Star Trek Discovery Back On For Fall; CBS CEO Talks Netflix Importance

Star Trek: Discovery on CBS All Access

On Wednesday afternoon, CBS CEO Les Moonves participated in a panel on the future of the entertainment industry at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, CA. Among the other big industry names on the panel was Ted Sarandos, the Chief Content Officer for Netflix, who’s partnering with CBS as the international distributor for the upcoming Star Trek: Discovery series, which will be available in the U.S. on CBS All Access.

Moonves (left) with Fox CEO Peter Rice, moderator Julia Boorstein and Netflix’s Ted Sarandos at Milken Institute Global Conference

During the wide-ranging discussion covering various factors on the future on the industry CBS’ upcoming Star Trek show came up a number of times. One notable moment came early on when Moonves answered a question about why they chose not to participate in Hulu (unlike CBS, NBC and Fox). While answering the question, Moonves gave a premiere time for Discovery.

Hulu is a phenomenal thing and it is a great organization. We felt it was odd taking our content, which is the family jewels, and putting it in an organization with our competitors. So we decided to go our own way and it was a different way to go. Hulu is wildly successful, but CBS All Access, we love what we are doing there. We obviously put The Good Wife spin-off [The Good Fight] there. We have Star Trek [Discovery] coming in the beginning of the fall. It’s going extremely well.

In early March Moonves estimated Discovery would launch in late summer or early fall, so it appears they are narrowing that down. This estimate is also significant because just three weeks ago the head of CBS All Access said they weren’t tied to any date and refused to say if they were targeting a fall release. So apparently CBS is back in the game of estimating a Star Trek: Discovery release date. It’s possible the avoidance of a WGA strike has given them more confidence.

Why Star Trek: Discovery is on CBS All Access

Moonves was specifically asked about how the company was tailoring content for the CBS All Access platform, which led to him talking about how they see original CBS All Access shows as ‘premium’ content. He then got more specific as to why he sees Star Trek: Discovery as a good fit for it:

Star Trek we could have sold anywhere. There was a bidding war within CBS because it is obviously a very valuable property. We also learned from Netflix. We put the other Star Trek series [on Netflix] and they did very well. They don’t share the information, but…we knew Star Trek did extremely well. They have a very loyal audience. We said “if we give them a good product, that they will come and they will pay for it. It will be special.” And that is how we look at CBS All Access.

Moonves explains why Star Trek: Discovery is being launched on CBS All Access

Netflix’s and international market importance for Discovery

When the subject later turned to the importance of entertainment industry sales outside the U.S., Moonves again brought up Star Trek: Discovery, saying:

So every decision we make, the international marketplace becomes really really important. As Ted said, we couldn’t afford to do Star Trek, or the quality of the show, without Netflix help who bought the rest of the world, for a very nice fee may I add.

When asked specifically about how international sales influenced decisions for original content for CBS All Access, Moonves contrasted the two shows that have been announced for the platform (The Good Fight and Star Trek: Discovery):

You know that a Star Trek will travel. You know a The Good Wife [spin-off] might not do nearly as well. It is much more of an American show. There is much more talking involved as opposed to action-adventure. So [international sales] does affect your decisions, but not exclusively.

At this point Ted Sarandos from Netflix chimed in, talking about how they are working with CBS as the international distributor for Star Trek Discovery:

If you ever needed more proof that this isn’t a zero-sum game, on the Star Trek series we are doing it together. We are launching it outside of U.S. all over the world. And coming in as production partners, we have been great partners together on making a show that could have been smaller, bigger. It is a net gain for everybody.

Hearing Moonves and Sarandos talk it seems that Netflix has done more than just buy the international rights to Discovery, but are working more closely together with CBS on the show.

CBS and Netflix are partners on Star Trek: Discovery

Don’t expect a CBS/Viacom re-merger – Star Trek will remain split

Back in 2006, Viacom split into two corporations.  CBS became a stand-alone entity, with most of the cable channels along with Paramount Pictures staying within Viacom. Over the last decade the notion of re-merging has come up every once in a while and Moonves was specifically asked if he saw one coming, but he was very dismissive of the idea:

That’s past. We are looking forward not backward. For obvious reasons Viacom is fine and CBS is fine and we like to say, because we are on every platform in the world virtually — you can’t live without CBS just the way we are now. You can’t live without the NFL, without 60 Minutes, without Colbert, without Big Bang Theory. We are just fine… content to die for.

Of course another big piece of that “content to die for” is Star Trek. And while CBS owns Star Trek as a whole and is the only company that can make a Star Trek TV show, Viacom and Paramount own the Star Trek film library and the sole right to make Star Trek feature films. This bifurcation makes it impossible to have an integrated strategy for the franchise across multiple media like Disney can do with Star Wars or their Marvel properties.

It appears Star Trek TV and movies will remain split between CBS and Paramount

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.

 

Thanks to Michael Wong for assistance with this article.

Sort by:   newest | oldest

Nice, bring it on.

But I thought according to the Kool-aid drinkers on here CBS didn’t need Netflix and they weren’t production partners on STD? Hmmm interesting……

I am actually quite glad that Netflix is on board.
The more, the merrier, I say.

I dont recall anyone saying that. There was speculation that Netflix were not “Production Partners” but clearly the international distribution rights were key to funding the production and that was stated from Day One. If it wasnt Netflix, it would be someone else. Selling those distribution rights generates revenue.

Its probably great news if Netflix has a say. And perhaps some of the key decisions are based on their knowledge. They know what is popular on their platform. Is TNG more popular? Is TOS more popular? They know. They can provide very key information on what viewers want to see.

Well I think originally people thought Netflix was just distributing it because thats all that was reported. In other words, people were trying to just be as accurate as possible with the facts. Alternate facts sucks. ;)

BUT now that we know they are directly involved this is GREAT news I think for everyone. People seem to trust Netflix more (although its CBS who has been producing the shows for 50 years now) and it also means it takes the pressure to perform when its just one company footing the bill. Netflix now has a bigger stake as well and that means they are going to work like crazy to help make it a success too. This is only good news.

“[…] you can’t live without CBS just the way we are now. You can’t live without the NFL, without ’60 Minutes’, without ‘Colbert’, without ‘Big Bang Theory’.”

I can’t decide if that statement is sad or hilarious. Perhaps both.

I am not a Fan of Streaming , but I do have Netflix.. Why ? Because all the Commercial Tv Channels are Ratings-Based , and they bounce their programs about depending how popular they are . Something like a new Star Trek Series will start on any of the Channels around 7.30pm . But Star Trek doesn’t really attract the mainstream , so after a couple or a few weeks , it’s bumped to 9.30pm , where it stays for another month , before moving to the 11pm then sliding to the 4.30am near the end of the Series .

To be honest it probably just depends on where you live. I live in L.A. and all the shows from TNG to Voyager came on prime time and they stayed in competitive time periods between the 8-10 p.m. hours their entire runs. I know Enterprise was the first one not to do that well but I was living out of the country at the time so I really didn’t know where it was placed during its run.

