CBS All Access President: ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Will Look And Feel Different

CBS Interactive president Marc DeBevoise spoke with Decider about the CBS streaming strategy including, of course, CBS All Access, which will be the home for Star Trek: Discovery after the first episode airs on the CBS Television Network on September 24th.

DeBevoise said that currently CBS All Access has over 1 paid million subscribers and reiterated the previously stated goal of reaching 4 Million subscribers by 2020. And to reach this goal he pointed to two driving factors this fall: their first full season of NFL games and the launch of Star Trek: Discovery.  

Specifically when asked how CBS was going to get Discovery noticed by the mainstream in the current landscape of premium TV shows, DeBevoise acknowledged the challenge but predicted the new Star Trek series will stand out:

We’re at peak TV with 400 or 500 shows a year, so getting through with anything is hard. We like the machine we have at CBS — the largest broadcast network, the No. 1 digital property – and not shared with other networks like Hulu, and 350 million social followers across our brands. We have to nice footprint to be able to launch new products, we’re constantly looking for what will resonate with consumers. Sometimes that an existing property, and sometimes that’s something new. Shows that come with a history are still new. If you’ve seen the trailer for Star Trek: Discovery, you can see that Soniqua Martin-Green is a unique star and you see a show that’s going to look different and feel different than anything that came before.

Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) in Star Trek: Discovery

Adding more value to All Access

Star Trek: Discovery will be only the second original scripted show for the CBS All Access streaming service (the other being The Good Fight), but they are committed to launch more shows. DeBevoise talked about how they are looking to distinguish their shows from others produced by CBS:

We have a small team that sits within All Access but also at the CBS Studio. CBS has 40-something shows and is obviously much larger than what we’re doing, so we’re trying to keep an eye on slightly different projects that we think will fit the premium nature of CBS All Access.

The executive also talked about getting rid of the annoying practice of expiring current season episodes of CBS shows online:

One of the things we’re excited about for fall is that we will have the full seasons of all current series. The previous seasons of shows are generally controlled by the studio that makes the show. Where CBS is the studio, we’ll generally have previous seasons on CBS All Access. For other studios, we generally won’t have those previous seasons.

CBS All Access looking to expand its original programming beyond just two shows

For more from DeBevoise read the full interview at Decider.

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

Leave a Reply

258 Comments on "CBS All Access President: ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Will Look And Feel Different"

Sort by:   newest | oldest

FIRST! Well, they seem to have a well-considered strategy. For the sake of the future of Trek, I hope that it’s successful. I recently became a subscriber. Looking forward to the premier! PS: Green Acres is missing from All Access. Bring it back, please!

Ouch. Sticking to canon with the following learned thus far:

– Retcon Klingons
– Uniforms in no way like The Cage
– Ships way too advanced
– Huge bridges, and way too advanced
– Enterprise insignias on everyone’s uniforms
– Window viewscreens
– Holographic stuff everywhere
– Deanna Troi crossed with Freddy Kruegerface to sense death
– A hero ship which can’t make it’s mind up if it’s to be a pizza slicer or a roulette wheel
– Lense flares

Don’t worry though, we’re respecting canon and we have people here to make sure we do.

I’m just running through a bit of math here.
1 million CBS AA subscribers, assuming they are all permanent subscribers at $5.99 a month, that’s net revenue of a little under $6 million per month. Divide that by 4 episodes per month and a total revenue of $1.5m per week to cover the entire cost of CBS AA, production, server equipment, etc etc.

So if you carry the 1 over, add on tax, deduct royalties… you’re left with a net amount of the entire Discovery production being completely and utterly reliant upon Netflix’s second by second viewer metrics formulating it in to a gross profit margin based entirely upon international viewing.

Oh boy.

I don’t plan to begin subscribing to CBS All Access until September, and I bet a lot of other Trek fans have similar plans. So the current subscription numbers don’t really matter; the numbers that matter are the ones they have in October.

@ Corylea

From what I have seen in the social landscape over the past few months on my various social media groups, no one outside of the US is going to sign up to Netflix just to watch the pilot. They plan on getting it from less than legitimate sources (remember it’s only the US who get to see the pilot for “free” on broadcast tv).

Internationally, you then have two groups of people – Those who already subscribe to Netflix for their own existing viewing, and those who do not subscribe, but have watched the pilot via illegal sources.

You have to ask yourself if the people who have sampled it through illegal sources are likely to sign up to Netflix for the sake of it, or continue watching it from the same sources. Then, the people who are already existing Netflix subscribers who watch it, how does it add value to Netflix if they are not onboarding new subscribers? It’s not as if they are going to lose those existing subscribers.
There is no mechanism for anyone outside of the US to watch the pilot without paying for it in advance. IMHO it’s a fatally flawed plan on the part of CBS.

Okay, I’m an international viewer and I don’t have a Netflix account because I collect stuff on Blu-Ray. But yes, I will subscribe to Netflix to see DSC becuase I want to see it ASAP because it’s Star Trek! I dont download from illegal sources – ever.

Those people who do use illegit sources will continue ding so no matter whether it’s Trek or Stranger Things. But now, a lot of people who normally wait for the TV broadcast or DVD/BD have got a reason to sign up.

To those TOS fans who are overjoyed with the pitch of Discovery thus far, who enjoy debating the things that you hold most dear, who experience great joy over debating in-universe explanation others can not see, we wish you well. We’ve come to understand that we are not welcome here, but wont hold it against you.

Perhaps you could find it in your hearts to pick your least favourite series or time period, sit through a prequel to it, then three multi million dollar movie prequels to it, then, and only then when another prequel TV series is on the cards, you can find it in your hearts to set your embarrassment at your gratuitous good fortune aside, and understand why the rest the fandom no longer supports you. We’re only human after all…

Doesnt matter Karl. Discovery is profitable based on Netflix paying for it. It’s not CBS’ problem if people who are NOT current Netflix customers choose not to sign up for Netflix.

Netflix isnt about ONE show drawing subs anyway. They create original content to keep their catalog fresh to retain their enormous subscriber base.

There will be Trek fans who go to Netflix for the series. The idea that someone tech savvy enough to steal the show would be anti-Netflix is sort of silly, in my opinion.

How many subs does Netflix need? Who knows. And who cares?

Oh you silly dear.
Netflix have paid on an expectation. Netflix do that regularly. If it doesn’t cut the mustard they pull the plug. Try Sens8 for example. Millions of dollars paid per episode, metrics showed that it was adored by existing netflix subscribers with a high view count, but failed to pull in any newbies.
End of show. I believe the viewer petition campaigns gave them an addition 2 episode send off to be filmed later this year.

Best start a petition now chum, get ahead of the game.

You really don’t understand how anything works. Which is ok except you’re talking like you do. Which is only making you look bad

If no one watches then Netflix should pull the plug.

When it’s renewed for a second season what will you say then? In fact, Netflix and cbs already extended the first season. I guess because what they saw so far sucked, right?

Poor kid.

Canada will see the pilot for free as well. Plus it will be on SPACE network as well. Fom what I’VE seen on social media and boards… people will be subscribing. You aren’t ? Oh well, your loss.

I’m re-subscribing to Space *because* of Discovery (I can choose my channels).

Space is a pay cable channel is it not?

Space is a cable channel. I think most people have it in their package but they dont have to. If you dont subscribe to the particular package (or channel) you wouldnt have it.

But by certain posters definition of free TV, it would be considered free for many (because they already pay for it) just like Netflix is a free service for those that already pay for it.

To say that no one will sign up for Netflix for Star Trek is kinda ridiculous. You don’t know that.

The point of Netflix having original content is to get subscriptions. I’m sure they got new subscribers when they debuted the Arrested Development season. I’m sure they got new subscribers when they got the Marvel shows (which is why I subscribed), etc.

You are mistaken about only the US getting to see the pilot episode for free on regular TV. Here in Canada, Space Channel will be broadcasting the entire first season weekly on television. After that, it will stream exclusively on Crave TV, a Canadian on demand service.

Karl,

I don’t know if the flaw is “fatal”. But from the outside without much inside knowledge it sure doesn’t look very promising. We shall see how they handle the series after the season is over. IMHO, it would help them if they made it available to disc (buying and rentals) sooner rather than later at the conclusion of the season. But again, now word whatsoever on that front.

It would benefit them to make it available shortly before the second season begins as is the case with many premium tv shows. That gives CBSAA the first opportunity for people to join and watch the series (same with Netflix).

It would but the streaming only model doesn’t follow that formula. For example, season 2 of Daredevil had been out for months before season 1 was even made available on Netflix itself. Further, programming from other streaming services are not available for disc rental on other services. They remain streaming only.

True fact of truth. I as well .. and see most Trekkers in this path.

No, the numbers that matter are the number after the series airs. Ill likely get a sub for this show then quit the sub immediately after like I did with HBO and Westworld, and like I’m.doing with Showtime and Twin Peaks.

I do not plan on another subscription. I am one of the original trekkies from when it first came out, but I am willing regretfully to give it up. I already stuck with paying for cable through my housing and that includes CBS. I don’t like most of there programming. Why pay more for one more show? It feels like I am be nickeled and dimed to to death by services. I do like Amazon Prime because it offers a wide range of services… not just one extra TV show. I think this current marketing from CBS falls under the realm of corporate greed. They will not have my number in October.

