Earlier in the month, we reported on how ViacomCBS was accelerating plans to enhance CBS All Access, taking advantage of the available content across the recently re-combined company. Since then some more details have emerged on this planned expansion and how ViacomCBS see Star Trek fitting into their streaming future.
Star Trek’s DNA fuels ViacomCBS strategy
Speaking on a panel for the NAB Show Executive Leadership Summit, Jeff Grossman, EVP of content strategy and operations for CBS All Access, discussed how the streaming service has been seeing “record months” during 2020, and he pointed to Star Trek and Star Trek fans as a key ingredient:
I think some of our programming has really resonated with audiences, first and foremost, Star Trek: Picard, which was an original on the All Access service. I think there’s something in addition to a lot of the classic and nostalgia library programming, shows like Cheers that we have, and a great compliment of Paramount movies. I think there’s something in the Star Trek DNA that is embedded with sort of a hopeful kind of look at the future. And that type of content is also really resonating with fans and viewers right now.
ViacomCBS CEO Bob Bakish also spoke about Star Trek during a shareholder meeting last week, citing it as a model for how ViacomCBS will be approaching creating new original content for their expanding streaming platform:
As we do this and as production reopens, you will see an expanded slate of originals spanning significant IP from all of our flagship brands. Look at what we have done with CBS All Access and Star Trek, etcetera. Now take that model and apply it to the portfolio of brands and it is really going to be a very compelling offering.
In reply to a question about how ViacomCBS is prioritizing its $13.5 billion spend on new content across the company, Bakish again pointed to the importance of streaming and franchises:
Content is what drives our consumer connection. That content today is driving very robust consumption in television and even stronger growth in streaming. We look at how we allocate that investment across our platforms in a highly disciplined way. As we do that, we certainly allocate content expense growth to places where we believe there is a growth opportunity. And that means it today’s landscape we prioritize our content investment growth in streaming, which we see as a significant opportunity…In particular, when it comes to streaming, our biggest franchises will be key to our success.
We are already seeing the effect of the investment ViacomCBS is putting into Star Trek with the upcoming launches of the third season of Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Lower Decks coming this year, the animated Star Trek kids series in development at Nickelodeon, the recent announcement of the new series Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Star Trek: Picard prepping a second season, and more Star Trek television shows and a feature film in development.
Another sign of the importance of Star Trek to ViacomCBS came when Bakish showed a sizzle reel highlighting content all across the company. That video started off with Star Trek. You can see that clip in the embedded video from our tweet below:
For this weeks @ViacomCBS shareholder meeting, CEO Bob Bakish touted the company's franchises and shows with a video that kicked off with a little help from @TheRealNimoy and @SirPatStew #startrek pic.twitter.com/1zhvsNTwuB
— TrekMovie.com (@TrekMovie) May 19, 2020
Transformed All Access coming this summer, rebranding later
During the virtual shareholder conference, Bakish stated that ViacomCBS was “rapidly transforming CBS All Access into a differentiated, broad, pay streaming service,” and he offered some more details on the rollout plan:
We are accelerating our plans for an expanded subscription service that builds off of CBS All Access with major advancements coming this summer including additional content from our cable brands and more movies from Paramount….That is not just talk. It is already underway. Last week we added about 120 Paramount films to CBS All Access and we are already in engagement – i.e. time spent – in the film category and overall, with just that move. And we are going to be adding thousands of hours of TV and film over the coming months. In fact, you will see a very substantial change to CBS All Access in the summer, including the addition of a transformed user interface which incorporates our flagship brands as we track towards a transformative rebrand and relaunch.
So, it appears that this summer there will be an enhancement to All Access in terms of content and interface, with the planned rebranding of the service coming at a later date. The summer update to All Access will help ViacomCBS taking on new competition from WarnerMedia’s HBO Max (launching later this week) and NBC Universal’s Peacock (launching July 15). Bakish also told shareholders the company is planning multiple international launches of this expanded All Access service in the next twelve months.