But this weird notion Trek can’t compete with other shows is not true. The Trek shows were the costliest shows in the 90s for a reason because their ratings were strong. Its also why they made four Star Trek shows back to back and ran two of them consecutively.

Now that said I don’t think it would do very well on CBS because sci fi is not its strong suit looking at their shows and demographics. But put it on FOX, NBC or ABC, yeah definitely, but obviously they would never do that. And they do own CW and the CW President even said they would love to have Star Trek on that network but the problem is CW shows generally costs lower to produce (since they have a smaller audience and advertisers) and a cheaper Star Trek show would scare off its fans. Thats why they are spending the money they are because they have to compete with DS9 and Voyager, not with Flash and iZombie (both great shows though).

Where I live, TNG was shown in syndication on Saturdays at 7PM for its entire run. Prior to that, the same channel (WVNY-22 Burlington VT, an ABC affiliate) had shown TOS at the same time slot, so they had a following audience already built-in. After TNG’s run, it became DS9’s time slot for its entire run, then Voyager’s… for a while.

I had to get Space TV (Canada) to watch Enterprise.

That was the golden era for me. Saturday night TNG. Except where I live, they included DS9 back to back when it came out. Then DS9 moved to 7pm when TNG ended and VOY took its place :)

Its funny but where I lived they never put two of the original shows on the same day. When it was TNG and DS9 one was played on a Monday, the other a Tuesday. When it was DS9 and Voyager same deal.

Thanks for the replies , Guys ! It was interesting to hear how it goes elsewhere , so I must just live in a very competitive area . And the reason why I started collecting the Series on Disc , which i hope to do with Discovery (if it’s good!) . Recently , some of the Tv Channels have been putting on TNG etc re-runs in the afternoon and evenings , but the times haven’t been suitable to watch them .

Yes money is everything for this sort of business, don’t get me wrong, but you can tell by Moonves’ rhetoric it is simply just about the money for him and he has very little interest in the actual legacy or importance of Star Trek. He never talks about why the show “will sell” or why he thinks it is of high quality, you can explain the themes or give a sense of the show without going into spoilers. Plus his dismissive attitude at losing the motion picture arm of the franchise and not even entertaining the idea of their being any sort of reunification shows he just wants all the candy, multimedia strategy which could benefit the franchise creatively be damned. All the fan loyalty in the world won’t save the show if it turns out to be what has been worryingly rumoured about Moonves’ meddling.

Star Wars it ain’t, although he ain’t no Kathleen Kennedy. She understands the importance of that brand.

Agreed. I have read every interview Moonves has given concerning Discovery and I don’t think he’s talked about it once in a creative way. He only talks about how well the other shows streams, the amount of money they are spending on it, the deal with Netflix etc. I don’t think I heard the guy once say anything about how the scripts are coming, how good the actors are, that the story is really gelling, none of that. Its just all dollars and cents to him. And thats OK, thats why he runs a major studio and we don’t. But I really don’t think he cares about Star Trek the show so much as he cares about Star Trek the product. I guess thats the show runners job but it would be nice if he actually talked a bit about the production itself, even in just platitudes. And I also agree Star Trek needs another Kathleen Kennedy. Say what you will about Rick Berman that guy was the keeper of Star Trek for nearly 20 years and we need someone like that again. But sadly now that we know the movies and shows will be separate I guess it will never be like that again. All that said its nice to know Netflix is actually involved in the production end. I think we all assumed they were just distributing it but if thats true thats great news. Netflix makes great shows. They are all not winners (anyone seen Iron Fist… Read more »

From everything he’s said, he equates quality with money. Not sure where there is the idea he wants to churn out a cheap and crappy show.

Yeah because I never said that. ;)

I only said he’s more interested in the money aspect than the creative aspect. I also said thats OK, it would just be nice to hear him say something about the actual show and not just how much the whole thing was.

Tiger2,

Re: …the creative aspect.

That’s why I’m actually encouraged to hear that Netflix is a production partner, i.e. the creative aspect.

Agreed! This was all very good news IMO. I have more faith in the show now than before.

Isn’t this the same guy who so hated Star Trek that he personally supervised the bulldozing of the Enterprise sets????

Oops

*there being any sort of reunification – I typed too quickly this morning. Passions were high on the matter! However my point still stands.

Understood. But he mentioned “high quality” as something that will make the show work. But the fact is being good doesn’t mean it will work. There are a number of shows that have been good that few watched. I’m of the opinion that getting US subscribers to CBSAA will be a much tougher sell than Les is presenting. Part of it is their own current limitations. And there are other issues that they seem to be downplaying. We shall see how things are by the time the streaming starts….

The Good Fight bought in over a million subscribers with no hype and little advertisement. Moonves said they didn’t expect to get 4 million subscribers until 2020. Its at 2 million. Discovery will easily bring in 1+ million voters. This thing will have to downright suck not to get as many as The Good Fight gets at least.

Let’s just wait and see. I’d also like to know the circumstances of the new subscriptions. Seems a stretch to say that a million people paid to sign on just for “The Good Fight”. That number sounds fluffed.

ML31,

Re: That number sounds fluffed.

I’d say the fact that CBS renewed THE GOOD FIGHT for season 2 after only 3 episodes in, argues against the quality of your ears’ numerical timbre detection abilities.

Why are there still people who know nothing about Streaming arguing against this? It will succeed or it wont. But its not the fault of the streaming service. The financial scenario is different. And as been pointed out MANY times, look at The Good Fight.

Good Wife fans followed the spin off to CBSAA but Trek fans wont???

Funny thing… The only people who seem to love the idea that it is streaming only seem to be people who already are streaming only themselves… Wonder why that is?

ML31 as Disinvited said they renewed the show in its FOURTH episode lol. How many shows on the air gets another renewal after four episodes? Clearly ‘fluffed’ or not the show has brought in enough viewers to make them happy. They could’ve waited until its run was over to even decide. The fact they eagerly renewed it so soon tells you everything you need to know. And again a show based on little hype, no adverting and not based on a global phenomenon.

Discovery however makes world headlines anytime someone is cast on that show and obviously as said its going to play to the world. Yes it has bigger shoes to feel but it also has a big head start in filling it given the hype thus far.

How many have been renewed after only a few episodes? Quite a few, actually. More often than not the move is premature. At least that is how it has gone on the previously traditional over the air networks. Many of the cable and streaming shows have STARTED with two season contracts at minimum. Many producers on commentaries have claimed things like “the reason I went here was because they promised me two seasons. We couldn’t get that from other outlets.” I don’t think it “clear” at all that The Good Fight has single handedly brought forth all those subscribers. That is just intuitively obvious.

When you consider the vast shows out there, very few of them got another renewal after 4 episodes. ML31 you just seem like you want this site to fail. Even if it does it would probably be years from now. But since they are already halfway over of where they want their subscriber base by 2020 I don’t think its really going to happen. Luckily CBS is actually being realistic about it and will give the site a chance to grow. That bolds well for Discovery that won’t be expected to bring in 3 million subscribers after two episodes.

Uh meant subscribers.