@Karl.

There’s a good chance the show will be a success one way or the other, whether CBSAA sinks or swims (I am also not sure CBSAA will endure long term).

You seem desperate for it to fail just because you don’t like the visuals.

If what they have said is true, Discovery has a huge safety net called Netflix. Its been strongly speculated that Netflix wanted to develop a series themselves (which piqued CBS’s interest).

And supposedly Netflix’ licensing deal makes Discovery profitable already.

Whatever plan CBS has, they have expanded the first season before a single episode has even aired and, supposedly, contributed a better/bigger budget.

They’ve made it a critical piece of the success of All Access.

Its always possible they change directions and ditch All Access and with it, Star Trek. But you still have Netflix where Trek has always done very well.

The worse case scenario is likely CBS wanting out of the deal but CBS studios having the option of producing Trek for others, like Netflix (or Netflix taking over production).

Discovery would have to be next-level awful for it not to get a lot of rope from CBS.

And for “fans” trying to analyze financials (which is always hilarious), it doesnt even matter than Discovery is supposedly already profitable for CBS. The financials of streaming are different than network TV. They arent selling ads to pay for the production. And as a “newer” venture, there will be a budget for All Access that likely included X amount of loss (or investment) in the early going.

You think CBS is going to hand over the rights of ST to Netflix?! You’re out of your boring, old, rebooted vulcan mind.

Who said anything about handing over rights? Please try to keep up.

Why the insults and belligerent attitude, Karl? You seem to be treating this as some sort of life or death competition that you’re hellbent on “winning.” You end up coming across as a bully and a troll. How about lightening up a bit and attempting to actually carry on a meaningful conversation?

“The worse case scenario is likely CBS wanting out of the deal but CBS studios having the option of producing Trek for others, like Netflix (or Netflix taking over production).”

And if not Netflix, CBS programmed and co-owned The CW, CBS Owned Showtime or corporate cousin owned EPIX. The soon to be re-branded as The Paramount Network, Spike. (I’m not sure which part of the old Viacom owns that one)

Douglass… I’m pretty sure none of those CBS properties would be considered as an outlet for Trek at all. If they were, that is where Trek would be to begin with. If Trek crashes and burns on AA why would CBS move it to one of their other outlets? If they did that, they would be admitting the problem was AA and not Trek. They will almost certainly see it as a Trek problem. Not an AA problem.

“The worse case scenario is likely CBS wanting out of the deal but CBS studios having the option of producing Trek for others, like Netflix (or Netflix taking over production).”

No… Worse case scenario is the show fails miserably. So much so that CBS pulls the plug and considers Trek to be a radioactive property. So they won’t touch it for at least a decade or two. No more TV Trek for some time.

Which wouldnt bother you anyway since you dont want to pay to watch it. In fact, you’re pulling for it’s demise.

The fact is, not that you have ever shown an interest in them, I am not pulling for it’s demise nor am I hoping it is great. There are good and bad in both situations. So I’m just waiting to see what happens and will adjust accordingly.

What bad is there in the show being great? lol

Limiting the potential customers.

“A good chance”. Don’t confuse hope with reality, you’ll only get yourself upset and angry.

You’re the one who seems upset and angry to the extent you’re getting worked up over nitpicks. Worse, you’re nitpicking is things you have no idea about.

So now you’re concern is the financial well being of CBS? Sure it is.

Knock it off. You’re just looking for things to whine about. You have no idea about the financials.

Just looking to put Discovery and TOS to bed ASAP mate to be honest. The sooner that’s done, and really run in to the ground, the sooner there can be some breathing room for new ideas to grow.

You’re clueless.

Did you factor in ad revenue? Considering that’s how the networks make all of their money, it’s a pretty important piece of the pie. Plus whatever huge amount Netflix is paying for worldwide rights, plus subscriptions…

Yeah, people need to keep in mind that at CAA is still getting ad revenue since there is the $5.99 option that has advertisements. So they’re making money from advertisers (even if at a lower rate), plus subscription fees.

Yes, fans who analyze financials are bonkers. There’s so much that goes on that we are not privy to, the idea that some random fan on the internet has figured it all out is downright laughable.

First, you only mention “visual” canon issues. Not “historical” canon issues. And visually, Star Trek broke canon many, many times before, without prejudice of the *real* canon, which is plot. Saavik and Zefram Cochrane both had facial transplants, Trills have lost their face busgets and won spots that were from another race, Worf changed his forehead at least three times, and the original movies Enterprise was certainly more than just a “refit” from the original series’ one. So, get some kool-aid and relax. Canon, for writers, are WORDS, not VISUALS. Second, from your first post — your utter disgust for DSC –, everything you say next about the show’s success prospects sounds so biased that you should not even try. But, anyway, what DSC offers CBS is a chance to boost their streaming service FOR FREE, since Netflix is essentially paying the bill. There’s no way in hell this is a bad move. Also, the matter of Netflix’s success with DSC is NOT a gamble. It is almost a sure thing, ’cause the whole Trek catalog has been getting great numbers in the platform for years, and CBS sold to them not only the rights to DSC, but to the whole back catalog. That ALREADY brings them great results. About Sense8, you’re flat wrong. The series had a passionate, but SMALL global following. The audience was just not there, as it wasn’t for Marco Polo. Had nothing to do with subscriber numbers. And Netflix is aware it already has a… Read more »

So Karl just admitted he wants this to fail, for it to be run into the ground fast. Can we ignore the bugger now?

Meh. Most of those things I can let slide. But the pizza cutter ship and insecto-Klingons definitely give me pause.

My opinions (if they count):

– Retcon Klingons – we haven’t seen the show to know if those Klingons are regular Klingons or not.

– Uniforms in no way like The Cage – The Cage is not canon*

– Ships way too advanced – There is no way to make the ship look the 1960’s TV version of the future and have this show suceed.

– Huge bridges, and way too advanced – didn’t notice this

– Enterprise insignias on everyone’s uniforms – maybe the Enterprise was never special enough to have its own emblem and was using the standard Starfleet emblem while every other ship and base did have their own (hand waving this one!)

– Window viewscreens – – We have not seen EVERY Fed ship – who is to say this never existed (ok- I’m hand waving this one too!)

– Holographic stuff everywhere – this falls into the believable tech level needed for a show made now

– Deanna Troi crossed with Freddy Kruegerface to sense death – IDIC – there are sure to be plenty of aliens we have not seen before

– A hero ship which can’t make it’s mind up if it’s to be a pizza slicer or a roulette wheel – this has nothing to do with canon – the saucer “roulette” does remind me of the grissom though)

– Lense flares – meh

* The Managerie is though :)

Its too easy to dump on Karl and his silliness but to be serious: – Agreed, no idea if there is an in-universe explanation for the Klingons. If they came out said there is an explanation, it 100% blows Karl’s whining out of the water. But instead of waiting to see, he complains now. Patience, kid. Patience. – The Uniforms are similar to the first point about the Klingons. We dont know if there is an in-universe explanation. Lets wait and see. – Ships being too advanced is a weird complaint. Too advanced for what? The 60’s? they seem perfectly reasonable for a series taking place after Enterprise and the Kelvin scenes in 09. if Discovery looked like TOS, you’d have to explain why Star Fleet seemed to go backwards in technology. TOS is the outlier here, not Discovery. – Bridges looked fine. Didnt get a lot of looks. Maybe we can wait til the series airs. – this has been explained many times but these so-called Trek fans dont want to hear it. The different insignias was a mistake in TOS and meant to be the same. Also, you have to love the fans who would rather have a series 100% like TOS that gets cancelled after two episodes than a series that is very popular and high quality. – Didnt the Kelvin have a window viewscreen (I cant remember). Also, keep in mind the Enterprise is older than the Discovery. Perhaps window viewscreens was a new thing for… Read more »

Agreed on all points!

@Captain Sheridan

Here’s my rebuttals:

– Retcon Klingons
So?

– Uniforms in no way like The Cage
Why does that matter to you?

– Ships way too advanced
Um…. so?

– Huge bridges, and way too advanced
Too big? Wha-huh? Too big for what? Are people smaller in Discovery?

– Enterprise insignias on everyone’s uniforms
As they should be. We’ve been over this.

– Window viewscreens
So…?

– Holographic stuff everywhere
Makes sense to me.

– Deanna Troi crossed with Freddy Kruegerface to sense death
And that’s a problem because…?

– A hero ship which can’t make it’s mind up if it’s to be a pizza slicer or a roulette wheel
Ships don’t have minds.

– Lense flares
Those are real things. They happen when light refracts against a lens.

When the producers are talking “Canon” they’re referring to the timeline, the stories, etc. I tend to think of the visuals more loosely, and if it helps, imagine the Trek shows are just interpretations of this fictional universe, in the 1960s they didn’t have the technology to accurately represent what it looked like, and even made some mistake (think “Living Witness”).

In the introduction to the novelization of TMP, “Admiral Kirk” (as written by Gene Roddenberry) pretty much implies that the entirety of TOS was an after-the-fact dramatization of ‘real’ events that didn’t always get them right, which sort of tracks with what you’re saying.

Sensing death sounds stupid. He has a point there.

