# New Star Trek series



## Tsiehta (Jul 22, 2002)

I guess this is official. http://www.startrek.com/article/new-star-trek-series-premieres-january-2017

Let the speculation begin!


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Given the people behind the current movies are involved in the TV streaming series, I in all likelihood won't be watching.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

> CBS Television Studios announced today it will launch a totally new Star Trek television series in January 2017. The new series will blast off with a special preview broadcast on the CBS Television Network. The premiere episode and all subsequent first-run episodes will then be available exclusively in the United States on CBS All Access, the Network's digital subscription video on demand and live streaming service.


It's not even going to be shown on real TV?


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> It's not even going to be shown on real TV?


If that's true, then it certainly gives me some skepticism. It does seem like television is evolving toward streaming though, so maybe the new Star Trek is boldy going where few TV series have gone before.

I'd love a return of Star Trek to television.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

smbaker said:


> If that's true, then it certainly gives me some skepticism. It does seem like television is evolving toward streaming though, so maybe the new Star Trek is boldy going where few TV series have gone before.
> 
> I'd love a return of Star Trek to television.


I'd be less "suspicious" if it was Netflix. Or Amazon.

Gonna suck if there are tons of streaming services. That's not gonna save cord cutters any money.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TNG and DS9 also didn't air on "real" television (as defined at the time)...


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> TNG and DS9 also didn't air on "real" television (as defined at the time)...


It was more real than streaming. Syndicated TV had been a thing for many many years


----------



## rhuntington3 (May 1, 2001)

Only the premier episode will be available on the traditional CBS, the rest of the series is only available through a subscription to CBS All Access. No thank you CBS.



> CBS Television Studios announced today it will launch a totally new Star Trek television series in January 2017. The new series will blast off with a special preview broadcast on the CBS Television Network. The premiere episode and all subsequent first-run episodes will then be available exclusively in the United States on CBS All Access, the Network's digital subscription video on demand and live streaming service.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

One year too late for the 50th. You'd think they could have started a little earlier.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> It's not even going to be shown on real TV?


That was my first reaction. At the very least, they should offer it on HBO (also owned by CBS). As a streaming-only offering, its DOA afaic.



jsmeeker said:


> Gonna suck if there are tons of streaming services. That's not gonna save cord cutters any money.


The cost savings from cord-cutting was only going to stem from an early adoption bonus. Eventually, the market would have equalized things (shifting cost from cable television subscriptions to a split between streaming services and broadband Internet subscriptions). However, if, in addition, there are myriad different streaming services, then as you indicate, it is probably going to be even worse - perhaps cord-cutting will eventually cost more than what linear cable would have cost if all there was throughout was linear cable. By then, though, we might be able to expect that the tumult of cord-cutting would have its impact, maybe resulting in linear cable as we know it now being effectively gone.


----------



## cal_s7 (Oct 1, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> It's not even going to be shown on real TV?


The very next line after what you quoted says....



> "The next chapter of the Star Trek franchise will also be distributed concurrently for television and multiple platforms around the world by CBS Studios International. "


I would say that means it will be on TV. Not sure how it can both be on TV and exclusively streaming. There is info missing there. Perhaps it streams first and week later it comes on TV. I don't know.

There is no info about the show itself. I want to know the basic setup.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

interesting move


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

cal_s7 said:


> The very next line after what you quoted says....
> 
> I would say that means it will be on TV. Not sure how it can both be on TV and exclusively streaming. There is info missing there. Perhaps it streams first and week later it comes on TV. I don't know.
> 
> There is no info about the show itself. I want to know the basic setup.


Sounds to me that it'll be on TV outside the US. I guess CBS doesn't know about torrents, lol.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

cal_s7 said:


> I would say that means it will be on TV.


But not in the United States. (CBS Studios International does not distribute programming domestically.)


----------



## rhuntington3 (May 1, 2001)

cal_s7 said:


> The very next line after what you quoted says....
> 
> I would say that means it will be on TV. Not sure how it can both be on TV and exclusively streaming. There is info missing there. Perhaps it streams first and week later it comes on TV. I don't know.
> 
> There is no info about the show itself. I want to know the basic setup.


The new series will blast off with a special preview broadcast on the CBS Television Network. *The premiere episode and all subsequent first-run episodes will then be available exclusively in the United States on CBS All Access, the Networks digital subscription video on demand and live streaming service.*

It doesn't specifically say but perhaps this means repeats will air on the CBS TV network that we all know as our local CBS TV station?


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Plans can change in the year-plus before this thing debuts, but I think the intent right now is clear: this will be on CBS's subscription streaming platform only (except for the premiere, as announced). Star Trek is a big name and they are going to try to use it to drive eyeballs (and dollars, more specifically) to the service. No need to overthink it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> It was more real than streaming. Syndicated TV had been a thing for many many years


But streaming today is far, far more prestigious now than syndication was then. TNG was one of the very first first-run syndication shows; today, streaming shows win Emmys.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

So you wait until the whole season is released, subscribe for a month or 2 to binge watch, then cancel? Or does it not work that way?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rhuntington3 said:


> It doesn't specifically say but perhaps this means repeats will air on the CBS TV network that we all know as our local CBS TV station?


I don't think anything could gut (future) streaming subscriptions spawned by the availability of a prestige series like this than turning around less than three years later and broadcasting it OTA. How many series went from cable or streaming to OTA?

I do imagine that the series, especially if it fails, will appear on Syfy or in syndication a couple of years later, cut to bits to fit in extra commercials, and rerun five times through within a year.



DancnDude said:


> So you wait until the whole season is released, subscribe for a month or 2 to binge watch, then cancel? Or does it not work that way?


I wonder about this. HBO apparently still allows folks to watch its original series, even from the last year or two, on demand. How much longer until pay channels have minimum subscriptions to preclude that?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But streaming today is far, far more prestigious now than syndication was then. TNG was one of the very first first-run syndication shows; today, streaming shows win Emmys.


at least pretty much anyone could watch without added expense. it was syndicated to OTA channels.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

bicker said:


> I wonder about this. HBO apparently still allows folks to watch its original series, even from the last year or two, on demand.


More than that... a lot of shows have the entire run available, even shows that are long gone.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

It doesn't say anything what it's about. Is it the Worf series?


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> It doesn't say anything what it's about. Is it the Worf series?


While the TNG fanboy in me would get a kick out of it, I think the chances of a Worf series are somewhere between none and zero. I would be very surprised if it's a continuation of any of the previous shows.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Turtleboy said:


> It doesn't say anything what it's about. Is it the Worf series?


I would guess it probably will revolve around the new universe created by the newer movies.

Especially since that writer is involved.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

vertigo235 said:


> I would guess it probably will revolve around the new universe created by the newer movies.
> 
> Especially since that writer is involved.


So, it's Enterprise with Kirk and Spock and all that?


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

no idea, I mean it will probably be of similar style etc, personally I doubt it will feature any of the enterprise crew since they are in movies now, so maybe another team / ship / story? 

Definitely not Worf or any of the other characters


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

vertigo235 said:


> I would guess it probably will revolve around the new universe created by the newer movies.
> 
> Especially since that writer is involved.


The article specifically says it's not that.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

My guess is all new crew set slightly after Next Gen (50 years tops).


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> The article specifically says it's not that.


It says it's not related to the new movie, but that doesn't mean that the show won't feel like the new movies.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

vertigo235 said:


> It says it's not related to the new movie, but that doesn't mean that the show won't feel like the new movies.


Oh, you mean take place in the new reset universe? Probably.


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

bicker said:


> I don't think anything could gut (future) streaming subscriptions spawned by the availability of a prestige series like this than turning around less than three years later and broadcasting it OTA. How many series went from cable or streaming to OTA?


Stargate: SG-1 started on Showtime (premium cable, with delayed airing in syndication) to being on the Sci-Fi channel (now SyFy) and in syndication. I guess that's not exactly what you are talking about but it is somewhat similar.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Oh, you mean take place in the new reset universe? Probably.


Exactly what I meant 

But to your point, it will probably have nothing to do with the Enterprise or it's crew.


----------



## Tsiehta (Jul 22, 2002)

vertigo235 said:


> Exactly what I meant
> 
> But to your point, it will probably have nothing to do with the Enterprise or it's crew.


It will be about a group of Vulcans looking for a new home


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

My money is on NCIS: Starfleet Command.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JustAllie said:


> Stargate: SG-1 started on Showtime (premium cable, with delayed airing in syndication) to being on the Sci-Fi channel (now SyFy) and in syndication. I guess that's not exactly what you are talking about but it is somewhat similar.


And beyond that, it would be the exception that proves the rule, as one of the only series to make the reverse journey.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Oh, you mean take place in the new reset universe? Probably.


So that means that all the changes JJ and company made to the timeline will still be in place? That kind of sucks.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

gweempose said:


> So that means that all the changes JJ and company made to the timeline will still be in place? That kind of sucks.


We shall see. All speculation at this point.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

A thought - perhaps this will be an MCU/SHIELD show type thing. Follow the crew of a different ship concurrent with the events of the new movies


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Seems like so far away, I wish they would announce these things closer to the premier dates


----------



## betamax (Mar 5, 2002)

I guess what I'm not excited about is another streaming service. Right now, if I want to watch Netflix or Hulu, I can watch that on my TiVo or Apple TV. Will this CBS streaming be added to the existing devices? Yes, I can watch it on my laptop and stream to my Apple TV, but I don't think the average American would want to do that.

-m


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I wonder how many episodes will be in a season? If there are like 22 weekly episodes, you'd need to pay for All Access for 5+ months. That is if you want to be up-to-date on the show as it airs. A lot of shows these days are only like 10-13 episodes.

I'm not a big Star Trek fan, but I could see paying to watch the show. Maybe just wait until there are only 3-4 episodes left and subscribe for a month. Then binge watch to get caught up and be there for the finale.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

vertigo235 said:


> But to your point, it will probably have nothing to do with the Enterprise or it's crew.


I think that's fine. What I would ideally like is another ship, identical in class to the Enterprise, set in the time period of TOS. If it has to be in the alternate universe of the current movies, then fine.

That it's not Kirk, Spock, and Scotty doesn't bother me. Let those guys keep doing movies. I think using those characters in a TV series would be hindrance due to the baggage that comes with them. Give us a whole new crew.

Just give me Star Trek on TV back.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

CBS should just hire the guys doing Star Trek Continues.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But streaming today is far, far more prestigious now than syndication was then. TNG was one of the very first first-run syndication shows; today, streaming shows win Emmys.


First run syndication existed for 20 years before TNG, with shows like Highway Patrol and Sea Hunt.



JustAllie said:


> Stargate: SG-1 started on Showtime (premium cable, with delayed airing in syndication) to being on the Sci-Fi channel (now SyFy) and in syndication. I guess that's not exactly what you are talking about but it is somewhat similar.


Known as "Second Run Syndication" (which according to Martin Lloyd is where the real money is).

The CBS All Access exclusive is strike one.
I'm guessing that CBS feels that Trek fans are quicker to adopt new technologies and they're probably right.

But Viacom tried the same move with using Voyager to help launch the UPN network, which wasn't a huge boost for UPN.
(And where is UPN now?)

It would be one thing if this was on an "established" streaming service like Amazon or Netflix but of course they want to push their own service......

Strike Two is Alex Kurtzman being the showrunner (which is a bit odd as I thought that Orci was the fan boy).

Kurtzman and Orci have a very mixed record in television as far as I'm concerned.
(Scorpion anyone?)


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

JYoung said:


> The CBS All Access exclusive is strike one.
> I'm guessing that CBS feels that Trek fans are quicker to adopt new technologies and they're probably right.


It is strikes one two and three. It offers nothing I want, and is way too expensive to get it for a single show.

And it pisses me off that you can't even stream current stuff any more without paying. I missed something this week due to traveling, and I cannot watch it a few days later online like I used to. Not even for the few days after the original showing. So they already have me pissed at All-Access. WTG, CBS marketing!


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

JYoung said:


> Kurtzman and Orci have a very mixed record in television as far as I'm concerned.
> *(Scorpion anyone?)*


That should count as like 10 strikes right there.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

bicker said:


> That was my first reaction. At the very least, they should offer it on HBO (also owned by CBS). As a streaming-only offering, its DOA afaic.


CBS owns Showtime, not HBO.



bicker said:


> The cost savings from cord-cutting was only going to stem from an early adoption bonus. Eventually, the market would have equalized things (shifting cost from cable television subscriptions to a split between streaming services and broadband Internet subscriptions). However, if, in addition, there are myriad different streaming services, then as you indicate, it is probably going to be even worse - perhaps cord-cutting will eventually cost more than what linear cable would have cost if all there was throughout was linear cable. By then, though, we might be able to expect that the tumult of cord-cutting would have its impact, maybe resulting in linear cable as we know it now being effectively gone.


Even if the total cost adds up to less then cable having multiple $6/mo bills, plus inconsistent UIs between services, is going to suck.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JYoung said:


> First run syndication existed for 20 years before TNG, with shows like Highway Patrol and Sea Hunt.


Interesting, I hadn't realized there were some first-run syndication dramas in the 50s. But they were all long-dead by 1987, and ST:TNG was definitely a pioneer. My point being that launching a high-profile series (like Star Trek) in syndication in 1987 was much riskier and more forward-looking than launching a high-profile series (like Star Trek) in streaming in 2017, since in 2015 streaming high-profile shows has become almost routine.


JYoung said:


> (And where is UPN now?)


It collided with The WB and became The CW (kind of).

Interesting that it was UPN and The WB that more or less killed the second age of first-run syndicated dramas...


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

bicker said:


> That was my first reaction. At the very least, they should offer it on HBO (also owned by CBS).


You're thinking of Showime, not HBO.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> CBS owns Showtime, not HBO.


Yup... cross-circuit in my brain... you got the idea though. 



Dan203 said:


> Even if the total cost adds up to less then cable having multiple $6/mo bills, plus inconsistent UIs between services, is going to suck.


So true.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> Even if the total cost adds up to less then cable having multiple $6/mo bills, plus inconsistent UIs between services, is going to suck.


I kinda feel like this type of thing will get me to cut the cord. I already pay well over $100 to DirecTV. I also pay for Netflix and Hulu and have Amazon Prime. If CBS, NBC, etc... start charging for streaming only shows, the cost is just going to get ridiculous. You could end up paying $300 just for TV.

I've got a ton of unwatched stuff on my DVR and on the streaming services. I really should just cut the cord and get an over the air DVR. I would have more than enough stuff to watch. I think I'm in a 2 year contract with DirecTV that expires next summer. That might be the time that I cut the cord finally.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Interesting, I hadn't realized there were some first-run syndication dramas in the 50s. But they were all long-dead by 1987, and ST:TNG was definitely a pioneer.


Even The Adventures of Superman was initially aired as first run syndication. 

Certainly first run syndication waned in the 1970s. Why buy new series when the stations could strip run old episodes of Star Trek, Gilligan's Island, Bonanza (under the moniker of "Ponderosa") and Batman?

What TNG did is boost the first run syndication market in a big way and many other series attempted to follow in it's footsteps (with Baywatch being the most successful on the bunch).



Rob Helmerichs said:


> My point being that launching a high-profile series (like Star Trek) in syndication in 1987 was much riskier and more forward-looking than launching a high-profile series (like Star Trek) in streaming in 2017, since in 2015 streaming high-profile shows has become almost routine.


Agreed.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> It collided with The WB and became The CW (kind of).
> 
> Interesting that it was UPN and The WB that more or less killed the second age of first-run syndicated dramas...


Like I said, Viacom used Voyager as the anchor show to launch UPN which I think you'd agree, hasn't been a huge success.

Of course, back in 1976-1977, Paramount had planned to use the Star Trek Phase II series to launch "The Paramount Network", which would have beaten Fox Network by several years had they had gone through with it.

Then a little film by the name of Star Wars came out and Paramount decided to use Star Trek in a different way....


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Hoffer said:


> I really should just cut the cord and get an over the air DVR.


I'm not sure how that DVR will help you when half of the really good programming is on CBS All Access, Netflix, Hulu, etc., and the other half is on HBO, Showtime and Starz.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Given the people behind the current movies are involved in the TV streaming series ...


This has me not hopeful.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

bicker said:


> I wonder about this. HBO apparently still allows folks to watch its original series, even from the last year or two, on demand. How much longer until pay channels have minimum subscriptions to preclude that?


I hope never. I subscribe to HBO and Showtime for 3 months each per year (and usually it's a free deal). I catch up on all the shows and then wait for the next year to catch up again.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

This doesn't make me want to subscribe to CBS' service, but I'll still watch it. I'll just Tivo it like I do the other shows I watch.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

bobcarn said:


> This doesn't make me want to subscribe to CBS' service, but I'll still watch it. I'll just Tivo it like I do the other shows I watch.


I thought the whole point was that it's only available on the streaming subscription service.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

laria said:


> I thought the whole point was that it's only available on the streaming subscription service.


That's how I understood it. Only the pilot would be on TV (and be TiVoable).


----------



## sbourgeo (Nov 10, 2000)

After Voyager and Enterprise, there is no way I would subscribe to yet another streaming service to watch a new Star Trek TV series.  Put it on a channel I already get and I'll give it a shot.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

eddyj said:


> That's how I understood it. Only the pilot would be on TV (and be TiVoable).


I misread the article. I guess it'll be a show I don't watch. I don't subscribe to services for individual shows.


----------



## keirgrey (Nov 20, 2001)

bobcarn said:


> I misread the article. I guess it'll be a show I don't watch. I don't subscribe to services for individual shows.


Same here.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

bicker said:


> I'm not sure how that DVR will help you when half of the really good programming is on CBS All Access, Netflix, Hulu, etc., and the other half is on HBO, Showtime and Starz.


My point was I already have Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Showtime and Starz. If I need to buy CBS All Access, and who knows what else in the future, I might as well cut the cord. I can get HBO Now and Showtime's equivalent, and then use the OTA DVR for the major network stuff I watch. I would have more content to watch then I have time to watch it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I've thought about doing that too. But there are some shows on cable I really like watching that I couldn't get streaming. Not sure if they're worth over $100/mo I pay for cable though.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

I don't understand, the show won't be on CBS or CBS owned cable channels?

You have to watch it in a web browser on your computer and pay for that?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Or your AppleTV or Roku or wherever else you have CBS All Access, yes.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> I don't understand, the show won't be on CBS or CBS owned cable channels?
> 
> You have to watch it in a web browser on your computer and pay for that?


Well, me personally, I'd stream it to a Roku/Apple TV/Chromecast connected TV.

But yes, CBS wants this to be exclusive to their CBS All Access streaming service.

http://www.cbs.com/all-access/


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> Syndicated TV had been a thing for many many years


"Highway Patrol" in the 1950s was a syndicated show. (I saw some eps in reruns in the 1980s.)


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I would pay this price *just* for Trek if it were commercial free, and I could watch on a TV. Even just for streaming. I'd definitely pay if I owned the eps (even if just movie files, not DVD/Bluray).

Trek is close to the only show I'd pay this much for.. The various online service prices for individual episodes is crazy expensive.. (I've said this before.. As much as everyone ELSE complains about how much cable costs.. I think it's vaguely reasonable for the amount of entertainment I get -- and I even watch _mostly_ broadcast TV that I could theoretically get with an antenna.. but not 6 tuners, and it would be more of a pain to get the OTHER non-broadcast shows I do watch.)


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

I've never even heard of CBS All Access, I don't think it works with TiVO or Amazon Fire TV.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mattack said:


> I would pay this price *just* for Trek if it were commercial free


There are three or four commercials before the program starts, then other blocks of three or four commercials during each commercial break during the stream. Many folks note that after every commercial break there's a 15 - 20 second pause before the program starts up again. There has been times when the commercials inserted were quite repetitive (i.e., very few different commercials, repeated over and over and over).



mattack said:


> The various online service prices for individual episodes is crazy expensive.. (I've said this before.. As much as everyone ELSE complains about how much cable costs.. I think it's vaguely reasonable for the amount of entertainment I get -- and I even watch _mostly_ broadcast TV that I could theoretically get with an antenna..


Linear cable is assuredly the most efficient means to obtain entertainment programming. It assuredly will tend toward the very best value available.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

mattack said:


> I would pay this price *just* for Trek if it were commercial free, and I could watch on a TV.


I'm not so blindly devoted. DS9 got boring, I tried to hold on to Voyager but stopped caring, and Enterprise was a horribly retconned mess - until the last season but it had already been cancelled.

I'll wait to see what this new one is like. I just think that CBS is going to be burned by torrents.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I just think that CBS is going to be burned by torrents.


:up: This.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

mattack said:


> I would pay this price *just* for Trek if it were commercial free, and I could watch on a TV. Even just for streaming. I'd definitely pay if I owned the eps (even if just movie files, not DVD/Bluray).


I prefer to own the episodes outright. No ads. Full HD and 5.1. No BS. But $6/mo + ads is more valuable to CBS than me paying $30-40 for Amazon Video copies.

Would I pay $6/month for a dedicated Star Trek SVOD service? 726 episodes plus the new series? CBS would have to sweeten it with a no ad option and upgrading DS9 and VOY to HD, but I would probably would.

It wouldn't surprise me if CBS discontinued licensing legacy Trek (TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT) to the big three SVODs- Netflix, Amazon and Hulu. Star Trek past and future would only be available via CBS All Access.


----------



## keirgrey (Nov 20, 2001)

They will lose a lot of people if they do that. I'm not sure they care, though.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

keirgrey said:


> I'm not sure they care, though.


And it isn't clear that they should care. If the choice is between selling to 100 @ $10 each instead of 500 @ $1 each, then a rational business decision maker generally would choose the former. Market share is overrated.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

I've been rewatching Voyager on Netflix, starting with 7 of 9's shows. Voyager is actually much better than the current Broadcast shows I've been watching which have become sameold sameold. I had avoided Voyager on Netflix as the soft focus SD picture quality is hard to get used to, but some of those episodes have turned out to be really enjoyable. It's been a long time since I've seen any broadcast shows I can say that about.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

(Bump)

Well, there may be cause for hope here.
Bryan Fuller has been announced as showrunner for the new series.