Just Another Salt Vampire

Has anybody at CBS or Netflix ever said anything about whether Discovery will eventually show up on Netflix in the U.S., like maybe after a year of being on CBS All-Access or some such arrangement?

No, but I imagine it will become part of the library, like all the other Star Trek series.

Thus far I have heard nothing. I would doubt streaming would be available but there might be a slight outside chance Netflix could make the discs available a year or so after the show “airs”. For some of us, that will be the best hope to actually see the show.

No original streaming show from Hulu, Amazon, etc has ever shown up on Netflix, not has any Netflix shows showed up anywhere else. In other words, I wouldn’t hold my breath. And thats because thats what keeps these sites more exclusive when you can only find those shows on their sight. Yeah obviously its different with Netflix having the show worldwide but thats because there is no CBSAA abroad either….at least not yet.

My guess is you will probably get it at places like Itunes, where you can pay for the show that way like the others they have.

I thought there might be a chance Netflix could have the discs next year is because of their involvement in the show. Hence the way I worded the post.

ML31,

I don’t know anything about how Netflix rolls its series out for disc release but I would imagine that if they do so for those, then they’d push for the same in DISCOVERY’s case at least in some markets.

The sad thing is Netflix used to release discs and the streaming of a show at the same time. The first time they didn’t was Arrested Development. That was streaming only and discs for that show didn’t come out for about 9 or 10 months after the streaming started. Then the latest season of House of Cards, which used to be released simultaneously delayed the discs for a few months. Daredevil season 1 wasn’t released on disc until well AFTER season two came out. And season 2 still isn’t available on disc. It is a disturbing trend and that is what doesn’t bode well, I’m guessing, for the release of DSC to disc before any possible season 2 gets streamed.

Yeah I guess thats possible. Do they rent discs for other streaming shows? For example can you get the for Bosch or Man in the High Castle? If you can for those (Amazon shows) my guess is you will be able to if later. If they don’t it doesn’t mean they won’t for Discovery but questionable.

I went looking for The Man in High Castle on Netflix some time ago. It was nowhere to be found. Couldn’t even get it in the “saved” cue. So it seems unlikely that any non Netflix exclusive content will make its way to Netflix on disc. But there is hope for Discovery due to Netflix’ international distribution deal. Perhaps they may be allowed to get the discs… That is my hope anyway…

Yeah this is what I thought. Again they may release it on Netflix I just wouldn’t hold my breath. More than likely though CBS will put them on Blu Ray after the season ends so if you can’t get them on Netflix you will probably be able to buy the discs if you can’t rent them.

Anthony, nice to see you back! “Bifurcation” makes it impossible to have an integrated strategy for Star Trek only inasmuch as the new series hasn’t come out yet, and there is no commercial reason to make the move on either side. I think Fox and Marvel’s team up with regard to Spiderman is a great example of how impossible deals get made if there is something in it for everyone. It is a fact that Paramount wants its current “Trek” films to make a lot more money than they do now. Assuming “Discovery” is a hit worldwide, which would be a first for any version of Trek, I am sure the two sides will come together to see how to re-imagine the film series.

AJfromMoscow,

Spiderman was Sony, NOT Fox. It’s Sony and Disney’s Marvel team up.

Couldn’t CBS produce a Star Trek movie that is distributed by Paramount?

Netflix “don’t share information” on how shows they host do?

No, Netflix does not share that information.

Netflix is very secretive about their viewership number. But its been well known (or speculated) that the Star Trek library has done very well and it was Netflix who wanted to create a new series.

TUP,

But I would say the fact that Netflix renews some series and NOT others speaks to that somewhat.

I am a huge Star Trek fan but, I will boycott CBS All Access!

comment image

Ditto!!!

CBS is bull. They think they are better than the other networjs. You pay for CBS on cable dish or direct then they think you should pay again to steeam. Nope not me I’m a huge star trek fan but I’ll wait and watch it on another forum later rather than pay CBS two fees a month. They can take CVS all access and stick it where the sun or moon never rises

They are better than the other networks. Aside from NFL on NBC, they’d be far and away the highest-rated network.

I dont think you understand.

It’s going to be torrented massively in the US.
The other option of course is to get a netflix subscription in another country and use a proxy. You’ll get huge amounts of other shows and movies too.
I don’t think CBS have done any market research here, just throwing Trek at it and hoping it will stick, but it won’t, it will fail, and then what? Just leave it on CBS AA to rot? If they broadcast it instead will Netflix still be paying all that money and unable to target anyone in the US with a subscription?

It’s ludicrous, and it is going to tank.

As others have told you already, the most pirated show is Game of Thrones. Did it tank? You’re very ignorant. Read a book or something before posting.

Moonves: “We felt it was odd taking our content, which is the family jewels, and putting it in an organization with our competitors.”

Translation: “We aren’t sure we can compete with other networks.”

I think Moonves meant to say “We just want to kick our fans in the family jewels”

Yeah, that’s probably more accurate.

Yes, Moonves has a product he thinks will attract several million viewers so he decided to not sell it to Hulu out of spite. Puhleeze. He’s leveraging what he expects to be a popular series to help his own OTT service.

No.1 comedy. No.1 drama. No.1 news program. Yeah, CBS doesn’t think they can compete alright…

“You know a The Good Wife [spin-off] might not do nearly as well. It is much more of an American show. There is much more talking involved as opposed to action-adventure.”

Yes! It will be JJ Trek all over again………………………………

All the Trek shows has been action adventure. I can’t think of a single show that didn’t have a season that had ship battles, hand to hand combats, phaser fights, explosions etc. I mean I get your point but Star Trek was never Mad Men either.

Moonves said because Viacom/Paramount own the film rights that it would be impossible to have an integrated strategy, like Disney/Marvel. For the most part I would agree, but like Spock was so fond of saying: There are always possibilities. The deal Sony/Marvel/Disney made to get Spiderman back home on film has set a new precedent for inter-studio cooperation.

It’s just worth noting.

Why put star trek behind a pay gate in the US? I won’t pay for another streaming service just to watch one show. It would probably be cheaper to buy a lifetime vpn to watch it on Netflix than to pay for another garbage premium streaming service.

Yep. I fully understand. There are a few shows on HBO I would like to see sooner than I do but I refuse to pay their added fees. A line needs to be drawn somewhere….

ML31 and Desdecardo,

You two DO realize the delicious absurdity of complaining about this on a website dedicated to the proposition of Trek MOVIES where people have to buy tickets for the privilege of watching it without commercial interruption on a screen that they have to get into their cars and travel to view?

Dis,

It’s not realized because there is nothing absurd about it. Seems you are not realizing that movies are an entirely different animal than TV.

ML31,

Seems that you are not realizing that internat streaming is a completly new and different technology that has more in common with theatrical exhibitions than the TV animal which concerns you so.

It is indeed a new tech. But it has way more in common with TV than it does with movies. That is not my concern. It is yours. You brought it up, remember.

Why does McDonalds charge for fries instead of just giving them away? Because it’s a business. Star Trek is a commodity and CBS wants to make money from it. Why is this so difficult for so many to understand.

