Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Star Trek CBS Series To Be Streamed Internationally On Netflix (variety.com)

Posted by msmash on from the star-trek-camp dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Netflix has announced that it has secured a deal to stream every episode of the new Star Trek TV series within 24 hours of its original network broadcast. However, neither the U.S. nor Canadian subscribers are included in the deal, which otherwise covers every territory that Netflix operates in worldwide. Stateside viewers will be able to stream the new show via CBS's own All Access digital subscription video-on-demand and live streaming service, with Canadian streaming provisions yet to be announced. The deal represents a potential major step forward in the company's determination to bypass regional licensing, and at one stroke eliminates the typical years of delay that occur when a U.S. program seeks foreign audiences.

161 comments

  1. One word: by DougDot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    torrent

    1. Re:One word: by myowntrueself · · Score: 0, Troll

      torrent

      Yeah, my advice to Netflix would be don't bother, we already have access thanks. Torrents plus Plex is better than Netflix by a long way.

      LOL I just got an email from Netflix saying that season 7 of Archer is NOW AVAILABLE! Hah well bad news, Netflix, I downloaded it and watched it already. Until Netflix can get updates on time they are second rate.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words: FUCK THEM. So long as they block the production of Axanar, they can shove all their 'artificially Star Trek flavored' crap up their asses.

    3. Re: One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Axanar is done for, get over it. And the new series does not need a nerdy audience. :)

    4. Re: One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the new series does not need a nerdy audience. :)

      You're a moron. Without the 'nerdy audience' as you so lamely put it, there wouldn't BE 'Star Trek' anything after all this time. Millennial NEETs like you don't even pay to watch or see anything anyway so nothing you have to say on the subject is even relevant let alone interesting.

    5. Re: One word: by Khyber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " people didn't watch it"

      Which is why there are... 14 movies, 5-6 TV series, an animated series, at least a dozen games based on the franchise, etc.

      Yup, Paramount/Desilu just said FUCK IT, WE'RE GOING TO DUMP MONEY DOWN THIS USELESS HOLE FOR NO GODDAMNED REASON!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re: One word: by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Except that people did watch it. Religiously. For decades. I wasn't even around for the original run of the series, and I watched it every week when I was a kid.

    7. Re: One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Trek was a mediocre show that was cancelled for very good reasons: people didn't watch it.

      This coming from someone who probably thinks monster truck shows and professional wrestling are 'good entertainment', and that Budweiser is 'good beer'. Go have more sex with your sister and STFU about things you know nothing about, Cletus.

    8. Re:One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      CBS Access sucks. Tried it last year and it is literally 6 minutes of commercials every 15 minutes. Commercials pop up in the middle of scenes. After 2 months, I couldn't take it anymore.

    9. Re: One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Canadian that doesn't have cable or satellite if it isn't available on Netflix or crave within 24 hours of airing I'll get it with torrents. Sorry. I'm more than happy to give you my money but I'm not signing up for another second rate streaming service.

    10. Re: One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Projecting much, pedo weirdo nerdo?

    11. Re:One word: by Methadras · · Score: 1

      And they wonder why people go outside of their typical content distribution networks to get content they want to see. This is just a giant fuck you to the country that started the Star Trek phenomena and for what? Nothing but to push them to their stupid service. Idiots.

    12. Re:One word: by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      That is the expedient alternative for many to "Stateside viewers will be able to stream the new show via CBS's own All Access digital subscription video-on-demand and live streaming service". Yet another subscription to manage, one more thing that can't run natively on my TV.

    13. Re: One word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sex with his sister is pretty fun. I'll give him that.

  2. In other words by Snotnose · · Score: 3, Insightful

    CBS has finally figured out the eps will be on TPB within hours of first airing and they can't stop it.

    1. Re:In other words by Delwin · · Score: 1

      Which makes me wonder why not US Netflix? I'd watch it on Netflix if it simucast it.

    2. Re:In other words by tbannist · · Score: 2

      Because they created their own steaming service, and they think they can compete with Netflix in the U.S. with one original show.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  3. Not so much bypassing regional restrictions.... by aicrules · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not so much bypassing regional restrictions....as flipping them to the reverse of the usual. Good for Netflix and CBS coming up with a global release strategy that benefits both companies. But alas, as I'm in the U.S. I will have to wait till it comes out a year later on US Netflix. I will survive..somehow.

    1. Re:Not so much bypassing regional restrictions.... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Geo-barter. Plenty of Europeans are trying to bypass region lockouts on popular series not available to them, maybe you can work out a deal where they borrow your connection and you borrow theirs.

    2. Re:Not so much bypassing regional restrictions.... by aicrules · · Score: 2

      Oh I realize there are many ways around even paying for Netflix content or any content for that matter. But in this case, I am okay waiting for it. Partially because I don't really like how every company is creating its own streaming service now. I'm definitely not going to be paying $8 a month or whatever for random whatever streaming service for every show I want to watch. $8 ..well or $10 or whatever netflix is up to now, a month is what I'll pay. Not getting back into $50+ a month trap that cable got me into. And if all streaming services end up there or the amount of content on any one service amounts to paying $50+ a month for what I want access to, then I'm done with all of it!

    3. Re:Not so much bypassing regional restrictions.... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      But alas, as I'm in the U.S. I will have to wait till it comes out a year later on US Netflix. I will survive..somehow.

      I'm not sure how you'll survive in the USA since apparently some dangerous, perhaps gun wielding, person is preventing you from seeing Star Trek for a year. After all you said you have to wait, which implies that you have no choice in matter. Now if you had said that you are choosing to wait because you don't want to pay to subscribe to CBS' online service, that would be one thing, but that's not what you said. You said you have to wait, so perhaps you should see what your legal remedies are against these people who are preventing you from potentially subscribing to the service.

    4. Re:Not so much bypassing regional restrictions.... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      But alas, as I'm in the U.S. I will have to wait till it comes out a year later on US Netflix. I will survive..somehow.

      I'm not sure how you'll survive in the USA since apparently some dangerous, perhaps gun wielding, person is preventing you from seeing Star Trek for a year. After all you said you have to wait, which implies that you have no choice in matter. Now if you had said that you are choosing to wait because you don't want to pay to subscribe to CBS' online service, that would be one thing, but that's not what you said. You said you have to wait, so perhaps you should see what your legal remedies are against these people who are preventing you from potentially subscribing to the service.

