Dark Matter now officially dead

[Robin Miller]

I'm so very disappointed:

https://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/september-23-2017-the-end/

Fans worked hard over the last few weeks to try to save the show via
various Twitter campaigns. There were three parties interested in the
show, but it didn't work out with any of them. Netflix, apparently, was
not among the three. Joe never identified them, but he did say that
Netflix was one of the first places he approached, but they were
apparently satisfied with the rights to the three existing seasons.

This show had a wonderful heart and a kickass cast and deserved better,
as did the fans.

--Robin

[anim8rfsk]

In article <f2np8s...@mid.individual.net>,

#Dark Matter Matters

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[Ian J. Ball]

Well, that sucks. Esp. the part where The Netflix wasn't interested - that shows they've gotten dumb since they acquired "Longmire". That's too bad...

[Obveeus]

Just ask Nibbler.

[Obveeus]

Netflix has the advantage of knowing exactly how many people are (or are
not) watching their shows.

[Ian J. Ball]

That's a false comparison - their Netflix viewership is obviously impacted by all the people who have already watched it on Space and Siffy. (E.G. I'm certainly not watching "Dark Matter" on Netflix - I've already seen it.) So Netflix's numbers will be an obvious undercount.

And Netflix could get this show pretty cheap - the Canadian's are the primary producers of this one: Netflix would only be a co-producer.

I think Netflix is getting too big for its britches, if it's passing up easy/obvious content like this, instead trying to chase the next "Handmaiden's Tale" or "Game of Thrones". A bird in the hand, and all that...

[Robin Miller]

Joe said the difference with Longmire was that Netflix didn't have the
streaming rights to the show, and acquired them in the acquisition. It
actually hurt Dark Matter for Netflix to already have the streaming
rights, because they apparently figured that Dark Matter fans would have
already joined to watch past seasons, so that they wouldn't get as many
new subscribers as they did with Longmire. I don't know if that really
follows, but that was apparently part of their reasoning.

I still find it very hard to believe that no one was interested in a
sizable, passionate, pre-packaged fan base. Joe said that it wasn't an
expensive show to produce, although I think he was comparing it to The
Expanse. He mentioned the budget was about $3M per episode, which sounds
like a lot to me, but I don't really know.

--Robin

[anim8rfsk]

In article <f2nsp7...@mid.individual.net>,

An STD will cost you 3x that, if that helps any.

[Your Name]

On 2017-09-23 19:33:02 +0000, Ian J. Ball said:
> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 12:26:02 PM UTC-7, Obveeus wrote:
>> On 9/23/2017 3:18 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 11:59:44 AM UTC-7, Robin Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm so very disappointed:
>>>>
>>>> https://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/september-23-2017-the-end/
>>>>
>>>> Fans worked hard over the last few weeks to try to save the show via
>>>> various Twitter campaigns. There were three parties interested in the
>>>> show, but it didn't work out with any of them. Netflix, apparently, was
>>>> not among the three. Joe never identified them, but he did say that
>>>> Netflix was one of the first places he approached, but they were
>>>> apparently satisfied with the rights to the three existing seasons.
>>>>
>>>> This show had a wonderful heart and a kickass cast and deserved better,
>>>> as did the fans.
>>>

>>> Well, that sucks. Esp. the part where The Netflix wasn't interested -
>>> that shows they've gotten dumb since they acquired "Longmire". That's
>>> too bad...
>>
>> Netflix has the advantage of knowing exactly how many people are (or
>> are> not) watching their shows.
>
> That's a false comparison - their Netflix viewership is obviously
> impacted by all the people who have already watched it on Space and
> Siffy. (E.G. I'm certainly not watching "Dark Matter" on Netflix - I've
> already seen it.) So Netflix's numbers will be an obvious undercount.

<snip>

Even ignoring the ridiculous inaccuracies of the almighty "ratings"
system, many of us never get counted at all because we're not in North
America. :-(

I don't watch the show on Space, Siffy, nor Netflix. Here in New
Zealand "Dark Matter" was playing on Sky TV's "The Zone" sci-fi and
fantasy channel, until Sky TV stupidly shut that down. The next season
(I think we still have one to go) was advertised to be played on Sky
TV's silly new "Box Sets" channel which plays whole seasons as a
binge-watch session, making it difficult to record in the limited
capacity MySky recording box for those of us who don't have multiple
hours spare to sit in front of the TV in one go.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Netflix has shifted to making their own original shows. Picking up
other people's cast offs takes resources away from that. (And yes, I
liked 'Dark Matter'. I still have the last four or five episodes
unwatched on my DVR because I haven't had time to watch them.)

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Does that include the antibiotics?

[Adam H. Kerman]

That's paying for the discovery of the necessary antibiotic, getting it
through gubmint review and into the market.

[Robin Miller]

Well, the way Joe said it was that GoT was about 10M per, and Dark
Matter was "a little less than a third" of that. But I've always thought
that GoT is an outlier.

--Robin

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq6lgu$8d1$3...@dont-email.me>,

Nope. That's just the cost of the disease. Ironically, the cure is
actually cheaper.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq6le5$8d1$2...@dont-email.me>,

Anything that takes resources away from making "Fuller House" can only
be deemed a good thing.

[Robin Miller]

BTW, speaking of viewing outside US/Canada, Joe said that Syfy
International was very supportive of the show, as were several of the
individual countries' Syfy channels that he mentioned. Do you get Syfy
Australia? (I understand from your comment that, at least in NZ, Sky
rather than Syfy has the rights to Dark Matter.)

--Robin

[Adam H. Kerman]

It's the high cost of feeding dragons.

[Jomguy]

Truly bad news, grew from liking this show last two years to loving it this year.

[Your Name]

No idea about Australia's local networks, but Sky TV New Zealand is run
from Australia, so it's likely Sky TV Australia is the same.

Sky TV here has various channels which are separate elsewhere. For
example, Sky TV's Basic package includes channels like Disney XD,
Cartoon Network, National Geographic, BBC News, etc.

Here in New Zealand Sky TV often plays shows first and then they later
play on regular Freeview channels - both the Sky TV-owned Freeview
channel "Prime TV" (which probably isn't directly / legally available
in Australia) and other networks. For example:

- "Game of Thrones" first plays here on Sky TV's SoHo channel, but
is then later played on their Freeview Prime TV channel.

- "Star Wars Rebels" first plays here on Sky TV's Disney XD channel
(usually quite a few weeks / months later than in America), but a
season (not sure which one) is currently playing on the government
owned commerical Television New Zealand's Two channel.

There are also some shows that play the other way around. Doctor Who,
for example, first plays on the Freeview Prime TV channel, then later
on a Sky TV channel (used to be the now-defunct The Zone, but will now
be on Jones! or Jones! Too). Some of the British dramas and murder
mystery shows will play on either Prime TV or Television New Zealand's
One channel, and then later appear on Sky TV's Vibe or BBC UKTV channel.

Then of course there are other shows that the local networks have the
rights to and Sky TV can't (or don't want to) play at all. Often these
rights move to other networks when the contract expires ... or in some
cases one netowkr has the rights to play old episodes while another
network has the rights to play new episodes, so something like The
Simpsons may well be playing on two completely spearate networks.

[Robin Miller]

Yeah, I think it really hit its stride this season.

<sigh>

--Robin

[Robin Miller]

That's pretty complicated.

--Robin

[Obveeus]

On 9/23/2017 3:33 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 12:26:02 PM UTC-7, Obveeus wrote:
>
>> On 9/23/2017 3:18 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 11:59:44 AM UTC-7, Robin Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm so very disappointed:
>>>>
>>>> https://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/september-23-2017-the-end/
>>>>
>>>> Fans worked hard over the last few weeks to try to save the show via
>>>> various Twitter campaigns. There were three parties interested in the
>>>> show, but it didn't work out with any of them. Netflix, apparently, was
>>>> not among the three. Joe never identified them, but he did say that
>>>> Netflix was one of the first places he approached, but they were
>>>> apparently satisfied with the rights to the three existing seasons.
>>>>
>>>> This show had a wonderful heart and a kickass cast and deserved better,
>>>> as did the fans.
>>>>
>>>> --Robin
>>>
>>> Well, that sucks. Esp. the part where The Netflix wasn't interested - that shows they've gotten dumb since they acquired "Longmire". That's too bad...
>>
>> Netflix has the advantage of knowing exactly how many people are (or are
>> not) watching their shows.
>
> That's a false comparison - their Netflix viewership is obviously impacted by all the people who have already watched it on Space and Siffy. (E.G. I'm certainly not watching "Dark Matter" on Netflix - I've already seen it.) So Netflix's numbers will be an obvious undercount.

It isn't the maximum size of the count that matters. What Netflix can
gauge is the number of interested viewers on their service.

Meanwhile, Netflix (and everyone else) already knows that very few
people watched the show on Syfy. So, if they didn't watch it on Syfy
and they didn't watch it on Netflix, why order more?

> I think Netflix is getting too big for its britches, if it's passing up easy/obvious content like this,

If Netflix was going to make new seasons of every cancelled TV series
that was pulling down 600,000 viewers an episode, they'd have to make
new seasons of almost every scripted show made on cable and all the ones
made for broadcast TV.

