Moonves: Couple Of Star Trek Discovery Episodes “In The Can” – Expects Younger Demo

Yesterday afternoon CBS CEO Leslie Moonves participated in a conference call with investors to talk about the first quarter earnings for the corporation ($3.27 billion, beating Wall Street estimates). While the call focused on a lot of investment-related minutiae, the subject of Star Trek: Discovery and its relation to CBS All Access came up a few times.

Early on in the call Moonves gave an overview of how things were going with All Access, including an update on production for Discovery:

The anticipation for Star Trek: Discovery continues to build. The cast is fantastic. We have already had a couple of episodes in the can that we’ve seen. So we are very excited. It will launch later this fall.

Star Trek: Discovery began production in late January and was announced to have a 13-episode first season. Moonves’ comment also repeats his estimate that the show would launch in the fall, which he had said the day before while speaking on a panel at the Milken Initiative Global Conference.

Some Star Trek: Discovery cast members out to dinner in Toronto after a week of shooting in March

Star Trek is the big kahuna, expecting younger viewers

Moonves also said that CBS still expects All Access and the Showtime app to get to a combined total of 8 million subscribers by 2020. As of right now, he said the subscriber numbers for All Access were “in the neighborhood” of 1.5 million. On the subject of growth, as he has done before, Moonves noted the importance of Star Trek: Discovery to CBS All Access:

We’ve only had the NFL on All Access for the last two weeks and it spiked a lot during those two weeks. Which leaves us very excited about having it for a full season and able to promote it…The Good Fight was our first scripted drama there. At the end of the day we were extremely pleased creatively with it and the numbers ended up really really good. Obviously we have the big kahuna coming up with Star Trek…We are fairly confident the strategy really is working well.

CBS also revealed some demographics for All Access, saying that subscribers were evenly split between men and women and averaged about 20 years younger than regular CBS television viewers. Moonves also predicted “Star Trek will bring us even younger.”

Star Trek is a key part of CBS’ strategy to attract subscribers to the CBS All Access service

CBS All Access/Showtime package

Moonves also revealed that starting next week CBS will begin to offer a combined package with both CBS All Access and the Showtime stand-alone streaming service. He said this will offer convenience for those who want both services and there would also be a small discount. This will be good news for fans of both Star Trek and Twin Peaks, which returns on Showtime later this month.

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Moonves also revealed that starting next week CBS will begin to offer a combined package with both CBS All Access and the Showtime stand-alone streaming service. He said this will offer convenience for those who want both services and there would also be a small discount. This will be good news for fans of both Star Trek and Twin Peaks, which returns on Showtime later this month.”

This is a great idea. I was skeptical of AA like everyone but I have to admit the more additions they make to it the better it sounds. They are really trying to make it as enticing as possible and I think the addition of adding the Showtime app would be a BIG appeal because now you have all those movies and TV shows and the library in general feels more well rounded.

They are doing all the right things so far with it, even giving it a commercial free option. My guess by the time September gets here it will be a lot more enticing.

Yeah I’d watch Twin Peaks as well, but I don’t know if that’d be on the network station or not.

It should. They are already running the old show on its website now. When the revival come up in theory you should be able to watch both online.

I’ll wait for the whole season to be up and then try out a month of the ad-free version. Seems only fair to do things CBS’s way at least at first. $12 is not that much for a whole season of new Star Trek. It’ll be hard to get me to subscribe on an ongoing basis, though. Netflix and Amazon take up all my time and then some.

I might just duck in for a month each year and then vanish. It’s up to CBS to pump out so much great content that I can’t bear to tear myself away. One show is not going to do it. However, if that combined AA/Showtime package is ad-free and reasonably priced, I might opt for that for my one month – I can hoover up a whole season of Star Trek and the new Twin Peaks in one month, easy. Fun month.

Look at that, someone who is reasonable and not pulling his out over something thats not the end of the world. You have the right idea, if you’re not sure you want to pay every month then just wait until the season is over and binge watch it. Then if you want to cancel, cancel. All the moaning over something like this is ridiculous.

And its only $10 for the ad free version.

That is assuming they will keep 8 week old episodes available to watch. Nothing yet on if they will be doing that or not. I would think they would only keep episodes available for a few weeks at most. That way they would force people to buy multiple months at least.

Where are people getting this weird idea that CBS would not ‘keep’ the episodes around after it aired? That not only makes no sense (since the idea of a streaming site is that all shows and episodes are available any time) but I just went and looked for The Good Fight episodes since that show premiered a few months ago and all 8 episodes aired so far are available. Same for its Big Brother show which was made for the site and came on several months ago. All its episodes are there too.

No streaming site does this and if CBS tried to get away with it with Star Trek it would be a big backlash, especially since people sign up for these sites to binge watch entire seasons once they are over. That’s the perk. But since they are not doing this with any current show I have no idea why people think they would try to do it with Discovery.

Because if CBS’s goal is to build up subscribers and they are planning on showing Trek episodes once a week, it makes way more sense to limit how long previous episodes are available. Why, you ask? Duh… Because this way you FORCE people who would buy the service JUST for Trek to shell out money for a minimum of two months (possibly 3) rather than just buy one month, binge, and cancel. It makes total sense that they do this given how they are operating their service to begin with. They may not with garbage like The Good Fight or Big Brother. But for something that they hope to actually bring in subscribers it seems VERY likely. Given how much people who have streaming love it I just don’t see anything beyond a teeny blip of a backlash for such behavior from them.

But streaming doesn’t work that way man. Never has. It would be the first time someone tried to hold back episodes in a show they already shot and posted.

Look, I just think this sky is falling mentality is silly when A. It has never happened anywhere on any site and their shows B. CBS is not doing it to any of their new shows now and C. No one has ever even suggested it. Its just some weird internet theory that people are now taking as a possibility….based on absolutely nothing. So relax. It doesn’t seem ‘very likely’ man because its never happened, anywhere lol.

And how do you build up subscribers if they can’t just binge watch the show when its over??? That makes no sense to me. Its not like this will be the only place to watch it once the season is over. YOu will probably be able to rent it or buy it off of Amazon and Itunes. Most people would just go there to see the entire season. It would be silly for CBS to do something like this. And they won’t.

Most streaming shows are released all at once. The fact they are doing this weekly removes the “they have always done it this way” theory. Also, that is flawed thinking. Just because others have “always done it” doesn’t mean it will “always” continue. This is a business, remember. Perhaps months after the show is run they will make all episodes available. Who knows? Maybe they will right after the final episode. This is all speculation and guesswork. Including your theories. As you said, very little has been said about how CBS is going to handle this show.

There is also no evidence whatsoever that it will be available to rent anywhere. CBS has not volunteered any info or even hints on this. It’s possible it would be available to buy after but even then… I wouldn’t be so sure of that until it actually happens. They may decide that “buying” season one means an option to stream the episodes so long as they are under CBS’s control. So again, you are speculating just like the rest of us.

Again SOME release all at once, not all. Hulu releases their shows once a week. They have NEVER removed a show man. You’re talking to someone on four streaming sites, now including AA and none of them do what you are suggesting.

Again, you’re just ASSUMING this. No one at CBS at anytime ever suggested it. So where is it coming from? That and the fact, as said, their other two shows are all there at once.

No offense but this is why arguing on the internet feels like a waste of time. I’m basing my argument on multiple factors, the fact that A. Its not been done on any site B. CBS or anyone has EVER suggested that possibility and C. Evidence of the fact they have not done that to their other current shows.I mean what else is there?

But your argument is, ‘well, they could and those other two shows shouldn’t count because they aren’t great’. Sure man, they could also start charging $20 a month and limit the number of shows you can watch in a day. They can do ALL kinds of things man, but the fact is none of that has been suggested or ever practiced. ALL would be the first one to LIMIT your viewing, how do you think that would go down in an already competitive market?

It really comes down to the fact you just seem like CBS is trying to screw everyone over and so thats where your argument comes from.

And yeah as I said, it makes no sense to even do it. That and the fact don’t you think people would complain bitterly if they can binge watch every show on that channel except the one they personally signed up for? Even if they tried to do it, it wouldn’t last long. People will simply bail on it.

And sure I’m just speculating on Itunes but I’m going on some precedence since CBS has shows on there and all their Star Trek shows are there. It may not come right but my guess it will at some point. You’re just making up something out of whole cloth, completely and utter speculation and baseless. That’s the difference.

Wow… Your entire argument is “it happens sometimes so it will always be that way.” My argument is, “it makes financial sense to do it this way.”

Your points are full of holes and you won’t even admit that you are speculating about all of this as much as I am. For some reason your guesses are solid and my guesses have nothing. Except you are ignoring that the math DOES support my theory and I just don’t see it likely that “everyone” will complain should the watch every show option is not immediately available. You also are refusing to consider that there very well could be other factors in place that neither of us are aware of that come into play here.

