# Star Trek returns to TV



## n548gxg (Mar 7, 2003)

CBS has announced that a new Star Trek series will premiere in January 2017, with the first episode airing on CBS and subsequent episodes on CBS All-Access streaming service. Per CBS Television Studios &#8220;The brand-new Star Trek will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966.&#8221; 

This will be the first program developed specifically for CBS' online platform.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

I'm hopeful and awaiting details.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

About time.


----------



## DaveMN (Nov 14, 2001)

According to this, the pilot will be broadcast on CBS, then it'll move exclusively to CBS's pay streaming service. Pass.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/2/9658430/star-trek-new-show-cbs-all-access-streaming-exclusive


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

There's always "magic".


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

hopefully they pour enough money into it


----------



## rhuntington3 (May 1, 2001)

DaveMN said:


> According to this, the pilot will be broadcast on CBS, then it'll move exclusively to CBS's pay streaming service. Pass.
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/2/9658430/star-trek-new-show-cbs-all-access-streaming-exclusive


This. I'm not paying $5.99 a month for episodes of a new Star Trek series.


----------



## DaveMN (Nov 14, 2001)

Showrunner is Alex Kurtzman, so was heavily involved in the most recent 2 films:
http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/11/star-trek-beaming-back-to-television-for-new-series/



> Kurtzman, who previously wrote wrote and produced 2009's big screen reboot Star Trek and its sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness, will executive produce the show


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

DaveMN said:


> According to this, the pilot will be broadcast on CBS, then it'll move exclusively to CBS's pay streaming service. Pass.
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/2/9658430/star-trek-new-show-cbs-all-access-streaming-exclusive


Also pass. I hope it'll be available per-episode via iTunes/Google Play/Amazon; but it sounds like it won't be.

IMHO, it's setting up the show to fail- making it a CBS All Access exclusive, a brand new service with barely 100,000 SVOD subcribers.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

In the wrong forum, but...

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=533665


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

I'd be interested in a new series, but not through CBS all access.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

DaveMN said:


> According to this, the pilot will be broadcast on CBS, then it'll move exclusively to CBS's pay streaming service. Pass.
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/2/9658430/star-trek-new-show-cbs-all-access-streaming-exclusive


Ridiculous....I won't have any part of this either.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> In the wrong forum, but...
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=533665


Are you talking about this thread? Maybe it's time to create a Now Streaming forum.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

wprager said:


> Are you talking about this thread? Maybe it's time to create a Now Streaming forum.


No, the other thread. It was started first, but in Happy Hour.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Streaming belongs here


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

DaveMN said:


> Showrunner is Alex Kurtzman, so was heavily involved in the most recent 2 films:
> http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/11/star-trek-beaming-back-to-television-for-new-series/


That's enough to kill any interest I might have, right there. Requiring a subscription to another streaming service is just one more nail in the coffin.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

rhuntington3 said:


> This. I'm not paying $5.99 a month for episodes of a new Star Trek series.


I don't want to pay $5.99 a month for their streaming service,. But I would pay $3 per episode to get it from Amazon or Vudu in 1080P24 with DD+. I just hope they make it available for purchase from the streaming services so the crappy CBS streaming service isn't the only option.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I don't want to pay $5.99 a month for their streaming service,. But I would pay $3 per episode to get it from Amazon or Vudu in 1080P24 with DD+. I just hope they make it available for purchase from the streaming services so the crappy CBS streaming service isn't the only option.


So do you know it's crappy by experience or are you saying that because CBS wants to charge for the new ST?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

From the standpoint of this forum, one reason why it is crappy (there may be others) is that it doesn't allow us to enjoy the programming using our selected consumption environment, TiVo with TiVo trickplay and unrestricted skip ahead. Streaming services through TiVo do not afford us the TiVo trickplay and unrestricted skip ahead capability that we prefer.


----------



## Jim_TV (Mar 4, 2006)

I'd rather see a new Star Trek series on TV in HD rather than via a streaming service. But in any case, I don't have much hope that it will be good anyway. The last couple of Star Trek movies were pretty uninspiring, so if the series is anything in tone or style like those I don't hold much hope.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> So do you know it's crappy by experience or are you saying that because CBS wants to charge for the new ST?


No personal experience. Just based on some of the reviews I read.

With a new Star Trek show I will watch it from CBS All Access if I have too. I just hope there is an option to purchase each episode from VUDU, Amazon XBL etc like other shows. Since that would be my preferred method.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Agreed on the purchase angle. And it'll be available by magical means for sure.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Even worse... CBS All Access has forced commercials, ala Hulu. No thanks! Not paying $6/mo so you can force me to watch commercials too. :down:

Sucks that this show is going to get caught up in this mess, but I hope this service dies a quick death.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Magical Means it is then!


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

DaveMN said:


> According to this, the pilot will be broadcast on CBS, then it'll move exclusively to CBS's pay streaming service. Pass.


Add me to the pass list. Not a chance on earth I would pay for this service, regardless of what's on it.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

rhuntington3 said:


> This. I'm not paying $5.99 a month for episodes of a new Star Trek series.


If it were *buying* the episodes, I would probably pay it.. (assuming 4 episodes/month.)

I long ago thought they should do a Kickstarter for a season of Star Trek. As much as I think the individual episode prices for TV shows on _any_ of the services is ridiculous (because I watch so much TV), Trek is the one exception.. (Well, Blake's 7 too maybe, but the actors are way too old and I couldn't really imagine doing it with a different cast, though of course this is a different Trek cast/story.)

If this new format is available _ON MY TV_ and _WITHOUT COMMERCIALS_, I could possibly see paying it.. even without the "buying" part I mentioned above. (The buying is a best of all worlds..)

On some web site or through some app, especially with commercials (I know that CBS All Access thing now has commercials).. No way.. Unless I can somehow record it to FF through the commercials.


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

I love star trek, but not paid CBS streaming. I will not be watching it. Too bad netflicks didn't get the show.

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

hairyblue said:


> I love star trek, but not paid CBS streaming. I will not be watching it. Too bad netflicks didn't get the show.
> 
> Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk


CBS/Paramount owns Star Trek. There was no way Netflix would be getting it.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

"It's dead, Jim"


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> With a new Star Trek show I will watch it from CBS All Access if I have too. I just hope there is an option to purchase each episode from VUDU, Amazon XBL etc like other shows. Since that would be my preferred method.


My fear is it will not be available to purchase per-episode via Amazon/iTunes/Play/XBL etc. Making it available for on-demand purchase defeats the entire exclusivity aspect of the SVOD service. And $6/month + ads is more valuable to CBS than individuals paying $3/episode for 13-22 eps, see you next season.

You'll probably be able to buy episodes on-demand and on disc a year after they're aired- much like HBO does with their original content. And exclusivity being the harsh mistress it is, I'll bet these episodes will never been seen on Netflix, Amazon Prime or Hulu. Ever.

I love Trek too. But this service is not for me. The price may be accessible, but there's not enough content to justify the subscription, and ads are a deal-breaker.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I think this pretty much kills the chances for *The Worf Chronicles* from ever happening.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

DaveMN said:


> According to this, the pilot will be broadcast on CBS, then it'll move exclusively to CBS's pay streaming service. Pass.
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/2/9658430/star-trek-new-show-cbs-all-access-streaming-exclusive





rhuntington3 said:


> This. I'm not paying $5.99 a month for episodes of a new Star Trek series.





Saturn_V said:


> Also pass. I hope it'll be available per-episode via iTunes/Google Play/Amazon; but it sounds like it won't be.
> 
> IMHO, it's setting up the show to fail- making it a CBS All Access exclusive, a brand new service with barely 100,000 SVOD subcribers.





kettledrum said:


> I'd be interested in a new series, but not through CBS all access.





Bierboy said:


> Ridiculous....I won't have any part of this either.





Dan203 said:


> Even worse... CBS All Access has forced commercials, ala Hulu. No thanks! Not paying $6/mo so you can force me to watch commercials too. :down:
> 
> Sucks that this show is going to get caught up in this mess, but I hope this service dies a quick death.





astrohip said:


> Add me to the pass list. Not a chance on earth I would pay for this service, regardless of what's on it.


this this this this this this, etc.....

No effing way in hell I am paying for AA just to get this series, no matter how much a fan I am of all things Trek.

And, honestly, I think the likelihood that this would grab me the way TNG does is very very low.



bicker said:


> From the standpoint of this forum, one reason why it is crappy (there may be others) is that it doesn't allow us to enjoy the programming using our selected consumption environment, TiVo with TiVo trickplay and unrestricted skip ahead. Streaming services through TiVo do not afford us the TiVo trickplay and unrestricted skip ahead capability that we prefer.


IF i were to watch it, I could through the app/channel via AppleTV. But, see above.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jlb said:


> this this this this this this, etc.....
> 
> No effing way in hell I am paying for AA just to get this series, no matter how much a fan I am of all things Trek.
> 
> ...


$6 a month is cheap to get four episodes each month. My only issue with the CBS streaming service would be quality. I Would rather pay more for higher quality. Which would be around $12 a month at $3 an episode for 1080P24 video with DD+ 5.1 audio.

I recently subscribed to HBO just to watch The Leftovers. That is $10 a month for HBO. And I recently subscribed to Starz just to watch ASH vs. Evil Dead. That is $6 a month. I will certainly do the same thing for a new Star Trek Series if I have to.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Where the heck is Ereth? I'm sure he's thrilled to see Start Trek back, I know how much he loves real sci-fi!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Last I saw Ereth, we were chatting about what is and what is not a monopoly. I suppose people do take time off from the forum occasionally.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

robojerk said:


> I think this pretty much kills the chances for *The Worf Chronicles* from ever happening.


Good! I'm sick of Klingons.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

bicker said:


> Last I saw Ereth, we were chatting about what is and what is not a monopoly. I suppose people do take time off from the forum occasionally.


He's busy lusting after Kara Zor-El.



And who can blame him. She's adorable and Super.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

So if you wait to sign up until the last month of the finale episode of the season, you could watch all episodes for the price of a single month. At least that works for Game of Thrones and HBO's on demand service.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> So if you wait to sign up until the last month of the finale episode of the season, you could watch all episodes for the price of a single month. At least that works for Game of Thrones and HBO's on demand service.


I believe I read somewhere that they roll episodes off of new shows, so only like the last 4 are available at any given time. Kind of like Hulu with the current season.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I believe I read somewhere that they roll episodes off of new shows, so only like the last 4 are available at any given time. Kind of like Hulu with the current season.


With All-Access, I think it depends on the show. There are some like Survivor, Amazing Race, etc. have all episodes available. I'll have to check for another current show.

Edit: Checking a few, Big Bang has the most recent 6 (all that have aired this year), Madam Secretary has that plus season 1, Stephen Colbert has all episodes available.

Edit2: if there's a pattern, I don't see it. NCIS: LA has only the current season, NCIS has all seasons, & it looks like they have all episodes for the previous Trek series.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

So Les Moonves was interviewed about why Star Trek: The Revival is going on All Access (ie, paid streaming only). I really thought he was going to give us some reasons why this made sense, something that would make me rethink my staunch "no way in hell am I paying for another stream" attitude.

But no. All he did was talk about why he did it from CBS/$$$ point of view. Hell, I already know that, you need to tell me why I should buy it.

Interview:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/why-star-trek-went-cbs-836710

Typical blurb:


> "Star Trek is a family jewel; it's an important piece of business for us as we go forward," said Moonves. "We're looking to do original content on All Access and build up that platform. All Access will put out original content and *knowing the loyalty of Star Trek fans, this will boost it*.  There's about a billion channels out there and because of Star Trek, people will know what All Access is about."


I think he has seriously overestimated how us serious fans are going to react to this. :down:

I think they should have considered putting this on Showtime. (1) It's a pay platform. (2) It needs a signature/flagship program, something along the lines of Game of Thrones for HBO. (3) Would seriously boost subscriptions of SHO, just as GoT has for HBO. (4) Instead of creating negative buzz for a new play platform, it would create positive buzz for an existing, but not booming, network.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

astrohip said:


> So Les Moonves was interviewed about why Star Trek: The Revival is going on All Access (ie, paid streaming only). I really thought he was going to give us some reasons why this made sense, something that would make me rethink my staunch "no way in hell am I paying for another stream" attitude.
> 
> But no. All he did was talk about why he did it from CBS/$$$ point of view. Hell, I already know that, you need to tell me why I should buy it.
> 
> ...


Mr. Moonves has forgotten how "the loyal fans" propelled Nemesis to box office riches and Enterprise to ratings gold.

To be fair though, Moonves was speaking on an earnings call so I can't blame him for speaking about the revenue side.

But you have a valid point in asking why you should subscribe to this service to watch Star Trek. Especially since Alex Kurtzman is the announced showrunner.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Moonves is also forgetting the geek quotient among Trekkies. There are all sorts of alternative means.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> Where the heck is Ereth? I'm sure he's thrilled to see Start Trek back, I know how much he loves real sci-fi!


Alas, Star Trek hasn't been real SF in a while. I mean, really, AbramsTrek is worse than BermanTrek. So what, exactly, should I be excited about? CBS announces a (probably) bad version of a beloved franchise, on a format where I will have to pay extra to watch it, and which has alienated most of it's customer base before they start so it likely won't survive?

I'm much more interested in Star Trek: Continues/Phase II, or Axanar, these days. I think CBS/Paramount has lost their minds.

Having said that, I clearly will have to sign up for CBS All Access and watch it. Doesn't mean that anything they've announced so far has excited me.

(Also, there's a thread here and a thread in Happy Hour. Given we know almost nothing, it's hard to remember to check them both).


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I'm much more interested in Star Trek: Continues/Phase II, or Axanar, these days.


Same here. I financially support these (and Renegades) and I'm _really_ excited about Axanar in particular (which completely flies in the face of "there are no more stories to tell in the original universe").


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I haven't supported Renegades (though I have the other 2). I'll have to look into that one.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

astrohip said:


> But no. All he did was talk about why he did it from CBS/$$$ point of view. Hell, I already know that, you need to tell me why I should buy it.


Lesley Goldberg is a reporter, who was interviewing a business executive. Why did you think that article was a promotional advertisement crafted by CBS?



astrohip said:


> I think he has seriously overestimated how us serious fans are going to react to this. :down:


Maybe. He's been doing it a long time and has, in the past, his team has made decisions that seemed ill-advised to start with that turned out to be brilliant. Time will tell. I am not that bad at predicting success and failure of such ideas, and I'm 50/50 on this one.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Having to pay for All Access makes it a non-starter for me. But add the fact that they have commercials, and it becomes laughable.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

eddyj said:


> Having to pay for All Access makes it a non-starter for me. But add the fact that they have commercials, and it becomes laughable.


Yeah I *might* consider subscribing after they've all aired to binge watch them if it were commercial free. With commercials, no way. It's like Hulu. I never even considered Hulu before. But now that they have a commercial free option I'm considering subscribing.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah I *might* consider subscribing after they've all aired to binge watch them if it were commercial free. With commercials, no way. It's like Hulu. I never even considered Hulu before. But now that they have a commercial free option I'm considering subscribing.


I chuckle at some of the shows on Hulu commercial free. They announce the show is not part of commercial free so they are going to show a commercial at the beginning and end of the show. The beginning ad is just like a longer buffering and who the heck stays around for the end one?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Who the heck _pays _to have their advertisement presented at the end of the show?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Alas, Star Trek hasn't been real SF in a while.


Even when it was, it mostly wasn't. A lot of space opera (usually not very good space opera) in the mix.

Anyway, I'm not sure it's fair to set expectations based on the movies in the world of Star Trek. Almost every Star Trek movie before the reboot (TOS or TNG) was bad and barely qualified as anything resembling science fiction. Even the good movies were hardly serious SF.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah I *might* consider subscribing after they've all aired to binge watch them if it were commercial free. With commercials, no way. It's like Hulu. I never even considered Hulu before. But now that they have a commercial free option I'm considering subscribing.


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


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

JYoung said:


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


If there were no other way of seeing the new Trek series, I would subscribe to the commercial free option.

I'd also evaluate the rest of the service to see if there was anything else worth watching during that time.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

bicker said:


> Lesley Goldberg is a reporter, who was interviewing a business executive. Why did you think that article was a promotional advertisement crafted by CBS?


I didn't realize it was a business oriented interview. I read it on a TV site, making me think it was directed at TV viewers. Clearly wrong. 

I still think this is doomed to fail. There is a limit to how many paid streaming services people will subscribe to. The successful ones have a multitude of sources to pull from (Netflix, Hulu, etc). Or have an incredible backlog/inventory of series, plus must-see TV new series (eg, HBO-Now). CBS All-Access has none of this.

I think it will muddle along in mediocrity, and then morph into something else, either thru sale or merger.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

astrohip said:


> I didn't realize it was a business oriented interview. I read it on a TV site, making me think it was directed at TV viewers. Clearly wrong.


Indeed. We here in this forum also often talk about the business along with the content, so even TV sites aimed at viewers will include business-oriented articles. A great example is zap2it.com. They have loads of different kinds of articles for television viewers, including a whole section devoted solely to the ratings.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I can't believe they're bringing back another Star Trek series. They should have just let it die in peace. None of the spinoffs have been as good as the original. I stopped watching DS9 and Voyager in their last seasons. If it weren't for Jeri Ryan in her spandex outfit I probably wouldn't have stuck with Voyager as long as I did. Talk about milking a series! They have beat this genre to death. Next Generation was halfway decent, but even that ran way too long, IMHO. I'd rather see them resurrect Babylon 5, which I've always thought was a far better series.

I'm sure I've pissed off a lot of diehard Trekkers, but that's just the way I feel.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

FWIW - No one will be forced to watch it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> FWIW - No one will be forced to watch it.


You don't know Star Trek fans, do you?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> FWIW - No one will be forced to watch it.


I believe JustAllie, at the very least, is contractually obligated to watch any Star Trek.

And I probably have to watch it, if only to put in comic strip form my thoughts! Can't comment on it if you haven't seen it, can you?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I can't believe they're bringing back another Star Trek series. They should have just let it die in peace. None of the spinoffs have been as good as the original.


Several of the subsequent series have been as good as the original, and perhaps one was even better. That's precisely why they're launching another series: Because not everyone holds the same perspective on such things.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

bicker said:


> Several of the subsequent series have been as good as the original, and perhaps one was even better. That's precisely why they're launching another series: Because not everyone holds the same perspective on such things.


:up:


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

bicker said:


> Several of the subsequent series have been as good as the original, and perhaps one was even better. That's precisely why they're launching another series: Because not everyone holds the same perspective on such things.


Does the President have a goatee in the universe in which you live?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

There is in mine..


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

robojerk said:


> There is in mine..


He should do that. Looks good.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The man just doesn't have a bad look.


----------



## Bsteenson (Jul 30, 2000)

I was forced to turn to "All-Access" when our local CBS affiliate's corporate overlord was having a retransmission contract war with Mediacom and we lost CBS for more than a week. 

There's nothing "all-access" about All-Access. Not all CBS shows are available. Many past episodes are not available for recent shows that are available. There are as many commercials as on other networks' free online sites. Some shows are delayed before they are available. 

In short, it's almost exactly like the limited access you can get online free from the other networks, only CBS wants you to pay for it.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

This is just the beginning. If this does well, ABC, NBC and FOX will have streaming services with exclusive content and a monthly fee. How much are you willing to shell out?

First, there was HBO. That did well, so there was Showtime, and at first both showed the same movies. Then they got exclusive contracts with the studios as well as exclusive programming. Then came Cinemax, Starz and finally Epix, all with exclusive movie deals and shows.

But even if you subscribe to all of the above, it's not enough. Netflix decided to have exclusive content. And that's still not enough, they were followed by Amazon and Yahoo as well as others I'm not thinking of. 

When will the trend end?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Amazon already has exclusive series, fwiw.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> Amazon already has exclusive series, fwiw.


So does Yahoo


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> Amazon already has exclusive series, fwiw.





TAsunder said:


> So does Yahoo


I just said that.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

If that's what you meant it's not clear in the post.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> If that's what you meant it's not clear in the post.


I changed it to make it crystal clear, as Nixon would say.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

isn't this what cord cutters want?


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

I have "regular" TV, I have Netflix, and sometime this spring, I'll have HBO. If it's not on any of those, I'm not interested [0].

[0] It's possible that the right show on the right service could make me change my mind. But current "Trek" isn't the right show, and CBS "Some-Access" sure as hell isn't the service.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> isn't this what cord cutters want?


They want lots of stuff cheap. That doesn't happen as the reality is showing.

True cord cutters use few sources. And they are in the smallest minority.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

At some point these networks streaming providers will start bundling together to offer up each other's shows. Put them all together and we've gone full circle.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

allan said:


> I have "regular" TV, I have Netflix, and sometime this spring, I'll have HBO. If it's not on any of those, I'm not interested ...


Then you miss out on a bunch of good shows.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

jsmeeker said:


> isn't this what cord cutters want?


I've only wanted to divorce myself from Cable and paying for sports content and channels that I'll never ever watch. So now I'm paying for three SVOD services and buying episodes for the six cable shows I can't get OTA. I'm still paying less (on an annual basis) than I would for a year's cable service.

But I would rather pay for episodes than monthly subscriptions. $42 for a season of TWD or a $20 for a 10 episode season of Fargo isn't unreasonable for me. It still isn't clear if we'll have that option with the new Trek series.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

I want to be a cord cutter except when I actually have to pay my share of the cost to watch an expensive franchise show using an alternative model and means of transmission.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jamesbobo said:


> This is just the beginning. If this does well, ABC, NBC and FOX will have streaming services with exclusive content and a monthly fee.


It's called Hulu Plus.



jsmeeker said:


> isn't this what cord cutters want?


It is what they *said *they wanted. I suspect, however, that many cord-cutters just wanted something for nothing.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

bicker said:


> .
> 
> It is what they *said *they wanted. I suspect, however, that many cord-cutters just wanted something for nothing.


But but but they said doing "pay as you watch" or a la carte was gonna save so much money


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> But but but they said doing "pay as you watch" or a la carte was gonna save so much money


Who said that? It all depends on how much content you watch. I would need to pay several times more to watch the same content that I watch on FiOS for around $70 a month. I have never paid so little for so much content. