Les Moonves Assures CBS Investors First Six Episodes Of ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Are “Terrific”

Today has brought business news related to both CBS and Paramount Pictures, the two separate companies that share Star Trek. For CBS, the CEO is again touting the upcoming show Discovery as the driving force behind the growth of their All Access streaming service. As for Paramount, the company has inked an important co-financing deal with one of the partners for the last two Star Trek feature films.

CBS CEO predicts Star Trek will drive All Access growth this fall

Today CBS announced their second quarter earnings with revenue up 9.4% to $3.26 billion. In a call with investors, CEO Les Moonves touted the CBS All Access platform noting that together with the Showtime streaming service, it should reach a total of over four million subscribers by the end of this year.

Moonves specifically discussed Discovery during the call:

You have all heard quite a bit about the debut of Star Trek: Discovery next month. I have now seen the first six episodes and I can assure you that it is terrific. It is the perfect vehicle to take All Access to the next level and beyond.

The company also announced that CBS All Access will be going global, although with regards to Star Trek: Discovery Moonves clarified that Netflix  will retain the international rights as part of their deal. Moonves summed up the future outlook for CBS All Access thusly:

With a full season of NFL, Star Trek: Discovery, and more and more original programming and every episode of every CBS show on CBS this fall, and international expansion, we are just getting started with All Access.

During the Q&A with the investment press, Moonves was asked about growth of All Access and again cited the upcoming launch of Discovery:

This fall with Star Trek, the NFL and new programming we really think it should grow quite a bit.

And in response to another question about their content strategy for All Access and other platforms, Moonves talked about their decision to put Discovery on All Access:

We could have put Star Trek on Showtime, on the CBS Television Network or Netflix, Amazon, they all wanted it for a lot of money. We determined that Star Trek would be far better for All Access and will earn us more money.

As we have reported before, Star Trek: Discovery is seen by CBS as the key to meeting growth expectations for their All Access streaming service. And just last week CBS announced new additional original programming and the addition of their CBSN 24/7 news network. During the call Moonves also announced CBS will be launching a 24/7 sports network.

The Good Fight and Star Trek: Discovery are the first original scripted shows on CBS All Access, with more to come.

While Moonves updated investors that he has seen six finished episodes, co-showrunner alerted Twitter yesterday on the status on the rest of the episodes in various levels of development or post-production.

Paramount renews with Skydance, seeks to assure Huahua

While CBS is doing quite well money-wise, Viacom (parent company of Paramount Pictures who hold the rights to make Star Trek movies) is still struggling in that area. But today brought some good news as Variety reports Skydance Media and Paramount Pictures announced they have renewed their partnership. David Ellison’s Skydance has partnered with Paramount on a number of recent tentpole films, including both Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond. Ellison was also credited as an executive producer on both films.

After a number of box office disappointments Skydance was apparently looking to end the relationship but the recent hiring of a new Paramount CEO has kept them in the fold.

“We have the utmost confidence in Paramount’s bright future under the strategic direction of Jim Gianopulos, and we look forward to continuing to partner with him and the world-class leadership team that he has put in place,” David Ellison said in a statement. “From beloved franchises to wholly original IP and bold new animated films, together we have ambitious plans to bring more great stories to the big screen for audiences around the globe.”

The announcement included a number of previously announced upcoming Paramount films including installments from the Mission: Impossible, Top Gun, World War Z and Terminator franchises, but did not mention Star Trek.

Variety is also reporting that executives from Viacom are headed to China to secure additional future financing with Huahua, another partner on Star Trek Beyond. The Chinese company is said to be unhappy with the performance of recent Paramount films in China (notably Baywatch and Transformers: The Last Night) and want reassurances about the future slate.

From Variety:

Huahua believes it still has the ability to get out of the deal if Paramount films do not improve their financial performance in the next 12 to 24 months. The hope is that next week’s meeting, during which Viacom will present new proposals and preview upcoming releases, will better clarify Paramount’s long-term strategy.

“Viacom needs to explain a better plan for how it spends [our] investment money,” the Huahua source said.

As we have reported, Paramount and its parent Viacom see Star Trek as one of their key tentpole franchises, and all ‘tentpole’ films from Paramount require outside financing from partners like Skydance and Huahua. These deals could be critical components of decisions on what to do next with the Trek film franchise.

Skydance’s David Ellison at the premiere of Star Trek Beyond in 2016

Leave a Reply

528 Comments on "Les Moonves Assures CBS Investors First Six Episodes Of ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Are “Terrific”"

Sort by:   newest | oldest

I plan to watch the pilot, but I don’t plan on getting All Access just for one show. If the reviews are good I’ll just buy the whole season.

“I have now seen the first six episodes and I can assure you that it is terrific.”

Hopefully, that doesn’t mean that the seventh episode sucks.

Per yesterday’s tweets from the writers, I believe the 7th episode was just being cut.

There will always be a stinker or two. Even the excellent first season of TOS gave us “The Alternative Factor”.

Given the limited number of episodes combined with the pay for streaming aspect of it they really have no excuse to bring us ANY stinker episodes. If they had a full 22+ episode season, OK. But not for just 12 or 13. That said, most of the short season series’ these days do NOT have stinker episodes. Season 6 of GoT pretty much hit it out of the part every one of their 10. But then, the recent season of The American’s just wasn’t up to their own bar from previous seasons. The difference for The American’s is I’m not paying a special extra fee JUST to watch that ONE show.

Do you know how many episodes are in season one?

Read the post you just responded to. Your answer is there.

Oh I know how many episodes. You framed your argument based on your belief there is only 12-13 episodes. The correct answer is 15. Just wanted to see if you knew that.

It was already extended once.

And that’s all you have going for you. Nitpicks that don’t change anything.

I wouldn’t say that information that is factually correct as opposed to factually incorrect is a nitpick. But to each their own.

Of course you wouldn’t. Because that would be admitting your own shortcomings. Which is something you NEVER do. It’s always the other guy with you.

@TUP and @ML31,
Oh golly, are you guys keeping on with the flame wars? Please don’t or I’ll be skipping your posts

TUP, according to IMDB, season one has 15 episodes.

Heavily serialized shows can’t afford major clunkers, since every episode plays into the next one. Given that an entire writer’s room collectively takes responsibility for each show, it’s unlikely that we’ll get a “Shades of Gray” or an “And the Children Shall Lead.” The question is, will we get a “City on the Edge of Forever,” or does the serialized format preclude that kind of one-off brilliance?

true. I think they idea of being premium content creates a higher standard for quality. They’ve already compared themselves to Game of Thrones so they are embracing that sense of a deeper story telling universe.

Hopefully they pull it off.

Well Michael.. The Xindi arc in Enterprise allowed for a couple of semi-stand alones. Similitude certainly stood out. So I don’t think it precludes such things completely. Although the shorter season might.

True. I get the impression that DSC will be much more heavily serialized than ENT or DS9, though.

@Dan – yup. I was just wondering if ML knew since he based his complaint off an incorrect episode count for season 1 which had been extended.

And if you weren’t being so nitpicky and looked at the bigger picture you would see thave being one or two off doesn’t matter. It was already extended from 10 to 13. I admit I was unaware of another 2 episodes added. But again, the comment still stands regardless.

Not true. It was always suppose to be 13 episodes.

http://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-discovery/news/1007152/star-trek-discovery-expands-to-15-episodes-and-will-feature-companion-after-show/

Bryan Fuller stated he WANTED it to just be 10 episodes but it was always 13 from the beginning. Probably another reason he got the boot.

OK. That is also being a bit nitpicky. While perhaps factually correct it was reported originally as 10 episodes. So it was wrong. But it was not an unreasonable thing to say based on how this thing has been reported.

I think if you’re going to argue the finer points of the series including a lot of nitpicky things, then actually knowing how many episodes are in season one is kind of important.

It was close enough given the context of what was being discussed. The exact number of episodes was not the subject. Not was I discussing any of the “finer” points of the series.

Context is your friend.

It isnt yours though, clearly.

No, its correcting your mistake. You make a lot of them here. It was never reported as 10 episodes. Never.

“In a red carpet interview at the Saturn Awards on 22 June 2016, Fuller revealed that the first season will be comprised of a thirteen-episode story arc. Filming will take place from September 2016 to March 2017.”

That was the very first time someone confirmed how many episodes the show would have first season. What you’re getting confused on is that Fuller said either in that interview or a later one he would’ve LIKED it to be just 10 episodes but it was always 13 from the start.

No, I make a few but to say a “lot” is gross exaggeration. The first reports I read was saying the show would be your typical 10 season show. And that was from before June of 16. Then it was reported it would be 12-13. But you are focusing off point and highlighting minutia here anyway. It really doesn’t matter and even if incorrect it doesn’t damage my original point.

OK, lets call your mistakes ‘enough’ then. ;)

And no offense but put up or shut up. You are on the internet, can you provide an actual source for these ‘reports’ or not?

Again, you’re wrong man. This is what gets annoying. You can’t just say ‘yeah I thought someone said 10 but clearly that’s not true.’ Again, show a link. How hard is that exactly? Of course you can’t because it was never reported it would be 10 episodes.

When I make a mistake, I own up to it. If I’m bogging something down in minutiae, I will own up to it. If I misinterpret something and am made aware of it, I will own up to it. These are mistakes you have made and have NEVER owned up to.

I suppose if it were important enough I could go dig that stuf up but it’s not. My original point still stands either way.

And no, I’m not wrong. And again, you are missing the point. Which is what is annoying about you. You ar so dead set to rip me apart that you bog the entire thing down in something that was not important to begin with. Never mind it was a puny part of the original post. You went out of your way to find something, ANYTHING, to rip me on. Yes, that is a tough task, I grant you. You want to actually say something regarding what the post was actually about?

Yeah. I thought not.

LOL you never ‘own’ up to them. Look what you just did right here. Instead of just admitting you were wrong and there was never any talk about first season being 10 episodes but yet you now pretend you can’t spend 20 seconds to ‘dig something up’ lol. Because there is nothing to dig up. It doesn’t exist. Everyone here can type up the same info, it was always just 13. I looked it up myself, yeah its not there. You know that NOW but can’t it. Amazing.

Not trying to ‘rip you apart’ I just find it funny how you can’t make a tiny simple mistake. I mean this entire exchange proves it. ;)

Wrong again. It was extended from 13 to 15. Which is pretty important when debating the merits of limited runs etc.

Two things can be equally true, BTW.

That “terrific” word really scares me for some reason. Perhaps its too filled with terror?

waiting….

Plus I always screw up the spelling

My first thought, on seeing this article’s headline, was, “Well of COURSE he’d assure them it’s terrific”

While I want Discovery to be a success and the first 6 episodes to be terrific, even if they aren’t, I doubt Les Moonves would say otherwise. I do however believe a streaming service was the best option for a new Star Trek show. As much as I love the franchise I am not sure it would have the numbers or the coveted demographics to keep it on a regular channel. Plus the restrictions placed on it to make it fit into the “regular tv show box” I believe would have put the franchise back where it was with the ending of Enterprise. By going on-line it seems like they have been granted greater creative freedom to have serialized stories and bigger budgets all of which will hopefully produce a higher quality feel to Discovery.

My problem is that it’s ONLY on CBS All Access. I have bills + PlayStation Plus + Final Fantasy XIV + Netflix. I’m not going to subscribe to a service that wants to be Netflix but with only a fraction of the content. Streaming’s great. But put it on as many outlets as possible.

With the possible exception of Netflix, none of the other stuff you cite would be able to compete with a new Trek series for my entertainment dollars, assuming that series is any good.

You pays your money and make your choice, I guess.

I understand and am sympathetic to the financial aspect of the argument. People have bills to pay and adding another expense to a crowded budget can be too much. From a purely ratings and demographics game, though I just don’t think Star Trek would survive on regular television. Too many shows that have science fiction kind of themes either end up on smaller networks or get cancelled. Plus we have seen direct evidence of what happens to the franchise when it goes in that direction. I for one would rather that not happen again.

Then dont watch it. Simple. Watching Star Trek is not a right. If you cant afford it, dont watch.

Bingo, TUP. If she show stinks, I won’t pay for it either. But if it’s good and you won’t pay a few bucks a month for it, then you aren’t much of a fan. I spend far more than what CBS All Access cost on other Star Trek junk, $7 a month or whatever for a new show is chump change. But then, I’m a fan.

Yup, the whining is just a self fulfilling prophecy now. Every article about the series has the same 5 people complaining. They can protest by not watching, its that simple. if they think that will make CBS give them Trek for free, then good for them. They’re wrong, but good for them.

If it were a Star Trek series I would pay but Discovery is just another Dark Gritty nihilistic Dystopian War Sci-Fi series.

Did Moonves allow you to preview those six episodes?

I’ve seen the trailers, and it does hit those notes, because Dark and Gritty sells now. I hope there’ll be some optimism mixed in, and since it’s a Trek show, I hope that optimism is a significant guidepost for the writers.

We’ll see.

I sense a lot of optimism. Especially from the lead who clearly has a lot of darkness to overcome. There is plenty of optimism in that sort of journey.

I’m a fan too but for godsake please remember there are people in this world whose income level is different from yours. I feel fortunate to be able to choose. Come on.

I’m not rich. But unless the series was airing on public tv or OTA there is still a cost.

God forbid it wasn’t available in Canada at all I’d be very annoyed. But I still wouldn’t crucify the network for making a sensible business decision.

They want 4 million subs eventually. So they expect to start with less viewers than Enterprise had. They know not everyone will be able to see it.

But a regular channel was not the ONLY option here. CBS has a number of outlets at their fingertips. As I said in another post, Showtime would be their best option for Trek. Not the limiting nature of streaming. Showtime delivers all the things you said streaming does. And it also has the added bonus of raising the profile of a 2nd rate premium channel and with the streaming service they provide would create extra means of revenue. If they wanted to they could have STILL partnered with Netflix for the international distribution, too. That would have been the best fit for new TV Trek.

Agreed, ML. And I already pay for Showtime, and CBS would have benefitted financially from the additional subscribers.

And I’ll say again, Dan. I don’t subscribe to ANY premium channel, let alone Showtime, and I STILL think Showtime was CBS’s best bet if they wanted to distribute Trek themselves.

People who think streaming was the single best route to take this just aren’t understanding the industry well enough to make that assessment. I’d guess that those who are good with this are probably already streaming nearly all the content already and just aren’t looking at the bigger picture here.

CBS wants to leverage Star Trek fans to make their STREAMING service a success. So NO, Showtime was not CBS’s best bet.

Why is this so hard for you to understand. CBS is not focused on making Discovery available to the most eyeballs. They are focused on making All Access successful.

So you are saying that CBS is not interested in what would be best for one of the few prime franchises in their possession. And what is good for that franchise translates into what is good for CBS.

The fact they are investing $6-$8 million per episode and have made deals to make it available to anyone with an internet connection in the US, cable in Canada and Netflix globally, i’d say its pretty clear CBS us supporting Star Trek.

And smartly leveraging the popularity of Star Trek to make All Access a success.

No, it’s pretty clear that CBS is using Trek to support AA. Many have agreed with that already if that matters…

Yes, I have said that many times, thank you.

And if you didnt already have Showtime and they put it on Showtime, the whining is the same – how dare they charge us.

If you want to utilize someone’s product, you generally have to pay for it.

You are shifting away from what was being said here. I wasn’t speaking about paying for a service. The discussion here was what would be best for Trek and CBS. Danpine just added that he would be happy with Showtime because he says he already get’s Showtime. Which would be fortunate for him. It would suck for me because I currently do not pay for Showtime yet acknowledge that Showtime would likely be the best place for CBS to put a new Trek series if they wanted to do it themselves. I made that assessment not about what ML31 wants or what would be best for ML31 and only ML31. If I did I would want it on some channel I am already paying for so I don’t have to add on another service. No. I am being unbiased and honest here about what looks to be the best thing for CBS to do with a new Trek show. And streaming only is defiantly NOT it. For a number of reasons.

Yes to be clear, I don’t have a problem with this show being streaming-only, which is the way the wind is blowing for the future. I just wish it were being offered on a service I already pay for. I already pay for 4 streaming services here in the U.S. – not thrilled to be adding a 5th, with extremely limited content compared to the rest. You folks in other countries lucked out.

” I already pay for 4 streaming services here in the U.S. – not thrilled to be adding a 5th, with extremely limited content compared to the rest. You folks in other countries lucked out.”

Dan, that is a VERY common complaint. And a legitimate one. At least from my point of view. A couple of others do not see it as a legitimate gripe, however.

ML31, A some folks may be considerably better off financially than some of us other folks.

[Same applies in politics; some in Congress are completely blind to consequences of what they consider minor budget changes. Because most of them are millionaires]

by the way I skipped most of your exchanges with TUP ;^)

Too be honest, all you really needed to do was read my post, his response, then my response to that one. After that it just repeats the same thing over and over and over again. I was ready to just stop responding anyway because I was tired of saying the same thing over and over.

And yes, finances are indeed among the reasons why people would not want to keep adding streaming service after streaming service after streaming service.

Well get ready because Disney just announced they are creating their own streaming site for 2019 and all their films on Netflix is going ‘bye bye’ by 2018. I think its safe to say Disney has quite a few other avenues it could put its movies and shows including its own channels. But everyone now sees where the wind is blowing, you can’t blame them. You can’t blame any of them frankly.

My guess is there will be a lot more streaming sites on the way in the next five years. If AA proves successful enough look for other networks like FOX and NBC to try it. Not just Hulu but a place with their own exclusive content. Thats where things are heading and why sites like Amazon and Netflix are really going to have a hard time in the next few years as more companies make their own and pull out of those deals. Even cable is going to have more trouble once everyone figures out they now have their own platform they can use and cut out the middle man like Starz and HBO…who also now has their own exclusive streaming site. Its becoming a whole new world.

I find it hard to believe Disney is doing this. I thought being this late to streaming wasn’t pointless and the boat was full. Plus streaming doesn’t even work very well.

Why didn’t Disney check with anonymous fans on the internet first? Big mistake. Huge.

Lol

Yeah if only Disney asked people here and elsewhere bitter about not having every show and film on the streaming sites they already own. Disney really did a bad thing creating a site for all their exclusive content they own and produce which they can control. How dare they? Think about the people who already watch their movies and shows on Netflix? How can they be so cruel? You are going to have to pay for another streaming site to watch the Avengers now? It was just fine when it sat on Netflix.

And with so many streaming sites, nearly a half a dozen, Disney has already lost the game. Sadly they didn’t invite anyone here for a proper consultation to tell them that. I’m sure they would’ve rethought it if they explained, thoroughly, how having more than two streaming sites in the marketplace is like overkill since clearly everyone has just so many….like smart phones.

Disney is just so unfair to do this and clearly did not think it through enough. They are in for a rude awakening.

One thing is certain, no one will pay for a Disney streaming service especially when it contains the animated archives, Marvel, Star Wars and ABC series’, let alone original content. What does Disney know about successfully marketing content anyway?

lol

I bet we get original Star Wars content out of this deal…

Your satire is appreciated, and Disney will probably be a big winner in this department because of their various properties, esp. Marvel and SWars.

CBSAA, maybe not so much. Two winners on their slate that I can see, but I’m not a sports aficionado.

Honestly, they’d be crazy not to. Every network will need to have their own streaming service. They cant be the only ones without that option.

Tiger2, “Business is business”
Wasn’t that a line in “The Godfather”? Heh.

I feel as you do, Danpaine, though I don’t budgety for 4 streamers, just Netflix and Amazon Prime [which I got for Christmas] :^)

How do you enjoy amazon? My new tv has a dedicated amazon button so I see it a lot….but do not subscribe.

TUP, Amazon has some good shows. I’ve enjoyed “The Man in the High Castle,” “The Americans” [Seasons 1-4], “Fortitude,” and a number of other goodies. If you already are an Amazon Prime member, you can see the shows as part of your membership. They also have some movies that were in theatres about 4-5 months ago and we may have missed. Check it out, they offer a trial month free.

I’ve actually wanted to see The Man in High Castle but can’t find it anywhere apart from Amazon prime. Oh well….

Ive considered watching The Americans. Maybe Ill give Prime a shot.

FYI, The Americans is not an Amazon series. It’s on FX. I’m guessing FX has deals in place to to let them stream previous seasons. Previous seasons are on Netflix too. I just checked. Season 5, the one that ended las May, was not quite up to par. Season 6 will be the last I hear.

Youre argument above was the nature of less eyeballs. Showtime is still less eyeballs. I honestly think you’re just picking up on any argument that is critical of CBS.

I suppose its possible you know better. But that’s highly, highly unlikely. CBS is playing the long game with All Access and Discovery. And that is VERY good for Trek fans.

Fact is, they already extended the first season. So far, so good.

Oh, I know better, TUP. I just don’t like it. Regardless, it’s a good bet CBS gets my $10 a month in September unless I decide to get a little unorthodox with the streaming method. But then reliability and picture quality come into question, and I can’t suffer through that with a new Trek show.

I can appreciate that perspective, Danpaine. I love my 4K HDR Netflix. If the quality was poor, I’d be less likely to watch it. I don’t watch SD now, no matter what.

If I only got SPACE in SD, I’d likely watch Discovery but I wouldn’t like it. So to me, its not about paying for All Access – I WOULD pay for it. But I’d want a good product for my money.

And CBS knows that. All Access will get better both in content, interface and reliability.

No. Showtime would NOT be less eyeballs. It would be significantly more. What you are doing is nit picking on anything anyone says that might be the slightest bit critical of what CBS does. It’s as if you have a not a financial stake but some sort of personal connection to people there.

If you’re argument is they should maximize eyeballs, then yes Showtime is less than the CBS Network. You’re essentially arguing that CBS would want to attract as many eyeballs as possible by putting Star Trek on a channel with less eyeballs then another channel it owns.

It has nothing to do with Showtime. Its about supporting All Access.

Why are you even discussing Showtime? Do you honestly and truly believe you know better than Les Moonves?

You have already stated the demands of putting the show on the traditional over the air network. Therefore, even though that has the potential for the most viewers, it does not yield the best return for Trek nor for CBS. All factors must be considered. Not just what one guy on the internet wants. You are ignoring the already stated positives using Showtime brings to the table. Not just for Trek, Trek fans, but for Showtime and CBS themselves.

” Its about supporting All Access.”

But earlier you said it was about what was best for Trek. Now you are talking about what is best for AA. And you accuse others of “moving the goalposts”.

I agree, its not about what some guy on the internet who thinks he knows more than CBS thinks.

If Star Trek was not popular, they would not use it to leverage viewers to All Access. it’s a Win Win.

Do you think cbs is hoping to not benefit?

They clearly believe in the series and the fans. That’s why they are spending a huge amount of money and have already extended the first season in an effort to levage subs to All Access.

No less a giant than Disney is following suit.

Cbs is doing the right thing for their business. An argument about showtime is moot. If the issue is the best platform for eyeballs then cbs network wins

But that’s not the model.

I don’t own shares in cbs so their financial well being is of little concern to me. But as a fan of Star Trek I love this business model. It’s the best chance for long term viability

No, AA does not win the battle for the best platform for CBS. You even said it yourself earlier (and you are no stranger to contradicting yourself) that CBS is not interested in making Trek work. They are interested in making AA work. Which is why Trek is not on Showtime.

I did not say that. I said they are more invested in making All Access successful than they are in getting the most eyeballs on Discovery. They could air it on CBS with no commercials for free if all they cared about was eyeballs. But that is never the case. its about making money.

Trek is not on Showtime because CBS wants to support their All Access steaming service. It has nothing to do with Showtime.

” I said they are more invested in making All Access successful than they are in getting the most eyeballs on Discovery. ”

Which is the same thing. ToMAYto toMAHto.

It’s not on Showtime because CBS wants to launch their own streaming network and are using Trek to help with that. Even though such a use of that property is not what would be best for that property. But, it is CBS’s property and they are certainly free to do with it what they wish. Even if it is not in the best interests of the fans of that property.

ML, you dont understand how streaming works. I mean, that is the only reason you’d be having such trouble with this.

Lets agree to disagree. You can wait for the discs while the rest of us watch the show.

ML31 once again you’re missing the entire point.

Of course they could’ve put it on Showtime, but they WANT a streaming site and thats why the show mainly exists. How hard is this to understand? Yes we get you and others don’t see the need for it, but you don’t run CBS corp. Apple didn’t ask anyone if they see the need to make an iwatch but its there regardless.

This isn’t about trying to prop up Showtime, Showtime isn’t going anywhere. And last I checked that channel ALSO has a streaming site as well. With AA they want a new revenue stream, one on a platform they realize is the future of television and jumping in with both feet. Star Trek is a means to an end.

Without AA I actually doubt CBS would even have a Trek show. Maybe some day but my guess is they probably would’ve sit on it for several more years. And who knows, they could’ve given it to the CW or something and I don’t know if anyone really wants that.

Tiger – Im amazed that Moonves hasnt been replaced by “ML” yet.

Neither he nor anyone else really wants it on Showtime. its just the latest silly argument against All Access. ML doesnt even want to watch the series, he wants to rent it.

I just dont get all the negativity from the 3-5 people. Get over it.

The important aspect is whether the series will be good and popular. Its not like CBS will be shocked when their subscriber base doesnt jumpt to 9 million people on day one. Their expectations are actually very reasonable especially considering the huge budget for the series.

CBS is literally doing what every Star Trek fan has always wanted – financing am expensive Star Trek series with a great cast, talented production people and vocal support from the network with reasonable expectations for viewership.

Yet another baiting and condescending post from Tup. You never quit.

Not at all. It was sarcasm. The key point is that the series is high quality and popular. Its been well set up to be both. Now we wait and hope. or at least most of us do.

Calling your baiting comments “sarcasm” is merely your excuse to bait and antagonize. Knock yourself out.

The sad thing is that because of what CBS is using the Trek property for it means the fans lose no matter what happens.

Fans gain. Win – Win. Im sorry you dont see that. We can agree to disagree or you can continue to insult and be rude, petty and brutish. Dont blame me when the axe comes down.

What axe? There’s an axe?

Referring to the moderators growing weary of the debate…. :)

Aww, TUP,

Don’t let the relative lower income of others negatively affect your mood, dude.

That is the ONLY reason I’m moaning about yet another paid streaming service. I don’t see any cable shows unless they turn up on Netflix. Please realize that some of us have to choose.

Don’t get me wrong Marja. I get the expense issue. But the constant complaining about it doesn’t change it. Plus the usual complaint is it should be on Netflix. So it’s not like people posting here are being forced to choose between watching Star Trek or eating.

It was never going to air on cbs. So depending on where they chose to air it if it wasn’t AA it would still cost people money.

Some may be upset that because of CBS’s deal with NF, DISC is on NETFLIX everywhere but in the US. I know I am!

@Marja – but we have to understand the financial arrangement of a $6 million+ per episode series. If the deal with Netflix covered the cost, CBS sort of has to make that deal.

Plus, if they feel Netflix International can take Star Trek to more people than a syndicated arrangement, it creates the potential for new fans and new sources of revenue (merchandise etc).

Maybe Im used to the idea. I subscribed to HBO for Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, Vinyl, etc.

I subscribed to Netflix for Orange is the New Black, House of Cards, Narcos, Stranger things etc

I made sure my cable package includes AMC for The Walking Dead.

For me, it makes sense that different services/studios create content I want and then charge me for it.

Tiger you are the one who is continually missing the point. It’s never been about a want or need for something. It’s not about apple deciding to make an iWatch.

I was about to address the comments you aren’t understanding but I’m actually getting tired of repeating myself. I’ll just have you go back and review what I originally said about what would be the best venue for Trek if CBS wanted to run the whole thing themselves. If you have a specific question I will be happy to address it. Just don’t present your flawed analysis of what I said as factual.

But one thing I will say… To many there may as well not be a show if it is to be ONLY on AA.

You’d prefer there not be a show rather then have it be on AA?

I would rather Trek been used in a way that would have given it the best chance for success. Let’s leave it at that.

Why do you think you know better than the CBS executives?

Hmmmm, maybe, ummmm, because CBS executives have more to gain if their gamble pays off?

IF, and only IF, their all-access channel doesn’t meet their financial expectations, I hope they allow another streaming service which shall remain nameless to pick up “Discovery.” Because it would be a shame not to have a new Trek program.

Considering Netflix is footing the bill I can’t imagine cbs choosing to scuttle Trek rather then make money.

They’ll be very patient. Even if All Access sucks I think they’d give it at least a few years of strong support before pulling the plug. Which is good news for Trek fans

I get the point just fine. I actually listen to Moonves and why they decided to put Discovery where they put it. It was a strategic decision to help launch and build on a new streaming service. Thats why its there. Most of us never even heard of AA until it was announced Star Trek was going there. Now we all talk about it here like we talk about the weather. That was the impact they wanted. Everyone has already heard of Showtime and many subscribe to it with or without Star Trek on it.

You wanting to put it on another network is besides the point is what you’re missing. They have said it themselves multiple times, they could’ve put it anywhere and other studios was begging to have Trek, especially Netflix and Amazon. But as you SEEM to have forgotten Moonves specifically stated the success of the reruns of the shows on those sites is what gave them the idea of putting Trek on their streaming site in the first place. They felt with the landscape changing that it would be a good time to go big with AA and use Trek as a way to get a big audience from the beginning.

And not sure why you get tired of repeating yourself? You constantly do it on every article when it comes to AA over and over and over and over again. ;)

We all know why Trek is on AA. No need to keep repeating that. That said, as known as Showtime is it’s still a pale comparison to it’s premium channel counterpart, HBO. CBS could have risen Showtime’s profile a ton by putting Trek there. They still could have launched AA. They still could have put the allegedly successful Trek repeats there, too. And if all that other content is as wonderful as you and others say it is, it wouldn’t need Trek to get it going.

The repeating comes from responding to people who do not read the posts and reply as if the things I said were never said. I have grown tired of it and have started directing them to the original post where their issues were already addressed.

*face palm* Stop repeating yourself! We get it, you dont like All Access and dont comprehend what CBS is doing. ENOUGH. Ugh

Dude they are not focused on Showtime in this instance, its about trying to get AA up and running? What is it that you’re not getting??

Showtime doesnt NEED Star Trek, last time I checked it already has a pretty decent lists of original shows, some pretty popular like Homeland and Shameless.

AA is the one that needs to get the actual word out that exists, agreed? Showtime has been around for decades now, pretty sure its the second biggest premium channel after HBO, I don’t think they are sweating over its shows.

That reminds me, Ray Donovan is BACK!!!!!!!! God I love that show. Can’t wait to watch the new season.

Tiger, I KNOW they are not focused on Showtime. I know it is about getting AA going. This has been said already. We agree on this. Please don’t tell me I need to repeat the same thing over and over to you too.

Someone claimed that AA is what is best for Trek and Trek fans. I countered that by saying that if CBS wanted to do keep everything in house, they would put Trek on Showtime. I listed a handful of reasons for this. We all know this is not about what is best for the Trek property. It’s about trying to get AA up and running.

Maybe but Fox is betting on a sci fi spoof on Star Trek with Orville (and who else other than long time Trek fans that will watch it?) so someone would’ve given it a chance. In fact the CW President said they wanted Star Trek for their network (although I don’t think they could afford the budgets a show like that would come with to keep up the quality the other shows had) and my guess is someone would’ve rolled the dice if they were given the chance to make another show.

That said I’m fine it went directly to a streaming site and the thing about AA is that will be their flagship show so they are going to throw all kinds of money and hype at it (as we are seeing) and going to give it a wide berth it may not have gotten if it just appeared on CBS itself. They want AA to succeed and if they see most people are only subscribing to watch that show mostly then Discovery should probably be fine for awhile.

