# Star Trek Discovery 9/24/17 “The Vulcan Hello” Spoilers



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Starting this thread early to remind you to pad your recording! Football may delay the start.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Thanks for the heads-up! I'm actually going to sign up for All Access, so I would imagine the episode will be available to be streamed as soon as it airs.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I have all access. I wonder if I stream it later, there will be commercials.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

If you pay the extra for no commercials, there should be none.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Howie said:


> If you pay the extra for no commercials, there should be none.


I hope you're right. Guess I'll find out tonight.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

RGM1138 said:


> I have all access. I wonder if I stream it later, there will be commercials.


There are 2 plans, one with ads and one without. They both have ads during Live TV stream. Shows are usually made available for VOD the day after their original broadcast.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I didn't realize there was a live viewing on All Access. I'd just wait to the next day to get no commercials if that's the case.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Pilot only airs on tv, right? Everything else needs all access?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I'm sure the pilot will be available via all access.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> I'm sure the pilot will be available via all access.


I meant the pilot is the only episode airing on tv. I could've used a comma or something.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Hoffer said:


> Pilot only airs on tv, right? Everything else needs all access?


Yes


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Hoffer said:


> I meant the pilot is the only episode airing on tv. I could've used a comma or something.


I didn't know the pilot would be on tv. I thought it was all only on streaming. 
Wouldn't matter for me though. I don't have a CBS feed on DIRECTV.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Up here (Canada) it will run on Space. And it looks like there will be 2 episodes tonight (although the second one does not have a "new" tag in the guide, the description is different from the 1st one.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

wprager said:


> Up here (Canada) it will run on Space. And it looks like there will be 2 episodes tonight (although the second one does not have a "new" tag in the guide, the description is different from the 1st one.


There are 2 episodes tonight, but in the USA the 2nd is only available online with CBS All Access


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I'm wondering how football overtime will affect the online streaming.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Wouldn't you know it? The CBS Cincinnati-Green Bay game went into overtime. Need to pad at least 20 minutes.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Padded.


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

I'll watch the pilot on TV but will not pay for their CBS app. I notice it is now a featured app for the PS4. I've seen it advertised on several websites I visit. So I know they want to try to get people hooked. 

Love Star Trek but can't pay for another streaming app.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

wprager said:


> Up here (Canada) it will run on Space...


that seems appropriate


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

It will be all over BitTorrent by morning.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

mrdbdigital said:


> It will be all over BitTorrent by morning.


 Only a thief will watch the torrent.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

mrdbdigital said:


> It will be all over BitTorrent by morning.


Try like 2 mins after airing


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

tenthplanet said:


> Only a thief will watch the torrent.


And only a greedy crook will charge you $10/month to watch a single weekly show.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

mrdbdigital said:


> And only a greedy crook will charge you $20/month to watch a single weekly show.


Then don't watch the show. That's how it works.


----------



## jcondon (Jul 9, 2003)

hairyblue said:


> I'll watch the pilot on TV but will not pay for their CBS app. I notice it is now a featured app for the PS4. I've seen it advertised on several websites I visit. So I know they want to try to get people hooked.
> 
> Love Star Trek but can't pay for another streaming app.


Yeah we are out too. Not paying for CBS all access. Not even going to watch the first episode.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

I will say this, Sonequa Martin-Green is quite beautiful. The short hair and not wandering around zombies has done wonders for her. I like the look of the show. Please tell me I am not gonna buy in to this all access garbage!


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I think I'll do what others have mentioned. Wait until all the episodes are on CBS All Access and then subscribe for a month and watch them.


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

Guess I'm first, yes all the modern tech is disorienting at first but I really liked it and the story is interesting... beam me onboard!


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

That sounds like a plan...if it will work. They may make episodes available for 10 days or something to prevent us from doing just that. I did enjoy what I saw.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

Why is there a ready room when James T didnt have one???


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

hoping the "Son of None" is not a time traveler, part of a time war 

got so freaking tired of the time traveling stuff in "Enterprise"


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

went for the 7 day trial. must be overwhelmed. site keeps resetting


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I liked it, quite a bit. I had All Access for The Good Fight, which I thought was really good, too. Looks like I'll re-up for this one, but I can wait until tomorrow. Maybe the initial sign up frenzy will have settled down by then.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Hoffer said:


> I think I'll do what others have mentioned. Wait until all the episodes are on CBS All Access and then subscribe for a month and watch them.


I believe CBS All Access has a free 1 or 2 week trial, so I'll just wait for all episodes to drop and watch that way.


----------



## Hopeless (Mar 30, 2002)

Wow, that had to be the beat Star Trek launch ever. Aside from pointing out the fact that a few bits of dialogue were pretty bad, I have nothing but praise so far. Don't ask for examples of the bad dialogue, as I'm an old man and my recall isn't that great!


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Yeah, I’m in for the trial. Didn’t expect the ending of Episode 2. Need to see where this goes.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Hoffer said:


> Then don't watch the show. That's how it works.


HA! There are a hell of a lot of people downloading that don't agree with you. And, no, that doesn't make it right to do so.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Graymalkin said:


> Yeah, I'm in for the trial. Didn't expect the ending of Episode 2. Need to see where this goes.


damn it 
now I have to sign up and watch episode 2


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I'd like to watch The Good Fight, too. Most of my favorite shows are on CBS. And NCIS: Los Angeles and Madame Secretary are almost always delayed by NFL overruns. So $6 a month isn't too expensive. 

I've spent 55 years watching TV with commercials and the habit is ingrained -- I don't fast-forward through them, I just do something else while they play in the background. Even after having TiVo for 18 years.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

jamesl said:


> damn it
> now I have to sign up and watch episode 2


You can sign up for a one-week trial and get the second episode that way. Then cancel. But if you do that, you'll probably have to sign up for a paid subscription to see the rest of the episodes at season's end.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I'm "sharing" a CBS All-Access subscription with my BIL, who got it as a gift. I signed onto the service a couple of days ago on my Apple TV, and it worked perfectly. Not a hiccup on the 2nd episode.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Well damn, the first 10 minutes or so were slow enough that I was prepared to agree with everyone's worst fears, declare it not worth paying for, and leave it be.

But it picked up. Episode 2 picked it up further. And the previews at the end of Episode 2 picked it up even more. (I guess we should make an episode 2 thread)

Now I'm not sure what I'm going to do. I still object to the notion of supporting the proliferation of streaming services, grumble grumble grumble...


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Welp, they did a great job on episode one, imho. Loved the acting, and am so glad they didn’t make the set out of cardboard boxes and flashing lightbulbs to try to make it look like TOS.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

kdmorse said:


> I guess we should make an episode 2 thread


Done!
Star Trek Discovery 9/24/17 Ep 2 "Battle at the Binary Stars" (CBS AA)


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

First episode was so good, I've considered subscribing. But I think I'll wait a month or so for a few more episodes to build up, then try their free trial.


----------



## boywaja (Sep 30, 2001)

that's some pretty good sensors that can pick out the shape of the star trek emblem in footsteps, in the desert, from orbit. 

Nice to see they stuck with the usual star trek methodology of having both the captain and number 1 leave the ship on an away mission. But what was it about this mission that required not even bringing red shirts?

If you took a drink every time sensors were thwarted by something in this episode, you might be under the table. 

All the klingon sections were tough. I tend to be on the computer while watching tv. hard to force myself to read the dialog.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

Oh, Discovery blew The Orville out of space...


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Thom said:


> Oh, Discovery blew The Orville out of space...


The comparison is going to be inevitable. But they really are two very differently toned shows, and there's more than enough room for both of them. (I hope)


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ok, that was better than I thought, what with all the chaos going on behind the scenes.

I am wondering what the hell happened to the Klingons but so far, the story is intriguing.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Well, I guess I'm the minority voice.

First, beautiful tech. Having said that, enough with the lighting flares!

Second, though, I started looking at the clock ten minutes in, and by the end was wondering, when does something happen. Even "Star Trek: Enterprise" had more occurring over its multi-episode arcs. The writing might be just fine as an 8 or 10-episode single show divided into segments. But I guess I wasn't looking for a 6 or 8-hour movie, divided up.

Also, who are these people? I seemed to have learned more about the Klingons than the Federation crew. And that always has been a hidden gem of the Star Trek franchise--the interpersonal relationships. Very little of that here--and I can only pick out 3 people of the Federation crew at this point whom I even could recognize. Compare that even to "The Orville."

I'm sure that it will feel better by episode 4. Right now, though, it just doesn't, although the scenery was beautiful to watch.

Oh, the opening theme: I'm sorry to say, but: really? Drawings? Although I did enjoy the opening and closing portions of the music theme--but those were from the earlier series . . . .


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> I'm "sharing" a CBS All-Access subscription with my BIL, who got it as a gift. I signed onto the service a couple of days ago on my Apple TV, and it worked perfectly. Not a hiccup on the 2nd episode.


Okay I was watching After Trek, and noticed that the CBS app doesn't allow any sort of playback control once the program starts! Really sucks. In order to simply pause the program, for example I had to completely hop out of the show or the CBS app. Fortunately the app at least saved my place.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Mikeguy said:


> Well, I guess I'm the minority voice.
> 
> First, beautiful tech. Having said that, enough with the lighting flares!
> 
> ...


the opening with the drawings was great

gave a real "blueprint" and building feel to the opening

as for "when does something happen", this was the first episode 
it is more for introducing characters and backstory than pew pew phasers

we learned the first officer's parents were killed by Klingons on a federation outpost 
we learned she was educated by Vulcans even though she's human (or part human) 
we learned she has a close relationship with Spock's father 
we learned the culture of the science officer (his species was raised as food) and that's why he always paranoid

I thought the fist episode did a pretty good job of introducing characters and setting some things up


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

jamesl said:


> the opening with the drawings was great
> 
> gave a real "blueprint" and building feel to the opening
> 
> ...


I agree (to a degree): it started setting things up. But I guess I was expecting an episodic show, like so much of broadcast TV. Whereas this was more a segment of a longer movie (which I won't be watching for quite some time, as I'm not doing CBS Access, lol).

By the way, I wasn't expecting phasers, or torpedos--but a beginning, middle, and end. Instead, I saw the start of a beginning. A different approach to Star Trek television.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Mikeguy said:


> But I guess I was expecting an episodic show, like so much of broadcast TV.


Your criticisms are all perfectly valid. I too found a few more lens flares than I expected, and the middle of the theme song tedious for obvious reasons.



Spoiler: Not really a spoiler, but tagged for the spoiler pure



Many of your points however vanish when you consider it is an single episode, it was just a two hour long single episode, that they cut in half and only showed you half of. Many of your comments regarding interaction, backstory, paceing, who-are-these-people-and-why-are-they-there, are resolved when episode 1 and 2 are viewed together as intended. ie, in Canada...


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> I agree (to a degree): it started setting things up. But I guess I was expecting an episodic show, like so much of broadcast TV. Whereas this was more a segment of a longer movie (which I won't be watching for quite some time, as I'm not doing CBS Access, lol).
> 
> By the way, I wasn't expecting phasers, or torpedos--but a beginning, middle, and end. Instead, I saw the start of a beginning. A different approach to Star Trek television.


All Star Trek TV series except the original had a 2 part pilot episode, and this series is no exception, the next episode is part 2.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

boywaja said:


> Nice to see they stuck with the usual star trek methodology of having both the captain and number 1 leave the ship on an away mission. But what was it about this mission that required not even bringing red shirts?


 They died earlier in the mission.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Thom said:


> First episode was so good, I've considered subscribing. But I think I'll wait a month or so for a few more episodes to build up, then try their free trial.


I'll wait until a slow TV season, the holidays or the summer. Fall TV premiers are about to explode -- I just added ~15 new OnePasses.


----------



## DaveMN (Nov 14, 2001)

I agree with those that say this was very good sci-fi, but it's not Star Trek. To me, Star Trek should be about "seeking out life and new civilizations", not constant battling with the Klingons. For what it is, though, the show is well done.


----------



## betamax (Mar 5, 2002)

Wow, what the heck happened to the Klingons? They sure got ugly!
Don't they have something that could dim the outside windows? Maybe some mini blinds could help.
Lots of strange, tilted camera angles. 

Should be an interesting show. I don't think I'll pay for CBS AA though.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

betamax said:


> Wow, what the heck happened to the Klingons? They sure got ugly!


My chosen interpretation is that over the decades, Hollywood makeup artists have gotten better and better at reproducing what Klingons _really _look like.


----------



## betamax (Mar 5, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> My chosen interpretation is that over the decades, Hollywood makeup artists have gotten better and better at reproducing what Klingons _really _look like.


I can't remember if it was a TNG or DS9 ep where they went back in time to TOS and saw the Klingons. Somebody asked Worf why they looked like that and the answer was simply, 'we don't talk about that.' I wonder if it was DS9 Trials and Tribble-ations...


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

betamax said:


> I can't remember if it was a TNG or DS9 ep where they went back in time to TOS and saw the Klingons. Somebody asked Worf why they looked like that and the answer was simply, 'we don't talk about that.' I wonder if it was DS9 Trials and Tribble-ations...


Yes that was the one, it was Worf who said it.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Still on the fence about the show. Good effects, great production values, but I’m not enamored with the acting yet.
How many variations of Klingots are on this show?
I was able to start streaming it about 9:15p (CDT), and watched both eps with nary a commercial. Sweet.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

RGM1138 said:


> How many variations of Klingons are on this show?


I'm guessing 24..?


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

I kept waiting for a Klingon with a mouth full of spit to hock a loogie.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

kdmorse said:


> Your criticisms are all perfectly valid. I too found a few more lens flares than I expected, and the middle of the theme song tedious for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Allanon said:


> All Star Trek TV series except the original had a 2 part pilot episode, and this series is no exception, the next episode is part 2.


Ah--perhaps when taken in conjunction with the second episode, the pacing will seem more complete. But taking the first alone, it just seemed sooo slow to me, with lesser exposition or development/intro. of characters, apart from a few. This could be a series that will benefit from binging.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I liked it but there's no way I'm subscribing to another pay tv source. I've already got Netflix and Amazon. I'll either watch when the episodes fall off the back of a usenet truck or not at all.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

And it's actually on Netflix pretty much everywhere else in the world. I'm not advocating sharing Netflix credentials with friends/family overseas, but _hypothetically_, if you have such a person with Netflix, with a VPN on your side, you could watch via their credentials. And hypothetically, it would be fair if you returned the favor.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> And it's actually on Netflix pretty much everywhere else in the world. I'm not advocating sharing Netflix credentials with friends/family overseas, but _hypothetically_, if you have such a person with Netflix, with a VPN on your side, you could watch via their credentials. And hypothetically, it would be fair if you returned the favor.


I know Netflix is wise to the fact you're using Private Internet Access and makes you turn it off before it will play content.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

loubob57 said:


> I know Netflix is wise to the fact you're using Private Internet Access and makes you turn it off before it will play content.


I've read up on it recently (but haven't tried it personally), and there are ways that ingenious folks have devised. Things like proxies, DNS changes, etc., that can overcome Netflix's defenses. It's a typical whack-a-mole thing - the hackers almost always come up with a way.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

I love all things Trek and really want to see this. I won't however add yet another monthly subscription. Already have Netflix & Amazon Prime. I will wait till the slow time between seasons and binge it on a 7-day trial.

I have not watched last night's yet. I didn't pad it for the football runover though. Will epsiode 1 be available On Demand?


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

I watched the first episode and thought it was above average for network TV. Acting was great, and the story seemed ok(don't know the outcome), and the effects were great. 

But I'm not paying for CBS all access. I would have been a happier Trekie if they just made it for Network TV.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

hairyblue said:


> I watched the first episode and thought it was above average for network TV. Acting was great, and the story seemed ok(don't know the outcome), and the effects were great.
> 
> But I'm not paying for CBS all access. I would have been a happier Trekie if they just made it for Network TV.


Yeah, I guess CBS knows what they're doing, but a high quality show (assuming the remaining episodes keep it up) in a good slot in prime-time should hopefully do well.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

So, just after the first episode I've watched - one of the things I really liked about it was the way the crew of the _Shenzhou_ had chemistry, as if they had actually been part of a crew for multiple years. It makes me want a prequel series already, showing them from the beginning, and then on various missions.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

markz said:


> I love all things Trek and really want to see this. I won't however add yet another monthly subscription. Already have Netflix & Amazon Prime. I will wait till the slow time between seasons and binge it on a 7-day trial.
> 
> I have not watched last night's yet. I didn't pad it for the football runover though. Will epsiode 1 be available On Demand?


Based on the first episode and my minority view, I think that the show could benefit from binging, as it's seemed more like a movie than episodic TV to me (albeit, this view is based on the first episode alone, which may not be fair).


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Yeah, apparently it's a two-parter, so you (and I) have only seen half. 

And the movie comparison is apt - maybe because I watched it on a big screen, but it felt like a movie... part way through, I was wondering if they should've taken a chance and made this into a movie (and then launch the TV series). Then I realized CBS only owns TV rights to Star Trek. :\


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> So, just after the first episode I've watched - one of the things I really liked about it was the way the crew of the _Shenzhou_ had chemistry, as if they had actually been part of a crew for multiple years. It makes me want a prequel series already, showing them from the beginning, and then on various missions.


Funny, I had almost the opposite reaction...it felt like they were so bent on introducing the crew to _us _they forgot that these people have known _each other_ for years.

Especially Michael and Saru...the way they were going after each other (and explaining to each other why they don't get along) it was if they had just met, not as if they had settled into some kind of longstanding coexistence.

And most of the crew are still anonymous cyphers.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

I figured most of the crew were wearing red shirts under their uniforms, and only the ones that had lots of dialog would be regulars.


----------



## TiVoJedi (Mar 1, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> I'm "sharing" a CBS All-Access subscription with my BIL, who got it as a gift. I signed onto the service a couple of days ago on my Apple TV, and it worked perfectly. Not a hiccup on the 2nd episode.


If only TiVo had the CBS All Access app in their repertoire...