Maybe the character is more comic relief and this is a repeating line. “We have evolved for one purpose… sensing death,” “…sensing love,” “…sensing tension,” etc. Sorta like Lloyd Bridges’ character in Airplane.
The point is, we don’t know the context of anything we’ve seen or heard.

Agreed on all points!

I guess you can use logic to justify anything. That’s it’s power, and it’s weakness…

Karl, you’re using a clear lack of logic on your attempts to be critical.

If you’re going to rip on a series you’ve never seen and know little about, you will have to be a lot smarter to make relevant points.

To those TOS fans who are overjoyed with the pitch of Discovery thus far, who enjoy debating the things that you hold most dear, who experience great joy over debating in-universe explanation others can not see, we wish you well. We’ve come to understand that we are not welcome here, but wont hold it against you.

Perhaps you could find it in your hearts to pick your least favourite series or time period, sit through a prequel to it, then three multi million dollar movie prequels to it, then, and only then when another prequel TV series is on the cards, you can find it in your hearts to set your embarrassment at your gratuitous good fortune aside, and understand why the rest the fandom no longer supports you. We’re only human after all.

Well, shoot. We TOS fans got the show renewed for a third season with our letters, without which it would have faded into obscurity with no syndication, the story of Trek ending right then and there. After cancellation we kept its memory alive with our purchases of books, toys, and other merchandise; produced fanzines and other media to keep some kind of narrative going; and supported the original cast movies with our box office dollars, even when they weren’t all that good. Without which, none of the spinoff series you seem convinced TOS compares poorly against would have ever existed. So from our perspective, you see, your derisive attitude — which seems hell-bent on fomenting some kind of fandom civil war, as if the world didn’t have enough rancor and division already — seems ungrateful at best, and downright noxious at worst. But then, we’re only human after all.

“To those TOS fans who are overjoyed with the pitch of Discovery thus far, who enjoy debating the things that you hold most dear, who experience great joy over debating in-universe explanation others can not see, we wish you well. We’ve come to understand that we are not welcome here, but wont hold it against you.”

I am no fan of TOS, I think that’s well documented, nor do I enjoy the JJ films because they are a rehash of them. I am no fan of prequels either, and wasn’t in love with Enterprise (though it does have it’s moments I enjoy).

But Discovery is it’s own thing. It’s NOT the Original Series. It’s NOT the JJ films. It’s NOT like anything we’ve seen before other than the idea of it being a prequel, and including a couple of minor characters like Sarek.

What I am excited about is new Trek, with modern storytelling, better FX, and a solid cast and production team. It is its own thing, and I am excited for it on that level.

If it is terrible, I’ll be the first to call it out. But there’s no point in hating it before I see it, or being disappointed simply because it is taking place closer to my least favorite Trek series (TOS) than my most loved (TNG) or because it doesn’t visually look like what I’ve come to expect.

Karl, you sir need some real therapy.

Karl, is that your farewell? Thank goodness.

“The Cage” IS canon, the footage was used in “The Menagerie” two-parter…

“There is no way to make the ship look the 1960’s TV version of the future and have this show suceed.”
“this falls into the believable tech level needed for a show made now”

And none of this would be a problem if it wasn’t a stupid prequel.

Not true. TOS is dated compared to Enterprise and Kelvin. TOS is already a problem due to its 60’s era effects. TOS is the outlier. Get over it.

Karl, you seem to have trouble with comprehension. Let me help, point by point:

– you dont know that
– you dont know why
– not true
– not true
– so what?
– so what?
– And?
– Ludicrous comparison
– Nonsensical
– ill give you that one.

You literally know nothing about the things you’re preemptively whining about. And one of your points has been explained to death by people way smarter than me (and infinitely smarter than you).

@Karl

I am laughing so hard at how nitpick and stupid your list is. All I can say is… “SO WHAT?” You’re picking on the silliest things. I mean, if these are the things that are what appeals to you about Star Trek, I suppose that’s understandable, but… is this REALLY why you like Star Trek???

The visual reboot is not really a big deal for me. In essence the TOS era got a visual reboot when TMP came out in 1979. You can’t look at TOS and TMP and really believe they are in the same universe visually, and TMP pretty much set the visual style for all Treks to follow.

What really matters is that if feels like Trek, tells the right stories, and pays the proper respect to what came before it.

What really matters is not getting yet another god damned reboot of TOS. What do they expect people who have no interest in it to do with it? Pay money to keep your reboots alive? No. No. No.
You’re done, you’ve had your fair crack at the whip, bow out with some degree of civility and dignity.

If you have no interest, then go away, there are millions of us that do have immense interest, and can’t wait for the series. From what I’ve seen and read, I’ll be shocked if Discovery doesn’t last at least 5 seasons. Your comments go against all the values of Star Trek I look for, so find another show’s thread to whine about things.

This is the essence of what drives nearly every complaint about Discovery, regardless of the content of the complaint. It’s nothing of substance or logic, it’s simply selfish “I want what I want” coming from fans of the TNG era who hate that their era is dead and isn’t coming back.

As a fan of all Trek’s eras and universes, I say “your salty tears taste delicious”

Although I don’t really disagree with you I wish people stop saying silly things like post 23rd century Trek is dead. A Nobody knows that and B It’s the usual short sighted argument people have considering Star Trek wil live on for decades and will always come up with new avenues or as shown old ones. My point is when the Kelvin films came around I heard this loud annoying argument from some fans the prime universe was ‘dead’. Kelvin U was going to be Star Trek from this point on. It is as never coming back. And look where we are now? Now it seems (for the moment at least) the Kelvin is now dead. Again maybe not for good as there will probably be more movies but no one seems to know. End of the day it comes down to whoever is making it. There seems to be no real decree what and where Trek should go by Paramount or CBS. They don’t seem to care as every iteration of it has made them money. Some more than others obviously. Nothing is ‘dead’ they can make a 26th century show in a year. They can go back to Kelvin with a new crew. They can do a TNG reboot (hopefully not). Point being no one has some grand vision of where Trek is going or even what it should be about. It seems like every new premise, time period is based on the fly. TPTB says they want… Read more »

Karl, you are starting to bore me now trying to nitpick a show you have only seen a trailer for. How about ACTUALLY watching the show when it comes out before judging it.

Okay, Karl, you’ve had your say. We don’t need another critic naysayer who hasn’t even watched the show.

You’ve had your fair crack at it, now bow out with some degree of civility and dignity.

Are you for real? You’re whining over TOS, which had it not existed, you wouldn’t have even had TNG, DS9, or Voyager (all of which I enjoyed on various levels). Well, I guess one thing is clear, you never had any interest in Axanar if this is your gripe.

Well in that case… stick to your DVDs and Fanfiction for the while and wait for your turn of a reboot :)

Snoooooooooze!

Karl, cardboard sets and those old gooseneck viewers will NOT fly with today’s audiences. Yes it will be somewhat of a re-imagining. And this is coming out of the mouth of someone who was on the fence about ST09 and STID. Candy-colored buttons, etc. just won’t work with the audiences they’re trying to attract. At least the bridges aren’t super-bright as the JJ-prise was. I like a lot of the production value of what I seen. And I doubt the engineering section’s going to be some kind of brewery.

“Karl, cardboard sets and those old gooseneck viewers will NOT fly with today’s audiences.”

Then don’t insist on making a prequel. Why does it have to be a prequel? Place it somewhere else in the timeline. Solved.

It doesnt have to be a prequel or a sequel. Its not a prequel. It takes place after Enterprise and after the opening of Star Trek 2009. It’s mid-franchise.

We dont know why they chose to go with this particular time. Perhaps that will be explained. Maybe we should watch it before we complain about things we dont know about.

If you are this concerned, then don’t watch.

Sounds like you never wanted to give the show a chance. I was where you were once. I used to see TNG come on in the mid 80s and say, “that’s not Star Trek”. But, I decided to give it a chance anyways. And then I gained a new appreciation for the different possibilities within the universe. After all, IDIC.

If you’re going to complain about the ships then complain about Enterprise because these ships look like a logical next step from that technology.

I don’t post here often but when I do it’s as “Karl”. It’s so upsetting seeing such obnoxious posts and comments from somebody using “my” name. 🙁

Start using the moniker “OG Karl”

I honestly don’t want different. I want it to fit in seamlessly with other iterations, like it was there from the start. Looking and feeling different makes it feel less like Star Trek and more like some random science fiction show. Still feel like they should have looked forward to the future instead of revisiting the 23rd century

Perfectly put, the opportunities setting it post TNG would have been endless! Setting it in the time period that they have will bring nothing new to the table…

You have ZERO clue about that.

They’ve boxed themselves in 😉

Well, evidently Fuller thought that it would bring something new to the table, nerdish denunciations to the contrary notwithstanding. We’ll know for sure if that pans out in December.

With all the tech Voyager brought back wouldn’t things be too powerful? I mean, not unrealistic, but just too powerful/make our heroes and tech too superpowered? Transphasic whatevers and ablative holographic armor and ….. ?

I agree with that to an extent, yes. It’s less about “too powerful” to me, but it hamstrings writers when there’s a tech based solution– a powerful weapon, a radiation beam, and energy flux or trans dimensional mutliphasic inter spectral bomdrometer pre-established that solve pretty much any problem.