You believe that none of the shows on broadcast make money?
Trek is being abused in this case.

Enter Prize,

You believe none of the Trek theatrical releases made even more money?

And yet you somehow believe the case of Trek pay per view in the movie theaters, which this site is dedicated to promoting, didn’t and doesn’t likewise abuse it?

Answer my question you inept troglodyte

HAHAHAHAHA, petty insults because Enter Prize got schooled again. PLEASE, do some basic thinking before you post. You are consistently embarrassed here by people correcting your nonsense.

According to Herbert F. Solow, owing to the way US television broadcast networks pay television production companies, NO television production company turns a profit from their show’s airing on prime time in the US on the broadcast networks. Production companies realize their profits by having their shows stay on those networks’ air long enough to amass 3 to 4 seasons of episodes that can be bundled into a syndicated rerun package which is when their real money is made.

Why do Disinvited and TUP always seem in concert with their responses?

Great minds think alike. Try it!

Aside from the self-congratulation, were you referring to Group Think, or something else? I’d just like to know exactly what reductive approach I’m supposed to “try.”

Except for Canada, where Bell is screwing us in their own exclusive way and hogging DSC

So Bell should pay for it and also let everyone else have it? Its slated to air on CTV and then SPACE. Most people with cable have SPACE.

Hulu is a phenomenal thing and it is a great organization. We felt it was odd taking our content, which is the family jewels, and putting it in an organization with our competitors.
— STOP right there. How is HULU different than broadcast TV, where the airwaves are also populated with competitors, or cable TV with multiple channels, or Netflix who doesn;t only distribute, they also produce their own productions. You get money from advertisers who want to piggyback on your broadcasts. Opening a subscriber financed streaming service had best be commercial free, like HBO.

Because CBS is putting money and time and effort behind their own streaming service and want to leverage Star Trek to juice their subs not help a competing OTT service.

The commercial thing was an issue for a while. Then they announced CBSAA would have a commercial free option for a few dollars more. The thing is, there is still now way to get the service on a TV without paying for some sort of new add on. Hopefully by the time the show gets underway they will have fixed that major issue as well. It would only have the effect of making the service more available to more potential subscribers. That’s all.

Are you Americans supposed to be watching it on computers and laptops only?
Can you get the equivalent of a Fire TV stick or is their app build in to everyone’s TV’s already?

My 65″ LG HDR is the reason I have Netflix with glorious 4K content.

I bet that STD will be recorded at 4k, and then down-scaled to 1080 just because CBS lacks 4k streaming ability, and they can’t exactly have it in 4k everywhere except the US.

Then in years to come a special 4k version will be released on expensive blurays

Sounds like you shouldnt bother watching. Which means you shouldnt bother pasting here either.

Although you should explain to ML about your 4K Netflix streaming. Where he lives it comes over tin cans.

Supposedly the only way to view this show on a TV is to buy some sort of add on like your fire stick or Apple TV or some other sort of device. So not only would we be asked to pay a monthly subscription for ONE show, we are being asked to buy some external device on top of that for just ONE show. It’s quite a lot to ask of the viewing public. And it really is something CBS doesn’t need to do. Other streaming services are available on smart TV’s without having to buy any add ons. Why can’t CBS do it? Again, the hope is this will be settled before the show is streamed out. Seems foolish to me for CBS to cut off millions of potential subscribers…. But then, making the show streaming only doesn’t sound like the smartest move to begin with either. So I guess you never know.

First off, Ben and Queen Bee..it is called spell check…Use it. Secondly, there is too much animosity twords CBS All Access. How many people think the show will be pulled if CAA fails? I am certain there is a contingency plan in place to keep Discovery going on Netflix if the show under performs on all access. But why are people boycotting it? Yes you may pay for CBS on Cable or a satellite provider but it is not like they are making you pay twice for the same content! If it was on broadcast TV there is no real way to get actual viewing data, to with all access they know exactly how many watched what episodes, who turned it off early etc. Yes this is a bold move but it is worth the risk.I will be buying my all access membership when an actual date is announced.

Grax,

Re: ..it is called spell check…

“Secondly, there is too much animosity twords [ sic ] CBS All Access.” – Grax

Indeed, it is, and you would do well to find out what’s wrong with yours.

CBSAA launched 2.5 years ago. Its not a brand new service. They have other programs in development including a second season of The Good Fight.

If All Access “failed” but Discovery made money, it would continue to find a home.

There are a lot of people who accuse CBS of being money hungry but charging to watch Discovery on CBSAA and those same people say “it should just be on Netflix” as if Netflix is free. This is a business. Those people should grow up.

The simple fact that obviously alludes you is that the only country in the world who will have no choice but to pay specifically to see STD is the US. It’s also the only country in the world where Netflix subscribers won’t get it included in their existing subscription.

It’s a stupid move which has gotten off on the wrong foot from the outset, and will lead to pirating content as a preference. It’s a very bitter pill to swallow for US viewers, and these are the people who are supposed to prop the whole experiment up?

People will weigh up the short delay of the content appearing online over spending the money and arrive at the conclusion that they will not support it financially. There just aren’t enough TOS fanboys to bring in anything remotely near the wild figures CBS are dreaming up.

OMG, I never seen so much whining over a show that is going to a pay site. Dude CBS renewed The Good Fight after 4 episodes on AA because it brought in a million subscribers. Will you people stop acting like the sky is falling. Its $5.99 a month. Yes some people will just pirate it illegally. Do you know what is the most pirated show currently in the world? Game of Thrones and yet it still has no problem to get paying viewers. It could affect Discovery but I have not heard of a single streaming show thats been cancelled because more people watched it illegally vs legal, have you?

Get over it.

Tiger, we agree. Enter Prize and cheap jerks like him just want everything for free. Even its not free. I guess is mummy pays his Netflix and cable bill.

Enter Prize – is Netflix free for you? Is Cable free for you?

Everyone who wants to watch will pay. Either you already pay or you will pay. Knock off this idea of “its free if its on Netflix”.

The fact people like you keep saying that is exactly why CBS is committed to CBSAA.

Enter,

Apart from the streaming only part you have brought up something that has been irksome since I first heard of this. That in the US the only way to see it is through CBSAA. Everywhere else on the planet viewing the show will be a billion times easier. Something feels very wrong about that. This entire endevour is feeling more and more like DIVX all the time.

I would not be so sure there is a contingency plan to keep the show going if it doesn’t do for CBSAA they hope it will. Remember, CBS seems to have zero interest in sharing their “jewels”. Why would they just let Netflix have it if it doesn’t work on CBSAA? I have a hard time seeing that happen. No, if CBSAA fails that will more likely be the end of Trek on TV for a least a decade or more.

