Les Moonves: A Lot Is Riding On ‘Star Trek: Discovery,’ Future Seasons Likely

CBS Chairman and CEO Leslie Moonves is again talking up the importance of Star Trek: Discovery. He is quoted today in a Bloomberg Businessweek article on the future of CBS All Access saying:

“Looking at the future of CBS, streaming and OTT”—over-the-top content, industry jargon for internet-only media—“is a very important part of it,” he says. “There’s real upside for our company to have All Access be successful. There’s a lot riding on Star Trek.”

Based on this report and industry analysis, the CBS plan to “target niches of passionate fans” to spur the growth of CBS All Access appears to be working. From Bloomberg:

To date, All Access has racked up about 2 million customers. The average age of its subscribers is almost 20 years younger than the typical prime-time CBS viewer, whose median age is 61, according to Nielsen Co. Executives say that, with the help of Discovery, All Access can blow past its target of 4 million customers by 2020. Future seasons are likely, Moonves says.

The most recent estimates of All Access Subscribers before the launch of Discovery were closer to 1.5 million. CBS has stated that they have had record signups around the launch of Discovery, but the key test for the streaming service will be to keep those “passionate fans” around when there is no new Star Trek content.

All Access has announced a number of new original shows including a new comedy (No Activity), launching the same day as Discovery wraps up its 2017 run of nine episodes on November 12th. Discovery returns in January 2018 with six more episodes, and All Access has announced a number of new shows for 2018, but executive producer Alex Kurtzman has warned that a second season of Discovery may not be available until early 2019.

For more read the full feature article on CBS All Access at Bloomberg Businessweek.

Star Trek: Discovery is available exclusive in the US on CBS All Access with new episodes released Sundays at 8:30 pm ET. In Canada Star Trek: Discovery airs on the Space Channel at the same time. Discovery is available on Netflix outside the USA and Canada with new episodes made available Monday at 8 am BST.

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


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’d love The Orville to get canned long before Discovery. If only to stick two middle fingers up at those
“fans” who automatically loved orville from day 1 and hated Discovery.

” I watched the pilot and Oh my God are they TRYING to kill Star trek ? ”

” Orville will probably get better over time – lol at anyone who dismisses this after only a couple of episodes ”

The same fan.

Orville fell below a 1.0 rating. It does okay with the plus numbers but ofcourse, thats not attractive to sponsors. Still, its likely to get a season 2 renewal but might need to be rejigged a bit.

Once again, no one seems to care that if you’re in the US, you’re being punished by CBS while the rest of the world gets a free pass attached to their netflix subscriptions. Looks like the middle fingers might be pointed back at you whether you choose to see it or not.

Or you could, you know, be more concerned about what you’re getting for your $5.99 per month than what the rest of the world “gets for free” with its Netflix subscription. Did it ever occur to you that without Moonves’ ambitious plans for CBS-AA, this show probably wouldn’t exist at all?

Lots of different ways to look at that glass, soldier. Your choice, of course.

Absolutely! I rarely go to see movies in theaters anymore so I’ll gladly spend less than the cost of a ticket to watch four hours of content each month that I really want to see and support. If others don’t want to do so, fine. Just please walk away.

I don’t believe that Joe Consumer is invested in the success of CBS Al Access as Les Mooves is.

Or, it is their property and their right to use as they see fit. Creating content to draw people to their new streaming service is part of the free market.

I hate to burst your bubble, but, streaming is the future of tv. This is where the road is leading and networks need to get on board and build a fan base or end up in the dust.


Actually, I hope The Orville doesn’t get cancelled, but stays for at least another season. I’ve been a Trek fan since watching TAS when I was little, loved Orville from the first episode (because it had a good balance of humor and adventure) and I’m still disappointed in the humorless, dark, drab, badly written Discovery. Problem with that, junior?

Speaking for myself, nope. Different strokes, whatever. But just out of curiosity, could you explain what it is that you’ve found to be well-written on The Orville, by contrast?

For me, using the five episodes shown so far, it’s hitting the right notes of adventure mixed with humor in situations that break tension that would otherwise get melodramatic. The characters remind me of people I either work with or would be working with, they seem real.

Overall, I feel the love that MacFarlane has for Star Trek (TOS and TNG), as well as classic Sci Fi like the original Twilight Zone.

It’s a pleasure to watch each week, because I can relax, laugh here and there, be taken to places in space and feel like I’d want to serve on that ship. I felt that way when I saw TOS, as well. I don’t so far with DSC.

Okay, fair enough. Again, there’s nothing wrong with liking what you like. The Orville seems fairly trite and silly to me at this point, and the SF tropes mostly worn and tired, but it has made me smile from time to time. And given the situations each show’s premise currently arise from, you’d have to be crazy to want to serve on the Discovery as opposed to the Orville, as the latter isn’t actively at war. That really has nothing to do with the quality of the writing, though.

I apologize for not addressing that in my previous post. I find the writing in DSC so far to be humorless for one, with a sense of self-importance that really is overboard. Beyond that, there are dumb mistakes made with plot and character that are frustrating and annoying. Burnham, for one, is not a character that I find likable and really isn’t someone I’m concerned with as far as seeing her redeem herself.