You mention this is why arguing on the internet feels like a waste of time. Because more often than not one side just HAS to be right and think they know every single facet of what it is we are discussing when they don’t. Reminder… I’m the one pointing out we are both working on assumptions and guesswork. Your position is “they always do it that way”. Mine is the financial numbers suggest a different way would be more profitable. Again, something you are completely ignoring. Funny when we are talking about a business trying to make more money….

Uh no man my entire argument is there is no evidence or suggestion its happening OTHER than in your head lol. Thats the problem. You and others have for some strange reason suggested this is what CBS is thinking of doing. Based on WHAT man???? It can’t be precendent because no one has done it before. And it can’t even be based on CBS on practice since no show on that site is doing it now including the new shows currently running.

Talk about holes. ;)

Again this is what drives me absolutely insane about the internet. Dude you just decided they might do this based on absolutely nothing. Nothing. You can’t point to me where this suggestion has any bases in reality from a source because there is no source anywhere. You have decided this could be possible on a completely baseless speculation, IGNORE how AA is actually treating its shows now but then say I’m guessing lol. I’m not GUESSING man, I’m simply basing it on how streaming sites act in general INCLUDING ALL ACCESS THAT PRACTICES THE SAME MODEL NOW. You don’t have AA I do, there is nothing to suggest that would happen because as I KEEP saying they have current shows now and are not doing that. How bizarre would it be to do it to ONE show lol. Its silly. Especially when you are competing with others. You want subscribers to sign up ASAP and no one is going to sign up for the show if they can’t see the show from the beginning when they do. Common sense.

My god, again, can you tell me WHERE you got this idea other than in your head? Talk about ‘guesswork’. Its not even that. Its just a baseless speculation, period. But then you’re shocked I’m not taking something you created in your head as any real factor. Again its funny.

Tiger, your “evidence” is “that is how they always have done it”. Which is faulty on it’s own. My argument is based on how CBS has been treating this entire Trek thing since they announced it over a year ago. Precedent really doesn’t come into play here as it is the first streaming only Trek show on a nearly brand spanking new streaming site. They are doing things differently than how others are doing it. Have been from the very beginning. Therefore, your theory is “The wind has mostly been blowing from the north. Therefore, it will never blow from the south.” It’s bad logic.

You are behaving exactly like what you are complaining about. You keep saying there is nothing when I have written very specifically what I am basing this on. And I am the only one who claims we are both speculating. You won’t even admit to that. You are presenting yourself as all knowing and no one should ever dare question you superior intellect. You IGNORE every possibility someone else presents. You haven’t even addressed one idea of what I claimed. All you have said is essentially, “you are wrong because no one does it that way.” It’s all you have and you keep repeating it. You are indeed guessing as Trek hasn’t even started streaming yet and there have been a grand total of ZERO announcements regarding how they will treat the show apart from they will release episodes weekly. Which, by the way, is NOT the norm on other streaming sites. Which right there alone kills your “everyone does it that way” argument. It would not be bizarre at all that CBS would treat their Jewell property differently from their run of the mill stuff. You are just assuming they will. With nothing but your hope you that you will be correct. Maybe you are. But neither of us knows. You will not even admit to that. Because, well, you know everything in your own mind.

On the surface your speculation is no more baseless than mine. But, given your inability to admit your facts are actually guesses…. I’d say my theories are a bit more grounded than yours.

No they AREN’T doing things differently. They are clearly following the Hulu model which I said several posts ago. Hulu ALSO makes shows weekly. And it also posts all it shows permanently once they are shown… CBSAA is doing RIGHT NOW.

Oh my god, its like talking to a teenager. You can’t show me one example ANYWHERE of your ‘argument’ including the site that you claim will do it. I’m not saying no one will EVER do it, I’m saying no one INCLUDING CBSAA does it now. Christ.

Your argument based on nothing lol. MY argument is actually based on CBSAA and what they are doing RIGHT NOW. They have hundreds of shows, they aren’t stalling any of the episodes. They are, at this moment man, have current shows done like every site out there. This is why you have no argument. And again its funny the actual PROOF that proves you wrong you discount which is why this has been useless for awhile now.

Let me repeat one more time: CBSAA has been active for two years now. They have done exactly like every streaming site out there. No one has suggested they would stall episodes. Its never been hinted at. The current shows for the site has all been posted and kept up like every site does. You seem to ignore the overwhelming evidence and why your ‘argument’ is baseless.

The point is man I could see IF they were thinking about doing something like this then yes that would’ve been done on day one. To test the waters. But they never did and it would be ridiculous to start doing it NOW. Horrible business decision, hence why no one does it now. ;)

Here is one of the differences between you and me. You don’t like what I said but can’t come up with a reasonable counter to it. So you say “your argument is based on nothing”. I, on the other hand, read what you say and evaluate it. In this case, what you say is possible. But there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that is how it will always be. Especially when looking at how they are behaving regarding this property. So in the end I say you may be correct. They may make all episodes available for quite some time after “air”. It is also true that it is entirely possible and perhaps even reasonable that they will not. For the financial and behavioral reasons I have already given. The reasons you refuse to counter.

What you have is not proof. It’s speculation. Just like me. Essentially you are saying the Cubs will win the World Series again next year because they did last year. I am saying maybe they will, but here are some reasons why they may not. It’s not proof. You can’t PROVE who will win the next World Series any more than you can PROVE what a free willed thinking human being will do 6 months from now.

You keep saying CBS is doing what everyone else has been doing but they haven’t. You say they haven’t announced they would do what I say they could but that means nothing. Why would they announce it? They haven’t announced ANYTHING apart from it being week to week. Why would they do it from day one? Seems to me if they were going to do it they would do it with the most valuable property they have. The new Trek show. It just makes financial sense to do so. CBS has already shown they are doing things differently from most of the other streamers. Why is it unreasonable to think they may treat their top property different? Answer: It isn’t.

They WILL do it to counter the Binge watch it in one month people which would be most of the Star Trek fans which they want to make join the service 12 months a year.
They Want our Money & don’t care about being fare. This WILL happen. Get ready for it.

They are not stupid & They want Money. this will soon be the norm to Trap people.

Actually I just thought about this a little more. Lets say you heard about this amazing new Star Trek show called Discovery on All Access. So you go to the website to watch the show only to find out that month they only have episodes 5-9 available. And next month will be episodes 10-13 meaning you would have to wait TWO MONTHS just to even watch from the beginning. And as we know the show will be heavily serialized meaning you have no choice but to start at the beginning even if you didn’t mind starting later.

So CBS just lost a potential subscriber, they didn’t add a new one. Who in their right mind would delegate episodes that way when the point is you want to get new subscribers and watching ASAP? People would now have to potentially wait months just to watch the first episode and that would just force them to find it in other venues.

No that wouldn’t work at all. CBS would just upset the subscribers they already have and push away any potential ones if they can’t even watch the first episodes when they do want to sign up. So again, not likely at all. It would be a bad business decision.

“So CBS just lost a potential subscriber, they didn’t add a new one. ”

Maybe they took that into consideration. Figured that the vast majority will tune in from at least episode 2 onward (as episode one AFAIK is still slated for CBS TV) dnd they decided it was better to have 5 people buy the service from the beginning over three months rather than 6 people buy the service for just one month (for example). Seems to me the math favors keeping episodes available for only a short time. Further, they already are limiting subscribers just by limiting how potential subscribers can get it to begin with. There are plenty who would love to see it but CBS is making them jump though too many hoops for the privilege of giving them their money. So that theory just doesn’t fly. They very well may keep all shows available for a year after they “air.” Then again, they may not. And it seems they would make more money if they don’t. But there also could be a number of other factors neither of us are privy to that must be considered. Any of them may or may not support our respective theories. Or even something neither of us have considered. There is just way too much that has not been said about any of this to know for sure what is going happen…


No offense but this is just silly. There is NO evidence of this. Its just you and your strange bias against having Discovery on the streaming site. I mean this makes like no sense lol. I’m sorry it doesn’t. For starters, if the ‘math’ worked in their favor then how come not one single streaming site is doing it? There are a half a dozen paid sites now. No one is doing that INCLUDING CBS since I explained to you every episode of their new shows are up now. Seriously.

Again the problem is they want people to sign up ALL YEAR! Its not like they are only asking people to sign up when the show starts so they will have to have the episodes at least from the beginning anytime someone signs up. Thats just common sense.

The fact is ONCE the show is over, then sure people will just sign up for the month and drop it, but thats the nature of these sites. CBS knows that. But you’re not going to get people to sign up if they can’t binge watch the show after the fact or at least able to see the season from the beginning. That would be idiotic for a start up trying to compete with already established sites that lets you binge watch all their shows.