ML31 I have no idea why you think that? As said its not only RUNNING on Netflix overseas now we learned Netflix is directly involved with its production. So clearly they are ‘sharing’ right now. Netflix has decided they want to have a bigger stake in the show and obviously sees its potential to be so closely involved in its production. Discovery will be the first show on that site that will air it weekly and not just wait until the season is over like the other shows. I CLEARLY see a contingency plan happening because of this. Netflix is the site that picked up Full House and Gilmore Girls, I’m more than sure the deal is if it doesn’t work out at AA they have the option to pick it up. Now it doesnt mean they WILL but yes that option would be in place. Why wouldn’t it? CBS can still continue to make money off of it. Sure not as much but if someone wants the show what exactly would be the down side to giving it to them? Uh, nothing. Especially if it already failed on their site. But my guess is I see Discovery going 3 seasons minimum on AA at this point. You could argue 2 seasons but I think three because season 2 is a given since Netflix paid its production budget through the distribution deal. So CBS loses nothing. Now season 2 they will do the heavy lifting but unless the show just… Read more »

Marvel is super hot right now, and TREK is not. I don’t think what you are saying is overall incorrect–I agree with many of your statements, but it just doesn’t apply to TREK. Both CBS and Netflix are in for a rude awakening. STD will probably be a moderate hit, but nothing spectacular.

You’re still missing the point though. Moonves has been saying it for a year now, Netflix and Amazon has been begging him to license them Star Trek. They threw a lot of money at him for the chance just to make the show. He turned them down and did it himself. But Netflix still wanted it so badly they offered not only to pay for all international distribution rights, they agreed to air the show weekly instead of waiting for the show to finish for the season. How many shows does Netflix does that for? And now we learn they are actually part of the production. Sure it could fail, nothing is guaranteed but it is the first Trek show in a decade so its going to bring a lot of interest to it. Whats great about Star Trek is the fans do give it a chance meaning if its bad like TNG started out or DS9 most will hang in there. By the time Enterprise rolled around people were just sick of Star Trek. It was on for 18 years non stop not to mention all the movies. True Beyond flopped but I don’t think you can compare what happened with that and this show because there is no connection and its actually going back to the prime universe. I think a lot of older fans just doesn’t like the Kelvin Timeline idea and why they moved by Beyond. My guess is if the show is GOOD, it will… Read more »

Tiger, I think you got things a bit wrong. It wasn’t Netflix who still begged CBS to be a part of this. It was more CBS needing an international distributor to make it work. CBS went to Netflix for this once they decided they were going to put it on AA. It wasn’t “we have trek but Netflix keeps knocking on our door.” It was, “CBS AA is USA only. How do we get it distributed internationally? Netflix! They have been willing before. Let’s take it to them and see if they are willing to foot even more of the bill!”

Not true ML31,

Moonves originally planned to just sell the show to individual countries like they do all their shows. That was the original plan until Netflix showed up. Again its no secret how badly Netflix wanted Star Trek for years. This was probably a happy medium if they couldn’t outright make their own show.

Tiger, you are making a lot of assumptions here. Is what you say possible? Sure. Likely? I just don’t see it. CBS could have just sold to Netflix to begin with and reaped the financial benefit without any of the risk. But they didn’t. The one and only one reason they reluctantly agreed to have Netflix involved was because CBSAA is not available outside the US and they were looking for an international distributer to off set the costs of producing a streaming only Trek show. Believe me, if AA was available in just a handful of international markets there would be zero Netflix involvement.

CBS seems to be very protective of Trek and as of this writing has show no desire to share or sell off any piece of it to anyone in anyway. Why would Discovery or AA tanking change any of that?

I didn’t say SELL Trek, simply license it for another studio to make it, which is done all the time. Its not exactly a big deal. Disney owns Marvel which we can all agree is a vast and important property for them and yet has let Netflix make their own shows. Disney also just made deals with Hulu to make a Marvel show there all the while they are still making more Marvel shows with Inhumans coming up on ABC and Cloak and Dagger on Freeform (their channel). Warner Brothers has owned the DC property since the 70s and license out their characters to other studios as well while still making tons of movies and shows themselves. Its why FOX is running Gotham today while the CW has 4 different DC shows. And CBS has already licensed the Trek films to Paramount. They could do the same for the shows. Obviously only if Discovery tanks and they don’t want to personally take a chance making another show. Sure if they decide to try and make another then that would be different too. And Netflix has every single Star Trek show, worldwide, indefinitely. Will be the only other company showing Discovery outside of two others. They fought to make Star Trek Netflix’s home they would definitely either want A. To pick up Discovery as their own show IF its cancelled on AA or maybe B. Have the option to create a new Trek show altogether. Of course that would only happen… Read more »

The entire concept of paying to watch a channel on your tv/cable/sat and then paying again to watch something of it online is very strange from an international perspective.

Sky Go gives all the tv channels live, plus catch up of the most recent shows, plus a huge movie library, and it’s all included in the regular monthly subscription.

BBC iplayer is the same, as is every other terrestrial channel. In fact, BBC3 is an online-only channel.

There would be national outrage if sky made us pay an additional fee to watch some content online, people would be leaving sky in the masses. It’s tough enough for them as it is, with people increasingly ditching sky completely and going with Netflix and Prime.

The terrestrial channels are, by law, unable to charge us for any other kind of online service. All of the major channels have back cat of box sets, watch live, catch up, rewind/forward etc.

I can’t fathom why you people allow them to do it.

Oh, and I forgot, you have to pay EVEN MORE to see it without adverts? It’s insane that you people just go along with it, and some of you even try to justify it!

What if I told you you dont have to pay more. In fact you can pay LESS to watch it with commercials?

You need to take a deep breath and stop typing out every silly thought that appears in your head. You have zero idea what you’re talking about.

Enter Prize, they aren’t doing anything illegal, its their property, they can do anything they want.

And what is the ‘outrage’? Because a company is charging us to pay for a show they are producing online? How is that different from cable exactly? They been doing that for 30 years now. Now they are just going from cable to streaming essentially.

And yeah this isn’t exactly a new thing. People seem to forget but a few short years ago the streaming site Hulu was free. Like CBS it only showed old shows from various networks. And then one day they decided to start charging people to watch it instead. You know what happened? Nothing. Not only is HULU still there, it actually has more subscribers today than when it was free its first few years. And like AA they now are making original shows which is what keeps people coming back. Good shows at that. Its called supply and demand. Enough people will buy it they will keep charging for it. If not it would shut down. Not one single pay streaming site has shut down yet.

Tiger, you are not understanding. The outrage is the annoyance of paying for a service then being asked to pay for MORE services on top of that. It’s kinda like if you have been buying cars and window wipers were always a part of the purchased vehicle. Then all of a sudden car manufacturers started charging extra you for those window wipers. Then started charging for gas caps. Then the key to start it. It can get irritating.

I get your point but I think you’re making waaaaaay too much out of this. You’re not being forced to buy anything more, you can still watch the show. You just want to watch it in a different format and have to pay to see it that way. Ok fair enough but no one is forcing you to do that. Most people are use to watching stuff on computers, tablets and phones but there are obviously other options to watch them other ways.

It just feels like making mountains out of molehills.