I guess this means that Kurtzman will be the overall Executive Producer.

The problem is that while I've liked a lot of Fuller's more recent work, I didn't care for his work on Voyager.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

I'm kinda neutral on the Fuller announcement. I did like Hannibal. But I also have a lot of negative bias with Voyager. 

With both Downton Abbey and The Good Wife ending this year- there's a lot of genuine ensemble cast talent in the pool. Hope someone at CBS is paying attention. I think Josh Charles would make a great starship captain. 

Reconsidering my stance on CBS All Access, after learning they're pulling Star Trek from Amazon Prime. (Hulu and Netflix can't be far behind)


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Well, Fuller also did Pushing Daisies and Wonderfalls, both of which were critically acclaimed.

I didn't see Wonderfalls but I thought that Pushing Daisies was brilliant.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

And more hopeful news,

Nicholas Meyer to join the staff.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

JYoung said:


> And more hopeful news,
> 
> Nicholas Meyer to join the staff.


OK, now I'm interested.


----------



## Bryanmc (Sep 5, 2000)

doom1701 said:


> OK, now I'm interested.


Ditto.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

They do seem to be taking it seriously, starting to sound promising.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

If enough people get involved who actually _like_ Star Trek, maybe there _is_ hope.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Not as long as it is an experiment, and it is an experiment as long as the series episodes beyond the pilot will be broadcast solely on CBS All Access.


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

FYI, for those pondering signing up for the CBS streaming service when this show is released....

With both of my TiVos dead from the lightning strike, I've been relying on my Roku Stick to keep me entertained. I signed up for a free week of CBS All Access to watch my favorite CBS shows while I'm left without my TiVos. 

$5.99 per month would not be bad for access to the shows they offer, but it's really annoying that there's no way to skip the ads. I've gotten so used to having the option of fast-forwarding through commercials -- although sometimes I don't bother if I'd rather check my e-mail or run to the kitchen during an ad. 

It might be worth more money per month if I could skip the ads.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

There's a report floating around that CBS is considering a commercial free option..... for an additional $4 a month.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

No way I would pay for an ad supported option.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

$10 a month, for one exclusive?


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

I'm still not going to subscribe. I get Amazon Prime mainly for shipping and take advantage of occasional videos. I get Netflix because it's pretty cheap and it's nice to find something to watch when we have time to kill. I tried Hulu and cancelled it because it didn't have some of the TV shows I wanted to see, and I don't subscribe to HBO or other premium channels. I loved Star Trek, but the shine has been wearing off for some time now as they're still no more diverse than they were in the '60s, and aren't even nearly as edgy as they were then. They've gotten bland and stick with "safe" stories and characters. They'd have to really shake it up before I thought about subscribing monthly just to see more network cookie-cutter characters.

(yeah, I know I'm being negative, but I used to be a huge fan and have grown disillusioned over the decades)


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I've been a Trek fan since 1966, when a friend told me that I had to come over and watch this new space show on his parent's B&W TV.

I'll watch any version of Trek, at least in the beginning, but not on an exclusive subscription service. I had CBS All Access and I cancelled in within a week.

I already have the premium networks, Netflix, (both flavors), Vudu and Amazon Prime. If CBS doesn't want to license to someone I already connect to with my HDTV, then I guess I won't be watching.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> (yeah, I know I'm being negative, but I used to be a huge fan and have grown disillusioned over the decades)


I don't think it needs to be viewed as negative. As long as the cost of acquiring the first run broadcast is substantially higher than purchasing (or perhaps even renting) the DVDs a year later, it's just _prudence.

_


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Trying to get a tech savvy audience to pony up monthly monies when they probably know how to torrent is a bad idea. Execs are stoopid.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Trying to get a tech savvy audience to pony up monthly monies when they probably know how to torrent is a bad idea. Execs are stoopid.


They probably consider tech-savvy downloaders shrinkage...they're after the much-larger everybody else market.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> They probably consider tech-savvy downloaders shrinkage...they're after the much-larger everybody else market.


Yes, but is that a realistic market for this?

The general masses will go so see a pew-pew Star Trek movie; they might even watch a TV show that's freely available. But how many non-techies would sign up for All Access just to watch this?


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

yeah they may be in for quite a surprise


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

TheSlyBear said:


> Yes, but is that a realistic market for this?
> 
> The general masses will go so see a pew-pew Star Trek movie; they might even watch a TV show that's freely available. But how many non-techies would sign up for All Access just to watch this?


Non Techies or non Trekkies?


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Non Techies or non Trekkies?


Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I'll bet half of you who say you'd never pay to see this will pony up when push comes to shove...


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

I'll probably binge watch it after the entire season is over.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

TheSlyBear said:


> Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.


I believe that CBS is correct in their assumption that generally speaking, Trek fans are ahead of the curve when it comes to video streaming.

And they are correct that there is a core audience that will pay just to see this, "because it's Star Trek!".
("I'll put the Roku right next to my Star Trek Steak Knives!")

But is that core audience enough to make it profitable?

I'm doubtful because the core audience wasn't enough to keep Enterprise going and did not deliver good box office figures for Nemesis.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JYoung said:


> I'm doubtful because the core audience wasn't enough to keep Enterprise going and did not deliver good box office figures for Nemesis.


Well, it could be that the core audience requires at least some level of quality... (And while Enterprise eventually got there, it was too little too late.)

I suspect a lot of the success of failure of this venture will depend more on how well the show grabs its audience than on how it is released. I think Star Trek fans will go anywhere to get what they want. They just have to be offered something they want. And from the moves Paramount is making, I suspect they may realize that.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, it could be that the core audience requires at least some level of quality... (And while Enterprise eventually got there, it was too little too late.)


Every post-TOS Trek series took a couple of seasons to find its "quality". TNG & DS9 didn't kick in until their 3rd season. VOY floundered until season 4. ENT didn't get interesting until its last season.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> I suspect a lot of the success of failure of this venture will depend more on how well the show grabs its audience than on how it is released. .


I think of shows like TWD, Lost, Breaking Bad or Battlestar Galactica that nailed it in the opening/pilot, set the hook and dragged the audience for years afterwards. (regardless if the shows declined in quality)

The next Trek series won't have the luxury of warm-up- especially if it's SVOD-only. If they can't set the hook deep in the first season, no ones going to be paying for the second.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> Every post-TOS Trek series took a couple of seasons to find its "quality". TNG & DS9 didn't kick in until their 3rd season. VOY floundered until season 4. ENT didn't get interesting until its last season.


I actually thought that Voyager started out interesting but several episodes in, began a slow descent into complete boredom.

It did get interesting for a while in Season 4 but then reverted to complete boredom in Season 5.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, it could be that the core audience requires at least some level of quality... (And while Enterprise eventually got there, it was too little too late.)
> 
> I suspect a lot of the success of failure of this venture will depend more on how well the show grabs its audience than on how it is released. I think Star Trek fans will go anywhere to get what they want. They just have to be offered something they want. And from the moves Paramount is making, I suspect they may realize that.


With the addition of Fuller and Meyer that may be true.

But considering that a standard viewer will have to jump through a few hoops to watch this and American viewers historically don't like to jump through hoops to watch their TV, they are going to have to make it worthwhile to jump through those hoops.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

JYoung said:


> ...("I'll put the Roku right next to my Star Trek Steak Knives!")...


Ha! I mentioned Star Trek Steak Knives to a friend the other day when we were talking about the new series. I figure merchandise sales have got to be way down. While the JJ-verse flicks may be making bank at the box office, the people who like them aren't the type who will buy Star Trek Steak Knives. And the type who will don't seem to be crazy about the JJ-verse.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> Every post-TOS Trek series took a couple of seasons to find its "quality".


Some would say that TOS took longer than that, even. TOS benefited greatly from being the first.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> I'll bet half of you who say you'd never pay to see this will pony up when push comes to shove...


 If it has commercials that can't be skipped I absolutely will not watch it, no matter what, even if it's free (I will probably watch the pilot if it's made available free but with commercials, just to see what it looks like, but I won't watch a whole season like that no matter how good it is).

If it ends up costing me more than $3/ep HD without commercials I won't watch it, no matter what.

If it's between $0-$3 HD/ep, without commercials I may pay for it if the consensus is that it's really good and worth it.

If it becomes available via a streaming service I already own (Amazon Prime / Netflix / etc.) I'll definitely watch it. If it comes out on Amazon but requires $$ (not on Prime) for the season I'll pay if it's not too much/ep AND people say it's good.

Meanwhile I've finished my rewatch of Voyager on Netflix, and started DS9... only 6.5 more seasons to go... sigh.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

bicker said:


> Some would say that TOS took longer than that, even. TOS benefited greatly from being the first.


TOS benefited from a very healthy life in rerun syndication in the 1970s. We watched again, obsessed over it; then we discovered the "quality", or the episodes that didn't stink as much.

And you had to really want it too, in an era pre-VCRs. If "Spock's Brain" was scheduled at 11pm on a school night, you stayed up regardless.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Dearth of options prompts desperate choices.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

The original TOS was edgy. A woman serving on the bridge, a multi-cultural, multi-national, and multi-racial crew, the first interracial kiss... it was ahead of its time. Afterward, the network played it safe with their franchise, giving us only a homogenized, sterilized, solely-heterosexual universe afraid to make any kind of social statement unless done in a symbolic and indirect manner. "Enterprise" was a little grittier and at least wasn't as homogenized, but it didn't get the ratings. With this experiment of subscription-only, I certainly hope they plan on putting out something substantial, and are not just using the ST name in hopes of cashing in on the current fan base with what they see as easy money. Part of me wonders if the reason they're making it subscription-only is because they're afraid it won't be good enough for the broadcast network.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

I'm not paying just to watch this. I do hope it's good, but I'm not paying! Already have Netflix and Amazon Prime and cable. How many services will be asking for $??


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Rod Roddenberry added as a producer.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/cbs-new-star-trek-adds-872557


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I pay for Netlfix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu(arguably not worth it if you have cable or even OTA). I and many others cant afford to sign up for every streaming service under the sun. At this point unless you're planning on bringing *many* shows that are your "A game" your streaming service should just be highly available and free (I'll accept some commercials as long as I'm not watching the same goddamn Prius ad over and over).


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Just wait until "Puppymonkeybaby" gets on the streaming services ad loop.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

JYoung said:


> Just wait until "Puppymonkeybaby" gets on the streaming services ad loop.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

LOL! :up:


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

bobcarn said:


> Part of me wonders if the reason they're making it subscription-only is because they're afraid it won't be good enough for the broadcast network.


I think that's part of the reason. Trek in its heyday had almost 12M viewers a week. Only 4M viewers watched Enterprise's finale. If the show fails- you blame it on not enough subscribers, not viewer ratings. And the NCIS channel is manic about those ratings.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> Part of me wonders if the reason they're making it subscription-only is because they're afraid it won't be good enough for the broadcast network.


It's not like an Amazon series, where some people will watch just because it is included with other things they want to buy. It is going to be practically the only draw for the people who would watch it, so it has to be better than broadcast.



robojerk said:


> I pay for Netlfix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu(arguably not worth it if you have cable or even OTA). I and many others cant afford to sign up for every streaming service under the sun.


However, that's the reality of retail _a la carte_ that so many have (perhaps foolishly) been clamoring for.


----------



## bobcarn (Nov 18, 2001)

bicker said:


> It's not like an Amazon series, where some people will watch just because it is included with other things they want to buy. It is going to be practically the only draw for the people who would watch it, so it has to be better than broadcast.


That logic doesn't sit right with me. I don't see why it has to be better. I can also see the logic that if the show was really good, they'd be able to charge premiums in advertising space and make more than they could with a direct subscription. And if the show isn't quite up to those standards and can only attract die-hard ST fans, then they can get a guaranteed income from those fans without having to worry about selling advertising space.

I'll definitely watch the premier because I've been a ST fan since TOS was originally aired. I'm hoping it'll be something I not only enjoy, but respect.

I just had a thought.... if the episodes follow more traditional series airings (with the series airing in the fall and continuing through spring), and the CBS subscription is really driven by the fans of ST.... wouldn't there be a good chance that the fans would only subscribe when the new episodes are actually airing? And if you could get the previous episodes that had aired, why not just subscribe for a month or two towards the end of the season and binge-watch them? I could see myself doing that. Paying monthly all year long though? Not so much.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

People do that with HBO all the time. Sign up right after a season of Game of Thrones. Binge watch them on HBO Go and disconnect HBO.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

bobcarn said:


> That logic doesn't sit right with me. I don't see why it has to be better.


My point was that it needs to be better because they're expecting people to make a purchasing decision in order to access it. With previous Trek series, people didn't need to do so; with Amazon.com and Netflix series, they could rely on people who already made a purchasing decision based on other factors.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Last year, I subscribed 3 months during the summer for Big Brother live feeds, and I expect to do the same this year. Assuming that stays the same in the future, I'll subscribe for that & new Star Trek will just be a bonus.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

New show reportedly to be set in classic universe, post-Undiscovered Country but pre-Next Generation.

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/04...v-show-will-be-set-before-the-next-generation


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

I'm okay with the setting, but the anthology aspect doesn't sound good to me.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Far more open to the anthology format than episodes falling into the predictable alien planet of the week, or anomaly of the week, time travel paradox of the week or painfully obvious moralizing of the week. I think Trek has worn down "___ of the week" to the nub and it just won't scour now.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

They can easily do those types of episodes in an anthology. I'd prefer to stick to the same crew.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I like the idea of a trek anthology series


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Does "seasonal anthology" mean follow a different ship each season?

I've long thought that "Star Trek" would be an awesome show that could just continue... when actors leave or get too expensive (heh), just replace them with other characters. "er", one of my favorite shows of all time, had a very different cast at the end..


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Like American Horror Story, True Detective, etc. 

It also means it would be a season long story, which I also like. 

The episodic stuff with star trek has been done enough. So Anthology sounds great, tell a good slow burning season long story. That would be great. 

It also means that we shouldn't be left with a cliffhanger if it doesn't get renewed!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

vertigo235 said:


> It also means it would be a season long story, which I also like.


Wouldn't have to be, necessarily...they could always have a season's worth of conventional stories in one time and place, then move on to another for the next season, etc. Or a blend...generally done-in-one episodes but with an over-arcing story thread linking them.

(Not saying that's what they're doing, just that you're jumping to a conclusion that may or may not be true.)


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

OK so it would "more likely" mean that. 

The article does say it will likely be serialized too though. So that also supports my theory.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

A major story per season sounds good. But then switching to a different ship in possibly a different era the following season doesn't appeal to me.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Assuming the post-TUC, pre-TNG setting is true, I suppose it's possible that they will be reaching out to the surviving TOS cast for guest spots. Shatner has said he'd like to play Kirk again. I wonder if they'll try to write him back in somehow? I can't imagine how other than using some makeup and CGI to make him look around the age when Kirk died.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

DougF said:


> Assuming the post-TUC, pre-TNG setting is true, I suppose it's possible that they will be reaching out to the surviving TOS cast for guest spots. Shatner has said he'd like to play Kirk again. I wonder if they'll try to write him back in somehow? I can't imagine how other than using some makeup and CGI to make him look around the age when Kirk died.


The only one that could potentially star would be Chekhov or Sulu. Kirk disappeared into the Nexus mere months after TUC, and James Doohan, DeForest Kelly, and Leonard Nimoy are no longer with us.

I think George Takei might be willing to do a cameo, and he looks surprisingly good for his age. Walter Koenig hasn't aged quite as well, and looks very little like the Chekhov of that era.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Nyota is still kicking around, as well.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Nyota is still kicking around, as well.


D'oh. Yeah, forgot about Uhura. My mistake.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> The only one that could potentially star would be Chekhov or Sulu. Kirk disappeared into the Nexus mere months after TUC, and James Doohan, DeForest Kelly, and Leonard Nimoy are no longer with us.
> 
> I think George Takei might be willing to do a cameo, and he looks surprisingly good for his age. Walter Koenig hasn't aged quite as well, and looks very little like the Chekhov of that era.


I'm sure any of them would be willing to cameo. All except Shatner have done fan-film productions in the last few years. Kirk may have died onscreen, but if they come up with any kind of way to write him back in and open the cash drawer, he'll be there.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Yeah people have come out of the nexus before.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Yeah, Kirk came out of the Nexus and Malcolm McDowell killed him. Picard buried him on that planet.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Yeah, Kirk came out of the Nexus and Malcolm McDowell killed him. Picard buried him on that planet.


Oh yeah


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

But the Nexus is all timey-whimey. Who knows what it could do to spit out Kirk at any point.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

TheSlyBear said:


> But the Nexus is all timey-whimey. Who knows what it could do to spit out Kirk at any point.


He can only be in one place at a time. From his time until TNG time, that place is in the Nexus.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> He can only be in one place at a time. From his time until TNG time, that place is in the Nexus.


Unless he leaves the Nexus and then goes back in again!!


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Or he tries to leave and a duplicate gets spit out, leaving one copy of him in the Nexus.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Seems to me then they're using the term anthology incorrectly.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mattack said:


> Seems to me then they're using the term anthology incorrectly.


How so? Do we even know how they're using the term yet?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> Or he tries to leave and a duplicate gets spit out, leaving one copy of him in the Nexus.


But then the one in the Nexus couldn't leave (c/o the echo of Guinan that was in the nexus).


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

Or a copy of him got stuck in the pattern buffer!  (They could come up with myriad ways to bring him back -- not that I'm advocating that.)


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

You can easily come up with a plot line that brings back anyone... once you have a holodeck.


----------



## Ozzie72 (Aug 9, 2008)

JustAllie said:


> You can easily come up with a plot line that brings back anyone... once you have a holodeck.


1. Anthology season 1: invent the holodeck
2. ???
3. Profit!!


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Ozzie72 said:


> 1. Anthology season 1: invent the holodeck
> 
> 2. ???
> 
> 3. Profit!!


No need to invent it as technically it was invented during the original series or more accurately on Star Trek the animated series.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodeck


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Paramount announced that shooting will begin in the fall in Toronto.

Wait, Canada?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JYoung said:


> Paramount announced that shooting will begin in the fall in Toronto.
> 
> Wait, Canada?


Isn't that where most alien worlds are located these days?


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Isn't that where most alien worlds are located these days?


Yeah, but Vancouver, not Toronto.

William Shatner is a snow-back.


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Paramount announced that shooting will begin in the fall in Toronto.
> 
> Wait, Canada?


No problem. But you can expect most of the alien worlds to be ice planets instead of delightfully sunny beach paradises.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Isn't that where most alien worlds are located these days?


Canada IS an alien world....


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Isn't that where most alien worlds are located these days?


Krypton was most recently located in Burbank.

It's a bit of an interesting move as all the other Star Trek shows were shot on the Paramount stages in Hollywood.

They don't usually send a flagship property outside the US.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

JYoung said:


> It's a bit of an interesting move as all the other Star Trek shows were shot on the Paramount stages in Hollywood.


Purposely nitpicking.. Don't you mean Motion Picture Center for TOS?

(Yes, Gulf+Western bought it, renaming it Paramount Television.)


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

JYoung said:


> Krypton was most recently located in Burbank.
> 
> It's a bit of an interesting move as all the other Star Trek shows were shot on the Paramount stages in Hollywood.
> .


"Space may be the final frontier,
But it's made in a Hollywood basement"


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Filming in Toronto has yet to start but that hasn't stopped CBS studios from releasing a teaser trailer.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Krypton was most recently located in Burbank.
> 
> It's a bit of an interesting move as all the other Star Trek shows were shot on the Paramount stages in Hollywood.
> 
> They don't usually send a flagship property outside the US.


Paramount doesn't actually own Trek any more. CBS took full custody once they'd purchased Paramount Pictures...and then sent Paramount packing to another company. I've heard it said that Paramount has some rights where making the movies are concerned, but that may be for tradition's sake more than anything else.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

gastrof said:


> Paramount doesn't actually own Trek any more. CBS took full custody once they'd purchased Paramount Pictures...and then sent Paramount packing to another company. I've heard it said that Paramount has some rights where making the movies are concerned, but that may be for tradition's sake more than anything else.


*TV - CBS Television Distribution, CBS Paramount Network Television/CBS Television Studios, CBS Corporation (2005  present)*
Viacom had purchased the CBS Corporation in 2000. They split in 2005. The old Viacom then became the CBS Corporation. Its holding Paramount Television became CBS Paramount Network Television. CBS Television Distribution formed soon after and took over distribution of past Star Trek shows. In 2009, CBS Paramount Network Television became CBS Television Studios. The 2017 television series will be produced under this ownership.

*Movies, DVDs - Paramount Pictures, Viacom (new) (2005  present)*
In the 2005 Viacom/CBS split, the old Viacom became the CBS Corporation and a new Viacom was created. This new company owns Paramount Pictures which owns the Trek films. Paramount Pictures produced Star Trek , Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond under license from CBS Television Studios. Paramount continues to also distribute DVDs of the TV series on behalf of CBS. The split marked the occasion that the former Paramount Television was formally separated from Paramount Pictures; until this point in time the television company had always been a subsidiary division of Paramount Pictures.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek_corporate_history


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> *TV - CBS Television Distribution, CBS Paramount Network Television/CBS Television Studios, CBS Corporation (2005  present)*
> Viacom had purchased the CBS Corporation in 2000. They split in 2005. The old Viacom then became the CBS Corporation. Its holding Paramount Television became CBS Paramount Network Television. CBS Television Distribution formed soon after and took over distribution of past Star Trek shows. In 2009, CBS Paramount Network Television became CBS Television Studios. The 2017 television series will be produced under this ownership.
> 
> *Movies, DVDs - Paramount Pictures, Viacom (new) (2005  present)*
> ...


As mentioned, CBS now owns Star Trek, and Paramount 'may' have some rights where the movies are concerned, which apparently is at the mercy of CBS.