She’s First Officer on a Starship, but her mental state seems to make me feel that she shouldn’t be holding that position.

The Klingons have been handled badly, with scenes that are interminably long, with way too much dialogue and seem to drag the pacing of whatever episode they appear in. In the last episode, I actually got annoyed when they cut from the Discovery to the inexplicable situation of Voq sitting on a ship with his crew for 6 months, only to transport to a ship that was left for them to scavenge technology from (but we made sure to take the telescope!)

A dilithium mining colony that is supposed to be that critical, yet whatever defensive posture they had in the way of a ship was knocked out, yet Discovery – a SCIENCE VESSEL! – takes the Klingons out with a couple phaser shots and a couple mines, then leaves without rendering aid. Lazy writing to make points for visual effects.

There are lots of other plotting and writing problems I’m finding in DSC, and it’s really a shame. They want to put a million things in to satisfy this need to show the groundwork for TOS, when they should be concentrating on telling a good, well thought out story. I could care less that they want to do a Mirror Universe episode, because they are having trouble getting the regular universe on solid footing!

If you looked at some previous threads you’d see that I would agree with many of your criticisms, stipulating that most of them stem from plot elements seen on the last episode, which many people who have liked the show so far (myself included) weren’t particularly happy with. I do disagree with your criticisms re Burnham’s character, but that’s a lengthy subject for another day.

Still, I can’t help but wonder that if you’re going to go on about these problems with the writing and plotting on Discovery how you manage to give The Orville such a free pass. However much you enjoy their company, do you really see the Orville people as a plausible starship crew? Are the numerous plot holes, ludicrous character moments, and stale and worn SF tropes, always done far better elsewhere, not readily apparent to you–or are you just inclined to give them a pass because it’s a lighthearted show that you need not take seriously or invest much in the way of thought in? If so, that’s fine, but if you’re honestly going to tell me The Orville seriously makes more scientific and dramatic sense to you than Discovery so far then all I can do is shrug my shoulders in some wonderment and say, “Enjoy.”

THANK YOU! Took the words right out of my mouth.

It is kind of nice having something light and light-hearted to watch. Gloom and doom and grittiness do have their place but The Orville does scratch an itch all the gritty shows can’t quite reach.



I haven’t found the humor on orville all that funny. I tend to roll my eyes at their forced attempt. I’ve already stopped watching.

Trek fan 67,

Re: I tend to roll my eyes…

You mean like my millennial great nephew does at Adam West’s BATMAN that both NBC and CBS, at the time, wanted their space sf series to be more like?

No, more like… “really, that’s supposed to be funny?”

Well, if you hadn’t stopped watching, you’d see that the humor has improved over the course of following episodes.

I’ve stopped watching. Meaning I will not each it anymore after seeing the last episode. The humor did not improve after 5 episodes.

I see an improvement after first three episodes. It may not be perfect, but it’s good enough. It’s sci-fi comedy-drama, after all.

It doesn’t really know what it wants to be.

@quantum47 — yup. That’s what I’ve been saying Star Trek has really needed for years: more dick jokes. That’s really improved the humor considerably. /s

Well Star Trek had its share of dick, too. What’s wrong with a couple of “dick jokes”?
comment image

Not really. I’m seeing way too many moments and dialogue on the show that I would expect from an idiot teenager with no couth or filter, certainly not from a professional group of people serving on a starship. The green blob absolutely annoys me.

Gave it a chance because I hate serialized soap-opera-style storytelling. If I could get an imaginative, fresh, self-contained adventure each week, that was good, I’d be happy. The show just isn’t very good. Bad acting with worse writing. I threw in the towel last week, I’m done with it.

I totally agree!

What is the upside in harboring unpleasantness when people find something they enjoy?

Sometimes that’s all some people have.

I’d like STD to be cancelled after season 1 and The Orville to have at least 5 seasons. If only to see you whine. :)

I doubt either will happen.

They’ve got 2 million customers now, but as soon as the season is over they’ll be back down to 1.5 million. I’m only paying for All Access when there are new Trek episodes on.

You must be an industry insider. *rolls eyes*

Hopefully Les comes here so “Mo Ped” can educate him on how streaming works.

I have been paying for CBSAA since the
Initial Discovery announcement.
After Discpvery has completed its run, no matter how many seasons that will be,
I will consider staying with them depending on what there programming is at the time.

If you don’t mind answering – prior to the first episode, did you get your money’s worth out of All Access?

I am a subscriber since the pilot, and will be until November 20 or so. And then I will pick it back up either in Jan or Feb for 1 or 2 months. But I really can’t see any value to it at all to justify $10 a month.

I joined CBS AA in June. And Yes, they offer ZERO content, and my ROKU was literally installed gathering dust till Discovery aired, with the exception of their teaser clips.

To each his own I suppose. I’m a cable cord-cutter and the first week alone, I watched 3 episodes of new Trek, 2 episodes of Enterprise, 2 episode of classic Mission Impossible, 4 episodes of I Love Lucy, 2 episode of Me Myself, Big Bang Theory and 4 episode of classic Twilight Zone. That’s roughly .46 cents per hour…so far. I’ve got 3 more weeks to go, so that cost, per hour of entertainment, will only go down. For me, personally, the value is there.