For more, check out the latest episode of our Shuttlepod podcast, which discusses Star Trek: Strange New Worlds and ViacomCBS plans for streaming.
Keep up with all the ViacomCBS news at TrekMovie.com.
CBS All Access will look different this summer. I wonder what the relaunch would be like.
Star Trek is important to their overall strategy. ViacomCBS does have a plan here it seems. CBS All Access not like Netflix but at least they are working on it.
The streaming wars are hearing up. CBS All Access is a worthy contender. This week HBO Max arrives. More content is coming in the coming months.
Star Trek is heading in the right direction. The corporate executives understand how important Star Trek is to their bottom line. Disney can keep Star Wars. Star Trek is here to stay.
this is all really great for cbsaa and trek… from the beginning it felt weak… right? no one knew quite what it was and i never liked the name… calling is cbsaa doesn’t paint it as a next generation experience… but making it one giant viacom paramount mtv nickelodeon cbs movie and series hub with trek as one of it’s top original content providers, it’s gonna get bigger that means trek gets bigger. needs a new name though…
My biggest gripe early on was that TNG and TOS were still streaming in SD on CBSAA. It was inexcusable. Thank goodness that (at some point) they switched over to the HD versions. I got rid of Netflix quite a while ago, and only have CBSAA and Amazon (which I mostly have for Prime shipping anyway).
I will pick up Disney+ whenever the Marvel shows start up, but until then i’m good.
I have Disney+ because of The Mandalorian. I’m waiting for the Marvel shows too. I got rid of HBO and now I have Netflix and Hulu.
CBS All Access should get a new name… Since because Viacom and CBS are the same thing now.
I use my friend’s user name and password for Netflix streaming. I have only paid for CBSAA when STD and Picard were on. Then it was cut. And I used my free week with Disney+ last December just for The Mandelorian. I only do CBSAA because I’m a Trek fan. If I wasn’t I probably wouldn’t even know it existed. Aside from CBS for Trek there is no streaming service that has enough content that would warrant paying the fee month after month. The only one that comes close would be Amazon mainly because their stuff is not made available on disc and there are some shows I would kinda like to see. But not enough to pay their overpriced fee for.
You must be the guy I see at parties with the home-made duct tape wallet, the Wal-Mart Rustler jeans and the Tracfone, who is putting food in a ziplock back when no one is looking. ;-)
No. Not me. Never done any of those things and I should add that nothing I said anywhere has any link to anything of the sort. You must be thinking about one of the people you enjoy hanging around with since you attend the same parties. Might want to reassess your reasoning.
i am sure that they will announce a new name, soon.
I just hope it doesn’t have CBS or VIACOM in the title. Something along the lines of NETFLIX or HULU would make a lot more sense, since it will incorporate content from different well known brands (Paramount, CBS, Nickelodeon, MTV, etc).
Well, then nobody would know what it is. It would disappear among the myriad other cheap-o services with vague names like Pluto, Crackle, and Tubi. “Peacock” is a silly name, too. “NBC/Universal” is actually better. You know what you’re getting. (Does anyone under the age of 30 even know where the name “Peacock” comes from?) I think it will simply be “CBS/Viacom All Access”.
You mean the way Netflix and Hulu disappeared with the other cheap-o services??
Services don’t disappear because of their name. They disappear because of their content.
You think CBSAA inspires confidence because it has a network’s title? CBS is often known as the “old person’s network.”
Netflix was already well-known by that name when streaming became a thing, and Hulu got its foot in the door early enough (13 years ago) to also make a name for itself.
This is a different time now. In 2020 there are thousands of streaming services. CBSAA at least has CBS in the title so you know what it is when you see it on the endless list of apps on Roku.
If CBSAA renames itself, say, “Eyes and Ears” (from Paramount’s ancient slogan “The Eyes and Ears of the World”) how do you differentiate that from Crackle, Tubi, Popcorn, Acorn, Tablo, KlowdTV, or any of the other zillion wannabe major players?
No, it will have to have CBS, Viacom, or Paramount in the name if it wants any chance. I’m going to guess it will be “CBS-Paramount” the two most famous components of their product, and since there is already a CBS All Access app and a Paramount Network app, which will probably consolidate into one (but there is no comparable Viacom app.)
CBS could try ‘columbia’ as a moniker since that is what the C stands for (I think) and it sounds noble in a bank-like way, but it’s more of a reach than ‘peacock’ in terms of viewer ID, who would probably think ‘space shuttle disaster’ or ‘distict of … ‘
Columbia Pictures used the moniker “The Gem of the Screen”. It eventually fell out of use, but it did become the inspiration for the title “Screen Gems”. Screen Gems was used for its animation studio, its television division, and its specialty film division.
“Eyes & Ears” might be appropriate given Viacom’s re-merger with CBS. If CBS All Access consolidates with MTV and Showtime, that might be ideal.
I agree. If they are really just planning to host Viacom owned content they should put one of their brand names in the title of the service. If they wanted to license third party content though to become another Netflix or Hulu, then they might want a more generic name. They might even just call it “All Access”.
Hulu means nothing outside the United States.
To me, it’s just one of an alphabet soup of American services that partners with UK and Canadian networks and production companies to bolster their offerings.
Likewise, the American networks CBS, ABC and NBC aren’t really known outside North America. Canadians know them because we get US channels on cable, but overseas the big 3 U.S. networks run under the names of their local subsidiaries.
Netflix is big because they were first and convinced the major US content producers to license to them internationally. I don’t think that the name had much to do with its success.
Now that those licenses have run out, and Netflix has a track record of burning their their production partners by cancelling just about everything after the initial 3 season order, while maintaining exclusive rights to disseminate the properties, they are losing partners.
I agree that CBS may want to keep something recognizable for their service name in the US. However, if they want to expand their service internationally “CBS” is by far not a household name around the world.
Maybe ViacomCBS should use the Paramount name internationally. However, CBS All Access has been making deals for its content with other streaming services on a country-by-country basis.
How about ViacomCBS All Access? Or maybe CBSShowtime All Access, after merging CBS with Showtime’s streaming services?
But they want to let people what the brand is right away, so they will probably have one (or even both) in the title. I thought CBS All Access was a horrible title but it certainly gets the point across. The issue for me is that the name CBS doesn’t exactly get me excited for content since it implies its just a ton of CBS shows and little else. I doubt most people even associate Star Trek with CBS since for most people who grew up with it they saw it as either the original NBC show or a Paramount product. So I do think they should widen the name too but most likely Viacom will be included since that implies a huge range of shows, networks and movies.
I wondered why HBO Max was called that when its clear it’s really a Warner Brothers site that will encompass far beyond HBO but they also know that name is known for high quality and tons of movies, so it makes sense. With all the streaming options out there now, every company is trying to make it clear what the brand is upfront just like NBC/Peacock will be doing as well.
I agree, a relaunch require a rebranding. Maybe, since Paramount’s logo is far more interesting than the CBS eye logo, they can call it Summit? Top quality content! Just please not CBSAA anymore, everything about it – especially its interface – is old and needs a redo.
Lionsgate uses the Summit name for its Summit Entertainment division that it bought in 2012. A partnership with Lionsgate’s Starz division might be ideal since the idea of using the Summit name might get litigated out of existence.
Lionsgate is considering a spinoff of Starz, so a partnership with ViacomCBS might be ideal. However, that proposal might not go too far should ViacomCBS get cold feet concerning its Showtime brand. Comcast is also pressuring Starz over a carriage dispute and almost threatened to drop Starz and Encore at the beginning of the year.
I find it amusing that the article “Connor Trinneer Cast in Stargate Origins, Returning to Franchise as Different Character” is being promoted at the end of this article about how successful Star Trek has been in recent years, considering that Stargate Origins bombed horribly, failing to relaunch that other franchise. For some reason, that makes me chuckle.
What are you talking about? I don’t understand anything you said.
We both speak English, so I think what I said should be pretty clear. At the bottom of this article is a promotion for the Stargate Origins article. My comment speaks for itself.
Okay, I saw it. You don’t have to be hostile. I didn’t see it at first. Your comment makes sense now.
You complaining about not understanding something someone else has said is pretty rich, fella.
Why is that Connor Trineer story coming up at all? That’s from, what three years ago? That’s the most relevant story the ‘history server’ could cough up?
DS9 remaster…. cough… cough…
COVID had put a total hammer into that prospect if it even still existed. Companies will not be taking big risks for a while now, I’d imagine.
I maintain there is value in remastering all old Trek: makes a much more appealing back catalog for subscribers. I think they’ll eventually get around to it, once the tech to achieve it becomes cheaper.
Definitely agree. They have 13.5 billion to spend on new content, they couldn’t spare 50 million (supposedly price of remastering of DS9 and VOY) for 14 season of television? If they put so much focus on Trek, they really should try to remaster those 14 seasons.
CBS makes money from DS9 and VOY as they are. There is no reason for CBS to put millions into old Trek when they can also have it for free.
Yes by all account the TNG remaster was bit of a flop financially, CBS is not going to bother with two less popular shows – doesn’t make any sense at all.
I’d imagine it is much less risky than a full-fledged production, covid-wise. It would be a handful of people scanning film (and it could be done in a way to isolate and protect them as much as possible), and the whole reediting/post-production could be done as home office work. The problem here is NOT covid. The problem is ROI. They don’t see a reasonable return on investment, no matter what. Let’s hope this equation changes in the future.
Exactly. WB is spending upwards of $30M to add some new scenes and re-edit Justice League because they think it will bring subscribers.
Eventually, they’ll want their biggest legacy titles in HD. With them emphasizing Trek so heavily, I DS9 and VOY will get their remasters eventually. It might take a while, but I firmly believe it’ll happen.
I doubt the Covid effect will be about risk taking in the industry, but rather pivoting to more optimistic and aspirational content as opposed to grimdark.
ViacomCBS already has franchises that fit better with this change in direction of the market than much of Netflix, HBO and Amazon’s original content.
Baklish was emphasizing that in his pitch to investors because it’s really central to ViacomCBS’ pathway to success.
They need to lean in fast and courageously into aspirational properties before the other content producers figure out how to serve this market. That also means that they shouldn’t be making and licensing the optimistic content for their streaming competitors.
I suspect we will get one of those AI upscans at some point. It looks way better than SD. A full HD conversion is not in the cards. Unless there is some crowdsourcing financing.
I believe a reasonable compromise would be a rescan of film, with upscaling for takes with visual effects. I would get closer that what we have for Enterprise’s earlier seasons, which had upscaled 480p CGI alongside 1080p scanned film.
BRING IT ON!
I’d very much like to see a new Mission: Impossible on All Access with Phil Morris in the lead role as the agent who brings the team together (alternatively, their child (son or daughter) could be said lead, with Morris showing up sporadically, much like his father did in the 80’s version. The fictional Collier family and real-life Morris family are certainly integral to M:I on TV.
That would be awesome, but given how successful the film franchise is, they more than likely won’t do a TV series.
Unless Tom Cruise and Bad Robot executive produce it, and set it alongside the movie universe. Could they get Jeremy Renner back? Disappointed he didn’t pop back up after Ghost Protocol.
Ideally it would be an expansion of the movie franchise, existing in the same world. That would allow for actors who work in both film and TV work that have appeared in the M:I movies to reprise their roles in a streaming series.
Mission Impossible is so cool.
Given that his father, Greg Morris, hated the first movie, publicly called it an abomination, and walked out of the theater before the movie had finished… yeah, I think we can rule out Phil Morris ever showing up in one of these films.
Well, that was his father. What has Phil Morris said about it, if anything? Plus, that was a long time ago, heh.
If offered a part in a big budget, high profile MI series, I doubt Morris says no, no matter WHAT his feelings on those movies are.
Would love to see that. Since he also did the 1980’s version, it would be great to see him back. Just remembered he did an episode with his dad.
I would watch a Mission Impossible TV show on the streaming service. CBS All Access needs better content other than Star Trek. They have other franchises like Mission Impossible. Why not take some risks once in a while.
I think we’re going to see more and more of this premium TV spinoff stuff. I would not be surprised if they did a TV series spun out of the Bumbelee movie, too.
My guess is eventually a MI show will happen. I think for now they want to keep the attention focus on the movies but seeing how successful they are (they are more popular today than they were 20 years ago when they started) another show is a no-brainer (if its good). Right now the entire brand is literally just Tom Cruise. I can’t think of a big movie or TV brand where the entire thing depends on just one person these days. Even MCU is moving beyond Robert Downey Jr and of course its massive now with tons of characters and big actors. So MI is going to have to broaden sooner or later beyond him and a show is a good idea to try and do that.
But yes the biggest issue with AA is that Star Trek is the only big brand there and its still a smaller brand compared to so many out there. It’s enough to get the site attention but it will need more if they ever want to compete with stuff like Netflix, Disney, HBO etc. AA needs something BIG to get people to notice it beyond Star Trek fans and CBS watchers.
“Right now the entire brand is literally just Tom Cruise.”
Right-o! Not only that, but he’s a MAJOR producer on the films, and unless he signs off, a show isn’t going to happen. And the movies are such a cash cow, I can’t imagine they want to risk diminishing the brand.
The question is what happens when Cruise hangs it up as Ethan Hunt? Do they continue movies with another star? Or move to a show?
I do agree another show is inevitable, but I’d be surprised if we saw one before the 2nd of the two currently-in-production films see release.
As for your last statement, I don’t think they the CBS app needs a flagship title, it just needs enough critically acclaimed shows to keep people subscribing, and keep the press interested. Relying so heavily on Star Trek isn’t going to do it.
Will be interesting to see how The Stand does. Maybe an exclusive deal with Stephen King (or the estate of Elmore Leonard, or some other prolific author), to adapt some other works, could be one way to go.
“Right now the brand is literally just Tom Cruise…”
And that is why we haven’t seen an MI film since the second one.
Cruise may pull people in, but he also puts people off.
I was beginning to be done with Cruise even before the first MI film, but my spouse finds him insufferable. After MI 2, we were done.
On the other hand, with a television streaming series, new blood in the writers room, and Cruise in a backseat role (honorary EP and a cameo in the premiere), we would watch it.
If they could get Morris, all the better.
I would like to see the 80s revival of Mission: Impossible on CBS All Access. It only ran for two seasons, but it was well-liked.
All Access is still pretty much a joke and a laughing stock of a streaming site when you have such huge competition out there. I literally don’t know anyone that has it other than a few people who watched Picard but then cancelled the second that show was over. They had to rebrand because they know they have no choice. Disney+ is already a huge player and Warner Bros is releasing HBO Max this week which looks to be the biggest of them all in terms of content.
So they had to go much bigger. And so far it all sounds good though. Adding the Paramount movies (which I literally just found out a few weeks ago they did and I still HAVE the site) is already a major plus although many of the movies are quite old, a lot of them are at least classic films. But they still need more recent and bigger stuff to go there but I assume they will when they add more this summer.
Of course on the Star Trek front (why most of us even care about it) all sounds positive. They keep touting Picard so it sounds like it was a big hit (at least big for AA) and of course that bold well for more seasons and probably a spin off show of some kind whenever Stewart is done (Give us a Seven of Nine show!!!). Even though I can’t blame people who are skeptical about upcoming Trek shows if you don’t like Discovery and was hoping Picard changed your view (but didn’t) we still have to remember these shows are still very young and Picard avoided some of the bigger mistakes DIS made so other shows could be more improved. And so far they are all saying the right things with Strange New Worlds, so hopefully the next few years we will start to see Trek living long and hopefully prospering on this site. It’s crazy we still have two more seasons of Star Trek ready to go relatively soon.
One thing that may change the game is how Covid may impact the theater industry. You’re already seeing first-run theatrical movies do well as SVOD releases, and this may convince more studio-owned streaming outlets like CBSAA to greenlight major features as online releases.
It does seem pretty weak when compared to the other, more highly promoted streaming services out there. I’m aware of Peacock and HBO Max and I have zero idea what is even on them. Not that I’m going to subscribe to either… But I guess they deem it more important to get their name out that rather than what their content is. Which seems weird to me… But… OK I guess.
Rebranding doesn’t solve the problem of lacking content. A new name doesn’t give them any better chance against the competition if the problem of CBS All Access is a lack of content.
So what they need to do is expand their content. And maybe also advertise more. Changing the name of the service will be the smallest part of improving its chances against competitors.
The CBS execs are even more delusional than many of nu Trek’s fans. Them at least I can understand, they’ll turn a blind eye to almost any amount of badness, so long as they think the franchise chimes with their political aims. CBS however is churning out a sub standard product with what, if I was being charitable, could be described as an extremely mixed customer reaction.
I think you need to hike up your pants, clench your bowels and make your way slowly to the washroom before you expel all that diarrhea.
Have you considered seeing a psychologist? You seem to have a worrying obsession with excreta and bowel movements. Did mummy change your nappy enough as a child?
What if we were to describe it as venom instead?
Whatever the metaphor, your comments have stopped being part of a discussion and moved to a “one note” rant pretty much every time you’ve posted in the past few months. Our colourful reaction to your tone says more about the kind of message you’re communicating, than our own minds.
It’s unfortunate because I used to enjoy reading your posts, hearing your analysis and engaging with you in discussions.
How about toning it down a bit and giving us a more analysis and less anger?
Regardless of the tone, I personally do not think he is wrong here… “CBS however is churning out a sub standard product with what, if I was being charitable, could be described as an extremely mixed customer reaction.”
Whether Soren’s opinion/assessment may be fair or not, we’re not getting analysis or evidence to back up their rants. I don’t think they’re really said anything new in a couple of months.
So, I can’t really engage with it other than to think that they’re really disappointed and stuck.
so I see Mission: Impossible coming to CBS All Access, maybe a Top Gun series (both with out Tom Cruise in front of the Camera, maybe EP or something. Something like a Beverly Hills Cop Spinoff, maybe with Eddie Murphy, A Godfather series to recapture the Sopranos vibe, a spykyds series for the little ones, rebooting Indiana Jones, G.I. Joe, Transformers…All one time big franchises for Paramount. It’s about “nostalgia library programming” and their “Portfolio of brands” baby…making what is old new for a new audience (i.e., copy Disney with Starwars and MCU)
I really picked up on ViacomCBS’ intention to launch in additional global markets.
Baklish was previously the international VP for CBS, so he brings a good sense of the global strategy in this sector. I’m not surprised that this is a global, not just American relaunch. I expect that whatever name they land on for the brand, it will be one that will have been tested to work across many international markets.
To be viable in the long haul, they will need to be global like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+.
They do however have the march on Hulu in terms of a library of globally marketable content (as opposed to just the US rights). That content library also puts them ahead of Apple, which is a global platform without significant content.
CBSAA has given them experience in the streaming business that NBC Universal lacks, but they need to move quickly to stay ahead of Peacock.
CBSAA has a presence in Canada, but much of the content is already on BellMedia’s OTT service (crave), or on one of the stack services on Amazon Prime. It sounds as though with additional content from their library it might begin to stand on its own here.
Not sure what CBS has on Ten in Australia.
But at least they have some experience now with streaming audiences and regulators outside the United States.
The experience with owning television stations and channels internationally will also be a competitive advantage. (e.g. channel 5 in the UK)
Going global may look very attractive to CBS but there is also a risk associated with that: So far, Netflix and Amazon are paying huge sums of money to get exclusive international rights to Discovery and Picard. Before Discovery came put there was talk that licensing fees paid by Netflix almost covered the whole production budget.