Sounds like CBS could farm Trek movies out to any film company they want, once any standing contract is expired.

Fans do have an attachment to hearing the Star Trek fanfare while the Paramount logo appears on the screen at a theater, tho'. While there seems to be much about Trek that the suits at CBS don't "get", that may be one thing they do understand.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

gastrof said:


> Fans do have an attachment to hearing the Star Trek fanfare while the Paramount logo appears on the screen at a theater, tho'. While there seems to be much about Trek that the suits at CBS don't "get", that may be one thing they do understand.


Kinda like Star Wars fans being attached to the 20th Century Fox fanfare and logo prior to "A long tim ago in a galaxy far, far away"

It was just "odd" not to see it for once.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

gastrof said:


> As mentioned, CBS now owns Star Trek, and Paramount 'may' have some rights where the movies are concerned, which apparently is at the mercy of CBS.


I think the point is, CBS never "bought" Paramount as you mention, and CBS Studios has always owned Star Trek.

1966: Star Trek (the original series) created by *Desilu Productions*.
1967: Gulf + Western purchased Desilu Productions and Paramount Studios. Desilu Productions was renamed *Paramount Television*.
1994: Viacom buys Paramount Communications, the parent company of Paramount Pictures and Paramount Television.
1999: Viacom buys CBS.
2005: Viacom divests CBS and Paramount Television. Paramount Television becomes a subsidiary of the newly created CBS Corporation.
2009: Paramount Television renamed *CBS Studios*.

In other words, CBS Studios is technically the same company as Desilu Productions. The company has been renamed a few times and gone through mergers and divestitures, but the same company (Desilu/Paramount Television/CBS Studios) has owned Star Trek over those 50 years. The rights have never changed hands, although studio ownership has.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

JustAllie said:


> No problem. But you can expect most of the alien worlds to be ice planets instead of delightfully sunny beach paradises.


Just wait a few more years of global warming, and Hudson's Bay will be the beach destination of choice to escape the unbearable heat in Florida and the Caribbean.


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

I didn't read every post here but I did read that it will be on CBS TV and CBS all access.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Fl_Gulfer said:


> I didn't read every post here but I did read that it will be on CBS TV and CBS all access.


The first episode will be broadcast on CBS television and CBS All Access. Subsequent episodes will *only* be on CBS All Access. (Unless that plan changes between now and then.)


----------



## Generic (Dec 27, 2005)

Bryan Fuller Discusses Recent Star Trek Rumors


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Isn't Desilu...Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball?


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

jlb said:


> Isn't Desilu...Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball?


Yes. Yes it was.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Hey Luuuuuucy, got some holodeck splaaaaaaaain to do.....


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desilu_Productions



> Ball approved high quality, original production concepts (such as The Untouchables or Star Trek) for development into broadcast series.


So basically, Lucy was responsible for Greenlighting the world of Star Trek!!!


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Yes. Roddenberry had a hard time selling it. Getting Lucille Ball on board made a huge difference.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I remember a story of Roddenberry trying to sell Trek to CBS. Apparently, they showed a lot of interest, and questioned him at length about the show.

In the end, they rejected it in favor of Lost In Space.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

jlb said:


> Hey Luuuuuucy, got some holodeck splaaaaaaaain to do.....


Whatever happens on the holodeck, stays on the holodeck.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

RGM1138 said:


> I remember a story of Roddenberry trying to sell Trek to CBS. Apparently, they showed a lot of interest, and questioned him at length about the show.
> 
> In the end, they rejected it in favor of Lost In Space.


To be fair, both shows ended after three seasons, neither had big ratings. Trek, however, had a much more loyal fan base.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

jamesbobo said:


> To be fair, both shows ended after three seasons, neither had big ratings. Trek, however, had a much more loyal fan base.


And CBS got it in the end anyways (via mergers).


----------



## n548gxg (Mar 7, 2003)

Rumor about Sulu



Spoiler



Sulu is gay.

http://comicbook.com/2016/07/07/star-trek-beyond-reveals-mr-sulu-as-first-gay-character-in-franc/


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

n548gxg said:


> Rumor about Sulu
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh myyyyyyyyyyyy


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

n548gxg said:


> Rumor about Sulu
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In case anyone was briefly confused, this is related to the new movie, *not* the new Star Trek series.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

isn't this the series thread?


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> isn't this the series thread?


How so? They have said that the new series will not be in the new movie universe. Which is an alternate timeline since [important planet] was destroyed.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Adam1115 said:


> isn't this the series thread?


It is. n548gxg posted something that pertained to the movies, but had nothing to do with the series.

n548gxg may have thought that this thread was about anything related to Star Trek and posted it here by mistake.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Interesting news.

Netflix will stream CBS' new Star Trek series all around the world

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/18/12211820/netflix-star-trek-cbs-all-access-international-streaming

But not in the US. At least we'll get all old Trek via Netflix.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

IndyJones1023 said:


> But not in the US. At least we'll get all old Trek via Netflix.


I'm still convinced that they'll move all old Trek from every SVOD provider (Amazon, Netflix, Hulu) before the year is out.

Amazon was set to drop all CBS content last January- save a last minute renewal.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> I'm still convinced that they'll move all old Trek from every SVOD provider (Amazon, Netflix, Hulu) before the year is out.


Not sure I follow. They just announced all old Trek moving to Netflix by year's end.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Old Trek is being made available to *international* Netflix customers. I'm expecting them to pull that content here in the US and Canada and make it exclusively available of CBS All Access.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Indy's linked article seems to say old stuff is worldwide. 

The paragraph says the new show will be on Netflix worldwide(except US and Canada). Later in the paragraph, it mentions the old shows and just says worldwide, doesn't exclude US and Canada.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Making it available internationally on Netflix means it will likely be available almost immediately by "magical" means.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

There was already a zero percent chance that a Star Trek show wouldn't show up quickly and reliably via magical means. But maybe this will make it even faster if it shows up internationally ahead of the domestic availability.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Very true, but I'd suspect that the "magic" is more refined with Netflix than it is when CBS All Access

Also more magicians have Netflix I'm sure.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> There was already a zero percent chance that a Star Trek show wouldn't show up quickly and reliably via magical means. But maybe this will make it even faster if it shows up internationally ahead of the domestic availability.


I think the article said it will be available on Netflix 24 hours after the US release. So, you'll be able to watch it on CBS All Access before anyone watching it on Netflix.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

vertigo235 said:


> Very true, but I'd suspect that the "magic" is more refined with Netflix than it is when CBS All Access
> 
> Also more magicians have Netflix I'm sure.


Good point, but with the 24 hour delay noted in the post immediately following yours, the magicians will not be waiting, imho.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> Old Trek is being made available to *international* Netflix customers. I'm expecting them to pull that content here in the US and Canada and make it exclusively available of CBS All Access.


I read "worldwide" as meaning everywhere in the world, including the US.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

It's specifically 188 countries that will get old Star Trek by the end of the year according to the  Netflix Blog; 188 of the 190 countries served by Netflix will get old Trek.

I have a hunch who those last two countries are.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Saturn_V said:


> It's specifically 188 countries that will get old Star Trek by the end of the year according to the  Netflix Blog; 188 of the 190 countries served by Netflix will get old Trek.
> 
> I have a hunch who those last two countries are.


The first paragraph of the blog talks about new Trek and 188 countries. The second paragraph talks about old Trek and there is no mentioned of 188 countries, only says worldwide.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Thats an interesting announcement. I literally signed up yesterday for CBS All Access because they had all the episodes of every Star Trek.

I already pay for Netflix. If I can watch them on Netflix I don't need to pay CBS.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

As the linked press release says, "excluding the US and Canada".

EDIT: My apologies, I see you're referring to old Trek as well.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

If all you want to watch is old stuff, I think the release says Netflix is all you need. There does seem to be some confusion what the release ultimately says.

If you want the new show, you'll for sure need CBS All Access. I'll sign up for it when the new show comes out and cancel when it's done.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Sheesh. Perhaps I'm parsing it incorrectly or it's written poorly, but here it is:


> [Netflix] obtained the international rights to the *new Star Trek* in 188 countries *(excluding the US and Canada)*, a deal that'll see new episodes premiering on Netflix less than 24 hours after they make their domestic debut on CBS All Access, the network's own paid streaming platform. Netflix *has also secured the rights to all 727 episodes of Star Trek already made*, including episodes from the original series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise. Those shows will be *available for streaming around the world* on Netflix by the end of 2016.


The first two bolded parts state the New Trek will be streamed by Netflix outside the US.

The second two bolded parts state they'll stream all previous Trek worldwide.

Those two things are worded differently. The article doesn't say that Netflix will stream all old and new Trek outside the US. It specifically separates them. So either it's worded poorly or all old Trek will be streamed by Netflix in the US.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The press release is not a binding contract. The licensing agreement will determine whether Netflix is rebroadcast rights, and for what, regardless of how inexpertly the press release is worded.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Hopefully, the best magicians will be willing to explain their tricks....


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I logged into Netflix to look. They already have all the Star Trek TV series available. They don't have all the movies. 

One can only assume that the reason for the odd wording of the Press Release is that they don't have the rights to show all those shows in all the countries currently. But they definitely have them for the US.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Ereth said:


> I logged into Netflix to look. They already have all the Star Trek TV series available. They don't have all the movies.


Right, I was going to say I don't know why we're talking about the already-aired series as Netflix already has them all (unless I dreamed my rewatch of all seasons of Voyager and half of DS9). Maybe they're not currently available everywhere but they're definitely available in the U.S.

Or is the suggestion that they're going to disappear off Netflix in the U.S. before Jan 2017?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Apologies if this has been posted, I've read back and not seen anything...

While all this Netflix talk is going on, it seems a TV network will be airing every episode of all five Star Trek series, starting this Sunday.

Heroes and Icons http://www.heroesandiconstv.com/allstartrek/ will show one episode each day of each series, starting Sunday 7/24, with all five pilots (S1E1).

Amazingly, we get H&I here in Houston, as a sub-channel of KPRC, the local NBC affiliate. It's broadcast as 2-3, KPRCDT3.. No idea where else gets it.

I've set my Roamio to record them all. Not sure how much space it will take, will have to keep an eye on it and see if I have room for all eps.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

astrohip said:


> .. No idea where else gets it.
> ...


we get it over the air here in NYC

love that channel

NYPD Blue 
Combat! 
Have Gun  Will Travel 
Wanted: Dead or Alive

so many other good series on there


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

It's on WDJT-DT3 (58.3) here in Milwaukee. 

Oddly, the TiVo shows the channel icon as AHC, which is a totally different network (American Heroes Channel).

Fortunately, I have Netflix, so I'll just watch the episodes there commercial free (and the pilot episodes are in their original 2 hour format, not split into two 1 hour episodes).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

astrohip said:


> While all this Netflix talk is going on, it seems a TV network will be airing every episode of all five Star Trek series, starting this Sunday.


You do realize it's almost certain that these episodes will be VERY VERY heavily edited, so you won't be getting the entire episodes.

At one point, Sci Fi _did_ show the ST:TOS unedited, but they were IIRC in 90 minute time slots, and had added commercial breaks in the middle of scenes. (I still _videotaped_ most of them.. The oxide has probably fallen off the videotapes by now... Even though I rarely re-watch things and have thus gotten over buying tons and tons of movies & TV shows, I _would_ buy every Trek show on DVD or BluRay _if_ it were at the common de-facto $20/season or less, not the $80-ish it often is.. ok, I slightly take it back, the Blu-ray set for TOS is $79.99 on Amazon.. Still more than many series.)


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

mattack said:


> You do realize it's almost certain that these episodes will be VERY VERY heavily edited, so you won't be getting the entire episodes.


It appears TOS will be uncut. Since they are specifically promoting that, I'll assume the others are not.


> Beginning July 24, 2016,​ on ​H&I, Star Trek fans will have a chance to experience the enhanced version of Star Trek: The Original Series, uncut and with limited commercials and scenes from the 1960s that have not been seen on broadcast television in years.


http://www.cinemablend.com/televisi...l-air-uncut-on-tv-for-the-first-time-in-years


> We've learned that the Heroes & Icons Television Network will soon embark on a grand undertaking that will surely drive any self-respecting Trekkie wild. Beginning on July 24, H&I will air uncut episodes of Star Trek: The Original Series with limited commercial interruptions, followed by each and every subsequent Star Trek series to date for six days a week. While the original series' episodes have aired in syndication numerous times over the past 50 years, this event will set itself apart from previous re-runs because it will feature an insane amount of deleted scenes that have remained dormant in the world of TV purgatory.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

ok then I take it back.. impressive.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

There is one drawback though.
In Los Angeles, it looks like it will be broadcast OTA on Channel 13.4.
Which is a 480i subchannel.

Looking at the Heroes and Icons channel listing page, I'm guessing that most of the Country will get in in SD although U-Verse is listing HD.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

mattack said:


> ok then I take it back.. impressive.


But only ST:TOS.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

The new ship is kick-ass! I see influences from John Eaves, Doug Drexler, and especially Ralph McQuarrie.

None of them are saying much (likely under NDA) but if that's the caliber of the design team they are putting together, this bodes well.

Now, if they can line up some equally impressive writers...


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

You look at most other Starfleet ships, and they follow a similar design language. There are obviously differences depending on what generation they're from, but even then, there are clear similarities within a particular generation of ships. This doesn't feel like a Starfleet ship at all. Perhaps there's an story explanation for it, but right now, I'm not a fan. 

Beyond that, I'm surprised they released this with such a low quality render. It reminds me of a cutscene from a video game.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

It's a large-headed Klingon bird of prey. They even had musical cues on the underneath planform view with the metal clanging. 

--Carlos V.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I agree it looks a little low budget, but honestly it looks good enough to me. 

As long as the stories are good enough.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Unbeliever said:


> It's a large-headed Klingon bird of prey. They even had musical cues on the underneath planform view with the metal clanging.
> 
> --Carlos V.


That was my first thought.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

TheSlyBear said:


>


No, no, no, no, no.

This is essentially the Ralph McQuarrie designs for the Enterprise refit circa 1978.

I didn't like them then and I don't like them now.

(Sigh)

http://www.google.com/search?q=ralp...2&ved=0ahUKEwjshNydyovOAhWELmMKHV_SCmkQsAQIGw


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Space hubcap


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

what year is this supposed to be set in ?

if this is Pre-Kirk then I'm OK with it 
I'll just think of it as an early design where they don't have all the kinks worked out and they haven't learned efficient warp ship design 

forget Scott Bakula's Enterprise 
as far as I'm concerned it never existed


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JYoung said:


> No, no, no, no, no. This is essentially the Ralph McQuarrie designs for the Enterprise refit circa 1978.


Apparently it was a design McQuarrie did then, but not for the Enterprise, specifically. So the ship fits as well with canon as a different model ship should.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

jamesl said:


> what year is this supposed to be set in ?
> 
> if this is Pre-Kirk then I'm OK with it
> 
> ...


From my understanding it's kind of an alternate version of Star Trek so it's not set in either TOS or the new series timeline.

Also Enterprise's last season was actually good. Unfortunately the first three seasons were dreck.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

morac said:


> From my understanding it's kind of an alternate version of Star Trek so it's not set in either TOS or the new series timeline.


No, they've now confirmed this takes place in what they now refer to as the "Prime" universe, which refers to to the non-Abrams Star Trek universe.

*When* it occurs in the Prime universe has yet to be revealed.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

Guess I'm in the minority in liking the new design. I think it's great that some of the unused concept designs of the past have finally been used, and that the design of the JJ-prise had no influence.

Rumor has it -- and it's complete rumor as far as I know -- that the timeline is post-Archer, pre-Kirk. The design speaks to that. But I guess we'll need to wait for official word to know for sure.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

bicker said:


> Apparently it was a design McQuarrie did then, but not for the Enterprise, specifically. So the ship fits as well with canon as a different model ship should.


Incorrect.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5721854/ralph-mcquarries-lost-concept-art-for-a-star-trek-movie-in-1976-1977/



> Around the same time Ralph McQuarrie's concept art was helping make Star Wars a reality, he was designing a new Enterprise for a Star Trek movie that didn't get off the ground. Check out his radically different, Imperial Destroyer-esque starship.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> Apparently it was a design McQuarrie did then, but not for the Enterprise, specifically. So the ship fits as well with canon as a different model ship should.


Actually, it WAS for the Enterprise.

Paramount, years before UPN launched, planned a new TV Network. A new Trek series (the first live action one since the original) was to be the linchpin of the network. It was to be called "Star Trek: Phase II", and would be Kirk and crew on an upgraded Enterprise. Nimoy said "no", so there was a young full-blooded Vulcan named Xon as Science Officer, and a new alien navigator named "Ilia". Xon wasn't to be first officer, that position being filled by a guy named Will Decker. (Any of this sound familiar?)

Initially the Enterprise was to look VERY MUCH like this new ship does.

Before long, it was decided to not go that route, and a design that was nearly identical to the TMP Enterprise was chosen.

Just before filming was to start on the pilot, Paramount suddenly put the brakes on regarding the new network (local affiliates for the new network had already been lined up!), and the pilot ended up being developed as Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Hearing it would be a movie, not a series, Nimoy was back in, and so the actor set to play Xon was made the commander of the space station Epsilon IX...the one destroyed by V'Ger.

And now the original Phase II ship design (with tweaks?) is finally being used.

Would have HATED it as a new Enterprise, but as a different ship... Still not sure.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

JYoung loves to remind me that my memory isn't as accurate as it once was, but...

The way I remember it was that Xon was actually the Lieutenant that was killed in the transporter malfunction early on in the film.

Also, some of the scripts (notably "The Child") that were written as "Phase II" scripts eventually were recycled as TNG scripts.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Also, some of the scripts (notably "The Child") that were written as "Phase II" scripts eventually were recycled as TNG scripts.


The only two TNG episodes that really were direct recycles were "The Child" and "Devil's Due." "The Child" was closer to the Phase II original script, while "Devil's Due" was heavily rewritten multiple times, to the point that it inherited only the vague framework of the original story.

(One more episode, of course, became "The Motion Picture.")


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ereth said:


> The way I remember it was that Xon was actually the Lieutenant that was killed in the transporter malfunction early on in the film.



Sorry, but it was Commander Sonak.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I'm just excited we are getting a new trek series. 

The CGI in that teaser was pretty embarrassing, even the TOS remastered stuff looks better. 

It wasn't quite B5 level in quality but it wasn't much better either. Maybe they had some intern do it in house instead of using one of the FX studios or something


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

Ereth said:


> JYoung loves to remind me that my memory isn't as accurate as it once was, but...
> 
> The way I remember it was that Xon was actually the Lieutenant that was killed in the transporter malfunction early on in the film...


That was an older Vulcan named "Commander Sonak". Kirk had a conversation with him earlier in the film, when he first appeared, emerging from a shuttle that'd landed and going up an escalator.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

JYoung said:


> Sorry, but it was Commander Sonak.


SEE?

I told you. I'm going to just have to stop remembering things at this rate. Fortunately, Dimentia runs in my family so I have a good chance for that to happen.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

If it makes you feel better, I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday but I remember these pieces of trivia.

(Wait, did I even have breakfast yesterday....)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> No, they've now confirmed this takes place in what they now refer to as the "Prime" universe, which refers to to the non-Abrams Star Trek universe.


That makes sense since they're using designs created for the "Prime" universe.



gastrof said:


> Actually, it WAS for the Enterprise.


Strange. I don't see how it is still a Constitution class vessel, but regardless, still a design created in that time frame for that universe.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Interesting choice not to use the Courage music at all. I figured maybe the trailer would close with a lower-volume playing of the opening fanfare.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

vertigo235 said:


> The CGI in that teaser was pretty embarrassing, even the TOS remastered stuff looks better.


That's what struck me the most. The design of the ship was fine IMHO, but the CGI was terrible. Looked like a fan piece more then a real trailer.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> That's what struck me the most. The design of the ship was fine IMHO, but the CGI was terrible. Looked like a fan piece more then a real trailer.


Inside scuttlebutt is that that was thrown together in less than a week from picking up the pencil. I'm sure the final product will be much more finished. (and the final design is subject to much adjusting.)


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

TheSlyBear said:


> Inside scuttlebutt is that that was thrown together in less than a week from picking up the pencil. I'm sure the final product will be much more finished. (and the final design is subject to much adjusting.)


That sounds about right, I have no doubt that this is far from the end product. It was just a little distracting that is all.


----------



## Ozzie72 (Aug 9, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> That's what struck me the most. The design of the ship was fine IMHO, but the CGI was terrible. Looked like a fan piece more then a real trailer.


Well, Steven Moffat used a fan-created opening title sequence as the official sequence for the last series of _Doctor Who_, so I suppose anything's possible. 

On-topic: nothing about the teaser struck me as particularly "low-rent", but I'll have to watch it again with a more critical eye.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

So, everyone here is going pay money $$$ to watch commercials so you can view this on the CBS app? Not me.


----------



## Ozzie72 (Aug 9, 2008)

I'll be brushing up on my magic skills.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

So the CBS all access has commercials too?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

So Abrams wasn't the first one to work on both Trek & Wars... (Referring to Ralph McQuarrie..)


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Ken Ralston is another who comes to mind.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

vertigo235 said:


> So the CBS all access has commercials too?


Yes, and it's freaking annoying!


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

vertigo235 said:


> So the CBS all access has commercials too?


Yes, while the USA will only be able to view the new Star Trek series on the stupid CBS app. The rest of the world get to watch the each episode...wait for it...drum roll.... on Netflix the day after without commercials.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Yup Magical means it is then.

Hopefully that doesn't mean a quick death for the new series though.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

vertigo235 said:


> Hopefully that doesn't mean a quick death for the new series though.


Or perhaps the quick inclusion of ...

* FedEx* 
. Space

... product placement in each episode.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I will never pay to be forced to watch commercials. I never used Hulu until they started offering the commercial free version, now I pay for it even though I only use it to watch a handful of shows. If CBS offered a commercial free option for more money I'd likely pay to watch this. As it is I will not watch this until it's on Netflix, if that ever happens.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> As it is I will not watch this until it's on Netflix, if that ever happens.


