn't solve my viewing decision but does let me turn off that spin cycle!
8
I get everything from torrent.
Cut all tv 12 years ago.
1
Any site in particular you would recommend?
1
Finally, an advantage to having Netflix in Taiwan as opposed to the USA. Star Trek Discovery is available without CBS All Access. And not only do they have Traditional Chinese subtitles they have Klingon subtitles.
1
I watched Discovery until Anthony Rapp made it unwatchable.
My God, I thought I was the only one! I’ve been a Trek fan from the very beginning and it breaks my heart that I’m missing this new series. But I’ve had it up to here with paying for Comcast and HBO and Showtime and Netflix. It’s not like I can’t afford it either. But enough is enough. P.S. I only mention this because you did at the end of the article. I recommend my own book, Trouble in Bay Town, as the “short enough” novel you’re looking for. ‘Nuff said.
4
Can you send me a copy of your book? I’d really like to read it, and could afford it, but I’ve paid enough for other books and enough is enough.
4
Yes, enough is enough. My ebook is only $3.99. It’s a one time expense. You won’t have to pay for it month after month after month...
Did you hear that CBS?
2
Argh.
1. Star Trek was one of the finest series ever made. There was sci-fi drama laced with social commentary and compelling personal stories. Art and a touch of nerdy humor.
2. I saw the latest incarnation. It's OK. But it's reductionist. The script is just one enemy, battles and angry acting. The real mission of Star Trek is lost. It might be bold, but it really goes nowhere. Boring best describes it.
3. I borrowed my son's password to gain entry. We share passwords for HBO, Netflx as well. We're trying to save money.
4. Yesterday I scanned every available TV show and movie on Netflix. A lot of junk content.
5. Our Internet Only bill is now up to $102 and change. (I get non HD basic TV as well because they refused to sell anything but a "bundle").
6. So I pay for "internet only" cable, Netflix, Amazon Prime, borrow HBO GO, Showtime, and CBS all Access (the commercials are awful - I forgot how awful, but the son won't pay the extra $4).
7. We contribute to PBS - gets us the Passport. On demand News (real) and of course, something really well done: Victoria season 2.
8. The best picture comes from the antenna - but watching the "major" networks is a pathetic mind numbing insulting experience.
Here's the thing: we now spend more than before cutting the cable and the flood of lousy content is disappointing. Technology without guidance and structure is chaos. This is not progress.
But guess what? There are still books!
3
I recently had a Star Trek discovery...... of Star Trek Continues. It's a fanfiction full season of episodes concluding the "five year mission". I enjoyed it. And it's free on line.
I, too, will wait for the 'reruns' of Discovery.
1
I use a near entry level cable package. What gripes me is being forced to fund Fox News and ESPN. The first of which I detest, the other one I watch maybe 1 or 2 games a year.
4
I am patient, so I wait for a series to come out on DVD, then get it for free from the city library. I can binge watch, the closed captioning matches the picture, and I often like the special features. Especially, I like free.
5
Gosh, haven't had cable or satellite in years. An OTA antenna in the attic, a Fire TV and we have all the content we could possibly want. Our strategy is to take advantage of the "no contract" nature of all the streaming services. We subscribe and drop the services based on what we want to watch at any given time during the year. Handmaid's Tale? Subscribe to Hulu--when the series is over, cancel the service. Orange is the New Black? Likewise with Netflix. And so on and so forth. GOT? Well, of course, HBO Now, although the compression artifacts make the dark scenes almost unwatchable--wish they could improve that. Now we are waiting on an OTA DVR solution so we can time-shift the very few network shows we follow--Sixty Minutes, This Is Us, etc...And then there are the streaming services such as Sling, PS Vue, DirectTV Now...if they can work out the kinks (cloud-based DVR) they offer intriguing options at a reasonable price point. As for the newest installment of the Star Trek canon, there is absolutely no way I would reward CBS for their unmitigated greed, as much as I would enjoy watching, given that I am a fan, albeit not so much as the author. In any event, we will never go back to ponying up over a hundred dollars a month, in addition to our internet fees, for content the vast majority of which we have no interest whatsoever.
7
HDHome Run, a Silicon Dust product, makes a DVR for over the air content. It connects to your network, so you can watch it on any mobile device or desktop. (I have the version that does works with cable tuners - it can't record 'DRM' content, which includes channels like MSNBC)
You are so right. How many 9.99 services can you buy and watch. I too have Comcast. I also pay for Netflix and Amazon and NHL, but will not pay anymore for Hulu or anything else, even though I would like to watch Eliz Moss. There aren’t enough hours in the day! Now there’s too much content, yikes! I have other interests too.
5
After a few glaze eyed moments, I moved on many years ago from the first Star Trek spin off, and never looked back. As for cable, I still have and enjoy it, along with Netflix and Amazon. If I had to cut something out, I suppose it would be cable, but for now, I have the money, and there is value in it.
I agree. This is one more streaming service too many. And beyond ST it appears to hold almost no real value. Network junk at 10 bucks a month? No thanks.
5
I gave up cable in 2012, and I do not miss it one bit. I look at the TV listings every once in a while or channel surf on a hotel TV while traveling, but I am underwhelmed.
Yet I do understand the dilemma of "so many streaming services, too little time." There are superb foreign TV series available nowadays, not only on Netflix and Amazon but on Acorn TV (English-speaking countries) and MHz Choice (continental Europe and Scandinavia.)
There are tempting offerings on other services (BritBox, Walter Presents), but I just can't see subscribing another service. Too bad there's no "one stop" service for programming.
2
I'm with you on this. Asking people to fork over ten bucks a month for one more Star Trek series is not reasonable, and I won't do it either. Ditto for Hulu, even though I will eventually buy the Blu-Ray version of "Handmaid's Tale." Also, like you, I've got both Amazon Prime and Netflix, but the latter keeps eliminating my favorite series. like "Morse," so I'm considering my options there, too. One thing you can do: if you are a long time customer, you can negotiate with your cable provider. I got my bill reduced by 30% just by convincing them to re-up the teaser deals for various cable packages. It's not much of a consolation, but that's all I've got. My cable provider has close to a thousand channels. I use 20-30 regularly, and another 100 or so once in a blue moon. There has to be a better way.
7
"The analysis found the stories that resonate most either “culminate with a positive emotional bang” or have characters that achieve “early success and happiness before a steady decline into misfortune.” Such insights “could mean a new musical score or a different image at crucial moments, as well as tweaks to plot, dialogue, and characters,” the analysis concluded."
Wow. The analysts have just discovered Charles Dickens.
21
CBS actually defended this by comparing their model to HBO. As if CBS has enough (any) interesting content worth paying for. I started disco while in Spain on vacation, where it is streaming on Netflix. It’s good, but I’m not about to pay CBS to see it.
I cut the cable years ago and me and my friends share services, otherwise there is no point. All of the services add up quickly.
1
I left Trek fandom years ago, but still have some friends who love Trek; among them, there is not one who is going to pay for a subscription only to have access to the new series. They consider this method as yet another money-making game, a way of milking fans. Or they share a subscription, sharing the cost of one subscription and having regular fan meetings. I think that the media are gouging viewers for all they can get.
1
I went back to good ole free antenna television along with Netflix.
3
We cut the cord when my cable company, in quick succession, scrambled the signals, and put a Sports Fee on the bill. We don't watch sports other than the SuperBowl or World Series. Scrambling the signals makes it easy for the Cable Co, they can now shut you off if need be without a physical truck roll-piracy was never the real reason. Practically, you now need to rent a box for $8 per month forever , x X number of sets, oh and the boxes aren't very good and eat power. $400 per year for literally nothing.
Luckily, we can get over the air. A $75 antenna, a $200 DVR ($400 for tivo) and some one time installation are all you need. Keep the recording queue in good order and watch when you want...We get all NYC stations save VHF-Lo. Netflix and Hulu cover the rest, and there are a lot of legal streams out there as well. Two shows we cared about were available legally, so there was NO reason for cable. None of them reproduce the experience of CATV perfectly, but as someone who bought a Tivo because the cable box was just that bad...do you really want to ?
1
Bravo, Mr. Hakim...
I'm still trying to figure out how to pare down to getting only what I want and not those 125 useless channels I get from DISH ($65/mo). I need the major "legacy" networks and a few cable networks for news, sports and late night. Everything else I get from Netflix ($11/mo) and/or HBO (which I"m getting "free" for two years) after signing up with DISH when I moved here.
Really, the whole consumer telecommunications landscape is a total nightmare. Telephones, TV, Internet ($67/mo. combined) comprise a big chunk of my cash flow. I still can't seem to completely cut the cord on phone, though I no longer have LD service with them (saving $35/mo) and just dial the few LD calls I make through Skype. ($3/month)
Thank God, I never got on the Star Trek band wagon!
Whoa, no comments. Where are all our fellow(gals included) Trekies?
I am going to chime in here with a comment: You still have Cable?! Why? Get a Roku or if you are Apple, use Apple TV. I cut our cable in August and LOVE not being force fed a few hundred garbage channels at exorbitant fees.
I will be giving HBO the Heave Ho as I just did STARZ until they add new seasons to their few first rate series. I love being able to cancel them due to NO CONTRACT. We love Brit Box and Acorn TV as those are British programing we love. The CW is free with commercials so still see some old favorites.
So with an over ten years subscription to Netflix that was following by Amazon and PBS subjects I already had alternative entertainment and was deployed to have more at more than half the cost.
We have excellent over the air TV which my husband watches occasionally. I like the HD and extra channels you get on broadcast TV too. I love Public TV and now have 3 different ones to watch.
With public TV now on my ROKU I Don't miss having a DVR but may eventually get one to record GOT and when I drop HBO for a few months I'll give CBS's paid programming another go once they get Star Trek done. BTW avoid Sling box. Not worth the money. But HULU is a 3 out of 5 for some original programming as well as selecT broadcast ABC,& NBC Programs 24h after first airing. They retain 3 programs to let you catch up then you'll have to wait for Netflix or Amazon. Avoid their new Network package, overpriced.
1
We all know the Star Trek episodes will eventually be Rerun (forever) and then we can watch Discovery for free. Or possibly rent the DVD Set from netflix mail-order for ~5 dollars.
The executives should be putting Trek (and all other shows) on Hulu or Netflix rather than trying to split into discrete services. The first option is logical while the latter is just pure greed.
1
FYI ST Discovery is streaming on Netflix France at the moment. Was on Netflix UK for a while but was pulled.
Sorry, writer, you lost me at “The Wrath of Khan”. LOL
1
THANK YOU all you greedy streamers!!! It had gotten to be so much work and $$$ that I was finally motivated to cut the cable. Now I have loads of free time and more money.
2
IMO the new Star Trek rocks and is well worth it.
2
Was semi worth it until they entered the "Mirror Universe". Now it is absolutely abysmal.
I guess after reading the comments and the column I'm in the minority. We cut cable because the cost wasn't worth it. We have antenna TV, CBS, Hulu and also Amazon, which is free. The kid uses that and his computer for games. All that combined is about $20 dollars a month. We have DVD's, CBS/Hulu gives us access to some of our old favorites and antenna gives us PBS and the news. The high cost of Direct TV, etc was a waste of money. Too many channels we have no interest in. We also like to read. We all love Star Trek, ST Next Generation and the others and get them on antenna TV thru Roku. So, I'm very happy. Low cost, old shows, some of the few new ones we watch for less than 30 bucks. I'll take it.
1
Live Long and Prosper Star Trek: Discovery! I love this series. I grew up with Trek and now can watch it with my teenage kids. I'm even slowly getting them to watch some of the classic Trek episodes!
2
I watched the 1st 9 episodes 4 free by joining then canceling. They offered 1 yr 4 39.99 so I paid n advance. Very good show, & After Trek is funny. I also have Netlx, Hulu , Amazn; still worth it for $40/12.
1
And for those who watched "The good wife" - I believe the ne series "The good fight" is on CBS too. Going in to a 2cnd year. It is very good and even better than the original series. More Diane Lockhart is always a good thing
I've got Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. That is it. No more services for me. There is so much to watch on those three I can skip these other services. I can't watch everything anyway.
I am definitely not paying for CBS. Yes, they have this new Star Trek show. But except for it and Big Bang Theory, the rest is crap I don't want to watch anyway. Blue Bloods? Criminal Minds? A thousand versions of NCIS? No thank you. Why would I pay that much for 2 shows?
5
I agree: TV is a freakin' nightmare for consumers. And as stated, it's only going to get worse as studios stream exclusive content (and remove that content from Netflix). How will it get re-aggregated? Not until consumers say enough already. Maybe the industry will unwittingly cure America of its TV habit. Scrabble and cribbage, anyone?
9
I couldn't agree with you more. CBS Interactive is one step beyond what I'm willing to subscribe to. I too have Netflix and HBO, but have also added Hulu.
That's enough. As you stated, there's only so much TV we can watch. CBS is owned by Viacom, and Sumner and the gang want to own and monetize everything. Not happening in my household. Other than 60 Minutes, which I can watch on my computer, there is nothing on CBS I care enough about to become a subscriber.
2
Whining about the expense is silly. It's one less Starbucks a month to watch a really great show. I gladly pay for it and absolutely love where they've taken the story so far in the second half. Even NPR called it one of the their favorite shows of 2017: https://www.npr.org/sections/monkeysee/2017/12/14/569893288/nprs-favorit....
3
One less? What are you drinking at Starbucks?
14
For those of us who monitor a budget, things just add up. Look at what you now pay for all "utilities". The average consumer is being bled to death by the Oligarchs.
So some of us engage in the battle.
1. Cut the cable cord.
2. Minimize subscriptions
3. Drop the landline or get an Ooma
4. Consider a cell service like Tracfone - bring your own phone, $15/month - uses AT&T and Verizon towers. Ala cart purchase of texts and data - just buy what you need.
5. Make your own coffee :) It's fun.
Netflix has Star trak Discovery here in Turkey.
1
Discovery is available on Netflix in every country except US and Canada. I watched it over the holidays in Mexico.
It was OK, but not worth paying for a service just to get it. It also wasn't rally Star Trek. "Star Trek" is episodic (each one stands alone), and is infused with the "Roddenberry vision" of a future of human collaboration not conflict. "Discovery" is neither of these, it is one long story arc, following a central character who finds over time that those in power above her are connivers and duplicitous.
1
"Unbundling" has come to mean buying a bunch of smaller bundles instead of one big one. No money to be saved and a lot more overhead. But at least some of them contain an array of content (Netflix, Filmstruck).
We all have a stake in "CBS All Access" failing. If they can get away with making viewers pay for what is just a traditional broadcast network, then they will all go for it.
This is especially important for NFL football viewers. There exist a variety of ways to access games on the other networks for streaming, including subscribership to a traditional cable network. But CBS controls a large proportion of the Sunday games and holds the streaming to ransom for "All access". The games are not even available "in market" through DirecTV Sunday Ticket (a big investment in itself). Not good enough.
Football fans who stream would not like to see this become a trend.
1
Even more ridiculous is that here in Ireland ST: Discovery is streamed on Netflix.
5
I politely told DirecTV that the $61/mo I was paying for basic was not cost-effective for the channels I watch on it--mostly CNN and Bloomberg. I already pay for Netflix and Amazon and also can access various free sources. And the sponsors on basic channels should pay ME to watch their stupid annoying commercials. Since I was no longer bound by any contract, DirecTV responded by immediately reducing my monthly fee to $21. And they threw in six months of all HBO channels free, cancelable automatically. 'Nuff said? Except give credit where it's due: their phone reps can make executive decisions.
8
I tried that once with Direct TV and they kept raising my bill every month and I would have to call them EVERY MONTH to complain, argue, fight, and threaten them to the the point where they would hang up on me and I would have to call them right back and start over again. They try to wear you down, and some people don't even notice their bill has gone up because Direct TV encourages "auto-pay" and paperless billing to trick you into signing another 1-2 year contract. And that "free" 3 months of HBO and Cinemax? Direct TV won't let you cancel it, or force you to cancel it during a very specific "time window" to deter you from cancelling it, or pretend they didn't receive your cancellation request, and then nail you with the full cost. The things they do are illegal, but bring that up to them during one of your monthly heated telephone exchanges and they will threaten you with hanging up on you or put you on hold for another 45 minutes. Don't believe me? Enjoy the ride!
"Some of us view “The Wrath of Khan” as a major work of American cinema. "
And we are correct.
36
I waited on pins and needles for six months for Star Trek to debut in the first week of September 1966. It was a week before my thirteenth birthday and I was already a science fiction fan of years standing. I've been a huge fan ever since and seen all or most of the sequel/prequel series (I still haven't seen the last few seasons of Voyager) and movies, though my heart still beats strongest for the original series. I'd love to see the new show, but like you I'm not ponying up for CBS All Access.
Part of this is pure money; I'm retired on a fixed income and already have Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu (paying 50% more to avoid commercials) as well as HBO and Showtime. And since I already have far more quality TV that I want to watch than I have time to watch, six bucks a month is a pretty stiff price for probably watching little or nothing besides Star Trek. But since I could find that six bucks if I wanted to, I guess it's more the principle of the thing. I've been annoyed at CBS's arrogance for years. It is the only broadcast network to hide its entire schedule behind a pay wall; every other broadcast network (and most basic cable stations) are either available on Hulu (ABC, Fox, NBC) or on Roku apps that are either entirely free (the CW) or free with a cable subscription (most basic cable stations). Plus, I've read CBS makes it particularly difficult to cancel All Access once you subscribe (this may no longer be true, if it ever was, but why chance it?).
3
Scott Bakula is the greatest starship captain of all time. What's Wrath of Khan?
5
That's a lot to process.
30
I'm with you, and I've been a Trekkie since the first show. Eventually ST:Discovery will come out on DVD and that's when I'm'na watch it.
5
Wow, FINALLY someone who feels my pain. I pay $9.99/mo to Google Play Music for unlimited access to streaming music with complete control on what plays. It's legal, it works well, and the price is very reasonable compared to satellite radio.
I propose a similar pricing strategy: I put together a list of about a dozen shows available on Amazon that I would consider "premium" shows (Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, House of Cards, Boardwalk Empire, and The Sopranos to name a few). I did not include Prime series, only those you have to pay to watch or buy on disc. After some arithmetic, these premium shows cost an average of $25.91 per season. If I watch one season of, say, 30 shows every year, the annual cost would be $777.30. Divide that by 12 and you get a monthly rate of $64.78. This isn't much less than the $70 or so that my cable company wants to charge me for their Premium Digital tier, but some of the shows I want to watch are not included in that Premium Digital tier: HBO and Showtime are obvious, but also Netflix and Hulu have at least a couple shows I want to watch as well.
What is so hard about allowing consumers the freedom of TRUE à la carte pricing, or Pay-Per-View? Each network can set a price for an individual show or season, and the customer can either pay it or not. No one would be paying for content they didn't want (sports, children, Spanish etc.) and overall I believe show quality would increase dramatically.
1
I have an antenna for OTA reception of the major networks. I almost never watch it but it's nice to have for news and sports - there is still a lot of stuff that is broadcast for free. I have Netflix for movies and TV shows. I have AppleTV to rent newer movies that aren't on Netflix. This is all I'm willing to pay for (well, except HBONow when Game of Thrones is playing). I definitely am not interested in subscribing to a plethora of services to get this show from here, that show from there, etc. Not worth the money or the time to figure it all out, and watch it.
1
Yup when you'return presented with a ton of choices, it'seems not worth the hassle to figure what show is on what channel. And if (like us), you'really dealing with a budge that includes medical expenses for chronic illnesses, $6/month,isn'the worth it for one show.
Even if it is Star Trek. I'll wait for the dvd.
I could have written this. I cut the cord (satellite) 3 years ago and have never looked back. Get very good OTA in SF. Have Netflix and Amazon. Subscribed to Showtime last year long enough to watch Twin Peaks, then cancelled. All told, I'm saving lots of money and still there's too much to watch, especially when one factors in DVDs I can get from the public library, not to mention the Hoopla and Kanopy streaming services SFPL offers, and the odd on-demand movie I might rent (oh, and I actually go to the movies). Given all this, I watch so much less TV than I used to and am so much happier for it. There are so many other things to do (my public library even, get this, loans out books -- papers and electronic -- that I can read for free). While I've been a big Star Trek fan for my entire life, I simply can't justify shelling out more for a standalone service just so I can watch the new show. Enough already. It is just TV. It isn't oxygen.
6
I watched Star Trek in it's first run - and the Next Gen, DS9, Voyager and the first season of Enterprise. I'm done! I'm tired of the new creative teams screwing with past story lines. It was bad enough when Worf in the Trouble with Tribbles crossover story, had to say something about why original series Klingons looked so different than he did. Now we get another weird design? And we have to manage / pay for a special service. Nope.
I've been a fan of "Star Trek" from childhood; in high school I would walk two miles up a road, then straight up a steep hillside (often covered with snow, I grew up in Colorado) and down the other side, because that way I'd get home in time to watch the full episode; if I took the bus home I missed the first 15 minutes.
I loved most of it, though the theme song for "Enterprise" was so saccharine that it felt like I needuled insulin after listening to it; the two-episode 'evil alternative Enterprise' arc actually had the best intro in my view. Irony works that way sometimes.
Watched the pilot of "Star Trek: Discovery" and disliked virtually everything I saw. I'm very mich for inclusion and diversity, but the current 'ST:D' deals with it in at once a ham-handed and stereotypical manner. And the first officer assaulting.her captain really didn't fit, especially in a combat situation. Lost all interest.
I've read the producers of 'ST:D' hated.the previous versions of Star Trek, and those are entirely credible to me; it's much more like the "Battlestar Galactica" reboot than any other "Star Trek." Fox may suck at news, but they are great grand masters of entertainment, and "The Orville" is MUCH more like Gene Roddenberry's vision, than "Star Trek. Discovery" can ever be. CBS totally sold out Gene's vision for- what? A gritty, clunky, trainwreck of a show that hocks a loogie in the face of Gene's vision. And they want me to pay $9.95 a month for that privilege?
Not Happening.
1
Agreed! I'm a huge Star Trek fan but I will not pay ten bucks a month to watch them further erode the franchise (which started when they handed it over to JJ "Overrated" Abrams). I am much more comfortable with "The Orville", which is more in line with the spirit of TOS and TNG.
1
Never missed a rerun of Star Trek as a kid, much to my parents annoyance, since I wanted to see it in color in the living room. Watched the movies and the series. Except this one.
3
Bittorrent and Usenet are burning up trying to compensate for this muddled TV landscape. Discovery is AMAZING, and worth the cost if you can stomach paying your good money to yet another network with delusions of grandeur. It really should be accessible to a much larger audience. But have patience, it is totally binge-watchable to those waiting for a free access week.
Note that I appreciate the comments from users on The Orville, and I too thoroughly enjoy this show. But their writers couldn’t sharpen pencils for the stuff they’re writing for Discovery.
3
If people can complain that there are too many sources for new media, perhaps they are also watching too much TV.
2
Brilliant observation. We’re in the land of choice, and should be damn proud of it!
1
I'm willing to pay for streaming but I also have cable with hundreds of channels I have never and never will watch. And yet, I'm subsidizing those channels. When cable begins to understand a la carte under one monthly payment, I will not buy into more video streaming beyond Netflix and Amazon Prime.
3
I watch OTA (over the air) and have acquired DVDs from thrift stores. OTA = PBS. DVD = movies I didn't see when they were current. It's all new to me. I read a book recently, and I get hard copy magazine. It's mainly NYT, WaPo, and The Guardian that I read online. How much Entertainment does one need?
5
Dear author. You are only hurting yourself, and the possibility of more seasons of the new Star Trek, and let me tell you: IT IS SO GOOD. It reinvigorated my love of the show, and I was so desperate for more I am not going back through all the Star Trek shows again. And another thing, it's on Amazon, so your argument kind of falls apart. And another thing, you can get a free trial and binge watch the show and you won't have to pay a dime. So I say again, you're only hurting yourself, and since you are advocating a pass on this AMAZING show on such a public forum as the New York Times, you are hurting the potential for those of us who DID watch it and love it to ever see more episodes again. Frankly, as a Trekkie I think you are being wildly irresponsible. I think you should have your Trekkie badge stripped away. Shame on you.
9
"I think you should have your Trekkie badge stripped away." This is harsh talk! PS: You still have to pay for it on Amazon, though they also have a trial period. As I mention in the story, I'll probably binge watch it during the trial period after the season ends!
23
Yes, it was harsh, and I felt bad afterwards. I apologize. I just really loved it so much and I worry that all the negativity I've seen will mean we won't get much more of it, and I'm so tired of falling in love with shows only to have a network drop it before it's finished (Dark Matter most recently). But also I meant I'm "now" going back and watching older series of Star Trek again, not "not", and I really do hope you give it a chance in some way that works for you. I believe it's truly worth it. And again, I'm sorry. You should keep your badge.
Oh God Danny, you just pulled a Trump, ie turning a legit post (but horribly written (not) into a retort that should have not been posted (God bless you Danny)....(love those graphics!)....
Bottom line here...love the banter between Kristin and Danny.
The NY Times has to be careful here. It does not want to turn itself in a reality show where Kristin and Danny are pitted against each other into a cage match.
However this story is critical to the NY Times...(Danny love that original Star Trek multiple pic showing Kristin how important the original Star Trek is (take that Kristen!).
All joke aside. the NY Times if oh special to a democracy in so many ways....but we also need Danny to bring us back to what is important, history, there I said it...what Danny is trying to teach us here is history...
As Lincoln taught us.....you cannot escape history.....
With Netflix I can watch every episode of TOS/TNG/DS9 on an endless muted loop. Glorious. What else does one need in life?
3
A good $2 cigar? Some nice port? And, how about an Aston Martin Vantage?
Discovery is shown on Netflix in the UK. Just saying.
2
A la carte cable service is different from subscribing to all the different services. I don't want to pay for a single sports channel, religious channel or cooking channel which are all bundled into my level of service. Cable bills would be half if all sports channels were put in their own separate category.
The free for all with all the different streaming services is a completely different problem. I also am a Star Trek fan from way back. I went to a convention the weekend before I took a professional exam instead of staying home to study. (I passed) I know it takes a while for a show to set its characters on how they behave and interact, but the new series seemed beyond hope. It was too dark to see and one of the bridge officers was afraid of his shadow. I am happy to watch all the old shows on H&I and BBC America. If having to buy a new service is the way people will have to watch there will be plenty of flops because there won't be enough hours in the day to make all the expenditures worth it. Would people buy a service for one show? MASH was on for 11 years but its first season would have been a flop in today's market.
6
“The question then is how do they get re-aggregated back into a very compelling consumer proposition?” -- Marty Kon, Boston Consulting Group
This statement sends a shiver down my spin -- a reminder of why I left consulting.
And is this Marty Kon the guy from House of Lies? Have we fallen down the rabbit hole?
1
As a Boomer who can recite the dialogue from the 60's Star Trek series, I have had the same internal conversation as the reporter. I would love to watch the CBS Star Trek reboot but refuse to pay a fee in addition to the $186 per month that I fork over to Comcast for basic plus and internet. My reading time increases as my TV watching decreases.
13
I think a lot of the cord cutters or some of the commenters on here are going to be shocked when they find that their watch at their leisure/binge watching goes bye bye. Sure, today you can have an Apple TV, roku, fire device,etc and stream things. So today, for example, if you don't have a particular service, you can wait until it gets on let's say amazon or Netflix or Hulu to watch it after it finishes its first run.
The problem is, content providers are pulling their series off the likes of Netflix and Amazon and the like, so your only option will be to subscribe. Sure, you can wait for free trial weeks, or subscribe and unsubscribe, but soon those will disappear, too, and you will see subscription services that require contracts (or charge a lot more per month without one). And more importantly, the typical streaming service is getting to be around 10 bucks a month, so how many of those will you need?
There is another factor that the cord cutters forget, and that is that cable companies provide the internet service you have most places. As people drop cable, they are going to raise the price of internet access, so for example what is 60 bucks by itself may go to 100, 150 a month, as they lose revenue from cable subscriptions...and there is no regulation of this, they can charge what they want. So you may pay 100 for internet, then another 100 for 10 services...sound familiar?
4
Surely some of the lost revenue from cable will be made up by the charges for telephone service, now that copper-lines are being left to rot.
My household never had cable, and we add and drop online subscription services all the time, long enough to catch a show we want to see or marathon, and then unsub as soon as it's done. Still a lot cheaper than cable month by month. CBS' app is just another one in that line. I happily shell out a few bucks for a few months to catch DSC and then I'll cancel until season 2 (the show is fantastic and appointment watching in my house). CBS is just doing exactly what every other channel/content provider is doing. TV's going a la carte — resistance is futile ;)
2
"the entertainment industry should remember we don’t have to watch television."
Very true!
17
What We the People hoped for[1] was à la carte TV, competing cable companies (i.e. more than one per area!) who *each* offered all of the channels and networks and whatnot that a person wanted to pay for, and no more or less—with competition, price, and channel availability enforced by a non-crazy government, when needed.
What you call "à la Carte TV" is instead what we actually got—Fragmented TV, a mess of services that each charge the price equivalent of a cable package for the show equivalent of a channel, and are each offered by companies who are in no way competing on price. Want that system fixed by the anti-regulation monopoly-friendly covfefe GOP? Good luck with that!
It will kill Comcast, before making us long for the old days of Comcast.
[1] Well, besides ending the onerous outdated "DMCA" and "DRM" things. (Looking at YOU, copyright harassment-friendly YouTube, as you also try and fail to be one of these frag services.)
1
I so agree with this article and have been sorely dissappointed that I have also not watched a single epsiode. I am a lifetime Trekkie and this idea that we nw must subscribe to yet another channel is infuriating!
7
We are in the golden era of streaming media. For the same monthly price as a cable TV package, and with the one-time purchase of a $179 Apple TV set top box, I get the cream of the subscription-based streaming services, enabling me to watch my favorite movies and bingeworthy series in 4K whenever I want. Moreover, my high-speed internet service via my WiFi home network lets me run a big-screen TV, two PCs, two iPads, and two iPhones, all displaying different content, with no lagging. I am never forced to sit through commercials. And as an extra bonus I was able to drop my telephone land line.
Thanks to the Republicans, who have just voted to give the internet carriers control over content, within a couple of years the despised cable model will be applied to the web, making it almost indistinguishable from cable TV. When that day comes I’m going to cut back my internet usage to personal messaging only and return to reading for entertainment, buying my books from my local independent book store.