----------



## TiVoJedi (Mar 1, 2002)

mattyro7878 said:


> Why is there a ready room when James T didnt have one???


This crew is not piloting an Enterprise class ship. The ship designer made provisions for a ready room.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Getting sucked in to watch the first episode on cable (and I did pad) *then* realizing the rest is only on CBS Access really ticked me off. I already spend too much on streaming services and had decided Access wasn't worth it prior to this. Now I'm really determined not to subscribe. Deceptive marketing IMHO.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> So, just after the first episode I've watched - one of the things I really liked about it was the way the crew of the _Shenzhou_ had chemistry, as if they had actually been part of a crew for multiple years. It makes me want a prequel series already, showing them from the beginning, and then on various missions.


It's amazing the differences on how people perceive things. I saw no chemistry at all between any of the characters. Very robotic delivery with no sense that these people have known each other for any amount of time.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

mrdbdigital said:


> And only a greedy crook will charge you $20/month to watch a single weekly show.


I thought CBS All Access was $5.99 and $9.99 per month...


----------



## davidscarter (Sep 28, 2015)

MikeekiM said:


> I thought CBS All Access was $5.99 and $9.99 per month...


It is.

And since I just recently cancelled my HBO & Showtime subs (now that Game of Thrones and Twin Peaks have run their courses) I'm fine with $10/mo. for some Star Trek.

I do wish there were other things on CBS AA that I was interested in, but all of the shows there are either ones that I've already seen, or else have no interest in.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm guessing 24..?


Is this going to be like the 12 Cylon models?


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

davidscarter said:


> I do wish there were other things on CBS AA that I was interested in, but all of the shows there are either ones that I've already seen, or else have no interest in.


That's the problem I have with getting the service, other than Star Trek and The Good Fight there is no other reason to have the service. I can record shows from CBS using the Tivo or use VOD from my cable company to see recent shows I might have missed.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

vman41 said:


> Is this going to be like the 12 Cylon models?


The Klingon civilization has 24 Houses to which a Klingon can belong. Rob is suggesting that each Klingon House may have a unique appearance. We won't know until we see them.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

MikeekiM said:


> I thought CBS All Access was $5.99 and $9.99 per month...


Sorry, I had the price confused with the Stargate All-Access charge, which is a one time charge of $20.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

markz said:


> I love all things Trek and really want to see this. I won't however add yet another monthly subscription. Already have Netflix & Amazon Prime. I will wait till the slow time between seasons and binge it on a 7-day trial.
> 
> I have not watched last night's yet. I didn't pad it for the football runover though. Will epsiode 1 be available On Demand?


I have been looking and episode 1 is not available On Demand, or through the CBS app. So since I missed it due to not padding it, I can't watch it legally without subscribing or using the 7 day trial. And I was planning to use the 7 day trial later to binge the whole season. There is nothing else the provide that is worth subscribing to for me.

I would think they would make the first episode available everywhere to try to pull in more people.

So, I guess they won't get me as a viewer/subscriber.


----------



## betamax (Mar 5, 2002)

markz said:


> I have been looking and episode 1 is not available On Demand, or through the CBS app. So since I missed it due to not padding it, I can't watch it legally without subscribing or using the 7 day trial. And I was planning to use the 7 day trial later to binge the whole season. There is nothing else the provide that is worth subscribing to for me.
> 
> I would think they would make the first episode available everywhere to try to pull in more people.
> 
> So, I guess they won't get me as a viewer/subscriber.


I feel the same way. Aside from ST, I can watch the rest of their stuff on my TiVo. I subscribe to Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, so I don't really want another pay service.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

crazywater said:


> It's amazing the differences on how people perceive things. I saw no chemistry at all between any of the characters. Very robotic delivery with no sense that these people have known each other for any amount of time.


I'm in the same camp. And sitting here today, I can only recall 3 crew members: the captain, the first mate, and the science officer aka meal. Oh, and I briefly recall the dr. saying a couple of lines, and wanting to see the character more.

But I did see a small amount of chemistry between the captain and first mate. And then the first mate, ever so realistically, pulled a mutiny on the captain and incapacitated her physically.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

davidscarter said:


> It is.
> 
> And since I just recently cancelled my HBO & Showtime subs (now that Game of Thrones and Twin Peaks have run their courses) I'm fine with $10/mo. for some Star Trek.


I did the same thing by suspending my Hulu subscription for three months. That'll cover the first half of DSC's season. After Thanksgiving, I'm out of CBSAA and Hulu resumes in December.

I don't know if I'll be back in January when DSC resumes. Depends on how the first half goes. May just wait until The Good Fight Season 2 comes back.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> Well, I guess I'm the minority voice.
> 
> First, beautiful tech. Having said that, enough with the lighting flares!
> 
> ...


I have to join you in the minority!

First off I'm a big fan of ST-TOS and generally enjoyed all of the other ST TV shows, all the movies and even the short lived animated series. I'm also a general Sci Fi fan and enjoy most other Sci Fi material such as Babylon 5 and even spoofs such as Red Dwarf. And even the new show The Orville.

That being said I thought this first episode was rather weak. First off in the cold opening, boy the Captain must have a real good sense of direction to make the Federation symbol by walking in a desert. And it seems the ship's visual sensors are much better than all the electronic sensors. I just thought it was a rather corny way to be rescued!

Next I absolutely HATED the opening credits. Just drawings? And the music was nothing to shout about.

But what really made me mad was when the First Officer, who served with the Captain FOR 7 YEARS, felt she was right and the Captain was wrong so she used the Vulcan neck pinch to subdue the Captain so that the First Officer could carry out her orders rather than the Captain's orders. That was TOTAL MUTINY plain and simple. Luckily the Captain recovered quickly and when she came into the bridge she should have IMMEDIATELY stunned the First Officer. Yes, maybe the First Officer WAS right but you DON'T commit mutiny to carry out what you think was right.

So overall I was NOT impressed. Sure if it was on regular TV or cable of course I would watch it. But to pay a fee to watch it - not for me!!!

Gerry


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

'Star Trek: Discovery' deserves better than CBS's streaming service


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DaveMN said:


> I agree with those that say this was very good sci-fi, but it's not Star Trek. To me, Star Trek should be about "seeking out life and new civilizations", not constant battling with the Klingons. For what it is, though, the show is well done.


Agreed. Good science fiction but more like Dark Matter or the expanse than Star Trek. Not really like any of them but less like Trek than the three.

And that's okay. Just don't except Trek.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Getting sucked in to watch the first episode on cable (and I did pad) *then* realizing the rest is only on CBS Access really ticked me off. I already spend too much on streaming services and had decided Access wasn't worth it prior to this. Now I'm really determined not to subscribe. Deceptive marketing IMHO.


Deceptive?? There were ads everywhere saying that it was only available from CBS All Access. And every break during the broadcast also had an ad showing that future episodes were only available from streaming. Not deceptive at all. They also did the same thing with The Good Fight earlier this year. Premiered episode one on broadcast and the rest were only on streaming.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Allanon said:


> That's the problem I have with getting the service, other than Star Trek and The Good Fight there is no other reason to have the service. I can record shows from CBS using the Tivo or use VOD from my cable company to see recent shows I might have missed.


Just unsubsribe when you finish watching. I will watch the first half of Discovery this year. Along with the Good fight. Then I will cancel it. And when the second half of the season of Discovery airs early next year. I will subscribe again. For only $10 it's a great deal for me to watch both Discover and The Good fight. 
But for the second half of Discovery, I hope season 2 of the Good fight is on, to still make the $10 a month a great deal/


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

mrdbdigital said:


> Sorry, I had the price confused with the Stargate All-Access charge, which is a one time charge of $20.


What is Stargate All Access? Is that new?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Gerryex said:


> ......
> 
> Next I absolutely HATED the opening credits. Just drawings? And the music was nothing to shout about.
> 
> ...


I wish there were no opening credits at all. Just show the name and start the show. I wish all shows would do that. I want to see the show. Not the extraneous stuff from opening credits.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> 'Star Trek: Discovery' deserves better than CBS's streaming service


Certainly better than the Paramount network that ENterprise was on.


----------



## Hopeless (Mar 30, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Deceptive?? There were ads everywhere saying that it was only available from CBS All Access. And every break during the broadcast also had an ad showing that future episodes were only available from streaming. Not deceptive at all. They also did the same thing with The Good Fight earlier this year. Premiered episode one on broadcast and the rest were only on streaming.


Yeah, not sure how you missed that. I thought they made it abundantly clear.

Anyway, I hope it doesn't remain streaming only. I already subscribe to AA, but I don't see how it can survive there.


----------



## jcondon (Jul 9, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Deceptive?? There were ads everywhere saying that it was only available from CBS All Access. And every break during the broadcast also had an ad showing that future episodes were only available from streaming. Not deceptive at all. They also did the same thing with The Good Fight earlier this year. Premiered episode one on broadcast and the rest were only on streaming.


My wife didn't know. I told her right before it aired. Perhaps not deceptive but a new way of airing a show.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> Deceptive?? There were ads everywhere saying that it was only available from CBS All Access. And every break during the broadcast also had an ad showing that future episodes were only available from streaming. Not deceptive at all. They also did the same thing with The Good Fight earlier this year. Premiered episode one on broadcast and the rest were only on streaming.