How many television series that were first exclusive to a pay service ever make it to Netflix streaming? Has there even been one?


----------



## JolDC (Dec 21, 2001)

bicker said:


> How many television series that were first exclusive to a pay service ever make it to Netflix streaming? Has there even been one?


A lot of the Showtime series are on Netflix now (Dexter, Californication, Shameless were three I checked). Most HBO series are on Amazon Prime (older seasons).


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> I will never pay to be forced to watch commercials. I never used Hulu until they started offering the commercial free version, now I pay for it even though I only use it to watch a handful of shows. If CBS offered a commercial free option for more money I'd likely pay to watch this. As it is I will not watch this until it's on Netflix, if that ever happens.


Me too, were also didn't sign up for Hulu until they offered any advertisement free option.

We have Hulu and Netflix, I've never had a need for CBS All access before and it looks like they are going to miss out on my money this time too.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I wish CBS would just merge with Hulu. Hulu is currently owned by ABC, Fox and NBC. If they added CBS to the fold they could have all 4 of the major networks in one service.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

The fact that CBS thinks they can charge the same thing as other streaming services that have shows from a lot more providers is insulting. CBS isn't even available On Demand from Xfinity like virtually every other network is. 

There are some Trek fans that will pay for CBS All Access, but I have a strong feeling most people either won't watch it, will wait for all the episodes to be released and pay for one month or simply get it through alternate means. 

I'm just hoping CBS doesn't interpret the low "ratings" as lack of interest in the show.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

A company sets the standard for ROI they expect from their investments, so a lack of enough paying customers willing to pay the price necessary to achieve that ROI is indeed "lack of interest". It's easy to "sell" stuff for free, but kind of pointless from a business standpoint. The whole revenue model for video entertainment is broken, and despite claims to the contrary, there may not be any reasonable business model for such investments as are being made today, given how that business model can be corrupted by "magic". That's why I keep going back to product placement - it is the only mechanism anyone has come up with that is immune to such corruption. And, yes, it will really suck to have it injected into period pieces and future-set programming, but I see no reason to think that we're heading down any other path.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

morac said:


> The fact that CBS thinks they can charge the same thing as other streaming services that have shows from a lot more providers is insulting. CBS isn't even available On Demand from Xfinity like virtually every other network is.
> 
> There are some Trek fans that will pay for CBS All Access, but I have a strong feeling most people either won't watch it, will wait for all the episodes to be released and pay for one month or simply get it through alternate means.


Wait, are you claiming there are NO episodes of ANY CBS show on On Demand? Guess I'll have to check when I get home, but I'm 99% positive I've watched e.g. Survivor in the past from On Demand.. actually, I'm probably 99.99% positive, since I remember doing On Demand for the HD version even when I was still recording the SD version.. (now with expanded discs, I'm now recording MOST primetime stuff as HD.. but the big drive is on the Premiere 4, so I'm missing SkipMode on some shows.. Oh the humanity!)


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that no-CBS thing. I am pretty sure I have watched CBS shows before on XOD.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

laria said:


> Yeah, I'm not so sure about that no-CBS thing. I am pretty sure I have watched CBS shows before on XOD.


It looks like they can be streamed at https://tv.xfinity.com , but when I searched through TiVo's Xfiniity on Demand app, CBS didn't show up under Networks.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I only watch via TiVo. Maybe they pulled stuff recently. I have a memory of watching at least an episode of Limitless this past season.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Never had a problem finding a missed CBS show on XOD.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Plenty of cbs on fios on demand.


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

There's some CBS on Uverse on demand too. Watched some Colbert that way last week because the convention ran over more than I padded. I hate the forced commercials.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Ok ok folks enough of the availability of CBS programing on demand discussion!


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Bryan Fuller announced today that the show is set 10 years before TOS, will have a female lead, a gay character, lots of aliens and explore an event that has been mentioned but never explored.

http://trekmovie.com/2016/08/10/bre...e-tos-will-feature-female-lead-gay-character/


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

DougF said:


> ..explore an event that has been mentioned but never explored.
> 
> ..


didn't read the article, but this is the first person that came to my mind

http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Colonel_Phillip_Green

I've always wanted to see more of this event

this episode is one of my favorites


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Interesting that the main character isn't a captain in this one.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

DancnDude said:


> Interesting that the main character isn't a captain in this one.


It's the Red Shirts!


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

TheSlyBear said:


> It's the Red Shirts!


Well, that series won't last long then.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

JustAllie said:


> Well, that series won't last long then.


No big contracts to pay up on.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

i just found out there's a star trek cruise...of course sold out for this one..sigh


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Everything we know so far about Star Trek Discovery in one handy infographic, courtesy of trekmovie.com. Spoiler-tagged for size.



Spoiler


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Ugh that last part. 12 mins of commercials, and you pay $6!


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

vertigo235 said:


> Ugh that last part. 12 mins of commercials, and you pay $6!


yeah, forget that

big fan star trek

but no way I'm paying $6 AND watching commercials


----------



## UTV2TiVo (Feb 2, 2005)

jamesl said:


> yeah, forget that
> 
> big fan star trek
> 
> but no way I'm paying $6 AND watching commercials


Same here. But I'l watch if it's on Netflix


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Me too, but I'm pretty sure this will be consumed in magical form here in my household (says a Netflix and Hulu subscriber)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

UTV2TiVo said:


> Same here. But I'l watch if it's on Netflix


Has any Netflix exclusive been made available on any competing streaming services?


----------



## Ozzie72 (Aug 9, 2008)

UTV2TiVo said:


> Same here. But I'l watch if it's on Netflix


Just to clarify, the series will not be on Netflix in the U.S. (nor in Canada).


----------



## ellinj (Feb 26, 2002)

I could see waiting till the end of the season and binging by subscribing for 1 month. Assuming its any good.


----------



## UTV2TiVo (Feb 2, 2005)

ellinj said:


> I could see waiting till the end of the season and binging by subscribing for 1 month. Assuming its any good.


Since no Netflix here in U.S., I may do it that way if I do it at all. I'm inclined not to do it at all because I don't want to justify that business model to them. 
Either free with commercials or I'll pay with no commercials. No way I'm paying for commercials.
I don't do magic means but this may push me to that.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

If there's not an ad-free version of CBS All-Access, I'll wait for the BD/DVD release. I watched GoT like that for four years until HBO Now came along. But the net is dark and full of spoilers; it took a lot of artful dodging in those four years. 

But I don't think CBS will be kind to offer ad-free viewing. I'm hoping that the CBS service crashes and burns, and there's a back-up plan to push DSC to North American Netflix.


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

Well, looks like there will be an ad-free version but it will cost you more...

http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/cbs-ad-free-all-access-1201848861/


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

CBS claims that that CBS access already has a million subscribers and that's before adding Star Trek, so they don't really have an incentive to use other services.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

caslu said:


> Well, looks like there will be an ad-free version but it will cost you more...
> 
> http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/cbs-ad-free-all-access-1201848861/


And apparently the "ad free" version will still have ads in the live stream. $4 extra for no ads seems high.


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

I'll happily pay CBS $9.99 per month for ad-free shows. Especially since my Contract with the Devil (TM) explicitly requires me to watch every episode of every future Star Trek TV series. So I might as well watch them without commercials. I may start watching some other CBS series while I'm signed up for CBS All Access. I had previously tried the $5.99 "with ads" version when my TiVo died in the lightning strike, and the unskippable ads were very annoying.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

morac said:


> And apparently the "ad free" version will still have ads in the live stream. $4 extra for no ads seems high.


Yeah but that makes sense if you are streaming your local TV station. It's the VOD stuff that matters, and sounds ad-free so that's good.

$10 a month to try out star trek doesn't seem worth it to me, I'll have to see what else they have available.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

"Live TV includes commercials and select shows have promotional interruptions."

I wonder if they will select Star Trek Discovery for "promotional interruptions".


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

They'll probably save the "promotional interruptions" for cross-selling other CBS shows. If it's less than 30secs, I'm okay with it.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Not worth it IMO.

I already pay CBS via cable subscription, why do I need to pay them twice?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I'm in for the ad-free sub for the duration of Star Trek. Then I'll cancel. If by chance iTunes carries the series concurrently next day or something like it, I'll buy it there instead.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

And they wonder why people resort to magical means.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

I don't.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

robojerk said:


> Not worth it IMO.
> 
> I already pay CBS via cable subscription, why do I need to pay them twice?


Because the show doesn't air on CBS?

I'm not saying each network is worth $10 either, BTW.. Though, repeating myself, I would GLADLY pay _MORE_ than my current cable subscription for an ad-free way to watch ALL of the same shows that I already do.. and hopefully a way to watch them sped up, like I already do with quickmode or in VLC on my iPad.... i.e. I would gladly mostly stop using tivo if I had a fully ad free version... But lately, even HBO On Demand bugs me because IT HAS ADS I have to FF through, with horrible latency On Demand speeds, before the show..


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> And they wonder why people resort to magical means.


It's getting harder to get shows via magical means. Kickass Torrents was busted and I haven't found anything to replace it yet. Usenet seems to have shows removed really quickly. I suppose if I dug around I could figure out a way but it doesn't really seem worthwhile.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

morac said:


> And apparently the "ad free" version will still have ads in the live stream. $4 extra for no ads seems high.


Based on what, though? If you're paying for a streaming *service* for just for one television program, that's probably never going to make financial sense. But that $4 extra applies to going commercial free across the entire service. Just checking my own Season Passes for the Fall and projecting out what I'll be recording on CBS in October it comes to 24 hours.



Spoiler



10/2/2016	8:00 PM	1.00	NCIS: Los Angeles
10/2/2016	10:00 PM	1.00	Elementary
10/3/2016	9:00 PM	1.00	Scorpion
10/7/2016	9:00 PM	1.00	Hawaii Five-0
10/7/2016	8:00 PM	1.00	MacGyver
10/10/2016	10:00 PM	1.00	Scorpion
10/11/2016	8:00 PM	1.00	NCIS
10/14/2016	9:00 PM	1.00	Hawaii Five-0
10/14/2016	8:00 PM	1.00	MacGyver
10/16/2016	8:00 PM	1.00	NCIS: Los Angeles
10/16/2016	10:00 PM	1.00	Elementary
10/17/2016	10:00 PM	1.00	Scorpion
10/18/2016	8:00 PM	1.00	NCIS
10/21/2016	8:00 PM	1.00	MacGyver
10/21/2016	9:00 PM	1.00	Hawaii Five-0
10/23/2016	10:00 PM	1.00	Elementary
10/23/2016	8:30 PM	1.00	NCIS: Los Angeles
10/24/2016	10:00 PM	1.00	Scorpion
10/25/2016	8:00 PM	1.00	NCIS
10/27/2016	10:00 PM	1.00	Pure Genius
10/28/2016	8:00 PM	1.00	MacGyver
10/28/2016	9:00 PM	1.00	Hawaii Five-0
10/30/2016	8:00 PM	1.00	NCIS: Los Angeles
10/30/2016	10:00 PM	1.00	Elementary


So it's an extra 17¢ per hour to excise the commercials. That sounds like a bargain, actually.



robojerk said:


> I already pay CBS via cable subscription, why do I need to pay them twice?


Because they want you to watch CBS through this new distribution channel.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bicker said:


> Based on what, though?


Based on other streaming services. CBS is charging for one channel what other services charge for combined channels like Hulu or other services that contain a variety of different programming like Netflix and Amazon. The only equivalent for a single channel is HBO Now and I don't believe CBS is up to HBO's standards that they should expect to charge the same cost.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

I would probably pay $10-20 to watch the entire season. I won't pay $10/mo to watch CBS.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

morac said:


> The only equivalent for a single channel is HBO Now and I don't believe CBS is up to HBO's standards that they should expect to charge the same cost.


As far as CBS is concerned, they are up to HBO's standards, especially in light of what I outlined: I'd be hard-pressed to find 24 hours of programming on HBO, month after month, that I want to watch.

Cable is still a better deal, but that's not what is of-issue.


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

bicker said:


> Based on what, though? If you're paying for a streaming *service* for just for one television program, that's probably never going to make financial sense. But that $4 extra applies to going commercial free across the entire service. Just checking my own Season Passes for the Fall and projecting out what I'll be recording on CBS in October it comes to 24 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, it's similar for me -- it seems that a lot of the TV shows I tend to watch are on CBS. So the subscription makes sense, especially after you add the new Star Trek series. And a new MacGyver! How did I miss that announcement?? Gotta give that one a try.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

JustAllie said:


> ... And a new MacGyver! How did I miss that announcement?? Gotta give that one a try.


you didn't see the previews for that ?
it's been out for 3 months

it looks AWFUL


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

I think almost all CBS shows are awful.


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I think almost all CBS shows are awful.


Yeah, but you loved Star Trek V, so apparently we are "preference opposites" or something. 

I have not been watching much regular TV this summer, so I haven't seen previews of pretty much anything. Mostly I have been watching stuff on Netflix or Amazon Prime.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

JustAllie said:


> Yeah, but you loved Star Trek V, so apparently we are "preference opposites" or something.


It's more likely that he's a Mirror Universe version. That's the only place ST V can be considered good.


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> It's more likely that he's a Mirror Universe version. That's the only place ST V can be considered good.


I think Indy would look great with a goatee!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> It's getting harder to get shows via magical means. Kickass Torrents was busted and I haven't found anything to replace it yet. Usenet seems to have shows removed really quickly. I suppose if I dug around I could figure out a way but it doesn't really seem worthwhile.


Isn't pirate bay still in business?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

bicker said:


> Based on what, though?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is it sure that all normal CBS content will be available ad-free on that service?

Somehow I thought I heard the CBS online was a separate service that wouldn't necessarily have all the main CBS programming.

Anyway, I really watch hardly any CBS. That procedural stuff I generally find boring unless it's very well done. The only show in the list above I watch is Elementary and even that's a "when I get around to it" kind of show.

I've said before: I've watched every minute of every ST series but I won't be watching this if it's only available with ads. If they offer an ad-free version and the show gets good reviews I might get it, depending on price etc.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Royster said:


> I would probably pay $10-20 to watch the entire season. I won't pay $10/mo to watch CBS.


So then wait until the season is over, and pay for one month of the service, and binge..


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

madscientist said:


> Anyway, I really watch hardly any CBS.


I don't like ballet, but that is irrelevant to how much they charge folks who do like ballet to attend ballet performances.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

bicker said:


> I don't like ballet, but that is irrelevant to how much they charge folks who do like ballet to attend ballet performances.


that's a stupid analogy

he likes Star Trek, but doesn't like most shows on CBS 
therefore its not worth paying for CBS just to watch Start Trek and be subjected to ads

do you think people who do like ballet would find it objectionable if the only way they could watch it was to pay for NASCAR network and watch commercials for NASCAR races in the middle of the ballet performances ?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jamesl said:


> that's a stupid analogy


Because it discredits his argument, which you happen to like. Zzzzzzzzz.

The price is the price. Either it is worth it or not. It doesn't matter what else it may include. All that matters is whether you get what you want, and whether it is worth that amount of money. And if it is not worth it, then you simply don't value what you want high enough to obtain it. No harm, no foul. This isn't rocket science. Trying to demonize companies for maximizing profit in a capitalist economy is inane.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

bicker said:


> Because it discredits his argument, which you happen to like. Zzzzzzzzz.


 Clearly it doesn't. If we actually replace "ballet" with "Star Trek" then your restatement of my position goes, "I don't like Star Trek, but that is irrelevant to how much they charge folks who do like Star Trek to watch Star Trek".

That's not at all analogous to what I actually wrote, which is that I do like Star Trek and have watched all previous iterations of it, but I won't watch via any medium that won't allow me to avoid ads. In addition, if they do provide a price-point where avoiding ads is an option, then I will consider it only if the product is sufficiently good--and my response to your statement that the cost of Star Trek is not that high for you because you watch a lot of CBS and can amortize it over many hours was that I watch hardly any CBS: only Elementary, which I already get and, via TiVo, don't have to watch ads for... so any cost for an ad-free CBS online service would have to be wholly justified by Star Trek and Star Trek alone.



bicker said:


> The price is the price. Either it is worth it or not. It doesn't matter what else it may include. All that matters is whether you get what you want, and whether it is worth that amount of money. And if it is not worth it, then you simply don't value what you want high enough to obtain it. No harm, no foul. This isn't rocket science. Trying to demonize companies for maximizing profit in a capitalist economy is inane.


No one is demonizing anyone. By making it exclusive CBS is clearly attempting to use the putative popularity of a Star Trek series to convince people to sign up for their online service. I'm just saying that, as a person directly in the center of what I assume is their target demographic, they're not succeeding with me. You're absolutely right that I don't value Star Trek, or any show (I don't even watch sports live), highly enough to waste my time watching ads. That was kind of the entire point of my post and I thought I had made that clear. Sorry if there was confusion...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

madscientist said:


> Clearly it doesn't. If we actually replace "ballet" with "Star Trek" then your restatement of my position goes, "I don't like Star Trek, but that is irrelevant to how much they charge folks who do like Star Trek to watch Star Trek". That's not at all analogous to what I actually wrote, which is that I do like Star Trek ...


It _is _analogous to what you wrote... it seems that you don't see that because you overestimate how much you like Star Trek in comparison to the audience that the company is targeting. There's no way to know whether you're right or they're right until they try it. And they've been making those judgments quite successfully for decades.



madscientist said:


> and my response to your statement that the cost of Star Trek is not that high for you because you watch a lot of CBS and can amortize it over many hours was that I watch hardly any CBS


I made it clear 300 messages ago that I'm irrelevant: I have cable. I'm not going to pay extra for one series, and Star Trek would be the only CBS series that I would watch on CBS All Access, watching all the rest the "normal" way.

However, *I* recognize that I'm not the target audience - cord-cutters are.



madscientist said:


> No one is demonizing anyone. By making it exclusive CBS is clearly attempting to use the putative popularity of a Star Trek series to convince people to sign up for their online service.


Precisely. We're agreeing disagreeably. 



madscientist said:


> I'm just saying that, as a person directly in the center of what I assume is their target demographic, they're not succeeding with me.


But you're not "in the center of ... their target demographic" for CBS All Access, for the same reason I'm not.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

bicker said:


> It _is _analogous to what you wrote... it seems that you don't see that because you overestimate how much you like Star Trek in comparison to the audience that the company is targeting. There's no way to know whether you're right or they're right until they try it. And they've been making those judgments quite successfully for decades.


 If we can't agree that "I don't like ballet" is not analogous to "I love Star Trek" then I don't think there's much more to say about that.

I also disagree with your last sentence here: CBS has never had an online pay service before. This is completely new to them. In the past they've effectively been packaging us (eyeballs) to sell to their customers (companies who buy ad time). We have not been their customers. I suspect that direct marketing to individual uses for pay services is something that the Big Four is _not_ good at and _don't_ have experience with.

I do agree, though, that there's no way to know who's right, until next year at the earliest.



bicker said:


> But you're not "in the center of ... their target demographic" for CBS All Access, for the same reason I'm not.


 I don't see this. How does restricting ST to All Access target the cord-cutter demographic? In fact, why should any of the Big Four worry much about cord-cutters? Cord-cutters still have access OTA, and their revenue stream isn't related to the number of people signed up for cable: it's based on ad dollars which includes OTA watchers. Cord-cutters are an issue for cable channels not for the Big Four.

I believe that this is a play for the market that Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. have cornered so far: online original video. Their target demographic is anyone who is willing to pay for exclusive content, and they're trying to get a slice of that pie. People who don't have CBS and want it can already get it, and whether or not ST is available on CBS doesn't matter to them so there's no point in restricting it to All Access only. CBS is using ST to lure people who already have CBS via cable or OTA to sign up for a new pay service. IMO it doesn't have anything to do with cord-cutters.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

There is an article that I saw today that says they might have enough recordings of Majel Barretts voice to allow them to make a phenome database that would allow her to still be the voice of the computer for Star Trek: Discovery.

She could also wind up being used as a virtual assistant, similar to Siri or Cortana. I would pay for that!

http://www.cnet.com/news/star-treks...1e4&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

That's pretty cool


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Ereth said:


> There is an article that I saw today that says they might have enough recordings of Majel Barretts voice to allow them to make a phenome database that would allow her to still be the voice of the computer for Star Trek: Discovery. She could also wind up being used as a virtual assistant, similar to Siri or Cortana. I would pay for that! http://www.cnet.com/news/star-treks-lcars-could-become-your-virtual-assistant/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=57ce73fe04d3013ffbbe61e4&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook


I like it since it is kind of emulating itself.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I don't care much about the personal assistant thing, but that sure would make it feel like Star Trek if they are able to digitize her voice for the Discovery computer.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Every time I talk to Siri or Alexa I think "it's too bad that's not Majel Barretts voice". Being a long time Star Trek fan, if you talk to a computer, that talks back to you, it should sound like Majel Barrett. That's just how computers sound in my head.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Every time I talk to Siri or Alexa I think "it's too bad that's not Majel Barretts voice". Being a long time Star Trek fan, if you talk to a computer, that talks back to you, it should sound like Majel Barrett. That's just how computers sound in my head.


Or HAL.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

Ereth said:


> There is an article that I saw today that says they might have enough recordings of Majel Barretts voice to allow them to make a phenome database that would allow her to still be the voice of the computer for Star Trek: Discovery.


Make this so!


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Every time I talk to Siri or Alexa I think "it's too bad that's not Majel Barretts voice". Being a long time Star Trek fan, if you talk to a computer, that talks back to you, it should sound like Majel Barrett. That's just how computers sound in my head.





TonyD79 said:


> Or HAL.


Hmmm, helpful or homicidal computer. Tough choice!


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

TheSlyBear said:


> Hmmm, helpful or homicidal computer. Tough choice!


Did you not see The Practical Joker?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

TheSlyBear said:


> Make this so!