      The OP used the term "have" correctly. To use it in the way you intend would be like saying nobody has to wait to go to the bathroom as they can always choose to go right where they are at. In short, it doesn't require one to be coerced with a gun until one has to wait for something. I bet you had to wait, just for this post and nobody was holding a gun on you to do so, or did you choose to wait?

    5. Re:Not so much bypassing regional restrictions.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the USA is rather famous for being full of dangerous gun-wielding people.

  4. CBS is doing a bang up job... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of ensuring that this new show fails miserably.

    Get with the program CBS: no one wants to pay you for one show what they can get entire libraries of content for....

  5. Everyone but North America by Rashkae · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stateside viewers will be able to stream the new show via CBS's own All Access digital subscription video-on-demand and live streaming service

    That's a pretty credible attempt to unseat GoT as the most pirated TV show.

    1. Re:Everyone but North America by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yeah, it's free for everyone who has a Netflix subscription except for those in the US? I'm not paying for another subscription; they're asking me to pirate it.

      --
      -SaNo
    2. Re:Everyone but North America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you first have to crack the drm of the subscription stream.. otherwise it will just be a poor quality capture... better than cams of movie screens but certainly not dvd or hd quality.

    3. Re:Everyone but North America by tepples · · Score: 1

      Someone with a good monitor and good HD camcorder could record a telesync, which is a careful cam with line-dubbed audio. How is a telesync from an HD source not comparable to DVD quality?

    4. Re: Everyone but North America by rworne · · Score: 3, Informative

      A simple HDMI splitter also does the job along with an ElGato game capture device.

      If you get the right kind of splitter on Amazon (B0089DSLMY), HDCP somehow gets lost along the way and you wind up with an unencrypted digital signal.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    5. Re:Everyone but North America by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's free for everyone who has a Netflix subscription except for those in the US? I'm not paying for another subscription; they're asking me to pirate it.

      Its also free to anyone in the US who can receive CBS OTA, and available to anyone with cable.

    6. Re: Everyone but North America by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      No need for all that trouble, it will be pirated from the OTA broadcast.

    7. Re:Everyone but North America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they were doing this streaming only. Is CBS All Access available for free to everyone with "traditional access" to CBS?

    8. Re:Everyone but North America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? A simple screen capture recorder will do the trick.

    9. Re: Everyone but North America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only OTA broadcast will be the PILOT. They've already said that all the other episodes will be streaming only.

    10. Re:Everyone but North America by HatofPig · · Score: 1

      I've wondered about intercepting the signal going to the LCD, but as a last resort your method should work good. You'd think subtlety on the highlights and shadows would be lost, but with the correct calibration and a decent modern sensor maybe the image could be captured raw and processed to DID-comparable quality. Or recorded in multiple passes with different light settings and likewise merged.

      All the digital protections now going in to 4K could likewise lead to 'mere' HD rips of that content.

      --
      Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
    11. Re:Everyone but North America by markdavis · · Score: 2

      "Its also free to anyone in the US who can receive CBS OTA, and available to anyone with cable."

      No it's not. That is the whole problem. CBS is putting it ONLY on their stupid, proprietary streaming. Which means it won't work on TiVo, won't work on our smart TV's, won't work on our Linux computers, etc.

      I mean F-that! I paid almost $1000 for a top-end TiVo and freaking $100 a month for cable with 99% channels I don't ever watch, AND I pay for a Netflix subscription. And they want me to do WHAT???

      They are just BEGGING everyone in the US to pirate the show.

    12. Re:Everyone but North America by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see. Thanks for correcting me. I read the summary reference to network broadcast, but that is only for the first episode. They shouldn't even call it a CBS series at all. You are right, this type of stunt will degrade the value and interest in their broadcast channels, giving folks even more reason to cut the cord.

    13. Re: Everyone but North America by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      The only OTA broadcast will be the PILOT. They've already said that all the other episodes will be streaming only.

      I see that now, you are right. That sucks.

    14. Re:Everyone but North America by markdavis · · Score: 1

      Oh who knows, maybe the article is wrong. Maybe CBS will change their minds and OTA it, maybe they can work out some other deal. It just certainly sounds like a really, really bad plan.

      The Netflix deal for the entire world except USA and possibly Canada just seems like the ultimate slap in the face.

    15. Re:Everyone but North America by unrtst · · Score: 2

      It is not streaming only.
      It will be streamed 1 day behind broadcast.
      If you have CBS OTA (ex. via antenna), you can watch it there.
      If you have CBS via a cable or sat provider, you can watch it there.
      If you have CBS All Access (I'm not sure what all restrictions are there for that... I think you have to have an existing cable/sat account with it), you can stream from them in the US.
      If you have Netflix and are not in the US or CA, you can stream it there.

      IMO, I have no idea why they don't have all access open wide (paid for by lots of commercials), and license to netflix/others at the same time. I really hope that's what it comes to someday - the content producers making the content available for "free" + commercials, and the aggregates (netflix, amazon, etc) charging for content but providing a better experience. As it is, it looks like the content producers are also going to charge a fee, and also add commercials, and maybe add subscription requirements to some other service as well.

    16. Re:Everyone but North America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a fast enough FPGA you could capture & process the LVDS going to the LCD panel if you really wanted to.

    17. Re: Everyone but North America by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      I think they're terrified the show might succeed, at which point they will feel obligated to make more of a show they frankly hate.

    18. Re: Everyone but North America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you pay $1000 for a TiVo when a PC would work just as well with more disk space and flexibility? (Like being able to stream CBS's shitty online service)

    19. Re: Everyone but North America by markdavis · · Score: 1

      TiVo supports video on demand, encrypted channels (cable card), and SDV (tuning adapters)- I don't think a "PC" can do that, certainly not SDV when last I checked. Plus, that price was for lifetime service and also extended warranty, and with a REALLY nice RF remote and UI. Actually not an unreasonable for how much I use and enjoy it.

    20. Re:Everyone but North America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on the other hand, those of us who ditched the $99 a month cable monopoly, and the proprietary boxes this is a great bargain. Finally I can pay a few bucks to a network to watch their show without forking over hundreds to a cable monopoly for 99% stuff i'll never watch/

    21. Re:Everyone but North America by markdavis · · Score: 1

      What is really needed is cable plans that allow selection of just the channels the person wants, or a Netflix that includes commercial-free programs from all the different channels and you can subscribe to what you want there, or have a micropayment system of paying for what you watch.

      At that point the consumer gets what they want and companies are rewarded for what is actually being watched. It infuriates me that my money goes to companies like ESPN, BET, Discovery, etc when I have ZERO interest in their offerings.

      But having a proprietary/unfriendly/unsupported separate streaming service for every content provider is no good solution. Who wants to pay 30 bills, try to find platform support for 30+ providers, or deal with all the different UI's for every "channel"? Yuck

    22. Re:Everyone but North America by tepples · · Score: 1

      If the video publisher has chosen to require Protected Media Path, the recorder won't capture $#!+.

    23. Re: Everyone but North America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the new Star Trek is not being broadcast ota in the US. It will only be available through CBS's streaming service in the US and through Netflix abroad.

  6. Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Funny

    "with Canadian streaming provisions yet to be announced".

    What did we ever do to you Americans to always get screwed on streaming services? No SlingTV, no HBO Now, no Showtime, no Hulu, no CBS All Access, hell, we never even got Pandora, Netflix library is reduced, and now nobody can be bothered to even let us watch Startrek.

    Did we not say sorry enough to you guys for something? Sorry.

    1. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did we not say sorry enough to you guys for something? Sorry.

      Worse, you said sorry too many times, so we think you're weak. Try being rude and entitled and see if that works. :D

    2. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      "with Canadian streaming provisions yet to be announced".

      What did we ever do to you Americans to always get screwed on streaming services?

      I'm guessing it's one of two things. Either the CBC or the government is causing this (I have no idea exactly how TV in Canada works, so just a guess here) or you're being punished for supposedly having "weak" laws regarding intellectual property.

    3. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "with Canadian streaming provisions yet to be announced".

      What did we ever do to you Americans to always get screwed on streaming services? No SlingTV, no HBO Now, no Showtime, no Hulu, no CBS All Access, hell, we never even got Pandora, Netflix library is reduced, and now nobody can be bothered to even let us watch Startrek.

      Did we not say sorry enough to you guys for something? Sorry.

      Maybe the problem is on your end, is your government complaining about lack of "Canadian Content"?

    4. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by doconnor · · Score: 1

      I expect it will be one of the Canadian streaming services, CraveTV or Shomi. It's also possible it will be broadcast on Space.

    5. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      It really has to do with the owners licensing the broadcast rights to different people up here, and those people don't seem to interested in providing streaming services, and/or giving up streaming rights.

    6. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      So, in other words, American studios are getting fucked over simply because they're not putting conditions like streaming into distribution contracts.

      But yeah, it's like totally the viewer's fault if they don't want to buy an entire cable package to watch one fucking show.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you said sorry to often?

    8. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Confirmed by the Globe and Mail Today:

      CTV to air the premiere episode.
      Space and Z to air the rest of the episodes.

      will be on CraveTV as well, along with all 727 episodes of the other series.

    9. Re: Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bell Media picked it up in Canada. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-cbs-star-trek-television-series-to-live-long-and-prosper-in-canada-with-bell-media-300299684.html

    10. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "with Canadian streaming provisions yet to be announced" ... Because the CRTC and their C-level golf buddies from Rogers and Bell haven't figured out how to best f&*^ us over quite yet and maximize their profits while ignoring the obvious truth that Canada is basically a duopoloy controlled by a bunch of plutocrats. In other words, VPN or pirate.

    11. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by doconnor · · Score: 1

      When it is going to be streaming only around the world, I'm surprised that they made an exception for Canada. I'm sure CraveTV could use a show to boost subscribers.

    12. Re: Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by magarity · · Score: 2

      Stargate SG1 seems a fair trade for this yet unseen new Trek show.

    13. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by present_arms · · Score: 4, Funny

      justin bieber nuff said

      --
      http://chimpbox.us
    14. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      One word: Bell.

    15. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Blame a) the Bell/Rogers/Shaw triumvirate, and b) Canadian Content laws.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    16. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in the US. I have cable. My understanding is that I get to watch one - 1 - lousy episode. They the rest is only on that awful CBS all access crap. That is the streaming service that CBS is trying to push for some reason. Who knows why they think that one studio / broadcaster can compete with other, full services. Of course it also means that CBS will be backing out of fully sourcing content for Hulu too. Ridiculous. I'm not signing up for CBS all access for one show. I doubt anyone else will either. So the first show - available on cable - will do fine. The rest? Only pirates will see (in the US). Everyone else will be able to watch on Netflix. I imagine that CBS will get viewer statistics for all that and it will show that nobody signed up for all access. The show will be cancelled. And CBS will blame "the pirates" instead of their stupid decision to not air on cable...

    17. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Chill out, it's big media, they're trying to screw over EVERYONE!
      It just happens that Canada is the closest neighbor to their headquarters.
      Even here in the US they expect us to pay for YET ANOTHER pay service JUST to watch Star Trek.

      It's amazing how much they keep pushing the public off the dock into the deep waters of the pirate bay while crying how awful it is that so many people are swimming in that same water.

    18. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Macdude · · Score: 1

      Here's what we did, we created the protectionist CRTC, that's what we did. Plus we annoyingly decided to be a separate country.

      --
      "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    19. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Scott+Tracy · · Score: 2

      The series is being simulcast with CBS on CTV here in Canada, then on Space (probably a day or two later). Then on-demand it will be CraveTV, Bell's subscription internet streaming service (how soon after they don't say). BTW, the show is being shot in Toronto, so in a way we are getting it WAY before anyone else. http://www.startrek.com/articl...

    20. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bell Media bought the exclusive licensing for the show and clearly won't play ball. You will have to buy BellTV if you want to watch it legally in Canada. I'd rather risk a $100 fine for pirating it, myself.

      So, neither the CBC nor (directly) the government.

      You could indirectly blame the government for the copyright legislation that allows this.

    21. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you're too polite to do anything about it, eh.

    22. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by luther349 · · Score: 1

      the show will be broadcast on cbs there only talking streaming.

    23. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"the show will be broadcast on cbs there only talking streaming."

      Not in the USA it won't. Why do you think everyone is upset? No OTA, no Netflex, and no Cable. It is pay up for their proprietary streaming crap that doesn't work with ANYTHING most of us own.

    24. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you said sorry to often?

      Who's often, and why were they apologising to him?

    25. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you're wrong on both fronts, from what another poster put up, Bell Canada has licensed the show for their stations and included exclusive digital distribution rights in the contract. No CBC or government involvement at all, just plain old corporate greed and one-upmanship.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    26. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Luthair · · Score: 2

      Its too much vertical integration, Bell & Rogers own the entire stack from rights to broadcast thus have a disincentive to make shows available.

    27. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The premier episode will be on CTV, after which no more episodes will air.

      No other episodes will be available OTA anywhere in Canada or anywhere else in the world. Bell Canada's Z (in French) and Space (in English) channels will carry them for cable/satellite, and the episodes will be available on Bell Canada's iCraveTV at some later date.

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/new-star-trek-series-to-premiere-on-ctv-then-air-on-space-and-z/article30954899/

      At least the fact they are airing in a non-web-stream format somewhere likely means a quality pirate copy will be quickly available for those who aren't interested in giving Bell money, or those that simply don't want to wait an indeterminate amount of time for the episodes to be available online.

    28. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      justin bieber nuff said

      Not nearly enough. Did you forget Celine Dion?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    29. Re:Why do us Canadians always get screwed? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >What did we ever do to you Americans
      Celine Dion and Justin Bieber.

      >Did we not say sorry enough to you guys for something? Sorry.

      It's going to take a LOT more sorry's to make up for that. Maybe a few more Bryan Adamses and you can start calling it even.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  7. As a Canadian by Luthair · · Score: 1

    I'm not going to subscribe to multiple services because of an exclusive deal. Not going to offer it via Netflix that's fine, it simply means I won't be watching it or talking about it.

    1. Re:As a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might torrent a few episodes for shits and giggles.

      I can't possibly imagine it will be worth watching.

  8. Big ST fan here by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am a big ST fan and while TNG is still my favorite I even like the reboot movies (yes they are not "Trek" in the traditional sense, but the actors & dialogue are good entertainment). So I was quite happy to hear about a new series... Then they published the fan film guidelines and suddenly it all turned sour for me. Sure, I always knew Paramount/CBS are doing it for the money, but performing what is analogous to kicking their fans in the face? And I was never a big fan of fan-made films, but I always took it for granted that they added value to ST not take away from it...
    Nope, the way I feel right now I'll just re-watch my already paid-for TNG, TOS etc disks and hope someone else will make some decent non-ST sci-fi.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Big ST fan here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the Globe and Mail:

      It's been announced that it will premiere on CTV, and then will be shown on Space (in English) and Z (in French) for the following episodes. Streaming will be on Bell's CraveTV Service. Episodes will air on the same day as they are available on CBS All Access. Bell Media has also licensed all 727 episodes to be shown on Space and Cinepop, as well as CraveTV

    2. Re:Big ST fan here by roger_that · · Score: 2

      Yeah, the fan film guidelines will put a BIG dent in some of the best fan films out there. I have been watching Star Trek Continues, and they have very good TOS episodes, which will not be possible under the new guidelines (50-minute (or there-about) episodes). This will be a loss for the ST community.

    3. Re:Big ST fan here by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Star Trek Continues (fan work) is some of the best Trek ever made. Better than 95% of everything official, easily. I think they are worried that fans are doing a better job than they are.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Big ST fan here by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      We can't have a truly free market in art thanks to copyright

      --
      Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
    5. Re: Big ST fan here by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      The studios have never ever understood how to market and produce Star Trek, except for a very brief period when Berman was around. Instead of crying over this dead horse, the fans need to gather round and make something to replace it. Completely. That means no Klingon language. Who knows, it might be far superior to the original. Then you won't have to worry about legal encumbrances and what their executives will let you do.

    6. Re: Big ST fan here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TOS was quite good. The first two seasons were excellent. The third season was a lot weaker but had some good episodes. Sure, it was low budget and looked silly at times, buy the writing was great. The cast was great and the characters were the best of any series. I'll come back to this, but the background music also set the tone for a lot of the stories and was excellent. Alexander Courage composed some outstanding music for TOS and it really added to some of the episodes.

      I think people remember TNG as being better than it really was. There doesn't seem to be many people who like the first couple of seasons but I think they're actually pretty good. They're more like TOS than the later seasons. Yes, some of the stories suck, but there's a lot of interesting science fiction, whereas the later seasons feel more like a 24th century drama. This change coincides with the death of Gene Roddenberry, and I don't care for the direction in which Rick Berman took the series. Speaking of music, one of Berman's worst decisions was to fire Ron Jones at the end oft the fourth season. Most of the memorable scores from TNG were composed by Jones including the Romulan encounter in The Neutral Zone, the creepy music from the first Borg encounter in Q Who, and everything in the Best Of Both Worlds. Berman thought the themes were too cinematic and fired Jones. Those scores really set the mood for those episodes and later seasons of TNG weren't the same.

      DS9 wasn't like the rest of Star Trek, but at least it told an interesting story. I actually found the series pretty enjoyable. However, it's a drama about war and a radical departure from the mostly self-contained stories in earlier series.

      I found Voyager to be mostly awful. They had the opportunity to tell some really interesting stories about a ship and crew stranded in a completely unexplored part of the galaxy. Instead they turned it into a boring drama and then turned to the Borg in an attempt to rescue lousy ratings. TNG didn't have many Borg stories, just six or seven episodes, depending on whether you count The Neutral Zone. That's because it's hard to write about an enemy that powerful and dangerous. And if the Borg were readily defeated over and over, they wouldn't be the powerful enemy they once were. The Borg from Voyager didn't adapt to threats and they were much more easily defeated. Not only was Voyager boring, but they also ruined the Borg.

      Enterprise wasn't very interesting, either. They had so many opportunities to tell interesting science fiction stories but it felt a lot more like another futuristic drama. It was just boring.

      There are plenty of dramas on TV, and Star Trek isn't particularly remarkable as one of those dramas. If the new series is another drama, it won't last beyond a season. Actual science fiction, however, might catch on and succeed. That said, most of what I've seen from Star Trek after Roddenberry died has been pretty awful. Perhaps Rod Roddenberry and Nicholas Meyer will be different, so there could be some hope for this series.

  9. Meh, i have zero interest in JJ Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cbs can shove their new action series right up their ass.

    JJ cured me of my Trekkie-ism.

    1. Re:Meh, i have zero interest in JJ Trek by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Supposedly this isn't the Kelvin timeline (JJ Trek). However, it might as well be if CBS is going to continue to play these games.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  10. No intention to subscribe for one show by CAHutch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a lifelong Star Trek fan. I'm looking forward to a new series but I don't have high hopes for this new series to be any good. Jar Jar Abrams has ruined the movie franchise (for me) and I expect this new series to be equally bad. However, even if the series stays true to Star Trek and is a huge success, I have no intention of subscribing to CBSs streaming service just to watch one show. I expect I'll be able to find this series on any Torrent site as easily as any other TV show. I already subscribe to cable, Netflix and Amazon. The idea that I might have to subscribe separately to each network is ridiculous and I'm hoping that CBS All Access fails completely. If they made the episodes available on a service I already use or even for $2 an episode on iTunes like most other shows, I would pay to watch. When will the studios realize that creating barriers to viewing only pushes people to piracy.

    1. Re:No intention to subscribe for one show by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well we also had such flops like.
      The Motion Picture,
      The Search for Spock
      The Final Frontier
      Voyager
      Generations
      Insurrection
      Nemesis
      Enterprise

      Trek has been in a steady decline for a while.
      The problem is it was a show for the 1960's trying to reboot it for the new generation while keeping its nostalgic charm is getting harder and harder.

      The successes in the list.
      Wrath of Kahn - Allowed a nostalgic response to an existing story, added with the character development of an older Kirk trying to retire.
      The Voyage Home - Wasn't a Star Trek movie, but a Romance Comedy with Star Trek Characters.
      The Undiscovered country - once again playing on the older Kirk who was to retire.
      First Contact - While popular at the time, I don't feel it will hold up. However that was more of an action flick than star trek.
      For the shows.
      TNG in essence ignored the TOS for most of the plots and created a show independant.
      The same with DS9 very different.

      Voyager and Enterprise failed because they tried to remake the TOS and TNG with different characters with a decade apart.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:No intention to subscribe for one show by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      I found all the movies you list to be quite entertaining. If they flopped at the box office, that may be another matter, but the movies themselves I thought to be quite interesting.

    3. Re:No intention to subscribe for one show by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Voyager failed because the writers could never really decide what it was about at all. Between that lack of focus, the worst excesses of the TNG world, and a lot of characters no one could give a damn about it, it never clicked.

      Enterprise failed precisely because it didn't try to replicate TOS at all. Well, I hear the final season was alright, but by that point I'd lost all interest and really couldn't be bothered even now to check it out. Enterprise could have been a very interesting show, and the few episodes where it did actually concern itself with explaining how things got to be where they were by the time of TOS were high points. But most of the time, it just never really felt like Star Trek at all.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re: No intention to subscribe for one show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they flopped it meant nobody found them interesting. Nobody who matters, anyway. Trekkie freaks do not count and producers have decided to give you losers the boot. :)

    5. Re:No intention to subscribe for one show by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I actually enjoy The Motion Picture now. The problem is that if you watch TOS and then jump to TMP, it's pretty jarring. Still, it's an exposition-heavy film that seems more akin to 2001 than to TOS.

      Wrath of Khan is obviously the best, but TMP isn't bad at all.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:No intention to subscribe for one show by Squiffy · · Score: 1

      Enterprise: Vulcans as bitchy hypocrites didn't help the show either.

    7. Re:No intention to subscribe for one show by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      About where I lost all desire to watch any more episodes was when it was "revealed" (retconned) that all the spiritualistic and telepathic Vulcans were some sort of cult a century before TOS. It was absurd to imagine that by the TOS period, a culture of ritualized logic had arisen from a small rump of what would have been in the Enterprise era a pack of hippy kooks was absurd. I'm thinking about the importance of the High Priestess T'Pau in TOS and her successors in the later ST shows and films and just can't square the circle.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:No intention to subscribe for one show by tbannist · · Score: 2

      Both Voyager and Enterprise share one other thing in common, they were largely run by two Paramount executives Rick Berman and Brannon Braga. Not even Manny Coto's surprising good final season of Enterprise could pull the show out of the nosedive that Berman and Braga had put it into.

      Personally Enterprise failed because it got everything wrong. Wrong tone, wrong characters, wrong plots, wrong settings, wrong acting, wrong characterization, wrong logic, wrong common sense.

      My personal pet peeve is episodes that just didn't make any sense. For example, there was an episode where they could have transported a crewman and an alien up to the ship, but they couldn't change the temperature in the transporter room to match the temperature on the planet so the alien would have died from the temperature change? What they don't have thermal blankets they can use? WTF? So they decide to send a shuttle down instead, but it took them something like 20 hours to adjust the shuttle so they could put the heat up high enough on the shuttle (WTF?) and the pair on the planet nearly died from dehydration while they waited (WTF?). If the transporters were working, so why didn't they transport a bottle of water down? If they couldn't do that, why didn't they send a shuttle down early, drop off some bottles of water, some food, and a tent so they could arrange a shelter? Why risk the death of the crewman and alien by doing nothing whatsoever to help them while they were waiting for a stupidly long plot device? I know the answer is "narrative" but it should still make some god-damend sense. This was endemic to first few seasons, stupidly obvious plot holes that would leave anyone with a lick of sense wondering how such amazing huge incompetents ended up running a starship*.

      Actually, according to the pilot episode we know why Archer was pilot, his dad designed the ship. And the rest of the crew was hand picked by Archer. Good old nepotism. Of course that begs the question of why anyone would ever do something so stupid as put the son of the designer in charge...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    9. Re:No intention to subscribe for one show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My personal pet peeve is episodes that just didn't make any sense. For example, there was an episode where they could have transported a crewman and an alien up to the ship, but they couldn't change the temperature in the transporter room to match the temperature on the planet so the alien would have died from the temperature change? What they don't have thermal blankets they can use? WTF? So they decide to send a shuttle down instead, but it took them something like 20 hours to adjust the shuttle so they could put the heat up high enough on the shuttle (WTF?) and the pair on the planet nearly died from dehydration while they waited (WTF?). If the transporters were working, so why didn't they transport a bottle of water down? If they couldn't do that, why didn't they send a shuttle down early, drop off some bottles of water, some food, and a tent so they could arrange a shelter? Why risk the death of the crewman and alien by doing nothing whatsoever to help them while they were waiting for a stupidly long plot device? I know the answer is "narrative" but it should still make some god-damend sense.

      According to what I can see, it seems like you're describing the episode Dawn but some of your details seem off. Are you maybe thinking of some other episode? Still, I could think of ways to rectify your complaints easily enough.

      But anyway, your concerns seem misdirected, as there are a lot better contrivances to use as an example...like the transporters exchanging people between universes, coincidentally enough, the SAME people. Or causing people to suddenly get young, or to get stuck in the holodeck, make a duplicate of yourself, or even merge individuals from separate species without dying.

      This was endemic to first few seasons, stupidly obvious plot holes that would leave anyone with a lick of sense wondering how such amazing huge incompetents ended up running a starship*.

      Actually, according to the pilot episode we know why Archer was pilot, his dad designed the ship. And the rest of the crew was hand picked by Archer. Good old nepotism. Of course that begs the question of why anyone would ever do something so stupid as put the son of the designer in charge...

      It'd make for very short or very boring episodes if they were all resolved quickly. This has been true for Star Trek episodes throughout history. And the Holodeck goes wacky, ambassadors act stupid, the warp engines always act up.

      Ok, ok, there was that one time where Lwxana Troi identified some bombers, but that was an exception.

    10. Re:No intention to subscribe for one show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I enjoyed the 1st and 4th seasons of Enterprise but seasons 2 and 3 were unwatchable for me. So I personally would call that one half a flop...

  11. No US Netflix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what that means, right?

    Idiots.

  12. You INVADED us! by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    Well, there is that whole burning down the White House thing...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:You INVADED us! by iCEBaLM · · Score: 2

      I keep trying to take credit as a Canadian for that, but all of my American friends always insist it was the British who did it. Sorry either way, it's looking much nicer these days.

    2. Re:You INVADED us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ooooh come back proud Canadians
      To before you had TV
      No hockey night in canada!
      There was no CBC (oh my god)

      In 1812 Maddison was mad
      He was the president you know
      well he thought he'd tell the British
      Where they aught to go
      He thought he'd invade canada
      He thought that he was tough
      Instead we went to washingon...

      [chorus]
      And burned down all his stuff!
      And the white house burned burned burned down
      And we're the ones that did it
      It burned burned burned
      while the president ran and cried
      It burned burned burned down
      And things were very historical
      and the americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies yeah
      wah wah wah!
      In the war of 1812

      Us Hillbillies from Kentucky
      Dressed in green and red
      Left home to fight in Canada
      But the returned home dead

      Its the only war the Yankees lost
      Except for Vietnam
      And also the alamo
      and the bay of... Ham

      The loser was america
      the winner was ourselves
      so join right in and gloat about
      the war of 1812

      [chorus]

      In 1812 we were just sittin around
      Puttin crops into the ground
      we heard the soldiers coming and we didnt like that sound
      so we took a boat to washington
      and burned it to the ground

      ooooh we fired our guns but the yankees kept-a-comin
      There wasn't quite as many as there was a while ago
      we fired once more and the yankees started runnin
      Down the mississippi to the gulf of mexico-oo-oo-oo-oo-oo-ooo

      They ran through the snow and they ran through the forest
      They ran through the bushes where the beavers wouldnt go
      The ran so fast they forgot to take their culture
      Back to America and the gulf of mexico-oo-oo-ooo

      so if you go to washington
      its buildings clean and nice
      bring a pack of matches
      and we'll burn the white house twice

      and the whitehouse burned burned burned
      but the americans wont admit it
      it burned burned burned
      it burned it burned it burned
      it burned burned burned
      how that made them mad
      and the americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies
      wah wah wah
      in the war of 1812

    3. Re:You INVADED us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen, if we hadn't burnt it down, and it hadn't just been whitewashed, you'd be spending so much time arguing if it should be blue or red you'd never have time to invade anyone... SO you should thank us.

    4. Re:You INVADED us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep trying to take credit as a Canadian for that, but all of my American friends always insist it was the British who did it. Sorry either way, it's looking much nicer these days.

      Well to be fair it Was the British.

      Canada was still a British colony at the time, and the War of 1812 was against the British. The Invasion of Canada was supposed to be a liberation, but the Canadians fought to stay British instead of throwing in with us rebellious yankees.

    5. Re:You INVADED us! by fox171171 · · Score: 1

      Well, there is that whole burning down the White House thing...

      Now you complain we burned down the White House. Then you'll have your next election. Then you'll be whining and complaining that we didn't come and burn down the White House. We just can't win.

    6. Re:You INVADED us! by rune2 · · Score: 1

      Well Canada was a British colony at the time so British troops were responsible. But recall that the burning of Washington was retaliation for the American's sacking of York (Toronto) and the destruction of Port Dover .... Once the British were done fighting Napoleon they suddenly had plenty of extra soldiers to send over to North America to fight back against the Americans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  13. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There hasn't been any new trek since 2002. I can wait longer, or just not watch at all.

    1. Re:Meh by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      That's OK, there are better sci-fi out there anyways to watch in the meantime:

      * Battlestar Galactica (2004)
      * Continuum
      * Dark Matter
      * Fringe
      * Futurama
      * Lost
      * Red Dwarf

  14. No loss there. by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 0

    From what little I've read about the new series, it wasn't going to appeal to me. I'll probably torrent a few episodes, just to make sure.

  15. Back to pirating by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

    Canadian who recently switched form pirating to Netflix here. Guess I'll be making an exception for this. Bell or Rogers probably locked up the rights.

  16. Fuck CBS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not gonna pay for yet another streaming video service. I'm betting most other people won't either. Piracy it is, then.
    verification code: chisler

  17. Controlled burns? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3

    Well, there is that whole burning down the White House thing...

    That isn't why we are upset, its the fact they forgot to burn down the the Senate building before they left.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Controlled burns? by meerling · · Score: 2

      All of Capitol Hill?

  18. Canada broadcast details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This post seems to have all the details for the Canada rollout (for streaming, it seems like Bell has it locked up for their own Netflix attempt, Crave).

    "The Bell Media rollout for the new Star Trek series in Canada will mirror the launch in the United States. The first episode will premiere on Canada’s most-watched broadcast network, CTV, on the same night as CBS. All remaining episodes will initially be televised on Bell Media’s cable networks, Space (in English) and Z (in French), and then later exclusively on CraveTV"

    http://www.startrek.com/article/international-broadcasters-set-for-new-star-trek-series

    1. Re:Canada broadcast details by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Or, more likely, the first episode will be watched by hundreds of thousands of Canadians roughly 30 to 45 minutes after the premier on TV via Bittorrent.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  19. CBS most access... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CBS All Access. Unless you receive CBS via antenna, in which case, fuck you.