[Obveeus]

That is a good point. Additionally, they can add the Syfy viewers plus
the viewers they have on Netflix (and they can correct for the number of
people who have stopped watching the show before the last available
episode) and that will tell them the maximum viewers they are likely to
garner for new episodes. If that number won't pay the cost of new
episodes, then there would be no reason to pick up the series.

> I still find it very hard to believe that no one was interested in a
> sizable, passionate, pre-packaged fan base. Joe said that it wasn't an
> expensive show to produce, although I think he was comparing it to The
> Expanse. He mentioned the budget was about $3M per episode, which sounds
> like a lot to me, but I don't really know.

$3million an episode sounds about average these days. Way cheaper than
STAR TREK DISCOVERY, but not significantly cheaper than the average
basic cable show.

[Obveeus]

Just Say No.

[Obveeus]

Definitely. GAME OF THRONES is basically the anchor for HBO these days
upon which everything else revolves around.

[A Friend]

In article <oq7636$ulu$3...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> Definitely. GAME OF THRONES is basically the anchor for HBO these days
> upon which everything else revolves around.

I must be a strange case. I've had HBO since 1975 -- that's nineteen
seventy fucking-five, when there was only one of them, and it was on
for like eight hours an evening -- and I've never bothered with GAME OF
THRONES. Not once. I even used to know George R.R. Martin, at least
enough to say hello to. I'm now wondering what HBO is going to do for
me, once this whole GoT thing goes away.

[Your Name]

I just finished watching a (rather silly) movie I recorded last week
called "Super Eruption" (2010) which started with the title screen
"SyFy presents". The movie played on the MediaWorks' Freeview channel
"Three". MediaWorks is the second main Freeview network after
Television New Zealand, and it is Canadian-owned (they also run a few
other channels and radio stations).

Because shows can run on different networks, it's sometimes difficult
to know what is actually a new season instead of a re-run season on a
different network. A show may be advertised as "new" on channel Three
(for example), but has in fact already played on channel One. Even
worse are some shows that are advertised on Sky TV as being "first time
on TV", when in reality they have already been played on channel One
... although this is partly due to Sky TV being Australian-run and the
show not having been played in Australia before.

Sometimes one network can have the rights to run old episodes while a
different network has the rights for new episodes. At one point The
Simpsons was playing on both Television New Zealand and MediaWorks
channels. In other cases shows keep swapping networks as the rights
change hands.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq760f$ulu$2...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

I am, I am!

I admit I'll peek tomorrow and see if the interwebs have it before
CBAss, just because I think that would be funny.

I'm surprised INHUMANS isn't online. It's bad news when even the
pirates don't care.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Whether those are just re-runs or new Simpsons.

[Your Name]

At one stage I remember having The Simpsons running on two networks -
re-runs on channel Three, alongside new and re-run episodes on channel
Two.

[Robin Miller]

I wouldn't say that "very few people" watched it. DM was essentially
tied with Killjoys for 4th in total viewers for Syfy's shows:

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/syfy-tv-show-ratings-updated-33879/

It had more total viewers and a better 18-49 rating than Channel Zero,
Wynonna Earp, and 12 Monkeys, all of which were renewed. (Admittedly
Channel Zero must cost next to nothing.)

(Oddly, ranking shows by demo ratings, Syfy renewed 1-5 and 10-12 and
cancelled 6-9.)

And it jumped way up in L+7. That may not matter for selling commercial
time, but those are actual eyeballs for a streaming service. For the
season 3 finale, total viewers more than doubled and 18-49 quadrupled:

https://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/2017/08/24/august-24-2017-fans-power-dark-matter-to-huge-viewership-gains/

(Joe wrote 18-34 in his blog post but the chart says 18-49, which I
assume is correct.)

And this was pretty typical of Dark Matter's performance, and what you
would expect for a Friday night show that has a lot of younger viewers.

--Robin

[Obveeus]

On 9/24/2017 2:46 AM, Robin Miller wrote:
> Obveeus wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/23/2017 3:33 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 12:26:02 PM UTC-7, Obveeus wrote:

>>>> Netflix has the advantage of knowing exactly how many people are (or
>>>> are
>>>> not) watching their shows.
>>>
>>> That's a false comparison - their Netflix viewership is obviously
>>> impacted by all the people who have already watched it on Space and
>>> Siffy. (E.G. I'm certainly not watching "Dark Matter" on Netflix -
>>> I've already seen it.) So Netflix's numbers will be an obvious
>>> undercount.
>>
>> It isn't the maximum size of the count that matters.  What Netflix can
>> gauge is the number of interested viewers on their service.
>>
>> Meanwhile, Netflix (and everyone else) already knows that very few
>> people watched the show on Syfy.  So, if they didn't watch it on Syfy
>> and they didn't watch it on Netflix, why order more?
>
>
> I wouldn't say that "very few people" watched it. DM was essentially
> tied with Killjoys for 4th in total viewers for Syfy's shows:
>
> https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/syfy-tv-show-ratings-updated-33879/

Not one show on Syfy has even a million viewers. that equates to *very
few*.

> It had more total viewers and a better 18-49 rating than Channel Zero,
> Wynonna Earp, and 12 Monkeys, all of which were renewed. (Admittedly
> Channel Zero must cost next to nothing.)
>
> (Oddly, ranking shows by demo ratings, Syfy renewed 1-5 and 10-12 and
> cancelled 6-9.)

Syfy has done some very odd renewals. CHANEL ZERO, WYNONNA EARP, and 12
MONKEYS all should have been cancelled given their ratings.

> And it jumped way up in L+7. That may not matter for selling commercial
> time, but those are actual eyeballs for a streaming service. For the
> season 3 finale, total viewers more than doubled and 18-49 quadrupled:
>
> https://josephmallozzi.wordpress.com/2017/08/24/august-24-2017-fans-power-dark-matter-to-huge-viewership-gains/
>
>
> (Joe wrote 18-34 in his blog post but the chart says 18-49, which I
> assume is correct.)

Netflix probably isn't going to care about demos since every eyeball
pays the same amount. That being said, even the live +7 numbers for
DARK MATTER equate to only 1/3rd the audience that LONGMIRE was getting
when it got cancelled from TV. Clearly, 1/3rd the audience was too low
of a starting point for Netflix.

[Obveeus]

On 9/23/2017 11:18 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <oq7636$ulu$3...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Definitely. GAME OF THRONES is basically the anchor for HBO these days
>> upon which everything else revolves around.
>
> I must be a strange case. I've had HBO since 1975 -- that's nineteen
> seventy fucking-five, when there was only one of them, and it was on
> for like eight hours an evening -- and I've never bothered with GAME OF
> THRONES. Not once.

I don't have HBO, but I've seen several episodes of GAME OF THRONES
and...I doubt I would be watching it if I did have HBO. I have no idea
why people find it compelling. The same goes for THE WALKING DEAD and
TRUE BLOOD.

> I even used to know George R.R. Martin, at least
> enough to say hello to.

Don't say hello to him as it will distract him and he'll never get that
next book finished.

> I'm now wondering what HBO is going to do for
> me, once this whole GoT thing goes away.

Maybe WHO FEARS DEATH.

...if George R.R. Martin isn't too busy playing with NIGHTFLYERS for Syfy.

[Obveeus]

I'd expect the pirate versions of STAR TREK DISCOVERY to come from
Canada or overseas. people who have to actually fork out money for it
here in the USA would seem to have more reason to know that pirating
will cause them to lose potential for future episodes.

> I'm surprised INHUMANS isn't online. It's bad news when even the
> pirates don't care.

INHUMANS is really hard to get excited about. I read that the
theatrical release paid for the pilot, but the world wide box office for
it is only $2.8million, so I'm sure that is not true. Basically, people
just aren't caring...which makes sense for a spinoff series that isn't
really a spinoff series...of a show that very few people are still watching.

[shawn]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 08:40:47 -0400, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>On 9/23/2017 11:48 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> In article <oq760f$ulu$2...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/23/2017 6:28 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> In article <oq6lgu$8d1$3...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/23/2017 2:25 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
>>>>>> An STD will cost you 3x that, if that helps any.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Does that include the antibiotics?
>>>>
>>>> Nope. That's just the cost of the disease. Ironically, the cure is
>>>> actually cheaper.
>>>
>>> Just Say No.
>>
>> I am, I am!
>>
>> I admit I'll peek tomorrow and see if the interwebs have it before
>> CBAss, just because I think that would be funny.
>
>I'd expect the pirate versions of STAR TREK DISCOVERY to come from
>Canada or overseas. people who have to actually fork out money for it
>here in the USA would seem to have more reason to know that pirating
>will cause them to lose potential for future episodes.

I guess we will see tonight as it looks like CBS (the broadcast
network) is carrying the first episode at 8PM. So I'm sure they went
all out to put in lots of CGI to draw in viewers that won't be in the
rest of the series on CBSAllAxs. Not that it is that surprising.

>> I'm surprised INHUMANS isn't online. It's bad news when even the
>> pirates don't care.
>
>INHUMANS is really hard to get excited about. I read that the
>theatrical release paid for the pilot, but the world wide box office for
>it is only $2.8million, so I'm sure that is not true. Basically, people
>just aren't caring...which makes sense for a spinoff series that isn't
>really a spinoff series...of a show that very few people are still watching.