I wish your name was Dave right now.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Not EXACTLY on topic, but there's a recently launched official Star Trek podcast..
Engage: The Official Star Trek Podcast
which has had a 19 episodes so far (err, 20, they started at 0), and will definitely cover the TV show as it comes nearer..


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

mattack said:


> Not EXACTLY on topic, but there's a recently launched official Star Trek podcast..
> Engage: The Official Star Trek Podcast
> which has had a 19 episodes so far (err, 20, they started at 0), and will definitely cover the TV show as it comes nearer..


Thanks! Definitely gonna check this one out.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> Or HAL.


I always wanted a Gertie voice from Moon. (Kevin Spacey)

The Star Trek Continues fan films have been using Marina Sirtis for the computer voice. Didn't even notice it until I saw her name in the credits.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

madscientist said:


> If we can't agree that "I don't like ballet" is not analogous to "I love Star Trek" then I don't think there's much more to say about that.


Yet you did say more about it. That's probably because you realize that I was saying that you clearly don't love Star Trek as much as the target audience, which is, after all, what I actually said. And that's the hidden lesson in this back-and-forth: Be sure to read and understand what you're replying to, so you don't post something that isn't a response to the message you think you're replying to.



madscientist said:


> I also disagree with your last sentence here: CBS has never had an online pay service before.


They have one now.



madscientist said:


> I do agree, though, that there's no way to know who's right, until next year at the earliest.


And probably not until 2018, actually. This is part of a five year plan, reaching to 2020. If they would give up because of early resistance to change then they might as well not even bother trying.



madscientist said:


> I don't see this. How does restricting ST to All Access target the cord-cutter demographic?


Because it isn't available to the non-cord-cutter demographic. 1+1=2



madscientist said:


> In fact, why should any of the Big Four worry much about cord-cutters?


Because they're intelligent and forward-looking leaders in the industry.



madscientist said:


> Cord-cutters still have access OTA


Not all of them. Beyond that, CBS All Access is part of a combined business plan that also considers Showtime Now.



madscientist said:


> Their target demographic is anyone who is willing to pay for exclusive content, and they're trying to get a slice of that pie.


That's your guess, yet you yourself have provided yourself the explanation about why your guess is unlikely to be correct.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Every time I talk to Siri or Alexa I think "it's too bad that's not Majel Barretts voice". Being a long time Star Trek fan, if you talk to a computer, that talks back to you, it should sound like Majel Barrett. That's just how computers sound in my head.


The first time I ever used GPS, I thought it would be awesome if it were her voice giving directions.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I would LOVE to have the Hal voice for my GPS! Man, would THAT freak out my passengers!


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

William Daniels is still alive. If I could get GPS with his voice, I'd change my name to Michael.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

DougF said:


> William Daniels is still alive. If I could get GPS with his voice, I'd change my name to Michael.


https://amzn.com/B001DESTGO


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Very cool, but $350?


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Doesn't look like it is made anymore, it's now a "collectible"


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I would LOVE to have the Hal voice for my GPS! Man, would THAT freak out my passengers!


(Rob makes a wrong turn)
"What do you think you're doing, Rob?"


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

"Are you sure you want to do that, Rob?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> "Are you sure you want to do that, Rob?


"Open the car door, Rob."

"But we are going 75 MPH!"

"Open the car door, Rob."


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Did you not see The Practical Joker?


:up::up::up:


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

DougF said:


> William Daniels is still alive. If I could get GPS with his voice, I'd change my name to Michael.


For a limited time around the release of the new Star Wars film, Waze added C3P0 as a voice to their app. I tried it once. It was kind of neat. It's no longer available though.

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/11/23/star-wars-waze-c3po-voice


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Peter000 said:


> I'm in for the ad-free sub for the duration of Star Trek. Then I'll cancel. If by chance iTunes carries the series concurrently next day or something like it, I'll buy it there instead.


Will they only have the last X episodes? Or will ypu be able to pay for one month at the end of the season and binge watch them all?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> "Are you sure you want to do that, Rob?


(Rob is stuck in LA traffic.)
"Look Rob, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over. "


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Will they only have the last X episodes? Or will ypu be able to pay for one month at the end of the season and binge watch them all?


CBS Access has every episode of all their other shows so I assume Star Trek won't be any different.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

vertigo235 said:


> Doesn't look like it is made anymore, it's now a "collectible"


It isn't made amymore. I actually bought one way back when they were released.

It's pretty neat - but it's really just a reskinned Windows CE based GPS unit in the end. You're really buying it more for the voice.


----------



## Generic (Dec 27, 2005)

Brace for Impact  CBS Delays Star Trek: Discovery


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

"Brace for Impact"? somebody thinks we're on pins and needles waiting for this show. 

I didn't know there's a non-compete clause between CBS and Paramount. New TV shows can't debut within six months of a Trek film open. The Jan 2017 debut date was simply the earliest CBS could debut DSC.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Let's see. I've seen every TOS ep dozens of times. Watched every ep of TNG, many several times. I stopped watching DS9 after about 2 seasons. Watched only a handful of Voyager eps during its first season. Saw just the first 2 eps of Enterprise. Yeah, I can barely contain my excitement about a new Star Trek tv series.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I was one of the few who actually liked Enterprise. It wasn't great, but it was enjoyable. I also like all the new movies.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I was one of the few who actually liked Enterprise. It wasn't great, but it was enjoyable. I also like all the new movies.


This!


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I was one of the few who actually liked Enterprise. It wasn't great, but it was enjoyable. I also like all the new movies.


I thought season 4 of Enterprise was great, especially the mirror universe episode. Unfortunately by the that time the ratings were so low, the show was doomed.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I was one of the few who actually liked Enterprise. It wasn't great, but it was enjoyable. I also like all the new movies.


Plus one.

Scott


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> I was one of the few who actually liked Enterprise. It wasn't great, but it was enjoyable. I also like all the new movies.





HerronScott said:


> Plus one.
> 
> Scott


Plus two!!

Gerry


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Dan203 said:


> I was one of the few who actually liked Enterprise. It wasn't great, but it was enjoyable. I also like all the new movies.


I thought the 2009 Star Trek reboot was awesome. I must admit, I was more than a little skeptical. But they pulled off. Captured the chemistry of the characters, and the essence of what makes good Trek.

The latest two installments, however, are total garbage. Into Darkness was a cheap ripoff of the Khan storyline, piled on top of so many clueless errors, that I had a face-palm headache by the time it was over.

I'm beyond words to describe all that was wrong with Beyond. I laughed when they destroyed the Enterprise. It's been done. Repeatedly. And so much better. Who was in charge of s/fx anyway? She looked like a tiny little toy. She is supposed to be huge, with a graceful magnificence. Those problems aside, the story was reminiscent of the TOS freak-of-the-week drivel that season 3 devolved into, sealing it's fate on the trash heap of history's broken dreams. "Spock's Brain" was better than Star Trek Beyond. Yeah, it was that bad. Star Trek Beyond now tops the list of worst Star Trek movies ever. A list that was heretofore dominated by The Final Frontier, with Nemesis running a close second, followed by Insurrection.

Ok, so maybe I wasn't beyond words. Lol


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

What about _The Voyage Home_?


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Amnesia said:


> What about _The Voyage Home_?


I love that one. I rank it 2nd, right behind The Wrath oh Khan.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

We're talking about the same movie, right? Where the world is saved by whales? And they do the whole "fish out of water" (npi) thing in 20th Century SF? That was terrible!


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> We're talking about the same movie, right? Where the world is saved by whales? And they do the whole "fish out of water" (npi) thing in 20th Century SF?


Yup. Awesome movie. Great camaraderie from the cast. Everyone has at least a scene where they have their chance to shine. The lighter tone is a great antidote to some of the other overly dark movies in the series.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> We're talking about the same movie, right? Where the world is saved by whales? And they do the whole "fish out of water" (npi) thing in 20th Century SF? That was terrible!


The Voyage Home is generally well liked by Star Trek fans and the second highest grossing ST film before the reboot.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

JYoung said:


> The Voyage Home is generally well liked by Star Trek fans and the second highest grossing ST film before the reboot.


Wasn't that #4. People have historically considered even number movies good and odd numbers bad (Deception being the exception).


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Deception?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Deception?


Sorry I meant Nemesis.


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

I've gone back and started re-watching Star Trek: The Animated Series. 

If you've never done this, you're not a Real Star Trek Fan (TM).  

Seriously. Some of you slackers who skipped whole seasons, series, and movies... how can you sleep at night.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

JustAllie said:


> I've gone back and started re-watching Star Trek: The Animated Series.


:up::up::up:


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

JustAllie said:


> I've gone back and started re-watching Star Trek: The Animated Series.
> 
> If you've never done this, you're not a Real Star Trek Fan (TM).
> 
> Seriously. Some of you slackers who skipped whole seasons, series, and movies... how can you sleep at night.


OK, Just Allie, time to put on your red shirt now !


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I've seen all the movies, and most of TNG in syndication, but Ive never watched the original, or DS9 or Voyager.  

The original is just too old for me. It looks like a cheesy 60s show, which is exactly what it is. Some of the early movies are like this too, but they were alright.

My wife wants to subscribe to CBS All Access just for the exclusive Big Brother season, so I may end up paying for it anyway and watching this new show.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> I've seen all the movies, and most of TNG in syndication, but Ive never watched the original, or DS9 or Voyager.
> 
> The original is just too old for me. It looks like a cheesy 60s show, which is exactly what it is. Some of the early movies are like this too, but they were alright.
> 
> My wife wants to subscribe to CBS All Access just for the exclusive Big Brother season, so I may end up paying for it anyway and watching this new show.


You can watch them all on NetFlix, the original is fun to watch in it's own way, mostly for the campy dialog.


----------



## JerryLBell (May 3, 2002)

JustAllie said:


> I've gone back and started re-watching Star Trek: The Animated Series.
> 
> If you've never done this, you're not a Real Star Trek Fan (TM).
> 
> Seriously. Some of you slackers who skipped whole seasons, series, and movies... how can you sleep at night.


_Started _re-watching? And you call yourself a Real Star Trek Fan (TM)? Dude, I _owned_ that series on Laserdisc!


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

JustAllie said:


> If you've never done this, you're not a Real Star Trek Fan (TM).
> 
> Seriously. Some of you slackers who skipped whole seasons, series, and movies... how can you sleep at night.


Back in the day, real Star Trek fandom was measured by one's ability to name all 79 TOS episode titles. I could only get up to thirty because the other 49 were crap and weren't worth remembering. 

Trek lost me after DS9. I watched all of VOY and ENT out of some sense of Star Trek obligation- but they weren't memorable runs for me.


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

JerryLBell said:


> _Started _re-watching? And you call yourself a Real Star Trek Fan (TM)? Dude, I _owned_ that series on Laserdisc!


Sorry, I should have said "started _re-watching_." To tell you the truth, my conversion from "Star Trek viewer" to "hard-core Star Trek fan" started with reading the Alan Dean Foster novelizations of the Animated Series episodes. So I have to give a tip of the hat to the writers of these episodes! :up:



Saturn_V said:


> Back in the day, real Star Trek fandom was measured by one's ability to name all 79 TOS episode titles. I could only get up to thirty because the other 49 were crap and weren't worth remembering.




When I was 13, I kept a diary in which I carefully noted the Star Trek episode that was being re-run that night at 11 pm, and wrote about my reactions to that episode. I could definitely name all 79 episodes back then, and lots more trivia beyond that. At some point the amount of potential Star Trek trivia a person could know overwhelmed my brain and I gave up trying to remember most of the episode titles. Still, when I watched Galaxy Quest many years later, I felt a very close affinity to young Brandon and his friends. I remember one of my friends turning to me in the theater as we watched Galaxy Quest for the first time and saying "I know some of these people!" (Referring to the nerdy fan characters.) I just stared back at her and said "I _was_ one of these people!!!" And truth be told, my friend was worse than I was, because she helped organize Star Trek conventions back in the 1980s.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> We're talking about the same movie, right? Where the world is saved by whales? And they do the whole "fish out of water" (npi) thing in 20th Century SF? That was terrible!


Did you escape Bizarro world? I think you're pretty much alone here. ST IV is generally considered among the VERY top echelon of Star Trek movies.

(BTW, I think the VAST majority of Trek _episodes_ are better than any of the movies... But the movies definitely do the action/big scale thing better.)


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

morac said:


> Wasn't that #4. People have historically considered even number movies good and odd numbers bad (Deception being the exception).


Yes.


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

Saturn_V said:


> Back in the day, real Star Trek fandom was measured by one's ability to name all 79 TOS episode titles. I could only get up to thirty because the other 49 were crap and weren't worth remembering.


"Back in the day" for me was the mid-80s, when I entered college, discovered Usenet newsgroups, and the starship vs star destroyer war was at its prime. Lol


----------



## trevorthurby (Sep 20, 2016)

jsmeeker said:


> It's not even going to be shown on real TV?


Looks like it...


----------



## hapster85 (Sep 7, 2016)

jsmeeker said:


> It's not even going to be shown on real TV?


They're using it as a vehicle to boost subscriptions to their all access site. I think it will fail miserably. Lipstick on as pig is still a pig.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

mattack said:


> Did you escape Bizarro world? I think you're pretty much alone here. ST IV is generally considered among the VERY top echelon of Star Trek movies.


Most popular, yes. But not the top echelon by a long shot. It's less somber than the Search for Spock and scounds better than The Final Frontier. To me, IV was always the Beverly Hills Cop of ST movies. Something produced for the mass audience to like; long on laughs and short on depth.

And I hate ST IV's message. Better preserve wildlife or it'll bite us in the ass when the aliens show up.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

What's wrong with that message?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

IndyJones1023 said:


> What's wrong with that message?


We have better arguments for preserving endangered species than:










Eradicating any species could have profound consequences to the ecology that we have no ability to forsee. (see Colony Collapse Disorder) There's no understanding of those consequences in ST IV. Save those whales or some future alien probe will rain on us.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> We have better arguments for preserving endangered species than:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see it more as "well, we're too stupid to realize it's a bad idea to not preserve species, so here comes the big bad."


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Given that we continue to exterminate species, driving them to extinction at an increasing rate, it appears that "Aliens" might well be the BEST argument. All the others seem to be failing.


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

Well, it's already guaranteed to turn a profit for CBS...

CBS, Netflix and Star Trek


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

caslu said:


> Well, it's already guaranteed to turn a profit for CBS...
> 
> CBS, Netflix and Star Trek


The Netflix deal covers production costs, but there are other costs involved, primarily marketing.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

More info from here.

1. 13-episodes, more serialized
2. Premise: An incident and an event in Star Trek history thats been talked about but never been explored.
3. Point of view won't be of a Captain, more of lieutenant commander.
4. Takes place in the TV (prime) universe, not the recent movie universe.
5. Familiar characters will appear, but not until after S01. (See #9)
6. Streaming-only will allow for more graphic content, and maybe some cursing.
7. There will be a gay character.
8. Lead character will be a woman, most probably an African-American or Hispanic.
9. Takes place a decade before Kirk's 5-year mission. This will allow younger versions of those familiar characters to appear later.
10. USS Discovery designed taken from a never-aired episode.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

So what's an incident/event that's been talked about and takes place about 10 years before the original series?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

My bet (pure speculation, I have no knowledge!) is that the incident/event has to do with the origin of the Prime Directive. 

Trek has been very vague about its origin. Memory Alpha states that Archer's era had the fundamental principle down, but it didn't go into effect as a "General Order" until sometime after 2168. (when the Horizon contaminated Sigma Iotia II and spawned the gangster-cliche planet in "A Piece of the Action")

"Private Little War" suggests that the PD was a recent invention. But "First Contact" suggests that PD was borne from disastrous first contact with the Klingons. And Enterprise retconned it with "Broken Bow". So there are continuity holes in my guess. 

But there had to be a tipping point to force them to adopt it as General Order One.


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

I'd rather a new Star Trek series move further into the future instead of more prequels.

TNG is my favorite of the TV series. I would like to see a series based on the time after TNG.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Johnny Dancing said:


> I'd rather a new Star Trek series move further into the future instead of more prequels.
> 
> TNG is my favorite of the TV series. I would like to see a series based on the time after TNG.


Deep Space 9 ?

Voyager ?


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

An after Voyager series would be nice.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

We've been watching Big Brother OTT via CBS All Access the last two weeks and the quality is pretty bad. Not sure I want to watch this new Star Trek series via this service.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> We've been watching Big Brother OTT via CBS All Access the last two weeks and the quality is pretty bad. Not sure I want to watch this new Star Trek series via this service.


Interesting. I'm thinking it might be your internet connection. My BBOTT stream looks in HD just like it does on TV.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

I consider myself a big Star Trek fan, but I am not going to pay for it


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

Brian Fuller is out as showrunner...

Bryan Fuller Stepping Back From Showrunner Role on 'Star Trek: Discovery' (EXCLUSIVE)


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Not encouraging. Especially since they've presold this series to Netflix.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Sounds like they're doing the right thing to expedite production.


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

jamesl said:


> Deep Space 9 ?
> 
> Voyager ?


I don't consider Deep Space 9 Enterprise universe Star Trek and Voyager really wasn't even Star Trek. It was Gilligan's Island in space with a bad cast and horrible choice as captain.

An HD Star Trek on real network based on the Enterprise exploring strange new worlds in a future timeline, beyond TNG would be interesting. We already had plenty of prequels with the Enterprise series, then the new bad movies, and now this streaming prequel show. I want the next Picard level captain in the a future star trek Universe.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Peter000 said:


> Sounds like they're doing the right thing to expedite production.


Yeah they basically called him out for the delay and said they can't let it be delayed again.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

jamesl said:


> Deep Space 9 ?
> 
> Voyager ?


I believe he was thinking post-Nemesis.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

DancnDude said:


> Interesting. I'm thinking it might be your internet connection. My BBOTT stream looks in HD just like it does on TV.


It's HD but over compressed HD? My real CBS station looks way better. The production value of the show is also lacking compared to the real one, so that too could be contributing to my dislike of the service.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

First cast announcement.

'Star Trek: Discovery' Casts Michelle Yeoh In Captain Role


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Although she's the captain of a different ship. Too bad...I would have liked to see her as the lead.


----------



## Barnstormer (Sep 23, 2015)

I for one hope they can do a new ST series that does not follow the standard MOVIE patttern. That is destroy or severely damage the Enterprise in the first 1/2 hour so that it is not much more than a crippled shadow of itself. Then blow up a lot of stuff with little regard to any sense of what makes sense. Then a last minute heroic act by a crew member saves the day. Very boring stuff.

I would love to see a functioning Enterprise facing a nasty alien, the captain says "Let's show this arrogant bastard what the flagship of the fleet can do". And then goes on to destroy that nasty alien. I am sick of the Enterprise being blown up are severely crippled in the first 30 minutes.


----------



## rad1701 (Aug 17, 2003)

Big Trek fan - I'll be watching!


----------



## Lenonn (May 31, 2004)

Despite the name focused on one ship, I wonder if this will be about a fleet of ships (at least for season one) ala _Battlestar Galactica_. No indication the _Shenzou_ is a Federation or Starfleet vessel, either - shades of the Mayweather family and the _Horizon_ or Kasidy Yates and the _Xhosa_.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

More cast announcements.

Star Trek: Discovery Beams Up Three Cast Members


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

The lead role has been cast
Finally, 'Star Trek: Discovery' gets its main character

They also cast 3 Klingons
Qapla' - Discovery Introduces The Klingons


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

There goes the May premiere.
'Star Trek: Discovery' Delayed Again as Spock's Father Is Cast


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

was anyone on the star trek cruise last week?


----------



## Bighouse (Sep 3, 2004)

newsposter said:


> was anyone on the star trek cruise last week?


Were you? I certainly wasn't, but I follow someone on Twitter who was. He regularly posted pictures from the cruise and I have to say I was amused by the event and the passengers' outfits.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

They might as well mothball this attempt. I can't believe they don't have their siht together.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

CBS All Access... EPIC FAIL! They should have really gotten this show at least into production before launching their streaming service.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I for one don't see any need to subscribe to All Access before the ST show. Yes, I'll probably watch the _Good Wife_ spin-off, but I'm in no rush---all the episodes will be there waiting for me when ST finally comes out...


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

I'm also a Good Wife fan, but Lucca and Diane weren't enough for me to subscribe.

But Ygritte is.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Frylock said:


> CBS All Access... EPIC FAIL! They should have really gotten this show at least into production before launching their streaming service.


They launched CBS All Access in 2014.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

The archive of production still photos is kinda neat.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

As much as I'm at Star Trek fan, I'm not going to pay $6 month on top of my cable bill to watch it. And that's with commercials ($10 without)!!! And no NFL games!!!

There's a week free signup, so I plan to let all the episode be broadcast, and sign up to binge the whole season. I don't know if they are doing weekly episodes, or just release the whole season like Netflix.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

We have a captain.

"Star Trek: Discovery" Casts Jason Isaacs As Captain of the U.S.S. Discovery


----------



## UTV2TiVo (Feb 2, 2005)

I remember him as the "bad" brother in Brotherhood (Showtime series). He was really good in that.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Ah, so they _just_ cast the lead? I'm sure this show is still right on schedule ... whatever that schedule is at this point.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> Ah, so they _just_ cast the lead? I'm sure this show is still right on schedule ... whatever that schedule is at this point.


Oddly enough, I believe the captain is not the lead in this series. At least that's what they were saying.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

DancnDude said:


> Oddly enough, I believe the captain is not the lead in this series. At least that's what they were saying.


Correct--the first Star Trek where the captain is not the lead character.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

As much as they have mentioned the point, presumably the captain will not just not be the main character, but probably will only recur.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

bicker said:


> As much as they have mentioned the point, presumably the captain will not just not be the main character, but probably will only recur.


Well, that was the original idea for Martin Sheen's Pres. Bartlett character on "The West Wing" as well.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Surely the show will spend a lot of time on the bridge of Discovery, how would the captain only have a recurring role?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

vertigo235 said:


> Surely the show will spend a lot of time on the bridge of Discovery, how would the captain only have a recurring role?