    1. Re:CBS most access... by rally2xs · · Score: 2

      Nope, its not going to be on the air, only on internet for a price. OBTW, its still a "FU" for the price - I'm not paying.

  20. All Access == Pay TV == Nonstarter by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    After already shelling out about $300 to my cable company for TV, many premium channels, internet access, and telephone service, I draw the line. Either they get it on my cable for no extra charge, or they can forget it. They don't have anything, nor will they, that I'm going send any additional $$$ anywhere for. This is getting ridiculous.

  21. CBS Fail. by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2

    You are choosing to NOT be on Netflix (US/Canada)|Hulu|Amazon|YouTube RED...hmmm yeah
    Let's see how long that lasts.

    1. Re:CBS Fail. by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      You are choosing to NOT be on Netflix (US/Canada)|Hulu|Amazon|YouTube RED...hmmm yeah Let's see how long that lasts.

      Maybe longer than you realize. CBS has never been part of Hulu and I think no part of those other services either. At present they believe that they can make more money by getting people to pay for their own streaming service which they don't have to share with anybody else. We'll see how that works with Star Trek.

  22. Bleh to the new Star Trek. Give Axanar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bleh to the new Star Trek. Give Axanar.

    1. Re:Bleh to the new Star Trek. Give Axanar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, forget about Star Trek.

      Make some Babylon 5 spin-offs. Blake's 7. White Dwarf. Mercy Point. Space Rangers. Firefly. Space 1999. Robotech. Gundam. Buck Rogers.

      There must be something else. If it's even half as good as Galactica, it'll be fine. And no, no more Galactica spin-offs. Or Star Gate. We've had enough.

  23. Don't care by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm a Trek fan, but I don't watch LGBTQ propaganda flicks. I won't be watching this.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    1. Re:Don't care by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, ST was never the same since it started showing equality among the races! Curse you, you hippy bastard Roddenberry!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re: Don't care by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Nihilism is not a color.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    3. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

    4. Re: Don't care by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Ah, I do feel sorry for you and your obsessive hatred of homosexuals. Well, look at it this way, you'll be dead in a few decades, and they won't bother you with their existence any more.

      In the meantime, I recommend watching reruns of 1950s and 1960s television shows, you know, where people do the proper thing and have sex via two beds separated by three feet and no one ever has an attraction to someone of their gender. You're clearly too immature and reactionary to deal with the real world, so I recommend you sink further into your bigotry and fantasies.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re: Don't care by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 0

      Funny, MENSA doesn't think so.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    6. Re: Don't care by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      You mean, back when creating the next generation of mankind was considered to have social value?

      When marriage was a mechanism by which society supported this valuable task?

      Before the economic support of marriage became something people are simply entitled to?

      Before the important role of wives and mothers was completely devalued, and treated as offering no more social value than a young man who takes it up the bum?

      You know what? I think I will.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    7. Re: Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MENSA is irrelevant.

    8. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think there'd have been more transgender trill, since surely they'd keep their gender regardless of what body they were in. Or do trill not have genders, and just adopt the gender of their host? Possibly they could just choose a host based on their preference, except no trill seems to have any preference. In fact, I think they might intentionally change their sex to make it easier to start a new life without any ties to their old one.

      Anyway, long story short, Dax was responsible for the first same sex romantic kiss in Star Trek, which means DS9 had a bisexual main cast character over 20 years before everyone started losing their shit about Sulu.

    9. Re: Don't care by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      You are irrelevant

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    10. Re: Don't care by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Here's a tip. Gays can have children, and they can even raise them.

      The rest is just fevered nonsense. Homosexuals at best represent 10% of the population, so they're not a threat to the future. You're just looking for reasons to support your hatred.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re: Don't care by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Well now you're definitely an idiot for making an appeal to THAT particular authority.

    12. Re: Don't care by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      You mean, back when creating the next generation of mankind was considered to have social value?

      No, in the 1970's, there was neo-Malthusianism which worried about overpopulation. Creating too many of the next generation was a worry and all sorts of crazy people had crazy ideas about how to fix it. Except that there's no need. Educating women and developing the nation staves off the birth rates and all the developed nations without sizable immigration now actually have a worry about declining population.

      When marriage was a mechanism by which society supported this valuable task?

      That's still in effect. A lot of people still marry and have kids.

        And the divorce rate shot up and peaked by the end of the 70's. So if you were trying to appeal to some sort of "death of marriage" vibe, you need to back BEFORE the release of the Star Trek TOS.

      But go figure, treat women like they're people and you have more divorces.

      Before the economic support of marriage became something people are simply entitled to?

      Before the whatnow? People can still file jointly you shmuck.

      Before the important role of wives and mothers was completely devalued,

      Wow. What happened between you and your mum? Or was it something with your wife? How exactly has motherhood been devalued?

      and treated as offering no more social value than a young man who takes it up the bum?

      Lots of old guys take it up the bum too. But yes, gay couples should be treated the same as straight couples. How does that affect the worth of your wife at all? Did you read in a paper that some gay dudes were married and you looked over at your wife and declared that she was worthless now?

      You know what? I think I will [rewatch the original Star Trek]

      ...You realize that it was, and IS, a raging hard-on for a liberal utopia. They had a russian, an Irishman, a jap, and a BLACK LADY on the bridge of a ship. Working together. What madness. It was a post-scarcity society, no more money. The Federation is an idealized United Nations. It was officially hands off towards pre-warp civilizations, ie, don't be colonial asshats to the natives. But OH NOES, gay people. That's just one step too far.

    13. Re: Don't care by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Insult me all you want. I'm not going to change, except inasmuch as I become more hostile from being instigated.

      Self serving sophist.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    14. Re: Don't care by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      I don't know you any better than you know me, so, I don't know if you're an idiot.

      But the fact that you're comfortable making assertions from a position of ignorance certainly implies it...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    15. Re: Don't care by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Why are you people wasting mod points on a statement of personal intent, and treating it like something subject to debate?