I agree. If they had made it post Nemesis and made it good, so be it. But it wasnt my preferred era because of the tech they’d have to show for it to be post Nemesis. We’d be getting into fantasy a bit.

As it is, Voyager was far too technobabble-centric.

Im hoping that Discovery keeps things grounded. Amazing tech sure, but the great thing about TOS was that flying through space was rather ordinary, but it wasnt easy. There was a sense of being alone out there and a sense that they needed really smart people to keep that technology working.

Star Trek works best when its us, extrapolated into the future. Our petty global issues analogized with galactic issues. If you get too far away from us, you stop being relevant.

“If you get too far away from us, you stop being relevant.”

Great point!

There are always ways around that. Unfortunately (to me) the best option for this would essentially be a reboot of Voyager or rather its premise (putting a Federation ship in Andromeda being the first of its kind to explore a new galaxy).

Doesn’t even have to post-TNG, it could be in the Ent-C era with just a pinch of retro-futurism.

Enterprise B would have been great. We know virtually nothing about it so they would have had a lot of freedom to show us that era. Plus, using the Kirk death mission as a starting point would have given the show some “soul” to work from. And open up the possibility of cameo’s that would be fairly easy to pull off.

“Look and feel different” can mean a lot of things, and there would be many ways of that I’d actually appreciate. However, it is more than likely that this new iteration will take more than just one cue from those “mature adult shows with a modern sensibility” featuring bloody violence and gratuitous nudity… Shows like Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, Westworld, Americans Gods, you name it… But unlike those shows, switching it off and pulling the plug won’t be an option for many Trekkers, so you’re actually forced that stuff down your throat because it’s now part of the mix…

“Still feel like they should have looked forward to the future instead of revisiting the 23rd century”

Nope. Here, I disagree. Late VOY and the NextGen movies left such a stale, pointless feeling that they’d have ti go to the FAR future to make it interesting again. And what would that be? Either going to another galaxy aka Star Trek Atlantis or Fall of the Federation aka Star Trek Andromeda… Nope, the 23rd Century is the central core of Trek and I love revisiting it time and again…

quit being an apologist for something you have no idea what the end result will be.

Huh? Me? Apologist? For what? I’ve spent the last 7 days criticizing this approach of having “Game of Thrones type death” on Trek. I’m more than just a little bit cautiously pessemistic about the final result but then again, I’m powerless and cannot change it. I’ll have to live with it, because when all things are said and done, I am certainly not willing to NOT watch this show!

As for the 23rd century… Yes, here I’m sort of an apologist because I don’t subscribe to the idea that going back to the future of NEM / VOY will lead to a better product. If they apply the same “mature” and “adult” devices to a post-VOY series, the result would still be the same: a bleak, gloomy, sexualized homage to other current genre shows…

Its funny. People take “Game of Thrones” so literally but take “adhere to canon” as some sort of generality.

When they say Game of Thrones they are talking about quality. They are talking about depth of story telling. They are talking about performances. They are talking about stakes and events mattering.

They arent talking about severed heads and dragons.

@TUP
“They arent talking about severed heads and dragons.”

Dragons, maybe not. But severed heads…you can count on that. The NuKlingons look like Zombified Vampires for a reason. I’m not complaining about their looks for canonical reasons but it’s easy to deduce they chose this look on purpose.
These Klingons are most likely going to be portrayed as relentless killers, probably involving explicite blood rituals. Piled heads, heaps of corpses, man-eating Targs and Bloodwine made from enemies included.

I don’t want to be too redundant about this stuff as I’ve already elaborated on it in the other thread, but there is no way they are not going to take a cue from the ongoing gallore of TV-MA shows, one way or the other. While my Superego hates that, my Id is actually craving for it!
And, all personal scepticism aside, CBS would be stupid not to appeal to a common denominator in today’s young audiences. There is no way, this “looks and feels different” is not about that path towards mainstream grit so prevalent even in TV-14 shows like Gotham or Stranger Things these days!

Actually I cant count on anything. The series hasnt aired yet.

One of the benefits of this is that we can get a more adult series if the writers so desire.

Its still slightly jarring watching the The Good Wife characters on The Good Fight swearing. But its more natural.

If they decide that a Klingon should rip the head off a victim, then great. If they depict violence, they should show it realistically. if they depict sex, they should show it realistically (even between two men or two women *gasp*).

“Actually I cant count on anything. The series hasnt aired yet.”

That makes no sense. You generally “count on” something that hasn’t happened yet. That’s the essence of “counting on”.

Dont be anal.

Five quatloos says that DSC will be grittier and address more adult themes than previous iterations of the franchise — but without the severed heads.

True. Though there are dragons on Berengaria 7. Maybe we’ll get to see one. :-)

Pretty clear to me that you can have long-form storytelling, and more deeply-drawn characters (and even occasional character conflict) without negating the hopeful future that Trek is so beloved for.

@Karl

Quit being a critic for something you have no idea what the end result will be.

As soon as you quit being a detractor of something you have no idea what the end result will be.

I’m not entirely sure that you understand just how side-lined the TOS factions are in the fanbase as a whole? You moan and complain that the other shows are not to your tastes, attempt to form it in to a sentence, yet fail to realise that you are offending the majority of people who thoroughly enjoyed TNG, DS9, VOY.

Discovery is being made for your group, and it saddens me that we’ll all pay for it with, at best, another long hiatus. You’re being incredibly selfish, particularly in light of having Enterprise and three huge budget movies in recent years.

You are too afraid to let go of TOS and move on to something different, while the rest of us crave greatly for something new but end up getting the same rehashes over and over again. Come on man, give us a break please?

Okay, now you give ME a break, please!

“just how side-lined the TOS factions are in the fanbase as a whole”

That is a preposterous notion. TOS basically IS Star Trek. The Original Series, the Original Movies and the Reboots are the core of the entire franchise and NextGen, which I liked as a series, was a DIRECT spin-off to TOS Phase 2 that got never made but its traces are visible in TMP… Picard is Older Kirk, Riker is Decker, Troy is Ilia, Data is Reverse-Spock aka Xon…

All the other spin-offs are either a stray from what Star Trek was all about (DS9) or are bad photocopies of TOS… especially ENT.

Now, I happen to like all of these shows, yes, even DS9 that wasn’t true Trek but great TV back then, but to focus on the spin-offs instead of TOS is like focusing on Venom instead of Spider-Man to continue the Spider-Man saga…

DS9, VOY and ENT are incredibly side-lined, the only iconic series are TOS and TNG, with TNG already being a reborn TOS.

We are are welcomed to our opinions. For me DS9 was my favotire and yes, it is Star Trek (says it right in the title! :) ). TNG is my 2nd favorite. VOY 3rd. Enterprise 4th …. and TOS is mostly unwatchable. TOS movies = best. TV show – meh.

Yeah, alright. A fan’s PERSONAL attitude towards the individual incarnations of Trek is always welcome and everybody is ebtitled to his or her opinion.

But to imply “TOS is a sidelined” relic in a cultural sense is just bogus. If you ask any non-Trekker what Star Trek is – if he is able to disguish Trek from Wars – he will say Spock or the guy with the ears. Or he’ll mention the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk and maybe Klingons. Picard, Worf or Data might also be mentioned, but noone outside the hardcore fanbase would think of Sisko, Janeway or Archer. Just as Spider-Man is a well-known pop character but Venom and Silver Sable aren’t!

Don’t forget that the TV shows have always been rather niche, attracting less than 5 million viewers.
The movies 1-6 and 11-13 are much more iconic. The only really popular mainstream series with 10+ million viewers was TNG and that was a direct adaptation of the unproduced TOS-Phase 2 concept…

Personal preferences aside, TOS and the NextGen series ARE Star Trek from the iconicity angle…

What’s funny about this argument you go on about what is ‘real’ Star Trek i.e. TOS but Discovery is not TOS either. Kirk and Spock is not on the show. It will have to stand on its own.

Star Trek is whatever is in the title. If people think ‘real’ Star Trek is TOS then Discovery isn’t different than all the other spin offs. They simply put it in a familiar period…but then changed its total look from it.

And I really disagree the Kelvin movies are ‘iconic’. Not in the least IMO.

“….Your Group,” Karl? What ‘group?’ Because I am a TOS fan that means I don’t have a love for any other iterations of Trek? I love them all (to varying degrees), and don’t feel ‘side-lined’ at all. Check your shoe, Man. You stepped in some crap, there.

“TOS is mostly unwatchable”

I think I love you, Captain Sheridan.

I personally think setting it after The Undiscovered Country and before TNG would have been great. 70 years to play with there. Not too psyched that DSC set so close to, and PRIOR to TOS and we’re supposed to buy that (literally and figuratively).

It strikes me that the reason for the time period chosen was because they specifically wanted the Klingons as protagonists, rather than allies.

“It strikes me that the reason for the time period chosen was because they specifically wanted the Klingons as protagonists, rather than allies.”

That makes sense, but did you mean “antagonists”?

Yes, antagonists, my bad.

Probably but I think there is something more. They seem to have suggested the specific time, not just “around TOS” was chosen because Fuller had a very specific idea related to something from this period.

I think there is another shoe to drop.

I personally would have loved the series to be about the Enterprise-C…. it’d have the most tragic ending! But that’s just a fan-wish/dream to see that. They’d never do it. Always thought it’d be awesome to have a seven year, 24 ep a year show that ends with all except 1 main character dead and the ship going boom. Yeah, I can be grim :) .