Why does it have to? If it focuses on the people who actually leave the ship, we might never see the bridge! (Assuming this isn't like a typical Star Trek show, where the entire command crew routinely goes on missions... )


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

The bridge is staffed 24 hours a day. Their bridge scenes may be mostly of the secondary shifts.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Thom said:


> The bridge is staffed 24 hours a day. Their bridge scenes may be mostly of the secondary shifts.


Or they may use a briefing room as the main ship set.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

360 degree teaser.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

I hate all this 360 crap. I want to watch, I don't want to be the cameraman.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

DougF said:


> 360 degree teaser.


Well, _that_ certainly convinces me to pay a monthly subscription fee to CBS. 

The only thing of value I saw: coming in May.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

But it's not coming in May. 
'Star Trek: Discovery' Delayed Again, Casts James Frain

CGI quality looks 10 years dated.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I hate all this 360 crap. I want to watch, I don't want to be the cameraman.


And it didn't even look that good. I mean, it had a nice nostalgic feel to it as it panned over the past ships. But the bigger nostalgic feel came from SFX on a par with what I saw in video games in the 90's, the ships all looked more artificial than Babylon 5 ships... *

Do they actually have a SFX budget? Is this yet another bad sign?

*I liked B5, but I do mean that as an insult. I mean, it's been 20 years...


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Saturn_V said:


> But it's not coming in May.
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' Delayed Again, Casts James Frain


Then I want my money back.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I hate all this 360 crap. I want to watch, I don't want to be the cameraman.


I agree. That did not make me want to watch this show, at all.


----------



## ThePennyDropped (Jul 5, 2006)

Was it just me, or did the background music sound Star Wars-inspired rather than Star Trek-ish?


----------



## TiVoJedi (Mar 1, 2002)

Imagine if they surprise us all and this turns out to be some situation comedy


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

TiVoJedi said:


> Imagine if they surprise us all and this turns out to be some situation comedy


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Apparently Rainn Wilson (Dwight from The Office) has been cast as a bad guy in the series.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Mudd.. I actually think he's a good choice. (I liked his post-Office show on Fox too... I thought his character was annoying on Six Feet Under though...)


----------



## Tsiehta (Jul 22, 2002)

Interesting article updating where things stand. Title is NSFW, thus spoilerized.



Spoiler



http://io9.gizmodo.com/what-the-****-is-going-on-with-star-trek-discovery-1794639961


----------



## UTV2TiVo (Feb 2, 2005)

Not looking good


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Tsiehta said:


> Interesting article updating where things stand. Title is NSFW, thus spoilerized.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nothing new in that article whatsoever.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Honestly, CBS should call an abort at this point. Come back in two years with new cast, new creatives and an bonifide showrunner. You can always fold in the already shot episodes later. (similar to what TOS did with "The Cage / The Menagerie")

The last writer's strike wrecked both _Battlestar_ and _Lost_. The 88' strike almost killed TNG in its second season.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

Saturn_V said:


> The last writer's strike wrecked both _Battlestar_ and _Lost_.


I think the writers killed those in general.....


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Tsiehta said:


> Interesting article updating where things stand. Title is NSFW, thus spoilerized.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> Honestly, CBS should call an abort at this point. Come back in two years with new cast, new creatives and an bonifide showrunner. You can always fold in the already shot episodes later. (similar to what TOS did with "The Cage / The Menagerie")
> 
> The last writer's strike wrecked both _Battlestar_ and _Lost_. The 88' strike almost killed TNG in its second season.


How did it wreck either of those shows? Both continued on. BSG already had the episodes mapped out before the strike. Lost had a slightly abbreviated season but that's hardly "wrecked."


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> How did it wreck either of those shows? Both continued on. BSG already had the episodes mapped out before the strike. Lost had a slightly abbreviated season but that's hardly "wrecked."


Both shows started out with high-quality writing and lots of promise. And both went off the rails eventually, leaving many fans disappointed with the overall story progression, etc. I guess the assumption is that the strike precipitated some of that?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

In retrospect, BG's problems were evident from the beginning, long before the strike. And really, the same could be said about Lost...we now know that, contrary to producers' statements at the time, they did not have any real idea of where they were going from the beginning. I think it's just coincidence that we started to catch on to both shows' weaknesses around the time of the strike.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

dcheesi said:


> Both shows started out with high-quality writing and lots of promise. And both went off the rails eventually, leaving many fans disappointed with the overall story progression, etc. I guess the assumption is that the strike precipitated some of that?


The strike occurred during the second "half" of both shows' 4th season (BSG's final season, even).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Lost went six seasons...


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Lost went six seasons...


Hmm... whoops! Anyway, it was late into the show, was my point.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

dcheesi said:


> Both shows started out with high-quality writing and lots of promise. And both went off the rails eventually, leaving many fans disappointed with the overall story progression, etc. I guess the assumption is that the strike precipitated some of that?


RDM claims the Strike improved quality on Battlestar, but I don't see it. There's a huge gulf in quality between the season 4 and season 4.5. You could argue it's merely coincidental- since the strike only lasted 3 months.

But that finale.... is a long fall for show that won a Peabody in its freshman year.


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

I'll spoiler this just in case:



Spoiler



Blind Item: Which New Drama Series Is So Bad Its Network Tried to Dump It?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Can't be Star Trek...there's nothing filmed yet, so it can't be "unwatchable." Yet.


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Can't be Star Trek...there's nothing filmed yet, so it can't be "unwatchable." Yet.


Production started on February 1. I am willing to bet that they have been filming over the past 3 months...


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Trailer released today.

Star Trek: Discovery Video - First Look Trailer

Don't know if I just missed him, but I didn't see Jason Isaacs in it.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

hmm, the trailer was a little better than I was expecting, though nothing really stood out. I thought the main character wasn't going to be the captain, but this did nothing to make me think that.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Anyone else having trouble reconciling the (oh what's the term..) - technological niftyness - we see in this trailer, knowing it's set so close to Star Trek TOS? It's a little easier to swallow in the new trek timeline, even if it makes no sense, it's just a flashier timeline. And it was in some part mitigated in ST: Enterprise due to NX-01 being flashier, but clearly inferior to the constitution class enterprise, and being set so far apart time wise.

But having STiscovery so clearly niftier than the original enterprise, set so close to the timeline of the original series, in the prime timeline seem - jarring...

(Or is it just me?)


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

All I know is we're all going watch it no matter what.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I don't know. I get that it's been 12 years since the last Star Trek series was on TV, so I have to expect some aesthetics will have changed... but it just doesn't look or feel anything like Star Trek to me. 

Interestingly, Seth MacFarlane's homage to Star Trek, "The Orville," feels more like Star Trek to me than this does.

Nothing about this trailer made me excited or want to watch this show... which is fine, because I wasn't about to buy CBS All Access anyway.


----------



## UTV2TiVo (Feb 2, 2005)

I would watch this show...
If it wasn't only on CBS All Access.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

The trailer left me with nothing. Didn't excite me at all about watching the series. Still, it's Trek, and that means I'll automatically give it a chance.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

UTV2TiVo said:


> I would watch this show...
> If it wasn't only on CBS All Access.


Yeah, I'm going to watch it via magical means.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

appears it will be on the scifi channel Space up north for our Canadian friends


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I liked the transporter effect (very brief in the promo), and the costuming and make-up effects seem cinema-like.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Who plays the alien who detects death? I feel like he's an actor we know from something else.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I went ahead and signed up for the Good Wife sequel. I thought it was excellent. I'm still hanging on watching Cheers. I forgot how funny that is. I don't think there's enough there to make me hang on for Star Trek Whatever It Is, though.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Who plays the alien who detects death? I feel like he's an actor we know from something else.


I believe that's character actor extraordinaire Doug Jones.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

DougF said:


> Trailer released today.
> 
> Star Trek: Discovery Video - First Look Trailer
> 
> Don't know if I just missed him, but I didn't see Jason Isaacs in it.


Clicking that link takes me to a "VigLink Shopping" page. :neutral:



BrettStah said:


> Yeah, I'm going to watch it via magical means.


:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown: There is a perfectly legal and inexpensive way to get the content. Stealing it because you don't like the very easy and accessible way it is offered kind of sucks - and hurts people like me.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Zevida said:


> :thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown: There is a perfectly legal and inexpensive way to get the content. Stealing it because you don't like the very easy and accessible way it is offered kind of sucks - and hurts people like me.


I'm not going to subscribe to CBS All Access regardless, so no one is being hurt. $10/month for commercial free access to one or two shows is just nuts, and I really hope it fails miserably, so that they put the shows on CBS, Hulu, etc.

If it's not available via magical means I would just watch it at a friend or relative's house, or wait for it to eventually come to Netflix.

(I have divvied up different TV services with a couple of friends and relatives as it is. Before streaming was a thing we would divvy up renting movies from Blockbuster.)


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Zevida said:


> Clicking that link takes me to a "VigLink Shopping" page. :neutral:


It did for me as well, but then there was a link at the upper right to get to the originally-intended webpage.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> I'm not going to subscribe to CBS All Access regardless, so no one is being hurt. $10/month for commercial free access to one or two shows is just nuts, and I really hope it fails miserably, so that they put the shows on CBS, Hulu, etc.
> 
> If it's not available via magical means I would just watch it at a friend or relative's house, or wait for it to eventually come to Netflix.
> 
> (I have divvied up different TV services with a couple of friends and relatives as it is. Before streaming was a thing we would divvy up renting movies from Blockbuster.)


Well, yes, they are being hurt if you download it illegally. They're selling a product for a set price. If you don't like the price, you don't buy. You don't just take it.

If it fails, CBS All Access will likely just drop it and focus on cheaper programming or their existing catalog. The service started in 2014 and was around for 2 years without any original content at all except for Big Brother live feeds.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

realityboy said:


> Well, yes, they are being hurt if you download it illegally. They're selling a product for a set price. If you don't like the price, you don't buy. You don't just take it.


 I'm not subscribing to their service as that service exists now. So they aren't being hurt financially even one cent.



realityboy said:


> If it fails, CBS All Access will likely just drop it and focus on cheaper programming or their existing catalog. The service started in 2014 and was around for 2 years without any original content at all except for Big Brother live feeds.


That's fine then... If someone thinks there's enough value at $6+/month for whatever they include in it, more power to them. Personally I think it's ridiculously overpriced compared to the other services out there based on what you get.

My point though is I'm not going to be paying any money for CBS All Access under the current pricing they have, so they aren't losing out on any money.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Except you can wait until the whole season is released and then binge the whole thing in a month and end up paying only $10, then cancel. And usually there's a trial/coupon code for a free week or free month so you might even be able to get it free depending on how quickly you watch.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

DancnDude said:


> Except you can wait until the whole season is released and then binge the whole thing in a month and end up paying only $10, then cancel. And usually there's a trial/coupon code for a free week or free month so you might even be able to get it free depending on how quickly you watch.


Hoping to do that with Hulu so I can watch the Handmaid's Tale for free.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DancnDude said:


> Except you can wait until the whole season is released and then binge the whole thing in a month and end up paying only $10, then cancel.


Is it confirmed that this will be possible, though? They may not allow people to subscribe for one month and watch all episodes. If they do, then that's definitely an option that may make a lot of sense - $10 for the entire season is pretty good, assuming the show is good. Plus there's the Good Wife spin-off that could be watched within the same month, presumably. So suddenly that looks like a great deal, especially if you like both shows! 


DancnDude said:


> And usually there's a trial/coupon code for a free week or free month so you might even be able to get it free depending on how quickly you watch.


Yeah, and that is something I'll be on the lookout for, but they are still getting $0 from me under that free trial - and actually it'll cost them money by way of bandwidth costs.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

Claiming that you should still get to access the content for free just because you never intend to pay for it is absurd.

Going to watch at a friend's house (who subscribes) or waiting until it comes on free TV are totally different. 

You want to watch, you don't want to pay. If you watch, you should pay.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> Is it confirmed that this will be possible, though? They may not allow people to subscribe for one month and watch all episodes. If they do, then that's definitely an option that may make a lot of sense - $10 for the entire season is pretty good, assuming the show is good. Plus there's the Good Wife spin-off that could be watched within the same month, presumably. So suddenly that looks like a great deal, especially if you like both shows!
> Yeah, and that is something I'll be on the lookout for, but they are still getting $0 from me under that free trial - and actually it'll cost them money by way of bandwidth costs.


You could do that for Big Brother: OTT, and it appears all of The Good Fight episodes are still up there, so there's no reason to believe you won't be able to watch it all in a month and then cancel. They hope you'll subscribe and then either forget to unsubscribe or find other things you like and keep your subscription up.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Zevida said:


> Claiming that you should still get to access the content for free just because you never intend to pay for it is absurd.


I've never claimed that I should get access to the content for free. 


Zevida said:


> Going to watch at a friend's house (who subscribes) or waiting until it comes on free TV are totally different.


How is that different, exactly?

Scenario 1: I go to a neighbor's house to watch it. CBS gets $0 from me.
Scenario 2: I get it via alternative means. CBS gets $0 from me.
Scenario 3: I wait for it to come to Netflix, Hulu, or another service I'm already paying for. CBS gets $0 from me.
Scenario 4: I wait until all episodes have aired, and then sign up for the free trial. CBS gets $0 from me.



Zevida said:


> You want to watch, you don't want to pay. If you watch, you should pay.


The first episode is going to be free for everyone to watch, IIRC. Based on all of the other things we have stacked up to watch, it's very likely that if scenario 4 (DancnDude's idea) is an option, I'll watch the rest over the course of a week.

Hypothetical question... you seem fine with watching it over at someone else's house if they subscribe. Let's say CBS had some fine print in their terms of service that says such viewing is a violation of their rules. They say clearly that only people who permanently live in a home are allowed to watch it. Would you then think that it's morally wrong for a guest to watch?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DancnDude said:


> You could do that for Big Brother: OTT, and it appears all of The Good Fight episodes are still up there, so there's no reason to believe you won't be able to watch it all in a month and then cancel. They hope you'll subscribe and then either forget to unsubscribe or find other things you like and keep your subscription up.


Their free trial is only one week, not a month. But I don't expect it would be too difficult to binge watch the entire season in a week.


----------



## dwatt (Jan 11, 2007)

BrettStah said:


> Their free trial is only one week, not a month. But I don't expect it would be too difficult to binge watch the entire season in a week.


With the season expanded to 15 episodes and the addition of an after show that may be pushing it.
Star Trek: Discovery Expands To 15 Episodes And Will Feature Companion After-Show - CBS.com

How many shows can Chris Hardwick host and how much can he talk??


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

I've watched entire seasons of those Netflix Marvel shows in under a week, so I think I can do 15. Probably can do two a night during the work week, and the rest over the weekend. 

I don't watch those talk shows that follow other shows that I watch, so I don't expect to watch this one either. Anything news breaking from the post-mssql will be reported online, and available as a clip on YouTube.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

dwatt said:


> With the season expanded to 15 episodes and the addition of an after show that may be pushing it.
> Star Trek: Discovery Expands To 15 Episodes And Will Feature Companion After-Show - CBS.com


Nah--just need a good, rainy weekend.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> Their free trial is only one week, not a month. But I don't expect it would be too difficult to binge watch the entire season in a week.


Depends on the time of year, promotions, etc. The standard is a week, but since I subscribed to CBS last fall for BB:OTT, and they sometimes send me promo codes to "come back for a free month".


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> I'm not subscribing to their service as that service exists now. So they aren't being hurt financially even one cent.
> 
> That's fine then... If someone thinks there's enough value at $6+/month for whatever they include in it, more power to them. Personally I think it's ridiculously overpriced compared to the other services out there based on what you get.
> 
> My point though is I'm not going to be paying any money for CBS All Access under the current pricing they have, so they aren't losing out on any money.


They are losing out if you steal their content. They are assigning a value to the TV Show, and it is the subscription price of All Access. If you download the show without paying that, they're losing out on that subscription, while you're still getting the content.

Imagine if your employer suddenly said, we're downgrading your position to unpaid intern. You can STAY in that position or quit. But we never intend to pay you again. But one way or another we're going to get that job done but not pay for it.

Hey, they're never intending to pay you again so you're not losing out, right?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Peter000 said:


> They are losing out if you steal their content. They are assigning a value to the TV Show, and it is the subscription price of All Access. If you download the show without paying that, they're losing out on that subscription, while you're still getting the content.


But whether I download their show or not, they're getting no money from me for their service. (I'm actually leaning towards just binge watching the whole season once they've all aired, and not downloading the episodes illegally, but I'm continuing the hypothetical).


Peter000 said:


> Imagine if your employer suddenly said, we're downgrading your position to unpaid intern. You can STAY in that position or quit. But we never intend to pay you again. But one way or another we're going to get that job done but not pay for it.
> 
> Hey, they're never intending to pay you again so you're not losing out, right?


 That isn't analogous at all. My employer and I have a mutually agreed understanding about my employment and my compensation.

Let's say Congress changes copyright law and makes it against the law for more than four people to watch a copyrighted movie or TV show if the TV screen size is greater than 65". Is it now suddenly wrong in your opinion for me to invite some people over to watch a movie on my large screen TV?

People have been sharing books, music, TV shows, and music for a long time. As soon as it enters the digital realm, some folks think it's different.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

LoadStar said:


> I don't know. I get that it's been 12 years since the last Star Trek series was on TV, so I have to expect some aesthetics will have changed... but it just doesn't look or feel anything like Star Trek to me.


IMO, that's a good thing. The last thing I want is a continuation of practices that drove VOY and ENT into creating a product that only Trekkies/Trekkers liked; but no one else gave a crap about.

I'll probably suspend my Hulu subscription to watch CBS All-Access for a few of months. No big deel.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Peter000 said:


> They are losing out if you steal their content.


So, just to winnow things down to a single point - do you think there's a moral difference between watching all of the Star Trek episodes during a one week free trial once the season is over, versus downloading them via Usenet? (Yes, I'm fully aware that downloading from Usenet is a violation of copyright laws - I'm talking about moral differences, since I assume we all agree that just because a law exists doesn't automatically mean someone who violates that law is doing something morally wrong).

The *only* thing I can think of is that if someone waits and takes them up on their one week free trial to binge watch the season, they would have some analytics about how many people do that one week binge, which could potentially have some effect on their future decisions. Maybe they drop the free trial in the future? Not sure if that's likely, since all of their competitors offer free trials.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Yes, there's a big difference. By CBS giving you a free trial, CBS is deciding that it's ok for you to do this under their licensing agreement. They are betting many people won't watch all the episodes during their free trial and then quit. They are hoping some stay on. They know the hardest thing to do is to get people to sign up in the first place. Once they get you to sign up, they hope you will continue, but that's their decision.

You say you wouldn't pay for it anyways, so it isn't costing them anything. But if "magicial means" wasn't possible, and you had the option to either pay and watch or not pay, you could change your mind. Say you initially decide it isn't worth it, so you don't pay and don't watch. But later you hear good reviews, time goes by and you hear about the show again, CBS changes their price, or CBS puts out a few more shows that peak your interest. You start to get more interested in the show, and eventually reach the tipping point where you decide subscribing becomes worth it and CBS gets their money. If you had already watched, much of that benefit to them goes away.

If you just start off by saying you wouldn't subscribe anyways and download it elsewhere, you are saying the show does have some bit of value (it was worth your time to download and watch) but do not compensate those license holders for that value.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DancnDude said:


> Once they get you to sign up, they hope you will continue, but that's their decision.


Yep, I understand that is their hope, but sorority in saying assume there's no chance I don't cancel before the free trial is over.

The other points you bring up are food for thought... if they added more shows, adjusted the price, etc., then down the road I possibly could decide their service is worth the price vs. other services we pay for (we do not want to increase our current spending on such services, so it would have to beat out over of the existing ones).

But then again, I think you are fine if I stay at a friend's house and watch these same exact episodes through their paid account, and if I did that the same potential exists.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> So, just to winnow things down to a single point - do you think there's a moral difference between watching all of the Star Trek episodes during a one week free trial once the season is over, versus downloading them via Usenet? (Yes, I'm fully aware that downloading from Usenet is a violation of copyright laws - I'm talking about moral differences, since I assume we all agree that just because a law exists doesn't automatically mean someone who violates that law is doing something morally wrong).
> 
> The *only* thing I can think of is that if someone waits and takes them up on their one week free trial to binge watch the season, they would have some analytics about how many people do that one week binge, which could potentially have some effect on their future decisions. Maybe they drop the free trial in the future? Not sure if that's likely, since all of their competitors offer free trials.


No, it's not stealing if you watch it through the CBS app under their distribution terms. I'm actually not talking moral differences, just legal. I'm just saying one is stealing and one is not.

You can magic whatever you want, just don't justify it as anything else than stealing is all I'm saying.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

There's also the argument that when viewing through a free trial, you're still being counted as a viewer, and that matters. When you obtain it via magical means, you're not.

But that said, the logic of "I wouldn't have paid for it, so they weren't getting my money either way" has been debated to death in every torrent/usenet thread ever created. Somehow I don't think this thread is going to change anyone's mind on either way.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Peter000 said:


> No, it's not stealing if you watch it through the CBS app under their distribution terms. I'm actually not talking moral differences, just legal. I'm just saying one is stealing and one is not.
> 
> You can magic whatever you want, just don't justify it as anything else than stealing is all I'm saying.


It's not stealing, actually. It's copyright infringement. At least that's what people who are charged with, IIRC.

No one here is saying it's legal though. It's not legal to do all sorts of things that people commonly do - not crossing at the crosswalk, driving above the posted speed limit, not putting turn signals on for the legally required travel distance before a turn, etc.

But this isn't the best thread for this discussion/debate, as kdmorse pointed out.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

But apparently it is the best thread for rationalizing behaviors that one wouldn't admit to on a job application or a first date.