Your comment about both finances and SciFi on networks is right on point.

Perhaps I’ll drop Hulu for CBSAA, and go back to Hulu just for “A Handmaid’s Tale.” But I must choose wisely. Sports is not a big attraction for me.

I would like to see “The Good Fight” though. If “The Good Wife” is an indication it will feature sterling writing, good stories and acting.

@marja – the good fight is great. Took a few episodes to find its footing. But same great writing.

Sorry.

I lol’d at this.

Why are people still making this silly argument? Why doesnt CBS just send all of us fans a free copy? For crying out loud, dont watch it then

Plus, there are a lot of free Trek options out there if you don t want to pay for Discovery.
Not original content though.

If your bills are too much, cut them back. Simple. You don’t get something for nothing.

THe problem is starting a new streaming service that is not needed or wanted. Literally the ONLY thing on All Access I would consider watching is Star Trek Discovery. And I’m not paying the same fee that I pay for ALL of Netflix for one series. Should have just done it on Netflix world wide and called it a day. It would be a massive success.

Guess we’ll see soon enough if Moonves’ MBA is worth what he paid for it.

CBS all access is offering other shows and the NFL so there is more for me than just Discovery. For those that don’t have an interest in those things paying that much money can be seen as being an unnecessary indulgence. It’s definitely a choice that is worth thinking about given its financial impact. After all $72 or $120 a year adds up.

It does add up, but I think CBS is preparing for a streaming-only future. I gave up my $125 Directv sub a couple of years ago once HBO Now and Showtime became available separate from a cable sub, because I found myself watching most content on Netflix/Amazon/etc which I was paying for on top of the cable sub. Now I can pay for every streaming service out there for much less than what my directv bill was, and without bulky cable boxes, dishes, and coaxial cables. I welcome CBS AA for basically the price of ‘One Lunch’ even if for only one show…still way below what I was paying.

The Internet of Things is very real. People who are clinging to the old ways are akin to the stereotypical grumpy old man yelling at the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn.

“…akin to the stereotypical grumpy old man yelling at the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn…”

You mean to say they’re akin to somebody who’s exercising their property rights? But that would mean they are in the right, no? ;)

(Although I honestly never understood what’s up with Americans not having fences around their houses. Where I come from, a good fence is 9/10 of ownership. At least we don’t have to yell at anybody for stomping on our lawn…)

Im guessing you understood my point and the meaning behind the phrase. If not, its sarcasm used to describe someone who is stubborn and unreasonable and prone to complain about something, anything!

Which describes the 5 or 6 people on here who continue to complain about All Access charging a small fee to view its original programming. How DARE they! lol

Star Trek Needed to be somewhere accessable to gain new viewers, as you have heard here even hard core fans are so unimpressed with Discovery they aren’t considering paying All Access- how many non fans who don’t follow the series will pay for All Access to try it? It won’t grow the fan base, like the JJ films didn’t it will just fracture the fan base further. Unless it is actually, amazingly brilliant & just miss-marketed & has strong word of mouth it’s going to sink fast.

I’m glad it works out for you, Harley. There is still too much content NOT available on line to get me to cut my cord just yet. And before I get the obligatory “you’re just an old man refusing to advance with the times” I eliminated the redundancy of a land line a decade ago. Proving I’m totally fine with advancing with the tech. Especially when I can save money in doing so.

@ML31, Hey I’m an old man too, but I agree it’s not for everyone (yet) for example if you’re into Sports it’s not really an option – too much still not available via streaming; that wasn’t the case for me. Other than that, network or cable content I don’t have through Hulu I simply buy on iTunes and it’s still cheaper overall.

Hey Harley… I’m not THAT old! I never saw TOS when it was on NBC. :) Just syndication.

Yes, one of the biggest things I will not be able to get on line is my local sports. (there are others but that is probably the biggest one) I am aware that eventually what I get on cable will be available on line, however. I’m preparing for that day. Until then, I still like the advantages and the programming cable gives me. And I don’t come anywhere NEAR paying what others say they have paid for cable. I do not subscribe to premiums and I never use on demand or pay per view. Not once.

Exactly. CBS is getting a lot of flak because they’re the first ones pushing hard to expand their brand into streaming. If they do end up with 4 million by the end of the year, which they had previously stated was their 2020 goal, you’ll definitely see others following at a quick pace.

There are lots of paid entertainment that I won’t pay for. I didn’t have Netflix until they started having the Marvel shows. I wouldn’t have considered subscribing to CBS All Access if not for Discovery.

To be fair the flak is coming from the same 4-5 people who are spamming every article with the same silly complaints

The majority of people get it.

And you are one of them. But I think you know that or else I give you too much credit.

TUP: “The majority of people get it”
ML31: “And you are one of them”

Thank you, ML. I appreciate that. Great discussion here and I appreciate the positive remark. let’s keep moving in a positive direction.

And this is typical TUP Spin. Not getting the point or admitting to it.

TUP: To be fair the flak is coming from the same 4-5 people who are spamming every article with the same silly complaints

ML: And you are one of them.

It should make more sense now that I have spoon fed you. I hope.

Nah, we know what you meant. And I still appreciate it. Try to smile once in awhile, pal.

It is needed and wanted by CBS. Streaming is the way things are going and CBS doesnt want to be playing catch up anymore than they already are. Leveraging niche programming to attract a core audience is very smart.

Moonves was the featured guest speaker at a company event a couple of years back and the long of short is that CBS All Access was in direct response to Hulu (which CBS opted out of) and designed to supplement the revenue stream and viewership of CBS which still drives the bulk of the revenue for CBS, Inc. Subscription services need to pull viewers in with original content which is something All Access has been lacking. Hulu finally hit that sweet spot after several years with The Handmaid’s Tale, Moonves is hoping to jumpstart things with spin-off’s of established series (first with The Good Fight and now with Star Trek). Star Trek doesn’t need All Access but All Access definitely needs and wants Star Trek.

Denny, even with Star Trek All Access is starting out well behind the pack. From now on each newly launched streaming service will have a bigger and bigger hill to climb.

Why are you trying to convince everyone that CBS should throw in the towel? Who cares? Do you own stock in CBS or something?

if you’re a star trek fan who wants a Trek series to exist, you should be very happy with CBS’ business model.

Denny is 100% correct in his summation.

I wish they had just kept making The Good Wife on CBS where I get it for free (not free, but I already pay for cable so by some definitions its free). but I get why they leveraged the core fanbase of that series to drive subs to All Access.

Im in Canada so it doesnt matter. Thats why I can put my emotions aside on this. No one is robbing me like some want to claim CBS is doing to them.

No, I am not trying to convince “everyone” that CBS should “throw in the towel.” I’m just saying that starting at this late date, with all the other streamers out there they they are going to have a tough time establishing themselves in the industry. And other streamers who come later will have an even tougher time. This really isn’t that difficult figure out.

If you are a Star Trek fan who wants to see a new Trek TV show you should be very UNhappy with what CBS is doing with it. They are limiting the audience and entering into a field that is already hitting the saturation point, if it hasn’t already. What you SHOULD want is for new Trek be put in a situation that would set them up best for succeeding. And that means being available to as many viewers as possible. Not being used as a tool for CBS to enter into a party too late. Even if what he said was true about Les and CBS what I said still remains completely true in response. They have created a tougher hill for themselves by doing what they did. To deny that is to be blind to the realities of the industry.

The best opportunity for success is one where:

1) the series is paid for before one second airs.

2) the network is not reliant on traditional ratings or the whims of advertisers.

3) the network assigns a higher than usual value on each viewer due to a long term strategy of growth for the streaming business.

They could get a lot of viewers by airing on CBS with zero commercials and we’d all do a dance about the ratings but then CBS would cancel it because they made no money.

Thats what people are missing here. Its the cable vs network argument. Comparable ratings on cable versus network are always considered better. So many tv shows have been cancelled because networks dont have patience when it comes to their network channels.

You can wish Discovery was easier for you personally to watch but if it was cancelled after two episodes, what was gained?

The fact it, it cant be much easier to watch than streaming anyway. But this is the best shot for Star Trek. You can disagree but you’d be wrong. Discovery will get a lot more rope to hang itself than any previous Trek series.

Without the streaming model, this $8 million per episode cost would have to be made up through advertising.

All of those things you mention are true if they put the show on Showtime instead of streaming only. And on Showtime there are added benefits that were gone over in previous posts. No one is missing the cable vs network ratings issue. Most are aware of it. No need to keep repeating that.

Why would the show get canceled after two episodes if it were on Showtime? If it would on Showtime it would on All Access as well. Also, putting it on Showtime has the added benefit of making it easier for people to watch. And it would help the Showtime streaming service some. Again, this was already mentioned. Because of all those OTHER reasons Showtime remains the best outlet for a new Trek series IF CBS insists on doing it all themselves. Which it seems they do. And the last time I checked, Showtime has no commercials either.

They are repeating the same mistakes they made with Yoyager & Enterprise on UPN they limited the audiance & the network predictably failed & Those shows were stuck with the stigma of “Not Rating” & seen as commercial & artistic failures.

No, Voy & Enterprise sucked. That was their issue. If they had been on CBS, they wouldn’t have lasted 20 minutes, let alone 7 seasons.

Voyager was UPN’s highest rated show for 5 seasons. It only fell when the network got wrestling which proved to be a bigger hit. But that was the reason they rushed to get Enterprise on the air (which wasn’t as big of a success) because of how well Voyager did. You can’t call it a ‘commercial failure’ if it was the top rated show for years, especially on a network where the average show was lucky if it ran over 2 seasons.

Enterprise did worse obviously but I think the UPN struggles and the change over at Viacom just sealed that shows doom faster.

Isn’t DISC going to be on Netflix in Canada?

@Marja,

Ha, I wish. CBS, in their infinite wisdom, went with Bell Media a lousy company here in Canada. ‘Discovery’ will be released on Bell’s premium cable channel Space.

Opinions very. Bell is a big company. Many consider it a great company.

Nope. Licensed to Bell canada. Debuts on CTV which is akin to CBS and then on SPACE which is a cable channel.

Bell also owns their own OTT service called CraveTV and I believe they have the exclusive steaming rights to Discovery in Canada. So we’ll see the premiere on CTV (akin to CBS) and subsequent first run shows on SPACE (a cable channel) and those with CraveTV will be able to stream it.

As part of the Bell/CBS deal for Discovery, they also get streaming rights in Canada to all Star Trek series’.

Which is why All Access is fortunate to have Star Trek. Star Trek was used to launch UPN, Star Trek is now being used to expand the footprint of All Access. A lot of ground to make up but a huge library and the assets to help push it forward.

Yes, Denny. Voyager was used to launch UPN. Where is it now? It had to merge with the WB just to survive.

You can’t blame that on Voyager or any one show. Voyager had high ratings for that network but the network as a whole just never caught on. And AA isn’t UPN, it has tons of shows people actually WATCH and love. Some of those shows the biggest on television. The issue with AA is can they get people to pay to rewatch a lot of them but considering CBS dominance in the marketplace its not an issue if there isn’t a big enough audience to the network itself.

Voyager had a strong premier and then fell over a cliff. It was meant to anchor UPN and never performed well enough after week one to do that. AA has a larger library than UPN had but how much in there is stuff people want to see? It was there for years and AA languished.

I will give you this… The one thing DCS has going for it is there has been no Trek on TV for 12 years. VOY came along when there was no gap in Trek on TV. So it may very well last a little longer. Personally I think Enterprise may have lasted a little longer had they given Trek a short rest first. But we will now never know for sure.

AA wasnt supported by CBS like it is now, with significant investment in original content. Time will tell. But suggesting it languished is not accurately describing the reality of today.

No, languished is quite appropriate. I’ve known of it’s existence for quite some time. I think that people who have been streaming for a while knew of it, too. They are trying to revamp it and are using Trek as the tentpole. Just like Paramount did with UPN.

I dont believe for one second you knew anything about All Access.

It was simply not supported. But you can keep arguing the moot point while the rest of discuss more relevant things.

If you dont know the difference between UPN and All Access, then you not only dont “dabble” in media, you’re not even having the right conversation.

There is no question that CBS is supporting All Access in a way they havent done before. Anything else is moot and irrelevant.

That is not true. Its no way it ‘fell over a cliff’ if the show went on for seven seasons. How many badly rated shows last for more than two if they have awful ratings? Yes its true its ratings did start to fall in third season and why they brought in the Borg/7 of 9 in season 4. But after that its ratings stabilized and the hype of that character brought a lot of publicity to the show. Now if you’re talking Enterprise you’re right. That show had a big premiere but its ratings fell a lot faster in first season. In second season the ratings fell so bad there was talk of cancelling it. They managed to keep it afloat for two more seasons but every season after first there was a threat of it being cancelled. IIRC they even stopped charging its license fee to get it a fourth season before it finally got cancelled. Enterprise was really the only show besides TOS that had the threat of cancellation looming every season. AFAIK there was never any threat of Voyager being cancelled early. It was a matter of the ratings not being as strong as they liked but there was never any talk of cancelling it. And as I said the only reason why Enterprise existed was because of Voyager. If Voyager did that badly they wouldn’t have been in a rush to launch another Trek show so soon. Hence when Enterprise DID do badly and got… Read more »

@Tiger – I heard they wanted to cancel Voyager after the pilot aired but then forgot. 7 years later they suddenly remembered. lol

“How many badly rated shows last for more than two if they have awful ratings? ”

On UPN or the WB? A few.

Voyager stuck around mainly because as poor as the numbers were it was still among the highest rated show they had and it was still considered their tentpole. So they stuck with it and gave it more chances than they would others.

Can you actually provide one shred of evidence they wanted to cancel Voyager? And so early at that? ML31, what gets annoying about your posts is you present speculation as fact. Show me where there was talk that Voyager was so bad for the studio there was talk of dumping in the early seasons? I like more than just ‘trust me its real’. We already have the current U.S. President doing that weekly, you’re better than that.

@Tiger – I think the confusion is in the “fell off a cliff” thought. Voyager debuted to monster ratings which were never sustainable because it was far beyond what Star Trek had been drawing.

Voyager’s ratings were consistent with DS9 and TNG in the 5-6 million range. Any thought of it being cancelled in the early going doesnt hold water.

Looking at the ratings, they were remarkably consistent even as they eroded. There wasnt really a large or sudden drop outside of the premiere.

Enterprise’s ratings werent that bad ether to be honest. Whats interesting is, they averaged close to 6 million in season 1 and under 3 million in season 4. So they lost half their audience which was likely the big concern for an expensive show.

This is a great illustration of the business model at work here. CBSAA reportedly has around 1.5 million subs. They want to grow it to 4 million. So even their own best case scenario of growth over time is barely more than the ratings that got Enterprise cancelled.

If Discovery attracted 3-4 million people on traditional TV, it would be under constant threat of cancellation. 3-4 million subs for CBSAA and it will be heralded as a success.

Its just annoying to argue with people like this. He makes everything sound like its based on something other than his opinion. He doesn’t back up ANYTHING he says but then wants to argue it to death. And again its nothing wrong to argue your opinion but he acts like we should just agree with it. Voyager was on a young, struggling network. As you said it was consistent with DS9 ratings. In some seasons, especially the early ones Voyagers was higher than DS9. No one keeps on an EXPENSIVE sci fi show for 7 years unless its making them money, period. And the fact that you had TWO Star Trek shows on for five years straight and both still successful enough to go seven actually speaks of how strong the franchise was. Many people forget when TNG was on the air, it had no real competition. Especially with other sci fi shows by the time the other Trek shows premiered. The syndication build up didn’t happen until after TNGs success. Even DS9 came on in the middle of TNG’s 6th season. So yes Voyager lost ratings but it was still a very strong show, especially for UPN. By the time Enterprise came on, its ratings started out much more poorly than the other shows and why it was under threat of getting cancelled much earlier. And yes I agree it was probably due to how expensive the show was. I remember reading it was $3 million an episode at… Read more »

@Tiger – yup. You’re preaching to the choir! All the information is readily available online.

The only weird thing about Voyager’s ratings were the MASSIVE debut. Really weird. I dont recall what caused that since they were significantly higher than DS9 were doing. Must have been some insane promotions by the studio.

The phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats” is important to remember in cable where there is a strong desire to place high as a network over-all. So even if Voyager’s ratings were lower than expected, if they were high for UPN, then they were desirable.

This is why the business model of streaming is so different. $6 million+ an episode on cable or network would NEED an immediate return on investment to justify. But CBS will be patient with the show as a growth opportunity for All Access.

Its really a strong, strong positive for Star Trek fans.

Tiger, what gets annoying about you is that you say I say things that I never did. Like right here. I never said anything about Paramount wanting to cancel Voyager. All I said was while it’s ratings were meager and pathetic it was still among the highest if not the highest rated show they had.

I get very tired of people attributing comments and ideas to me that I never made. I’m happy to correct the occasional mistake or misinterpretation but some this is ridiculous.

“Voyager had a strong premier and then fell over a cliff. It was meant to anchor UPN and never performed well enough after week one to do that.”

Again based on WHAT man??? UPN was a brand new network with less households that even had it, what exactly are you basing any of this on? Can you provide a link to any of these claims that someone didn’t think Voyager wasn’t ‘performing well enough after week one to do that’?

Again THIS is what gets annoying. You throw out speculation as a fact but then can’t back it up with anything. If you get tired of attributing comments, then A. Stop talking like its a fact and B. Do some actual research, like 2 minutes worth.

Based on the rating reports at the time. If you you are intent to find errors why not actually come armed proof? Because you can’t find any, that’s why. If it were indeed a mere 2 minutes worth of research you would have presented it considering how much you are going out of your way to find teeny tiny errs on my part.

So.. nothing about you admitting you erred when you claimed I said something I never did? Of course not.

Ps.. I already don’t attribute speculation as fact. I present speculation and speculation and fact as fact. If there are arrows there, prove it’s wrong. Until then, you might want to stop attributing things to me that I have never said.

Not your call to make the claim on whether it’s “needed or wanted.” Because it’s being sold to Netflix outside of the US, its success is already guaranteed. It’s a business decision and while I’m not a huge fan of paying for another streaming service, if it means getting a new Star Trek series, then, fine, I’m in. The reason CBS doesn’t put it on Netflix for us in the US is because they own the Star Trek brand and want the revenue fully.

Right. It was a completely logical and sound business decision that they’re being vilified over.

Why on earth are fans defending the studios bottom line & financials- we should only care about the quality & access. this corporate brainwashing where fans are arguing in defense of the studios over their own experience as a viewer is strange.

@ Captain Whino: People here have suggested that putting Discovery on CBS All Access was a bad business decision. Others are disputing this. That’s why studio financials are discussed here.
Yes, we should care about quality and access. It seems that the majority of high-quality shows are now on streaming services or premium cable. So people who are arguing that Discovery should be on a normal TV station are essentially arguing for a lower-quality show.

Dig, I may disagree with you from time to time but I just wanted to compliment you on your post as a good way to reply to someone whom you have a contradictory viewpoint with. We can only hope that some others can pick up on it and learn a thing or two from it.

@Dig I agree, people who are arguing ARE wishing for a lower quality show which is weird.

I think when you look at the handful of people who keep arguing, its not really about Star Trek. Its that they dug their heels in about streaming in general or All Access specifically.

We are so lucky to get the premium treatment for Star Trek.

The people arguing that All Access is a bad business model are just looking for something to grasp in their criticism of Discovery. They literally have nothing else. And as a business model, the opposite is true – this is the BEST thing for Star Trek.

Well, Matt, I just have to put in that there are plenty of “logical and sound business decisions” made by some business owners [Coff Koch Coff!] that have led to complete disharmony in the US, and I’m not talking just in TV land. Like, profits before environment, profits before people, &c. For CBS, okay fine; it is sound on their part, without doing too much damage to anyone! But … just sayin’.

Al, what I am just not getting is how many people just are not understanding the legitimate points and reasons many have for being annoyed with how CBS is presenting new Trek. And every response is the same or similar. And they prove they just are not understanding where most are coming from. Especially with idiotic comments like “you want everything for free”. That just proves they have no concept of what is going on. And it gets repeated time and time again. Ahh… Ain’t the internet grand?

You can be annoyed if you want. but the rationale behind how CBS is handling Star Trek is solid from a business perspective, and that’s all a business needs to justify its actions to its shareholders, who are after all, their bosses.

CBS is aggressively making plans for global expansion. That shows that at least they get what’s happening. The rest of Hollywood is just dicking around. Where’s Hulu’s aggressive global expansion plans? What are HBO’s plans? A lot of folks are going to be left out in the cold because the time to make moves is now. CBS is one of the few that gets it.

It sure doesn’t look all that solid from the side of perspective customers. UPN looked like a solid business model too. Supported with what they thought was a great foundation from Star Trek. Didn’t quite work out the way they wanted. From our side it looks very much like CBS has missed the boat and is desperately trying to play catch up to a vessel that in all likelihood is about as full as it can get at the moment.

You just dont understand the business and even though many people have explained it, you wont listen. This is a golden opportunity for Star Trek and Trek fans. You keep equating eyeballs with success but this changes that. If Discovery was not broadcast Television and was watched by 3 million people but cancelled you’d likely not understand why. Its not just about eyeballs. Its the value of the demographics. Streaming changes things. Now its the value of subscriber base. And it really doesnt matter if it’s 3 million people over the age of 60 or 3 million males between 18 and 35. This levels the paying field. The fact Discovery is being counted on to carry subs actually increases the value of each subscriber linked to the series. Whereas the same number of people watching on CBS or in syndication might get it cancelled, CBS will be patient with the series. In some ways, it can be a loss leader if it drives growth. But since we know Netflix is covering the cost, it wont even be a loss leader. Quite literally, if no one watches, CBS still doesnt lose money. Anyone who thinks Streaming is “full” truly doesnt understand the business. This is it. This is how its going to be. All those terrestrial channels who love, will end up being available via streaming eventually. So, we can complain forever on here about that which we dont understand or we can acknowledge that the future is now and accept… Read more »
OK… Now you are getting back to your typical antagonizingly arrogant self. I do indeed understand the business. Just because you don’t follow or agree with what I wrote doesn’t mean I don’t understand. That’s just you being arrogant. Please stop. There have been plenty of people try to explain the reality here to you yet you still cling to your same old “we want it for free” silliness. This is FAR from a golden opportunity for Trek fans. It’s a lose lose situation for them. The more people paying the better it is for CBS. But they have created a situation where they are limiting potential subscribers because of the streaming only business model. Which has already been explained to you. I am well aware of the realities regarding numbers for a show on broadcast TV. Nothing was ever said about that so I don’t know why you go there except to try and take the conversation off topic. The idea of trek on traditional “free” TV is not even a concept being entertained here. So please do not go there again. I promise you, if no one subscribes to AA CBS WILL lose money. So enough of that right there. The streaming boat is already getting full if it is not there already. You still are asking how that can be when it has been said over and over and over again by many people not only here but on other threads where the Trek streaming thing has… Read more »

Please refrain from the petty insults. We’ve both been warned. Mods, im trying to engage in discussion here. Can we do anything about this please?

Back on topic:

Dont conflate what I stated. If we believe everyone involved who says Discovery is paid for already, before one subscriber has been counted, due to the arrangement with Netflix, then again, it doesnt matter if anyone watches. Ofcourse it MATTERS to All Access and Moonves.

But if you have $100 in your pocket right now, you still have $100 in your pocket.

The streaming “boat” isnt full at all. We have only begun to scratch the surface of the “Internet of Things”. Its a bit of a buzz term but Telecoms & Internet Providers know its where we are headed.

I guess there was a time when we had 6 TV channels and people couldnt wrap their heads around having any more lol

Everything will be delivered Over The Top eventually.

Its a solid business model and from what they’ve said, it doesnt appear CBS has unrealistic expectations either. They renewed The Good Fight by the 3rd episode I believe so they are clearly happy thus far.

Ultimately, corporate whims change so you never know. But I think we should all be hopeful Discovery is a success on All Access. if it fails, thats not generally a good sign for Star Trek content moving forward,.

As George Takes said many years ago, Star Trek never loses money. It may take some time but it always earns a profit for the studio.

Huge lol to those few people saying how there was no point for cbs to go into streaming because the boat was full and they were late to the party.

Disney announces a Disney streaming service and espn service coming

Lol. Boat is full. Lots of room on that boat.

BTW… It seems unlikely that those who don’t want to add AA will want to be adding a Disney pay stream.

Why?

Disney has an enormous IP catalog. I dont see the comparison between someone not wanting All Access and not wanting Disney. If someone is morally opposed to streaming or under the incorrect assumption its not quality tech, then sure. But that defeats the argument that CBS should put Star Trek on Netflix…if someone is morally opposed to streaming then they arent getting Netflix either.

But if someone chooses not to subscribe to All Access because they dont see value in Star Trek, The Good Fight, NFL etc, that doesnt preclude them from being interested in Disney.

Disney and CBS have different content. One has nothing to do with the other. Why do you think it does?

Thats like saying someone who doesnt want to go see the Star Trek film wont go see the Star Wars or Avengers film. No connection whatsoever.

“Why?”

I will give you Disney will have more desired content. But they still have the issue of being YET ANOTHER pay service. There is indeed a point where people are not going to want to keep paying. And it seems based on the reactions to CBSAA that if we aren’t there yet we are very very close.

BTW you are asking something that has been answered many many times already.

So you just made a statement with no basis in reality? If the Disney content that airs on Netflix is a draw why would it suddenly not be a draw on Disney’s own platform?

Odds are, Disney will create new original programming based on its impressive IP, likely Star Wars. That will draw viewers.

Its possible they all fail. But the preponderance of common sense tells is Disney will be successful and All Access has nothing to do with it.

Its not like people are going from getting 5 cable channels to paying for 50 OTT services. People are paying for a lot of channels now. Many of cutting cable and streaming what they want.

Any suggestion Disney wont know what they’re doing is laughably naive.

TUP, As people start dumping cable, yeah. But competition will reign in “the boat” once cable passes into non-existence, and Disney will be a powerhouse. No so sure about some others. If CBS got an exclusive deal with the NFL, they’ll do well with sports fans [in addition to Trek fans] until their NFL deal expires.

Apologies. I did not realize that pointing out posts you make that are antagonistic and arrogant was insulting. I was just trying to help you out to keep things on topic. You do tend to stray. I never conflate what you say. I merely respond to what you say. And I don’t nitpick. If the streaming boat is not full it is getting awfully full As has been said many times by many people that you seem to ignore is they really don’t want to pay for yet another streaming service. Why does this have to keep getting repeated? Your silly 6 channel comment isn’t relevant. Don’t be obtuse. You are comparing apples to carrots. It might have been a solid model… 6 years ago. Not so much today. Again, they are a late arrival. It’s really a lose lose for Trek fans. If AA succeeds, it means it will continue to be available on a severely limited basis. If it fails, CBS will likely consider Star Trek radioactive for quite some time and who knows when they will give it another shot? That is why if CBS were going to do something with Trek it makes sense that it be given the best shot at succeeding. Showtime would have accomplished that. Streaming only does not. It’s really quite simple. We are starting to go in circles again. It would probably be best if it ends here.

nerdrage,

I’ll be very interested to see how HBO does when their cash cow, “GoT,” ends. THAT show is popular worldwide.

They have multiple spin offs in the works.

Not only multiple GoT spin offs, but the GoT showrunners are already developing a new series about the Civil War with a premise of “what if the south had won”.

Its getting some pushback from people feeling it will contribute to the decay in common sense surrounding race relations right now but personally, the premise sounds intriguing and Im looking forward to it.

Thats always the battle though – to create programming that retains the audience of your best shows. When Sopranos ended, Boardwalk Empire tried to fill the void (and in many ways was better).

When Boardwalk ended, it was Vinyl which was great but HBO clashed with the creator and cancelled it.

Its simple for me. I am an old TOS fan watching it in its original run. I’m not a big fan of changing my tech every few years for the Next Big New Shiny Thing, (indeed, I flirt with antenna TV to satisfy the Retro in me).I’ve grown very patient over the decades. I know I’ll love Disc and am prepared to buy DVD sets of it when available. I know I’ll get into Orville and DVR it, for however long it lasts. I think they’re not over-thinking their product…just here it is, Sci Fi Space Opera, with a dose of comedy, take it or leave it. I’m fine with that.

CBS knows they need a whole lot better content on their service than a bunch of vanilla broadcast twaddle. I checked it out and there was literally nothing on it I wanted to see. But they’ve announced plans for other shows that sound more streaming worthy. I’m sure they know this will take years to ramp up to speed. Netflix didn’t do it overnight either.

Sure, Star Trek is going to be a massive success for Netflix. Why should CBS go to all this trouble just to enrich a competitor? No, CBS wants to BE Netflix. And that’s been the plan from day one. CBS is making Star Trek as a cornerstone to their strategy of leveraging their way into a very lucrative business, global streaming.

To give you a sense of the scale: there are three billion cell phones in the world that can stream video. Imagine CBS getting $10/month from all of them. I’m sure that’s making them drool so much they need wading boots in the halls of CBS HQ.

Star Trek is niche and they are trying to attract that audience.

The best thing for Trek would be for All Access subs to skyrocket for Discovery and then have people cancel after. That will likely get us more Star Trek content in the future (longer seasons or, more likely, additional series’)

How is that good for Trek? Best case scenario out of that is it STAYS on the limited streaming only platform.

Streaming is a lot of things but limited isnt one of them.

Its available to anyone with an internet connection. How is that limited?

Cheering for the demise of the series is counter to the instinct of most Trek fans. The best case scenario is Discovery is wildly popular and is a success for CBS and All Access, creating the opportunity for more original content.

Discovery is going to be available everywhere. Its not remotely limited. You post here. So you’re not limited from watching it either.

Everyone has a choice. If I dont have cable, its my choice if I choose to subscribe to SPACE so I can watch it. If I dont want to or cant afford it, thats not CBS’ fault. It doesnt limit the availability. Its my choice.

Discovery is available everywhere. Whether people choose to watch it or not has nothing to do with availability.

Success is good. This is such a great opportunity for the series and us fans.

“Its available to anyone with an internet connection. How is that limited?”

Is it available on TV’s? Not according to CBS themselves. Therefore, limiting. That means, it is NOT available everywhere. If I turned on my TV that is connected to the internet, I will not be able to see first run Discovery.

You are repeating yourself again and ignoring what I countered with. One last time, the best case for DSC being a success on AA is it remains in limited availability land. I fail to see how that is good for Trek fans in any way.

Since you are repeating yourself, I ask that you just end it here. No need for either of us to continue in that circle.

Yes it can be viewed on a television if you know how.

And yes there is not currently a tv app which is something cbs will surely rectify.

Available by anyone with an internet connection, cable in Canada and Netflix globally is literally the opposite of “limited availability land”.

We do know how. CBS has said so on their web page. The problem is it is an extra hoop for potential subscribers to jump through. You have also been saying for months that CBS will rectify the smart TV thing. We are just over a month away now and there has been nothing yet. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. You you are speaking as if you know for sure when you really don’t.

None of us can predict the future. We can use precedent to guide us though. Im very familar with WWE Network due to my business and I have looked at other streaming services including Netflix.

The Smart TV app came later in all cases. Give it time. I never said it would be available when Star Trek launched.

Also, as many have told you, you CAN watch CBSAA on your TV. yes, it requires you to use a device or plug in a lap top. But I use a cable box now to be able to watch TV. Its not really a hoop to jump through.

I get it if you dont want to. But youve said you dont want to pay anyway so its not so much needing to plug anything in that restricts you. You wouldnt watch it on TV anyway. Do you have a Smart TV?

“None of us can predict the future. ”

Except you, of course.

“We can use precedent to guide us though. ”

Except when someone does that you rip them new ones.

” I never said it would be available when Star Trek launched. ”

You just said you suspected it would be. Now you are “moving the goalposts” on that again.

” Its not really a hoop to jump through.”

No, it’s not. The cable company provides that. If CBS provided it it would not be a hoop to jump through.

That is probably what I will do, cancel whichever streamer after whichever show, then rejoin when the favorite show returns.

Inevitably, they’ll start competing like they did in the bad ol’ days of network TV, pitting quality shows against each other with only one victor. Which totally sucked for viewers.

I really hope streaming doesn’t go that route.

It will to a degree. But I think the price point will come down to the extent you will have multiple OTT services without batting an eye. With the option to cancel and re-subscribe as you wish. Or a discount for loyalty.

Once the infrastructure is in place it’s Gravy. And the studios aren’t footing the bill for access or splitting they cost with providers unless they make deals. The competition will be over quality of content. Consumers should win in that case.

But they don’t HAVE to do that because on the internet shows aren’t pitted against each other in the same time slot. Thats the beauty of streaming vs TV where competition is literally competing for viewers.

And yes you can just cancel or go back to it later. Thats the other beauty of streaming sites and why I don’t get why people have their panties in a bunch over it? Watch what interests you. When it no longer interests you, cancel and try another one until they put something else on thats interests you again. Simple.

Maria, Except with a DVR when networks air shows doesn’t matter.

The one failure of DVR is what I experienced this weekend (and a couple of weeks ago). I DVR’d my beloved Winnipeg Blue Bombers football game to watch on a delay (to avoid commercials).

But the preceding sports event went long so the network stayed with golf for an extra 15 minutes or so. Not a huge deal but of course, I was DVR’ing the main network feed and missed the first few minutes of the game.

@Marja – the key for the OTT services will be to create enough content you value that you dont want to cancel your sub at all. Much like how so many of us would cancel HBO after the Soporanos’ season ended, eventually they had enough programming that it was easier to keep it rather then cancel, re-sub, cancel, re-sub every few weeks.

Churn is the big thing. And they will work really hard to battle churn.

Star Trek is very expensive but I DO wonder, if Discovery is a success for CBS, would they create more Trek (such as “Fear The Walking Dead”) so there is more Trek across the year.

The one thing working against that is, if Discovery gets All Access to 4 million subs, will another series add any more subs or is it the same pool of Trek fans?

And secondly, if it doesnt add new subs, does it stop those 4 million Trek fans from cancelling for 8 months?

Fortunately you’re not the only customer cbs is targeting with all access.

I don’t subscribe to Hulu or amazon but I’m not so ignorant as to come
Here and proclaim they are worthless just because they don’t appeal to me specifically.

Actually, I wanted to see 11/22/63 which was a Hulu series. I didn’t cry about it. It’s a business. I watched a couple of episodes on a flight and enjoyed it so I bought the series.

So score one for Hulu.

This is always the line when someone connected to a production praises it. Yes, its highly unlikely that Moonves or an actor would say the show sucked. But its still newsworthy to report their comments.

Moonves has really staked his reputation on Discovery with all his comments. He’s essentially personally guaranteeing the show will be good. And thats a good thing because if there are issues or the producers have an idea that costs a lot, they know Moonves is behind it.

Moonves’ reputation is more closely tied to the success of All Access than the failure of Discovery. He’s playing the long game. Discovery is a means to an end and if it stumbles the talk would be more closely aligned to what the future of All Access might be, not the future of Star Trek on television (regardless of the platform).

You could even argue that since Moonves’ comments were to those with a direct financial stake, if the shows were in fact obviously awful or in any way sub-par, he’d be opening himself and CBS to a lawsuit for fraud with his remarks.

Of course, he’s not exactly a noted critic of drama or TV SF, even if he’s being honest. We’ll just have to see for ourselves. It won’t be long now.

@Michael – thats exactly what happened with WWE. Their CEO and CFO made comments all but guaranteeing huge TV rights fees, their stock sky rocketed and when the rights fees were less than promised, they were sued for lying and stock manipulation. Lawsuit went nowhere if I recall but it did force them to be far more careful when choosing their words in the future.

@Steph — actually Les Moonves does have a reputation to protect. I don’t think he would proclaim them “terrific” if they weren’t. He cares more about his reputation for honesty than some other current hyperbolic Presidents I can think think of. Unlike those Presidents, he’s about more than making money — he has a career based on a long string of picking the right creative properties to produce and broadcast, validated by their financial success.

I doubt Les Moonves would know if they were good, he has to say it, from reported history with him, he could have been watching rogue one & still think it was Star Trek.

Point. He’s not exactly known as a genre fan. Still, good drama is good drama. It could be on the level. Or, not.

That was my line of thinking in that regards. I should have been more specific.

Capn W,

LOL yes.

Let cbs produce the next film.

Now, there’s a thought. I don’t like picking on the Trekmovie people, who have been reporting that Paramount just loves Star Trek, but when you look at what Paramount is actually saying about their properties, Trek is noticeably absent. Lots of chatter about Transformers, MI, and now Top Gun. Trek, just some acknowledgement they have made some movies. So yeah, let CBS give it a go. Or give Universal a look, their last Jurassic Park outing didn’t suck…

@Phil – Really don’t think Paramount understands Star Trek. Thats partially why Bad Robot was allowed so much control. In the absence of anyone who knew the ship was sinking, they listened to Captain JJ tell them everything was great. Now they don’t know. They don’t get it.

If Discovery is successful, it will suddenly create a few people who seemingly get Trek and there might be a sense to give them a shot at a film.

It’s really too bad they seem to think Star Trek is “not cool.”

It won’t be cool until lots of people go see it, talk about it, and so on. Compared with the powerhouse Disney and their new property SWars, which have always had excellent marketing and toy deals [thanks to George Lucash], I can almost see why Paramount has a seemingly defeatist attitude. But IF they had allowed Bad Robot to market toys and such, Trek might be more popular. [I know there was a marketing conflict with CBS Trek products, just sayin’.]

So…Huahua is disappointed that China is the ONLY place where Transformers 5 actually made money? That’s funny! On a serious note, I find it incomprehensible that Paramount is dragging its feet on Trek 4 but is still moving forward with that ridiculous Bumblebee spin-off with John Cena. How is it that we can live in a world where THAT gets priority over the adventures of the starship Enterprise and her intrepid crew?!

Just Another Salt Vampire

The Transformers series has been a mega-hit globally. Star Trek has a much smaller global following.

Yeah, also, as much as Transformers sucks, I think Paramount knows the formula. They knew it sucked which is why they actually assembled a respected writers room to chart a new Transformers Universe. Unfortunately, it still sucks. But it makes money.

Paramount has absolutely no clue why Star Trek isnt bigger. Thats the problem. They know it should be bigger, but they dont know why.

Here in the UK, Star Trek still has this geeky / nerdy atmosphere about it that occasionally others will use to make fun of fans. But in private, everyone watches it :/ Also, for kids, Star Wars will always win as it’s lowest common denominator crap. So if CBS/Paramount made it more like Star Wars….oh…. yeah…

TUP,

This makes me so sad. I want to shake my fist at heaven and yell, “Dammmmm yoooooou Paramouuuuunt”

Honestly, I do. Why can’t they understand Trek? Is it, “it doesn’t make money so it can’t make money”? They seem to just prophesy failure and market it accordingly. It’s not Trek that sucks, it’s …

It’s the studio

I am sad. And mad.

Two issues with the studio. They don’t get it and they trust other people who don’t get.

They need a Kathleen Kennedy.

Your lips to God’s ear, my good man

What I love aboue Kathleen Kennedy is she is someone who really “grew up” in Star Wars so to speak. So she absolutely knows what Lucas’ vision was. And she also doesnt agree with it whole hardheartedly. She knows everything Lucas felt but also understands the studio and fan perspective. She’s also tough as nails. She recruited JJ and then you started hearing rumors from the set of JJ and Kennedy being at odds and how he might leave the franchise etc. And then suddenly he was sticking around. And all the rumors pointed to JJ trying to flex his usual muscle and Kennedy winning. That power and oversight was sorely lacking with the JJ Trek films. Even if Star Wars didnt impress everyone and even if they make a stinker or two, you certainly get the impression that Kennedy knows what she’s doing and will do whatever she thinks is best to make films people will love. I think Bob Orci was close to gaining that position with Star Trek but whatever he submitted as his Trek 3 ideas (and likely some of his behaviour) soured the studio fast. I suspect Paramount is just clueless right now. If they make a Trek 4, do they go with the expensive Bad Robot that under-delivered and went over-budget? Do they start over and if so, with whom at the helm? They might wait to see what Discovery looks like and perhaps that springboards some execs into a film producer role. Kurtzman… Read more »

I guess it’s how you define “Starship Enterprise” and “intrepid crew.” For me, the JJ-verse really doesn’t offer either of those things. And if Karl Urban doesn’t fret at the thought of no 4th film, why should I?

I guarantee there will be another film. It just may not be a JJ-verse, Kelvin timeline film.

Yeah, I dont recall all the ins and outs of the Paramount/CBS thing. But I’d wait to see what Discovery does and if its a hit, I’d consider working with CBS to produce a film in the Prime Timeline based around Discovery (not neccesarily using Discovery but taking place in the same universe).

If you have Quinto/Pine under contract, you can still use them (Prime versions would look the same). And if you need to recast anyone, you have a built in excuse to do so. Get a couple of cameos on Discovery to cross promote).

A $50m movie that hits all of the traditional tones and barely makes a profit every other year would do me just fine. I don’t need $350m JJ shite

It won’t be $50 million though. No big studio would waste their time producing that small for a major franchise. 20 years ago, but today with all the franchises out there its just too much competition and they smell the money. Its all about go big or go home. That said I wouldn’t mind to see one that small but the last time they made a Trek film for that price was Insurretion nearly, yep, 20 years ago.

Does that financial figure account for inflation? Just curious.

Ugh, twenty years ago Spielberg and others predicted this awful Big Franchise Mindless Properties thing [ironically, bc Spielberg, y’know, “Raiders” and such].

I wish Hollywood execs had listened, but they saw the prospect of Big Cash Cows. Thank god we still have “independent” films for quality writing and acting.

I saw a sad but sadly funny article in the Sunday NYTimes last week or the week before about the pursuit of Intellectual Property for franchises. Thus, we have Lego movies, and Angry Birds movies, and now the Emoji movie.

WHEN will it end. Ugh.

Maria… The reason studios do that for large budgeted projects is because those films have what is perceived to be a built in audience due to consumer recognition of those properties that get turned into movies. They consider it a little less of a risk. Sadly, I don’t see that attitude ending any time soon.

ziplock,

“Beyond” hit most of the traditional Trek tones, and some people whined and said it sucked. I liked it. I had some problems with its overall plot, but really enjoyed having more character moments and fewer pell-mell chases and pew!pew! and fistfights.

Beyond was like a good episode. So very disappointing as a film and in dire need of a few more drafts.

I personally might be interested in a TNG reboot.

TNG in the Kelvin timeline I think would be a ton more interesting… If only to get a re-done Enterprise-D.

I would be a little leery of any major departures from the traditional Galaxy Class starship. It is such a beautiful ship. The JJ-prise has never stuck for me. I would have much rather seen refit-Enterprise in the Kelvin timeline than what they through together for that movie trilogy.

sorry… *Movie version refit-Enterprise

Capt, I was never a fan of the Galaxy class design since the instant I saw it back in ’87. Me and some of my friends started to call it the USS Hilton because it felt more like a hotel than a TV show starship. The best scene in all 4 of the the TNG movies was that monstrosity finally biting the dust. The Enterprise E looks a billion times better.

For the record, I really LOVED the TNG retrofit of Enterprise. Looked GREAT! Not a huge fan of the Kelvin time line Enterprise. But it didn’t irk me like the D did. Sorry. Different strokes I guess.

It’s all good! Different tastes. But I agree on the “Hilton” aspect. I think there are ways of making it much more utilitarian.

The Hilton look, to me, was more on the Bridge. When they refit for ships subsequent to the D-class, the Bridge looked a lot more businesslike.

I love the Enterprise E on the big screen. I loved the D as well but the E was just so much cooler for the films. But yes the D IS TNG so my guess is that would be the direction they go if they ever did try to reboot it big or small screen.

And sadly I have to agree about the KT Enterprise. I never hated it, but I never loved it either. I just could never get away from those fat nacelles personally. Even the KT Enterprise A doesn’t do it for me but I would be curious to see what it looked like inside if we do get one more film.

I loved those curvy, ample nacelles. But then I am curvy myself.

I may be alone, but I love the KT Enterprise. If they do a fourth film I wonder if they will rebuild it to suit all the nerds who have protested since its first appearance.

The Galaxy Class, I have always thought of as a majestic swan. Don’t know why.

Of all Trek’s ships, the Defiant class is, to me, the ugliest. But there are a number of real beauties!

I don’t mind the look. But it’s way too big.

The Kelvin timelime should never be mentioned again. What a bonehead idea that was.

Oh, pshaw, TUP. It was more the writing and the pell-mell action. They could take it in a better direction. [Are you listening, God?]

I don’t disagree. I was okay with it after the first one. But I think the creation of a new universe gave the writers an undeserved sense of ego about “fixing” Star Trek. Had they been forced to play in the established sandbox they might have made a better effort with the writing.

It would be cool to see, but I think the age of reboots needs to end. At least for Trek.

Agreed Arathon!

I was never a big fan of a TOS reboot but I gave it a chance and the KT films were fine overall. But if they are done, then please NO MORE reboots of that crew. At least for another 10-20 years. Do something different, like Discovery is doing.

I would say no more prequels either but I’m afraid that battle is being lost. :(

Michael, because to Urban it’s merely another job. To us fans, it spans the gamut from passing fancy to obsession.

Actually, Urban is a genuine fan hisownself. But all good things, as they say. I liked the cast, but in the end I just couldn’t buy them as the TOS characters. Maybe my fault, but I mostly blame the writers.

How do you know how Urban feels?

TUP, Urban has said many times that he’s a fan.

@Maria. My post had been directed at the statement that it was merely a job to Urban. I wondered how that person knew since he clearly doesn’t know Urban and it’s been well established how much of a fan the actor is.

Posts get knocked out of order sometimes.

I disagree extremely. First off, look at where he made those comments: At a Star Trek convention. And maybe I am wrong but AFAIK he’s the only actor from that crew that has done one 9 years later. I don’t think Pine or Quinto has done one yet. In fact urban will also be doing a Star Trek cruise as well, again, the only actor from the KT films to represent that crew.

Now obviously it doesn’t automatically mean he’s a big fan but all you have to do is listen to him in all the interviews. He’s a huge fan, has been since he was a kid like a lot of us. He seems to love meeting all the other Trek actors from the various shows. Its not merely another job but it is a reality he’s facing and that he may have played his last role of that character. Of course this is Star Trek, there is rarely such a thing as a ‘last role’ since you don’t know when they might pop up in another film or show. But I think he’s content with the fact if that was his last movie then so be it.

Michael Hall, I think they are an intrepid crew. They have just gone through some bad writing.

Hope they bounce back, with Karl Urban as McCoy. I love them all.

Beyond lost money, Transformers made money.

The ROI on Transformers has been a hellva lot better then Trek, and Paramount is in dire straights financially. They are going to put their money where there is the best likelihood for a good return, and Trek isn’t it.

Thats true but it looks like Transformers is finally cooling off. The current one will not only be the least profitable film in the franchise since the first one a decade ago but it did literally half of what the last one did just 3 years ago. That has to raise huge alarm bells for Paramount, especially now with all their big ‘shared universe’ plans they have coming. It looks like they may have started that idea a little bit too late.