5
Unlike cable or satellite there aren't any commitments/contracts with these online providers. I hop on and off various services depending on what's debuting on each. I had Hulu for "The Handmaid's Tale" then dropped it because there was little else worth watching on it. I had HBONow for "Game of Thrones" and "West World" and dropped it when those ended. I currently have Netflix but I've dropped it many times in the past and probably will again soon. For things I can't find on any of those I will buy a season pass on iTunes. All in all it is still much cheaper than my monthly satellite bill used to be.
1
Today there is such a vast array of content, that we all have to be discriminating about quality and conservative of our time, as well. I can't even begin to watch it all, and I don't work full time.
1
Precisely!
I refuse to have my Star Trek fandom coopted for such cynical ends. I'll pay for Netflix. I'll pay for Amazon. I'll even play for Hulu (Handmaid's!!!). But I draw the line at paying for network TV beyond what I already pay for cable. Even HBO gives you the streaming part for free if you're already paying the cable company!!!
Nope. Nope. Nope.
Happy to watch reruns of all the other Treks (I really am a fan - I even liked Enterprise) before falling for this cynical ploy. Plus the Orville has really been scratching that itch for me for new content.
Those greedy CBS execs can go suck an egg.
This Trekkie is sticking to her principles of fairness, and if this new series ever decides to re-examine it's roots, it would do well to remember that greed is in direct conflict to all founding principles of Star Trek.
20
The more customers Comcast loses, the better.
I have not found a single company with worse telephone public relations. You cannot chat or email with them; you have to call them on the telephone,and then press the correct sequence of buttons to get through the myriad of queuing paths to reach an actual representative, Then, you have to repeat the same, time consuming issues before one can even begin to talk about whatever issue you are having a problem with. Lord help you if you accidentally press a wrong button on your telephone. You have to start all over, from the beginning again.
They are the worst, hands down.
4
My nickname in HS was "Spock"........I know, sad. But every one of the Star Trek series was based on "family" AND essentially followed canon. "Spore drive"?! Please. Others have said it better here, but this show depicts an ugly and predictable militarism and its arrogant flouting of canon makes it for me, unwatchable. Now that's sad. Curious about how its doing ratings wise.
3
Well you certainly hit it right on the head It is ugly and predictable militarism I am not sure what they are "discovering" anything yet. But then again this is suppose to take place before they got "woke" so I guess we should have expected it, Maybe they will discover their humanity and Peace Just askin
1
We'll never know the ratings. The Fragmented TV way is to not even allow Nielsen polls, let alone auditable viewing data (in aggregate in public contexts, of course).
Gods forbid they get 1,000,000 watchers and a competitor aims to get 1,000,001! (Just kidding, they don't compete anymore. They just want a lot more money for the data.)
1
FYI, Trekkers, ALL of the Star Trek series are available on CBS All Access (not just Discovery). That's a boon for me who can't afford all the DVD sets.
Also, libraries either have the sets or can get them through inter-library loan. If you have a library card, you have the world at your fingertips.
1
The last good Star Trek was Deep Space Nine. Since then it has been bad Buck Rodgers or weak-blooded soap opera. Most of all I am with the writer here - I have eons of stuff I want to watch available for free (from the not so distant past) which seem so much more promising than pumping nickels into a rickety imitation of what I used to like. Unless I grow two more heads and never sleep again the possibility I could actually see this ocean of new product in my lifetime without ever leaving the living room does not seem likely. Less likely is that I am going to reward the Disney with a plug nickel.
2
Some facts here:
The author's BIO says he lives in London.
Star Trek Discovery is available to Netflix subscribers outside the US
The author says he has a Netflix subscription
CBS All Access is not available in the UK
What am I missing here?
5
Jose - Sorry for the confusion, my bio is out of date, moved back to the U.S. in August. I'll get that updated!
6
The point is that this a la Carte TV society is a global problem. Yes I subscribe to Netflix and yes I am watching Star Trek Discovery (which is great!), but there are a very large number of subscription services that are expensive and except for the rare on off you would not want to touch. CBS All Access is indeed not here, but there any number of similar operations. Meanwhile services like the BBC, ITV and even Sky are shadows of their former selves. Sky itself is largely propped up by Game of Thrones and soccer. What happens when GoT goes, only Disney can tell us?
The point the author is making is not about Star Trek per se but the increasingly mercenary and fragmented global state of television today. How many people can afford to subscribe to a large number of outlets and for what value. Netflix is great, but you don't watch if for its mediocre film library, but increasing for it own productions. HBO is likewise terrific. Not many can match them, Amazon is trying and maybe will get there.
1
It's also available on Amazon and you can get a free trial that gives you enough time to binge watch the whole thing (which is easy, because it is SO GOOD).
Even in the UK, television has become too fragmented and too expensive for the overwhelming majority of people. No wonder young people are abandoning television and getting their news, information and entertainment from a number of internet companies, many of which are purveyors of truly false news and tabloid like sensationalism. In addition, this fragmentation is having huge cultural and behavioral impacts, mostly bad. There was a time when people were brought together by TV whether if be about who shot JR, whether The Fugitive would finally get justice, MASH or whether Ross was really on a break! That culture is more or less gone and we each go our own way in an electronic maze of fragmentation and binge. Gone to are the days when a Walter Cronkite would be a trusted conveyor or real and honest news. Young people get their news, not from CNN, the NYT or the W Post or even Fox but from a bag of fringe services from the far left or the far right who deem truth and balance secondary to pushing an agenda. Try having a conversation about politics with somebody under 30 and if you say something they don't agree with you are voice of evil who has offended a sensibility. Seeing the other side of an argument is increasing a lost virtue. So while this fragmentation of media has some good points, it carries in a lot of bad. Perhaps this proliferation of subscription media is carrying in it the seeds of its own destruction. We can but hope.
2
This past week my son called me from school. He's away at college. It turns out he couldn't access Netflix because tow other members of our family were already connected. But he learned for another $3/month we could expand our access to enable all 4 of us to watch Netflix at the same time. I told him I would get off my show and we would not sign up for the $3. We can afford it. We can also afford satellite radio in the cars but I refuse. We've got cable with most bells and whistles, Netflix and a Play Station subscription. It used to be TV, telephone and radio were all somewhere between free and inexpensive. Now not only are they all expensive but the strategy of too many businesses is to sell us on a subscription - from razor blades, the alarm in my home, to your new car's service plan, ad infinitum. There isn't a network, a series or a movie out there I can't live without. Have courage. You can do this.
22
TV and radio were never free. TV and Radio were commercial based so you were "paying" for them (and yes, you are paying for commercial channels today, most basic cable channels have commercials, so you are paying about a buck a month for USA, etc, that have commercials).
Phone was never inexpensive, I don't know where you got that idea. These days when you get phone service it has unlimited local and long distance service, back in the day (especially before the ATT breakup), long distance was incredibly expensive, and with local service you got a certain number of 'message units" for local calling, then after that you paid for it....and in inflation adjusted numbers, it wasn't that cheap, that 15 bucks a month if you used inflation is around 50 or 60 bucks today, then if you add in local and long distance charges, was a lot more. Yes, cell phones are expensive, there is no doubt, though a lot of that is in the cost of the fancy smart phones and data plan, if you had a cell phone that could only do calls and maybe text, likely it would be about the same as 'the good old days'.
1
Many comments here reflect that they love Star Trek, but may I suggest that those fans (me included) love the past Star Trek productions, and that just naming something part of the Star Trek opus there is no guarantee it follows the same underlying core values that we've associated strongly with Star Trek. In the past no matter who the producers or writers were, someone with strong authority to keep the fans' expectations on track. A scorned, disappointed Trekkie is a bad thing.