They had 9 million sign up to watch the second episode. The next day 7 million cancelled. According to “Midnights Edge”.

Midnight’s Edge is full of shit. Bunch of liars.

I don’t put any stock in Midnight’s Edge. Their anti-Discovery rhetoric is so ridiculous you would think Rick Berman is behind it

well if that’s what youtubers think, it must be true

I certainly don’t blame those 7 millions.

If they said it, then it tells you all you need to know about “Midnights Edge” lol

I feel the same way friend.

I will probably stick with All Access even after Discovery has ended.

The reason why is because growing up I never had access to all of the Star Trek shows. I only saw a few TNG episodes I had on VHS and the TOS series we recorded a long time ago from the Sci-fi channel.

I now have an outlet where I can watch all the shows without having to buy the entire season.

That being said having to pay extra isn’t really a big deal for me because this is the first TV subscription I have ever or will ever make.

I don’t tend to watch too many shows because of the time commitment, but this is the first Star Trek series to premiere in my lifetime and I am beyond ecstatic. (ENT doesn’t count because I was too young)

Are you saying you don’t have a Netflix or Hulu or Amazon Prime subscription? All of which have the full collection of all the Star Trek series (except Discovery).

Jeff, why would it be astounding if someone didnt have Netflix, Hulu or Prime? Because you do?

Astounding that CBS:AA is the first streaming platform they’ve tried. I mean if the only thing you ever watch is Star Trek, then maybe it wouldn’t matter which platform, but Netflix and Hulu offer a wider selection of other things (except CBS content).

If he’s into Sci-fi then there’s plenty non CBS stuff you can get on Netflix and Hulu, such as Stargate SG1/Atlantis, Battlestar Galactica, The 4400, Dollhouse, Jericho, . It’s a long list of fun shows that aren’t available on CBS:AA.

@Jeff none of that has anything to do with CBS’s business decisions to put Discovery on All Access.

Right. I don’t get this idea that Discovery is free for everyone outside the US. I specifically signed up for Netflix because of Discovery. I don’t have it before.

Nah, I don’t really watch TV at all. Most of them are too long.

I will most likely go to my grave without ever seeing all the of the Star Trek shows.

Discovery is the first one I’ve had the chance to follow along with everyone else, so its one I’ll see through to the end. But prior to, I’ve never had a need for a streaming service.

I had to add SPACE to my cable package to watch Discovery. People in the rest of the world pay for Netflix. I don’t get why people in the States feel they are the only ones that pay. I had not problem paying $5 a month for new Trek.


People pay for Netflix. And by far not everyone has Netflix, esspecially outside of the U.S.

At the end of the day, it is the same deal: you either pay for a streaming service.

@Daniel – many whiners specifically complained that CBS didnt put Discovery on Netflix, citing the fact they already had Netflix and thus, Discovery would essentially be free for them. Their chief complaint was paying for All Access.

They felt CBS Network or Netflix made more sense because it was “free”. Even though thats not true.

It was really a dumb complaint and ignores the fact that Discovery exists because CBS decided it could leverage the popularity of Star Trek to support All Access.

Yeah, for me it’s mostly about not wanting to see the trend of every single TV network rolling their own app or streaming platform. Most things used to be on Hulu, and over the last 3 years we’ve seen NBC pull the Black List from Hulu and put it exclusively on the NBC apps, The CW pulled all their content to be exclusive on their app, MTV pulled all their content from Hulu in favor of their app.

Pretty soon, instead of being notably better than cable (by getting rid of the proprietary hardware and having on-demand content), the streaming system will be significantly worse just trying to keep up with which of the 7+ different apps have a new episode of some show you like.

So no, I’m not playing ball with that model anymore. If some studio wants me to see something (paying for it is fine), they need to put it on Hulu, Netflix, or eventually Blu-ray (and Google/Amazon/Vudu).

Let’s hope CBS puts the show on Blu-ray and doesn’t try to use that scarcity as yet another method to convince people to try CBS:AA.

Jeff, did you post here under a different handle? lol

You do understand that the networks arent creating OTT services to spite you or aggravate you, right? Its business and every network will have to have a streaming option eventually.

Its smart to leverage their content to make their OTT services successful.

NBC wants you to give THEM your business, not HULU.

Haven’t posted under a different handle.

I understand what the networks are wanting. I just don’t think it’s going to create a good customer experience. Much like how they are running traditional cable networks into the ground, they’ll accidentally do the same with streaming platforms if we let them.

I would hope the majority of consumers could see far enough down the road to rebel while it’s still in it’s infancy, but it seems most people don’t have enough will power to forgo their need for a good story long enough to make a difference. Or maybe they just don’t see a problem with tracking shows across half a dozen or more apps.

I would prefer to think of Hulu similarly to Dish Network, Comcast, or DirecTV. Not so much as direct competition to ABC, CBS and NBC, etc, but as their partner for distribution. Ideally we’d get other third party distributors to compete with Hulu. Maybe we are seeing early versions of it with Sling, DirecTV Now, Youtube, Sony Vue, etc. If they can get the on demand stuff worked out to match Hulu, then we might have something.