The fundamental problem with INHUMANS is that is has no connection to
anything people might be watching. Sure, there's the name but the
characters are all new and the story behind the characters is new to
the TV audience. (Sure, some comic fans might know the story but the
regular viewers wouldn't.)

I'm the sort of person that should be excited for the show but I'm
not. I cared enough to look up information on the story but the
trailer did nothing to sell me on the show. Then reading about the
story did nothing to help alleviate my concerns. That's a problem when
I'm not even excited about sampling the show when I'm the sort to
sample every show in the genre.

[Obveeus]

On 9/24/2017 9:04 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 08:40:47 -0400, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/23/2017 11:48 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> In article <oq760f$ulu$2...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/23/2017 6:28 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> In article <oq6lgu$8d1$3...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/23/2017 2:25 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> An STD will cost you 3x that, if that helps any.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that include the antibiotics?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. That's just the cost of the disease. Ironically, the cure is
>>>>> actually cheaper.
>>>>
>>>> Just Say No.
>>>
>>> I am, I am!
>>>
>>> I admit I'll peek tomorrow and see if the interwebs have it before
>>> CBAss, just because I think that would be funny.
>>
>> I'd expect the pirate versions of STAR TREK DISCOVERY to come from
>> Canada or overseas. people who have to actually fork out money for it
>> here in the USA would seem to have more reason to know that pirating
>> will cause them to lose potential for future episodes.
>
> I guess we will see tonight as it looks like CBS (the broadcast
> network) is carrying the first episode at 8PM.

8:30...as they have a built in half hour NFL overrun schedule, just like
last season. Of course, if the NFL game runs even longer that 8:30
start time could be 8:45 or 9:00 or etc...

Also funny is that the episode is set to run for 65 minutes...so pad the
end of any recording, too.

Meanwhile, CBS AllAccess will make episode #2 of STAR TREK DISCOVERY
available starting at 9:30pm...so 5 minutes before episode #1 finishes
up under the best case scenario. I wonder how many people will bail on
episode #1 just so they can be the first to see episode #2. ;-)

> So I'm sure they went
> all out to put in lots of CGI to draw in viewers that won't be in the
> rest of the series on CBSAllAxs. Not that it is that surprising.

I read something that indicated that STAR TREK DISCOVERY costs
$11Million an episode, so apparently there are huge costs (lots of CGI)
built into every episode.

> The fundamental problem with INHUMANS is that is has no connection to
> anything people might be watching. Sure, there's the name but the
> characters are all new and the story behind the characters is new to
> the TV audience. (Sure, some comic fans might know the story but the
> regular viewers wouldn't.)

Agreed.

[Ian J. Ball]

You keep ingoring the fact that Netflix would get "Dark Matter" *cheap*
- it's not like them buying "Longmire".

Again, the vibe that one gets from this is that Netflix is now passing
up easy programming opportunities, instead exclusively fishing for a
"big whale" show or stuff they ONLY produce themselves. There are
serious problems with that strategy, if they are putting all of their
eggs into that basket (as they seem to be...).


--
"Three light sabers? Is that overkill? Or just the right amount
of "kill"?" - M-OC, "A Perilous Rescue" (ep. #2.9), LSW:TFA (08-10-2017)

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq894d$9d5$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

wrote:

> On 9/23/2017 11:48 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> > In article <oq760f$ulu$2...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/23/2017 6:28 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> >>> In article <oq6lgu$8d1$3...@dont-email.me>,
> >>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/23/2017 2:25 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
> >>>>> An STD will cost you 3x that, if that helps any.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Does that include the antibiotics?
> >>>
> >>> Nope. That's just the cost of the disease. Ironically, the cure is
> >>> actually cheaper.
> >>
> >> Just Say No.
> >
> > I am, I am!
> >
> > I admit I'll peek tomorrow and see if the interwebs have it before
> > CBAss, just because I think that would be funny.
>
> I'd expect the pirate versions of STAR TREK DISCOVERY to come from
> Canada or overseas. people who have to actually fork out money for it
> here in the USA would seem to have more reason to know that pirating
> will cause them to lose potential for future episodes.

I'm not sure I ever see anything identified as coming from The Netflix
(or course I wouldn't be looking or care if I found) but I see stuff
marked AMAZON all the time. I don't bother with that either. :D

>
> > I'm surprised INHUMANS isn't online. It's bad news when even the
> > pirates don't care.
>
> INHUMANS is really hard to get excited about. I read that the
> theatrical release paid for the pilot, but the world wide box office for
> it is only $2.8million, so I'm sure that is not true. Basically, people
> just aren't caring...which makes sense for a spinoff series that isn't
> really a spinoff series...of a show that very few people are still watching.

Yeah, I have no idea if it's in S.H.I.E.L.D. continuity or not. If it
is, it makes Dichen Lachman's mountain retreat seem pretty silly.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <0safsc1o02jmtq371...@4ax.com>,

As long as it works to dismiss the legacies of Kirk and Picard (wasn't
that the goal of ENTERPRISE as well?) and we finally have the first
black Trek lead!

> >> I'm surprised INHUMANS isn't online. It's bad news when even the
> >> pirates don't care.
> >
> >INHUMANS is really hard to get excited about. I read that the
> >theatrical release paid for the pilot, but the world wide box office for
> >it is only $2.8million, so I'm sure that is not true. Basically, people
> >just aren't caring...which makes sense for a spinoff series that isn't
> >really a spinoff series...of a show that very few people are still watching.
>
> The fundamental problem with INHUMANS is that is has no connection to
> anything people might be watching. Sure, there's the name but the
> characters are all new and the story behind the characters is new to
> the TV audience. (Sure, some comic fans might know the story but the
> regular viewers wouldn't.)
>
> I'm the sort of person that should be excited for the show but I'm
> not. I cared enough to look up information on the story but the
> trailer did nothing to sell me on the show. Then reading about the
> story did nothing to help alleviate my concerns. That's a problem when
> I'm not even excited about sampling the show when I'm the sort to
> sample every show in the genre.

I should be thrilled about it. It's amazing how they've managed to
reduce everybody's excitement to lukewarm or less.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq8bs6$sf6$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

You're kidding!?!? So it's going to start late, probably in progress,
and most likely be truncated???

OMG - the DVR guide doesn't list it *at all* - I was wondering if there
might be an encore. Brute force search says it's scheduled for 7pm,
But searching for STAR TREK brings up First Contact and Voyager but no
Discovery. Searching for Discovery doesn't do it either. In fact,
their entire Trek catalog is hosed. "TV Listing" and "All (TV listings
+ OnDEMAND) only shows First Contact and Voyager (which BBCA is showing
110 times this week!) but OnDEMAND alone (which should be included in
'All') has a dozen of the movies, including regular and director's cuts.

> > So I'm sure they went
> > all out to put in lots of CGI to draw in viewers that won't be in the
> > rest of the series on CBSAllAxs. Not that it is that surprising.
>
> I read something that indicated that STAR TREK DISCOVERY costs
> $11Million an episode, so apparently there are huge costs (lots of CGI)
> built into every episode.

Highest number I've read is $8.5m per. It's possibly the first ep is
higher of course. The sad thing is, most of that money won't be on
screen, it will go to pay off the incompetents they fired.

> > The fundamental problem with INHUMANS is that is has no connection to
> > anything people might be watching. Sure, there's the name but the
> > characters are all new and the story behind the characters is new to
> > the TV audience. (Sure, some comic fans might know the story but the
> > regular viewers wouldn't.)
>
> Agreed.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq88gs$468$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

WYNONNA EARP should be canceled no matter how many people are watching
it.

[A Friend]

In article <anim8rfsk-D0D3E...@news.easynews.com>,

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <0safsc1o02jmtq371...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@notformailgmail.com> wrote:

> > I guess we will see tonight as it looks like CBS (the broadcast
> > network) is carrying the first episode at 8PM. So I'm sure they went
> > all out to put in lots of CGI to draw in viewers that won't be in the
> > rest of the series on CBSAllAxs. Not that it is that surprising.
>
> As long as it works to dismiss the legacies of Kirk and Picard (wasn't
> that the goal of ENTERPRISE as well?) and we finally have the first
> black Trek lead!

Except for that guy more than twenty years ago.

[Robin Miller]

Joe Mallozzi only wanted two more seasons, as he has a five-year plan
for Dark Matter that comes to a conclusion. He says the final two
seasons are all mapped out. So Netflix's commitment would have been
finite from the beginning.

And Netflix has very little science fiction, and no "outer space" sci fi
(other than past seasons of Dark Matter) TV series that I can think of.
I know it has movies.

--Robin

[suzeeq]

It was on my channel listing, and even though the later game is supposed
to well over by 8, I set it to record for an extra 30 minutes.

>>> So I'm sure they went
>>> all out to put in lots of CGI to draw in viewers that won't be in the
>>> rest of the series on CBSAllAxs. Not that it is that surprising.
>> I read something that indicated that STAR TREK DISCOVERY costs
>> $11Million an episode, so apparently there are huge costs (lots of CGI)
>> built into every episode.
>
> Highest number I've read is $8.5m per. It's possibly the first ep is
> higher of course. The sad thing is, most of that money won't be on
> screen, it will go to pay off the incompetents they fired.
>
>>> The fundamental problem with INHUMANS is that is has no connection to
>>> anything people might be watching. Sure, there's the name but the
>>> characters are all new and the story behind the characters is new to
>>> the TV audience. (Sure, some comic fans might know the story but the
>>> regular viewers wouldn't.)
>> Agreed.