For one who has watched the first few episodes of this series, I felt it wasn't worth any more of my time and stopped going to my friend's to watch the next episodes. Maybe there was a dramatic improvement in quality, but the first couple episodes had failed miserably to engage me with the story line or develop interesting characters. Maybe others can comment.
The message is, as a franchise owner, please make sure that each spin-off is worthy of my time and money. This one is not.
If you are going to use a plum to attract viewers to your subscription service, please realize quality is the only thing that will make us part with our money. Name alone won't accomplish that.
4
If you haven't seen the newest episodes of the series, you are missing out. Unlike previous Treks it's not an episodic series, the story has an overall arc that is building, and right now the episodes we're getting are the story payoff. It's very rewarding and worth seeing.
Since "Next Generation", the Star Trek series have continued to decline in quality, with "Voyager" and "Enterprise" being basically unwatchable. So now the latest attempt to squeeze more blood out of a dying franchise wants the big bucks just to view it? That's a no-brainer. No more.
2
Danny, couldn't agree more. I am an avid Trek fan - now re-watching the last year of Voyager. Couldn't do it either, I was not about to pay for another streaming service. We will probably cut our cable next month or go to a very basic package. Already have Amazon, Apple TV with Netflix etc. Of course the next step is a one stop shop platform where you can buy it all or the pieces through one provider and not a cable company! Oh yeah, Disney is coming out soon with their service - can't wait.
4
Why don't you turn off your cable subscription? You don't need to buy cable to get phone and internet service. The savings could go for this CBS service, plus take-out for two once a month. What does cable offer you? Do you watch live sports a lot? That seems like the last thing left that cable can give you that you can't get elsewhere.
4
You don't have to pay to watch the next Star Trek. It's called "The Orville" and it shows on Fox, much closer to Star Trek than Discovery.
13
I respectfully disagree. My wife and I are 100% OK with spending $10/month to get 4 hours of Star Trek. Star Trek works best when it plays to it's core audience. Unfortunately, that audience is not the same size as other franchises' base. If paying $10 a month gives the two of us four hours to peer into a hopeful vision of the future - where mankind overcomes poverty, greed, racism, and values learning - then we feel it's a lot cheaper than therapy! (Oh, and since mid-season...the show has been worth every penny.) LLAP!
4
Oh, and did anyone notice that the Constitution class star ship in the article's GIF is not the Enterprise (NCC-1701) but is actually the Defiant (NCC-1764)? Nice touch, NYT!
10
Mike, you are absolutely correct. I tried to preemptively fall on my sword on my twitter account. The comic book store down the street didn't have a model Enterprise!
4
In the 1970s when I could settle down on a Saturday night and watch "All in the Family", MASH, Mary Tyler Moore Show, Bob Newhart and then the Carol Burnet Show, the cost to my dad was a grand total of zero. My cable bill as of Jan 2018 is 240 a month....how did that happen?
I definitely need to cut the cord. Has anybody figured out the perfect way to do it?
24
Yep. OTA for current events stuff and Netflix DVD service for last year's offerings. Being retired means I don't have to keep up with current episodes because of the around-the-cooler talk if anybody even still does that.
Also, being in a rural area without any high speed access, I have to rely on hotspots for internet access. That means I would not only have to pay the CBS fee, but also watching anything on-line means I'm also paying the per GB fee, too.
I'll just wait for the series to come out on Netflix.
There is no perfect way, the problem is that streaming is the wild west. Besides the obvious fact that cable companies are most people's ISP (FIOS is no different than cable) and there is no competition, and they will jack the price of internet access once they lose cable subscribers, the real problem is for streaming there are no perfect solutions. In theory, you could get amazon prime (100 a year), Netflix, hulu , and eventually be able to stream anything you want, including seasons of network tv, or series once on HBO and so forth. The problem is that content providers are going to pull their programs off of netflix or whatnot, and will require you to use their service to stream.
And if you want to watch live sports for example, a lot of that is now happening on cable, so if you want to watch the baseball playoffs or some of the football games, you would need ESPN service or a service that allowed access to TBS (for baseball). Some people have advocated subscribe, watch what you want then unsubscribe, but that is both bothersome and also likely is going to be curtailed as well. I suspect the cord cutters are going to find that their ability to have a couple of services to see things later is going to explode on them, and they will be faced with 100+ a month for the streaming services + internet access.
2
Too many monopoly suppliers of broadband in America. I moved to London from the USA, and have at least 10 suppliers of broadband to choose from.
Stop electing Republicans who get their campaign funds from crooks
We were already paying for The Good Fight (best show on TV imo) so Star Trek was icing on the cake. You're really missing out. It's terrific.
4
I am about to retire from a long career in television production. Oh, the changes I have seen - and they are not even close to being done. No one knows where it is going but, I assure you, they all want more money.
I have been a Trekkie since William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and crew first rocketed onto our screens in the mid-'60s. Through the decades since, I have watched every commercial TV series permutation and trekked to see each new theater release. I, too, am abandoning CBS's new Star Trek series. I watched the free over-the-air preview and liked it. But I am paying $175 a month for cable and have a couple of other monthly subscriptions. I am just unwilling to keep dolling out more money to an industry that has, all too easily, conformed to this age of greed and selfishness. I will soon be joining my younger friends and cutting the chord. I will watch less and pay less but will still have access to plenty of quality content for a fraction of the price.
Thankfully, my personal revolution will not be televised.
7
Cut your cable, man. It's a waste of money. But still don't pay for CBS-extra or whatever it is.
The fact that CBS is charging for its streaming service and then giving you commercials unless you pay even more, blows my mind. I really can't believe people are falling for this.
New "Star Trek" show sucks anyway, at least as a "Star Trek" show. Dark, militaristic, miscast, sour. It's got the brand identity, but that's all. It's not really "Star Trek." Seth McFarlane's "Orville" series isn't very good either, but at least it sometimes captures the spirit of TOS.
5
1. Well, it's not $6/month just to get the series.
You get the whole of CBS Access. So, there's much more value there.
2. We recorded and then watched the first episode. Alas, it was violent, graphic, and too centered on evil forces.
We decided, then and there, that the *content* and plot were NOT worth it.
Even if it had been on regular OTA broadcasts, we would NOT have set up our TiVos to record it!
This is coming from people who loved most of the previous Star Trek series!
Gene Roddenberry would be rolling over or tumbling out of the Captain's chair!
2
Once you get over FOMO, the solution to the bastardization of television costs is simple.
Drop cable, get an HD antenna for over-the-air TV, add a streaming service or two (Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, MLB.tv - take your pick) and watch how the available excellent programming continues to exceed the number of hours you have to be a viewer.
After three years of this approach, we still find far more to watch than we have time to enjoy.
Add to that a regular stop at our local public library (the taxes for which are easily your best entertainment investment) for full season DVDs of shows outside of our streaming service offerings, and it is hard to argue with this approach.
If you can get over the fear of missing out on me next-day chatter about any program. Maths test shouldn't be too tough, given that we have all gone years since TiVo and other DVRs changed viewing habits.
The reason the writer is a Trekkie is that he grew up when it was new. But others fans, far younger, caught 'The Wrath of Khan' in its 500th airing, or on Netflix, or on DVD. It happens.
Just get over yourself and embrace alternatives.
4
I'm done. I love ST and the ST universe but I simply refuse to pay for yet another service to be able to watch just one show is a waste of my hard earned money.
4
Yeah, but I also get "The Good Fight" (I love Christine Baranski and will watch anything she's in), and since I don't have cable, I can also watch "Madam Secretary" without commercials, because I need a dollop of whipped cream named decency on my politics periodically. And if you're a true Trekkie, you get all the TV Star Trek series.
Maybe it isn't a great deal, but still, compared to going to out a movies, my $9.99 a month goes farther on a cost-per-hour basis. I can't even see one movie in a theater for my CBS monthly fee, and the cost doesn't go up for the number of people viewing.
What I object to is the cost of my broadband: $70 a month! Without which I can't access any of the rest, not Netflix, CBS, Amazon Prime, or my digital subscription to the Times.
7
Agreed! Everything is hostage to internet service and mystery fees, including the one they added for basic over-the-air channels.
5
Just wait, the price of broadband is going to soar as people get rid of cable, people think there is a free lunch, or that internet access is regulated, which it isn't. In most places, you have a choice between FIOS and a Cable company for internet access, and they are both the same business model, they offer internet along with cable. When revenue from the cable packages start declining more and more, the price of internet alone is going to soar, and those who think 'the government' will regulate it like they once did phone bills, forget it. To give you an idea, I still have land line service from Verizon (phone service), that was a true land line (copper twisted pair). They switched it to digital (basically fios with phone only) and it is 100 bucks a month! They are going to do the same thing with internet, and the point is you will likely end up paying much the same between internet access and the various streaming services that are flaring up.
2
I saw the first episode of the new show. Save your money.
1
As a cord-cutter and die-hard TNGer, Orville has been so good, especially as a family show (middle-school aged kids) that I need time to cleanse my palate before Discovery. CBS knows that the future is not in "real time" viewership but in on-demand binge watching. From that perspective, CBS is selling the whole series to Trekkers for $5.99 which is cheaper than Amazon.
Shame on you. There is no excuse for a real Trek lover to miss this, even if you still read. It is actually a good break from reading Piketty's Capital, Foer's Life Without Mind, and of course Wolff's Fire and Fury -you get to imagine alternative racist universes that might not actually hurt people or destroy life as we know it. I for one would help crowdfund your subscription.
The Original Series has been baked into my DNA; there is hardly an instance in my life that will not summon back a particular episode or line - and I really wish I had stopped there, rather than being sucked along by each successive spinoff. In the end, it's not a spectacularly interesting universe that they've conjured; its appeal is that its familiar.
2
multiple channels of public television over the air!
1
Another fine example of businesses having no clue what the consumer wants. They know what they want, our money, our subscriptions, our undying loyalty, but not a [expletive deleted] clue what we want.
Captain James T Kirk must be rolling in his grave, or will be when the 23rd century rolls along.
2
Very well said.
2
What would Kirk do? Stop fretting and just cut the darn cord. The telecom monopolies have a business model that involves sucking money out of your pocket monthly. I could care less what is current in entertainment, because in a few years I can get whatever I want on DVD from eBay at a very cheap price and enjoy it at my own pace. And I have friends with whom I can talk about things other than contemporary TV shows or sports (things like history, art, books, and the great outdoors), so I am all set.
Me, too. No more money. I go back to Star Trek 1966, but I told CBS All Access to get it from Comcast.
Agreed 100% on all things said here. I am in the same boat. Netflix and Amazon OK for now. I'm done. No to CBS. Do I have to use the Klingon language here to get the point across or would that be too harsh? No.
1
Ya know, this is initially how I felt too. But then I realized about ten years ago, I griped about having to pay so much for a bundle of channels when I was only wanting about ten of them and wished we could have a pay per channel. Now I have that so I sucked it up and paid for the cheap version of CBS All Access,
1
You haven't missed a thing. It's a sci-fi show with ST in the title.
1
All I can say is that many of you are missing out, especially if you are Trekkies. It's a fantastic show.
Bite the bullet, get it for a month, and binge watch the 11 or 12 episodes available now. Then cancel if you're not hooked. But you probably won't cancel.
2
I thought this article said le ‘Carre, meaning John le carre...oh well.
I completely agree. I have been a Trekker since TOS (the original series) and it breaks my heart (and probably Gene Roddenberry’s) for a Star Trek series to be on a pay for view system. As the author makes reference to The Wrath of Kahn, I quote from Spock: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”
2
My thoughts exactly. When I was unemployed in 2016 I binged Voyager on Netflix, and it really held up. But I also watched a lot of other stuff then, including Game of Thrones on DVD, because I won't pay for HBO for one program either. I can wait. If you want to really break the cable bundle, let me pick the dozen or so channels I actually watch and I'll pay five bucks each for them.
6
I agree with the author. Though I came down on the other side and signed up for the service, and love the show, I resent CBS reaching into my pocket. We don't watch anything else on the network and I sometimes question my decision. My wife and I met at a Star Trek convention, so the genre holds a special place in our lives.
I believe unbundling is part of the de-democratization of media. As with the author's household, M*A*S*H was part of our household, as it was for many in America. So was Walter Cronkite. Now we can all go into our own corner and watch shows tailored for our own tastes and prejudices. While the quality of television shows has improved in recent years, I'm concerned about the cost to our society.
2
Don't worry, if you actually like Star Trek, you're not missing anything with the new show, which bears no relationship to the Star Trek you used to love. Discovery is trying desperately to be "explosive!" with all the characters having the most "just so" backstories ever, war and violence, and not a trace of the thoughtfulness or character interaction we used to know. My name for it is: "Faster Star Trek, Kill! Kill!"
2
Yes, we also binged watch Star Trek Discovery with the free trial week! It's winter: make it so! (Be sure to put the cancel date for the free trial in your google calendar.) Live long and prosper!
1
What really rankles about CBS’s extortion, is that in every other country in the world (more or less) you can watch Discovery on Netflix. CBS decided that Americans would perhaps pay more, so cut the US out of this deal.
I have to wonder if this was a smart business move. I wouldn’t call myself a Trekkie, but I would have watched the show if it was on one of the four services I already subscribe to. For an extra $6? No thanks. CBS all access has zero other things I’d be interested in. HBO worked as a solo service because they also have other hit shows aside from GoT and they tend to have a decent selection of new movies.
20
Wow! I had no idea that Discovery was available elsewhere through Netflix. This really makes it stink more, that and the fact that CBS have the nerve to charge you double for watching without commercials. There are PLENTY of ways to see this show WITHOUT paying the exorbitant and ridiculous extra fees!! The same goes for The Good Fight!!
1
We 2 devoted Trekkie 50-something’s are paying the $10. Way cheaper than buying one book or a movie out for 2! And now that we have the subscription, we are exploring other CBS shows. But here’s the big shift for us: we’re moving next month to a home where no cable is available. Great! A digital antenna plus a few streaming options will give us what we want for much less money. Cable is like paying to visit a huge shopping mall when you only want to shop at a few stores. Of course, malls are dying, too.
8
I don't pay for cable TV, spotify or any other subscription service. When we are at other people's homes and they seem to have everything "on demand" all we seem to hear and see are masses of stuff we have no interest in. Kids and adults in those families seem to be constantly hop-scotching around channels, missing beginnings and ends of different shows, more often than not we spend more time watching ugly, loud commercials--which our home is thankfully fee of. Instead, we are patient, we wait for something to be available on DVD and we borrow from the NYPL.
Sometimes, usually around Oscar time, I look into getting cable tv but am always shocked at the price, and the cavalier attitude of staff to hauling me in as if my custom is a given, not something to be courted in a consumer-friendly manner.
There are other ways to live that don't involve being glued to the TV/computer all the time.
8
Just wait until ST:D is available on Blu-ray and rent the disc from Netflix. No commercials and higher-quality video.
3
All I have heard about the last few years is 'cutting the cord' and all the ways to do it. Every few months, I investigate again and after a couple of hours look for something else to do. It's the same way I feel walking into the beer section at my supermarket, by the time I'm done, I've picked up another six pack of Sam Adams or Brooklyn Beer.
At least I don't feel like Robin Williams looking for coffee at the Bodega in 'Moscow on the Hudson'. You can probably Google that.