      Try just, expressing your own position.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    16. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

    17. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being gay isn't something you see, it's something you do. Being gay should have nothing to do with flying a space craft, but you know they're going to force it in whenever they can. If they leave all the LGBTQ scenes off the bridge and only in the character romances behind the scenes then fine, but they won't do that. The original Star Trek didn't have "black culture", they had a black secretary who performed secretarial duties. Her race was never pointed out, it was seen as normal, it didn't matter. All the new shows with LGBTQ characters shove their traits in everyone's face instead of keeping it confined to where it naturally belongs. Instead of seeing a homosexual couple holding hands while they go to a vacation on the holodeck, we'll get characters cracking jokes and whining that they don't know if they should love each other or not. We won't see a homosexual couples' kids playing normally with everyone else, instead we'll get an episode where they're teased by other kids and they have to overcome that for a personal victory. The original Star Trek had the 'odd' characters as part of normal life, the new show won't. It'll be a LGBTQ propaganda flick, the media companies don't know how to create anything different.

    18. Re: Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You mean, back when creating the next generation of mankind was considered to have social value?"
      There are 8 billion people in this world. There are enough worthless people in the world contributing absolutely nothing without adding more.

    19. Re: Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, I do feel sorry for you and your obsessive hatred of homosexuals. Well, look at it this way, you'll be dead in a few decades, and they won't bother you with their existence any more.

      Actually, change "decades" into "generations", and gays won't be bothering anyone with their existence anymore. Now that society as a whole has accepted them as people, they no longer have to hide in marriages they don't want, having unwanted sex with their spouse, and finally siring/birthing children who carry the same-sex orientation gene.

      Unless, of course, sexual orientation is not a matter of biology, in which case it's here to stay.

    20. Re: Don't care by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Ask for details instead of vague hate-mongering and I typically get two things: They run away like this coward, or they dive off the deep end of crazy.

      "It's all the GAYS fault!"

      "What's the gay's fault?"

      *poof gone*

      And very occasionally I get an insightful critic. I've come to accept that treating women like real people and equals is the cause for the raise in divorces. And this is a consequence of the sexual revolution and hippies and women's rights movement. A "casulty" would be an accurate description. And it's an acceptable one. It sucks, sure, but the alternative is to re-instate half the populace as second class citizens, which sucks MORE.

      So far though, I'm really not seeing any negative consequence to treating gay people like people. It opens the way for the next even more fucked up group to get the limelight, but as long as it doesn't affect me, so what? And maybe we'll see rich dudes marrying each other not because they're gay or in love, but just for the legal purposes or tax benefits. We'll see.

    21. Re: Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you realize that that is the intended goal? You're sub-human, as far as I'm concerned. And I don't mean that if I ran you over with my car on accident, I'd go to your house to tell your family. That'd be treating you like a dog. Dogs are good.

      But I'm more than happy to keep your true personality visible. Maybe once people realize you're a hostile individual who is angry about homosexuals being included in modern society they'll start distancing themselves from you? I can only hope you end up childless, because I would HATE for you to pass your hateful ideology on to your children.

    22. Re: Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comebacks like this really separate you from the rest of the homo sapiens.

    23. Re: Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bisexuality. Recessive genes. Artificial insemination.

    24. Re: Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He asked you several pertinent questions. You failed to answer even one of them. This is because you knew that the answers make you look like the fool you are.

      The shrieking bitch-fit you pitched instead was unable to serve its intended purpose of diverting attention from your failure. Even your own.

    25. Re: Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've come to accept that treating women like real people and equals is the cause for the raise in divorces. And this is a consequence of the sexual revolution and hippies and women's rights movement. A "casulty" would be an accurate description. And it's an acceptable one. It sucks, sure, but the alternative is to re-instate half the populace as second class citizens, which sucks MORE.

      Does it, though? Divorce is the end of a bad marriage. That's not a bad thing.

    26. Re: Don't care by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >What did we ever do to you American

      And they often do it to a larger extent. I have a lesbian friend who donates eggs four times a year. She has well over 19 biological children by now.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    27. Re: Don't care by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      An organisation who calls themselves geniusses yet spend their time in an organisation of self proclaimed geniusses.

      Actual geniusses don't join MENSA - they are too busy trying to make the world a better place. They are in research laboratories painstakingly trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, working on vaccines for deadly diseases, finding ways get more energy out of cleaner technologies, digging through miles of dirt to learn more about our ancient ancestors and their cousins and the history of life, coding meticulous synchronization algorithms to keep the many dishes of the world's largest radio telescopic interferometer moving correctly together and discovering new galaxies by the thousands.

      What they are not doing - is joining an organisation so they can claim they are geniusses. I know quite a few proud MENSA members... they all have one thing in common, they are idiots who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag and they joined MENSA because rather than own their stupidity their insecurity demanded they find some way to pretend it wasn't there by getting a bunch of other equally insecure idiots together so they can all reassure each other of how smart they all are.

      It's the participation trophy of intellectual pursuits.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  24. Invert the VPNs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now American's will be buying VPN's in Europe so they can watch NetFlix.

  25. Boycott CBS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CBS can go f*ck it self for destroying Axanar. I will never watch anything CBS ever again!

    1. Re:Boycott CBS by luther349 · · Score: 1

      you know axanar won its still happening. and that was not cbs it was paramount.

    2. Re:Boycott CBS by luther349 · · Score: 1

      oh dont forgot the makers of that ran with the money kinda breaking the rules of any fan fiilm.

  26. We are not all back waters by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

    and at one stroke eliminates the typical years of delay that occur when a U.S. program seeks foreign audiences.

    Weeks, and months, but seldom is it years, and, if it is, this is likely because the Networks here did not see a potential audience for it.

    I can only speak for New Zealand, We receive a high amount of out programming the same week and the same day as the U.S/U.K (especially for the most popular shows).

    If not that quick, many others are being played before the series has run its course in the U.S.

    --
    . . .gone when the morning comes
  27. Re: Not so much bypassing regional restrictions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And shitting their pants about everything (like gay marriage, mexican, losing their guns, government overreach into health care and muslims).

  28. How's it a major step forward? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The deal represents a potential major step forward in the company's determination to bypass regional licensing, and at one stroke eliminates the typical years of delay that occur when a U.S. program seeks foreign audiences.

    Is it just a "major step forward" for CBS or something? Australia has been getting U.S. programs aired nationally with very short delays. A recent example coming to mind was the X-Files mini series that only had about a six hour delay.