Other than the new Trek series, CBS has nothing I’m interested in seeing. I didn’t even finish the new Twilight Zone the last time I had a subscription.
Oh, and what also irritates me is they don't even have past seasons of the current shows, either. I've heard good things about Young Sheldon (an actual decent series, given the cringe trashfire from which the concept came ) bit they only have the current season. Given that everything from adult XXX to preschool shows are serialized these days, this seems like commercial suicide. CBS has always been assbackwards, though. Remember that show "Jericho" about the Colorado town dealing with nuke fallout? Biggest hit for 2007/2008 that they squandered by forcing people to go online to watch the episodes they missed. They showed NO reruns on the off-season, then nearly cancelled the show. Fans launched a Nuts campaign and spammed peanuts to CBS, so it got a 2nd season but the momentum was gone. Fuck you, Les Moonves.
Peacock at least has some interesting content, and it's free with a throwaway email account. Never really had much interest in CBS All Access.
I'll drop CBS once Lower Decks finishes up the season, and will pick it back up for next season and binge Picard 2 then.
I get it free through Xfinity/Comcast. I watched a few episodes of Airwolf, I'm not sure, but it looks like it is in HD, it doesn't look like it's in SD.
Some of the old shows do look amazingly clear, but I'm sure most of them haven't been given the blu-ray treatment. Also, I think the free version is supposed to have ads but uBlock must be getting rid of them because I never see them. Ssssh, don't tell anyone.
Roku just bought all their content, you can watch it for free soon. https://apple.news/AGnY223NlSpWI3cEKOndsvg
Definitely gonna happen. AT&T is gonna ditch DirecTV at some point and a merger makes sense. The thing is for all their ham-handedness with HBO Max, they have so friggin' much content that they are in a better long-term position than the critics want to admit.
Qubid is already gone. The content will not disappear, but the way it's distributed will...evolve....
I think bundling will probably be in the future. I think it will go the way some of the asian content streaming services have gone. You will be able to get some discount on services with your subscription to certain services. Like if I got for Disney+ I might get a discount on another more niche service. I am hoping they they split up some of the bigger services into more targeted products. I really do not give a fuck about peacock's new releases, but I might want access to a library of titles over a decade or two old that they might have the rights for. I like the new content netflix puts out, but their old movie library leaves a lot to be desired so if disney launched a purely classic movie library that they hold the rights to I might consider that over disney plus. really what I want now is a service that covers a huge library of 80's and early 90's on back material. I do not want to pirate it. I do not want to dig in the discount bin anymore. I do not want to pay 3.00 to rent it. Youtube is somewhat getting it with their movie offerings, but it seems every time I want to see some old POS a movie reviewer is talking about I have to pay 3.00 for it. I would use youtube because they put the ads at the beginning, but I am not paying that much for a movie I am watching just for nostalgia or because it is a shitty movie i want to laugh at.
The plan is to make it up as they go along. Most of Hollywood's big corporations have been behind the streaming technology curve just like they were for TV, Videotape and DVD.
I get free Hulu with my Sprint (well, whatever the fuck it is now) cell phone plan, and I watch it through my Xfinity box. I suspect cable companies will see bundling deals with the various services as a way to slow the loss of customers to cord-cutting.
You remember these ads from the 90s? Lots of that technology was actually available in the 80s (apparently, Peter Gabriel's father was a big investor in a streaming music service back then that fell apart before too long). The reason it didn't take off was because companies were too concerned about making it proprietary. (ie you'd have no choice for a Netflix-like streaming service other than AT&T.) It took things like Napster, Mega Upload, and the like before the big media companies were willing to get on board. Not that this is all that unique when it comes to communication technology. Samuel Morse cribbed the telegraph from somebody else, Tesla beat Marconi to the invention of radio (and someone else actually beat both of them, but didn't have the money backing him that Tesla and Marconi had), and the first TV network, DuMont, got shoved out of existence because it didn't have the financial clout that the big radio networks (NBC and CBS) had as folks began to move into TV broadcasts.
Sounds like Tom Selleck doing the VO. Probably made more for those spots than for a season of Magnum PI...maybe not...but in the ballpark!
It was Tom Selleck. I don't know what he would have made from the spots or Magnum PI, but he wasn't hurting for cash, I'm sure. There's a comic who became a regular on Mork & Mindy starting in the second season. According to him, he was pulling down $60K/episode. As the lead on a top-ranked show, I'm sure Selleck made a lot more. (And he got to live in Hawaii for part of the year.)
The big reason I am not paying cable packages is because I am forced to pay for sports and right wing news like fox. The basic sports channels like ESPN cost more over all on breakdown than HBO when you combine them. That I do not like when I have to pay for it, and because i really feel pro sports are a huge rip off money making load of crap. If people want to pay into it that is great, but I do not get anything out of paying for it except the problems with my taxes paying for arenas I never get use out of. I also really want to reject any payment to right wing news and right wing religious channels. I think they are horrible and do not want to support them. I do not even want to support CNN and MSNBC because of how horrible I think they are. That is a boycott of mine also. OTOH I do not mind funding some crap I will never watch just for the sake of getting stuff made. Also, I do want to fund things like crunchyroll and hidive which bring licensed profit to foreign animation and media I really enjoy. I am very happy to pay for those services as they have brought content to me in dubbed and subbed format right away. By allowing streaming companies to thrive they have brought more diversity to what I watch. Netflix does it with foreign producers also. I have watched movies from denmark, venezuela, poland, and all sort of places that are awesome and I want to see more of that so I want to fund that like a sports fan wants to see better sports games and productions. If these cable companies come away from the amercian chist white centric audience they pander to and give people the ability to pay for what they want I am all in for paying subscription fees. I am sure they will end up discounting some packages they find people enjoy in a much more targeted entertainment experience now that they have to due to competition.
So, based on the Super Bowl ads last week, why doesn't Paramount+ just call itself the "Star Trek" channel?
You could probably build a really good channel around Star Trek content. There are close to 1,000 hours just with the one-hour live-action series ... you could do something like a straight-up rerun schedule from midnight to 7 p.m. weekdays, documentaries and other original content during prime time, and themed marathons on weekends and holidays ... Throw in material inspired by Star Trek, with a host to talk about it in the breaks, just to pad things out a little. Hey, Sirius has an entire channel for the Beatles, so why not?