Whatever you call it, it stinks. Using up prime broadcast time for what amounts to a fancy one hour commercial selling an Access subscription. I just happened to see it in the program guide, recorded it with padding, and watched it the next day -- with commercial skip so I didn't see any of the breaks. I liked it and then didn't learn it was Access-only till it was over and I went to set up a 1P.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> What is Stargate All Access? Is that new?


An all-Stargate streaming service just launched for a one-time cost of $20


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Star Drek.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I thought the first episode was pretty good, for a first episode. Different than Trek, and I really didn't like the Klingons--mainly because they couldn't talk. I think the makeup folks got a little carried away, to the detriment of the show.

However, sorry, even though I've seen every episode of every Trek made so far, I won't be subscribing. I'm not interested in another $10/mo just for one show and like others here, there's nothing else there that interests me (I stopped watching The Good Wife somewhere in season 2). I know the app will suck compared to TiVo, and I never watch commercials. I even record sports so I can skip commercials.

If Discovery ends up being really great, AND they show the back episodes on All Access, I may subscribe for a month at the end of the season and binge it.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Just unsubsribe when you finish watching. I will watch the first half of Discovery this year. Along with the Good fight. Then I will cancel it.


 It's the new model. Subscribe to one service at a time. Binge, drop, rotate. CBS AA, Netflix, Hulu, ...


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

tlc said:


> It's the new model. Subscribe to one service at a time. Binge, drop, rotate. CBS AA, Netflix, Hulu, ...


It's a stupid model. They may develop countermeasures but, regardless, churning subscriptions is needless hassle.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I thought it was pretty good.
I never thought sonequa martin green was that good in The Walking Dead and she's not much better here. I do agree she looks gorgeous.
I agree that I am not seeing much chemistry with the crew - but that can't be the final crew...

The Klingons ... I really loathed the new makeup.

My sentiment is the same - I love The Good Fight and enjoyed this, but, I'm not paying for CBS All Access.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

dlfl said:


> It's a stupid model. They may develop countermeasures but, regardless, churning subscriptions is needless hassle.


And those using that model are encouraging the perpetuation of sucking more and more money from our pockets.

I am taking a knee.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

dlfl said:


> It's a stupid model. They may develop countermeasures but, regardless, churning subscriptions is needless hassle.





TonyD79 said:


> And those using that model are encouraging the perpetuation of sucking more and more money from our pockets.
> 
> I am taking a knee.


Countermeasure(?): Track usage (e.g., GB streamed) per month and adjust charges accordingly. I'm sure the heavy users will raise a big piss-and-moan about this idea! But why shouldn't we pay per how much we consume, as done for most other products and services?


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> I will subscribe again. For only $10 it's a great deal for me to watch both Discover and The Good fight.


To me, this is the problem. People thinking this is 'a great deal' to pay for shows that aren't being shown on their cable/sat channel.

What if they all start doing this because it's a success due to people thinking this way. $10 for multiple networks a month.. or even just to binge... No Thank you.

If you're not a cord-cutter, you are paying cable/sat already.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Countermeasure(?): Track usage (e.g., GB streamed) per month and adjust charges accordingly. I'm sure the heavy users will raise a big piss-and-moan about this idea! But why shouldn't we pay per how much we consume, as done for most other products and services?


I think this is ultimately what will happen. They can't realistically expect everyone to pay monthly fees on twenty different streaming services. My guess is that most of the streaming services will become ala carte, but the prices on TV shows will be much lower than they are now. I could see people willing to pay maybe 25 cents an episode.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

I think putting "CBS" in the name of the service was a mistake. If All Access was just another Netflix, Hulu, whatever... Well, we'd still complain because that market is saturated. But putting "CBS" in the name makes people think _Why the F isn't this on my CBS channel!?! Greedy bastards!
_
Fortunately there are plenty of other things to watch.

I was also annoyed recently when I found out a show was on Sundance Now, not Sundance TV.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

mrdbdigital said:


> Sorry, I had the price confused with the Stargate All-Access charge, which is a one time charge of $20.


One of the Amazon's or hulus has all 3 Stargate series. I believe it is hulu


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

mattyro7878 said:


> One of the Amazon's or hulus has all 3 Stargate series. I believe it is hulu


Yes, they're currently on Hulu and no longer on Amazon.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NJChris said:


> To me, this is the problem. People thinking this is 'a great deal' to pay for shows that aren't being shown on their cable/sat channel.
> 
> What if they all start doing this because it's a success due to people thinking this way. $10 for multiple networks a month.. or even just to binge... No Thank you.
> 
> If you're not a cord-cutter, you are paying cable/sat already.


I pay for cable, phone, and internet from Verzion FiOS. I also pay for between four and six streaming services each year. I see CBS All access as no different than other streaming services. I either pay them all year round for services where I watch a lot of content. Or I pay them for a short duration, for the ones that only have a show or two I watch. Considering individual episodes costs $3 each each, they are all decent deals for me. At least based on the content I watch from them.

People have no problem paying $5 or more each day for a cup of starbucks coffee. $10 a month for CBS All access, a few months out of the year, is nothing in comparison.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

gweempose said:


> I think this is ultimately what will happen. They can't realistically expect everyone to pay monthly fees on twenty different streaming services. My guess is that most of the streaming services will become ala carte, but the prices on TV shows will be much lower than they are now. I could see people willing to pay maybe 25 cents an episode.


If they ever offer a rental option for TV shows then maybe the prices will go down. But they have always used a purchase model for episodes of TV shows. Which makes them more expensive than they should be. If they had rental options I would rent some shows I currently watch from Cable/OTA. Just for the better audio and video quality streaming can offer over the quality that OTA/cable has..


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

aaronwt said:


> ..
> People have no problem paying $5 or more each day for a cup of starbucks coffee. $10 a month for CBS All access, a few months out of the year, is nothing in comparison.


but people are used to seeing Star Trek on tv for free 
now they have to pay for it

if your job provided you with free Starbucks coffee every day and then after a couple of years of free coffee they announced they would start charging you for every cup you'd be upset too


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jamesl said:


> but people are used to seeing Star Trek on tv for free
> now they have to pay for it
> 
> if your job provided you with free Starbucks coffee every day and then after a couple of years of free coffee they announced they would start charging you for every cup you'd be upset too


I would be glad since I don't drink coffee. I would have been pissed before since I had to get the free cup of coffee and nothing else. So I wouldn't have been able to take advantage of it.
But things get taken away or added all the time in business. It's nothing new.

Star Trek Discovery was only on OTA for promotional purposes. Now if it had aired a few seasons on CBS for free and then went to a pay service from the same company. Then I might be pissed. But for a show just starting out, that was never intended to be on a free service, I have no problem with it.

Look at what they did with Enterprise. The prior Trek shows had been syndicated. But they put Enterprise on just the Paramount network. Which a large percentage of the population didn't even have access to. Since their network of OTA stations didn't cover the country.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> If they ever offer a rental option for TV shows then maybe the prices will go down. But they have always used a purchase model for episodes of TV shows. Which makes them more expensive than they should be. If they had rental options I would rent some shows I currently watch from Cable/OTA. Just for the better audio and video quality streaming can offer over the quality that OTA/cable has..


iTunes used to offer TV show rentals for $1 an episode. Apple shut it down a year or two later as they said no one was using it. Of course that was back when you could purchase an episode for $2 or $3 an episode.

Apple axes TV show rentals for iTunes, Apple TV


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Tried to watch, put me to sleep.:sleeping:


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I pay for cable, phone, and internet from Verzion FiOS. I also pay for between four and six streaming services each year. I see CBS All access as no different than other streaming services. I either pay them all year round for services where I watch a lot of content. Or I pay them for a short duration, for the ones that only have a show or two I watch. Considering individual episodes costs $3 each each, they are all decent deals for me. At least based on the content I watch from them.
> 
> People have no problem paying $5 or more each day for a cup of starbucks coffee. $10 a month for CBS All access, a few months out of the year, is nothing in comparison.


I also have FiOS, with a rock-bottom cable package, plus HBO. And I have Netflix and Amazon Prime. That's absolutely all I'm willing to pay for, TV-wise.

I won't pay for Hulu (although I'd love to watch Handmaid's Tale), and I won't pay for AA.

I also don't buy Starbuck's coffee .


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> Look at what they did with Enterprise. The prior Trek shows had been syndicated. But they put Enterprise on just the Paramount network. Which a large percentage of the population didn't even have access to. Since their network of OTA stations didn't cover the country.


Voyager was on UPN prior to Enterprise. It was the first show on UPN when it launched in 1995. It was supposed to be the show that was going to bring viewers to UPN over The WB, which launched around the same time. I believe it was generally a successful strategy at the time.

They're using the same strategy now with Discovery on All Access.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Mikeguy said:


> Well, I guess I'm the minority voice.
> 
> First, beautiful tech. Having said that, enough with the lighting flares!
> 
> ...


You hit upon every point I came here to post about and then some. I was incredibly bored. The key to any show is character development and the chemistry they have interacting which is why the original Star Trek series is the phenomenon it is. The characters here are stiff and mechanical; and the production takes itself too seriously. A sense of dread and dramatic affectation permeates every single moment... it seems unnaturally too much. That's why from what I've seen so far The Orville is a better, more engaging show.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Huh. I've only watched this first, broadcast part, of Discovery, but IMO it is much more engaging than The Orville, which I like enough to keep watching for awhile. I fully intend to re-up with All Access sometime this week to continue watching part 2 and beyond. Different strokes.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Just echoing some of the comments above. The Klingon prosthetics causing the actors problems kept pulling me out of the moment. It must have been hard enough to speak Klingonese anyway. But with a mouth full of sharp teeth, it sounded like it was really painful. 
Imagine if a shark suddenly had the ability to speak. What would that sound like?
I’m no linguist, but I would imagine a race like the Klings would develop a more guttural, moaning type of speech. No so much with the tongue.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

I enjoyed the first 2 episodes.

My only concern going forward is that the show will become "all fighting/action, all the time."

I really enjoy the Trek episodes that are about the characters, or about an issue-of-the-day, etc. If this series is going to be war-all-the-time, then I think it is going to get pretty boring pretty fast.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I was disappointed Discovery went with the Klingons. I'm sick of Klingons. How about some new aliens?


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Yes, they should have gone with Kardashians. Much more menacing.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

getbak said:


> Voyager was on UPN prior to Enterprise. It was the first show on UPN when it launched in 1995. It was supposed to be the show that was going to bring viewers to UPN over The WB, which launched around the same time. I believe it was generally a successful strategy at the time.


UPN was a colossal failure of a network, and it was all due to programming. Voyager was the only show in their lineup that made it to seven seasons. (Enterprise was runner-up with four) They did produce some interesting shows like Seven Days and Veronica Mars, but UPN had less patience for low ratings than FOX.



mrdbdigital said:


> I know this won't be a popular opinion, but I was disappointed Discovery went with the Klingons. I'm sick of Klingons. How about some new aliens?


Klingons (or rather Klingons as _antagonists_) are what perked up DS9 in the fourth season and the Enterprise premiere. That's why they're using them again now. Give the people what they want. I wouldn't object to new aliens, but I wasn't a big fan of Enterprises' Suliban. It took a couple of seasons to flesh out the Borg and the Cardassians.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Saturn_V said:


> It took a couple of seasons to flesh out the Borg and the Cardassians.


Although the Borg--and especially the Borg Queen--were some of the, if not the, best antagonists in the Star Trek franchise.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

I enjoyed it... I will likely wait for the episodes to pile up on CBSAA and then subscribe for a month to binge watch the episodes...

$5.99 (or $9.99) to watch an entire series is not so bad... I probably would have rented/paid for each episode on Amazon or iTunes if they were available at a reasonable price...

I recently cut the cord, and one of the things I had always justified to myself is that I would take some of the savings that previously lined the pockets of Comcast, and use it to purchase/rent the content that was not available on broadcast TV (e.g., Walking Dead, Better Call Saul, Game of Thrones, etc...).

So I already have a budget for this stuff... And again, $5.99 or $9.99 for an entire season of Star Trek Discovery is within reason for me...as long as I can let it pile up and watch it in a month's time...


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Well, I guess they got my a**! I just signed up for a year of the commercial free package.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Saturn_V said:


> ..I wouldn't object to new aliens, but I wasn't a big fan of Enterprises' Suliban. It took a couple of seasons to flesh out the Borg and the Cardassians.


hated the ferengi on TNG 
but then DS9 reworked them a little and they became great
Quark became one of the best characters in the entire Star Trek universe













Mikeguy said:


> Although the Borg--and especially the Borg Queen--were some of the, if not the, best antagonists in the Star Trek franchise.


hated the Borg Queen 
changed the whole borg dynamic 
no longer was it "we are the borg" 
but it became "I am the borg and I tell the rest of them what to do" 
and all her "sexual" temptation,interaction with data was just weird


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

It turns out a friend who lives nearby subscribed to CBS All Access, and he's invited me over to watch this... This came up after he came over to watch a football game, and we were talking about new TV shows we've seen.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I may have jumped the gun on the whole All Access thing. I just tested it out, and I was shocked to discover that none of the shows on the service are being streamed in DD 5.1. This goes for live TV as well. The picture quality seems acceptable, but the audio is inferior to what I would get if I record a show off cable. So does this mean that there is literally no way to get the show in 5.1 until it is released on blu-ray?


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

gweempose said:


> Well, I guess they got my a**! I just signed up for a year of the commercial free package.


Is there a cheaper yearly rate?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

gweempose said:


> I may have jumped the gun on the whole All Access thing. I just tested it out, and I was shocked to discover that none of the shows on the service are being streamed in DD 5.1. This goes for live TV as well. The picture quality seems acceptable, but the audio is inferior to what I would get if I record a show off cable. So does this mean that there is literally no way to get the show in 5.1 until it is released on blu-ray?


There is no _legal_ way to get Discovery with 5.1 sound in the US right now.
As you've discovered, CBS All Access does not support 5.1 sound, only 2 channel stereo.

I'm assuming that Space channel in Canada is transmitting Discovery with 5.1 and Netflix in the rest of the world is streaming 5.1 versions.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Howie said:


> Is there a cheaper yearly rate?


Yes. The commercial free version is only $99 for a year vs. $10/month.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

MikeekiM said:


> I enjoyed it... I will likely wait for the episodes to pile up on CBSAA and then subscribe for a month to binge watch the episodes...
> 
> $5.99 (or $9.99) to watch an entire series is not so bad... I probably would have rented/paid for each episode on Amazon or iTunes if they were available at a reasonable price...
> 
> ...


Except......if they put it on their network it would be free. How do you justify that?

And this kind of philosophy will just drive the cost of tv up.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

I agree... But they didn't... So I justify it by simply putting it in the general "catch all" bucket of "unavailable for free" and will end up paying for it...

Consumers will vote with their dollars... I think most people who want to see it will either: (1) do without and send CBS a message; (2) sign up briefly and binge watch and unsubscribe; (3) sign up for a long term subscription...

My guess is that most will choose 1 or 2... I am on the fence to be honest... I have so much other stuff to watch, I could opt for 1...but I am also open to 2...


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

The camera angles and constant jumping between cameras is distracting


----------



## MikeBear (May 21, 2015)

MikeekiM said:


> I agree... But they didn't... So I justify it by simply putting it in the general "catch all" bucket of "unavailable for free" and will end up paying for it...
> 
> Consumers will vote with their dollars... I think most people who want to see it will either: (1) do without and send CBS a message; (2) sign up briefly and binge watch and unsubscribe; (3) sign up for a long term subscription...
> 
> My guess is that most will choose 1 or 2... I am on the fence to be honest... I have so much other stuff to watch, I could opt for 1...but I am also open to 2...


You missed number (4) Pirate it.

I suspect that will out-do all other choices by at least 100:1


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

MikeBear said:


> You missed number (4) Pirate it.
> 
> I suspect that will out-do all other choices by at least 100:1


That isn't far off.

Star Trek: Discovery is getting pirated a lot


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

gweempose said:


> Yes. The commercial free version is only $99 for a year vs. $10/month.


I'm only seeing the $10/month rate. Do you have a link to where I can get the $99/year rate?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Thom said:


> I'm only seeing the $10/month rate. Do you have a link to where I can get the $99/year rate?


No, don't do it--don't cave!!!


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> No, don't do it--don't cave!!!


Too late!


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

I bought my CBS All Access commercial-free plan via Roku for $10/month. Because I bought it from Roku (and not CBS) I suspect that is why I can't see $99/year as an offer. 

I've cancelled my Roku CBS All Access subscription, and will subscribe with CBS directly once my initial month expires on 10/26.

I've also complained to Roku, saying they should offer $99/year or $8.33/month for commercial-free CBS All Access.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I don't think I'd up for a year without some new content besides Discovery/Good Fight. I already have Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu, and as our good friend Alfer used to say, those three services give you a lot "more bang for your buck."


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

MikeBear said:


> You missed number (4) Pirate it.
> 
> I suspect that will out-do all other choices by at least 100:1


Yeah... I was aware of that option... But I didn't want to create a whole "is this stealing" tangent...


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

Howie said:


> I don't think I'd up for a year without some new content besides Discovery/Good Fight. I already have Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu, and as our good friend Alfer used to say, those three services give you a lot "more bang for your buck."


I haven't checked personally, but CBS All Access says all episodes of the various (I am assuming) Star Trek TV shows are available to All Access members for streaming. I think I'm going to try watching The Original Series later tonight, from the beginning.

EDIT
The Original Series, 69 episodes available.
The Next Generation, 177 episodes
Voyager, 170 episodes
Deep Space Nine, 174 episodes
The Animated Series, 22 episodes
movie Nemesis available.
Enterprise, 98 episodes
Discovery, first season still in progress.

A bunch of other shows:
Cheers, 275 episodes
CSI, 64 episodes
CSI Miami, 232 episodes
Everbody Hates Chris, 75 episodes
Extant, 13 episodes
Family Ties, 175 episodes
...and more...


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Thom said:


> I haven't checked personally, but CBS All Access says all episodes of the various (I am assuming) Star Trek TV shows are available to All Access members for streaming. I think I'm going to try watching The Original Series later tonight, from the beginning.


Well, I've recently finished re-watching all seven seasons of both Voyager and DS9, from the beginning, and could also watch TOS or TNG any time... for the last 3+ years at least... on Netflix.

No need for AA for that.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

.
.
.
Taxi
Touched By An Angel
The Twilight Zone
Twin Peaks
Under The Dome
Wings
.
.
.
I was hoping Becker would be available, but it isn't listed.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

madscientist said:


> Well, I've recently finished re-watching all seven seasons of both Voyager and DS9, from the beginning, and could also watch TOS or TNG any time... for the last 3+ years at least... on Netflix.
> No need for AA for that.


or Netflix for that matter. Legacy Star Trek's been on Amazon Prime and Hulu for almost as long on Netflix. (7+ years)

CBSTV could elect to not re-license with those three providers- but I doubt it, it'd be pretty stupid.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I don't want to get into an argument about it, clearly there will be things on AA that isn't available elsewhere. I just don't happen to want to watch any of them. After all, the entire runs of both The Twilight Zone and Twin Peaks are also available, for a while now, on Netflix.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I don't have Hulu either. I think Netflix's offerings are, on the whole, more interesting and you get more for the money and I don't really want to get two monthly subscriptions. I do have Amazon Prime but more for the other benefits: streaming is just a bonus (I wouldn't get it just for streaming). Also, the Netflix app is much better than the Amazon Prime app (don't know about Hulu) just in terms of usability: given the choice I'll always watch on Netflix over Amazon Prime.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

RGM1138 said:


> Just echoing some of the comments above. The Klingon prosthetics causing the actors problems kept pulling me out of the moment. It must have been hard enough to speak Klingonese anyway. But with a mouth full of sharp teeth, it sounded like it was really painful.
> Imagine if a shark suddenly had the ability to speak. What would that sound like?
> I'm no linguist, but I would imagine a race like the Klings would develop a more guttural, moaning type of speech. No so much with the tongue.


Do remember Klingon is a real language, fully developed by Marc Okrand during the TNG era. It seems reasonably accurate, though I'm not sure how much of it was spoken during filming and how much was simply looped (ADR) in post.

And it's a spit-type language. If you're not producing spittle and getting everything wet, you're not speaking Klingon correctly.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Worf said:


> Do remember Klingon is a real language, fully developed by Marc Okrand during the TNG era. It seems reasonably accurate, though I'm not sure how much of it was spoken during filming and how much was simply looped (ADR) in post.
> 
> And it's a spit-type language. If you're not producing spittle and getting everything wet, you're not speaking Klingon correctly.


The problem isn't with the language, the problem is with how haltingly and slowly the language was spoken. The characters on Big Bang Theory seem to speak it more fluently...presumably because they don't have mouthfuls of prosthetics to contend with.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

I guess I'm not destined to see this show. I missed the airing, figuring I could catch it on the website. I know the series will require the All Access, but since they aired the first two episodes, I figured they'd be on the website. They are, but it looks like you have to subscribe to AA to see even those.


----------



## wbrightfl (Oct 31, 2013)

Yeah I also am not into the new Klingon look. I see no reason for them to be redesigned again. Having to read their language also annoying. The Klingon scenes of the episodes ruined it for me. I think they changed things just to change them, without thinking of the hard core Star Trek fans which wanted not only the same timeline as the previous Star Trek series, but expected the aliens to be similar. This is too far from the Star Trek I enjoy but will watch a couple more episodes to see if anything hooks me.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wbrightfl said:


> Yeah I also am not into the new Klingon look. I see no reason for them to be redesigned again. *Having to read their language also annoying. * The Klingon scenes of the episodes ruined it for me. I think they changed things just to change them, without thinking of the hard core Star Trek fans which wanted not only the same timeline as the previous Star Trek series, but expected the aliens to be similar. This is too far from the Star Trek I enjoy but will watch a couple more episodes to see if anything hooks me.


Sometimes, I just don't want to have to work and read my TV . . . .

The best approach I once saw (in a "Star Trek" movie, perhaps?) was, start in the foreign language and with subtitles, and then "dissolve" into English.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Worf said:


> Do remember Klingon is a real language, fully developed by Marc Okrand during the TNG era. It seems reasonably accurate, though I'm not sure how much of it was spoken during filming and how much was simply looped (ADR) in post.
> 
> And it's a spit-type language. If you're not producing spittle and getting everything wet, you're not speaking Klingon correctly.


Username checks out.


----------



## MikeBear (May 21, 2015)

wbrightfl said:


> Yeah I also am not into the new Klingon look. I see no reason for them to be redesigned again. Having to read their language also annoying. The Klingon scenes of the episodes ruined it for me. I think they changed things just to change them, without thinking of the hard core Star Trek fans which wanted not only the same timeline as the previous Star Trek series, but expected the aliens to be similar. This is too far from the Star Trek I enjoy but will watch a couple more episodes to see if anything hooks me.


The Klingon's were changed due to legal reasons. The rights to Star Trek are split up over multiple companies, and CBS apparently doesn't own the rights to the Klingon's looks. So they created their own look, and turned them into monsters.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

MikeBear said:


> The Klingon's were changed due to legal reasons. The rights to Star Trek are split up over multiple companies, and CBS apparently doesn't own the rights to the Klingon's looks. So they created their own look, and turned them into monsters.


Got a source for that? I hadn't heard that before...


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> Got a source for that? I hadn't heard that before...


Yeah, it's hard to believe anybody "owns the rights" to the way a character looks.

Star Trek: Discovery Changed Klingon Designs

Star Trek: Discovery's Klingon may look unfamiliar for a reason

Klingons get expert makeover for 'Star Trek: Discovery'


----------



## MikeBear (May 21, 2015)

BrettStah said:


> Got a source for that? I hadn't heard that before...


I read it in an article a couple months ago. I will attempt to find it again, but there's a lot of retconning now going on since it was released. I will post it if I can find it.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

Thom said:


> I bought my CBS All Access commercial-free plan via Roku for $10/month. Because I bought it from Roku (and not CBS) I suspect that is why I can't see $99/year as an offer.


I'm pretty sure Roku does not take a cut of those prices. Perhaps the 99/year offer is only available on their web site, but I don't think it has anything to do with Roku policy.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

I like it. It's definitely "what if JJ Abrams invented Star Trek instead." A very crossed-over JJverse combined with TOS. Hopefully they can meld it into the best of both worlds (see what I did there?) and not the worst.

But I hate the implementation of the Klingons. The lead guy could barely speak. Between the cumbersome language, prosthetics, and fake teeth he could barely talk. It took him sooooo long to say anything. I hope they finesse the Klingons to allow them to be able to communicate and act better. It must be tough with a sandbag on your nose.


----------



## jcondon (Jul 9, 2003)

Thom said:


> I haven't checked personally, but CBS All Access says all episodes of the various (I am assuming) Star Trek TV shows are available to All Access members for streaming. I think I'm going to try watching The Original Series later tonight, from the beginning.
> 
> EDIT
> The Original Series, 69 episodes available.
> ...


Most of the other Star Trek stuff is on Prime and Netflix (we have both services). We aren't cord cutters. Cheers airs late at night on some channel my wife falls asleep watching.

I think we will wait till they all air and either a free month and watch them all in 30 days. Or MAYBE pay $10 for a month so we don't have to deal with commercials. My bittorent days are LONG behind me. As is my desire to chase after any single show. Plenty of stuff to watch without me having to pirate it.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

JYoung said:


> There is no _legal_ way to get Discovery with 5.1 sound in the US right now.
> As you've discovered, CBS All Access does not support 5.1 sound, only 2 channel stereo.
> 
> I'm assuming that Space channel in Canada is transmitting Discovery with 5.1 and Netflix in the rest of the world is streaming 5.1 versions.


I find this very frustrating. Here I am willing to pay for the show, but now they are asking me to cough up money for a version that is actually inferior to the way it is being presented elsewhere. Is there some technical reason why All Access can't support 5.1? It seems like a strange decision by CBS not to support 5.1 when they are hoping to bring as many new customers as they can to their new service.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Sticklers will claim it's always wrong no matter what the circumstances are, but morally I fail to see a problem if you pay for All Access, but then download higher quality versions from Usenet. In fact, by not bothering to stream from the All Access servers, you're saving CBS money. 

Our local PBS's quality for Downton Abbey wasn't very good, so we watched the BBC versions of them.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Star Trek Discovery is available on Netflix UK.

I will leave it to others to decide if/how Netflix UK can be viewed from Canada and USA.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> Sticklers will claim it's always wrong no matter what the circumstances are, but morally I fail to see a problem if you pay for All Access, but then download higher quality versions from Usenet.


It may technically be illegal, but I don't see how anyone can argue that it is immoral. In fact, they are practically begging people to do it by charging us for an inferior version to what is available elsewhere. Again, I'm absolutely baffled by the lack of 5.1 on All Access.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> The best approach I once saw (in a "Star Trek" movie, perhaps?) was, start in the foreign language and with subtitles, and then "dissolve" into English.


The did this in The 13th Warrior, it also represented the main character learning the language by listening to it over time.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

tlc said:


> The did this in The 13th Warrior, it also represented the main character learning the language by listening to it over time.


I seem to recall that it also was done in "The Hunt for Red October."


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

crazywater said:


> It's amazing the differences on how people perceive things. I saw no chemistry at all between any of the characters. Very robotic delivery with no sense that these people have known each other for any amount of time.


I agree...no chemistry whatsoever. That being said, I liked the "first" (01 & 02) episode.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Gerryex said:


> ...And the music was nothing to shout about....


The end of the music, however, gave me chills...


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

And, I realize this is a bit late in the thread to mention, but it would be nice if the "all-access/streaming services, etc." discussion could be moved or restricted to a separate thread. Title of this thread is the show...not all-access, etc. discussion.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Mikeguy said:


> I seem to recall that it also was done in "The Hunt for Red October."


Yes it was. I remember it well.


----------



## RichardHead (Nov 17, 2003)

I seem to remember, in TOS or NG, someone said that the Klingons they met were genetically altered to make them less frightening to humans.



Can't say if that was true or not.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> But I hate the implementation of the Klingons. The lead guy could barely speak. Between the cumbersome language, prosthetics, and fake teeth he could barely talk. It took him sooooo long to say anything.


 It just didn't sound Klingon. Their speech was so slow and changed the whole feel of the language. I was hoping they would just switch them to English at some point.

They also look so uncomfortable.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> I guess I'm not destined to see this show. I missed the airing, figuring I could catch it on the website. I know the series will require the All Access, but since they aired the first two episodes, I figured they'd be on the website. They are, but it looks like you have to subscribe to AA to see even those.


CBS only showed 1 so even if you had watched, you'd have only seen part 1. Part 2 was only released on CBSAA.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I didn't hate it, in fact I liked it more on a re-watch. But I agree with a previous poster who said it didn't have the Trek vibe.

I absolutely hated the Klingons dialogue. The main Klingon had trouble speaking with all the prosthetics in his mouth, and it sounded like he was a first year Klingon student. I also did not like how they made then look.

Walking around to make the Trek logo was pretty stupid. Oh, and it was an away Mission requiring someone to shoot a phaser down a well. Why was it the two of them? And why couldn't they transport them right to the coordinates of the well?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Oh, for those who are already paying for Netflix and Prime, why not alternate between Netflix and AA (Prime is a yearly fee, I think). 3 months on, 3 off.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

wprager said:


> Oh, for those who are already paying for Netflix and Prime, why not alternate between Netflix and AA (Prime is a yearly fee, I think). 3 months on, 3 off.


I switched my $40/month Los Angeles Times home delivery subscription to a $5/month email delivery subscription, so I am now $25/month ahead and commercial-free.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

wprager said:


> Oh, for those who are already paying for Netflix and Prime, why not alternate between Netflix and AA (Prime is a yearly fee, I think). 3 months on, 3 off.


Prime can be had annually, ($99), or monthly, ($10.99).


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

wprager said:


> Oh, for those who are already paying for Netflix and Prime, why not alternate between Netflix and AA (Prime is a yearly fee, I think). 3 months on, 3 off.


I'm alternating between Hulu and CBSAA. Hulu allows you to suspend a subscription for up to 3 months. DSC airs in two halves- and I'm betting the first half ends right before Turkey holiday. On Dec 5th, my Hulu subscription resumes, and I'm yanking CBSAA.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

wprager said:


> Oh, for those who are already paying for Netflix and Prime, why not alternate between Netflix and AA (Prime is a yearly fee, I think). 3 months on, 3 off.


Well... because there is a ton of stuff on Netflix that I want to watch. of course. It's very rare that I go more than a few days without watching something on Netflix. Why would I give that up for 3 months, or even one month, to watch one episode of one show a week?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

After watching the second episode, I sure hope the Klingons switch to English as their primary language. And why is every alien language always spoken so slowly and staccato-ish?


----------



## thewebgal (Aug 10, 2007)

Actually, I believe those figures are PER MONTH, not for an entire season ...
And - our local CBS affiliate has had wierd 5.1 audio issues for a long time (Elementary is almost unwatchable without subtitles/CC) but for "All Access" to be stereo only??
nah, that's another deal breaker!



MikeekiM said:


> $5.99 (or $9.99) to watch an entire series is not so bad...
> 
> So I already have a budget for this stuff... And again, $5.99 or $9.99 for an entire season of Star Trek Discovery is within reason for me...as long as I can let it pile up and watch it in a month's time...


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

thewebgal said:


> Actually, I believe those figures are PER MONTH, not for an entire season ...


Yep--but the idea is, sign up and watch all the episodes in 1 month, and then quit the service.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Mikeguy said:


> Yep--but the idea is, sign up and watch all the episodes in 1 month, and then quit the service.


Unless they do windowed availability and only show the last 5-7 episodes like they do with broadcast shows. They didn't do this with _The Good Fight _(all 10 episodes still available on-demand six months afterwards) but I suspect they might with _Discovery_. CBS still thinks like a TV network and not a OTT streaming service.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> I'm alternating between Hulu and CBSAA. Hulu allows you to suspend a subscription for up to 3 months. DSC airs in two halves- and I'm betting the first half ends right before Turkey holiday. On Dec 5th, my Hulu subscription resumes, and I'm yanking CBSAA.


IMDB says the first half ends on November 5.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> Unless they do windowed availability and only show the last 5-7 episodes like they do with broadcast shows. They didn't do this with _The Good Fight _(all 10 episodes still available on-demand six months afterwards) but I suspect they might with _Discovery_. CBS still thinks like a TV network and not a OTT streaming service.


Or they think like a streaming service that wants to maximize profits and not easily allow binging.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> IMDB says the first half ends on November 5.


Hooray. $10 less I have to spend. (CBS charges on the 10th) It makes the decision to return in January a little easier.



TonyD79 said:


> Or they think like a streaming service that wants to maximize profits and not easily allow binging.


I don't mind the no binging part. I think I enjoyed "Handmaids Tale" more doled out weekly instead of all at once. And I can barely remember my binges of House of Cards and Narcos this year.

But the cut for broadcast length + ad breaks irk me. That's what I meant about still thinking like a TV network.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I am sure they are thinking it will wind up on OTA or linear cable eventually and fitting it for commercials works. 

Heck, even the Mindy Project has commercial “breaks” without commercials.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

7thton said:


> I'm pretty sure Roku does not take a cut of those prices. Perhaps the 99/year offer is only available on their web site, but I don't think it has anything to do with Roku policy.


I was wrong. Roku does seem to get a cut when someone signs up for a service via Roku:

Roku CEO Anthony Wood Talks IPO, Advertising and the Future of Streaming (Q&A)


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

RGM1138 said:


> Yes it was. I remember it well.


And thank heaven for that. Their Russian was pathetic.

Off topic: Hollywood had a long history of using real Russian actors in tiny roles, while giving more lines to other Eastern-European actors who often struggle in Russian.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I also find it interesting how (according to an earlier post) the same content is available on different services. Up here in Canada the content or the rights to broadcast is exclusive to one of (mostly) two conglomerates: Bell and Rogers Cable (or one of the subsidiaries). This is the main reason why Netflix Canada has probably half the content of Netflix US. Bell owns Space, which is available "for free" with their mid tier package. But with Rogers Space is only available as part of the Movie Network/HBO package for another $20 (and going up to $23 soon, I think). I got the package for GoT, was planning on cancelling, but now an sucked on because of Space. Guess I'll be switching back to Bell, soon.

This duopoly, I'm sure, is why there so much piracy in Canada.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

wprager said:


> And thank heaven for that. Their Russian was pathetic.
> 
> Off topic: Hollywood had a long history of using real Russian actors in tiny roles, while giving more lines to other Eastern-European actors who often struggle in Russian.


I did not know that.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

The Heroes and Icons channel has just begun replaying "Star Trek: Enterprise" from the beginning, and boy, that pilot episode was good and, IMHO, so accomplished in comparison/relation to the "Discovery" pilot, as story-telling.

It had so much exposition, placed the story in the timeline, introduced the principal characters, introduced more than just superficially the relationships between the characters, started exploring series themes, had that wonderful Star Trek balance of seriousness and moments of humor (Archer to Hoshi, concerning the Klingon screaming in his delirium in the sick bay, "Tell him to shut up"--Hoshi to the Klingon, "Shut up!" (in English, rather than Klingon)  ), had 3 different species (apart from human) involved in-depth and vignettes of others as well, and featured its wonderful opening and theme song. The only area I saw it bested by "Discovery" was in the technology--"Discovery" really has film-grade cinematography.

Not knocking "Discovery"--but extolling "Enterprise" some.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

I signed up for the month trial of AA, so I binged quite a few episodes of Discovery this afternoon. I’m enjoying it—not enough to pay $6 a month going forward, but I’ll gladly binge the first part of the season for free.

