this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
239 points (96.9% liked)

Star Trek

10571 readers
68 users here now

r/startrek: The Next Generation

Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...

Maybe a little slash fic.


New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?


Rules

1 Be constructiveAll posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.


2 Be welcomingIt is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.


3 Be truthfulAll posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.


4 Be niceIf a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.


5 SpoilersUtilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episodes, as well as previews for upcoming episodes. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.


6 Keep on-topicAll submissions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/quarks.


7 MetaQuestions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.


Upcoming Episodes

Date Episode Title
11-07 LD 5x04 "A Farewell to Farms"
11-14 LD 5x05 "Star Base 80?"
11-21 LD 5x06 "Of Gods and Angels"
11-28 LD 5x07 "Fully Dilated"
12-05 LD 5x08 "Upper Decks"

Episode Discussion Archive


In Production

Strange New Worlds (2025)

Section 31 (2025-01-24)

Starfleet Academy (TBA)

In Development

Untitled comedy series


Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.


Allied Discord Server


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 54 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Paramount couldn't be dumb enough to cancel its best Star Trek series, could it?

(Remembers that someone at Paramount gave us six seasons of Two Broke Girls)

...probably.

[–] rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Remember that stretch of a dozen years or so during which Paramount cancelled every Trek TV series?

[–] xusontha@ls.buckodr.ink 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

With how many Lower Decks gifs I've been using, the show should never end

[–] ummthatguy@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] xusontha@ls.buckodr.ink 22 points 1 year ago

T'Ana looks so done with everything lol

[–] bgb_ca@lemmy.ca 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Maybe if they did not pull it from the service I am paying for in order to try and make me pay for yet another service this would not be a problem. But, no, corporate greed dictates that I must pay for 100 different streaming platforms to watch the one show on each one.

I am sick of this...

[–] pachrist@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

To the room full of millionaires out there who think I'll spend $14.99/month indefinitely on their shitty platform to watch a better than average Star Trek show:

Ahoy matey.

[–] PhictionalOne@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Same. I won't watch the season until I complete my streaming service rotation...

I rotate them like quarterly.

[–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I also rotate them quarterly, but since Paramount's app has like 14 tracker libraries, it's not part of my quarterly rotation.

[–] Blackout@kbin.social 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

At my age you just get used to TV execs cancelling every good show way too early. Only shit is allowed to survive.

[–] Arrakis@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm still salty about Firefly even though it's been so long since it was cancelled that I've grown and raised a literal human being

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, Revolution. Canceled at the exact moment it was getting insanely good with their big reveal. sigh…

[–] gnuplusmatt@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

The Original 4400 got cancelled on a cliffhanger. I refuse to watch the reboot

[–] aufheben@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Six seasons and a movie 🙏

[–] iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I love Trek but I haven't watched Picard or anything in the last ten years because it's not available.

I also have no interest in download a dozen apps to watch shit, and no interest in paying for individual channels.

Paramount/CBS keeps Trek viewership down by keeping their content walled off.

[–] Pofski@sopuli.xyz 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] gnuplusmatt@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago

buy the discs to show Paramount you're interested?

[–] Seasm0ke@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

VPN to country where its available hasnt let me down so far.

[–] h14h@midwest.social 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Star Trek is the only reason I'm paying for Paramount+.

If Lower Decks and/or SNW go, I go.

[–] skellener@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Exactly! ✊

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To those complaining about streaming services, I've been using free alternative streaming websites for years and haven't had an issue.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Right, but isn't that what also causes these shows getting cancelled? You watching it on a non legit platform means you didn't watch it at all

[–] pachrist@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

No, because the market has become so fragmented, no streaming services are profitable, so there's no show on one that will ever last. Average shows last on TV channels because of ads. A medium performing TV show can last forever on TV with ads. A medium performing TV show on a streaming service gets canceled after a couple seasons to transition resources to a new show. They're looking for that next big flashy thing to draw subscriptions.

In the current broken system, the only options are to continually churn shows, or push ads on streaming services. Both are happening.

So, if you pirate a TV show today, you aren't killing it, and you aren't part of the problem. Paying for the service won't keep the show around, and not paying for it won't kill it either. The show is already dead, you're just not forking over your hard earned cash for a bite at its dead corpse.

[–] Arrakis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This interaction reminds me of an Always Sunny episode. The gang are mad because their favourite movie franchise sold out and got bad, so the whole episode is about them complaining with the movie execs about how the changes made to the movie (to attract different audiences in order to try to make the franchise profitable again) all suck, and what they should be doing differently. But the punchline of the episode is they have all along been streaming the movie series and not paying to watch it, so they are part of the problem.

Never expected to see it played out IRL though, and the fact you're being downvoted makes it all a bit less funny...

E: and now me :D maybe the dissenters would like to enlighten us as to how piracy doesn't affect capitalism?

[–] Void_Sloth@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most people don't want to be pirates they just don't want to pay for an inferior service. You want people to pay then make a product worth paying for that's prorated by country, and they gladly will.

As an example of just how bad it is, pirate streaming sites have sort by date, country, IMDb score, genre, etc. but most paid services don't have any sort feature beyond genre. This effectively makes paid services unusable for a lot of people.

[–] Arrakis@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-piracy by any means, and I'm as bothered by the changing of services as the next person. I just found it amusing that people seemed to disagree that pirating would have an impact on the bottom line of the execs, so that life was imitating art.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because you're pretending like pirating is any different to the bottom line than not buying the product.
There is no difference. They're going to make a marvel movie next year. If I don't go see it did the company lose any money?
No.
Same if I pirate it. Whether or not you actually watch the movie is irrelevant.

[–] Arrakis@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you want to see a TV show, but pirate it instead, did the company lose any money*? Yes.

This thread is hilarious.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, dude whether or not I watch a movie has NOTHING to do with the movie company's income.

[–] Arrakis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Stay in high school then once you get past learning basic economics, have another go at thinking.

[–] Pheonixdown@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

The point the other person is trying to make is that if a person wants to watch something, but the price is higher than they value or can afford for the experience they will not pay the price, so the company will not profit. If the person then pirates the content to view it, the company has lost nothing additional.

However, one could also make the argument that the viewer having the ability to pirate lowers what they are willing to pay, thus the company does lose some amount of profit in aggregate over time. This though is not necessarily true for those who lack the means to pay, rather than just the willingness.

Ultimately for people who do have the means, piracy is a symptom more of a service issue rather than a price issue. People generally will follow the path of least resistance to acquire what they desire. For most people a small payment and easy access will lead them not to pirate, but as prices rise, content fractures and UIs enshitify, the aggregate effort crosses the line and they start to withdraw and turn to other methods.

Everyone has their own willingness to pay for things on the demand curve, if companies pick an optimal price, they maximize profits, and aren't harmed by people who cannot or will not pay that price utilizing a non-consumable resource without payment.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago

True, but if you're not going to subscribe regardless then why not?

[–] gnuplusmatt@startrek.website 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is one tangible draw back to being on the fediverse instead of mainstream social media - no one at companies are going to be watching or considering engagement here. So if it sort of locks us out of fan noise. I guess keep streaming it

If they get rid of lower decks and don't give us legacy imma scream