And also, they have the deal with Netflix. Do you think Netflix would do the same thing as All Access is doing and just air a few shows of Discovery a month? Of course not and it would be a PR nightmare if Americans heard all the other countries can binge watch the show at ease but the one country its from they are stalling the episodes. People are willing to pay for AA now IF they act like every streaming site out there. The second they start trying to limit views of their more popular shows their subscriber base will bolt and they know that.

It wouldn’t work, there is too much competition TO work and CBS would lose subscribers that way. This is the least of people’s worries.

Tiger, I’m just doing the math. It’s really very basic and I’m not sure why you want to poo poo the numbers like you are doing. Maybe you are the one who is bias in favor of binge streaming? You do it all the time therefore EVERYONE does it.
The math works. Netflix has a model but that model is vastly different from CBS. They CAN release all at once for a multitude of reasons that CBS does not have. Again, your argument is “everyone else does it”. Not compelling. We need more than the lemming mentality here.

They want people to sign up for as long as possible. By forcing them to buy over a few months it leads to that. Maybe they will be on for a few months and then something else new pops up to keep them going? Sounds like a sound business model to me. Why give them the opportunity to bail out after one? Doesn’t seem like the best way to keep subscribers and maximize your profits. Especially entering into a market that seems to be getting saturated already. You need to be able to hold on to what you get.

Post “airing” is when I’m guessing CBS may allow the binge viewing like you said. It sorta makes sense to do it then. The show is no longer “new”. It’s like the old 2nd run theaters. You can see things cheaper once they have been out. That is how the market plays.

Netflix will air Trek exactly how CBS wants them to per their deal. Again, your data on the show seems to be flawed. You said it would be a PR nightmare if people could watch with ease everywhere else except from the US. Well, that is something we already know to be the case. CBS is making Americans jump through extra hoops to see this while international viewers get to see the show with extreme ease. Where is this PR nightmare you say exists? All I see is a few people complaining on a Trek web site.

So the math still adds up that it makes sense that CBS just might force people to be with them for a few months to watch the show. And I’m saying that given how CBS is making the show so very difficult to stream in the US I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they limit the views on line. (other services aren’t as difficult, btw…)

I’ll say it again, if the ‘math’ was that good others would’ve done it years ago. NO ONE is doing it man, INCLUDING CBS. The Good Fight is all put up there weekly. Do you ANY idea how big of ratings The Good Wife gets?? Obviously not but man think it through, if you believe this, then why are they not doing it for that show? Why are they waiting for Discovery and Discovery alone to do it?

Its just silly and baseless. They will posts all the episodes as they are doing RIGHT NOW. There is no suggesting from anyone anywhere they are going to change a very standard model, especially when the point is to bring in viewers all year. I mean I know you don’t like AA but c’mon.

Again, you are either ignoring what I said or not understanding. If you understood or actually read what I wrote, you would not make the argument you just did. If you truly had something supporting your viewpoint you would have something to counter the ideas I put out there. Instead you run back to “everyone does it” flawed line of thought. Getting tired of repeating myself here. Go back and read it again. I really can’t make it any simpler than I already have.

PS… I have no love or hatred of CBSAA. It’s just there. Emotion is not in play here. At least on my end of the discussion. I’m using common sense and reason with, admittedly, a small does of cynicism because we are dealing with a large scale profit driven company here. Look! I even admit to a little bit of bias! You haven’t done that. Using your own logic, you could conclude from that you NEVER will.

LOL your ‘argument’ is ridiculous and completely baseless.

You think they will change a model based on your personal theory not on actual precedence or mention by the company.

“If you truly had something supporting your viewpoint you would have something to counter the ideas I put out there.”

WTF??? ML31 do you UNDERSTAND how an argument works? If you make a claim then the burden is on YOU to prove it lol. This RIGHT HERE is the entire problem. YOU have nothing to support your viewpoint man. Dude I have the fact, once again. A. No company has done this B. CBS has never said they would do this and C. Their C-U-R-R-E-N-T shows are being run like the others so WTF man??? Thats all need. CBSAA would be doing it RIGHT NOW with their shows. Right? Right???

You’re the one that has to prove otherwise.

Its like saying you know I’m going to kill someone and I’m telling you I won’t. My argument is I never killed anyone in my life (for arguments sakes ;)) and you have no proof I ever plan to kill someone, but you simply think I will. Do you think you can get me arrested based on that? So use logic man, who has the burden of proof here, you or I? Duh. Thats how LOGIC works and why your logic is severely failing here. You’re saying someone is going do something with no proof or precedence to prove it. So again I don’t have the burden, YOU do. I have supported my viewpoint: CBSAA. You have to prove they will like you have to prove I’m going to kill someone.

And whats funny is you have dismiss the fact the shows they are running RIGHT NOW are done like all the others. But your argument is they are ‘garbage’ so therefore won’t be treated like Discovery. This is why this is useless. This isn’t a REAL argument lol. It just goes against your silly argument and so you dismiss it out of hand.

Again why its a waste time to argue. ML31 you have NO argument, thats what you’re missing here. You have a ‘claim’ only. An argument is one that needs to be supported by actual evidence or precedence. You have neither. Riiiiigggght?

And you clearly have issues with CBSAA because as shown in this silly exchange everything is always argued for the worst.

“your ‘argument’ is ridiculous and completely baseless.”

Sorry but you need more than just you saying so for your point to be valid.

“You think they will change a model based on your personal theory not on actual precedence or mention by the company. ”

Of course not. Nor am I expecting them or anyone else to. Nor will the model stay exactly the same just because it is how you like to see things done either.

“ML31 do you UNDERSTAND how an argument works? If you make a claim then the burden is on YOU to prove it lol. This RIGHT HERE is the entire problem. ”

You are correct. I think that is the problem right there. Your misunderstanding. I am not trying to PROVE anything. I am merely presented a possibility and the reasons behind it. If you feel that possibility is unfounded you need to rip apart the reasons with something feasible. That is, more than “because it has always been done that way” (which we know it hasn’t been anyway) and certainly more than “because I say it won’t happen.”

“YOU have nothing to support your viewpoint man.”

Rather than make a long post longer, I prefer you to read my posts again. The reasons I have are there. You disagree, fine. Discuss the reasons. But ignoring them, especially in the manner you have, doesn’t help your case.

“Dude I have the fact, once again.”

Because you say it is does not count as fact. Because something has been handled that way before does not mean it for sure will continue that way forever. You do not have fact. You have speculation.

“A. No company has done this”

Which is not true. A poster here has pointed that out already.

“B. CBS has never said they would do this”

They have not said ANYTHING about how the show will be available apart from episodes being released weekly. Therefore, you are speculating yet again.

“and C. Their C-U-R-R-E-N-T shows are being run like the others”

Which doesn’t preclude the possibility that their signature property could be run differently.

“You’re the one that has to prove otherwise.”

Again, no I don’t. You don’t either, btw. We are arguing speculations. No one can prove what is yet to be until it is.

“You’re saying someone is going do something with no proof or precedence to prove it.”

Again this shows your misunderstanding. No, I’m not saying someone is going to do something. I’m saying someone MIGHT do something. And I presented evidence to support why they might. You are the one saying someone is going to do something. With faulty evidence at that.

How about this… Can we at least agree that both of our sides are speculative? That neither of us can prove something that hasn’t been made known yet?

Yes I’m using the actual current CBSAA model as my argument. Silly me lol. What are you using again? Oh thats right, a silly claim that you can’t find one example of someone using. I mean seriously man. Anyway its been said. They didn’t do it when the site was made, they aren’t doing it now, there is zero reason to believe they will do it for ONE show lol.

Hmmm… So because something hasn’t been done yet, according to you, that means it cannot or never will happen.

And of course that logic is flawless, right?

And a PS… You can’t even bring yourself to agree that we are both speculating here? (sigh)

And Jesus they are not making the show ‘difficult’ to stream. It took me five minutes to sign up and then I could stream hundreds of shows. There is nothing different than every streaming site today. You act like you have to go through some process to watch. You don’t, its done like all of them are. Stop making mountains out of molehills.

Sorry dude. They are indeed making it extremely difficult to stream. I could just turn on not just my TV but my blu ray player as well and start streaming netflix. Can’t do that with CBS. They have no app. They never even made it clear HOW to do it. I had to go and search and search and search just to find out they aren’t available on smart TV’s. They are requiring subscribers do more than just “sign up”. Something they do not say until you actively seek it out. That is making potential customers jump through hoops. That is limiting potential customers. And it part of the reason why it seems right in line that they would limit how you would view Trek as well.

Most people just stream stuff on their computers like I do. I don’t think its jumping through hoops, you’re just used to watching it one kind of way. It would be different if you can’t watch it anywhere. I’ve had Netflix on and off for five years. I never ran it on TV until a year ago. And even now 80% of the time I just watch it on my computer. Majority of people who use streaming sites watch it outside of TV. For most this isn’t ‘difficult’ its just normal.