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

kdmorse said:


> There's also the argument that when viewing through a free trial, you're still being counted as a viewer, and that matters. When you obtain it via magical means, you're not.
> 
> But that said, the logic of "I wouldn't have paid for it, so they weren't getting my money either way" has been debated to death in every torrent/usenet thread ever created. Somehow I don't think this thread is going to change anyone's mind on either way.


A very interesting point. Given the intricacies of Internet and media voodoo economics, this could be a valuable matter for CBS.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> A very interesting point. Given the intricacies of Internet and media voodoo economics, this could be a valuable matter for CBS.


True, but watching at the home of a friend or neighbor is Going to have the same effect in terms of that point.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

bicker said:


> But apparently it is the best thread for rationalizing behaviors that one wouldn't admit to on a job application or a first date.


There's no need to bring masturbating into the discussion.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

BrettStah said:


> True, but watching at the home of a friend or neighbor is Going to have the same effect in terms of that point.


Well, yes, now we can get to the level of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin . . . .


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Networks really don't care if you pirate the shows. Because it gets reflected where it matters most - the ratings.

If you have a popular show no one watches but everyone pirates - they will cancel the show because of poor ratings. (And we're not taking ratings you and I see, we're talking C ratings, as in, the ratings of just the commercials only shows in the program). So nice funky programming you never catch live and download? Cancelled. Dull bottom of the barrel programming that people catch lots of - renewed.

It's a little different with a subscription service, in that there's no ads and no C ratings to deal with. But the idea is the same - if a program gets people to subscribe, then it's likely to make money and be renewed. And they have the analytics - they know how many subscribers watch a show, and how many are new subscribers watch it. They also know if subscribers are subscribing just to watch the show because they watch nothing else. Take all that data and you can figure out how many subscriptions a show sold. Someone refuses to pay and watches a pirated copy? They're viewing isn't counted and if it's a popular pirated show, but a show no one buys a subscription to watch (or no one with a subscription watches), then it'll be canned.

So it's really a self-correcting problem. Pirates think they "beat da man" but they're really just people who don't count when it's time to make programming decisions. Doesn't matter if a show is so popular a billion people pirate it, if it only brings in few new subscribers, it'll be canned with executives saying if it was popular, why didn't more people pay up for it.

Of course, in general, if a show is good, it'll also be pirated lots, but new subscribers will also join and boost the numbers and ensure its survival.

It's like voting. Pirating a TV show is like staying home on voting day - it just shows you don't care about the show. And TV execs take that into account when it comes time to renew or drop a show.


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

I just want to know if it only legally exists in the ghetto of CBS's walled garden, is it canon???

I'm only going to consider it to be better funded fanprod.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

I would pay for it, but apparently I'd also have to go run out and buy a STB to do so since it doesn't work with my TiVo.

That's my biggest issue with this model - I don't want to watch TV on my computer.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

The preview didn't do a lot for me. I will wait and see how reviews are before deciding if I want to pay to watch it.

If it was on something I currently subscribe to, I would likely watch it. But since it would require an additional service, not sure just this show would be worth it to me. I may just wait and subscribe for a month and watch it when the run is done (at least S1 that is).


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Worf said:


> Networks really don't care if you pirate the shows. Because it gets reflected where it matters most - the ratings.


Yep, they don't care if someone takes their property and their investment.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Does the one week trial include commercials? Can't tell from the website. Certainly if you subscribe for the week and the free week is only the one with commercials, that would be even more important of a factor compared to pirating.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

"Please install flash to watch this trailer."

No.

--Carlos V.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Unbeliever said:


> "Please install flash to watch this trailer."
> 
> No.
> 
> --Carlos V.


YouTube link:


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> Scenario 3: I wait for it to come to Netflix, Hulu, or another service I'm already paying for. CBS gets $0 from me.


Well that's wrong. Your subscription to those services is what Netflix or Amazon etc. uses to pay for the rights to stream those shows.

Scott


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

HerronScott said:


> Well that's wrong. Your subscription to those services is what Netflix or Amazon etc. uses to pay for the rights to stream those shows.
> 
> Scott


True. I meant CBS won't get more money. Whatever Netflix/Hulu pays them per subscriber won't be changed one way or the other.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Unbeliever said:


> "Please install flash to watch this trailer."
> 
> No.
> 
> --Carlos V.


Yeah, when I saw that I went straight to Youtube hoping it was on there, and it was.

The trailer looked fine enough. I'll probably subscribe to watch it.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

Hoffer said:


> Yeah, when I saw that I went straight to Youtube hoping it was on there, and it was.
> 
> The trailer looked fine enough. I'll probably subscribe to watch it.


That's what I did too, (though thanks L* for the effort).

--Carlos V.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

So apparently only those of us in the US are "lucky" to be required to subscribe to CBS All Access to legally watch this (or have a neighbor who won't mind you coming over to watch it). Everyone else on the planet who subscribe to Netflix will get this show.

I really think they're screwing up here (the US)... If they want to expand beyond existing Star Trek fans they should ideally air it on CBS, and Netflix is probably the next best option. Who is going to go through the hassle and expense to watch a new Trek series on a nascent subscription-based streaming service? Only Trek fans, basically.


----------



## dwatt (Jan 11, 2007)

BrettStah said:


> So apparently only those of us in the US are "lucky" to be required to subscribe to CBS All Access to legally watch this (or have a neighbor who won't mind you coming over to watch it). Everyone else on the planet who subscribe to Netflix will get this show.
> 
> I really think they're screwing up here (the US)... If they want to expand beyond existing Star Trek fans they should ideally air it on CBS, and Netflix is probably the next best option. Who is going to go through the hassle and expense to watch a new Trek series on a nascent subscription-based streaming service? Only Trek fans, basically.


Better Call Saul is the same way. It hits outside of USA Netflix shortly after airing on AMC here.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

I imagine they are putting ST/D where they reckon it will do them the most good. In the US, Netflix is close to saturation and CBSAA is struggling; so the latter is where the new customers that the show will bring in are most valuable. Outside the US, Netflix is less entrenched, so new Netflix customers would be a bigger relative payoff than new Netflix customers in the US; and outside the US, CBSAA isn't an issue.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> So apparently only those of us in the US are "lucky" to be required to subscribe to CBS All Access to legally watch this (or have a neighbor who won't mind you coming over to watch it). Everyone else on the planet who subscribe to Netflix will get this show.


This is one of the reasons I will not be watching this. If/when it is offered on Netflix here, I may watch it.


----------



## DG3 (Apr 7, 2015)

They've squeezed every drop they could from this 50+ year old franchise. This current iteration is just one more attempt to try and milk a dead cow. Even the last Trek feature film _lost_ money. Younger people couldn't care less about Trek. It's over. Stick a fork in it.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DG3 said:


> Younger people couldn't care less about Trek. It's over. Stick a fork in it.


But if they made it readily available on services people already have, and if they put out a great show that isn't simply targeted at existing fans, they could revive it. I know lots of younger people who knew nothing about Doctor Who, yet when they revived it in 2005 it became popular with them.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

DG3 said:


> They've squeezed every drop they could from this 50+ year old franchise. This current iteration is just one more attempt to try and milk a dead cow. Even the last Trek feature film _lost_ money. Younger people couldn't care less about Trek. It's over. Stick a fork in it.


Lost money? Worldwide gross was $343,471,816 and production was $185 million. I don't think that's losing money but it certainly didn't do near as well compared to the prior two.

Scott


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

HerronScott said:


> Lost money? Worldwide gross was $343,471,816 and production was $185 million. I don't think that's losing money but it certainly didn't do near as well compared to the prior two.


Movie studios are infamous for accounting tricks that can show losses from movies that appear to have done well financially.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> Movie studios are infamous for accounting tricks that can show losses from movies that appear to have done well financially.


But that doesn't mean they actually lost money.


----------



## DG3 (Apr 7, 2015)

HerronScott said:


> Lost money? Worldwide gross was $343,471,816 and production was $185 million. I don't think that's losing money.
> 
> Scott


It did lose money. Theaters get 50% of the box office. So for Star Trek to even break even, it would have had to of made $370 million dollars. And that's before all the marketing costs are figured in. So just say $400 million before profits are realized. So yes, it did lose quite a bit.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DG3 said:


> It did lose money. Theaters get 50% of the box office. So for Star Trek to even break even, it would have had to of made $370 million dollars. And that's before all the marketing costs are figured in. So just say $400 million before profits are realized. So yes, it did lose quite a bit.


Economics Of The Movie Theater - Where The Money Goes And Why It Costs Us So Much | The Movie Blog


> *Who Gets What From Your $10 Ticket?*
> Ok, so you walk up to the box office and drop down your $10 to buy your ticket. Who gets that money? A lot of people assume (as did I at one point) that the movie theater keeps 50% of it, and the rest goes off to the studios. That's not really true.
> 
> Most of the money that a theatre takes in from ticket sales goes back to the movie studio. The studio leases a movie to your local theater for a set period of time. In the first couple of weeks the film shows in the theatre, the theatre itself only gets to keep about 20% - 25% of the green.


----------



## DG3 (Apr 7, 2015)

BrettStah said:


> Economics Of The Movie Theater - Where The Money Goes And Why It Costs Us So Much | The Movie Blog


Dude, it lost money. It's not the end of the world.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DG3 said:


> Dude, it lost money. It's not the end of the world.


Did I say it did or didn't lose money? I posted a quote and link that explains how the popular belief that movie theaters keep 50% of ticket revenue is wrong.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DG3 said:


> Dude, it lost money. It's not the end of the world.


Interesting. You made an unsupported assertion. He showed evidence that the basis for your assertion was wrong. You claimed victory.


----------



## DG3 (Apr 7, 2015)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Interesting. You made an unsupported assertion. He showed evidence that the basis for your assertion was wrong. You claimed victory.


Linking a couple of generic articles nonspecific to the actual film isn't really evidence, but if it's evidence you want:

It's Official, 'Star Trek Beyond' Is A Box Office Flop


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

So now you're citing an article that suggests it at least broke even, and claiming victory.

I guess you just can't lose!


----------



## DG3 (Apr 7, 2015)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> So now you're citing an article that suggests it at least broke even, and claiming victory.
> 
> I guess you just can't lose!


Robby, breaking even is NOT making a profit. Jesus.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DG3 said:


> Robby, breaking even is NOT making a profit. Jesus.


Breaking even is also not losing money.


----------



## DG3 (Apr 7, 2015)

BrettStah said:


> Breaking even is also not losing money.


Arguing with fragile Trek nerds that don't want to hear anything negative. My Tuesday is not off to a productive start.


----------



## dwatt (Jan 11, 2007)

DG3 said:


> Arguing with fragile Trek nerds that don't want to hear anything negative. My Tuesday is not off to a productive start.


Losing said argument makes it even worse.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

DG3 said:


> Arguing with fragile Trek nerds that don't want to hear anything negative. My Tuesday is not off to a productive start.


I think we may be participating in different discussions here. I didn't really even like Star Trek Beyond. I just pointed out to you that movie theaters don't get to keep 50% of ticket revenue. Do you still think that movie theaters keep 50% of ticket revenue?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

DG3 said:


> Arguing with fragile Trek nerds that don't want to hear anything negative. My Tuesday is not off to a productive start.


So you get proven wrong, and went to attack the posters. Nice.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

DG3 said:


> Linking a couple of generic articles nonspecific to the actual film isn't really evidence, but if it's evidence you want:
> 
> It's Official, 'Star Trek Beyond' Is A Box Office Flop


They made some assumptions that turned out to be wrong...



> In fact, _Star Trek Beyond_ could be fortunate to hit $230 million worldwide by the time it's pulled, thus setting up a potential $110 million loss.


Except as mentioned, it made 340+ million worldwide.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

DG3 said:


> Linking a couple of generic articles nonspecific to the actual film isn't really evidence, but if it's evidence you want:
> 
> It's Official, 'Star Trek Beyond' Is A Box Office Flop





DG3 said:


> Arguing with fragile Trek nerds that don't want to hear anything negative. My Tuesday is not off to a productive start.


Excuse me, but: why would your originally unsupported post be entitled to more belief than others' views? (And while your subsequent single linked reference is nice to read, it is far from any conclusive analysis, and was from early on.) Are you an accountant who worked on the production of the film who has special knowledge about its profitability or not?  And casting that sad "fragile Trek nerds" dreck certainly doesn't bolster your position.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

DG3 said:


> They've squeezed every drop they could from this 50+ year old franchise. This current iteration is just one more attempt to try and milk a dead cow. Even the last Trek feature film _lost_ money. Younger people couldn't care less about Trek. It's over. Stick a fork in it.





DG3 said:


> Arguing with fragile Trek nerds that don't want to hear anything negative. My Tuesday is not off to a productive start.


Obvious Troll is Obvious.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

zordude said:


> They made some assumptions that turned out to be wrong...
> 
> Except as mentioned, it made 340+ million worldwide.


To be fair, the "common wisdom" I've heard from those in the industry is that a movie needs to gross twice it's production budget to be considered as making a profit.

According to Box office Mojo, Beyond grossed $343,471,816 worldwide while costing $185,000,000 to make.

In theory, Beyond would need to gross $370,000,000 to break even and it's about $26,528,184 short.
Now home video and streaming revenue may have made up for that shortfall but Beyond certainly wasn't as profitable as the previous two movies.

For arguments sake, let's say that Beyond broke even. That still puts it in a precarious position in terms of making future sequels.

I suspect that Paramount will take a hard look and the financials and make another movie with stricter financial controls and stipulations because they probably consider the Star Trek brand to be too valuable just to sit there and languish.

But there's no guarantee that Paramount will continue the voyages of the JJ-Prise after Beyond.
They could decide to reboot the franchise again or decline to pursue future Star Trek films.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Please take the Star Trek Beyond discussion to the Star Trek Beyond thread


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> I really think they're screwing up here (the US)...


 From a viewer's perspective perhaps. From a business perspective the most likely scenario is that they're doing the right thing and the second most likely scenario is that there's no good way to make money in the United States and so they might as well pack it in and invest their money in some other direction. Whatever you would have had them do instead is perhaps a distant third.

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

bicker said:


> From a business perspective the most likely scenario is that they're doing the right thing


So they think that enough will subscribe to their All Access service to make it a better business decision than getting advertising revenue on the broadcast network? Maybe so, I don't know the details enough to know, but if I had to guess, I'd think they'd get a much larger audience, and thus decent revenue, from the broadcast option. Plus that larger audience leads to potential spin-off opportunities, etc. But I'm definitely willing to admit to not having all of the details.


bicker said:


> the second most likely scenario is that there's no good way to make money in the United States and so they might as well pack it in and invest their money in some other direction


That doesn't really ring true to me - media companies are making tons of money in the US.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> So they think that ...


 You are bargaining as in one of the stages of grief.



BrettStah said:


> That doesn't really ring true to me - media companies are making tons of money in the US.


 Which is one reason that I suggested that the most likely scenario was that they were doing the right thing.

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

No grief... I'm going watch the show via their free trial (unless it is universally panned as horrible), but I think it has a better chance of success at CBS, Netflix, or Hulu. If it is cancelled I'll somehow manage to continue living.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> No grief...


Uh huh.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

bicker said:


> huh


Yep


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Discovery now has a release day: Sept 24, 2017 8:30pm EST

Sounds like this will premiere on CBS and the second episode will be available online immediately after the first airs.

15 episodes, with a traditional break in the middle of the season. Sept 24 - Nov 5, then the rest returning in January.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

So looking at my calendar, if a person paid for CBS all access for every episode during it's run, it would amount to about 4 months of subscribing. Commercial free $40, w/commercials $24. :expressionless:

About the cost of buying a season of any other show, but at the end you don't get to keep the episodes. :thumbsdown:


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Couldn't you just wait until the series is over, then buy the service for a month and watch all the episodes that way?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Maybe. I'm just calculating based on watching it the way God and CBS intend. Week-to-week.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Indeed, I can tell you that I will not be paying $40 to watch this, and I also will not be watching commercials either!


----------



## Generic (Dec 27, 2005)

The New 'Star Trek' Show Will Break One of Its Creator's Cardinal Rules


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

> The creator instigated a number of rules that have been followed for every single iteration of _Star Trek_ that has come since. Until this year.


Writer didn't watch DS9, or NuTrek, even.

--Carlos V.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

Unbeliever said:


> Writer didn't watch DS9, or NuTrek, even.
> 
> --Carlos V.


Yes, this was one of the things that DS9 was written to do.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Indeed, and DS9 was fantastic.


----------



## redrouteone (Jun 16, 2001)

I was talking to a friend about this the other day. DS9 is my favorite of the Star Trek series. I really like the character development, espically with the alien races.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Ya' know, I never greatly liked DS9 originally, but over time, I tend to watch it in re-runs at the top of the various series (I'd include Enterprise there as well, except that there were relatively few episodes and I've seen them and remember them all). I guess that character conflict leads to character development and interest?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

The first season or two of DS9 was pretty bad, but it got better very quickly when they shifted away from the Bajoran religious emissary stuff to the political espionage and Dominion war stuff.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

I never cared for Avery Brooks (Captain Sisko) that much. He seemed to only express two emotions: Anger and poker-faced.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Thom said:


> I never cared for Avery Brooks (Captain Sisko) that much. He seemed to only express two emotions: Anger and poker-faced.


Which is amazing since if you've seen or talked to Avery Brooks, he only really has one emotion, crazy.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

I'll take crazy any day of the week compared to Bakula or Mulgrew.

Loved him as the James Bond villain in "Our Man Bashir" Really channeled the crazy.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Jonathan Frakes will be directing the new series.

'Star Trek: Discovery' Adds Jonathan Frakes as Director


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

morac said:


> Jonathan Frakes will be directing the new series.
> 
> 'Star Trek: Discovery' Adds Jonathan Frakes as Director


That is, he will be directing *a* episode of the new series.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

an episode 



Sorry I'm not really the grammar police. Check some of my posts


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

vertigo235 said:


> an episode
> 
> Sorry I'm not really the grammar police. Check some of my posts


Yeah, I know that _normally _it should be "an," but with the emphasis added, it just didn't seem right that way and "a" just sounded better. I actually started searching to see if there is a "sound exception" and ultimately gave up, thinking that if it isn't an exception, it should be, and I've now created it.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

No such exception exists, nor shall it ever exist.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

English is an evolving language (dammit).


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

"one episode"

There, problem solved.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Mikeguy said:


> Yeah, I know that _normally _it should be "an," but with the emphasis added, it just didn't seem right that way and "a" just sounded better. I actually started searching to see if there is a "sound exception" and ultimately gave up, thinking that if it isn't an exception, it should be, and I've now created it.


What you're probably thinking of is the aspirated "H" exception to the a/an rule; it doesn't apply here.

What you wrote was just plain wrong. It made my throat clench when I read the offending line.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

ej42137 said:


> What you're probably thinking of is the aspirated "H" exception to the a/an rule; it doesn't apply here.
> 
> What you wrote was just plain wrong. It made my throat clench when I read the offending line.


No, I wasn't thinking of the aspirated "H" exception, I was thinking about how it sounded regardless. And sorry that your throat "clenched" from the "offending line"--modern politics (this is not a discussion of that, mods) and cruelty to animals does that to mine.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> English is an evolving language (dammit).


If by "evolving" you mean totally messed up, then yes, I agree!


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

eddyj said:


> If by "evolving" you mean totally messed up, then yes, I agree!


LOL, as if English isn't a confusing and "messed up" language to begin with?


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

New trailer:





This one seems like it's mostly the same as the above with another section added on the end but to me, most of the extra stuff wasn't new.









 has a look at some of the props and uniforms.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I'm sorry, but the new Klingon makeup is not an improvement over the "classic" movie and TNG/DS9/VOY era Klingons in any respect. The new makeup appliance is far too "Halloween mask" like, which prevents the actor from conveying facial reactions.

(The "Into Darkess" Klingon makeup was also bad, just in a different way.)


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

Still not signing up for CBS All access to watch it. Even if it winds up being Emmy worthy.

--Carlos V.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

I wonder how much these will be like the two recent Trek reboot movies of Trek-themed action film, except as a TV series instead of "true" Star Trek like TOS or TNG.

These trailers lead to me believe it'll closer to or almost completely Trek-themed action show...


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Unbeliever said:


> Still not signing up for CBS All access to watch it. Even if it winds up being Emmy worthy.
> 
> --Carlos V.


Just wait, the show will end up on Netflix (US) and only few million view it an CBS access.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Johncv said:


> Just wait, the show will end up on Netflix (US) and only few million view it an CBS access.


I highly doubt it. The only reason why Netflix has it elsewhere is because CBS doesn't have a global digital distribution platform, while Netflix does.


----------



## ellinj (Feb 26, 2002)

Still not digging the overly obvious CGI. Hope that gets better in the final renders. If they allow us to binge the show at the end of the run, I could see signing up for a month.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I'm already getting tired of the Star Trek mini-promos that are being run now on broadcast TV, simply showing the Star Trek insignia/badge and the Sept. date for the series, as if it's the second coming of a messiah.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> I'm already getting tired of the Star Trek mini-promos that are being run now on broadcast TV, simply showing the Star Trek insignia/badge and the Sept. date for the series, as if it's the second coming of a messiah.


Although those promos aren't aimed at you or me...they're aimed at the vast majority of people who have no clue a new Star Trek series is coming.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Although those promos aren't aimed at you or me...they're aimed at the vast majority of people who have no clue a new Star Trek series is coming.


And then it's also likely that those people haven't the foggiest what they're about.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> And then it's also likely that those people haven't the foggiest what they're about.


Well, I suspect most people will recognize the Star Trek logo, and have access to the internet. So it won't be too hard for them to find out.

This is no doubt only the first salvo in the ad campaign, which will no doubt expand as the air date grows closer. In fact, I'm a little surprised they're starting this late; this kind of initial teaser often happens many months or even a year in advance of whatever they're promoting.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, I suspect most people will recognize the Star Trek logo, and have access to the internet. So it won't be too hard for them to find out.
> 
> This is no doubt only the first salvo in the ad campaign, which will no doubt expand as the air date grows closer. In fact, I'm a little surprised they're starting this late; this kind of initial teaser often happens many months or even a year in advance of whatever they're promoting.