Enter Prize,

You have a weird concept of “free”. In England, all devices capable of receiving and displaying and/or recording OTA broadcasts via an active aerial connection are each TAXED via a television license fee which also is used to finance the operations of the BBC.

How long do you realistically expect the grey area of the law to remain unamended allowing streaming of the BBC to escape a similar licensing fee?

Enter Prize,

My apologies. I overstated that. The license is awarded to individuals and not each of the qualifying individual devices themselves that the individual owns.

And additionally, most smart tv’s and set top boxes have something called “Freeview Play”. You have a TV guide and can simply scroll back in time to the show you missed and want to watched, and hit the button to begin streaming it. There’s no subscription requirement or tv licence requirement for that either.

If any channel in the UK decided to charge people to access shows which are otherwise free to air, they wouldn’t be on the channel line up for very long, the Communications Ombudsman and Advertising Standards Council would shut them down with a hefty fine.

And yet you guys not only have to pay for said access, they’ll still prop it up with adverts and make you pay again to remove them. Diabolical!

https://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview-play-catch-up-anytime#8zaZvM2IBgKToox1.97

Well Enter Prize the rest of the world isn’t the U.K. Get over it. I don’t know why you are whining so much about something that doesn’t even affect you. But you already made it clear you want the show to fail regardless so why are you wasting your breath?

Tiger, you have made a decent point where he’s not even really affected by this being in the UK. But it doesn’t sound like he wants the show to fail. It just sounds like he is astonished at the process to get the show in the US. Which I can fully understand.

ML31,

Enter Prize is a troll. This guy has MULTIPLE sock puppets, this is just the latest one. On Trekcore he goes by Xandercom and a few others. Here he has been other names as well and has said over and over again he wants the show to fail because he hates that it deals with the TOS period and wants the show to go post 24th century. And I agree with him on that but he comes off like an immature teenager who constantly puts down people who is excited about the show, call TOS fans old and fat and basically prays for its demise. This guy isn’t fooling anyone. I’m just amazed how many of these people all come from the U.K. and have the exact same opinion of both the show and AA.

Why do Americans allow themselves to be charged for a product they want? Scoundrels.

Allow me to educate you Sir. You’re confusing a government tax with some sort of subscription service.

One TV licence per household, as many TV’s as you like. It’s why the BBC has absolutely no advertising whatsoever. works out at 40p a day if indeed you want to watch the BBC channels.

The licence fee is a legal requirement, it’s not some kind of subscription service, and it has nothing to do with non-BBC channels.

In fact, if you just want to watch catch up tv, box sets, pretty much anything that isn’t a live or close to live broadcast, there’s no obligation to pay anything at all! Absolutely free, all the TV you could possibly binge watch and wish for. There are over 70 “free to air” channels on our digital terrestrial broadcast TV. You can use any one of those channel’s online catchup/box set etc services quite legally, without paying a penny. That include’s the UK’s CBS channels. I bet you punks have to pay for that too yes?!

Over 75’s don’t have to pay a penny.

Read and weep my friend

https://www.freeview.co.uk/why-freeview/channels#hYSDpehEda7IQJAO.97

Enter Prize,

Re: You’re confusing a government tax with some sort of subscription service.

No, you mentioned BBC iplayer and BBC3. I was just pointing out that we in The States don’t consider the BBC’s funding via a mandatory tax, “free”.

“”Freeview offers 70 TV channels, 15 HD* channels, and more than 30 radio stations. In fact over 95% of the nation’s favourite programmes are available at no monthly cost””

Enter,

While I understand your argument and can even personally go along with a lot of what you are saying it must be said that the pay cable and dish subscribers have been tailing off lately. A lot of people are moving from pay cable to pay internet. Reasons are mainly that the cable companies rates are just too expensive and the streaming services give them what they are looking for at a lower price. I am not one of them yet. For me, cable still is the best deal with the most flexibility. I guess I am old school in that I like to watch TV on my TV. Not my phone, tablet or laptop. I only use those devices when traveling but there are still some things I just will not watch on those puny screens with crappy sound. Just thought I’d throw out some realities for you.

I won’t be able to watch it cause I can’t afford netflix or all access

It’s a pretty crappy way to treat your “loyal fans” in the US. Making people pay for CBS All Access for one show is absurd. This whole franchise is moving so far away from Gene Roddenberry’s creation, it’s just so sad…

Nah. Roddenberry certainly wouldn’t have turned down a chance to make more money. He was a visionary, but he was also a realist.

Thorny’s right; everything I read about Roddenberry says that the man was desperate to make money off of Star Trek.

For example, in Bill Shatner’s book about Leonard Nimoy, Shatner tells us about a time when Nimoy wanted to leave the set an hour early in order to take a public appearance gig that promised to pay him big bucks. Roddenberry told Nimoy that he’d let him leave an hour early if Nimoy made Roddenberry his agent and paid him 20% of the fee!

Another example — Roddenberry wrote lyrics to Alexander Courage’s TOS music so that he could collect half of the royalties for the song. He wrote really bad lyrics, intending that they never actually be used, because he wanted half of Courage’s royalties for the song.

Both of these are well-known stories in Star Trek fandom; ask around, and you’ll hear others, as well.

I’m grateful to Roddenberry for creating Star Trek, but he was human and had flaws, and during the TOS years, he screwed several people over in his quest to make money off of Star Trek.

Rod. Is 25 years gone. Its stupid saying he wouldn’t like this or that. He is a man from a different era…

Corylea,

Roddenberry was definitely a carnival barker, but no more slimey and self-agrandizing than his fellow entertainment executives of his era: Herbert Solow, Barry Diller, Michael Eisneberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, etc.

And next to Brad Grey, the recently departed head of Paramount and the man responsible for the current Bad Robot Treks existing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-hope-weiner/pellicano-trial-on-bert-f_b_92131.html

Roddenberry shines like brand spanking newly minted penny.

Disinvited, I’m not saying that Roddenberry was uniquely awful. But many Star Trek fans want to canonize Roddenberry and act as if the man’s every utterance should be taken as holy writ. He was a man. He was a creative and interesting man, but he had flaws, which means that we need to THINK about the things he said, rather than treating him as an infallible god. That’s all I’m saying.

Corylea,

Re: he [Roddenberry] screwed several people

He definitely could be petty — the lyrics, the IDIC medallion, Scotty dealing drugs, etc. — but that wasn’t all that he was. He could mend fences too. That’s why Harlan Ellison pitched STAR TREK movie ideas to Paramount.

Also far too many fans were like NOMAD in their disappointment at finding the creator Roddenberry flawed and imperfect. They went overboard in greatly exaggerating the fallout from the lyrics thing, for example. fact-checking and Alexander Courage himself said that it was just business and there was no row between the two men over it. Courage did not walk away from the show over it — a falsehood many fans keep spreading in their outrage over discovering that Gene pulled that.

FWIW, Gene was NOT the only person attached to STAR TREK trying to use lyrics for a boost — Leonard Nimoy wrote the MAIDEN WINE song that he sang in PLATO’S STEPCHILDREN.

I was under the, apparantly mistaken, impression that CBS had TOS rights & Viacom had TNG rights. And that was the reason why we saw THREE prequels in a row. Well, this would explain both ENT & DSC, TV shows done by CBS. But if Viacom has TNG rights, as this article says, why did *they* also do a prequel (in the movies)? Why doesn’t Viacom move the “Star Trek” story forward instead of going backwards, which, as the failure of ENT & the three “Kelvin Era” movies show, the fans absolutely DO NOT want?

Looking at unadjusted worldwide box office, the reboot trilogy are the top three earners in the ST movie franchise to date, at a total of 1,188 billion dollars. Adjusted for inflation, they are the 1st, 4th, and 8th place domestically, which is still not too shabby. According to The Numbers, they’ve earned a total of $313 million in DVD and Blu-Ray sales. So… at least 1.5 billion dollars earned from a trilogy that “the fans do not want?” Apparently *someone* wants it.

Yeah, Cary is another fan who believes “I hated them = Everyone hated them.”
Also, Enterprise lasted four years, which in the television industry is certainly not a failure.

Enterprise was cancelled at 3 seasons, then a fan drive by the “save enterprise” campaign got it a 4th season with a reduced budget. It didn’t work, ratings fell further, and it cost us the franchise for a decade.

Yes but when you look at them in line with their production and marketing budget they are not *that* successful. Yes you add inflation, IMAX and 3D surcharges not to mention being distributed in thousands more theaters both nationwide and globally to the other films then yeah its not too hard to see why they earned more money. But whats funny is if you actually look at their budget to profit ratio, the KT films are some of the LEAST successful movies in the franchise. For example, its actually TWOK that is technically the most successful when you factor in its tiny budget of 11 million but it made $77 million in America alone. It earned 7 times of what it cost to make. In fact the average Star Trek movie with TOS and TNG earned about 3-4 times average what they cost to make which is really good, especially since A. It only takes 2 times that amount to break even and B. Most of the money the films made were in America where the ROI is much stronger. I’m NOT downing the success of the KT films, obviously the first two at least. Yes they all made a profit but their budget to profit ratio is small. The fist movie is about 2.3, meaning it made two and third more than its budget. For comparison sakes Generations made 3.2 times its budget. STID made about 2.5 times its budget. Beyond was the worst at 1.8 times its budget.… Read more »

iPadCary,

Re: apparantly [sic] mistaken

There’s no apparent about it, you are just flat out wrong.

Part of the confusion is that the Paramount that was prior to 2006 became pretty much what is now called CBS. Then a new Paramount was created and the film studio part was extracted from the now CBS and given to it. This left the Desilu TV shows MANNIX, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE and STAR TREK wholly-owned owned by what is now called CBS, but because of some apparently grandfathered film development deals were also inherited by the new Paramount when Redstone handed them Paramount’s film library what we now know as Paramount has the right to churn out movies based on those three TV series. That’s it.

Since CBS owns those 3 shows outright, copyright and trademark law gives CBS the upper hand in dictating to Paramount what they can and can not do. Now because this whole
Viacom split was created by intra-office wars in old Paramount to begin with, it stands to reason new Paramount wasn’t going to ramp up production of any movies based on those shows without a contract limiting, most likely via a license of some sort, CBS’ interference with new Paramount’s movie-making.

And that’s why the TREK movies are now pretty much creatively a separate deal from the television production side.

Nope, CBS owns the entire television library of what was Paramount Television. Paramount still controls the movies.

Simple. The original series and the original characters resonate. TNG does not.

Which explains why Beyond was such a big hit. ;)

And Discovery will be completely different characters (oh yeah Sarek and Mudd will be there unfortunately). In other words the show has to stand on its own regardless.

Well… It has to have broad public appeal as well. And they have a much better chance of that with the original characters than they do with TNG characters. The TV shows do not suffer the same scrutiny.

The broad appeal is Star Trek. No one under 20 years old cares about TOS anymore than they do the others. They can make anything they want as long as they get a big enough cast and turn it into a action spectacle ala Star Wars which the KT movies were. Its really to market to the old hardcore fans and they will see anything that says Star Trek in the title if its good. But of course Beyond WAS considered good and it flopped anyway…on its 50th birthday of TOS. So I think people way over play the TOS card. The first film was out of curiosity but since then I think it matters less and less now.

I would disagree. No way to prove this but if you made the KT films with recast TNG characters I very much doubt it would have had the same box office. Hard cores would go no matter what if the TNG characters just don’t resonate with the general public. Almost EVERYONE knows Kirk and Spock. Far less know Picard and Data. It’s as simple as that.

Kirk and Spock ISN’T in Discovery lol. No one KNOWS who these new people are so what difference does that comparison make? None.

And its silly to say TNG doesn’t ‘resonate’ with the public when that show still sells the most Blue Rays and is aired worldwide in reruns.

What original characters? Sarek? This is not a strong argument.

Making a quality TV show costs a lot of money, and making a quality science fiction TV show costs even more money. I’m happy to pay for CBS All Access if they give us a really GOOD Star Trek show.

I think Discovery’s being on All Access might even be in our best interests. A broadcast show has to get high ratings, which means appealing to the lowest common denominator, which good Star Trek wouldn’t do. Putting it on a streaming service means that they only need to get enough subscribers to pay for the show, which means that Discovery has the potential to be serious SF and not just blowing stuff up.

I’m cautiously hopeful!

You’re 100% correc. The demand for viewership will be lower being on CBSAA. And the important thing will be CBS feeling it’s bringing in subscriber growth at a resonable pace. If they feel it is, they will continue to produce it. The financial scenario is very different.

And ofcourse, Netflix will heavily market it as well and be very happy to have a new Trek series. They will want it to be good as well.

Understand your point. But streaming service is not the only way they could have gone. They could have easily gone the cable route. Where, like streaming, does not need to cater to the lowest common denominator and could get by with much lower numbers. There are a lot of very good programing found on cable. Shows that do not get the same numbers that over the air fare gets yet manage to continue on. The only thing I think might help the show is the short season. More attention can be spent on quality over 10 or 12 episodes rather than 20-24. Apart from that I think the concept of streaming only is rather short sighted at this point in time.

If I understood it correctly, Viacom/Paramount kept the cable channels when CBS was split off. So they don’t have cable. But they do have their own streaming service. So unless they sold it, it was going to be on CBS or on CBS All Access.

DIGINON,

Re:Viacom/Paramount kept the cable channels

If that was even somehow true, how do you account for CBS’ ownership of SHOWTIME and the fact that Paramount created EPIX to compete with it?

@ Disinvited: Well, apparently I did not understand it correctly before. Just had a look at Wikipedia, and each part of the former Viacom got some channels. To be honest, I don’t really care too much.

ML31 you’re going to have to let this go man. We get it, you hate it being online. Well, thats just the future. No its the present obviously. But in time it will get more and more people as TV feels less relevant and people under 30 are watching more TV on their tablets and phones. And the way you argue these things are just not set in reality. Majority of streaming shows gets multiple seasons for a reason: Less competition and binge watching culture. Maybe you are just older but people watch entire shows on these sites in literally days. I spend a lot of time lurking on Reddit in their Star Trek sub for example and there are tons of new Star Trek newbies who has watched the entire seasons of these shows in days. One person watched every TNG episode in 10 days and then moved on to DS9 where she saw that in 12 (I guess she took a break lol). My point is THIS is the culture today. This idea that its ‘short sighted’ is kind of silly. This is how a lot of people watch shows. In fact if you listen to Moonves he basically all but said they decided to make another Star Trek show and put it online due to the reaction to how watched the other shows are watched online. He repeated again in this article. IN other words he’s following a trend. Now it may not mean its going to… Read more »
Tiger, you are not understanding. I do not hate that it is online. I hate that it is ONLY on line. It’s limiting the audience. I also hate that I have to not only pay for a new subscription (which I would reluctantly do because I’d really like to see this) but that it is also currently requiring me to buy an add on. Again, just for ONE show. It’s a lot to ask not just me but for the general public. If you have already cut cable and have that device it’s not a big deal. But while the trend is going that way the majority still haven’t done that. I am well aware of how people are watching these days. I am well aware of cord cutters. I am well aware of the binge watching some do. Even though CBS is bucking the binge trend by releasing episodes on a weekly basis. Obviously they are not catering to the binge watching aspect of this like Netflix does. So why limit to streaming only? The arguments I make are indeed dead set in reality. If they made the show available beyond just streaming they would be able to charge advertisers more than they do. Bigger audience. If they made their show available to smart TV’s they would increase their audience a bit more too. So why limit how we can get it? It just doesn’t make much sense. The reality is there are more ways to deliver content than… Read more »

They could have done many things but none of those things drives subs to their streaming service. If you own a hot dog stand, you dont give your hot dogs to someone else to sell or whats the point of owning the stand?

But they are giving their hot dogs to someone else. Bad analogy.

Star Trek: Kodi.

Exactly.

Pretty much.

CBS “All Access” is a very poor excuse of a streaming service. Even if you pay for the “no commercials” option, it still complains that you have an ad-blocker, even if cbs is “white listed.”
The probably should have hired somebody competent to do their software.

CBS will be missing the boat (cash) by insisting it belongs on

All Access and demanding people pay for it. What’ll be their

answer will people say….Hell No? Goodbye Star Trek and all

of the greedy executives counting all of that imaginary gold.

True. They should give it away for free. I know I dont pay for cable or Netflix. Totally free.

Duane,

Eventually people are going to say “I am paying for enough streaming services. Not going to pay for more.” Maybe CBSAA is the straw that breaks the camels back. Maybe not. But it will happen. Some people here just are not understanding this concept.

That’s exactly what happened with me, ML31. As a cord cutter, I already pay for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO Now and Showtime Anytime. Enough is enough. CBS pulling this stunt was the sole trigger to make me search out ‘other means’ of entertainment access (which is working out nicely and saving me a bit of money, too). It’s the same reason I cut cable years ago. It’s not that I can’t afford it, it’s that I don’t like being taken advantage of. CBS is being greedy with this, and I hope it blows up in their face.

It would be cool to be introduced to Lieutenant Arex or Lt. M’Ress.

Oh man, Moonves is delusional. I will not pay for Star Trek on CBS All Access. No way. It’s already a series with issues. If they want me to see it, then they need to put it on broadcast television.

How about they send you free copies? And a TV so you have something to watch it on? Maybe they should pay your rent too, so you have a place to put the TV.

Les Moonves is Awesome he is going to make this Star Trek Different more Action more Bang Bang less Blah Blah he’s great.

Not too clear what you mean, but man, do I disagree. If this show has more bang bang, it will be a failure. To me, bang bang denotes shallowness, over-the-top, cgi oriented– in other words, VOYAGER and the current crop of Hollywood escapist movie trash. Not completely sure what you mean by blah blah, but I hope you don’t mean dramatic or dialogue-oriented, or serious ’cause once again, I’m in disagreement with you.

There’s one powerful person who doesn’t want this show to air, and has persuaded Moonves (his buddy from the old Hollywood days) to delay it, in the same way Merrick Garland was denied a hearing; I’ll give you a wild guess, his name rhymes with Ganon.

What I Say about Star Trek: Discovery.
I WAS Excited
With ALL the Premiere Dates being Pushed Back that I’m Disappointed!
With more excuses Now I’m Angry!
I say to ALL the Other Trekkies to Join Together and BAN IT! Let CBS know that CAN’T Jerk People around! They don’t seem interested SO WHY SHOULD WE?! Thank you all for listening!

Put it on NETFLIX HERE, please!! I’m ALREADY paying for that. I don’t want to pay $6 a month for ONE show (no, I very likely wouldn’t be watching much of anything else on there…).

I can definitely live without Colbert

Thanks for offering Star Trek as a pay per view option this will keep it a way from the every man that Roddenberry catered to.. In case you didn’t get it, BAZZINGA!!

Wow I’m excited about the idea of a new Star Trek series, I’m definitely not going to pay for CBS All Access. I’m not going to waste my money on a subscription to a service where I only watch one show. I have a feeling that many out there agree with me too. I hope this doesn’t kill the show before it even starts.

I can’t wait for the serialized showrunner wankfest abuse of the concept of “Star Trek” this fall.

Gone are the days of cerebral independent science fiction stories, grounded in the current state of the art, but we’ll thoroughly look forward to paying to watch story after story, climaxing in an end of season “best of both worlds” which intentionally leaves the last 20 minutes until next year.

The only thing worse than watching something which breaks apart who you are, is seeing others fall in to the trap and lovingly accept it as “the modern gritty version” no one wants to see, and then defending it, without anyone ever having seen a single frame.

You clones are the problem, not the solution, and we’ll all end up paying for your ignorant stupidity,.

…he’s smarter than trump, but i hate him almost as much =(

I am not Herbert,

While it is true Enter Prize DID spam the EXACT same hate-filled insulting message directed at TrekMovie staff and it patrons across TWO different comment chains:

https://trekmovie.com/2017/05/05/moonves-couple-of-star-trek-discovery-episodes-in-the-can-expects-younger-demo/#comment-5340978

https://trekmovie.com/2017/05/03/star-trek-discovery-back-on-for-fall-cbs-ceo-talks-netflix-importance/#comment-5340979

And I know how people hate spammers, but I hardly think he’s worth the trouble to work up a good hate, and I certainly think it is debatable that his aping of Trump qualifies as indications of his being smarter.

Guess we’ll pass on this series. I refuse to sign up for another streaming service for one freaking show. Quite pissed that Netflix isn’t offering this to all of us in the U.S. paying them, in our case anyway, $30+ every month. What crap…

I’m a die hard TREK fan since the 60’s, but I will not fork over even more money to see DISCOVERY on CBS AllAccess. Why does the rest of the world get to see this much anticipated show on Netflix but the U.S. has to pay for yet another APP to see it? Seems they’re shooting themselves in the foot by alienating the core American audience…

wpDiscuz
Advertisment ad adsense adlogger