But my guess is that will all come man. YOu’re clearly not getting it now so just relax and wait lol. If it was on smart TV, would you order it today? My guess no. The show is still months away and they are making additions every few weeks.

I would not say “most people” stream to teeny phones or other such devices. May do, but not most. My son and nieces don’t seem to mind watching things on their tablets. Good for them. But most adults, even younger ones judging by my colleagues at work at least, still watch the majority of their TV on their TV. I have been known to stream to my laptop and tablet myself from time to time. But there are some things that just deserve the proper big screen, super sound treatment. Trek is one of those. I am disappointed that if I stream DSC I will get sub par sound and merely adequate picture and delayed action controls and… Well… Let’s just say streaming is still inferior to the other methods.

At any rate, you are correct in that is is entirely possible they may add the app to make their service more available to customers to watch on their nice big TV’s. They added the commercial free option. So the hope is they will add a way to watch on TV without having to jump though extra hoops. I have found two other friends who are willing to go in on one account with me just for DSC. If they get their show to be able to stream to TV’s we are going to go in together. That is, if they do what Netflix does and allow more than one person to use more than one device. No evidence of that yet, either.

Dude just wait. Even if it doesn’t come the first year, it will come eventually. I’ll be watching either way.

Congratulations to you. I hope you are right. Part of me is thinking they aren’t going to make it available to smart TV’s like the three bigger streamers do already. There is a chance they might… But you never know. I can think of financial pluses and minuses for CBS on both options.

You can do the ‘math’ all day man. Can you tell me why NO ONE else is following the same math anywhere? Including CBSAA right now? Thats what you’re missing. Everyone on the internet are all business and marketing pros, if you listen to everyone on a message board.

CBS is following the SAME model as Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Amazon and all the others RIGHT NOW man. Jesus. What are you not getting? You don’t even get why your ‘argument’ fails, if the ‘math’ was so good then why are they not doing it RIGHT now? Ok I’m done lol.

Tiger, CBS has been treating Trek differently than their other properties. They are also treating how they present the show differently from other streaming services. Therefore it is possible they will treat other aspects differently as well. It really is very simple math that does indeed add up. No matter how many times you SAY it doesn’t. You need to offer something more substantial than that for this to NOT be considered a reasonable possibility.

“CBS is following the SAME model as Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Amazon and all the others RIGHT NOW man. ”

Except they’re not. Netflix puts stuff out all at once. Trek is being presented weekly.

@Tiger2: I have no idea how CBS All Access is going to handle Discovery. But I would guess that you could use what they do with their other shows as a guide.
As for your argument that it would make no sense if CBS AA made episodes avaialble only for a limited time: Over here, a lot of HBO shows run on Sky, but they only make episodes available for a limited time. For example, new episodes of “The Leftovers” are released 1 each week, but you can only watch them for 2 months before they are gone again.

Yes because that’s probably due to a contractual agreement with that license. That’s apples and oranges to what All Access is because its directly CBS property and that’s literally where the show is being funded from. In Sky’s case its a third party license, Sky doesn’t own those shows.

And you just made my point for me because on HBO go, their actual streaming sites, every show they have ever created going back to the 80s is on their sites all the time 24/7. I was going to start watching Game of Thrones for the first time last year. I didn’t even know every episode was on their site because I never used it until then (although technically I’m paying for it). I was happy when I realized every season was up and I got to watch all 6 seasons.

This is the point people are missing. You PAY for these direct sites so you can have access to watch anything they own at anytime. Thats the difference between Sky and HBO. HBO makes it to where if you want to watch their shows all the time you subscribe to their channel directly.

This is the business and competition CBS is now entering. If they tried to limit their own shows while everyone else is isn’t when they are just starting out, trust me it wouldn’t last long.

“That’s apples and oranges to what All Access is ”

Except you said that EVERYONE else does it. This person is saying this one doesn’t and you are now rationalizing. Making an excuse for your hyperbole.

“You PAY for these direct sites so you can have access to watch anything they own at anytime.” Addendum… For as long as they let you. They can cut it off anytime they wish. And often do.

No man, I’m saying everyone does it INCLUDING All Access. They are acting like all of them are. What your argument is saying is that will suddenly will change once Discovery comes. Again based on WHAT man? Can you tell me outside of you think it will happen lol. Yeah I think the sun might not come up tomorrow, other than me thinking that what other proof can I give you because I just believe it? Well thats YOUR argument. Do you NOT get why your argument is not really an argument?

??? And DIGINON just told you his streaming service didn’t. That is NOT everyone including all access. Not sure how you could miss that one.

And for the record, we are not talking about universal constants like gravity and the orbits and rotation of planets. We are talking about business practices. Which are just a teeny bit less and predictable than how solar systems operate.

ML31 this is becoming silly. Sky DOESN’T own HBO man. It’s a cable company based in the UK. Thats the difference. Sky isn’t Netflix either. Its channel that runs third party shows and movies and based on that contract they are given limits to how much and how long they can run this stuff. I lived in multiple countries, they all do this, including America itself. Even networks that run their shows don’t always stay on their network because they are usually contracted to Netflix, Amazon, Hulu etc to run them. Thats why you won’t find every season of LOST on for example because its on Netflix now. There was a time you use to. Not anymore. Believe it or not use to be able to go to and watch every episode of Star Trek from TOS to Enterprise for free. Thats how I watched Enterprise. I streamed all four seasons for free. It was just commercial run. This was until a few years before AA showed up.

Now if Sky owned these shows like AA owns Discovery then that would be a different story. I can’t believe I have to even explain it.

Dude do you know ANYTHING about how this stuff is done? Obviously not,


You are right that Sky doesn’t own those shows but it seems to be a gross oversimplification to characterize it as totally different from Netflix in regards to developing its own content.

They own a majority stake in Love Productions which led them to say in their own press releaseh:

“Sky has acquired a 70 per cent stake in Love Productions, one of the UK’s leading independent production companies. The investment forms part of Sky’s strategy to grow a broad, international content business spanning broadcasting, production and distribution.

It has development deals with a number of production companies including Ugly Brother Studios in the US; and in the UK with back2back productions and Roughcut TV. The investment in Love Productions is part of this strategy to grow a broad, international content business.”

The point being made is that Sky is cable channel first with a supportive streaming site second which is basically what every major cable channel has. Netflix is solely a dedicated streaming channel with DVD distribution. You can’t compare the two in that regard. Their business strategy is completely different from Netflix, thats all I meant.

” It’s a cable company based in the UK.”

So because it is in the UK that means your comment of “everyone” doesn’t count now?

And dude, think before your made comments about what I may or may not know about the business. You have no idea what insights I may or may not have or what family members or friends I have who work in the media. No need to get hostile over any of this.

ML31, we are talking streaming site that OWNS their content. Dude are you NOT paying attention?? The entire point of CBSAA is to run their OWN content. Thats the point. Thats WHY CBS is not on Hulu now. Thats WHY CBS didn’t want to sell Star Trek to Netflix or Amazon.

In fact Sky is the OPPOSITE of the argument because they are relying on third party licenses like most sites do to fill their programming. As Disinvited said they are now trying to build more original content for their channel but so is everyone today because now they are realizing showing other peoples stuff can only make you so much money. You invest in your own content you own it for life. Thats what this is ALL about. Thats why its weird you didn’t get this point. If you claim to know about the business, no offense, but then this should’ve been obvious to you.

CBS has hundreds of IPs they OWN, many iconic like Star Trek. They see the writing on the wall, they don’t want to just be a website of third party IPs to distribute. They are not trying to be Netflix or Amazon. What they want is content that is 100% theirs that they own and control. Places like Netflix and cable channels in general is good to find different shows but as said those contracts only lasts so long including how they can air them and why Netflix is now making 20 shows a year.

Thats why CBS is going this direction. No it may not be as successful as Netflix because yeah its all CBS shows but the difference is they don’t spend hundreds of millions of dollars like Netflix does every year just to run those shows and movies because its all CBS property. Thats what people are missing. Sure they may not have as big of a revenue stream but their costs to run it are soooooo much lower because its just their stuff so they can get half of what Netflix does and probably make more money at the end of the day. Its the difference between renting out space to sell stuff where you have to go through distributors, suppliers and contractors to buy and sell your wares to make a small profit of what it cost to buy vs another business who just rents space and sells everything thats been paid for long ago sitting in their warehouse. They just have to move it all to a more central spot to sell it basically.

And also why I don’t think AA will have many problems. CBS isn’t trying to get to Netflix and Amazon numbers. It doesn’t need to to be a success.

Netflix doesn’t own the Trek show either. CBS is allowing them to stream outside the US and has the right to tell them exactly how they will do it. Or they can leave it up to them. It is all in the deal they strike that we, on the outside, are not privy to. The same would be true of other carriers of other companies properties.