I'm going to check it out even though I don't know from the comics.

[Obveeus]

On 9/24/2017 10:27 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> On 2017-09-24 12:30:22 +0000, Obveeus said:

>> Netflix probably isn't going to care about demos since every eyeball
>> pays the same amount.  That being said, even the live +7 numbers for
>> DARK MATTER equate to only 1/3rd the audience that LONGMIRE was
>> getting when it got cancelled from TV.  Clearly, 1/3rd the audience
>> was too low of a starting point for Netflix.
>
> You keep ingoring the fact that Netflix would get "Dark Matter" *cheap*

Cheap...but why bother? There is nothing to gain for them at all. No
one is going to rush out and sign up for Netflix to watch DARK MATTER
when almost no one was watching it in the first place.

> Again, the vibe that one gets from this is that Netflix is now passing
> up easy programming opportunities, instead exclusively fishing for a
> "big whale" show or stuff they ONLY produce themselves.

Netflix will survive by continuing to do what they do best...bring their
viewers good original content and overseas stuff that US viewers would
otherwise not have access to. Add in a slew of films to that 'TV'
content ajnd you have the basis for people signing up and continuing to
pay for Netflix. People are not being drawn to Netflix so that they can
watch reruns of old TV shows (that is what Hulu is for...or now maybe
CBS AllAccess) or even short continuations of failed TV shows. Netflix
would be wise to look at cancelled shows that still have a big audience,
but why even look at cancelled shows that *never* had a big audience?

[Obveeus]

The mountain retreat was for INHUMANS that couldn't make it to the moon?

[Obveeus]

On 9/24/2017 12:42 PM, Robin Miller wrote:

> And Netflix has very little science fiction, and no "outer space" sci fi
> (other than past seasons of Dark Matter) TV series that I can think of.

That is a good point (at least for the non-kiddie shows), but Netflix
does have the upcoming LOST IN SPACE as well as the upcoming ALTERED CARBON.

...and they have STAR TREK DISCOVERY outside of North America.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 9/24/2017 8:19 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <oq88gs$468$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/24/2017 2:46 AM, Robin Miller wrote:
>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/23/2017 3:33 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 12:26:02 PM UTC-7, Obveeus wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Netflix has the advantage of knowing exactly how many people are (or
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> not) watching their shows.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a false comparison - their Netflix viewership is obviously
>>>>> impacted by all the people who have already watched it on Space and
>>>>> Siffy. (E.G. I'm certainly not watching "Dark Matter" on Netflix -
>>>>> I've already seen it.) So Netflix's numbers will be an obvious
>>>>> undercount.
>>>>

>>>> It isn't the maximum size of the count that matters.  What Netflix can

>>>> gauge is the number of interested viewers on their service.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, Netflix (and everyone else) already knows that very few

>>>> people watched the show on Syfy.  So, if they didn't watch it on Syfy

>>>> and they didn't watch it on Netflix, why order more?
>>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't say that "very few people" watched it. DM was essentially
>>> tied with Killjoys for 4th in total viewers for Syfy's shows:
>>>
>>> https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/syfy-tv-show-ratings-updated-33879/
>>
>> Not one show on Syfy has even a million viewers. that equates to *very
>> few*.
>>
>>> It had more total viewers and a better 18-49 rating than Channel Zero,
>>> Wynonna Earp, and 12 Monkeys, all of which were renewed. (Admittedly
>>> Channel Zero must cost next to nothing.)
>>>
>>> (Oddly, ranking shows by demo ratings, Syfy renewed 1-5 and 10-12 and
>>> cancelled 6-9.)
>>
>> Syfy has done some very odd renewals. CHANEL ZERO, WYNONNA EARP, and 12
>> MONKEYS all should have been cancelled given their ratings.
>
> WYNONNA EARP should be canceled no matter how many people are watching
> it.
>

But lil' sis is hawt!

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[Obveeus]

Probably on the East Coast, it will start late.

> probably in progress,

I doubt that. Stations would get a bitg slap from their corporate
overlords if they did that.

> and most likely be truncated???

See above...but make sure to pad the recording of the show or your own
version will truncate off the last 5 minutes of timeslot overrun.

> OMG - the DVR guide doesn't list it *at all* - I was wondering if there
> might be an encore. Brute force search says it's scheduled for 7pm,

7pm Arizona...8pm California...8:30pm on the East Coast.

I suppose you should be happy that they didn't make it a national
premiere and set it to air at 5:30 out West.

> But searching for STAR TREK brings up First Contact and Voyager but no
> Discovery. Searching for Discovery doesn't do it either. In fact,
> their entire Trek catalog is hosed.

Can you search by episode titles: 'The Vulcan Hello'?

> "TV Listing" and "All (TV listings
> + OnDEMAND) only shows First Contact and Voyager (which BBCA is showing
> 110 times this week!) but OnDEMAND alone (which should be included in
> 'All') has a dozen of the movies, including regular and director's cuts.

Is the Original STAR TREK series now exclusive to CBSAllAccess?

[EGK]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:42:54 -0400, Robin Miller
<robin....@invalid.invalid> wrote:


>Joe Mallozzi only wanted two more seasons, as he has a five-year plan
>for Dark Matter that comes to a conclusion. He says the final two
>seasons are all mapped out. So Netflix's commitment would have been
>finite from the beginning.

I liked Dark Matter and it's too bad it ended but sorry, I don't believe
that for a second. The show was never all mapped out. Why would they
start now? Nope, Don't believe it.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq8qqb$d7g$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

Jesus. Under "keyword: vulcan" it shows up.

> > "TV Listing" and "All (TV listings
> > + OnDEMAND) only shows First Contact and Voyager (which BBCA is showing
> > 110 times this week!) but OnDEMAND alone (which should be included in
> > 'All') has a dozen of the movies, including regular and director's cuts.
>
> Is the Original STAR TREK series now exclusive to CBSAllAccess?

Netflix search for "Star T" lists, in this order:
Star Trek The Next Generation
Star Trek Voyager
Star Trek (with a picture of DeForest Kelley)
Star Trek: Enterprise
Star Trek Deep Space Nine
Star Trek The Animated Series
something about the new guy with SPOCK in the title
Rogue One Star Wars (huh?)
Chaos on the Bridge
Captain America Civil War
Doctor Strange starring Benedict Cumbersnatch
Sherlock starring Benedict Cumbersnatch
further suggesting that if you want to see STAR TREK BEYOND you should
watch the horrid LOST IN SPACE movie instead (boy howdy there's some
ugly truth in there)

[suzeeq]

Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 9/24/2017 8:19 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> In article <oq88gs$468$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 9/24/2017 2:46 AM, Robin Miller wrote:
>>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/23/2017 3:33 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 12:26:02 PM UTC-7, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>>> Netflix has the advantage of knowing exactly how many people are (or
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> not) watching their shows.
>>>>>> That's a false comparison - their Netflix viewership is obviously
>>>>>> impacted by all the people who have already watched it on Space and
>>>>>> Siffy. (E.G. I'm certainly not watching "Dark Matter" on Netflix -
>>>>>> I've already seen it.) So Netflix's numbers will be an obvious
>>>>>> undercount.

>>>>> It isn't the maximum size of the count that matters. What Netflix can

>>>>> gauge is the number of interested viewers on their service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, Netflix (and everyone else) already knows that very few

>>>>> people watched the show on Syfy. So, if they didn't watch it on Syfy

>>>>> and they didn't watch it on Netflix, why order more?
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't say that "very few people" watched it. DM was essentially
>>>> tied with Killjoys for 4th in total viewers for Syfy's shows:
>>>>
>>>> https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/syfy-tv-show-ratings-updated-33879/
>>> Not one show on Syfy has even a million viewers. that equates to *very
>>> few*.
>>>
>>>> It had more total viewers and a better 18-49 rating than Channel Zero,
>>>> Wynonna Earp, and 12 Monkeys, all of which were renewed. (Admittedly
>>>> Channel Zero must cost next to nothing.)
>>>>
>>>> (Oddly, ranking shows by demo ratings, Syfy renewed 1-5 and 10-12 and
>>>> cancelled 6-9.)
>>> Syfy has done some very odd renewals. CHANEL ZERO, WYNONNA EARP, and 12
>>> MONKEYS all should have been cancelled given their ratings.
>> WYNONNA EARP should be canceled no matter how many people are watching
>> it.
>>
> But lil' sis is hawt!
>

Yep, she's a cutie. So is Deputy Haught.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq8ph4$37j$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Netflix does a lousy job at what they do best, but the thing is,
everybody else is galactically worse. Amazon is unusable, and I only
have it because it's free. HULU is crap. Crackle has no snap or pop.
CBASS is a pathetic joke and hopefully will crash and burn and take a
lot of executives with it.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq8o4p$jdu$1...@news.albasani.net>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

The comics would only give you the origin of this set of characters.
They seem to be telling their live stories backwards, like Merlin
youthening in Camelot and/or The Sword in the Stone. Basically it would
be like watching a TARZAN movie where he grew up in England and got
stranded in Africa as an adult.