The good—God, this show is beautiful. Imagine if TNG had this kind of budget and technology available. The cast seems top notch; mix that with the cinematography and this feels like the best filmed Star Trek series. The overall story arc is interesting, and this episode (or the first two; you’ll have to excuse me if I merge the two parter introduction) served as a great introduction. It’s interesting to me how they’re willing to bring in some heavy hitters and kill them off in various points of the series.

The Bleh—The Klingons. Having watched the first 4 or 5 episodes now, they aren’t as annoying as I found them at the very start, but why did we need another Klingon redesign? And while I love the dedication to using the Klingon language, it does seem like it’s horribly inefficient, both in universe and in filming the show. The ships—TOS had one starship design. Granted, this was budgetary, but it also makes sense that there would be a cookie cutter approach to fleet building. This has changed throughout the various series, mainly because tech has allowed for moving away from repurposing model parts. But now both fleets seem to be designed by random artists.

The bad—I still can’t figure out the whole Michael Burnam Traitor thing. It feels like they introduced that just to take the main character in a different direction than the standard Star Trek trope. I can’t imagine that after serving 7 years with Captain Georgiou that Michael would just drop her like a stone and take over the ship. It’s enough tougher to understand when you think that the “Vulcan Hello” would not have changed anything, considering that T’Kuvma was pulling the 24 houses together and some warning blows wouldn’t have stopped that. And while Michael mutinied, why does everyone accuse her of starting the war? Her mutiny really had no impact on anything. Yes, she killed the Torchdude, but I don’t think that had any impact either. The biggest impact of her actions seemed her killing T’Kuvma, but that’s never really brought up.

In fact, everything about Burnam seems to be contrived—that she started the war, why she mutinied, her strange plot advancing connection to Sarek (and the entire “let’s link her to Spock” angle). I hope it pays off in the end, but right now I’d rather just have her be a character without a past.

I’m enjoying the series so far, and future episodes have been better, but much of what has happened to Michael seems to be cludged together just to make the future goal of the series work.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

doom1701 said:


> I signed up for the month trial of AA, so I binged quite a few episodes of Discovery this afternoon. I'm enjoying it-not enough to pay $6 a month going forward, but I'll gladly binge the first part of the season for free.
> 
> The good-God, this show is beautiful. Imagine if TNG had this kind of budget and technology available. The cast seems top notch; mix that with the cinematography and this feels like the best filmed Star Trek series. The overall story arc is interesting, and this episode (or the first two; you'll have to excuse me if I merge the two parter introduction) served as a great introduction. It's interesting to me how they're willing to bring in some heavy hitters and kill them off in various points of the series.
> 
> ...


The other characters in Discovery did not have the benefit of what the audience saw.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

Was announced today at the Vegas con that ST: D season 1 will be available on disc on Nov 13th.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

I really enjoyed Picard (watched it in about 3 days earlier this month) so thought Discovery merited a look. Having All Access free for 2 months (so far) helps. Anyway, watched the first episode last night and was mostly meh.

I have lots of questions, but maybe they'll be answered.

Since my back is out and I've nothing else to do today, I'll try a few more eps and see where it goes.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

We finished watching Picard last week, and just finished with Discovery last night. Both had their ups and downs. Neither felt very Trek-like to me. We liked both shows well enough, but not nearly enough to subscribe to CBS All Access.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Hard to believe Discovery started in 2017! Seems more recent (maybe because there've only been 2 seasons in all that time)...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

hapster85 said:


> I really enjoyed Picard (watched it in about 3 days earlier this month) so thought Discovery merited a look. Having All Access free for 2 months (so far) helps. Anyway, watched the first episode last night and was mostly meh.
> 
> I have lots of questions, but maybe they'll be answered.
> 
> Since my back is out and I've nothing else to do today, I'll try a few more eps and see where it goes.


I finished re-watching Discovery a couple of weeks ago. SInce it is now available in HDR and 5.1 audio. When I originally watched it, Discovery was only in SDR in the US and stereo. I actually enjoyed it more than the first time.

I also enjoyed watching Picard earlier this year.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

I've lost interest in both Discovery and Picard. Neither of them are plotted/written well, and I've watched the full first season of each. Not good enough for me to continue paying just to see those shows...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

You need to sign up to CBS AA with a deal. I never pay full price. I signed back up for Picard at $5 a month. FOr two months. But then I was able to sign up for two more months for only $5 total, So I could watch the Good Fight. Because CBS AA gave me two more months for only $10. And then my AMEX card gave me $5 back in April, for spending over $9 at CBS AA.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Thom said:


> Neither of them are plotted/written well, and I've watched the full first season of each.


It's not that they're bad shows. Plenty of movie production value and sizzle. But for me the characters aren't engaging or fun to watch. (and even the nostalgia of the TNG cast in STP is starting to wear off)


----------



## MikeBear (May 21, 2015)

hapster85 said:


> I really enjoyed Picard (watched it in about 3 days earlier this month) so thought Discovery merited a look. Having All Access free for 2 months (so far) helps. Anyway, watched the first episode last night and was mostly meh.
> 
> I have lots of questions, but maybe they'll be answered.
> 
> Since my back is out and I've nothing else to do today, I'll try a few more eps and see where it goes.


Season two is MUCH better than season one, especially when you see Captain Pike and the Enterprise, oh, and Spock! You really should watch it all the way through, just to be complete anyway.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

MikeBear said:


> Season two is MUCH better than season one, especially when you see Captain Pike and the Enterprise, oh, and Spock! You really should watch it all the way through, just to be complete anyway.


Yes!! Season 2 was excellent with Captain Pike, Spock, etc. A much different tone than season 1 was.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

As much as I hate to admit it, it's managed to pull me in. Watched a half dozen episodes this morning and afternoon. Still don't get why they had to reinvent the Klingons. These actually seem more like caricatures than actual Klingons. They certainly don't seem as menacing as the ones we're accustomed to.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Hard to believe Discovery started in 2017! Seems more recent (maybe because there've only been 2 seasons in all that time)...


Watching those seasons seemed to take 8 years for me. I will still watch (any Trek is better than no Trek), but they really dragged for me.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

eddyj said:


> Watching those seasons seemed to take 8 years for me.


Their are serious pacing issues with both Trek series. One of the critics described watching Star Trek Picard like watching a nine-hour TV pilot.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Saturn_V said:


> Their are serious pacing issues with both Trek series. One of the critics described watching Star Trek Picard like watching a nine-hour TV pilot.


I could see that if you were watching them as they were released from week to week. I didn't notice it dragging at all, but as I said a few posts back, I binged it in about 3 days.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

hapster85 said:


> I could see that if you were watching them as they were released from week to week. I didn't notice it dragging at all, but as I said a few posts back, I binged it in about 3 days.


I would have semi-binged Picard (but I was watching weekly). I started Discovery after S1 was done, and could not watch more than one at a time.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

The pacing issues in Discovery S1 are dramatically amplified by all the time spent watching klingons speak exceedingly slowly. Fortunately, that goes away.


----------



## MikeBear (May 21, 2015)

hapster85 said:


> As much as I hate to admit it, it's managed to pull me in. Watched a half dozen episodes this morning and afternoon. *Still don't get why they had to reinvent the Klingons.* These actually seem more like caricatures than actual Klingons. They certainly don't seem as menacing as the ones we're accustomed to.


It's said it was because the licensing was split up among multiple companies, and the one that owned the rights to "our" Klingon's wouldn't allow them to use the "standard design" Klingon makeup. Of course, that's all fixed now due to mergers bringing all the rights back under a single entity, so it may change in the future. That is, IF there are still Klingon's 1,000 years in the future, lol


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

kdmorse said:


> The pacing issues in Discovery S1 are dramatically amplified by all the time spent watching klingons speak exceedingly slowly. Fortunately, that goes away.


Yeah, through much of Season 1 Carol and I joked that the early Klingon scenes were all like:

"Just. Watch. Us. Grunt. Slowly. About. How. We. Are. The. True. Warrior. Race".


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

MikeBear said:


> It's said it was because the licensing was split up among multiple companies, and the one that owned the rights to "our" Klingon's wouldn't allow them to use the "standard design" Klingon makeup. Of course, that's all fixed now due to mergers bringing all the rights back under a single entity, so it may change in the future. That is, IF there are still Klingon's 1,000 years in the future, lol


I'd read a few theories as to the real story, but that one actually seems the most plausible. Another one I read suggested that they harkened back to some concept drawings done for The Motion Picture that obviously weren't used. Which kinda ties in with this theory as well. Regardless of the reason, though, I call it a fail.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

MikeBear said:


> Season two is MUCH better than season one, especially when you see Captain Pike and the Enterprise, oh, and Spock! You really should watch it all the way through, just to be complete anyway.


Well, the first about 2/3rds was.
Then it completely devolved into a flaming dung heap.

(And if @hapster85 or anyone else wishes to discuss Season 2, it should probably go into a Discovery Season 2 thread.)


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

^^ I still have a few more S1 eps to go, but yes.


----------