There’s the Catch LOL
Just Wait for the DVD/Bluray Release

except you have to wait over 3 months to binge the series. You may as well wait for the DVD/Bluray release.

A huge fan of Shameless on Showtime so that’s appealing to me

When they make it available to smart TV’s…. Then I will be less annoyed with them. Streaming only will still suck, though.

It’s still an unwanted prequel, it’s still aimed at TOS fanboys, and it’s still behind a paywall in it’s host country!

Enter Prize
If I were you, I’d stick to the paywall complaint. The other two don’t make sense. There’s nothing particularly “fanboy” about DSC, and there’s no particular reason why the setting should ruin the show.

Come on dude, No one under 40 has any real enthusiasm for STD.


comment image

Keep building good karma for yourself.

Right. With as many setbacks and falls of bad luck this show has had, not the most of which having their showrunner quit/get fired (no one knows the real story), then having its own premiere date first pushed back, then cancelled, then labeled “sometime,” then given a “season” but no date… I’m surprised STD isn’t cancelled by now.

Enthusiasm isn’t strictly necessary. All we need is them being curious enough to watch the first few episodes. If producers did their work, enthusiasm will kick in. I don’t really remember anybody being enthusiast about Moorestar Galactica before the show started – and yet it was a smashing success nobody ever expected. There’s no reason why shouldn’t the new Star Trek succeed as well.

Yea, it’s very likely gonna suck. It is very likely gonna be a progressivist gobbledygook stuffed to nacelles with hamfisted sociopolitical commentary, contrived enough to make Omega Glory seem like a masterpiece. But you know what: we can’t be sure about that until the show actually runs. So let’s just shut up and wait for the fall. ;)

” It is very likely gonna be a progressivist gobbledygook stuffed to nacelles with hamfisted sociopolitical commentary, contrived enough to make Omega Glory seem like a masterpiece.”

So you’re saying it will be Star Trek…?

How does “being curious enough to watch the first few episodes” come out of the universal translator as “Subscribing to CBS AA”?
Obviously CBS are doing their best to throw that hook in to the pond with the pilot being broadcast, but then isn’t that exactly what Paramount have failed at doing with their “jack of all trades, master of none” JJ movies?

How do you explain their success with The Good Fight thus far? Oh yeah, you dont know what that is. Solid knowledge of the subject, kid.

Lol YES! Thank you Paul!

I am under 40, hate TOS, and am SUPER excited for Discovery.

Hate? Oh c’mon, I’m 33 and think TOS is quaint and nostalgic, it’s fun and the trifecta of Kirk, Spock and McCoy are second to none!


“Hate? Oh c’mon, I’m 33 and think TOS is quaint and nostalgic, it’s fun and the trifecta of Kirk, Spock and McCoy are second to none!”

Yes, I hate TOS. I have never been able to stomach a single episode to the end. Don’t get me wrong, I love the TOS movies (TUC is still the best Trek movie made, if you ask me) and I think Spock is one of the greatest sci-fi characters in ANY franchise.

But that show is awful in my opinion, thoughI can respect that others enjoy it and even understand why. I can also acknowledge its influence and importance, and I can… appreciate it for what it is…but that doesn’t mean I don’t hate it!

Get lost, troll.

Enter Prize,

Re: No one under 40 has any real enthusiasm for STD

Please cite the mathematically rigorous peer reviewed poll that makes this baseless grab from thin air credible.

Dude, get away from Trek websites for a start.
Discovery is not well liked. CBS is not well liked. JJ craptrek is not well liked. I’m not going to hand-hold you through a reality check in the holodeck.

I’m 26. I’m the only person in my social circle of relatively same-aged friends who regularly or even casually browses Trek websites. Most of us are at least cautiously optimistic for Discovery. Those who aren’t, well, they still hope against all odds it’ll be good. Is there rampant hype for this show? No, certainly not. Is there quite a bit of well-wishing that it won’t suck? Absolutely. Now we wait and see.

I’m not going to hold your hand, but we can leave your holodeck and enter reality whenever you wish.

@ Quinton O’Connor exactly! And that’s is something that Enter Prize does not realize.

I think you’re in the holodeck. Out of the hundreds of people I interact with, only a handful are negative towards Discovery ok, handfull, you are a small demographic. And JJ Trek is fairly well liked. Again, only a handful of tighta$$es do not like it. Your the one who needs to be hand held and told that “everything is going to be ok” go smoke something or drink something and relax, don’t give yourself an aneurism.

Enter Prize
Well, if DSC turns out to be along the lines of the Bad Robot movies, then I’ll say that you had a point. I’m assuming that it’s going to be absolutely nothing like the BR movies, or else I wouldn’t have any interest. The BR movies are abominable—-I’ll grant you that.

@Enter Prize, yeah you’re right on that one actually. Only this site and remotely a few people at TrekCore harbor any real enthusiasm for STD. IGN, Collider, Machinema and most major outlets have taken a dump on it, and rightfully so. It’s a disaster.

The discussion I’ve had with my non-Trekker 19-year-old niece:

Me: There’s a new Star Trek series coming.
Her: Meh.
Me: …There’s Sasha from the Waking Dead in it?
Her: There’s Sasha from the Walking Dead? Cool! I love that series!
Me: So…?
Her: Yeah, for sure I’ll have a look (at Discovery)!

For her, all of Trek is old stuff. Prequel or sequel makes no difference whatsoever.

FLB’s niece gets it! Trek is SO old. JJ’s Trek whet the appetite for the younger generations, but without a dedicated series, they have a mere three movies to relate to. Outside of our tiny bubble/echo chamber of hardcore Trek fans, NO ONE CARES what era it’s set in. DSC looks high quality. That’s what matters, the quality. Getting real tired of saying this.

Right. Most of the viewers for DSC are people who have no idea it’s even being made yet, and will learn about it when the marketing kicks in to tell them so, whether it’s a CBS ad in America or having the show pop up as a recommendation on Netflix in most of the world.

If you were innocently watching your Netflix and suddenly a known brand name like Star Trek popped up on your screen out of the blue, wouldn’t you at least check it out? How many known brand names does Netflix even have, vs a bunch of stuff nobody’s heard about and needs to build up an audience from scratch? Star Trek will have it easy.

I’m 33 and I’m ecstatic!

Where are your facts? When Discovery airs and if it’s fantastic, word of mouth will spread like wildfire and people under 40 will be watching it. Especially if it’s the game of thrones of the Star Trek world. Because of the Kelvin movies, I know many non trek fans who now love it and have gone back to watch other series. Same thing will happen with Discovery, it will be bigger than the Kelvin movies in popularity.

Yet it’s you who sounds like an old man.

Clearly Enterprise is a kid. I’d guess in the 12-14 range. Mum & Dad wont pay for Discovery so he’s mad.

Enter Prize is just pissy and there is no reasoning with adult children throwing tantrums who have already made up their mind based on alt facts. Until it’s out and on air, fracking NO ONE can make one damn judgment because you have no facts or data upon which to draw a conclusion. Haters and negative Nancy’s should just keep their mouths shut and hands off the keyboard, sit silently, shut up and wait. And if they complain about CBS AA, maybe they should be anyalizig where else they are spending their disposable income. Cable is ancient, streaming is rising. It’s like people still arguing for VHS or DVD’s over blu-ray.

PREACHHH! Ditto everything Chadwick said

Unwanted? Definitely by some. But I for one am excited about the timeline. And I know there are others who share my sentiments. They can’t please everyone nor should they try to.

8 million of you, are there?!

Most likely, yes, there 8 million fans who either looking forward to the show, or will watch it, and base their opinion on what the quality of the program.

8,000,000 subscriptions to CBS AA after the pilot broadcast??

You people really have gone where no one else has gone before!

Please read again: CBS expects both of its services to get to a total sum of 8 million subscribers until 2020. They don’t expect the Discovery pilot to bring in that number to CBS All Access.

Moonves said 8 million by 2020. Learn to read “dude”

Dude, f*ck off with your negativity, it’s so offputting and ugly.

Looking at the stats currently, and the growth rates of other similar platforms (not Netflix), Moonves’ expectations are not unreasonable.

And we can’t compare anything to Netflix, which had the benefit of ZERO competition for quite a long time, as well as an early disc rental business with a large existing subscriber base that were automatically given access to streaming.

But in reality, it wasn’t until the advent of their original programming 5-6 years ago that their subscriber rates really took off.

Who said there needs to be that many? Who said they expect that many? Not CBS. Is that another number you pulled out of your ass?

How many of you are there, Enter Prize? You seem to say with conviction how no one wants this, so how many, exactly, feel that way? And can you provide sources, statistics and methodology to back up your figures please. Oh wait, you cant? Thats right because what comes out of your ass doesnt have all that.