What i’d really like to see is a Trek series being an anthology, with 3-4 episodes (or each full season) telling a story on a different ship. The C, even the Ent-B, whatever. You could cover different time periods, eras, timelines, go forward, backward, without having to nail yourself down for a full 7 season run.

I was all for an Enterprise B series. I dont think many people would have complained when the Enterprise B was “refit” to update its design a bit.

Have it take place a few weeks after the opening to Generations. In fact, start by showing us the Kirk “death”. Have Kirk’s death loom over the series, much as Luke Skywalker’s disappearance loomed over TFA.

Crazy I’m watching Yesterday’s Enterprise as I type this. And agreed.

Perfectly put, for an anal, close-minded fan. Unfortunately (for you) you don’t get to decide.

Bry… This is a very old complaint but I always thought it a mistake in ’87 that TNG be set some 80 years after the TOS movies. Thought they could still get good Trek by just putting the show in the same era just on some other Federation ship. No reason whatsoever it had to be called Enterprise. I get why Roddenberry did what he did. Distancing from the old show. But it still didn’t stop the cameos and comparisons. They were going to come no matter what. TNG was never going to be it’s own show. Putting it in the future did not change that. But it is what it is. I guess they could do stuff in that 80 year gap, too.

TNG had to take place at a later date because in the late 80’s, they were going to have a very different design and story telling perspective. Trying to make it look like TOS (especially with TOS films) would have been jarring.

Fortunately, we now have Enterprise and Kelvin to help form the design aesthetic of Star Trek. TOS is now the outlier due to the limitations inherent to the time it was produced.

No, it DIDN’T “HAVE” to be much later. The only reason it was were the reasons I already outlined. And they were flawed reasons. TOS is hardly the outlier. It is the genesis.

No, TOS is the outlier in terms of the look of Star Fleet from Enterprise to Nemesis. That is obvious.

So it’s an “outlier” only in the fact that it was a 60’s era TV show. The “look” of Trek changes all the time. In some similar ways TNG can be seen as an “outlier” too. TOS is far more the genesis. Or the catalyst than it is an outlier.

@ML dont be anal.

There is a general evolution from Enterprise through to Nemesis.

Its possible TNG will be rendered an outlier in time but that is not the case yet.

TOS is CLEARLY an outlier when looking at the tech visualized between ENT and TNG and thats because it was the friggen 60’s.

“@ML dont be anal.”

Says the person who is all anal about the term “free TV”.

You are just repeating yourself. You are not moving the discussion forward. I already said it was an outlier only in that it was a 60’s era TV show. Beyond that, not at all. It is the Genesis.

If someone says apple you cant say “orange” and pretend its the same. You chose to argue. If you didnt understand the term, just ask. Dont pretend.

TOS is the outlier. Clearly.

Again, you are just repeating yourself. Doing the same thing over and over again will not get you a different result. No matter how much you hope it does. My response is the same it was the first time you said your silly “outlier” comment and will be the same every time you continue with the same comment. Add something, like an explanation of “why” you feel that way for the discussion to move forward.

I’d say the biggest difference between this show and all other Star Trek shows that I’ve watched, is that I’ll be pirating this one.

(Appluading) No doubt about that happening. You win the Internet today, Horatio.

I taped TNG off TV for it’s entire run, after the first season (and taped S1 whenever there were re-runs).

Also worth noting that the top pirated shows last year were also some of the most watched.

People dont understand piracy. They think they will pirate the show as some sort of civil disobedience. CBS doesnt care about you. Plus, most of them will not pirate it. They will watch. (and some will pretend to watch just to keep complaining).

Yeah, people who pirate wouldn’t pay anyway, so there’s no difference to CBS’ bottom line. Everyone complaining about $5.99/month for a show/universe they are crazy passionate about were never going to pay since they are the ones who demand they get it for free.

I do think DSC could set a record for piracy. If you look at the most pirated shows, they’re usually “geek centric” shows: Game of Thrones, Big Bang Theory, Flash, Arrow, Walking Dead…

That’s because we geeks tend to be more willing and capable of easily torrenting, downloading, or even just finding the pirated copies out there. Casual, mass-market fans don’t have the tech knowledge or will to do it.

Discovery is the PERFECT STORM for piracy: behind a paywall, on a service few have, and fewer want, and marketed specifically to one of the most passionate and tech-savvy group of fans ever to exist!

I still don’t think the piracy will effect the bottom line though. 20 years of downloading/piracy has provided the industry with data that shows that most fans are happy to pay for or legally consume content when it’s something they enjoy.

The fact is that it’s on Netflix in Canada, and the rest of the world. I have Netflix. I’m fine with paying for that. But my country is the 1 place in the world where I don’t get it on Netflix. No. Sorry CBS. Wrong move. I don’t care about anything else in your catalogue. My other option is to wait for you to “air” all episodes and either get a 1 week free trial, cancel it and watch them for free, or pay you $6 once to see it then promptly cancel. Here’s the deal. I’m going to download this, watch it, and if you want, please bill me $6 for the privilege of watching it commercial free. Just don’t expect me to buy your worthless service for 1 thing that you’ve been holding over the head of loyal fans for a decade when you could have been earning revenue from it.

To be honest, I’ll probably pirate the season, I’ll most likely enjoy it if it really is prime universe (love every series for different reasons though I consider Voyager the weakest for obvious reasons) that said once released on Blu-Ray I’ll buy it first day. Picture quality on Blu-ray is still much better than streaming IMO.

I’m not sure where people are streaming or with what connection that Netflix isn’t full blu-ray quality. Always has been for me.

Careful Torch, you’ll have to angry few who have lousy Internet connections and try to blame netflix and then claim they only watch Blu Ray discs for the better quality. makes no sense.

I watch Netflix in 4K. Do I see a difference when I watch a disc? Maybe. Does everyone? No. But I find it hilarious when people who still are using older technology complain about the quality of Netflix. If you’re watching the very best, with the very best TV etc, then complain.

Its just whiners setting up something to complain about – “Okay, the series is GREAT but the quality of the stream is barely 4K so I hate it”.

“you’ll have to angry few who have lousy Internet connections and try to blame netflix”

I’ve never seen anyone on these threads say that. Nor have I ever encountered anyone who ever eluded to that.

ML, actually you have said many times that you dont believe the streaming technology is very good because of how poor your Netflix is when the symptoms you describe are clearly related to your internet connection.

But I never blamed Netflix for anything. You claimed that. Not me.

Actually ML, you said all these things about Streaming in general and Netflix in particular: streaming is STILL a very iffy technology. It has a tendency to freeze and buffer. And the sound and picture quality is just not as good as disc I will NOT pay for streaming. The quality is crap. Somehow the business behind this has gotten people to think that low quality is an acceptable trade off for portability. I have yet to see a good stream of ANYTHING. The technology they are relying on is unreliable. And it is why I do not stream unless I am not paying for it and there is no other option. I don’t want to stream my shows. The quality is terrible. It’s crap Streaming is crappy and unreliable technology. I don’t want to watch trek on low quality, low reliable tech. I’ve used the Netflix app on the disc player with hit or miss success. Sometimes a 23 minute program will stop to buffer every 4 or 5 minutes. Streaming quality is just crap. There is no way around it. NOBODY has streaming friendly ANYTHING You don’t care that the stream stops mid stream for buffering depending on when you do your streaming. I get that you don’t care about quality. I’ve had Netflix stop to buffer from time to time. It’s not every time but it’s enough to be annoying. That is the tech’s problem. Not mine. (***NOTE: its your internet service) I never guessed at what… Read more »

You spent a lot of time writing something that supports what I said. I did indeed question the quality of streaming. I never did blame Netflix as the cause of bad streaming. Nowhere in your lengthy list did I ever blame Netflix.

Further, your editorials comments are still wrong. It’s not my internet. It’s the the level of tech. Which, btw, as expected has improved a bit over the last few years.

Your case supports mine, thank you very much.

How on earth can it be the technology causing your issue when EVERYONE ELSE watches BETTER quality than you without any of the issues you report??? You’re flat out wrong. Stop lying.

And yes, you absolutely blamed Netflix. Read it again. You claimed your Netflix buffered repeatedly and said it was NOT you’re internet. You DID blame Netflix.

Grow up. You’ve been called out and proven wrong.

No reply, eh ML? You’ve been defeated by your own words.

Now, can we please stop? Stop bragging about stealing content and stop bashing CBS for nonsense. Stop pretending your ignorance about streaming are facts when they aren’t.

If you prefer to watch lesser quality, that’s your choice. Others watch glorious 4K via streaming. Or heck, glorious 4K Blu Ray. You do neither. So you cant really complain.

HUH? I don’t frequent this site 24/7, sparky. How about a little patience? You used my own words and they support that I never blamed Netflix for the quality of streaming tech. They are the users of it. Not the creators of it. I don’t blame the business I ordered from for the slow speed of the mail to get it to my home, either.

I’ve never bragged about doing something I’ve never done. Like stealing. I defy you to show me where I’ve done that. Hint: You can’t. Likewise, I’ve never bashed CBS for Nonsense, either.