As soon as CBS goes global they will probably want to have Discovery and Picard on their own service. But without the lucrative licensing deals with Amazon and Netflix they would have to fund these shows themselves. It would take time to ramp up subscription numbers internationally so that would be a big investment.
The alternative would be to keep Discovery and Picard on Netflix and Amazon and establish their service internationally without its flagships.
I suspect DIGINON that ViacomCBS’ initial plan was along the lines you say.
But shareholders weren’t convinced that VIACOMCBS should be both making content for competitors and ramping up their own platforms globally.
So, I think that we’ll be seeing a faster paced international roll-out and a repatriation of Discovery and Picard once their licenses end.
Funny how there’s not much mention of “Section 31” lately. Good; I hope that dies on the vine.
I’ve noticed that too it’s just quietly been put to sleep… I always thought it a bad idea to began with so I’m happy if it never resurfaces.
I hope if the show is cancelled (but it may not be) all the writers and crew can move over to the other shows. I don’t want people to lose their jobs completely and my guess is if the show is cancelled Georgiou will (unfortunately) just stay on Discovery in the 32nd century so Yeoh won’t be going anywhere.
Good point about people losing their jobs. Always a good thing to keep in mind, that.
I’m very cynical toward “Discovery,” but I actually did kind of start to warm up toward the Empress or whatever we’re calling her as the second season went on. So all things considered, I’d just as soon she stay on “Discovery” and continue to grow and evolve there. I just don’t need or want a “Section 31” series of any kind.
Speaking of people who might be out of a job, I wonder what the Trek plans are for Shazad Latif? I’m not that big a fan of Ash Tyler / Voq, but I like Latif and wouldn’t mind him hanging around somehow.
Tyler stayed back in the 23rd century. They may bring him (and also L’Rell) into the Pike show for a guest spot.
Yep, agreed. I don’t want people losing their jobs especially in this climate.
It seems that the showrunners Bo Yeon Kim and Erica Lippoldt are still working during lockdown.
The last rumours were that S31 had a 2 season buy, and SH confirmed a writers room was in place before that.
If the change of plan really was about Michelle Yeoh’s availability, and the strategy around when to fit this show in the planned global roll-out of ViacomCBS’ own streaming service, then they are likely saving announcements for a time when they will maximize impact.
Given how well they kept the SNW announcement under wraps for months, I don’t think we can infer anything from the radio silence on S31 other than that the major announcements of anything Star Trek-related are going to be a key part of the overall ViacomCBS marketing as a global brand. So, Secret Hideout will have to bow to the grand strategy on launching decisions.
The thing is, if SH has a full writers room ticking away at the S31 scripts remotely, this may be the best written new Trek series to premiere. Consider how different it would be if an entire season of episodes were written and the outline of the second season drafted before production started?
I’m happy having Star Trek on Netflix and/or Prime Video over here in Israel … if they bring CBSAA over here that would surely complicate things
Is ViacomCBS going to add more classic TV shows and movies to the new relaunched streaming service? The only shows and movies I’m concerned about and looking forward to seeing on the updated service is the following:
CLASSIC TV SHOWS
“Friday the 13th: The Series” (w/John D. LeMay, Louise Robey, Chris Wiggins and Steve Monarque)
“Highlander: The Series” (w/Adrian Paul, Stan Kirsch, Amanda Wyss, Jim Byrnes and Peter Wingfield)
“Seven Days” (w/Jonathan LaPaglia, Justina Vail, Don Franklin and Norman Lloyd)
“War of the Worlds” (w/Jared Martin, Lynda Mason Green, Philip Akin, Richard Chaves and Adrian Paul)
“Friday the 13th Part 3” (1982)
“Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter” (1984)
“Raiders of the Lost Ark” (1981)
“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” (1984)
“Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” (1989)
“Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” (2008)
“Star Trek: The Motion Picture” (1979)
“Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” (1982)
“Star Trek III: The Search for Spock” (1984)
“Star Trek V: The Final Frontier” (1989)
“Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country” (1991)
“Star Trek: Insurrection” (1998)
“Star Trek” (2009)
“Star Trek Into Darkness” (2013)
“Star Trek Beyond” (2016)
Please let me know what you think about this because it’s very important.
I suspect that each of us have our own favourites that we’d like to see back.
Much of what you’ve listed other than the Star Trek movies would be of no interest to our household except the Highlander television series.
But Highlander raises the point that we need to differentiate between properties that ViacomCBS owns and those that they have US distribution rights for. (For Highlander it’s just US distribution which isn’t helpful for establishing a global service.)
ViacomCBS’ strength is that it owns
content and produces it itself.
Like Disney, they licensed a lot of their content to others. Disney is dialing that back quickly.
Baklish tried to pitch a plan to both make content and ramp up their own platforms, but shareholders gave the CEO a clear message when the initial plan was announced in the winter that they don’t think that selling content to others is a smart long-term strategy.
After thinking a bit, I’m wondering if the “I Spy” franchise is ready for a reboot.
The original Robert Culp / Bill Cosby television cold war spy drama series of the 60s was made by a Desilu subsidiary. So, the rights would be owned by Paramount.
The Eddie Murphy attempt at a comedy movie version was made by Columbia Pictures / Sony nearly two decades ago, and wasn’t good enough to justify a sequel.
Any license from Paramount for film production would have expired.
A new version, returning to the series spy roots might be timely if they can keep it from going too dark, and keep it anchored on the buddy relationship of the two spies.
If someone mentions Bill Cosby in the same sentence as I Spy, that idea will likely not fly.
If Star Trek is so important, why are the new stories so horrible? STD, STP should never of been tied to Star Trek. I love the classics, but this newer crap just sucks. These new shows are made by people who hate Star Trek.
Don’t lie like that, they clearly love Trek and nobody goes out to make a bad product. They just didn’t do the exact same thing that has been done before, and it shows that a vocal minority of Trek fandom just dislikes any and every change tot he old formulaic shows.
I think there’s certainly a subset of fandom that just dislikes any change to the old formula. It is ironic that, by the time of ENT (maybe even VOY), it seemed that many people had gotten kind of tired of that formula, whereas now people (and I don’t know if it’s the same people) are asking for a return to that formula.
It’s often hard in these online discussions to distinguish between a general dislike of anything that’s different and a dislike of the specific changes that have been made. Maybe it’s even hard for some fans to decide where they stand on this.
I definitely agree with you that the people in charge of making Star Trek don’t hate Star Trek. None of the people currently running Trek are in a position where they’d be starving if it weren’t for Trek. So it’s foolish to assume that they’d be spending so much of their life and energy on something that they hate. These people do have other options.
I also agree that nobody goes out to make a bad product. There are no bad intentions, no secret plan to ruin Star Trek.
It’s just that even the best intentions don’t always lead to the best results.
I agree to a point. I cannot say how much they love Trek. It very well could be lip service just to try and appease fans for all we know. But I do think they TRY to do something good. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with changing things up. At least this fan likes the concept. But just changing things up or a stated love of the source material does not mean the final product will be good. And fans are completely within their rights to say the final product is not good. And no, I am not defending John’s assessment that the producers hate Trek. Only that his opinion the final product being horrible is just as valid as someone who thinks it was good.
So, can we get a proper 24th/25th century starfleet show, now?
With better set, uniform and starship designs, this time.
I’m hoping this is the case after Picard has completed “restoring” Starfleet.
ViacomCBS has too many additional separate streaming services in BET+, Nick, and Showtime. ViacomCBS needs to consolidate some of its services into CBS All Access. Having to buy separate services is getting too expensive.
I just wish Bakish and CBSAA would release those elusive subscriber numbers proving how successful their new Star Trek actually is because most Star Trek fans I know don’t like the new shows.
Maybe they’ll finally build in a watch list feature, which I suggested two years ago and they still haven’t bothered to implement last I checked.