I’m also not too fond of exclusive deals that Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon try to make with third party content. Imagine if DirecTV or Dish Network had an exclusive deal and only one could offer HBO or only one had NBC/SyFy/USA networks.

The only thing that prevented that kind of exclusive nonsense before was that the hassle of installing 2 satellite providers was more than anyone would accept. So striking an exclusive deal would actually cut viewer numbers and reduce advertising sales.

Maybe there’s no way to avoid the individual platform future, but I don’t think we should all just give in and let it happen. Vote with your money and make the providers put content where it’s most convenient or else wither and die if they don’t want to play ball.

Streaming is BETTER for consumers. The cable companies should hope consumers rebel because it means they can keep their stranglehold on content distribution.

The pain comes in the form of TV-philes needing cable AND multiple OTT services to get all the content they want. But in time, everything will be delivered OTT. And you will be able to see everything OTT that you see on cable…but you will have more control.

Its cutting out the middle man.

But even if none of that were true, this is the world we live in. Companies make a product and if we like it, we pay for it. If no one pays for it, it changes or goes away.

CBS can’t be faulted for their business decisions in this case. They are obligated to do what they think is best for their business.

To the few that don’t own the entire Trek library on home video, yes You can enjoy the previous Trek shows on thir steaming service, and you can benefit.

There we have it. Some numbers to chew on. We can speculate that Discovery added about 500,000 subs to All Access. Which is very significant if they only had 1.5 million beforehand. That means Star Trek accounts for a very large percentage of over-all subs.

One thing they have to be cautious of is applying that same level of interest to less popular shows and expecting the same. But we can assume CBS is pretty smart.

When Discovery is over, they will lose some of those subs. But as is usually the case, some will be retained. And then next season, they come back and less drop off. They end up retaining a net amount every time.

Plus they will have figures to show revenue based on subscriber numbers at various times of the year.

There is potential for either longer seasons of the successful shows (like Star Trek) or spin offs. Trek is ripe for the spin off treatment. Keep subs all year.

Imagine how many would be seeing the show, if it were run on regular CBS Broadcast. Episode 1 had over 10 million viewers, while Episode 2 and beyond are limited to “only” the potential 2 million subscribers CBS All Access currently has. And I doubt most of those subscribers actively watch Discovery.

Actually, I’d guess that just about all of them do watch it, even if they initially signed on for something else.

That’s assuming that all 1.5 million subscribers were Star Trek fans before September 24th 2017, and that’s a huge assumption. A 0.0001% chance of that being probable.

Nope. Such an assumption isn’t necessary at all. Do you really think only Star Trek fans watch Star Trek? If that were true, they’d be about a 0.0001% chance of any more being produced, let alone a very expensive show like this one.

But that’s the thing. This show is an investment for CBS and in All Access and is now the anchor series for All Access. Even if it’s only averaging 1 million viewers per episode it’s still outperforming anything else available through the service. Discovery is essentially like the XBOX One, PS 4 or free iPhones: The hardware is sold at a loss to secure subscribers and sell additional content.

I think a big factor will be how well DSC is doing with Netflix subscribers abroad. Their willingness to essentially co-produce the first season made a very expensive show a more attractive proposition for CBS, and if that were to continue, additional seasons would almost be a slam-dunk. But Netflix as a company is starting to act like it’s come to the realization that it doesn’t have endless amounts of cash to just randomly throw around on original programming. To thrive for the long run Trek needs to be prestige television on the level of House of Cards or Orange is the New Black. Which, frankly, is another way of saying that it needs to be better than it was this week.

Really? The one this week felt like vintage Trek… the main plot got wrapped up in one episode, the burgeoning dilemma is very much Devil in the Dark or Equinox, The character are starting to have some connections to each other and some agreement despite the tensions of war.

Glad you liked it. I didn’t say it was worthless, but there were a lot of plot and pacing issues and the character work wasn’t as cohesive as in last week’s show IMO. Landry’s death was poorly motivated and pointless, and that rescue was just plain silly/corny. Bnd even if you thought this episode was good, it was still light years from the kind of prestige television I’m talking about. This show has a lot of potential, but they need to start realizing it.

Personally, I think it was the best one yet. Each episode gets better in my opinion.

seems to me it’s an almost guarantee that at some point there would be another Star Trek that would keep the AA subscribers around. Probably something in the more traditional ST look and probably less expspensive

Respectfully, I tend to doubt it. Trek got way overexposed in the Nineties and wound up quickly burning itself out. Moonves is probably well aware of that, and not inclined to repeat Paramount’s mistake. My guess would be if Discovery proves to be a big hit that he’ll want to offer-up more prestige programming that will appeal to the same demographic, without it being Trek or even necessarily SF. HBO is being very cagey about how it’s dealing with the enormous success of Game of Thrones, but the one thing that won’t happen is that it will become the GoT channel.

@Michael Hall,

“HBO is being very cagey about how it’s dealing with the enormous success of Game of Thrones, but the one thing that won’t happen is that it will become the GoT channel”

Guess that you’re out of the loop!

HBO is planning not one, not two, not three but FIVE prequel shows in the Game of Thrones universe.