3
And oh, yes, Seth McFarlane's FOX series, The Orville, is another great alternative.
22
I agree. "The Orville" is a clever reimagining of "Star Trek: The Next Generation."
1
The great migration to solo distribution channels will force consumers to pay a lot more for these services over time. This will be especially true when any of the net neutrality forces kick in. But in the end, consumers will kick in and pay more in aggregate than they used to.
For an example of paying more look at phone service. Never in my mind did I think my family would be paying over $ 200 a month for phone service. Phone service was about 50.00 for a phone in 1970 (in 2018 dollars). Now, these services are not exactly the same, but neither are the media channels. Same idea though. Some channels are sports, some of old TV show, others music and movies.
So families of America get ready to shell out more and more for your media entertainment. It is going to happen.
1
I might suggest watching fan-produced episodes of the original Star Trek (Kirk and Spock) that are available online. Star Trek Continues is very good. Just go to the Wikipedia article Star Trek fan productions for a long list of them.
6
Exactly my thoughts, too. As a longtime Trekker, I’d love to watch the next series, but I’m tired of getting charged for shows I used to get free (albeit with ads) and a lot of content I won’t watch.
29
Cable companies will eventually have to offer a la carte channel selection to survive. Since most cable systems are now all-digital it is technologically possible, but they want to hold out as long as possible offering only expensive packages bloated with loads of unwanted channels. Otherwise they will go the way of landline phone service as people see how nice it is to watch on-demand, commercial-free content from a streaming service.
15
Never watched Star Trek. So sorry. I still use my Blue Ray DVD player too.
Oh, I have the total Netflix streaming thing. But get this. I also have a list of about 150 DVD's that they send me one at a time. I take that list and check it with what is available thru my local library system and find that most of the titles are available. I order them on line and pick them up at my local library branch ! Oh, I still read books with paper pages that have to be turned.
15
I share the author’s feeling on this. While I love Star Trek (with the exception of the dreadful theme song from “Enterprise”), I will not pay a premium to get one new show and a ton of reruns.
The reason I do pay for Netflix, however, is because it’s not just reruns. They invest in a wide range of original content, and are not just pushing “Stranger Things” and reruns of broadcast fare.
When I look at what I pay Netflix, I can see the value in what I get. CBS may get some to cough up $9.99 a month to watch this one show, but not me.
I will, however, get the 7 day trial once the season ends, binge it, and then cancel. Hey, don’t hate me - I want to see the show - but not at the price they seek to charge.
39
Agreed! except for the bit about the "Enterprise" theme song. (It always made me--proudly--think of Carl Sagan's line: "We are a space-fearing species.")
7
We loved Enterprise though it was starting to resemble DS9's 2-D universe before it was abruptly ended. My favorite thing was belting out made-up lyrics to the banjo theme song when the closing credits played.
Gods, I miss that show.
Wait - We're talking about pay-per-view Star Trek. Ok. I vote no on that one too.
Same here. I love Star Trek, but I'm not signing up for another service, especially one that makes me pay double not to see commercials. And I've read that if you do pay the $10 for commercial free, they still stick in commercials for their own shows. They claim those aren't commercials, they're previews. Forget it. I'm going back to books too. It seems that the more shows we get, the worse they are.
32
Although here in the Netherlands, I can watch 'Star Trek: Discovery' on Netflix, I agree with this article. There's only so much high-quality TV I'm prepared to pay for (and reserve the time to watch). I don't have an HBO subscription for instance, so I watch successive seasons of 'Game of Thrones' when they come out on DVD (although by the time they do, I already know all the plot twists from social media).
9
A sane voice in the wilderness. Enough already. Cable, ( Direct TV in my weekend house where cable isn’t available) Netflix, and Amazon Prime are my limits.
The industry needs to find a better solution.
39
I'm 54 years old and have been watching Star Trek since I've been 5 years old. I've seen all the Trek TV shows (except ST:DS9 which I couldn't tolerate) and the movies too (and have gone to over a dozen scifi conventions) and like you I haven't watched the new Star Trek on CBS All Access because I'm maxed out with my subscription services and cable bill. I find it intolerable that I have to pay to watch a TV show on yet another paid subscription service. As for my place of work, hardly any of the adults under age 35 have cable and most don't even own a TV. Most watch Netflix and occasionally Amazon on their laptop. None have Hulu and almost none of them are Star Trek fans because they are too busy pedaling around town on their bikes (because few of them own a car) and living their life instead of watching TV, which few can afford nowadays.
60
I'm sorry you didn't like DS9. It is , to me, actually the best of all the genre. The writing is outstanding and having Starfleet getting down in the mud raises great philosophical debates (it is real easy to simply walk away from something icky when you have the Prime Directive and the ability to zip away without having to look back). And the character development of many of the main characters is very well done (see the episode "Duet", Second Skin" and "Ties of Blood and Water").
I also agree with this article. I watched the first episode when it was on broadcast TV but it didn't really grab me. Which is for the best because I now do not feel any guilt in missing this.
2
Melissa absolutely agree. When Sisko tells the Maquis that it’s easy to be a saint on paradise it completely turns Roddenberry’s vision of a no conflict military organization on its head. Best series of all IMHO. Starting my kids out on TNG, not ready for the nuances of DS9 yet.
1
Four words..."In The Pale Moonlight"".
My daughter is still too young for any ST. Instead she has gotten hooked on Star Wars (convenient since she also likes Disney Junior!)
And to the others mentioning Orville, I too enjoy the show but it doesn't seem to have figured out if it supposed to be comedic or serious. A little bit of both does it a disservice.
And Mr. Hakim, not even the Maquis had to turn in their ST card. I think most would agree you are still in the fold!
One could start off with business’s first big lie: basic cable will be commercial free. Are you old enough to remember that? It runs along the line of the paperless office.
TV has become another entity for the haves and the have nots. There’s a trend to take free TV into the realm of everything for a fee.
It’s economic segregation and eventually will affect national security. There will be those who receive vital information and those that don’t.
30
Me neither
1
I was able to watch the first season when it was offered for free for 3 days. Thankfully it was over a weekend. The show is fantastic! The lead character played by the woman who was on the Walking Dead is a great character and a role model for women. After I watched some episodes I thought how sad it was that this great character is not shared on regular TV. I too don't want to pay for another subscription service. CBS should revisit showing this on their regular channel.
25
Agreed. For a young person it is a matter of money, for a senior like me it is a matter of money and technology, ie past commercial and basic cable TV installation I am lost.
Will not watch it unless it comes back to basic type TV.
17
I so much agree. Enough is enough. I have watched all Star Trek TV programs when they aired on conventional TV and all Star Trek movies when the came out, but I have refused to subscribe to CBS All Access which has no interest to me except the new Star Trek Discovery series. It’s NOT worth it to me to add another subscription beyond my FIOS cable, Netflix and Amazon Prime. I made the same decision for HULU. Hopefully Discovery will be available on traditional CBS TV or licensed to Netflix as it is in Canada and elsewhere. If not, I will take a pass and wait for the next Star Trek movie. One has to wonder what CBS’s numbers would have been if it had put Discovery on its traditional platform. I believe it was a missed opportunity.
43
I'm in the same position. I love Star Trek. I've taught college courses focused on Star Trek. I've heard good things about Star Trek: Discovery.
However, I don't want to pay for a service just to watch one TV show, Star Trek or not. I'll wait, too, until the season is over and I'll watch the season then. Or not.
79
Agreed! Though I've mentioned Trek in my college courses, I've only ever taught one involving SF, and that was Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. Not that I'm a luddite--how could I be as a Trekker?--but SF works get pedagogically in book form too.
2
Yes, we're getting "subscriptioned" to death. Death by a thousand cuts...to our wallets. Ugh.
6