[Ian J. Ball]

Everyone on WE is hot, incl. Wynonna...

[suzeeq]

Ian J. Ball wrote:
> On 2017-09-24 18:42:38 +0000, suzeeq said:
>
>> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 9/24/2017 8:19 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> In article <oq88gs$468$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Syfy has done some very odd renewals. CHANEL ZERO, WYNONNA EARP, and
>>>>> 12 MONKEYS all should have been cancelled given their ratings.
>>>> WYNONNA EARP should be canceled no matter how many people are watching
>>>> it.
>>> But lil' sis is hawt!
>>>
>> Yep, she's a cutie. So is Deputy Haught.
>
> Everyone on WE is hot, incl. Wynonna...
>
>

Yes she is. Kicks ass too, even pregnant.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <f2q5kg...@mid.individual.net>,

It has six STAR TREK TV series. :D

Ascension
Voltron
Prisoner Zero
Knights of Sidonia
Robotech
More Voltron
Star Crossed
Transformers Prime
Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet
Space Racers

yeah, I agree, this is a pretty pathetic list

get this description for DISASTER EARTH:
Using real footage and graphical representations, this series offers a
literal window into the center of Earth.

Gah.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq8q6s$8ip$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

So as little as they have now, it's getting worse.

[Dimensional Traveler]

*checks* Nope. I still have my DVDs.

[Dimensional Traveler]

See! Its a doubly hawt lesbian couple, which makes them triply hawt!!! :P

[Dimensional Traveler]

With frequent pee breaks. :)

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq916i$ulm$1...@dont-email.me>,

Which means you don't have the low end video game CGI crap FX inflicted
on you.

[Adam H. Kerman]

EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>24 Sep 2017 12:42:54 -0400, Robin Miller <robin....@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>Joe Mallozzi only wanted two more seasons, as he has a five-year plan
>>for Dark Matter that comes to a conclusion. He says the final two
>>seasons are all mapped out. So Netflix's commitment would have been
>>finite from the beginning.

>I liked Dark Matter and it's too bad it ended but sorry, I don't believe
>that for a second. The show was never all mapped out. Why would they
>start now? Nope, Don't believe it.

Producers lie? I'm shocked at what you're telling me.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 9/24/2017 11:42 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 9/24/2017 8:19 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> In article <oq88gs$468$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/24/2017 2:46 AM, Robin Miller wrote:
>>>>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/23/2017 3:33 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 12:26:02 PM UTC-7, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Netflix has the advantage of knowing exactly how many people are
>>>>>>>>> (or
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> not) watching their shows.
>>>>>>>> That's a false comparison - their Netflix viewership is obviously
>>>>>>>> impacted by all the people who have already watched it on Space and
>>>>>>>> Siffy. (E.G. I'm certainly not watching "Dark Matter" on Netflix -
>>>>>>>> I've already seen it.) So Netflix's numbers will be an obvious
>>>>>>>> undercount.

>>>>>>> It isn't the maximum size of the count that matters.  What

>>>>>>> Netflix can
>>>>>>> gauge is the number of interested viewers on their service.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, Netflix (and everyone else) already knows that very few

>>>>>>> people watched the show on Syfy.  So, if they didn't watch it

>>>>>>> on Syfy
>>>>>>> and they didn't watch it on Netflix, why order more?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't say that "very few people" watched it. DM was essentially
>>>>>> tied with Killjoys for 4th in total viewers for Syfy's shows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/syfy-tv-show-ratings-updated-33879/
>>>>> Not one show on Syfy has even a million viewers.  that equates to *very
>>>>> few*.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It had more total viewers and a better 18-49 rating than Channel Zero,
>>>>>> Wynonna Earp, and 12 Monkeys, all of which were renewed. (Admittedly
>>>>>> Channel Zero must cost next to nothing.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Oddly, ranking shows by demo ratings, Syfy renewed 1-5 and 10-12 and
>>>>>> cancelled 6-9.)
>>>>> Syfy has done some very odd renewals.  CHANEL ZERO, WYNONNA EARP,
>>>>> and 12
>>>>> MONKEYS all should have been cancelled given their ratings.
>>>> WYNONNA EARP should be canceled no matter how many people are watching
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>> But lil' sis is hawt!
>>>
>> Yep, she's a cutie. So is Deputy Haught.
>
>See! Its a doubly hawt lesbian couple, which makes them triply hawt!!! :P

heterosexual lesbian couple?

[Your Name]

On 2017-09-24 12:35:53 +0000, Obveeus said:
> On 9/23/2017 11:18 PM, A Friend wrote:
>> In article <oq7636$ulu$3...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Definitely. GAME OF THRONES is basically the anchor for HBO these days
>>> upon which everything else revolves around.
>>
>> I must be a strange case. I've had HBO since 1975 -- that's nineteen
>> seventy fucking-five, when there was only one of them, and it was on
>> for like eight hours an evening -- and I've never bothered with GAME OF
>> THRONES. Not once.
>
> I don't have HBO, but I've seen several episodes of GAME OF THRONES
> and...I doubt I would be watching it if I did have HBO. I have no idea
> why people find it compelling. The same goes for THE WALKING DEAD and
> TRUE BLOOD.

Yep, they're definitely all crap that I avoided watching. :-)

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 9/24/2017 12:35 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <oq916i$ulm$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/2017 10:42 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/24/2017 11:17 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> In article <oq8bs6$sf6$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/24/2017 9:04 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 08:40:47 -0400, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/23/2017 11:48 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <oq760f$ulu$2...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2017 6:28 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <oq6lgu$8d1$3...@dont-email.me>,

>>>>>>>>>>      Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2017 2:25 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An STD will cost you 3x that, if that helps any.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does that include the antibiotics?
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Nope.  That's just the cost of the disease.  Ironically, the

>>>>>>>>>> cure is
>>>>>>>>>> actually cheaper.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just Say No.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am, I am!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I admit I'll peek tomorrow and see if the interwebs have it before
>>>>>>>> CBAss, just because I think that would be funny.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd expect the pirate versions of STAR TREK DISCOVERY to come from

>>>>>>> Canada or overseas.  people who have to actually fork out money for it

>>>>>>> here in the USA would seem to have more reason to know that pirating
>>>>>>> will cause them to lose potential for future episodes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess we will see tonight as it looks like CBS (the broadcast
>>>>>> network) is carrying the first episode at 8PM.
>>>>>
>>>>> 8:30...as they have a built in half hour NFL overrun schedule, just like

>>>>> last season.  Of course, if the NFL game runs even longer that 8:30

>>>>> start time could be 8:45 or 9:00 or etc...
>>>>>
>>>>> Also funny is that the episode is set to run for 65 minutes...so pad the
>>>>> end of any recording, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, CBS AllAccess will make episode #2 of STAR TREK DISCOVERY
>>>>> available starting at 9:30pm...so 5 minutes before episode #1 finishes

>>>>> up under the best case scenario.  I wonder how many people will bail on
>>>>> episode #1 just so they can be the first to see episode #2.  ;-)
>>>>
>>>> You're kidding!?!?  So it's going to start late,

>>>
>>> Probably on the East Coast, it will start late.
>>>
>>>> probably in progress,
>>>

>>> I doubt that.  Stations would get a bitg slap from their corporate

>>> overlords if they did that.
>>>
>>>> and most likely be truncated???
>>>
>>> See above...but make sure to pad the recording of the show or your own
>>> version will truncate off the last 5 minutes of timeslot overrun.
>>>
>>>> OMG - the DVR guide doesn't list it *at all* - I was wondering if there

>>>> might be an encore.  Brute force search says it's scheduled for 7pm,

>>>
>>> 7pm Arizona...8pm California...8:30pm on the East Coast.
>>>
>>> I suppose you should be happy that they didn't make it a national
>>> premiere and set it to air at 5:30 out West.
>>>
>>>> But searching for STAR TREK brings up First Contact and Voyager but no

>>>> Discovery.  Searching for Discovery doesn't do it either.  In fact,

>>>> their entire Trek catalog is hosed.
>>>

>>> Can you search by episode titles:  'The Vulcan Hello'?

>>>
>>>> "TV Listing" and "All (TV listings
>>>> + OnDEMAND) only shows First Contact and Voyager (which BBCA is showing
>>>> 110 times this week!) but OnDEMAND alone (which should be included in
>>>> 'All') has a dozen of the movies, including regular and director's cuts.
>>>
>>> Is the Original STAR TREK series now exclusive to CBSAllAccess?
>>
>> *checks* Nope. I still have my DVDs.
>
> Which means you don't have the low end video game CGI crap FX inflicted
> on you.
>

:)

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 9/24/2017 12:59 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 9/24/2017 11:42 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 9/24/2017 8:19 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> In article <oq88gs$468$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/24/2017 2:46 AM, Robin Miller wrote:
>>>>>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2017 3:33 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 12:26:02 PM UTC-7, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Netflix has the advantage of knowing exactly how many people are
>>>>>>>>>> (or
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> not) watching their shows.
>>>>>>>>> That's a false comparison - their Netflix viewership is obviously
>>>>>>>>> impacted by all the people who have already watched it on Space and
>>>>>>>>> Siffy. (E.G. I'm certainly not watching "Dark Matter" on Netflix -
>>>>>>>>> I've already seen it.) So Netflix's numbers will be an obvious
>>>>>>>>> undercount.