Shows in shared universe are all the rage now from DC and Marvel to AMC & HBO. It would make perfect sense to have multiple Trek series and miniseries. They can cover different eras with different formats.

That was their initial idea. I wouldn’t rule it out.

Nope, sorry. HBO is planning no such thing. Check again.

@Michael Hall,

Well, I don’t know about your reality but here in the real world HBO is working on five GOT shows.

Variety – May 4, 2017:

‘Game of Thrones’ Spinoffs in the Works at HBO

Deadline – May 14, 2017:

George R.R. Martin Reveals Fifth ‘Game Of Thrones’ Spinoff In Works At HBO.

Entertainment Weekly – September 20, 2017:

Game of Thrones writer Bryan Cogman developing a 5th prequel series.

FYI you should use something called Google or Twitter to keep up with the news in our world.

You really have a problem with reading comprehension; nothing new. Go back and check again, maybe bothering to read past the headlines this time. I’ll wait. This is fun.

@Michael Hall,

You sure sound like a cranky old man who lost touch with reality.

The fact remains that HBO hired people to work on 5 prequel shows in the GOT universe. They may not produce all five shows but it sure as well that they will go with more than just one spin-off.

And you sure sound like someone who just got definitively proven wrong and doesn’t have the stones to cop to it. It was just a question over a stupid TV show, of course, and your incorrect claim that HBO was going to produce five spinoffs when in fact they’re only planning one. No big deal, and any person of reasonable character might have just shrugged and admitted their mistake. That you aren’t capable of even that has to come as no great surprise to anyone who posts here–but, still, how sad for you!

@Michael Hall,

You claimed that HBO is not planning on becoming GoT channel, when presented with facts that they’re allocating resources & writers to come up with five prequels shows, you act like it is not true. And now saying, “oh, they will do just one show.”

Go and read the interviews, the head of HBO never said that they pick only one show.

Contrary to your original claim, HBO wants to keep GoT universe up and running for as long as they can.

This from Casey Bloys, HBO’s President of Programming, who in spite of his job title apparently knows less about his network’s plans than you do:

“In the press at large, everybody said, ‘there are four spinoffs’ and they assume that means each one is happening and we’re going to have a new Game of Thrones show per quarter. That’s not what’s going on. The idea is not to do four shows. The bar set by [Benioff and Weiss] is so high that my hope is to get one show that lives up to it.”

I’m guessing–no, betting–that you’ll come back with some lame nonsense claiming that this statement, which you were obviously too lazy and careless to ferret-out for yourself, proves that you were right all along. Well, by all means, knock yourself out: I’m done here.

HBO is not planning on 5 GOT prequels. They are developing 5 ideas and are going to pick one to produce

Yes, thank you. That’s the idea, as GRRM has been saying for months. As HBO’s President of Programming Casey Bloys said just last month. They will develop five ideas, and ultimately produce one. So no, HBO does not in fact become the GoT Channel–which is the only point I was trying to make.

Thing about HBO is, its often said they are desperate for a new series to fill the GoT’s space, hoping its Westworld, hoping The Deuce hits etc

I dont think they expect a GoT’s spin off to fill the gap. And I dont think they will air numerous GoT’s spin offs. One…maybe two. But you end up diluting the whole thing if you have 5 series’ airing at the same time and you start hitting the law of diminishing returns.

Of course. I guess some fans are gluttonous by nature, and will never understand that “enough is as good as a feast,” and that there might actually be other things to occupy oneself with while the show is off the air. If one Game of Thrones series is great, five would have to be five times as great, right? Only that’s not the case, and whatever the difference in our tastes and attitudes towards genre programming might be I’m willing to bet that Les Moonves understands that. People may complain mightily about the long wait between seasons of GoT, but quality aside one of the factors that makes those episodes big events is that there are so few of them left on the table. This was the most uneven season yet in terms of quality, but by the time those final episodes are ready to air no one will be thinking about the narrative cheats in an episode like “Beyond the Wall,” and the excitement will be at a fever pitch. Audiences just aren’t going to grant you that kind of latitude and loyalty if you’re airing five series at once.

Yeah, I dont see HBO financing 5 GoT spinoffs at the same time. It doesnt seem to fit their model. By the same token, AMC should have 5 TWD spin offs. They dont. They have one and it sucks. Which is the risk you take in trying to capture the magic again…

Star Trek is expensive so thats the drawback. They will have a budget for All Access programming which in essence becomes almost a loss leader to build up the service, much like Netflix taking out enormous debt to finance original content.

If Netflix is interested in more Trek, however, it becomes a game changer because if CBS gets Trek essentially for free, why not do more? There are likely other complicated details though. Remember, CBS was originally pulling all Trek content from Netflix to leverage for All Access and part of the Discovery deal with Netflix included leaving Trek on their service.

There is probably some arrangements concerning clearances and licensing. CBS would rather be successful enough that they could maintain exclusive rights to Trek forever on their service. But much like Marvel’s deals with Netflix, it makes sense to partner.

Some people whined about All Access and wondered why CBS wouldn’t just put Trek on the CBS Network. Why doesnt Disney put all their marvel shows on ABC? Same thing.

It would not surprise me to see an announcement broadening the CBS/Netflix deal that contains a second Trek series.

It would be motivated similarly to AMC and the Walking Dead spinoff.

“There’s real upside for our company to have All Access be successful.”

There’s a bigger upside for consumers if CBS would put their content on Hulu like a normal network and stop hording it in an attempt to create their own proprietary platform.

What do you do for a living Jeff? Would you mind doing that for free? There’s a bigger upside for whomever benefits from your work if you just do it for free.

Why should CBS not enter the OTT business because its better for you if they dont? I dont have Hulu. It would be a net expense for me.

It’s not for free. Hulu pays for shows.

I’d even settle for the add-on method the way Hulu + Showtime works. The main benefit to the consumer is everything is in a single place so keeping up with new episodes is significantly easier.

If everyone wants to go the whole proprietary app direction then someone needs to create a standard RSS feed method of tracking and viewing new episodes across various apps. Something that links directly to the episode and reflects the watched/unwatched status.

Roku made a vague attempt on their platform but it almost useless because it doesn’t track the individual episodes and only links to the app’s home screen. Last I checked.

If CBS were to put Discovery on Hulu then Hulu would take a cut of the profits. As long as they put it on their own service they get all the profits.

The question is would they get higher numbers from Hulu that would exceed the full profits from their own platform.

Viewership doesnt matter. They could put Discovery on CBS and get the most viewers. Why is this hard to understand? If they have 500,000 subscriptions for Discovery and up to 2 million potential viewers (give or take, taking into account multiple people per household), that’s a lot lower than the 15 million that watched it on CBS.

Its about growing the All Access platform.

I guess that will probably happen as the market gets more divvied-up and people resist subscribing to multiple services for just a few shows. Build your own, personalized TV network through one application where you pay a higher sub fee than any of them individually but much smaller than all of them together–why not?

Jeff – you might have hit on a great idea. Someone should tell CBS, Im sure it never occured to them. That’s sarcasm by the way.

Multiple platforms is better for the consumer in the long run. If someone had a monopoly, you’d have to pay whatever they demanded. Sort of like with cable companies which up until recently made you accept channels you didnt want, bundles you didnt like etc.

CBS is under no obligation to put their content on the platform you already have. Why would they?


When you own a show then you can put it on whatever channel you want to put it on. You shouldn’t tell people what to do with their property.

Well, if they are interested in my business…

@Jeff – they are more interested in THEIR business than your business.

Unless CBS builds out a “multi-verse” a la Star Wars/Marvel, this business model will not yield the gains that CBS is looking for. A lot may be riding on Star Trek, but as Scotty says, “I’m not a miracle worker.” There’s going to be huge gaps between broadcasts. CBS will lose momentum during those times. I hope they’re factoring that into their game plan.

There already was a “multi-verse” of Trek shows – from TNG all the way to VOY, all set within the same time period and continuity. That led to what many called, at the time, ‘Trek fatigue.’ ENT never hit the highs execs anticipated and we all know what happened next.
While this may work with Marvel type shows it won’t work for Trek, for now, unless the fan base grows and expands.

I feel if Voyager had actually broken new ground and gone for the season arc or the full serialized feel that DS9 was moving toward and ENT worked with it may have worked out to the franchises advantage and reduced the ‘fatigue’ since there would have been more at stake, but Voyager was so poorly mishandled from the word go it was never going to be as amazing as it should have been.

If its true that there will be no new STD after this run and the 6 in Jan 2018 until “early”(we have heard that before)2019. They may lose a lot more. They need to keep up the momentum and not have so much time in between “seasons”. There was a time a season meant getting 23 to 28 episodes a year.

Before the Dark Times. Before the CBS Empire.

Production (including writing, pre-production and post-production) on every episode of Discovery takes longer than on previous shows because of its larger scale. Compare it to Game of Thrones which does 10 episodes per year (last season was even shorter). Basically, it depends on when they get the green light to actually start work on season 2. The first season was delayed because of Fuller’s departure and apparently also because of casting. Hopefully, season 2 would be a smoother ride.

Hopefully. The producers are no doubt tossing around ideas, but I’m sure there are pretty stringent rules about anything being written down until the network is willing to pay for it. NBC’s dithering on ordering more TOS episodes was a nightmare for its production staff, and that just won’t fly on a show this complex. Moonves’ will have to make up his mind pretty quickly if he wants even the possibility of a Season 2 in 2018.

Early 2019?!? Holy Mother of Shat! Some of us ain’t gettin any younger, ya know.

Tell me about it.

Discovery Season one ends in early 2018. So it’s a year.

Bottom line: If we want a new Star Trek series that gives us the ability to control it’s destiny with our $5.99 a month subscription here in the states, then we should feel obliged to let Moonves judge our enthusiasm via our willingness to subscribe.
For example: If we demand that ‘Ripper’ the tardigrade become a member of the bridge crew by threatening to withhold our subscription, then it is WE who are calling the shot’s. I think it’s a win-win…

I’m only going to pay during the months Star Trek is on. After January/February, I’m not going to keep a subscription if Discovery goes on hiatus for a year. If CBS wants me year-round they need to produce more Star Trek (either more episodes per season of Discovery) or a seventh Trek series. They could reunite past casts for mini-series focusing either on stellar events or small character-based episodes. You don’t need a huge budget for some of these ideas. They could also produce Jericho season 3 or make ALL of their classic shows, like All in the Family, available.