But sure it still makes money and sadly unlike Trek, will make a profit no matter what. But it is falling fast.

@Shadowknight — they invested heavily into BEYOND and lost a lot of money, even likely taking the lions share of the Chinese box office. I’m sure Paramount is still trying to get their cut out of China as well, which is likely another reason for their trip.

Shadowknight,

I join with you in mourning the passing of good taste ;^)

I think the reason Transformers goes over well in some countries is that it’s more visual cartoon than Trek. Yes, folks, even KT Trek still has some non-cartoon-y content. Even some cerebral and emotional stuff [A few minutes at least].

“I have now seen the first six episodes and I can assure you that it is terrific.”
Was there ANY chance at all that he would say they suck? This proves that there is such thing as “redundant news” (I am referring to the fact, that CBS issues such, not that Trekmovie.com reports them).

I may not be ready to subscribe to CBS All Access yet, but I am looking forward to the premiere episode of “Star Trek: Discovery.” Yet, I do hope CBS Home Entertainment would release “Discovery” on DVD, Blu-ray, 4K Ultra HD and Digital HD on the basis of one complete season per year even for those who are not ready to subscribe to CBS All Access. I do hope the next TV incarnation of “Star Trek” would air on either CBS–not just streaming on CBS All Access–or The CW and takes place after 2002’s “Nemesis.”

Buying the show on DVD or other media will most likely cost more than subscribing to CBS All Access to watch it, then cancel your subscription. Of course, once you’ve bought it you can watch it time and time again or sell the discs after you’ve watched it.
If Discovery turns out to be a big success for CBS All Access I don’t see TREK returning to normal TV anytime soon.

Good point. The people refusing to spend $30 for All Access but instead vowing to spend twice as much for the Blu Ray…ok. I get it, owning the series is nice. But the whining over All Access is ludicrous at this point. If you dont understand the business model just keep quiet.

Also, wouldnt we all love a successful Trek series on CBS? But the standard of success is a lot different for shows airing on the main network. All Access and the support for Discovery by Moonves gives it the best chance of real success in a long long time.

Diginon, who said anything about BUYING the discs of a show you haven’t seen yet? I assumed Don meant making the discs available through some sort of rental agency like Netflix. Hell, CBS themselves should get into that act, too. Make themselves a bit more money….

Complaining about disc rentals is barking up the wrong tree I’m afraid.

While Netflix has a small base of renters it is quite tiny.

I know people that lamented the end of VHS. It happens. Tech advances

As much as you don’t want to embrace streaming you are going to eventually.

Actually, Netflix disc rental is what has kept Netflix profitable for years making $1.9 billion while the rest of the company suffered a $1.5 billion loss. Currently the disc side of Netflix accounts for 50% of their revenues according to the AP. And this is when they spend a billion dollars marketing their streaming while they spend zero marketing the discs.

This won’t last forever, of course but reports of the disc service’s demise are greatly exaggerated.

Im not sure where you got those numbers from. of the nearly 100,000 million subscribers, only 4.1 million subscribe to the disc rental side of the business.

The rental side contributes a lot less revenue than the streaming side. This is common sense as well as factual. Even in 2013, this had changed significantly with only 22% of revenue coming from rentals.

Using the most recent 2017 numbers, renters are less than 5% of Netflix customers.

Netflix loses rental subs in large numbers. In Q4 2016, they lost over 150,000 rental customers (likely converting a lot of them to streaming subs).

Speculation is Netflix will close their rental side within 5 years.

You might be confusing loss with debt. Netflix has significant debt as it invests in original programming.

I mis-typed the first line. 100 million subs

“Im not sure where you got those numbers from.”

There is this new thing called the internet. You can use search engines to look stuff like that up. It’s all right there. Another source was mentioned right there in my post. Proving once again you rarely read what you are referring to.

“Yet, I do hope CBS Home Entertainment would release “Discovery” on DVD, Blu-ray, 4K Ultra HD and Digital HD on the basis of one complete season per year even for those who are not ready to subscribe to CBS All Access.”

Absofrigginlutely. Sadly there is precedent set for CBS to NOT do that.

There is also precedent set for them doing just that. But you always jump to the negative outcome without knowing anything at all. Why?

Please think before you post.

No, there isn’t a precedent for CBS to make discs available post a seasonal run. I can’t find Amazon streaming only shows available anywhere besides Amazon streaming. Same with Hulu originals. Why would CBS change from that model? They might, but they would be the first. Which is the definition of precedent. It’s how things have generally been done up to this point.

ML there is no need for insults and immaturity. I asked a simple question.

Are you suggesting there is no precedent for CBS to make their TV series’ available on disc??? I would wager that is false. Im quite certain you can buy many CBS TV series on disc.

Since CBS isnt Hulu or Amazon, I believe that comparison is moot. But certainly if we’re looking at other services for examples, you can purchase Netflix series on discs.

Its very common for popular TV series, whether they are network or premium content, to be made available on disc. Seems odd for a company to choose not to make money from home video sales.

Considering all the Star Trek films and series’ are widely available on home video (disc etc), it stands to reason the same would be true of Discovery.

Its possible they would lock it away forever. But that would not be the norm.

Really? You, the one who just said, “But you always jump to the negative outcome without knowing anything at all” is lecturing someone else on insults and immaturity. You didn’t ask a simple question and you know it. You asked a question and threw in your attack baby insult as a part of it.

“Im quite certain you can buy many CBS TV series on disc.”

How many of those discs are streaming only shows? Answer: None. So non sequitor.

“Its very common for popular TV series, whether they are network or premium content, to be made available on disc.”

But it is NOT very common for streaming only shows to be made available to disc. I’ve already pointed out examples.

“Considering all the Star Trek films and series’ are widely available on home video (disc etc), it stands to reason the same would be true of Discovery”

Wrong. None of those features and shows were streaming only properties. Therefore, non sequitor.

No one said CBS would lock them away forever. Why do you do to such silly extremes? What will most likely be the case CBS will make them available only if you buy AA. Like some other streaming services have done. Precedent has indeed been set. Sure, CBS could break the mold. But that would not be the norm.

The good fight is being released on DVD. Also iTunes.

Does this out your mind at easy and end the ludicrous assertion that discovery won’t be released on disk?

Ofcourse it will

A: Why would it be released on 15 year old tech?
B: I’m not seeing it available on disc yet. I think you are misinformed.

You do realise that Blu Ray is a format of DVD right? DVD stands for Digital Versatile Disc, of which HD DVD and Blu Ray are versions.

Why are you so rude all the time?

I found it for purchase. Maybe look harder. Either way, it doesnt change the fact that past precedent tells us Discovery is obviously going to be released on home media.

HDDVD lost. BD won.

“Why are you so rude all the time? ”

I’m sorry. I forgot that to you correcting your mistakes is “rude”.

“I found it for purchase. ”

That was the key you neglected to include. I’m looking for rentals. Wake me when you find that. Until you do, precedent is still for streaming only properties to NOT be available on disc for rent.

Netflix has released their original shows (such as Orange is the New Black, Daredevil, and House of Cards) on Blue Ray and DVD. The Stephen King series “11.22.63” does have a Blu-ray release.

So there is SOME precedent for putting streaming shows on home media. It remains to be seen if CBS will, but it’s too early to tell, since the Good Wife only started airing this past February.

@Lorcas yes, absolutely there is precedent. Im not sure where people get the idea that its likely not to be released on disc. Thats so absurd. Its like looking at a glass of water 90% full and saying how empty it is.

They get that idea because other streaming services don’t release their stuff to disc. It’s really not hard to understand this.

This is Star Trek. Obviously it will go to disc.

ML doesnt generally explain what he means on this subject. He doesnt want to buy the series on disc. He wants to rent it through Netflix the same time its released for live viewing.

No one knows if Netflix will have the discs available for rental. They might have built that into their deal with CBS or they might not have. Probably, there is nothing stopping them from utilizing First Sale Doctrine to rent the discs when CBS inevitably releases them.

Its certainly ludicrous to wring hands over the idea CBS might not issue Discovery on home media. Of course they will. And if Netflix feels there is a market for renting them, they will surely offer that.

But as rental is a small and ever shrinking aspect of their overall business, they probably dont care very much. Certainly they wont cannibalize their own streaming service for rent a few discs.

No TUP. You want to spread your lies, fine. But stop short when speaking about me or my viewpoints. You have proved time and time again you do not understand.

I have NEVER said the discs should be available the same time the show is available for streaming. Ever.

Please stop speaking for me. Might want to expand that and not speak for ANYONE but yourself. You always are wrong when you do.

Then what exactly are you saying? Because unless you have some unusual request, why on earth would you keep pushing this idea that Discovery wont be made available on disc?

Its absurd.

“Then what exactly are you saying? Because unless you have some unusual request, why on earth would you keep pushing this idea that Discovery wont be made available on disc?”

It’s quite obvious what I have been saying. Only you are claiming to not understand. I am NOT pushing the idea that DSC will not be available on disc. The streaming industry is pushing that idea. I have alsays said I HOPE it will particuarly given the deal they have with Netflix. But it still feels like a long shot.

I tire of repeating myself. Tiger said he was tired of the repeats too. Please stop making it necessary to do so.

Salvador,

The problem is if they release it to disc they undermine forcing people to subscribe to CBSAA. I suspect they will keep it themselves like Amazon does.

Amazon has expressed their own plan to release all series’ to disc. Netflix already does this.

Every Star Trek film and series is available.

Why on earth would you think Discovery would be any different? Just because? There is absolutely NOTHING to make you think that.

Except amazon stuff is NOT available on disc. I’ve looked plenty of times and it’s not there. Netflix USED to do it but their gaps are growing longer and longer. Until DSC, every trek film and show was NOT streaming only so what happened to them does not apply.

How many times does this need to be explained to you before you comprehend what is being said? You don’t even need to agree just understand the position. Geez…

That is only true if they released it to home media at the same time they air it live. Which they are very unlikely to do.

But as we’ve seen with many other OTT services, there is money to be made in home media so they do release it. In fact, they often use it to help market the upcoming season.

No reasons have been given to suggest this would be outside the norm for CBS and Discovery.

Another repeat post from you. See my reply to your other post that said the same thing for a reply.

Lorcas, Netflix USED to release them immediately. But even they are slowing that down. The last season of House of Cards did not come out on disc until months after it was available to stream. Daredevil’s 2nd season was long out before the first season was made available to disc. That’s a very long time. And then Amazon and Hulu stuff is NOT available to disc at all.

You said:

“Sadly there is precedent set for CBS to NOT to that [to release “Discovery” on DVD, Blu-ray, 4K Ultra HD and Digital HD]”

You then said, even more plainly:

“streaming services don’t release their stuff to disc.”

I listed several shows that do. But now that you’re proven wrong, you say ‘well, they weren’t released quickly.’

That’s a common logical fallacy known as “moving the goal posts.”

Torch! Aptly named since you just burned him.

Torch… You misunderstood. I said that there is no precedent (for the record, precedent means the way most in a situation act. Not 100%) to release to disc. Amazon and Hulu don’t do it. A few Netflix shows were listed as ones that do. So Netflix is making their releases longer and longer. Doesn’t change the precedent that is set.

You failing to understand does not constitute “moving goal posts”.

You’re welcome. Always happy to correct misunderstandings.

@Ml: actually precedent means an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

Precedent does NOT mean what usually happens, its an example of something that happened in the past. Often in legal proceedings, a precedent is a case or decision that occurred one time.

You’re incorrect again. 11/22/63 was a HULU series which was released on disc. I own it.

Amazon has released t disc as well and the CEO has said all series will be released on blu ray eventually.

Netflix does not take “longer and longer” to release their series. They release House of Cards 4 months after it goes live on Netflix which is remarkably quick actually.

To address your concerns, we should look at the big picture:

Historically, does CBS release Star Trek on home media? Yes. Every series is available.

Historically, does CBS release other series’ on home media? Yes.

Historically, is premium content television series’ released on home media? Yes, in the majority of cases.

Historically, do streaming services release their popular series on home media? Yes.

Historically, when streaming services release their series to home media is it done prior to the premiere of the following season? Yes.

I think you can put your mind to rest. Discovery will be released on home media. And when it is, I expect you’ll be be happy to admit you were wrong here?

Your definition and mine are the same. Yet you do not subscribe to that definition thus far.

I have yet to see any HULU series available on disc. Great that you own it. It’s not available for rental. You are incorrect on me being incorrect.

Same with the Amazon series’.

They are indeed taking more and more time. They USED to release House of Cards at the same time as streaming. Not so any more. The last season (and I have told you this already) the discs came months apart. Daredevil season 1 came out AFTER season 2 aired. Season two has yet to be released.

You know what.. Everything you mentioned has been addressed already. Go look at those responses then get back to me. Not just me but others have said they are tired of the repetitive posts you are the catalyst for.

I doubt Netflix gets joy from aggravating you. More likely their disc release schedule is based on driving subs to the streaming service

And probably influenced by a reduction is customers for their disc business over all.

It’s not uncommon for discs to be released shortly before the next season debuts. I assume it’s tied to marketing and maximizing views and subs.

The rental aspect is such a small part of Netflix business that it likely takes a backseat to everything else.

“I doubt Netflix gets joy from aggravating you.”

You say things like this as if it is part of the discussion. But it really is just you trying to aggravate. It’s your MO.

For normal network shows, it is the norm to release the discs before the next season starts. However, for streaming only shows that has NOT been the norm. You are ignoring the fact over and over because it does not fit your personal narrative of the situation.

You claim it is NOT the norm for streaming only shows to be released before the following season. That is not true.

I used Netflix as an example and both House of Cards and OITNB release their seasons on disc before the next season airs on the platform. HoC in particular releases it fairly quickly. OITNB releases it slower but BEFORE the new season airs.

Why do you think it is NOT the norm for streaming to do this, especially when its so easy to verify you are wrong?

The point is, you continue to be critical of CBS for a decision that hasnt been made and is unlikely to be made, namely your assertion that they will not release Discovery on disc at all or in a timely manner.

Neither of those beliefs is consistent with Star Trek, CBS or streaming. So why do you keep pushing it as a reasonable thing? Its not.

There is no reason to believe that Discovery wont be released on disc. Why do you think otherwise?

As a folow up, Torchwood actually showed you that you were wrong below, BEFORE you made the above post. You ignored his examples and went right back to pushing an UNTRUE statement as if it was fact.

Im not trying to beat you up. But anytime I have stated something that I was wrong about or asked a question of the smart people here, I am happy to be be educated. You keep pushing incorrect statements or unlikely & unreasonable opinions as if they are fact and ignoring when people show you you’re wrong.

The great thing about this community is the opportunity to learn from others.

You dont have to acknowledge Im right. But at least admit Torch is.

No, torch did not. He repeated the same untrue stuff you mentioned.

You cannot say that you are happy to be educated when not once have you ever admitted to being wrong to ANYTHING here. Not once. You have been quite often, too. I am not ignoring what was said. I address it. You are the one ignoring the answers when you ask the same thing over and over and over and over.

If you don’t want to hear or even read the answers to questions you ask, why even ask them?

Wash rinse repeat.

All been covered before. You keep asking why and I have answered many times. Stop asking why. It’s been answered. You have a problem with the answer then address the answer. Don’t ask the question over and over.

Phew! I was worried he was going to do something stupid and tell investors that these episodes sucked.

@CommonSense — he’s already got their money. He wouldn’t talk it up as big if it weren’t great. He’s a master tactician, and he’d find a way to speak enthusiastically about it without flat-out lying.

Man I really hope this show is good! I have my hopes up but I’ve heard some bad things about this production and not just youtube stuff. Either way I cant wait till it hits the screen and see what they have to offer!