Thank you.

Got you fanboys hanging.

omg Enter Prize can it for just one post would ya? I have news for you — IT’S NOT A PREQUEL! It’s set before TOS. That doesn’t mean it’s a prequel. Better Call Saul is a prequel; it’s about Saul from Breaking Bad. DSC isn’t a prequel. It isn’t about Spock. It isn’t even really about his father, although he’ll be there. It’s a TOTALLY NEW AND DIFFERENT TREK. It just happens to be set before TOS. That doesn’t make it a prequel. And yes, I agree 100% with Moonves — this will be Trek for young people. It looks new and better and COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from TOS. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

You’re out of your TOS Vulcan mind.

” I have news for you — IT’S NOT A PREQUEL! ”

” It just happens to be set before TOS…”

You just defined it as a prequel in the same paragraph. Sorry to tell you. With this series A: taking place in the Prime Timeline and B: set 10 years before TOS… yes it’s a prequel, just as you said.

Alright fine I’ll relent, it’s a “prequel” in the broadest sense of the word. To me prequel more specifically refers to events that lead up to and tie directly into a story already been told. But that’s an outrageous proposition to apply to DSC in a world as expansive as Star Trek. Consider World War I: 1914-1918. Would the Titanic disaster in 1912 be considered a “prequel” or prelude to WWI? NO! It’s a separate event in the same universe, our universe. Just because it takes place BEFORE something doesn’t mean it’s directly related. Even in the fictional history of Trek, stories can take place before and after one another without having any direct relation to each other. It’s not a prequel by that definition. We aren’t learning about the adventures of Kirk and Co. pre-TOS like the reboots. We’re gonna see an entirely DIFFERENT story that happens to take place pre-TOS. That doesn’t (necessarily) mean they’re related, and therefore to me doesn’t make it a prequel or carry any of the associated baggage that comes with it.

So its before Enterprise? Wait no its not. Not a Prequel.

I agree with unwanted prequel, I wanted 100 years after Nemesis, but am I gonna get PMS about it? No. Rather have it than no trek. In the global community America does not matter so much anymore. American viewers will not make or break Discovery. With Netflix global distribution in 198 countries America becomes a speck in the grand scheme of things. If Discovery has huge viewership around the world excluding America, it will continue and do quite well. All you people saying Discovery will tank because of CBS AA in the U.S. are simply blinded by anger saying fracking crazy things with ZERO data to back up your arguments. Haters are children throwing a tantrum. Go suck on a soother.

Personally, I could not care any less what time period it’s set in, as long as it’s sufficiently in our future as to be identifiably “Star Trek.”

TOS era, ENT era, TNG era, Post-VOY, whatever.

Just tell good stories– and keep Shatner out of it!!! :)

And on Netflix in most of the world. That alone will pay for production indefinitely.

Keep in mind this moron wants it on Netflix but rails against the “paywall” of All Access. I guess is mom wont spring for it. If it was on cable, it would be “free” cause Mummy is footing the bill.

That’s great news. By now I would expect they are close to finishing filming ep3.
And to be honest as much as I love spoilers and sneak peeks like the reboot movies have done, I am also very glad (and impressed) at how tightly this is under wraps to allow to a new Star Trek to be truly surprising.

Well, they will advertize the hell out of this before its release. They just haven’t started yet.

I think he means leaks and such. There’s always set photos leaking out (we’ve seen a few cryptic ones)– story elements leaking, news leaking– and the truth is all we know at this point about the story is that it’s set 10 years before TOS, involves two starfleet ships, and Klingons.

For a comic/sci-fi production currently filming, that’s pretty rare.

The lack of leaks concerns me a bit in that big buzz shows usually have people crawling all over looking for leaks. The only leaks we’ve had is when silly cast/crew tweet out things they shouldnt.

Where are the spies??

Gay Trek.

What does that even mean?

Maybe so ! Is that so bad ?!


Wow, a gay character is a bad thing? Please go back to 1950.

It’s not “gay” Trek. It’s SJW Trek.

I like when homophobes and bigots use buzz words to try to excuse their warped perspectives. When it comes to being triggered, call them on their BS and stand back! lol

Are you triggered little snowflake? No I will stay right here, you on the other hand can go back to your safe space. TokyoGaijin said it perfectly. It’s not GAY trek, it’s SJW trek.

What the hell does that even mean?

A character in DSC is gay. And the sky is falling thereby.

Moonves is right, this is gonna bring in a whole new generation of Trek fans into the fold. From what I’ve seen so far, it looks edgier and better than that old 90s Trek and lightyears ahead of TOS. I don’t understand the people who say this is a “prequel” and for “TOS fanboys”. This looks nothing like TOS, or even remotely related to TOS. It is ITS OWN THING.

If it brings in new fans it will most likely mean pissing off the TOS fanboys and their silly old school sensibilities in the same way the JJ movies did, which I’m fine with. The sooner we wipe the memory of the Shatner-verse from Trekdom the better.

Go watch some Star Wars cartoons.

I agree but then as I been saying IF they are going to do this then it would’ve been better to just put it farther in the future. And it doesn’t even have to the 25th century but what’s wrong with post TUC? They could’ve put it 30 years after that. Thats still 50 years before TNG so they could’ve done different things. Yeah it would still look out of whack from the period but not so much like putting it before TOS where everthing looks like cheap and outdated.

That is an era I for one wouldn’t mind seeing explored. The one some time after TUC. Of course, that is where I think TNG should have been. Never really liked them being so far ahead of TOS in the timeline. I know why Gene wanted to do that but never thought it was in the best interest for Trek.

We all have our picks for when Discovery should have been set. Personally I wanted either Enterprise B launch era or Captain April. I thought they were “dead” periods as far as what was in canon that provided some drama to be explored.

In the latter, a shiny new Enterprise for the very first time. In the former, the aftermath of the disastrous pleasure cruise that killed Kirk. In fact, I liked that era so much, when I was a kid I wrote a fan fiction novel to amuse my friends that was about the E-B after Kirk’s death. A young Captain dealing with being the guy who lost the legend. In my story, Star Fleet brought Chekov out of retirement to serve as First Officer to “counsel” the young Captain creating conflict there. A Sulu at the Helm etc.

But whatever era they choose (in this case, TOS -10, I just want it to be good and in keeping with canon to a reasonable degree.

Yes because the JJ verse sure did a great job of creating new Trek. When’s the next film coming out? lol

I actually agree and my guess if anything its going to upset the more anal TOS fans who is looking for a true prequel to TOS. It sounds like a reboot to me. The timeline will be the same but the look and feel of it sounds like its going to be altogether different, more advanced, etc. I HOPE so. I don’t really want a prequel because I dont want this thing to look outdated and to just appeal to 50+ old fans who want to recreate the 60s again.

But NOW since Moonves said the show is looking to capture younger people, ie, 20s and 30s then my guess is they are going the KT route and just have a completely different look and style but while maintaining the canon of the franchise. I don’t think this is going to look like anything like TOS either or it will be like the KT films where keep some things close like the uniforms and props similar but the ship interiors and overall aesthetics updated and sleeker.

Thank you! You’re the clearest-headed person posting on this site. I know people bristle at the word “reboot” but to me this Discovery business looks to be just that, and that is 100% fine with me. I don’t care what label it deserves, as long as it’s GOOD. If making good Trek again means giving it a 21st century face-lift, then so be it.

LOL thanks, I’m sure many others here sorely disagrees with you though and would happily beam me into the sun if it were possible.

But yes like you I just love Star Trek and I want to see it grow. The only way Trek is going to continue to live for the next 20-30 years is for newer generations to see it as relevant to THEM and have it be something they can grow up with like a lot of us did when it first came around. Thats why TNG was so great, it was forging its own place in the franchise and capturing kids who thought TOS was too old and outdated for them. Thats WHY I think going forward is more important than looking back to the same time period, uniform and sets to please old fanboys who can’t let go of the past and arguing about arrowhead badges and touch screens (christ). I don’t want Star Trek to die with them, I want Trek to still look forward for my grandkids the day I have them and its telling new stories with characters relevant to them.

And so yes I agree IF they are going to go back to the same time period of TOS, fine, then you have to have it as updated and advanced as possible to capture younger people’s imaginations. I’m 100% fine with that. I would be happier if it was in a newer time period to keep the moaning about it down but if they want to go this direction, let them. The point being that this show shouldn’t be seen through a 1960 filter of the future but today’s filter of the future. Thats what keeps Star Trek relevant and fresh, not hokey and nostalgic so decades olds fans can relive their childhood over and over again. If you want to do that, watch TOS reruns. That would be the pig headed way to go and I think Moonves gets that.