To be honest I have been critical of Discovery and was not pleased with the first episode at all. But as the episodes continue I am beginning to come off that fence and side with Discovery. My only hope is that they don’t make Lorca into a villain and show more of why he is the way he is that not all soldiers who want weapons seek war but they actually want peace. As for Michael I am very slowly warming to her. I definitely liked her compared to the tactical officer though that just got um torn apart..

I couldn’t be happier with my CBS All Access subscription; its only 5.99. The service is true HD, unlike some others. Our family subscribed to CB All Access because of Star Trek Discovery, but you have access to all the Star Trek shows plus new and old shows. The Good Fight is great. I don’t have cable, so you get access to Madam Secretary, MacGvayer, Hawaii Five O, Blue Bloods, and NCIS Los Angeles, which are some of my favorite CBS Shows. Its cheaper than a DVR on cable. Plus you get NFL games live. CBS News has program on it as well. I think it’s worth it.

I hope CBS makes more Star Trek series, like a series set after Star Trek TNG and Star Trek Voyager. CBS All Access allows the network to do program that way. They could have Star Trek on year round.

I’m not sure why they’re being coy about a second season. If they really intend to expand the viewership of CBS All Access, they need more original content, not less. And right now, Trek is their only real horse in that race. The first season is bought and paid for, thanks to Netflix. So why not just double down and produce more Trek in a way that doesn’t leave huge gaps of time between new seasons? It’s what AMC has tried to do with “The Walking Dead” and “Fear the Walking Dead” (Although FTWD is atrocious, so maybe that’s a bad example. But it’s still a ratings draw for the network).

Probably because they have a particular time when they want to announce it.

I have little doubt the decision has been made to renew. They might be discussing the finer points, such as length of season, when to begin production etc. They surely have the actors under options for future seasons…so its a done deal.

One thought is, an announcement might include cast information which might give away spoilers for the rest of Season 1.

There’s a certain sense of irony that the guy who hated Star Trek and cancelled Enterprise is now putting so much on the success of the franchise.

What about the irony that the network that turned down Roddenberry’s 1964 pitch in favor of “Lost in Space” is now the owner of it?

Michael Hall,

Of course, you know, this means that just as CBS pressured FOX to make LIS’s season 2 more like the campy BATMAN that CBS’ll soon pressure DISCOVERY to be more like THE ORVILLE?

Oh for the days when a fan’s biggest worry was generating enough saliva for stamps…oh the pane (sic) … the pane (sic) …

I’m reading this a lot. “I’m only going to pay during the months Star Trek is on”. I have a question for you. If CBS said DSC life depends on year long subscriptions in order to pay for the show would you continue the service or just say screw it? Nothing is free. It’s a big mac a month. Pay the money. Invest in Star Trek. You may get spin off shows or other programming.

I’m not here to tell anyone else how to spend their money, but that’s pretty much how I feel about it. Like Discovery, and want to see more? Then you have to support the business model that makes its production possible. Pretty simple.

Yeah but they wont. In fact, losing subs AFTER Discovery is over actually tells them a lot about Star Trek.

The hilarious thing is the people that come here and post about subs going down after Discovery is finished as if they are providing some kind of insight to the folks at CBS that they never considered.

Literally CBS All Access have NOTHING else I watch except Discovery. All other(mostly) programing is VERY old previous shows from years gone by. Eve it’s current series The Big Bang Theory only has 3 episodes from last season, and none this year. They better step up content to justify patrons paying a monthly fee for a single show.

@Michael — likewise, Hulu only had one show I signed up to watch. There’s literally nothing else I’m interested in watching on that platform, that I don’t already have access to on Amazon.com, or YouTube. In fact, one old catalogue series I found and intended to watch simply disappeared the next week without any warning. So I’m pretty much going to cancel Hulu. And the show I did watch didn’t turn me on enough to sign up again for the service, so that’s the end of Hulu for me — unless Hulu decides to progrma something else I’m interested in watching. Just like CBS. You seem to be arguing that CBS hasn’t thought this through, and aren’t planning to step up content, when nothing could be further from the truth.

If so much is riding on the success of Discovery maybe you should have not put your incompetent little hands on it Les Moonves, it shows. Let creatives do creative work.

Their median viewing age is 61??? I’ve never heard a more depressing statistic.

Late to the game. Limited content. Using exclusive Trek to draw viewers. It’s UPN All Access! :-D

I’m a Trekkie. I did the free 7 days and saw E1-E3. I would watch again, but I already pay Direct TV with HBO, also Netflix and Hulu for our family. I am not paying for another service. And, even if I wanted, there is no CBS app for my smart tv. I am not going to watch a show on my phone or at my computer. I can watch great programming, comfortably on my sofa, with the family, on a big screen.

@flynmom1 — life is all about choices.

That’s right. I’m sure a staffer is gathering data from the comments. Just making my opinon known.