Just remember nearly EVER Star Wars production went through bad productions, especially the OT. TFA had only a small speed bump but Rogue One had crazy problems and turned out well. The Han Solo project is TBD but if thats even close to a hit after the massive blow that film just gotten, it proves anything can survive a bad enough production.

That said most movies and shows go through bad productions usually do turn out bad lol. I just saw The Dark Tower today. Not nearly as bad as I thought listening to the critics pound away but you really can tell this thing was hacked to death. The beauty of a TV show vs a film though is they have time to turn it around, sometimes literally years as TNG had before they kicked Roddenberry to the curve and things improved a lot moving forward.

@Tiger – great point again. Star Wars, owned by the massive Disney, tightly over-seen by Kathleen Kennedy and look at the issues they’ve had. They have brought in someone to re-write Episode 9 as well.

None of this means the films will be bad. Its the nature of the business to have production speed bumps along the way.

Yes I completely forgot about the rewrite of Episode 9. It is amazing with the big Disney machine behind these movies how they seem to be having so much trouble. But thats also probably the fact they are trying to crank out a film literally every year and rushing to get them out before their premiere dates and then back tracking when they realize its just not going very well. The Han Solo project basically broke new ground in terms of letting go of its director(s) so late in the game. At least with Star Trek and Orci, he was let go before they shot a frame of the film and not wait until he was 90% done.

But yes as said it doesn’t automatically means they will be bad. There are always going to be problems but if they have a strong enough story and enough people who can turn it around they can still turn out a good production even if its not as good as they hoped.

I think part of the issue is the desire to get it right. And Kennedy has the power and will to make changes if she so desires.

Whereas STID could have benefited from someone pulling back the reigns, they let it go. Star Wars, they seem more open to risking the perception of issue to do what they think is best whether thats firing a director, hiring a new writer etc.

Ive been happy with TFA and Rogue One, though both could have been better but its rare to have a perfect film anyway.

I’ll see this thing on Netflix when it comes out.
Fingers crossed.

Antonio,

Uniless you are outside of the USA and Canada you are probably going to be waiting a VERY long time. I am hoping that CBS will at least have the wisdom to make the discs available to Netflix after the full season is shown. I am hoping that is a part of their deal with Netflix. But my guess is it won’t happen.

I hope it doesn’t. They should sell the season on Blu Ray and make people pay for it.

I recognize that as a baiting post. Not gonna fall for it.

If it was, you did.

But it wasnt. I suspect Netflix has access to rentals as part of its deal unless it specifically agreed out of it. First Sale Doctrine, which governed Netflix’ business in the first place (its why there was a rental market for cassettes way back when even though film companies tried to stop it) would see to that.

One can assume the likelihood of Discovery being treated similarly to other Netflix productions like House of Cards etc. Are they available for rent?

I’d have zero interest either way. If I want to watch it on Blu Ray, I’d buy it so I own it, rather then rent it. And I hope CBS sells a lot of sets so Star Trek generates a lot of money for them.

No, I didn’t fall for it because I did not respond to what you said. I only responded to tell you I saw your post for what it was. You have made other posts like that where I didn’t point out that I did not respond because your post was a baiting one. In this case I did. That is the end of that.

This post, however, is less obvious because you actually made some sorta new comments.

You “suspect” Netflix will have the discs as part of their deal. That is the ONLY hope some of us have. It’s possible but I wouldn’t put it past CBS to hoard the discs. We cannot assume it will be treated like other Netflix properties because it isn’t a Netflix property. It’s CBS who under the deal is allowing Netflix to distribute internationally. We have no idea what else they may or may not allow Netflix.

Some of us don’t want to buy a show unless we see it first. Why waste good money on something not worth owning? You would have no idea. Renting is a great way to decide that. Just because you like to take that kind of risk doesn’t mean everyone else does. That is a common mistake with you. Assuming everyone thinks like you do, and if they don’t they should.

I’m not sure why it’s a Hope thing for you. You are more than able to watch the series as it airs. Or buy it when it inevitably is released on disk

Don’t know why you say you aren’t sure why it’s a hope thing for me. It’s been made quite clear many times. Not going to go over it all again. It’s in print in other posts and it’s also quite obvious even if you don’t have the posts to read.

Since Star Trek is such an important part of CBS All Access, it would seem logical CBS wanting to add more Star Trek to fill up the remaining 40 weeks of the year.

I think the rumours out there are related to this. The only thing is, its very expensive. But if Netflix wants more Star Trek and Discovery is a hit, why not make more? Netflix has experience doing that very thing with Marvel.

I agree! And I remind people on Reddit all the time this is CBS we are talking about. Home of the 5 different CSI and Criminal Mind spin offs and now 4 DC shows on CW (actually 6 but two of them are not part of the same universe). Lets also not forget their first two shows on AA are spin offs of Big Brother and The Good Wife. CBS is in the spin off spawning business, probably more so than any other network.

My guess is if Discovery is a hit for them and the one they are hoping for we will get another show within 2-3 years to fill the other half of the year when AA is taking a break. Just hopefully not that rumored Khan show. Did you hear about that? Man that sounds truly awful. Hopefully it will be a real Trek show with original characters and stories and not more prequelitis.

Isn’t that the guy who doesn’t like Science Fiction?

Excited about Discovery. I don’t live in the US so I’ll be watching on Netflix. I don’t understand all the losers whining about having to pay $5.99 a month to watch the show. It’s just $5.99. Big deal. You can cancel when it’s over and renew when the next season starts. Even if you have a minimum wage job in the States, were talking about less than one hour per month. I’d be embarrassed to be an adult crying about how expensive $5.99 is and using it as an excuse to be nasty about something that is looking to be great. It’s just $5.99. As Shatner said in the 80s on SNL, “Get a life.”

Luke… You are not really looking at the bigger picture here. For many it’s not the $6 a month. It’s the $6 a month on top of all the other internet and streaming stuff they are ALREADY getting. It is frustrating to be asked to add YET ANOTHER streaming service to an ever growing pile of streaming services. At this point, because CBS has been a late arrival to the party many are saying, “enough!” That they like Trek but ONE show is not enough to get them to add ANOTHER service. Try looking at this from all angles.

What’s the bigger picture? That people in the developed world have too many options to be unremarkable lazy couch potatoes with too many choices of things to watch and subscribe to? Wow, what an “issue” to take a stand on. Bravo. Next you should take on the cause of having too many places to buy shoes! Those dammed choices! How are people to make a decision?! It’s unfair! Or what about the cereal aisle at the grocery store? Too many choices! Please. I think that if you are the kind of person to be reading an obscure (and awesome) blog about Star Trek and posting comments, that odds are you are going to pay the SMALL fee of $5.99 per month to watch it. The constant whining by some people on these comments are annoying beyond belief. In addition to the racists, sexists and homophobes upset that the show is not just straight white guys in space, we get treated to losers complaining about $5.99 a month and absurdly claiming that they, those who read articles on the minutia of the development of a TV show and post comments on those articles, are somehow to be believed that they are not going to subscribe to actually watch the show itself? Really? The problem with the Internet is that it gives voice to negative, unaccomplished, uninteresting people with nothing to say and we all have to see their unimpressive thoughts. How I long for the day when there was a filter… Read more »

Really Luke? You are going to pull out the first world problems card? On a Star Trek fan boy site? REALLY?

And this just shows that you aren’t understanding what was being said. You have your blinders on and think it is about a mere $6 and ONLY about a mere $6. It isn’t but you go right on ripping on others for things you just aren’t getting. I would be happy to engage but that whiny rant about sexism, paying $6 and first world problems is just too oddball to respond to in any way apart from the way I am responding now.

If you calm down and wish to have an entertaining and reasonable discussion I’m all ears. If you don’t, enjoy screaming into the wind.

I think the frustration isnt that a handful of people cant afford the $6. We all can respect that. But more so the continued complaining over it. Its over. its done. This is the way it is. Spamming every article with the same thing isnt going to change it.

The business model is sound. CBS is doing what they think is best. Either watch it or dont watch it.

” Spamming every article with the same thing isnt going to change it.”

So stop spamming every article with your propoganda, dude. No, the business model is not sound. You repeating it over and over doesn’t make it so.

Your opinion that the business model is not sound is based on what?

I guess the folks over at Disney don’t know what they’re doing either.

Based on things I said in other posts. Which is a lot more than your reasoning… Because Tup says so.

Why do you continue to resort to insults? You made a statement, I asked a reasonable question. If you cant support your position, so be it.

An awful lot of people seem to think CBS’ business model is sound. Im curious what you base your opposite perception on?

Again, I keep forgetting that reminding you that you have no evidence to back up what you say is an insult in your eyes.

You asked a question that had been answered many times. I just got tired of writing the same thing over and over. The conclusion was supported. Whether you opt to recognize it or not. If you want to debate or discuss, I’m open to it. But it requires you acknowledge the response first.

BTW.. An awful lot of people here seem to think it is not that sound, actually.

If you had a better mind you could get a job that would pay you enough to afford the $5.99 a month and you wouldn’t have to whine and be negative here. Work on that. You can do it!

Yeah… Thank you for proving again how correct my response was.

Sure. It’s because I am so very poor that I cannot afford $6 a month. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.

Enjoy your screaming.

It’s not a fan “boy” site. There are plenty of woman here as fans and women at the forefront of producing and staring in this new Trek. And it’s not “whining” to smack down all the sexist broflakes complaining that a woman of color is the lead. Sexist crap is primitive garbage that belongs in the past. And, FYI, I live in Central America, so yeah, crybabies who are up in arms about a small $5.99 fee are wimps with “first world problems.” Ask mommy for more allowance and spare us the rants against Discovery. If you can’t cough up $5.99 for a new Trek show with a $6 million per-episode budget maybe spend less time here raining on this promising new show’s parade and more on finding a new job. I’ve written for Paramount’s Star trek Communicator and been on the sets of several of the movies and TV shows in the 90s. People work hard to produce it and it costs a ton of cash to do it right. Step up with your $5.99 or go pee in someone else’s sandbox. :)

Whatever….

Thank you Luke! Yes first world problems are correct. Whats funny is most of the people whining about it are probably paying anywhere from 5 to 10 times as much for the internet they they are whining on. Its ridiculous and yes sadly now annoying after hearing it nearly 2 years later.

And there is a connection between internet and streaming of course. And some people have been very critical of streaming technology but using a lesser internet tier.

You personally know people like that? I sure don’t.

Yes, I believe I recounted this story to you. About three years ago, I noticed my Netflix was buffering and my wifi was slower. I called my provider and they told me my Internet Package was unchanged from when I moved into my home years earlier.

Ofcourse, even as my Internet Package was unchanged, my needs had changed. Since moving into that home, we went from one computer using WiFi to two computers, two phones, multiple ipods, Smart TV, Smart Blu Ray Player, even the bathroom scale used Wifi.

Additionally, we began streaming HD content.

Accrding to my provider, when we signed up we tok the “average” package. Now that was far below average. We adjusted accordingly and have had zero issues since. Now we have even more connected devices and stream 4K HDR content, no buffering at all.

Thats why when you indicated you had the same issues, I advised you to check with your Internet Provider. How did that work out?

Good for you. Such a thing has not happened to me nor to anyone I know. My internet works just fine. Again, you ask a question that has already been answered.

CBS isnt the bad guy by asking you to pay for their product. You can choose to cancel something else if you cant afford CBSAA and want it.

These complains are tired and irrelevant. The 5 people that keep pushing this nonsense are getting old.

Nothing is free.

Exactly. So many negative nobody’s nothings here ranting. First it’s that there’s a woman of color as the lead, then ranting about the gay character and now crying about a small $5.99 fee to watch a show that has a $6 million per episode production budget. Huh? So many angry losers. If you can’t afford $5.99 a month put your effort into what’s wrong with your earning ability and maybe less on the negative comments on every article about Discovery. Rewrite your resume perhaps instead of nasty comments here? Many of us are excited to have Trek fans at the helm producing a season of 15 hours worth of new Trek – and at $6 million an episode being spent on it, if you wanna watch, simply fork over the $5.99 – or ask your mom for an increase in your allowance if you can’t step up. But stop embarrassing yourselves by complaining here. :)

Yup.

I hear you, ML31. I’m no fan of “The Next Big Shiny New Thing”. I stopped at the flip-phone, and holding to it as long as it’ll be around. To me, it’s just a goddamn phone, nothing else, not interested in it being my “Everything Device”. I like my Antenna hooked to my little flat-screen TV in the Back Room.My wife and I enjoy watching old Westerns on it…and TOS too, drink-in-hand. I have Dish, and Roku with a Netflix subscription, and a 1020 HD TV, and a DVD/DVR player…ENOUGH already. I remember going to the VHS rental store..and what are those CD-looking things? DVDs? So I ditched the videos when my VHS player gave up the ghost, with no VHS players available anymore, and got a DVD library going. I LIKE to OWN hard copies. Oh yeah, I own a Kindle too…don’t use the goddamn thing anymore because I LIKE paperbacks, I like holding them, flipping pages, using book markers, having shelves filled with books and DVDs, all mine. I like stories. The hardware it is delivered on is quite secondary to me. I dabble in writing and drawing. That way, I get just the story I wanted to read, and a serviceable visual to stoke the imagination. I know how hard it is to write a story, so I’m probably more forgiving than the conventional critic, and I can do my own “Re-write” in my imagination, that’s part of the fun of being a Star Trek fan.So, no,… Read more »

@ kitbash canon: Well, if you’re into buying hard copies I’m pretty sure that Discovery will become available on DVD/Blu-ray down the road. You’ll just have to wait for it.

That’s fine. I’ve learned patience in my 63 years.

Careful kitbash… Some here will just say you are just being nonsensical and that you don’t know what you are talking about. Or that you just want everything for free.

I hear what you are saying and good for you for sticking with what you like. I agree to a point. There are a lot of things in your comment we differ on. But unlike a few others here who demand you see the world the exact same way they see them I will not rip you a new one or be arrogant and antagonistic towards you.

Its perfectly okay to like what you like. Just as its perfectly ok for others to like new technology.

Its certainly ok for the networks to invest in what they want. Ultimately CBS is a business. If more people like OTA than OTT, Discovery and streaming wont last long.

Sorry you are getting flamed. I’m pretty much flame-proof. It’s typical for sixty-somethings to be set in our ways. We’ve pretty much walked the long trail of “The Next Big Shiny New Thing”, and arrived at resting points, until we HAVE to move yet again. I don’t think we’re the marketing target anymore, for these reasons. It’s up to the younger ones to move things along, advance things. They can wonder about if it was worth it later, when they are
sixty-something…and sometimes the answer will be yes, sometimes no.

Meh… Not a big deal to me. Seems to be a much bigger deal to those doing the flaming, however. For the record, I just hit 50 and my kid is still in high school. But I will be in your shoes next decade. I’m preparing for it. :)

@Kitbash – ML isnt getting flamed. He keeps making silly arguments and people are very correctly countering them. Its interesting that you openly admit your age and stubbornness but are clearly more open to CBS’ efforts than some. Good for you. Its funny to think that moments before Disney announced they were following suit there were people trying to push their own “expert opinion” that streaming was a poor technology and the “boat was full”. This is the future! Ultimately, I like it. I do think there will be pain for some, especially those that maintain cable and then will have to decide if they want to get streaming services to gain access to original content. Eventually it probably all evens out. The quality of streaming continues to improve. Its up to the producers but already we know you can access 4K HDR video and surround sound audio with zero issues. What people want is to not be rooted to their living rooms and told when to watch a show or how to watch a show. OTT will give people that freedom. If you want to watch Star Trek on Sunday at 7PM in your living room? You will. If you want to watch on the beach on Monday afternoon, you will. If you want to walk from one room to another, begin on your iphone, continue on your lap top, finish on your TV or heck, even pick it up on the TV on your fridge as you go… Read more »

What I’m interested to see is what will happen to services like Netflix and Hulu in years to come when more and more ‘stations’ make their own streaming services, like AA and this new Disney thing. Starz has one, too.