Yea screw those awful 50 year old fans you call fanboys right? The hell with the people that made trek what it is. Who cares what the loyal customer base that kept the franchise alive for 50 years want and have to say right? Gotcha.

I been watching Star Trek for over 30 years now. I’m just an old fan as everyone else here. And of course no one is saying that. What’s being said is you shouldn’t let your old fandom dictate the direction of the series to reach a new audience. It should have the room to go a different way and still be Star Trek. That happens in practically every franchise today. Do the new James Bond films today look anything like the films from 50 years ago? Of course not, they are created for today’s audience in mind but still inherently James Bond. The difference being no one is pushing Bond to return to the 60s aesthetics and tone of those movies. It has a very 21st century shine as the Moore films had an 80s one and the Brosnan films a 90s outlook. But the point is the character continually adapts although its the same character. Daniel Craig’s Bond is for newer fans can get into but old Bond fans can still appreciate because he’s still Bond but its an updated Bond for the 21st century. And whenever Craig is done the new guy will have a more different outlook. THATS how you keep a franchise relevant.

Thats the point I’m making for Star Trek. Get it now? And just like those old Bond fans who liked Bond when he was more playful and about crazy gadgets, cold war eras and villains trying to destroy the world they still have those films to watch over and over again just like we have TOS, TNG, Voyager, etc to watch over again. But its time to reinvent it while still retain what Star Trek is about. Arguing over if something looks too ‘advanced’ or not for a show that supposedly takes place 300 years from now is seriously missing the point. Fandom gets too lost in archaic canon about how a ship should look and not about what ultimately makes Star Trek Star Trek: the stories and its relevance to today.

But again THIS is why I personally wanted the time frame move forward because it would simply remove all these silly arguments of what you can and can not do. Someone keeps attacking me for saying why should the show be in a farther timeline and if what I’m hearing about this show is true and that it IS basically a reboot of the universe THIS is why. TNG was basically a reboot, it got away with it because they set it a century after TOS and fans accepted that. Now if they had put it 10 years prior to TOS and said this is the same Star Trek you always had with more advance looking ships, uniforms and sets, how do you think fandom would’ve taken it at the time? Yeah, not great lol. Now I don’t think they are going THAT advanced with Discovery but its not going to look like TOS outside of what the Kelvin films did here and there. It sounds like its going to be its own thing, just in an old timeline. I accept that for all the reasons I stated above. I WANT that for Trek to feel relevant just like I want Bond to appeal to a 21st century world and not a 1960s world.

There was a great comment made by (I think) Michael Okuda when Enterprise was on, and he said something about imagining that TOS was just an interpretation of events in the 23rd Century, that they could be retold with different sets, uniforms, etc, but the stories still happened.

If I recall correctly, part of his analogy (which was meant to soothe fans upset that Pre-TOS technology looked more advanced) was that TOS could be considered what it looks like in Standard Definition, and ENT was High Definition.

Not the best analogy, but not a bad one. I don’t mind retconning the visuals at all, and I think it’s stupid when fans get hung up on that.


Re: Not the best analogy, but not a bad one.

It may be a bit too on the nose but still true nonetheless. I come to my appreciation of the performing arts from being my EL/HI A/V geek and, in my teens, my role in A/V drifted into the sphere of the stage performers.

I can certainly appreciate the superior carpentry skills of one production over the other, but I don’t confuse being superior in that in and of itself with being a superior performance — but it doesn’t hurt.

Discovery must be aimed at TOS fans to a certain extent. Sarek and Harry Mudd are supposed to be in there somewhere. Then there’s the glimpse of the uniform with a TOS-ish look. And I seem to remember Fuller suggesting the story was about some event mentioned in TOS.

Don’t underestimate nostalgia. It’s a BIG business right now.

Of course it’s aimed at TOS fans to some extent…just like Batman Begins was aimed at Batman fans to some extent…doesn’t change the fact that it was a completely different animal that brought in a younger audience, and to massive effect, I might add. Where they source the material from is less important than how it’s executed. If you’re gonna set it in the TOS era, it’s gonna have TOS callbacks. That doesn’t mean it’s made for TOS fans.

Eh… not sure about that. If Batman Begins were like Discovery it would’ve taken place 10 years before the Adam West series and included Robin’s father along with a new cast (that wouldn’t include Batman, sort of like the Gotham TV series).

I wouldn’t mind a full-on reboot at this point and for this series to be its own thing like Batman Begins, but the Abrams movies proved that is hard to do for whatever reasons. I expect lots of TOS references and iconography, such as the current nostalgia business model dictates. Hope I’m wrong though.


Re:… sort of like the Gotham TV series

Since DISCOVERY is coming out of CBS television production wing, there’s no “sort of” about it — DISCOVERY is like Fox’s GOTHAM.

@Disinvited — I don’t follow your conclusion. GOTHAM Is produced by Warner Bros. and has nothing to do with CBS.

Curious Cadet


Stego’s stream of consciousness was that DISCOVERY’s production tech updates on screen would be to STAR TREK as if someone decided to do a prequel to BATMAN BEYOND but took it back before 1960’s BATMAN television series, sort of like GOTHAM that airs on FOX.

I was just pointing out that Discovery’s throwback in art design mixed with forward tech updates wouldn’t be a movie prequel “sort of” like GOTHAM but would indeed be updated just like that other television production throwback series: GOTHAM

A silly comparison over all since a show about “Batman” is about Batman. This isnt called “James Kirk”. Star Trek has had many crews and ships and era.

But going back to this time, I think, is a choice based on what they believe provides the widest possible audience. And I think Fuller had a vision for the sandbox he wanted to play in. Had Fuller not been brought on board at all, its possible they went somewhere else with it.



The Show’s title is GOTHAM because it isn’t about BATMAN. It’s about the city, and what about it prior to him that led to what will eventually cause BATMAN, etc. to rise.

Yes I meant comparison to the idea of Batman Begins. Gotham is a good comparison. Birds of Prey was another Batman related show that was not about Batman.

I think inclusions like Sarek and Mudd are two fold: an attempt to lure TOS fans, but also because, remember, the writers and producers are TOS fans themselves. Not everything they do is meant to be a marketing gimmick, sometimes it’s just the stuff THEY want to see.

@Stego, as others have said, there’s source material to draw from for a given era, making it relevant in any forward-looking series. But let’s face it, every Trek series is aimed at all Trek fans, TOS included. It doesn’t hurt that there’s familiarity with the latest successful film franchise. Is that aimed at original TOS fans though, or new ones? That said, I’d much rather pander to the fans organically through existing characters and canon, than shoe-horning an old actor from a previous series into the show for nostalgia’s sake, with some convoluted narrative explanation about why they’re there — other than fan service.

I am under 40, grow with TNG and I dont care about this tv show or JJ trek.. sorry, but I can bet that the generation that grow with TNG at this point is 100 times bigger than the one that grow with TOS, and yet, all the new Trek is aimed to the TOS guys..

Their corporate strategy won’t work with me. I refuse to pay a monthly subscription to watch the 5th Star Trek spinoff of and a bunch of sitcoms that insult my intelligence.

I’ll watch it when I don’t have to pay for it.

Wow you must be sore for entertainment these days there’s not much left for free that’s legal.

As my father would remind me, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

People don’t know what free is if they think broadcast ad sponsored STAR TREK is truly free in all senses of the word.

All of this time this show has been in production and they only have a “couple” of shows in the can? That’s pathetic.

They spent two months shooting the pilot alone because its two hours and also because lots of pilots gets longer shooting time so they can take their time to find the tone of the show while actors ease into their new roles and shooting methods. In other words they are trying to get it right for you and make the best show possible.

And for that you called it ‘pathetic’. This is why fandom is an embarrassment at times. Why does anyone even bother?

What is with all this fake news? Pilots don’t take any more time to shoot. Being “in the can” means fully completed, edited, mixed, and delivered for broadcast. That typically takes 2-3 months from start of principal photography, depending on the visual effects involved — longer in startups due to bringing all the post participants online and up to speed. This can be stretched out even longer if they are cross-boarding episodes to make use of common sets and cast. The Leftovers 3rd season shot in Australia for the last half of the season, incorporating that footage into that shot in Austin during the first half of he season, meaning no episodes were in the can until the entire season had wrapped photography. But production is not where they spend extra money, or take extra time, as that is the single most expensive cost per day for the entire production.

Fake news?

Uh yeah LOTS of pilots shoots longer than normal episodes, especially Star Trek pilots because A. They are usually two hours and B. They cost a lot! From what I can find on just principle photography:

Encounter at Farpoint: 3 and a half weeks
Emissary: 5 weeks
Enterprise: 5 weeks

I could not find Voyagers date and I know theirs were longer due to the reshoots losing the first Janeway. But since I couldn’t find precise production schedule I didn’t include it.

So yes I will admit its not 2 months but its still over a month to shoot post TNG. Just for comparison a standard 1 hour episode is given 7-8 days to shoot meaning a 2 hour episode would only be 15 days average. So you’re definitely wrong too. They DO take more time, at least the bigger ones like Star Trek.

And Discovery they ALREADY said they were taking extra time with it because unlike past Trek shows they are only shooting 13 episodes, but yet the production is suppose to last 8 months. So do the math. They are clearly taking the time to shoot longer than a standard episode would. Probably not too much longer but longer. And I’m surprised if they did spend 2 months to shoot the pilot given they have so much time to shoot in general.

To back Tiger’s point, the Voyager pilot, according to Wikipedia: “Caretaker” took 31 days to shoot, and was filmed at multiple locations.[6] The production of the pilot episode remains one of the most expensive in television history, reportedly costing an unprecedented $23 million.[4][7]” Sooo yeah, pilots are a big deal! You kinda gotta get it right.


Why would you even ATTEMPT to back Tiger2’s point with VOYAGER when he was more than clear that it was NOT representative of an average pilot when it had to deal with the exceptional situation of its lead actor getting cold feet in the middle of filming?

True, I did miss that I suppose. I just remember reading that and thinking how outrageously expensive it was. My point is, pilots are special cases. The TV industry has been referred to as “the pilot-making business” due to the sheer number of pilots that are produced but never make it to air. Trek in general seems to be the exception to the pilot rule, given it had two before it got greenlit. So to me there’s nothing to look into that it took them so long to shoot the DSC pilot. This is how the industry works.

Actually, if I understand the situation right, DSC was sold as a concept for steaming. It had no pilot. On very rare occasions shows are sold without pilots. Gotham is one. But the straight to streaming shows seem to be bucking that trend. Still seems to be mostly true for cable and over the air programming, though.

Yeah Voyager was a special case for sure but when you’re spending $23 million on the pilot alone you are going to take your time lol. But I do suspect the budget increased a lot after the original Janeway left. It probably was going to be pretty expensive anyway but I have hard time to believe it was suppose to be that much from the beginning. Only because DS9 and Enterprise budgets were around $12 million, which was still freaking high at the time. And Voyager doubled those.

And yes like you and others said Star Trek doesn’t really shoot ‘pilots’, it hasn’t since TOS. They are all made to go straight to air. But thats also WHY they spend more time and money to get it right because they know it will actually air. Most pilots never see the light of day. No one is going to spend that kind of time and money on something that ‘may’ air. So they have the freedom to make it as great as they can.

And I think Discovery took more time with theirs because it has to be big enough to convince all those people who watch it for free on TV to later pay for the rest of the season online. Thats never been done before so they are trying to hit it out of the park I guess.

“Thats never been done before ”

But but but…. I thought nobody does anything different from anyone else! That is what you have been arguing ad nauseam earlier.

Sort of on a side note, this sounds like one of those shows where they produce about 8 or 10 episodes and then nothing for a year. Then they wonder where the fans are.

It will have 13 episodes a season which is common for streaming shows. And yeah Game of Thrones only makes 10 episodes a season….it has no problem wondering where its fans are.

On Pirate Bay? wakkka wakkka

Do people really still think 26 episodes a year with at least a third are stinkers and the air date is moved around several times due to holidays, special events etc is the key to attracting the largest audience?

Its 2017 people.

Wasn’t there already a Trek – Twin Peaks crossover, when 7 of 9 appeared on Voyager?

Will someone for the love of god please ban Enter Prize?! He constantly spews hate and bile at anything and everyone. I

Buzz is the keyword. I have faith in the series but I have my worries about it only being on All Access and that the potential fan will see it as, eh, I have Netflix, I’m getting All Access just for that show. But, if the 1st episode on tv really creates some buzz and makes it seem more than worth it to subscribe, they’ll have something hot on their hands. I also don’t like the whole 1 episode per week issue. Part of the appeal of Netflix to the younger demo is that you can binge. It’s the appeal of most things to the younger generation, myself included. If I like something, I want to enjoy it, not have to wait for it. At that point, it might as well just be on tv because you’re taking away the reasons for me to stream and take All Access as serious as I take my Netflix. Hoping for the absolute best because I love what I’m hearing but that’s my opinion.

There are still plenty of series that are released weekly on Netflix that are doing extremely well. If the series has enough interest, the ability to binge is not a major issue. The series has to compel viewers, young or old, the ability to binge notwithstanding. There’s plenty of series on Netflix I could binge, but after one viewing, I often couldn’t care less to continue.

I think binge watching is over-stated. I like it, of course, but not because I CAN binge but because I can watch it whenever I want. Even when a hot series like Orange is released, we generally cant watch 8 episodes in a sitting. I know some people will. But knowing we can watch 2-3 and then whether its the next day or three days later, we can watch another, is great.

Assuming Discovery is decent, I’d assume they’d heavily market the DVD release of the season as well and capture those fans that maybe didnt get All Access.

Plus, the decision to air the pilot on CBS is really a genius move. It HAS to be a great pilot to create buzz and attract subs to All Access. Producing a lack luster pilot on CBS makes no sense. I trust their intent is to be really good. Let’s hope they know what really good is.

Really? What is released on Netflix on a weekly basis? I’ve only watched maybe three Netflix produced shows at this point. All of them had all episodes released at the same time to streaming. It’s a legit question as it seems that it has been Netflix’ M.O. to release all at once….

Riverdale, Better Call Saul, Star Trek Discovery.

Riverdale is aired on the CW. Saul on AMC. DSC on CBSAA. Not only are none of those first run Netflix shows but two of them are found on cable. One of those two is on an over the air network. Please read the question a little more thoroughly…

Duh.. Of course the streaming audience will be a ton younger than the over the air CBS demos. Not only is it because it’s streaming, a format younger people seem to be preferring but CBS has the oldest demographics of the big 4 networks to begin with. That is not news in any way.

Yawn. 1 season if that much.

I don’t believe a word Moonves is saying to be quite honest. So, he’s seen two completed episodes, has he? Yeah, yeah. Course you have, Les. A show that’s already 9 months behind schedule has only two completed episodes? No way is Netflix seeing this show until at least Jan 2018.

TrekMovie Staff,

Does this:

“The paid subscription service [CBS All ACCESS] also offers VOD, and live streams are counted in Nielsen ratings data.”

mean that we can track DISCOVERY’s weekly Nielsens when it streams live?

What that article is referring to is the ability to get a live stream of your local CBS affiliate, not all markets and/or cable/satellite providers had opted into it, CBS just negotiated deals with a bunch of new markets.

Premium streaming-only All Access content like DSC is still something you have to pay for and still something that would not be tracked since it’s not traditionally aired, just like Netflix doesn’t have Nielsen data, they keep their viewing info to themselves.

Thanks, Matt. But now I wonder, since they have the Neilsen tech monitoring their livestream anyway, if they might contract Nielsen to keep tabs for them? It’s not as if the Neilsen tracking they contract has to go public.

Sure they might, but when you own the entire content delivery process you don’t need a company like Nielsen. Netflix knows their own stats because they control the entire experience. That’s part of what CBS is lusting after with CBS-AA.

Matt Wright,

There’s nothing like a disinterested 3rd party when there’s bad news to be delivered.

Matt Wright,

It occurs to me that since CBS is offering this on an ads “enhanced” subscription tier, would those advertisers be so willing to just accept whatever numbers CBS’ generates as opposed to the Nielsens and/or other eyeball tracking outfits?

It might be nicer if CBS made Star Trek Discovery a 3-season show.

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,.

I thought the point of being on All Access instead of Network TV (where people will actually see it) was so we didn’t have to worry about ratings- seems like Membership is the new ratings, if Star Trek doesn’t bring in enough people to Join AA then it will be cancelled quickly.
It’s the same scenario with Voy & Ent on the late UPN.

Star Treks only job should be to entertain not Build a Streaming Service.

Discovery had a chance to gain new fans who could tune in on TV for free but Noone will sign up & Pay just to see the show accept maybe the few open minded Star Trek fans who don’t think this is already a disaster (& we know how many of them there are- None)


Ratings are important for ad supported content which is a tier that CBS is offering this new Trek on, so they haven’t exactly escaped the importance of that.

Re: Noone will sign up & Pay

While I certainly didn’t show, the fact that other people showed up for NEMESIS would tend to discount your “None” contention.

Also, that Paramount’s and CBS’ double dipping in their disc releases seems to work also would seem to argue against it as well.

Hey…you know what would be even better? Let Netflix US have Discovery, too. I don’t relish the thought of paying an additional $6 a month just to watch one show (and yes…that IS a lot when you’re on a fixed income living paycheck to paycheck). That could be the deal breaker for me.

Expecting younger demographic is marketing speak for: it’s a dumbed down show full of action sequences so anyone can watch it with their minds turned off.