I choose to watch in higher quality. That is why I prefer to NOT stream content. If you like lower quality streaming, good for you. No need to bash others for wanting something better.

Why are you playing this game? You did criticise Netflix but even if we said okay, you only ripped the ENTIRE STREAMING TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY, what difference does that make? lol

You still claim the tech doesnt work well even though it does.

By the way your example of mail delivery is a very poor one. It simply isnt relevant.

Why would you state that I prefer lower quality when my 4K netflix is better quality than your 1080 disc or 720 cable? By your logic, you ENJOY lesser quality.

You have no idea what “everyone else” experiences. You are not allowed to speak for “everyone else”. What one person sees as a problem another may be fine with. So you really have no idea. “Everyone else” will thank you to not speak on their behalf. You were not commissioned to speak for them.

I did NOT blame Netflix. Nowhere did I say anything even close to saying, “the quality of streaming tech is the fault of Netflix.” I claimed the streaming tech was questionable. Netflix uses that tech. They did not invent it. Do you blame the auto manufacturer for the bumpy road, too?

If the auto manufacturer provided the road, I would.

Dont play silly bugger and pretend that when you complained about Netflix (which you did and I quoted you) and complained about streaming in general it ONLY meant streaming.

What difference does it really make anyway? You are WRONG about streaming.

As for speaking for everyone, I imagine the majority of people who enjoy Netflix who have experienced repeated buffering issues probably called their internet provider and fixed it.

You’re the one that claimed more than 70% of streaming users have bad streaming. Were you authorized to speak on their behalf?

Explain this: How is it I can watch Netflix in 4K, Dolby Vision, Surround sound with ZERO buffering issues and wonderfully intuitive controls? But you cant watch regular HD? How is your issue the fault of the streaming technology when mine works great?

Just man up and admit you were wrong. You’re clinging to this incorrect false narrative that CBSAA sucks and CBS are jerks for putting Discovery on the stone age technology based on YOUR personal experience using your friends streaming service when that is clearly not an accurate reflection of the tech.

Its your internet. Trust me. I know.

“If the auto manufacturer provided the road, I would.” And yet you hold Netflix responsible for the quality of streaming tech. Sorta inconsistent…. I never once held Netflix accountable for the tech they are using. Just like I do not hold auto manufacturers responsible for the condition of the roads. You have never cited anywhere I have claimed it. But you continue repeating the same thing over and over hoping it becomes truth. It doesn’t. My assessment of streaming is not wrong. It is an assessment shared by many. Including by those in the know. I’ve even provided links that support this. It’s nice that you can imagine stuff. But your imagination is hardly conclusive evidence that allows you to speak on behalf of “everyone”. No matter how much you personally think it does. I didn’t claim conclusively. I made an educated guess based on my personal experience and the experience of others I have spoken with. Nowhere did I say it was set in stone. And even if it were true, it would not be speaking on their behalf in any way. I’m not telling you what others think or how others should be acting. That is your purview. I cannot explain what you perceive. However, given your lack of understanding of other basic and simple concepts, my guess would be that things may not really be working at a level that would be acceptable to me but you are totally fine with. There is nothing wrong with that,… Read more »

Well.. You may THINK it is just as good as BD disc. But it isn’t. Some can’t tell the difference, though and that’s fine. I remember when HD first came out and people thought that as long as the picture filled the new sized screen it was HD! But it’s their eyeballs and their home. If they are happy with it then it’s all good.

ML, stop. You cannot tell the difference because you think 1080 Disc is better than 4K streaming.

I never said that either.

You’ve argued that Netflix and other streaming services cannot streak better than you’re Blu Rays and finally admitted you dont watch 4K so actually, yes, streaming is better than your blu rays.

I watch Netflix all the time. Glorious 4K. Dolby Vision. Surround Sound. On my big TV. No problems.

So if someone complains about airline seats I guess your response is to tell them to buy first class tickets. I’m talking about what the majority are using. Not the outliers. I’ve said this before. Further still, when I started streaming there was no 4K out there yet anyway. But this has all been said before to your deaf ears.

If someone complained about their airline seats and then claimed there was absolutely no better seats in the world, then yes, we’d make fun of that person.

No one said that though. When people speak about uncomfortable airline seats, who tells them to buy first class? I’ve never heard anyone do it. The response normally is, “yeah. They do such, don’t they?” Because the vast majority do not ever consider first class mainly because of the cost. So when talking airlines, it goes without saying that they are referring to the standard seats that make up some 90+% of the plane. This is really very basic stuff for people who have been communicating in the same language for more than 5-10 years I should think….

You are just being anal.

Not remotely true.

Ill give you two real world examples. My gf went to Amsterdam and the regular seat was so uncomfortable (and she’s tiny) she upgraded to the better seats for the return flight.

I went to Jamaica for a wedding and my friend said it was comfortable in the regular seating as he’s 6’5″. Im 6’2″ so I upgraded to the PLUS seating.

When the lower tier isnt sufficient, you either accept it or you upgrade. Complaining that there is nothing better while slandering an entire industry is just stupid.

First, assuming it’s true (of which there are serious doubts) those who just buy upgrades to first class because they didn’t like coach are among the very rare selection of people who have a VERY large disposable income. To that vast majority the concept of upgrading is just not a realistic option. Therefore, when people complain in general about the tiny airline seats, they do so KNOWING there is a first class available but it so much not a realistic option that it’s simply not mentioned not only by the person doing the complaining but by the people doing the listening. It’s known that first class exists. But it’s just not used by enough to make mention of it. 4K exists. But there are not THAT many 4K sets sold at this point. There is very little programming available in 4K. It is such a small percentage of the TV pie that it just is not worth mentioning as a true option. This is the concept I’m attempting to get you to understand. But I don’t think you will even own up to it because it renders your entire 4K argument impotent.

Yeah, okay. Justify stealing however you want.

This series is not on Netflix in Canada.

No shit.

The sole point of pre-show hype is to get people to watch the show. So some folks are telling us that the show will be very different, and others are telling us that it will stick closely to canon. So anything you think you want, you’ll be able to find justification for. :-)

The only way to actually know what the show will be like is to watch it in September. I’m sure we’re all hoping that it will be excellent, even if we have a zillion different opinions about what “excellent” would look like. :-)

I didnt realise “different” and “canon” were mutually exclusive.

“Different” and “canon” aren’t necessarily different, but it’s certainly a difference in emphasis, isn’t it, to say “This Trek will be different” vs. “This Trek will be respectful of canon.”

And you know from reading the comments that not all Trek fans — or at least, not all of the people who comment on Trek sites — understand nuances, so saying one has a different effect than saying the other.

Corylea – yes. I’m not a psychologist but as fans it’s like we are all in love with the same person who at turns amuses then spurns then surprises us. Not sure nuance and romance always work together!

Trek In a Cafe — Yes, you’re right. Our hearts are open when we’re in love, and that has good aspects and bad aspects. It can open us up to wonderful possibilities, or it can make it possible for us to get really, really hurt.

Those of us who don’t just LIKE Trek but who are in love with it take it very seriously indeed, because our hearts are involved. And that means that we can be moved, awed, delighted, and inspired when Trek is good, or we can be shocked, saddened, disappointed and depressed when it’s bad.

Kirk would tell us that falling in love is worth it, and while I’m usually a Spock person, I have to agree with Kirk on this one. ;-)

I agree, but you’d be surprised how many Trek fans seem to WANT this show to fail and be terrible…

A lot of self loathing Trek fans would rather have no Trek than to have Trek that isnt designed specifically for their tastes.

If this forum existed when TNG debuted, it would have been savaged.

THIS! I will just smile when Discovery is a huge hit and becomes one of the best iterations,. because it has the budget, creative talent and cast to do just that

I think many of the fans who are saying cynical things are trying to protect themselves from disappointment.

Lots of people were EXTREMELY excited when the 2009 movie came out … and a lot of those same people were quite disappointed when they saw Vulcan being blown up and Kirk being made captain when he hadn’t even graduated from the Academy yet.

Many people learned from that experience, and they learned not to give their hearts to something just because it was labeled “Trek,” because their hearts might get stomped on.

I think if the new show is really good, an awful lot of people who are currently cynical as a means of self-protection will be relieved and happy to embrace the new show.

(Of course, if the new show turns out to suck, then those fans will be even more cynical in the future. There’s more than one reason why I really hope the new show is great!)

Nah… most of these people were like that even before… they were already shitting on the ’09 Reboot before anything was known, as Trek Fans always do. We’re collectively a bunch of severely sexually malnourished t-crossers and i-dotters or at the very least acting like it.
It won’t matter if DSC will be the best thing since sliced bread or not, they won’t budge and they won’t move even if it is just to avoid admitting they were wrong.

Here’s the thing: even the best writers and producers, even with the best intentions, and the right ideas, can produce bad stuff. It happens. Not everything can be great. If I don’t like Discovery, I don’t think I’ll be anything but disappointed in Discovery. I will think something like “well, that’s too bad. Hopefully they do something better next time.”

The other thing is: not everything has to live on forever. Some of my favorite sci-fi films and tv shows were a single movie or short lived TV show: Moon, Sunshine, The Fifth Element, Firefly, Farscape, Quantum Leap.

Sure, I’d have watched if they’d continued or done sequels to them, but they are still just as good as they were. If Discovery is bad and is the last we EVER see of Star Trek, that’s fine with me. I’ll always be able to enjoy TNG, VOY, DS9, ENT, and the many great films we have readily available on Netflix and home media.

Yep. If DSC fails to provide dramatic, thoughtful SF there’s always The Expanse.. And if that fails, there’ll be something else. Life goes on.

Good points, as one who also felt thoroughly burned in 2009. (Nevertheless, I still saw INTO DARKNESS and BEYOND in first run. Can you be too cynical and still be a fan of this franchise?)

I hope that Discovery will be in 4K UltraHD on All Access. That’s one way to add value and help it standout. I don’t think people who subscribe to All Access are all that interested in other non-trek content on the service.

I hope so too, although I will be watching on SPACE HD. But if its good, Ill spring for the Blu Rays.

Some people here are still watching TV from the 30’s and complaining about their internet connection lol But one would assume they’d be looking to maximize the quality of their service.

@FEC — hopefully HDR as well. The dark photography, shadows/enhanced contrast, and color accuracy should look amazing.

I love how he brags about not being on a sharing service like Hulu–as if that doesn’t spell the network’s certain death.

That means they’re in control of most of their content and it isn’t dispersed across various platforms. The fact that they have 1 million subscribers based on about 99% non-exclusive content indicates that they’re doing well since all that content is stuff sitting in the CBS library, including Trek, and they’re not paying anything for that. So already they’re making at least $72 million a year minus operating costs.

I think if CBSAA can add 3-4 original shows a year, and build a library of exclusive content, it has a chance to succeed. If they can’t, they’ll likely continue DSC on another service (likely Netflix)— assuming it’s good.

Possibly. It has been around for almost three years already so I guess it depends on how much money they want it to make. Considering they essentially aren’t paying much out of pocket for Discovery, besides promotion and stuff, they could continue the same deal with Netflix for a while.

My point is that if CBSAA folds, it doesn’t mean Discovery will fold with it, if the show is good.

Hey, i just want to know if we’re gonna see some genuine Constitution Class starships at all. They should be in service already right?

I bet not in season one but how do you resist that urge?

Agreed, TUP. And I can’t WAIT until they retcon it (think Gabe Koerner’s reboot design).

Im all for it. I’d be VERY careful though. Respect the design, just treat it as though its the same ship made with modern effects.

Flat screens. Better quality materials. More detail. etc.

It can be done and look glorious.

They could also show it in transition to the version in TMP.

All this is key. It would be fun if there are Easter eggs of tech we want to see – merging – like when u go on a trip in an electric car over a wooden bridge. And yes, Robert April – maybe played by Tobey McGuire or Andrew Garfield, who, despite recent wierd comments, is about underrated and fun.

Why Maguire or Garfield? Is there a Spider-Man connection or joke I’m not seeing?

Wuldnt Pike be Captain of the Enterprise during the time of Discovery?

I’d love to see a retconned Constitution — but not Koerner’s, which to my eyes is almost as ugly as the Abrams version.

Or to see James T Kirk. Come on one more shot of Shat!

The Enterprise is 10 years old when Discovery begins under the command of Capt. April. Kirk is a ensign aboard the Farragut.

It would be very cool to see the first canon appearance of Captain April.

Won’t “look or feel” any different for me as I refuse to pay a penny for this new Star Trek show and a lot of crappy CBS sitcoms that they would have to pay a lot more than $6 a month to actually sit and watch

And to all the suits at CBS who are trying to get you to pay for something you used to get for free (and then tell u what a bargain you are getting) this is a perfect way to bury this program….At best it will be a niche program and at worst a total flop as almost nobody will be able to see it.

CBS All Access = ripoff.

@voodoo — how droll, you actually think you get TV for free.

There is a device you attach to your TV called an ANTENNA. It picks up signals that are broadcast over they are. It’s free in that it is not a pay service like cable or HULU.

So yu get every available channel with this ANTENNA? Who provides this ANTENNA for free? Where did you get your free TV? Are you plugging into a free power outlet? What happens when it rains, does your TV get wet? Does someone provide you with a free roof?

Knock off the lie that TV is free. it isnt.

Anyone can get any over the air broadcast with one of those antenna devices. The broadcasters do not charge you to receive the signals. If you are truly as sharp as you like to say you are then you know better than to say something as silly as what you said and be serious about it.

You cannot recieve all channels with an Antenna. And while you could probably make one yourself, you still need a TV, power source and, very likely, a roof over your head.

Stop pretending TV is free.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that I think you know that TV stations do not charge people picking up their broadcasts over the air a fee for doing so. THAT is what is meant when people say “FREE TV”. Don’t be so anal.

Im going to assume you’re just ignorant to reality when you whine about paying for content and openly brag about stealing it and then have the gall to actually be critical of the quality of the program.

I mean, you are the one whining about needing a “device” to watch streaming content but missed the fact you need a “device” to watch ALL tv.

Wow… I give you the benefit of the doubt and you return the favor by continuing to cry and moan and bash and put down.

Once again… If you are going to tell me I’m stealing content from somewhere at least point out where I have admitted to it. Or even eluded to it. You don’t do it because you can’t.

You are ignoring the fact that I’m talking about adding more and more devices to the point that it is just ridiculous. Not buying a TV to begin with. So was giving you the benefit of the doubt a mistake on my part? Do you really not understand what people mean when they speak about “free TV”?

“If you are going to tell me I’m stealing content from somewhere at least point out where I have admitted to it. Or even eluded to it.”

Okay….:

If I really want to watch some low quality streaming I can use my friend’s account.

And it is why I do not stream unless I am not paying for it and there is no other option.

I have found two other buddies willing to go in on a subscription with me.

I have a friend who shares her streaming with me.

:)

OK. Still waiting for the part where you cite me saying I’m stealing or even eluding to stealing.

I’m going to be waiting a long time. You and I both know you can’t. What you just cited is not me stealing. It’s my friends sharing. There is a difference that you are just not understanding. Perhaps if you had better friends you would…

And nothing on your understanding of what is meant when people say “free TV” either.

Where is this free TV you speak of? Is there a government program that gives you a free TV set, free cable box, free cable and free power to run it?

Where do I sign up?

Good thing fans of the Sopranos, Game of Thrones, House of Cards and many other examples werent this stupid.

I’ll watch ST as much as I watched Big Brother on All Access… and that was 0%.

“Different?” That’s his pitch? I’m really starting to wonder about this marketing roll-out for DSC. Why put out a bunch of vague, general descriptions–“intelligent,” “gritty,” “complex,” “different”–instead of showing what’s in store? I don’t understand how “different” is supposed to motivate me or anyone else to sign up. Golly, I’ve never seen anything “different” before. And, what’s with this: If you’ve seen the trailer for Star Trek: Discovery, you can see that Soniqua Martin-Green is a unique star… Because…why, exactly? Because she’s Black? Because she’s a woman? Golly, a Black and a woman combined into one person! Wow! Where else would I get to see one of those!?! Maybe she’ll be a lesbian, too, for the trifecta.

Just to spell this out for the PC Police: My point is about selling the show based on such superficial attributes, as though a Black woman is some rarity that you might only get to see in a menagerie or something. This has been an element of the marketing strategy for DSC since the very beginning, and it really makes me wonder.

Would you be happier if he just read from the pilot script?

You are decidedly sour about this show so you’re looking for on ramps in everything to complain.

Wait until the show airs.

There is nothing remotely troubling about what he said. He is being very general in hyping the show.

And yes if being a black female lead of a sci fi show is part of the appeal, good for them.

Well, Cygnus has made it plain that he has no desire or intention of watching DSC in any event. Which is perfectly fine and more power to him — but you do have to wonder what he thinks he’s bringing to this discussion besides the same, endlessly repeated complaints and talking points.

You’ve found a way of eloquently putting how I’ve been feeling about these critics for some time. It’s fine to be unhappy with what you see. It’s perfectly fine to voice that anger and disappointment, perhaps even aggressively. But there’s a limit.

These folks who endlessly regurgitate the same angry rantings and ravings are just a nuisance now. It was a nice back-and-forth early on debating pros and cons– excitement vs. disappointment– but at this point, go away, and let those of us who are excited enjoy discussing in peace, now that you’ve decided it’s not for you.

Like you say, these people are not adding anything to the discussion and are simply trying to drag down everyone else’s excitement. I feel sorry for the lives they lead that they feel– two years later– this is still worth their time.

Truly sad.

Cyg has always been a very insightful and thoughtful poster. So I too am disappointed in his position on Discovery.

Although I can understand how Kurtzman’s former team soured him (and others) on Star Trek with their JJ films, going into this series with a closed mind is decidedly un-Trek-like.

TUP

Look, I’m just calling it like I see it. I’m not one to just toe the line. Sorry.

Michael Hall

Well, that’s not true at all. I’m going to give the show a chance, just as you are. I don’t see why you have to get all uptight about it.

“PC Police”? Jesus. Being a network executive, and pitching to a trade group, his obvious focus was on product and marketing, the idea being that a charismatic lead actress of color and an internationally-known Chinese star would be probable assets to the show’s marketability. Nothing more significant than that — certainly nothing relating to political correctness or what constitutes good SF or drama or canon or any such nerdish concerns as you and I might have. And that’s perfectly okay; he wasn’t speaking to us.