I for one won’t be subscribing to the Disney (or ESPN) service (no kids in the house and Star Wars will always be a movie franchise to me), but I bet a helluva lot of people are going to. The end result is going to be in favor of the consumer. More options for us, and no more being forced to watch crap, which is why I cut the cord to begin with.

Plus, the more content that’s out there, the more people are going to pirate it, one way or another. That’s a fact. Interesting times ahead.

@Dan – yeah, its a game changer. For WWE, a business Im very familar with, getting about 1.5 million subs average made up for all their Pay Per View business by a large margin. It made them less reliant on the micro-changes in business as opposed to the macro (this makes WWE far less interesting though). The same will be true of the various OTT services. HBO did the same thing years ago with their subscriber service. How many peple subscribed for The Sopranos, watched it and then cancelled, waited for the next season and repeated? In time, you get enough quality content that it becomes easier to just keep your subscription all year. People said Netflix was crazy for allowing binge watching. But the idea that everyone would binge a series in two days and cancel never came true. Netflix very correctly surmised that people dont want to necessarily binge their favorite show, they just want freedom to watch when and how they want. Disney will be a major game changer. They’ve set themselves up big time with their acquisitions. Their catalog will be massive and the IP they can leverage into original programming will be impressive. I think we, as consumers, will eventually win though. The battle wont be for Hulu or a smaller service to compete dollar for dollar with Disney or CBS, it will be to create quality programming. I think there is opportunity for a few “Davids” to beat a few Goliaths. We likely get… Read more »

Agreed, TUP, to the point of the consumer being faced with ‘not-enough-hours-in-the-day’ to watch everything they want to see. Seriously, with work, family, play, household chores, I really only have X amount of time to watch television a week. At some point in the (?)distant(?) future, after there are dozens of streaming services and options and cable is dead and everyone is fighting for consumer $$, I’ve got to think there will be some sort of deal out there where we can simply pick what shows we want, and pay one price to one entity. But that is quite a ways off. I agree, Disney’s catalog is going to be massive, and their service, stellar.

” More options for us, and no more being forced to watch crap, ”

Who forced you to watch “crap” when you had cable? Didn’t your TV have an off button? Did someone threaten your family if you didn’t watch? And how do you know all the streaming content will be good? The more there is the greater the chance that services will be delivering “crap”.

ML, I’m not going to elaborate by what I consider ‘crap’ tv. We all have things we like and don’t like, and good for us. But for instance, I’m pretty glad any station featuring say, the Kardashian’s, is no longer forced upon me by some cable package. I can now via streaming, choose to pay for and pick pretty much what channels or even singular shows I want access to, and those I don’t.

Cable got old for me years ago, and with a few (liberating, actually) adjustments, I find streaming to be of excellent quality and *much* more economical.

The initial beef I had with CBSAA is that it is something extra I have to sign up and pay for, and not offered on any of the platforms I already have access to and pay for. Such is life. And it is not only a fact that streaming is the future, that future is indeed, here.

@Dan – it really is a matter of the consumer choosing when, where and how to watch. The vast majority of consumers list price as their main reason for streaming ie. lower cost.

Where the battle comes in, is once you have 5, 10, 15 streaming options, the low cost is not as apparent. How that will be rectified will be interesting. Im thinking those cable carriers will end up bringing multiple steaming services together eventually.

But the “war” should result in increased choice for consumers and a lot of quality original programming.

“ML isnt getting flamed.”

No, you are flaming me. And you know it. But then you think correcting someone’s mistake is an insult too, so…..

Like BBC licence fee… that is like, over £100!

Wow, Les. What a shock you would say that. Just amazing.

The Deadline article about the deal addressed the problems facing Paramount.

==========================

Ellison has moved from a slate co-financier toward producing and funding his own homegrown projects. He raised $700 million in funding last year (sources said his father, Oracle’s Larry Ellison became a stakeholder), and insiders at the company said last year that the deal with Paramount would come to an end. This was when Brad Grey was desperately trying to hold onto his position after a dreadful fiscal year and the exit of vice chairman Rob Moore, and also after the sequels Star Trek Beyond and Jack Reacher: Never Go Back fizzled quickly and were among a number of franchises that Paramount could not get off the ground in a fiscal year that brought $445 million in losses…. Likely, both parties found a mutual need for one another. If Skydance puts in half the money for Paramount’s bigger ticket internal productions, it will certainly help chairman Jim Gianopulos as he tries to turn around the studio’s long sagging fortunes.

http://deadline.com/2017/08/skydance-paramount-terminator-james-cameron-tim-miller-reup-four-years-1202143832/

I wish Redstone would just do whatever he can do reunite the movie and film sides of Star Trek…under CBS. Does CBS have a film division? Let them make Star Trek.

The Redstone’s are pretty much getting the best of both world’s by ensuring a Star Trek revenue stream to both CBS and Viacom by keeping the television and film franchises separate. Star Trek as a whole will only be under CBS if Paramount is no longer a part of Viacom and is shifted over to CBS.

I think Redstone is probably concentrating more on the essentials at this point in his life. Like, breathing.

Theres more than one!

What is Les going to say about Discovery? “I saw the first six shows and they are just mediocre”? Puh-lease.

I’m no business guru but I do dabble a little more in the media than most and it seems to me that CBS’s best bet with Trek if they wanted it themselves, as much as I hate to say it, would be Showtime. And to show that I’m being unbiased I’m not a Showtime subscriber, either. So it would be irritating to me if that was where they opted to go. That would raise the profile of the premium cable network and it would be available for streaming on the streaming side of Showtime as well.

It’s not really a good fit with Showtime, being associated with mere broadcast for so many years. But I wouldn’t be surprised if CBS merges Showtime and All Access at some point. The trend it towards having a broad service like Netflix, that will have The Crown and Adam Sandler movies on it – the whole range of stuff people want to see.

I don’t see how Trek being associated with over the air TV makes it not a good fit for Showtime. To me, that venue seems to be the perfect fit for Trek. Merging the CBS Showtime properties with AA may happen down the road depending on how each separate streaming service performs. But at the moment it looks like their plans are to keep them separate.

You dont dabble in media if you dont understand what CBS is doing.

This isnt about Showtime, its about All Access. Streaming technology is where its all headed. We can already get 4K HDR streaming content on Netflix. its amazing. CBS knows this and is leveraging Star Trek and other popular programming to juice their own streaming.

This is CBS’ best bet as far as Star Trek being successful for the long haul because it wont be dependent on traditional ratings.

No, I do. Just because you think you are right and everyone else is wrong doesn’t mean I don’t. For someone who claims to be familiar with Star Trek and it’s themes you sure do seem to be amazingly intolerant of other people.

The conversation was indeed about Showtime in that I was saying that is probably the best place for CBS to put Trek if they wanted to do it all themselves. Period. No one ever said anything about NO streaming. In fact, CBS has started a Showtime streaming service too. Which is part of why I thought Showtime would be a great spot for a new Trek show. This has all been said before yet you are making your comment as if you never read anything on those posts.

Again, why do you begin every post with an insult? Its not required.

I disagree about Showtime. It wouldnt bother me either way as I have watched some Showtime programs in Canada.

But CBS knows they need a strong streaming service. They very simply need to have that option. They could fund All Access at a loss as a companion piece to their main programming but they clearly have a plan to leverage some popular niche programs to gain a piece of the streaming pie.

I think its highly highly intelligent plan.

Since Cbs owns multiple channels and a lot of programming, it makes a lot of sense to create a one stop shop for streaming. Its also clear that original content is much more valuable than archival content.

Its a good plan. But they have to have patience. And it sounds like their expectations are reasonable. They know some people wont watch, those that either dont want, cant afford or dont understand streaming. They’ve built that expectation into their forecasts, surely, so I think they will be fine even if all 5-6 people here who wont watch keep to their word.

I see. So disagreeing with you is now an insult. Calling out your arrogance is an insult. I guess the only way it’s NOT an insult is to say you are right.

No, CBS doesn’t KNOW they need a strong streaming service. They WANT a strong streaming service. Big difference.

” Its also clear that original content is much more valuable than archival content”

Which is why Showtime is a better place for it. Everything you said about the streaming is true of Showtime and Showtime has other advantages the streaming doesn’t.

I’m sure Paramount had expectations for UPN, too. None were met.

Mods….

You do realize that if the mods were here they would be all over you, right?

In fairness, he was never going to say they’re rubbish!!

@Dom — no but he wouldn’t just mislead stockholders either. He would temper their expectations while simultaneously supporting the shows.

@Cadet – that is a very good point. I actually followed a situation pretty closely where WWE was simultaneously launching their OTT Network and negotiating new Television rights fees. And a group of shareholders sued the company for over-hyping their expectations.

Big wigs know how to hype programs and projects without over-promising. We can take Moonves at his word that he truly believes Discovery is good.

@TUP,

Well, last year Moonves told investors at Deutsche Bank Media Conference that CBS will renew all five of their freshman series of that season:

“We have about five new shows on this year. Of those five, I believe all five of them will be renewed, and we own four of them.”

http://deadline.com/2016/03/les-moonves-cbs-plans-renew-new-series-1201716171/

Among the five shows, one show (Angel from Hell) was already cancelled and couple months later ‘Limitless’ was cancelled as well.

“I believe all five”. He believed it. He was wrong.

@TUP,

Right, then it makes no sense for you to say that:

“We can take Moonves at his word that he truly believes Discovery is good.”

Accepting any glowing comments from Moonves at face value is naive.

Why? Because he was wrong once? He might be wrong about disco being terrific too. Doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe it

Stop playing this sky is falling game

It’s getting old.

End of the day, if enough people embrace it, it’ll do fine. I have to admit to being less bothered since Bryan Fuller moved on! I’ll give it a shot, but I don’t have high expectations. That said, lowered expectations might make me less critical…

Why? Applying some critical thinking skills, yes, I’d assume there would be some happy talk about the product to keep the shareholders happy. I’d also assume that as head of an entertainment conglomerate he has some ability to evaluate talent. As a businessman, I’d also understand that if the show was garbage, there is cause to pull it back and fix it – again, those shareholders.

@phil. Yup. Some people here are twisting themselves in knots to be critical of anything remotely related to discovery.

@Phil,

Regardless of the show, whether it’s Star Trek, Homeland, The Man in the High Castle ..etc, I never consider any positive comments from a CEO. It’s their job to sell their shows, not to give it an objective review.

It’s perfectly ok for your guys to believe whatever they tell you but I’d rather wait to see it myself and/or read reviews.

Plus it’s a personal perspective thing. How he feels about it may not be what a lot consumer’s feel. Having said that he has been in the business awhile so he can spot a hit.

Now that CBS has announced their global expansion, I wonder how Netflix is fitting into that strategy long-term. They obviously want to use Netflix to build a market for Star Trek on streaming globally that they can then capitalize on. That means getting Star Trek back from Netflix sooner or later because if it’s not exclusive to CBS, then it’s not an incentive to people to subscribe to CBS.

From what we know Netflix’s license fee basically paid for the first season of Discovery. If CBS were to shut them out they would have to pay that themselves.

Probably a country by country thing. It’s taken Netflix 10-12 years to expand like it has. I doubt cbs could expand quicker than that.

@MattR,

Netflix expanded first slowly in Canada, Europe and few other countries and then in January 2016 they launched their service in 130 countries at once!

I still say the biggest mistake was to not just put it on Netflix in America. I have this feeling that the show will actually be a good show but the big complaint will be that people aren’t flocking to All Access like they’d hoped. Just put the damn thing on Netflix since EVERYONE pretty much has Netflix. You’re asking for the show to fail at this point. Where did I watch all the other series? Netflix. I didn’t say hmm, let me subscribe to All Access so I can sit through commercials and watch episodes of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. If you want people to watch, make it convenient for them. That’s the whole point of a good streaming service Les.

@PEB,

Over here in Canada they’ll release ‘Discovery’ on Space channel with commercials. I don’t know about the rest but I’d rather watch something on Netflix or rent/buy it on iTunes than watching it on a channel with annoying commercials.

I’ve unsubscribed from Space couple years ago for that very reason.

Ahmed, that is why I have a DVR. I DVR everything that is not a live sporting event. I skip over commercials that way. That is another reason why I prefer a regular over the air or cable channel to streaming.

ML31, You just described the very reason companies like CBS is investing in platforms like streaming in the first place. We all here understands that networks make their money off of commercials first and foremost. We also understand the sooner you watch that commercial the more money they make. But when everyone now has a device that can skip over the one thing that pays for the show they are watching AND delaying when they even watch the show at the same time, guess who loses money? And I’m not saying you or anyone is doing anything wrong by doing that. Obviously we all do it and thats because networks are making money in a very archaic way since we now have technology to bypass all of that. There are machines out there that literally skips the commercials as a whole. And thats the problem. You have a dying format that is losing out to technology. So what do you do? You either ignore it or join it. We all love TV but we all hate what gives us all that great TV in the first place. So now they have to come up with other means. I’m sure if the networks could start charging fees to watch their channels like premium cable networks they would do it. But not before the total anarchy that would over take this country over that idea. So they now have a THIRD option. Create a site where people can just pay to watch… Read more »

@Tiger – great point. The same people whining about All Access demanding it be put on regular TV where they can fast forward through the commercials. *sigh*.

The business of TV isnt that hard to grasp for most of us.

At some point there will be a negative critical mass of programming options where you might have cable AND multiple streaming services. But I think the networks and studios are hoping to get to the point where those people that cut cable can be caught up in their own safety net of streaming.

There will always be cable customers. But as more and more move to streaming, they will have the choice of only the channels or platforms they want.

There are licensing deals to work out as well. I believe CBS even made that comment that they didnt even have all their own shows on All Access but that will change.

A studio like Disney that is all-powerful, will definitely leverage their own property in the same way.

Thats why Netflix has HUGE debt…they are trying to get ahead of everyone else with original content because thats what will drive success.

Exactly! I mean this is the problem. You’re whining how things are slowly being moved online but then bragging about how you skip commercials which is the #1 revenue source of a shows survival. Its not just how many people that watch the show that matters, but how many watch the commercials inbetween the shows. Thats ultimately determines what keeps a show on or not. If they are not making enough ad revenue, the show goes bye bye….until Netflix picks it up. ;) But this is what I keep saying, we only look at this stuff from a consumer POV and thats all we have to care about. But long term the studios see a trend that is not changing. People are finding more and more ways to watch TV without actually watching TV. Technology has made it easy to bypass ads. People are dumping cable plans to watch it cheaper online. The idea these trends will go the other direction is naive. No one is saying TV will be gone but clearly they know they can’t rely on that one medium anymore if they want to keep the majority of its viewers. And ironically the demographics TV advertisers rely on most, 18-35, is where this is becoming the main issue because the same people they sale their products to are the same people bucking the trend of watching regularly TV more and more. If you are over 50 sadly they don’t care about you that much but yet THOSE… Read more »

@Tiger – yup. And I can use wresting as an example again. While WWE gets over 3 million viewers for their flagship program, not all viewers are created equal and those 3 million people generate less ad revenue than 3 million viewers for other programs.

I think the skipping the middle man is a huge aspect to this. We’ve seen battles over distribution and how cable carriers clarify certain channels. This way, the studio controls their own fate. And while the expense of starting up is not insignificant, once they have the infrastructure, they have it. As time passes, the revenue becomes more and more profitable.

Its brilliant really.

The thing is, VCR’s and then DVR’s terrified broadcasters into thinking that people would no longer watch commercials. Strange thing happened… Precious few actually used them to skip ads as it turns out. Regarding DVR use, I am in the minority. As often happens, media fears turn out to be unfounded.

@Ml that is false.

Its why the value of sports programming shot up, because of the perception they are DVR-proof (people are more likely to watch sports live, thus be exposed to commercials).

Many networks or producers tout the + numbers (+3, +7, the ratings including people who watch 3 days or 7 days later) to show the true popularity of a program. And while thos