>>>>>>>> It isn't the maximum size of the count that matters.  What

>>>>>>>> Netflix can
>>>>>>>> gauge is the number of interested viewers on their service.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, Netflix (and everyone else) already knows that very few

>>>>>>>> people watched the show on Syfy.  So, if they didn't watch it

>>>>>>>> on Syfy
>>>>>>>> and they didn't watch it on Netflix, why order more?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't say that "very few people" watched it. DM was essentially
>>>>>>> tied with Killjoys for 4th in total viewers for Syfy's shows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/syfy-tv-show-ratings-updated-33879/
>>>>>> Not one show on Syfy has even a million viewers.  that equates to *very
>>>>>> few*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It had more total viewers and a better 18-49 rating than Channel Zero,
>>>>>>> Wynonna Earp, and 12 Monkeys, all of which were renewed. (Admittedly
>>>>>>> Channel Zero must cost next to nothing.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Oddly, ranking shows by demo ratings, Syfy renewed 1-5 and 10-12 and
>>>>>>> cancelled 6-9.)
>>>>>> Syfy has done some very odd renewals.  CHANEL ZERO, WYNONNA EARP,
>>>>>> and 12
>>>>>> MONKEYS all should have been cancelled given their ratings.
>>>>> WYNONNA EARP should be canceled no matter how many people are watching
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>> But lil' sis is hawt!
>>>>
>>> Yep, she's a cutie. So is Deputy Haught.
>>
>> See! Its a doubly hawt lesbian couple, which makes them triply hawt!!! :P
>
> heterosexual lesbian couple?
>

Still waiting for Obveeus to splain that.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq919h$ulm$2...@dont-email.me>,

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 9/24/2017 11:42 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> > Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >> On 9/24/2017 8:19 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> >>> In article <oq88gs$468$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/24/2017 2:46 AM, Robin Miller wrote:
> >>>>> Obveeus wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 9/23/2017 3:33 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 12:26:02 PM UTC-7, Obveeus wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Netflix has the advantage of knowing exactly how many people are
> >>>>>>>> (or
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>> not) watching their shows.
> >>>>>>> That's a false comparison - their Netflix viewership is obviously
> >>>>>>> impacted by all the people who have already watched it on Space and
> >>>>>>> Siffy. (E.G. I'm certainly not watching "Dark Matter" on Netflix -
> >>>>>>> I've already seen it.) So Netflix's numbers will be an obvious
> >>>>>>> undercount.

> >>>>>> It isn't the maximum size of the count that matters.Ò  What

> >>>>>> Netflix can
> >>>>>> gauge is the number of interested viewers on their service.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Meanwhile, Netflix (and everyone else) already knows that very few

> >>>>>> people watched the show on Syfy.Ò  So, if they didn't watch it

> >>>>>> on Syfy
> >>>>>> and they didn't watch it on Netflix, why order more?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wouldn't say that "very few people" watched it. DM was essentially
> >>>>> tied with Killjoys for 4th in total viewers for Syfy's shows:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/syfy-tv-show-ratings-updated-33879/
> >>>> Not one show on Syfy has even a million viewers.  that equates to *very
> >>>> few*.
> >>>>
> >>>>> It had more total viewers and a better 18-49 rating than Channel Zero,
> >>>>> Wynonna Earp, and 12 Monkeys, all of which were renewed. (Admittedly
> >>>>> Channel Zero must cost next to nothing.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Oddly, ranking shows by demo ratings, Syfy renewed 1-5 and 10-12 and
> >>>>> cancelled 6-9.)
> >>>> Syfy has done some very odd renewals.  CHANEL ZERO, WYNONNA EARP,
> >>>> and 12
> >>>> MONKEYS all should have been cancelled given their ratings.
> >>> WYNONNA EARP should be canceled no matter how many people are watching
> >>> it.
> >>>
> >> But lil' sis is hawt!
> >>
> > Yep, she's a cutie. So is Deputy Haught.
>
> See! Its a doubly hawt lesbian couple, which makes them triply hawt!!! :P

But if they're doubly heterosexual lesbians ...

[Obveeus]

Tada!

>>> "TV Listing" and "All (TV listings
>>> + OnDEMAND) only shows First Contact and Voyager (which BBCA is showing
>>> 110 times this week!) but OnDEMAND alone (which should be included in
>>> 'All') has a dozen of the movies, including regular and director's cuts.
>>
>> Is the Original STAR TREK series now exclusive to CBSAllAccess?
>
> Netflix search for "Star T" lists, in this order:
> Star Trek The Next Generation
> Star Trek Voyager
> Star Trek (with a picture of DeForest Kelley)

So...who is still showing the original TREK series?

[A Friend]

In article <oq8qqb$d7g$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> Is the Original STAR TREK series now exclusive to CBSAllAccess?

BBCAmerica has been showing it for a little more than a year now.
They're marathoning it (along with VOYAGER an TNG) this weekend.

I watched "Balance of Terror" last night. Hadn't seen it in decades,
and I'd forgotten how good it was.

[Obveeus]

On 9/24/2017 2:44 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <oq8ph4$37j$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>

>> Netflix will survive by continuing to do what they do best...bring their
>> viewers good original content and overseas stuff that US viewers would
>> otherwise not have access to. Add in a slew of films to that 'TV'
>> content ajnd you have the basis for people signing up and continuing to
>> pay for Netflix.
>

> Netflix does a lousy job at what they do best,

Not in my mind. Just look at their slew of quality series (and/or
popular series). The 4 Marvel series alone make every bit of superhero
stuff on broadcast TV look like junk. The intellectual series like
HOUSE OF CARDS, NARCOS, ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK, 13 REASONS WHY, THE
CROWN, STRANGER THINGS, and OZARK are as good or better than anything on
broadcast or cable. The stuff they bring over from outside the US like
BORDERTOWN, PEAKY BLINDERS, THE FALL, HAPPY VALLEY, HOTEL BEAU SEJOUR,
THE RETURNED, RITA, MARCEILLE is a welcome change from what US TV offers.

The only place where Netflix continues to struggle, IMO, is with comedy.
They do a great job with stand-up specials, but their sitcoms are
pretty bad. of course, people seem to love FULLER HOUSE and MASTERS OF
NONE and UNBREAKABLE KIMMY SCHMIDT and THE RANCH, so maybe I'm just not
in tune with what qualifies as funny to the masses. The only sitcoms
I've stuck with are SANTA CLARITA DIET, CHEWING GUM, FRIENDS FROM
COLLEGE, DEAR WHITE PEOPLE, GRACE AND FRANKIE, and ATYPICAL.

> but the thing is,
> everybody else is galactically worse. Amazon is unusable, and I only
> have it because it's free. HULU is crap. Crackle has no snap or pop.
> CBASS is a pathetic joke and hopefully will crash and burn and take a
> lot of executives with it.

Amazon is starting to get enough programming to be a draw as a
'network'. Crackle...I'm surprised they haven't given up. CBS
AllAccess is really just trying to start off, as they only have 1 show
(tonight will be the second).

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq9bks$akv$2...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

The one with DeForest Kelley? That would be The Netflix.

[Adam H. Kerman]

If it had the unremastered version, I might be tempted.

[Obveeus]

On 9/24/2017 3:14 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <f2q5kg...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robin Miller <robin....@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> And Netflix has very little science fiction, and no "outer space" sci fi
>> (other than past seasons of Dark Matter) TV series that I can think of.
>> I know it has movies.
>>
>> --Robin
>
> It has six STAR TREK TV series. :D

Yes, it does...all 6 TV series of TREK are still available streaming on
Netflix. It will be interesting to see how long that lasts.

> Ascension
> Voltron
> Prisoner Zero
> Knights of Sidonia
> Robotech
> More Voltron
> Star Crossed
> Transformers Prime
> Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet
> Space Racers

They also have stuff like THE TRUTH IS IN THE STARS and FOR THE LOVE OF
SPOCK and CHAOS ON THE BRIDGE.

> yeah, I agree, this is a pretty pathetic list
>
> get this description for DISASTER EARTH:
> Using real footage and graphical representations, this series offers a
> literal window into the center of Earth.
>
> Gah.

Maybe they misspelled 'literary'?

[Obveeus]

Spoilers for the film PERFECT ENDING.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
One 'lesbian' is a heterosexual woman who works as a prostitute to the
downtrodden as penance for killing the man she loved while the other
'lesbian' is a heterosexual woman who has three kids and a husband and a
bad marriage and a fatal illness she doesn't even know about. I suppose
the two women fall in love, but really they were just operating under
extreme need for affection/escape and the whole thing was quite
temporary in nature.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq9cjd$gur$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> On 9/24/2017 2:44 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> > In article <oq8ph4$37j$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
>
> >> Netflix will survive by continuing to do what they do best...bring their
> >> viewers good original content and overseas stuff that US viewers would
> >> otherwise not have access to. Add in a slew of films to that 'TV'
> >> content ajnd you have the basis for people signing up and continuing to
> >> pay for Netflix.
> >
> > Netflix does a lousy job at what they do best,
>
> Not in my mind. Just look at their slew of quality series (and/or
> popular series). The 4 Marvel series alone make every bit of superhero
> stuff on broadcast TV look like junk.

Oh, I won't give you that. Iron Fist makes Da Flash and Da Legends look
like genius. It's not as good as Supergirl (which is below the 'worth
watching' threshold) but I guess it's better than Da Arrow.

The intellectual series like
> HOUSE OF CARDS, NARCOS, ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK, 13 REASONS WHY, THE
> CROWN, STRANGER THINGS, and OZARK are as good or better than anything on
> broadcast or cable. The stuff they bring over from outside the US like
> BORDERTOWN, PEAKY BLINDERS, THE FALL, HAPPY VALLEY, HOTEL BEAU SEJOUR,
> THE RETURNED, RITA, MARCEILLE is a welcome change from what US TV offers.

Well, you didn't hit one thing I liked.

> The only place where Netflix continues to struggle, IMO, is with comedy.
> They do a great job with stand-up specials, but their sitcoms are
> pretty bad. of course, people seem to love FULLER HOUSE and MASTERS OF
> NONE and UNBREAKABLE KIMMY SCHMIDT and THE RANCH, so maybe I'm just not
> in tune with what qualifies as funny to the masses. The only sitcoms
> I've stuck with are SANTA CLARITA DIET,

That was fun

CHEWING GUM, FRIENDS FROM
> COLLEGE, DEAR WHITE PEOPLE, GRACE AND FRANKIE, and ATYPICAL.
>
>
> > but the thing is,
> > everybody else is galactically worse. Amazon is unusable, and I only
> > have it because it's free. HULU is crap. Crackle has no snap or pop.
> > CBASS is a pathetic joke and hopefully will crash and burn and take a
> > lot of executives with it.
>
> Amazon is starting to get enough programming to be a draw as a
> 'network'. Crackle...I'm surprised they haven't given up. CBS
> AllAccess is really just trying to start off, as they only have 1 show
> (tonight will be the second).

I was mostly talking from a technical end. Hulu's player is so bad I
wouldn't care what they were showing. I still can't get the chartreuse
out of my brain when I think of Crackle. Amazon's navigation is
offensively bad, but I suspect it's at least party deliberate, as they
want you to constantly drop out of the free section. It's also
constantly breaking. And their shows going back and forth between free
and pay is annoying as Hell.

[Obveeus]

On 9/24/2017 6:35 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <oq8qqb$d7g$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Is the Original STAR TREK series now exclusive to CBSAllAccess?
>
>
> BBCAmerica has been showing it for a little more than a year now.

Thanks. I don't get that channel, but it at least means that many
people with cable can still watch the original series.

[Obveeus]

Out of curiosity, how many of those shows have you sampled?

I agree with you that Amazon has an incentive to make their catalog
difficult to sift through and aim you back at the separate (and much
larger) offering of pay titles.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq9d0h$h6u$2...@dont-email.me>,

Yeah, that's the problem. My Blu-ray set has remastered without the
low-end video game CGI replacement effects, and it looks beautiful.

People I work with were bidding on that project, before Paramount
decided to save money by just having anybody already on staff assigned
to it, whether they had any qualifications or not, and their plan was to
take all the pristine elements that presumably still exist, and pull new
mattes and composites (it's all blue screen, and computers can do
wonders with that) so it would still be the 11' physical model and
wouldn't go down multiple generations like the shots were doing in later
seasons. That would have just been dripping with awesome sauce. But
the purpose of the project was never to make a good product; it was just
to make a unique product for Toshiba to hawk their HD system with.
There was no incentive for Paramount to do it right.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq9ekl$r5l$3...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

A little more than half of your intellectual list, a little less than
half of your metric list.

I'm terrified that I'll hit the wrong button and authorize some very
expensive season pass, although I have no idea how many authorizations
it would take to do so.

[suzeeq]

Heroes and Icons, a subchannel of one of the networks, is showing it on
Sundays in rotation with the Animated series, TNG, DS9, Voyager and
Explorer.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 9/24/2017 2:09 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <oq919h$ulm$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/2017 11:42 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 9/24/2017 8:19 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> In article <oq88gs$468$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/24/2017 2:46 AM, Robin Miller wrote:
>>>>>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2017 3:33 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 12:26:02 PM UTC-7, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Netflix has the advantage of knowing exactly how many people are
>>>>>>>>>> (or
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> not) watching their shows.
>>>>>>>>> That's a false comparison - their Netflix viewership is obviously
>>>>>>>>> impacted by all the people who have already watched it on Space and
>>>>>>>>> Siffy. (E.G. I'm certainly not watching "Dark Matter" on Netflix -
>>>>>>>>> I've already seen it.) So Netflix's numbers will be an obvious
>>>>>>>>> undercount.

>>>>>>>> It isn't the maximum size of the count that matters.Ò  What

>>>>>>>> Netflix can
>>>>>>>> gauge is the number of interested viewers on their service.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, Netflix (and everyone else) already knows that very few

>>>>>>>> people watched the show on Syfy.Ò  So, if they didn't watch it

>>>>>>>> on Syfy
>>>>>>>> and they didn't watch it on Netflix, why order more?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't say that "very few people" watched it. DM was essentially
>>>>>>> tied with Killjoys for 4th in total viewers for Syfy's shows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/syfy-tv-show-ratings-updated-33879/
>>>>>> Not one show on Syfy has even a million viewers.  that equates to *very
>>>>>> few*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It had more total viewers and a better 18-49 rating than Channel Zero,
>>>>>>> Wynonna Earp, and 12 Monkeys, all of which were renewed. (Admittedly
>>>>>>> Channel Zero must cost next to nothing.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Oddly, ranking shows by demo ratings, Syfy renewed 1-5 and 10-12 and
>>>>>>> cancelled 6-9.)
>>>>>> Syfy has done some very odd renewals.  CHANEL ZERO, WYNONNA EARP,
>>>>>> and 12
>>>>>> MONKEYS all should have been cancelled given their ratings.
>>>>> WYNONNA EARP should be canceled no matter how many people are watching
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>> But lil' sis is hawt!
>>>>
>>> Yep, she's a cutie. So is Deputy Haught.
>>
>> See! Its a doubly hawt lesbian couple, which makes them triply hawt!!! :P
>
> But if they're doubly heterosexual lesbians ...
>

It might mean something if we had a clue what "heterosexual lesbians" are.

[Dimensional Traveler]

So two very close friends who are both suffering emotional breakdowns.

[Dimensional Traveler]

If they're bouncing stuff between free and pay along with what you say
about the interface, probably as few authorizations as possible. None
if they can, so don't pay by PayPal.

[Dimensional Traveler]

"Explorer"?

[Obveeus]

Did you ever try STRANGER THINGS? Weren't you one of the people who
watched HOTEL BEAU SEJOUR?

>> I agree with you that Amazon has an incentive to make their catalog
>> difficult to sift through and aim you back at the separate (and much
>> larger) offering of pay titles.
>
> I'm terrified that I'll hit the wrong button and authorize some very
> expensive season pass, although I have no idea how many authorizations
> it would take to do so.

Maybe if/when they come up with a show you do want to pay for you can
track whether you have to make more than one button click to commit your
payment. Until then, just click 'sort by price' from low to high and
keep the danger zone at bay.

[Your Name]

On 2017-09-25 02:26:29 +0000, Dimensional Traveler said:
> On 9/24/2017 4:53 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> Obveeus wrote:
>>> On 9/24/2017 2:40 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> In article <oq8qqb$d7g$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/24/2017 11:17 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:

<snip>

>>>>>> "TV Listing" and "All (TV listings
>>>>>> + OnDEMAND) only shows First Contact and Voyager (which BBCA is showing
>>>>>> 110 times this week!) but OnDEMAND alone (which should be included in
>>>>>> 'All') has a dozen of the movies, including regular and director's cuts.
>>>>> Is the Original STAR TREK series now exclusive to CBSAllAccess?
>>>> Netflix search for "Star T" lists, in this order:
>>>> Star Trek The Next Generation
>>>> Star Trek Voyager
>>>> Star Trek (with a picture of DeForest Kelley)
>>>
>>> So...who is still showing the original TREK series?
>>
>> Heroes and Icons, a subchannel of one of the networks, is showing it on
>> Sundays in rotation with the Animated series, TNG, DS9, Voyager and
>> Explorer.
>
> "Explorer"?

The German animated fan-fiction series ??
<http://startrekchannel.com/fan-productions/star-trek-explorer/>

[Obveeus]

Yep...and didn't know each other at all at the start and never shared
any of their emotional baggage. They pretty much just interacted in the
fantasy zone of a high end hotel room.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq9pri$eia$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

Yes, and no.

> >> I agree with you that Amazon has an incentive to make their catalog
> >> difficult to sift through and aim you back at the separate (and much
> >> larger) offering of pay titles.
> >
> > I'm terrified that I'll hit the wrong button and authorize some very
> > expensive season pass, although I have no idea how many authorizations
> > it would take to do so.
>
> Maybe if/when they come up with a show you do want to pay for you can
> track whether you have to make more than one button click to commit your
> payment. Until then, just click 'sort by price' from low to high and
> keep the danger zone at bay.

LOL, no such feature on the Plasma.

I thought about test buying something cheap, but then it occurred to me
that I might be unlocking the 'pay for' feature and next time it would
bite me in the ass for sure.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq9pek$7i1$3...@dont-email.me>,

I'm already logged into my Amazon account just by being there, so that
they know what I'm entitled to watch free.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oq9q0l$eia$2...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>

Man, if there were straight movie producers, that's sure what they'd
fantasize about.

[Obveeus]

On 9/24/2017 10:51 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <oq9q0l$eia$2...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/2017 10:20 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 9/24/2017 3:59 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/24/2017 5:07 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>> On 9/24/2017 12:59 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler  <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/24/2017 11:42 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/24/2017 8:19 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <oq88gs$468$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/24/2017 2:46 AM, Robin Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2017 3:33 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 12:26:02 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Netflix has the advantage of knowing exactly how many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) watching their shows.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a false comparison - their Netflix viewership is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impacted by all the people who have already watched it on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Space and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Siffy. (E.G. I'm certainly not watching "Dark Matter" on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Netflix -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already seen it.) So Netflix's numbers will be an obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undercount.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't the maximum size of the count that matters.  What

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Netflix can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gauge is the number of interested viewers on their service.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, Netflix (and everyone else) already knows that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very few

>>>>>>>>>>>>> people watched the show on Syfy.  So, if they didn't watch it

>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Syfy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and they didn't watch it on Netflix, why order more?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't say that "very few people" watched it. DM was
>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>> tied with Killjoys for 4th in total viewers for Syfy's shows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/syfy-tv-show-ratings-updated-338
>>>>>>>>>>>> 79/
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Not one show on Syfy has even a million viewers.  that equates

>>>>>>>>>>> to *very
>>>>>>>>>>> few*.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It had more total viewers and a better 18-49 rating than
>>>>>>>>>>>> Channel Zero,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wynonna Earp, and 12 Monkeys, all of which were renewed.
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Admittedly
>>>>>>>>>>>> Channel Zero must cost next to nothing.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Oddly, ranking shows by demo ratings, Syfy renewed 1-5 and
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10-12 and
>>>>>>>>>>>> cancelled 6-9.)

>>>>>>>>>>> Syfy has done some very odd renewals.  CHANEL ZERO, WYNONNA EARP,

>>>>>>>>>>> and 12
>>>>>>>>>>> MONKEYS all should have been cancelled given their ratings.
>>>>>>>>>> WYNONNA EARP should be canceled no matter how many people are
>>>>>>>>>> watching
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But lil' sis is hawt!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep, she's a cutie. So is Deputy Haught.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> See!  Its a doubly hawt lesbian couple, which makes them triply
>>>>>>> hawt!!!  :P

>>>> a bad marriage and a fatal illness she doesn't even know about.  I

>>>> suppose the two women fall in love, but really they were just
>>>> operating under extreme need for affection/escape and the whole thing
>>>> was quite temporary in nature.
>>>
>>> So two very close friends who are both suffering emotional breakdowns.
>>
>> Yep...and didn't know each other at all at the start and never shared
>> any of their emotional baggage. They pretty much just interacted in the
>> fantasy zone of a high end hotel room.
>
> Man, if there were straight movie producers, that's sure what they'd
> fantasize about.

A 59 year old and a 27 year old...and they only existed from the waist
up as far as I could see from the film.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Doubt it since CBS/Paramount have basically slammed the door on all
professional fan productions. Any network that aired one of them would
be sued out of existence by Paramount.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Like that would stop them. Amazon stopped being one of the "good
companies" a long time ago.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oqa364$orc$1...@dont-email.me>,

Actually as I understand it, Paramount does the wretched movies, and CBS
does the wretched TV shows. I *think* it's CBASS that shuts down fan
films.

[suzeeq]

Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 9/24/2017 4:53 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> Obveeus wrote:
>>> On 9/24/2017 2:40 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> In article <oq8qqb$d7g$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/24/2017 11:17 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>> In article <oq8bs6$sf6$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/24/2017 9:04 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 08:40:47 -0400, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2017 11:48 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <oq760f$ulu$2...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2017 6:28 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <oq6lgu$8d1$3...@dont-email.me>,

>>>>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2017 2:25 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An STD will cost you 3x that, if that helps any.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does that include the antibiotics?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. That's just the cost of the disease. Ironically, the

>>>>>>>>>>>> cure is
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually cheaper.
>>>>>>>>>>> Just Say No.
>>>>>>>>>> I am, I am!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I admit I'll peek tomorrow and see if the interwebs have it before
>>>>>>>>>> CBAss, just because I think that would be funny.
>>>>>>>>> I'd expect the pirate versions of STAR TREK DISCOVERY to come from

>>>>>>>>> Canada or overseas. people who have to actually fork out money

>>>>>>>>> for it
>>>>>>>>> here in the USA would seem to have more reason to know that
>>>>>>>>> pirating
>>>>>>>>> will cause them to lose potential for future episodes.
>>>>>>>> I guess we will see tonight as it looks like CBS (the broadcast
>>>>>>>> network) is carrying the first episode at 8PM.
>>>>>>> 8:30...as they have a built in half hour NFL overrun schedule,
>>>>>>> just like

>>>>>>> last season. Of course, if the NFL game runs even longer that 8:30

>>>>>>> start time could be 8:45 or 9:00 or etc...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also funny is that the episode is set to run for 65 minutes...so
>>>>>>> pad the
>>>>>>> end of any recording, too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, CBS AllAccess will make episode #2 of STAR TREK DISCOVERY
>>>>>>> available starting at 9:30pm...so 5 minutes before episode #1
>>>>>>> finishes

>>>>>>> up under the best case scenario. I wonder how many people will
>>>>>>> bail on
>>>>>>> episode #1 just so they can be the first to see episode #2. ;-)
>>>>>> You're kidding!?!? So it's going to start late,

>>>>> Probably on the East Coast, it will start late.
>>>>>
>>>>>> probably in progress,

>>>>> I doubt that. Stations would get a bitg slap from their corporate

>>>>> overlords if they did that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and most likely be truncated???
>>>>> See above...but make sure to pad the recording of the show or your own
>>>>> version will truncate off the last 5 minutes of timeslot overrun.
>>>>>
>>>>>> OMG - the DVR guide doesn't list it *at all* - I was wondering if
>>>>>> there

>>>>>> might be an encore. Brute force search says it's scheduled for 7pm,

>>>>> 7pm Arizona...8pm California...8:30pm on the East Coast.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose you should be happy that they didn't make it a national
>>>>> premiere and set it to air at 5:30 out West.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But searching for STAR TREK brings up First Contact and Voyager but no

>>>>>> Discovery. Searching for Discovery doesn't do it either. In fact,

>>>>>> their entire Trek catalog is hosed.

>>>>> Can you search by episode titles:Â 'The Vulcan Hello'?
>>>> Jesus. Under "keyword: vulcan" it shows up.

>>> Tada!
>>>
>>>>>> "TV Listing" and "All (TV listings
>>>>>> + OnDEMAND) only shows First Contact and Voyager (which BBCA is
>>>>>> showing
>>>>>> 110 times this week!) but OnDEMAND alone (which should be included in
>>>>>> 'All') has a dozen of the movies, including regular and director's
>>>>>> cuts.
>>>>> Is the Original STAR TREK series now exclusive to CBSAllAccess?
>>>> Netflix search for "Star T" lists, in this order:
>>>> Star Trek The Next Generation
>>>> Star Trek Voyager
>>>> Star Trek (with a picture of DeForest Kelley)
>>> So...who is still showing the original TREK series?
>> Heroes and Icons, a subchannel of one of the networks, is showing it on
>> Sundays in rotation with the Animated series, TNG, DS9, Voyager and
>> Explorer.
>
> "Explorer"?
>

Whoops, I meant Enterprise. It's not just Sundays, but for a while. They
did that last year too.

[suzeeq]

No I meant Enterprise.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Either way, no network is going to air a fan film.

[Adam H. Kerman]

You mean Paramount Studios versus CBS Television Studios? Aren't they
both presently under the same corporate umbrella? I agree with which does
movies versus television because Paramount's television studio was merged
into CBS's in 2006. Which division would sue? I'm not guessing. Perhaps
licensing is consolidated at corporate and they would sue from that level.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <oqbkdr$roj$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

I read about this like a year ago and got a blazing headache so I'm not
going to research it again, but when STD was first showing previews,
people were saying it was obviously the awful JJMovieVerse, and it came
out that it *can't* legally be for some reason, because Paramount holds
the movie rights and CBS holds the TV rights, and in some byzantine way
this means TV has to follow earlier TV and movies have to follow earlier
movies. I have no idea who holds the TOS/TNG movie rights. I have no
idea how they distinguish between characters that appear in both, like
the original flavor Spock. Or Khan. I'm not even sure at what point it
took effect. And somehow they're ignoring the loophole that the TV
universe exists side by side with the JJMovieVerse.

Anyway I'm assuming that CBS would (now) be the ones shutting down Trek
fan films based on real Trek.

Hey! Is anybody doing Trek fan films based on the JJMovieVerse?

I've never understood why Paramount/CBS doesn't just *license* the
websites. Make 'em pay $100 a year to proudly display the "Officially
Licensed Star Trek Fan Site" badge, and agree in writing to shut down
*instantly* any content the studios flag.