2 million subscribers is not a lot at all, All Access will go down in flames like all the other streaming services that these studios/networks are trying to create for their own content, they are delusion if they think they are gonna compete with Netflix and Hulu. Anyways I’m really hoping Discovery fails, it is an absolute abomination and I don’t know how anyone is seriously buying this crap. A f****** mushroom spore creature being used as the engine? That is by far one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever seen or heard of, they must have been on mushrooms when they came up with that idea.


Re: A f****** mushroom spore creature being used as the engine?

You say that as if it were somehow MORE ridiculous than Geordi weaning a rather sizeable and mobile in space creature on his ship’s energy in TNG?

And people seem to be forgetting that Voyager was powered by bio-neural gel packs so this would seem to be a crude precursor to such technology.

@Denny, I think even the writers of Voyager forgot that!

On paper, the space bear, mushroom spores sounds insane. In practice, its been intriguing. But Ahmed would hate Discovery no matter what so his opinion stopped mattering here long ago.

@Denny C,

Bio-neural gel packs were developed by Starfleet, it’s nothing like the magic mushrooms on Discovery.

No matter how you look at it, to have those mushrooms powering the drive and then have a non-sentient space bear guide the ship throughout the galaxy is DUMB.

How is Ripper not sentient?

The ultimate in business and scientific acumen, and all in one short post! I’m impressed! With such a breathtaking level of wisdom (and humility about same) on display I can only assume that “TM11” must be a nom-de-guerre for Rush Limbaugh or Donald J. Trump.

(Although I would suspect that even a poor mail order MBA would know the difference between “delusion” and “delusional.” But some jokes just write themselves.


” A f****** mushroom spore creature being used as the engine? That is by far one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever seen or heard of, they must have been on mushrooms when they came up with that idea.”

Agreed, it’s idiotic. It’s hard to take the show seriously when they have a ship running by magic mushrooms & guided by a space bear.


Re: …guided by a space bear.

Pffft…I know…imagine, chucking the successfully demonstrated Skinner Pigeon Guidance Control for the untested space bear:



Yeah, that’s not the same thing.


Re: …not the same thing.

Of course not, but it does demonstrate the lengths to what my military would go to research and exploit such things in regards to navigation and accurate delivery. Don’t make the mistake of thinking their research actually stopped there. I recall a little thing in my teens that I called “dolphin torpedoes” in the mid 1960s when military dolphin training went black budget.

I don’t think any evidence has surfaced as the military’s kept a classified lid on it because of the negative publicity that would result. But my generation believes the kamikaze dolphins developed were “successfully” deployed in at least one mission.

2 million is not a lot compared to what? Someone said Context is for Kings. Do some critical thinking before posting.

Not liking this version. Everything is wrong.

That 61 y.o. average viewer age demographic for CBS is extremely telling – if you ‘still ‘sit around watching traditional TV networks, you are closing in on senior citizen territory. This is a terrible place for sponsors, who usually want to catch younger viewers with longer time horizons for brand loyalty. Thus, it is an alarm bell for the network owners, that their lost consumers are accessing content via means other than TV. That 20 year gap in age is quite significant. It’s also telling that people in their 20s and 30s are not lining up to buy All Access. Getting these consumers to watch will be even more challenging.

If I recall, CBS always skewed older. But they are also the leading Network, arent they? But they have to see that demo and get pretty worried.

Their support for All Access is probably as much about bringing that age down as it is preparing for the future.

A new season of Discovery not available until 2019? Watch for those cancellations, Les, because nobody is paying for this service to watch your other content. Youll have a YEAR of massive drops in your subscriber service and may very well suffer a massive loss of interest in the mean time. This has been WOEFULLY mismanaged and ill thought out from the beginning

Again, I hope Les comes here to get advice on running a network from “Don”.

It’s truly amazing how many brilliant scientists and business types populate these threads, isn’t it?

@Michael Hall,

It’s truly amazing the number of apologists populating these threads. Like wild pack, ready to go after everyone expressing dissenting views.

Check out my comments in this and the last couple of threads about the most recent episode of Discovery, then kindly point me to anything you’ve written about The Orville that’s half so critical. I’ll wait.

@Michael Hall,

Yeah, that’s a deflection if I ever see one.

I wrote that you and others “Like wild pack, ready to go after everyone expressing dissenting views.”

Just one example from this thread alone directed at someone with a different view:

“The ultimate in business and scientific acumen, and all in one short post! I’m impressed! With such a breathtaking level of wisdom (and humility about same) on display I can only assume that “TM11” must be a nom-de-guerre for Rush Limbaugh or Donald J. Trump.”

There are many examples in other threads where you’re mocking people for their views regarding CBS All Access.

That’s not a dissenting view. Views have content which can be debated, pro or con. (And such divergent viewpoints can most certainly be discussed respectfully, as in, say, my exchange with “RaveOnEd” above.) What “TM11” did in your example was trolling, and of course it’s a matter of record that you don’t understand the difference yourself.

Ahmed doesn’t believe in debate. lol

@Ahmed – like yourself, you mean? You comment literally has no relation to the context of the discussion. Its just you attacking people that dont completely share your view.

You’re the worst person for that on this forum.