Well, they probably had to wait until now, as the forecast for the new show seemed to change with every new star date . . . .


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I highly doubt it. The only reason why Netflix has it elsewhere is because CBS doesn't have a global digital distribution platform, while Netflix does.


What I read is that Netflix has the rights to the show after it run on CBS access, but not for two years maybe longer. At some point it will be on Netflix in the US (Netflix had the contract for ALL the ST shows), we just have to wait for it, unlike the rest of the world.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I'll probably pony up and watch it on CBS All Access. I did for The Good Fight, and I'm glad I did. It was excellent.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Howie said:


> I'll probably pony up and watch it on CBS All Access. I did for The Good Fight, and I'm glad I did. It was excellent.


The best advice I've seen here: assuming that it can be streamed for a binge watch, wait until the entire series is available, sign up, and then binge-watch the show.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Not aimed at anyone here. I just think it's funny.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

DougF said:


> Not aimed at anyone here. I just think it's funny.


Heh... yeah, I've paid more for a T-Shirt than it'll cost to watch Discovery. :neutral:


----------



## supham (Jan 15, 2003)

I wonder if I can VPN to a Canadian location and do a free month of Netflix?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

But if only the people who already buy Star Trek memorabilia pay for the new service, it'll probably be a pretty major flop...


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

supham said:


> I wonder if I can VPN to a Canadian location and do a free month of Netflix?


I thought CBS All Access had a free trial, too.


----------



## supham (Jan 15, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> I thought CBS All Access had a free trial, too.


They have a 1 week trial. From their site:

All subscriptions will automatically renew for monthly and/or annual periods as applicable, and your credit card will be charged in advance of each billing period unless cancelled. New subscribers are eligible for a trial period prior to their first renewal. If cancelled, termination of access will be effective the billing cycle following termination. Prices are in U.S. dollars, and are subject to change. Other restrictions and taxes apply. You may cancel the promotional period or subscription at any time from your account management page or by calling 888-274-5343 Monday to Sunday 8 am to midnight EST.

So it sounds like your paying for at least one month. Not a big deal, but just something to be aware of.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

supham said:


> I wonder if I can VPN to a Canadian location and do a free month of Netflix?


It won't be shown on Netflix in Canada either. Space has the first run rights to show it in Canada.

Where Star Trek: Discovery Will Air

Star Trek: Discovery


----------



## supham (Jan 15, 2003)

osu1991 said:


> It won't be shown on Netflix in Canada either. Space has the first run rights to show it in Canada.
> 
> Where Star Trek: Discovery Will Air
> 
> Star Trek: Discovery


Thanks, good to know. I can VPN to just about anywhere. I'll probably just buy the month or two of CBS


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

FWIW, I never pay for any streaming that contains ads, so it's $9.99/mo (CBS All Access Commercial Free) not $5.99/mo.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

This might be thread-worthy but I'll just put it here for now. Nicholas Meyer had said a while back that he was working on something else Trek-related, independent of Discovery. It's now coming out that the project is a limited series taking place on Ceti Alpha V in between the events of "Space Seed" and TWOK. I'm intrigued.

BREAKING: Nicholas Meyer Working on Khan Limited TV Series


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Milldy interested. It greatly depends on who they cast to be Khan and Marla McGivers. But suspect it'll be a survival drama like TWD.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

The idea seems a little too deep in the Star Trek universe to get wide appeal. It would also point out the glaring flaws of Khan's predicament in ST2--we are to believe that Kirk dropped Khan, his cohorts, and a former Starfleet officer off on a nice but uninhabited planet, yet no one ever stopped in to check on them, nor did anyone notice that another planet in that system exploded.

It'd also just get pretty depressing--there's no good resolution to that specific story. Ultimately every single one of them dies.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

doom1701 said:


> Ultimately every single one of them dies.


Can't that be said for practically every show?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Expendable characters (outside of Red Shirts) would be new for Trek. Over the four main series, we've only had two or three principal characters die in almost thirty seasons worth of episodes.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

doom1701 said:


> It would also point out the glaring flaws of Khan's predicament in ST2--we are to believe that Kirk dropped Khan, his cohorts, and a former Starfleet officer off on a nice but uninhabited planet, yet no one ever stopped in to check on them, nor did anyone notice that another planet in that system exploded.


I thought (or assumed) that Khan and his crew were "presumed dead" by Starfleet, due to the neighboring planet's demise.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Saturn_V said:


> Expendable characters (outside of Red Shirts) would be new for Trek. Over the four main series, we've only had two or three principal characters die in almost thirty seasons worth of episodes.


I can only think of the blonde security officer from the next generation 
who else ?


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Tasha Yar: TNG (first season)
Jadzia Dax: DS9 (sixth season)
Kes: Voyager (not killed but written off third season)
"Trip" Tucker: Enterprise (killed off in the series finale)


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Johncv said:


> What I read is that Netflix has the rights to the show after it run on CBS access, but not for two years maybe longer. At some point it will be on Netflix in the US (Netflix had the contract for ALL the ST shows), we just have to wait for it, unlike the rest of the world.


Oh I can wait 2 years, no problem! /Unsubscribe see you in 2!


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

I don't mind the monthly fee, I mind that it doesn't work on my TiVo.


----------



## TiVoJedi (Mar 1, 2002)

It's all about the money - Les Moonves Assures CBS Investors First Six Episodes Of 'Star Trek: Discovery' Are "Terrific"


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

It is supposed to be all about the money.

Incidentally, note that it now appears that Disney may go down the same road, introducing a streaming service in 2019 that may have its own original programming.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Disney to end Netflix deal and launch its own streaming service

<grumble>
just as I was starting to enjoy watching Disney/Marvel/Star Wars via Netflix on a regular basis...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

bicker said:


> It is supposed to be all about the money.
> 
> Incidentally, note that it now appears that Disney may go down the same road, introducing a streaming service in 2019 that may have its own original programming.


Sure glad a la carte is going to save us all so much money.


----------



## thewebgal (Aug 10, 2007)

It'll be interesting to see where all these 'standalone" Streaming services are 2 years from now ...


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Not sure if it has been mentioned in this thread, but since we're talking about the Disney service, Warner Bros. also announced a streaming service. It'll have the new season of the animated Young Justice as well as a live action Teen Titans.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Sure glad a la carte is going to save us all so much money.


I hate to say, "I tol' y' so," but I have always maintained that OTT was going to eventually be something viewers are going to regret having clamored for.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

thewebgal said:


> It'll be interesting to see where all these 'standalone" Streaming services are 2 years from now ...


HBO Now only has two million subscribers- two years after it's debut. And most would rather get HBO via third parties like Amazon Channels, SlingTV or Hulu. Everyone wants Netflix-like success, but even Netflix didn't get 50M subscribers overnight.



bicker said:


> I hate to say, "I tol' y' so," but I have always maintained that OTT was going to eventually be something viewers are going to regret having clamored for.


I think we're still a long ways from the nightmare scenario- where each studio has their own OTT and their content is made exclusive. (no licensing to other OTTs) You can still watch legacy Star Trek on the big three OTTs (Amazon, Netflix, Hulu) But I'm certain the day is coming where we won't- and CBSAA will be the only game in town.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Saturn_V said:


> I think we're still a long ways from the nightmare scenario- where each studio has their own OTT and their content is made exclusive. (no licensing to other OTTs) You can still watch legacy Star Trek on the big three OTTs (Amazon, Netflix, Hulu)


50 years later.



Saturn_V said:


> But I'm certain the day is coming where we won't- and CBSAA will be the only game in town.


That's the point though: It'll happen following directly from adoption of streaming services: The more consumers cut the cord, the more fuel that we are putting on the fire toward a time when we'll be back to being forced to watch commercials, or instead to get all the content that we used to have access to record onto our TiVos, and being able to watch that content without commercials (or with commercials skip-able), we'll be paying more than we did before.


----------



## Tsiehta (Jul 22, 2002)

Saturn_V said:


> I think we're still a long ways from the nightmare scenario- where each studio has their own OTT and their content is made exclusive. (no licensing to other OTTs) You can still watch legacy Star Trek on the big three OTTs (Amazon, Netflix, Hulu) But I'm certain the day is coming where we won't- and CBSAA will be the only game in town.


So, we're all going to start buying . . . Blue-Rays again!!


----------



## TiVoJedi (Mar 1, 2002)

Tsiehta said:


> So, we're all going to start buying . . . Blue-Rays again!!


I never stopped. If I like a movie enough I want to hold it in my hand. For convenience\laziness I may just stream, but if Internet streaming quality sucks at least I can watch what I paid for.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

thewebgal said:


> It'll be interesting to see where all these 'standalone" Streaming services are 2 years from now ...


Seeso has just announced that it will shut down by the end of the year. It was a comedy streaming service from NBCUniversal. It's definitely going to be survival of the fittest for this next evolution of TV.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

realityboy said:


> Seeso has just announced that it will shut down by the end of the year. It was a comedy streaming service from NBCUniversal. It's definitely going to be survival of the fittest for this next evolution of TV.


Way too narrow.

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Well, I wasn't gonna get CBS All Access, but because of where I'm temporarily staying, I don't have CBS or NBC available. So, I guess I will be watching Trek: Discovery this fall.

In the meantime, I can catch up on the BBT episodes I missed at the end of last season.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

bicker said:


> I hate to say, "I tol' y' so," but I have always maintained that OTT was going to eventually be something viewers are going to regret having clamored for.


I mostly agree with you, and have many times said cable is one of the few things everyone ELSE complains about the price of that I don't complain about (anywhere near as much as I complain about the price of many other things)...

But I do think that there is some middle ground there that's between these options -- many separate services, $6-10 (or whatever) each per month, and a cable package with a zillion channels.

Even if you can't of course divide your total price by number of channels and do a la carte for each channel that way at that price, you COULD have individual channel prices _plus_ bundles. Let's say I mostly wanted so and so bundle but ONE channel above that. I could see paying $1-2 for a specific channel _maybe_. or heck, I AM paying for HBO now...

or since the WSOP coverage has become bad, I could see DROPPING ESPN and getting most if not all of that $4/month back... or choosing a package that didn't have it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I doubt it will ever be worth the cost of accounting related to paying $1-$2 for a specific channel.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

My understanding is that Discovery is set ten years before the original series, but Discovery technology seems more advanced than the original series.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Thom said:


> My understanding is that Discovery is set ten years before the original series, but Discovery technology seems more advanced than the original series.


That's one of the reasons I don't like prequels.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Thom said:


> My understanding is that Discovery is set ten years before the original series, but Discovery technology seems more advanced than the original series.


Let it go please.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Thom said:


> My understanding is that Discovery is set ten years before the original series, but Discovery technology seems more advanced than the original series.


Just think of it as a time warp.

Really, wouldn't just about anything look more advanced than a cardboard set?


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I know right, my living room looks more advanced than the TOS set.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Thom said:


> My understanding is that Discovery is set ten years before the original series, but Discovery technology seems more advanced than the original series.


The producer has stated that and the change in the Klingon's will all be explain in future episodes. Time travel will be involved. Saved by good old time travel.


----------



## dwatt (Jan 11, 2007)

Johncv said:


> The producer has stated that and the change in the Klingon's will all be explain in future episodes. Time travel will be involved. Saved by good old time travel.


So that is where Kirk learned the backwards around the sun time travel trick.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Preview of the theme music.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

DougF said:


> Preview of the theme music.


Thanks--I certainly hope that the theme is more drawn out in the show's main title, as the new stuff in the segment was not terribly impressive.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> Thanks--I certainly hope that the theme is more drawn out in the show's main title, as the new stuff in the segment was not terribly impressive.


Yeah, basically all the good stuff was in the first 2 notes, and the last 8 (or so). Both "borrowed" from TOS.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> Yeah, basically all the good stuff was in the first 2 notes, and the last 8 (or so). Both "borrowed" from TOS.


I didn't think _that _was the good stuff at all: Those notes were derivative, almost pandering in intent.

I thought the main theme was as good as any main theme of any major motion picture in the genre these days. It isn't iconic, but no motion picture main theme was iconic the first time it was played. In terms of other Trek main themes I'd put this on par with the DS9 theme, better than TOS and TNG. I don't include the Enterprise theme: It is better music, but worse as a Trek theme.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> I didn't think _that _was the good stuff at all: Those notes were derivative, almost pandering in intent.
> 
> I thought the main theme was as good as any main theme of any major motion picture in the genre these days. It isn't iconic, but no motion picture main theme was iconic the first time it was played. In terms of other Trek main themes I'd put this on par with the DS9 theme, better than TOS and TNG. I don't include the Enterprise theme: It is better music, but worse as a Trek theme.


the notes i mention were the only thing in the theme that stirred any kind of feeling in me, because they evoke Star Trek at least. The rest of the theme didn't evoke excitement, triumph, disaster, suspense or any other kind of feeling. Maybe if I really like the show, it'll grow on me, but at first and second listen it hardly does a thing for me.

And disagree about themes not being instantly iconic, the best are. Jaws, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Gilligan's Island, Hill Street Blues, Mission Impossible, just to name a few. Overall admittedly it's a low percentage.

I'm not going to rank the Star Trek themes, I can't even remember the Voyager or DS9 themes. But I'm one of the few who actually liked the Enterprise theme.

I gotta say, I grow more and more pessimistic about this show, every time I see or read something new about it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I'm working to avoid forming opinions about the show until it airs and I have an opportunity to view it. So far, my concerns are relates solely to how it is being distributed, something for which we have comprehensive and definitive details about.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> I'm working to avoid forming opinions about the show until it airs and I have an opportunity to view it. So far, my concerns are relates solely to how it is being distributed, something for which we have comprehensive and definitive details about.


Good for you.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Peter000 said:


> the notes i mention were the only thing in the theme that stirred any kind of feeling in me, because they evoke Star Trek at least. The rest of the theme didn't evoke excitement, triumph, disaster, suspense or any other kind of feeling. Maybe if I really like the show, it'll grow on me, but at first and second listen it hardly does a thing for me.
> 
> And disagree about themes not being instantly iconic, the best are. Jaws, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Gilligan's Island, Hill Street Blues, Mission Impossible, just to name a few. Overall admittedly it's a low percentage.
> 
> ...


As I said, I'm hoping that the video posted above is more a teaser and does not accurately reflect the full Star Trek Discovery opening theme. Am looing forward to it and giving it its full premiere.

Btw, I, too, am a great fan of the Enterprise theme (especially the original, preferred over the remix in the later seasons)--and, in fact, the opening as a whole. I find it the most meaningful, visually and aurally, of all the themes and it gets to me every time. I never understood issues with it. (Having said that, the original theme is incredibly daring, and so fitting for the then new and daring show.)


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Mikeguy said:


> Btw, I, too, am a great fan of the Enterprise theme (especially the original, preferred over the remix in the later seasons)--and, in fact, the opening as a whole. I find it the most meaningful, visually and aurally, of all the themes and it gets to me every time. I never understood issues with it.


I never really hated "Where My Heart Will Take Me," but Archer's Theme is so much better.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Saturn_V said:


> I never really hated "Where My Heart Will Take Me," but Archer's Theme is so much better.


I've enjoyed that as well, and it's had me sitting through the show's credits many times rather than FF'ing through.  I still enjoy the words of the opening theme, however, especially when paired with the evolutionary story told by the opening theme shots--a perfect intro. to what Enterprise is about. Award-winning.

(And thanks for posting Archer's Theme!)


----------



## Tsiehta (Jul 22, 2002)

this can't be good

http://io9.gizmodo.com/cbs-wont-allow-any-reviews-of-star-trek-discovery-befo-1809073782


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

This whole streaming-only situation just gave me a jarring memory of what happened with _Star Trek: Voyager_ was first broadcast. Back then, I was a big Trek fan. It was the pre-Internet days, so I would go to the bookstore to read up on all things Trek.

_Star Trek: Voyager _was going to be broadcast on the new channel UPN. To my disappointment, my city could not get an affiliate for UPN in time for the premiere. I was so desperate to see it. I was even talking to my parents to see if we can take a trip to a nearby metro area (about 1 hour away), just to watch it in a motel.

In the end, I didn't get to watch it live. I had a cousin from another city to tape it for me, and saw it a few weeks later. UPN then clater ame on in my city.

Now, the situation is almost the same with Discovery. But this time, even though there are many ways for me to see it, I probably won't bother until the whole season review is up.


----------



## dwatt (Jan 11, 2007)

Not to trigger flashbacks but Paramount Network is coming back as well. 
Viacom Unveils the Paramount Network, Rebranding Spike TV


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

Tsiehta said:


> this can't be good


I wouldn't read too much into the review blackout. It doesn't necessarily mean they're afraid of bad reviews, or they're trying to control spin. It probably has more to do with the worldwide nature of the premiere and the international Netflix audience.

Besides, Game of Thrones does it every season.


dtle said:


> Now, the situation is almost the same with Discovery. But this time, even though there are many ways for me to see it, I probably won't bother until the whole season review is up.


Lots of people watch The Walking Dead a full season behind on Netflix. I watched the first three seasons of GoT a season behind on BluRay. I'm sure a lot of Trek fans will wait until DSC releases on Disc/Digital.

DSC is airing 15 episodes in two halves, the first half ends in November- and resumes in January, and the first ep airs on broadcast. Sign up on October 1st, get out after Thanksgiving. You're out $12. You can decide if it's worth coming back in January.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

dwatt said:


> Not to trigger flashbacks but Paramount Network is coming back as well.
> Viacom Unveils the Paramount Network, Rebranding Spike TV


I wonder what they will show on that since CBS has the rights to Star Trek, not the company currently called Viacom (which owns Spike).


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

morac said:


> I wonder what they will show on that since CBS has the rights to Star Trek, not the company currently called Viacom (which owns Spike).


They can show reruns of The Orville.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

morac said:


> I wonder what they will show on that since CBS has the rights to Star Trek, not the company currently called Viacom (which owns Spike).


Here's a list from June. They plan to have 6 original scripted series, including _Heathers_ (based on the movie)


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Four 'Star Trek' series are in the works from 'Discovery' showrunner


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> Four 'Star Trek' series are in the works from 'Discovery' showrunner


Am I unusual in that I don't find the prospect of a "Starfleet Academy" series to be all that interesting? I've heard the idea brought up several times and I just shrug.

"To boldly go where no one has gone before, so long as it's within a shuttle's hop of San Francisco"


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I just hope there's some "happier" Trek shows in there. I actually have said that a new Trek series was something that would successfully get me to subscribe to a new service.. but I've watched a couple eps at a friend's.. I'll probably eventually subscribe and binge watch the rest.. but it's just too dark/serious.

I think a Starfleet Academy show could be entertaining.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Honestly, I don't think there's an audience big enough that would just be into exploration series of Trek without some gimmick that would alienate the Trek fans. I think The Orville is as close as you're going to get.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I love Star Trek, but if this is true, it's like all or nothing. I'm afraid they will try to do too much with the franchise at once.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

I can't help but suspect this burst has something to do with Star Wars franchise fatigue.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> Four 'Star Trek' series are in the works from 'Discovery' showrunner


I enjoyed Discovery but this seems excessive.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

mattack said:


> I'll probably eventually subscribe and binge watch the rest.. but it's just too dark/serious.


I think you'll be satisfied if you see the whole thing. /nospoilers


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> I enjoyed Discovery but this seems excessive.


That was my thought as well until I read that one was a Series, one an Animated series, another a Limited series, etc. It seems like they're striking at different segments of the market.

I would enjoy a Star Fleet Acadamy series. And I think that a series about "normal" folk in the Star Trek universe, not part of Star Fleet, could be fun (not one of the series in development, just my desire).


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Well now...


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

Maybe a limited series with Wesley in a rehabilitation chair.


----------



## jasrub (May 9, 2008)

I love Star Trek. But ever since Voyager ended, they seem to just want to do prequels or alternate universe stuff. I want a Star Trek like from the 60's. Something that is so far off in the future, and showing technology that seems so far advanced from what we have now, or have seen in any other version of the show, that it makes us go, "Wow!! Imagine the day we get something like THAT".


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

jasrub said:


> I want a Star Trek like from the 60's. Something that is so far off in the future, and showing technology that seems so far advanced from what we have now, or have seen in any other version of the show, that it makes us go, "Wow!! Imagine the day we get something like THAT".


We're too grounded in reality. I look back at some of the SciFi that I enjoyed decades ago, and it's fantasy by today's standards.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

wmcbrine said:


> I think you'll be satisfied if you see the whole thing. /nospoilers


I have seen a bunch of sporadic episodes, and do know a few major things that happen..


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

So while I am traveling in Europe, can I watch Discovery on Netflix using my regular credentials?


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

eddyj said:


> So while I am traveling in Europe, can I watch Discovery on Netflix using my regular credentials?


I believe so.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

Yep. You should be able to. If you run into weirdness w/the grid of movies/shows, try signing out and back in.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Casting announcement about season 2:


Spoiler: Spock has been cast



Star Trek: Discovery's Spock will be played by Gregory Peck's grandson


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

BrettStah said:


> Casting announcement about season 2:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Spock has been cast
> ...


We'll see how this works out. No doubt, we'll first see him with back to camera.

He'll turn, and either have that inner quality we'll sense as Spock or he won't.

Should be interesting.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> We'll see how this works out. No doubt, we'll first see him with back to camera.
> 
> He'll turn, and either have that inner quality we'll sense as Spock or he won't.
> 
> Should be interesting.


I think the actor is a good pick, he looks like a young Leonard Nimoy.


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

I await the results with an arched eyebrow.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)




----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I don't mean to pick on him, but in the pic above, Ethan Peck's ears indeed seem a bit pointed.


----------



## Eitel (Aug 25, 2003)

eddyj said:


> So while I am traveling in Europe, can I watch Discovery on Netflix using my regular credentials?


Yes. I actually VPN into our Scotland office and was able to watch it in Netflix.


----------