Michael Hall

Being a network executive, and pitching to a trade group, his obvious focus was on product and marketing…

Well, of course it was. Why are you stating the obvious? My point is that the substance of his marketing is exceedingly superficial, as it has been with the entire marketing campaign for DSC. You are aware that, as with all skills, there more and less compelling ways to market a product, right?

“This has been an element of the marketing strategy for DSC since the very beginning.”

No, it hasn’t been. For the upteenth time: Bryan Fuller was asked if the show would be ethnically diverse, and whether it would include a gay character. He responded in the affirmative. None of the producers have made a big issue of this since then, and despite the fact that the subsequent reveal of the cast is no more racially diverse than we would expect of any Trek series (and we still know next to nothing about the gay character), there is still the endless carping about peecee boxes being checked-off to the cries, echoing up from the Reddit sewers, of “white genocide.” Your choice, Cygnus, but I have to tell you that I would be very distressed indeed to find myself sharing the same rhetorical space as such people.

I will repeat: this show has more white male characters than DS9.

Exactly. Some people act like Fuller went on a gay marketing world tour or something. The question was relevant to Fuller as a show runner and relevant to a franchise that was always thought of us socially progressive but never featured an outwardly gay character before.

It would have been off for Fuller to not get asked.

Michael Hall

My remark about the “white genocide” comment was that it made no sense to me. And it has nothing to do with my point. I disagree with your characterization that Bryan Fuller just happened to respond to a question that he was asked. The press releases that the DSC marketing team has been putting out are, like all press releases, tactics in support of a strategy. The strategy that I’m seeing is what I’ve been “carping” about, and it’s not just limited to “tick the boxes,” but it does include that. Fuller wasn’t just answering questions; he was publicizing that the characters would be certain types before they were even written. That’s really not the same as merely “answering a question in the affirmative.”

This isn’t the Star Trek I was hoping for. It’s degraded into “Game of Thrones In Space” and I’m not interested in that. It’s so sad. I’ve seen every other ST series, but I can’t get behind this one. I don’t like Game of Thrones, and I don’t want a sappy space drama with a Star Trek coat of paint.

Yeah, I agree. It’s really sad that a show I haven’t seen has devolved into an bad show that I invented in my head.

You haven’t seen GoT or read the Books, eh?

Are you speaking in response to me? Because if so, perhaps you understood my intent. Let me rephrase:

“It’s really sad that a show I haven’t seen has become a show that I invented in my head, because I haven’t seen it and truthfully have no idea what it’s like, I’m just taking some online comments from producers and assuming it’s something I’m not going to like, and therefore I’m going to hope it fails because even though I honestly have no idea if it’s good or bad I’m going to hate it anyway.”

Yep, well-said. When the producers reference GoT I’m assuming they’re talking about its scope, style, and the complex characters, as opposed to incest, beheadings, and ice zombies. Of course we won’t know for certain until September, but it’s a bet I’d be pretty confident to take.

@Torchwood Sorry, that question was for Mr. Boyer not for you. Did I mess up the reply buttons? Don’t like the New System :D

@SelorKiith Agreed, and no problem.

@Michael Well frankly, simply comparing it to GoT could mean a million different things: a higher caliber of acting, scope, violence, sex, long-form storytelling, serious drama, deep and well-rounded characters, the general intensity– that show isn’t defined by any one characteristic.

@Torchwood Oh, definitely agreed. But I’m betting against sex and/or violence much more overt than anything we’ve seen previously in Trek, let alone beheadings.

I agree with you JJ. Discovery isnt for you. if you’re ready to not watch it based on very limited information and WITHOUT HAVING SEEN ONE EPISODE, then do yourself (and the rest of us a favour) and turn in your fandom card and go away.

Thank!

I want good philosophical stories. The kind that harked back to TOS, a lot of Greek and Western cultural classics, in space.
The reason I worry for the series is what the network is pushing: special effects, woman/black main character (may have taken a fun direction with possible Vulcan connection), gay characters new designs for ships, new aliens, modern Trek reboot looking style. All of those things don’t make good stories.
If rumors are to be true, it has a lot to do with time travel. While time travel can be interesting, it is the crutch of bad writers to do anything they want, while making a big mess (Exhibit A, the Abrams Trek reboot).

Including Nicholas Meyer, Jonathan Frakes and several others who have produced excellent material in the past is a wise step, but Bryan Fuller leaving leaves my expectations mild. I would bet we’ll get a supercharged version of Star Trek: Enterprise. There will be a few nice episodes along the way, but it’ll be mostly a space action series.

I’m going to be open minded about it and not bash something I haven’t seen. Yet, the way it’s been handled, presented and given to the public and the Trek community is leaving me very cautious.

Fair enough. Your concerns seem reasonable, especially wrt time travel, something I hope they stay entirely away from. We’ll just have to see.

I don’t disagree with your larger point, but couldn’t the inclusion of minorities like African Americans and gays spark the kinds of good social messaging and philosophical stories that were a hallmark of classic Trek?

Just like the other interview with Kurtzman this guy is not saying anything new at all. Looks like we’ll have to wait for July 22 to get actual new information.

And this is how I like it. It’s exciting not knowing.

@Torchwood,

To each his own.

DeB makes sounds like what you’d hear if a hooker’s damp twenty could talk. I know the business angle is essential, but I hate that it leads the discussion. TOS was/is a glorious mess of ideas that somehow found its way while only minimally obeying the demands of 60’s television. Many of our favorite entertainments succeed because they surprise us; they feel fresh. St Disco (my abreviation) seems constructed from established parts. That worries me greatly.

“DeB makes sounds like what you’d hear if a hooker’s damp twenty could talk.”

Awesome turn of phrase that I’m probably going to have to steal from you someday. Bear in mind, though, that it’s this guy’s job to talk about this stuff like it’s sausages or furniture (i.e. just one more product to sell). And remember, too, the spectacle of Spock’s ears being airbrushed in the original NBC promotional materials if you’re tempted to think that it was ever any different.

It doesn’t lead the discussion. It leads THIS discussion, because the man talking is the President of a CBS division. When the writers talk, it will be about the story, when the actors talk it will be about performances, when set designers talk it will be about visuals.

Doesn’t that make sense?

Way back during my A2files days, there was a controversial theory that the over-nostalgified TOS aesthetics was the proverbial monkey wrench that caused the visual break between the aesthetic “progression” across multiple starship design eras.

The theory was that if we completely disregarded TOS, the visuals of ENT-TMP-TNG suddenly make more sense. (NX – Constitution Refit – Sovereign) Apparently, it was always that damn little tikes buttons, plastic textures and the cardboard look that hasn’t aged well.

There was some more bullshit that it was just easier to retcon TMP as the TOS look in the first place. Mileage varies, please put down the damn pitchforks, they’re getting rusty.

It’s just PR talk, you have to understand that the most important thing is that people believe it, not that it is actually true.

Personally, I think it is crap to make up pay for Star Trek. CBS says it is only 5.99 monthy to subscribe, but to do that you have to have cable. Not everyone can afford cable. I’ve been a Trekkie since the beginning and feel CBS is being very unfair.

@Chloe — huh!? All you have to have is an Internet connection. ANY internet connection. You don’t need cable, or access to it.

So…Chloe, do you buy groceries? is it unfair of the store to make you pay for them? When you go see a movie, is it unfair of the theatre to ask you to pay for a ticket?

You posted here so you have Internet or a data phone. Do you pay for it? is that unfair?

Why on earth should Star Trek be free? And if it was, what expectation would you have for its quality?

Funny…Most of that crap on All-Access i can watch OTA. I’m not going to pay for another streaming service to just watch one show. Trek deserves to be on its home network or syndication. Not as an excuse for a blatant cash grab.

One thing. I was on the ropes about ST09 and STID (and I still don’t think 2009 was a masterpiece like some do, and that STID was a horrid rehash), but got beyond “Star Trek: Beyond.” I’m interested in this Discovery and yes it looks vastly different from a lot of other Trek (yeah it does have a few cues from the reboot movies, but not the bothersome ones). Don’t go smearing and attacking the critics of DSC – I’m looking forward to it and I think it looks fantastic, but bullying those who are against it sends out a horrible message. Keep in mind recently there was a Star Trek vs Star Wars thing that went WAY TOO FAR (http://epicstream.com/news/Star-Wars-Vs-Star-Trek-Debate-Ends-In-Assault-And-Battery-Arrest). Hey, the critics might be vindicators, but don’t go picking on them, or otherwise it might be YOU who is doing the hating.

To be honest, as someone who was highly disappointed in the JJ films, if there was no call backs to those films it wouldnt make sense. The USS Kelvin was a PRIME timeline ship. That’s canon.

Calling this stealth reboot “Prime” is a cynical insult by CBS. Watch the excellent discussions about the problems with STD on the Midnight’s Edge YT channel.

No one with an ounce of credibility can discuss the “problems” of a series they know nothing about and havent seen.

They can when they review industry media reports and talk to production insiders.

Im going to do a podcast with all my industry insider sources too…*fart*

Hey guys, remember that idea for a series called Star Trek Beyond that involved going to another galaxy? What if this is the reason STD has 2 ships and 2 pilots?

wpDiscuz
Advertisment ad adsense adlogger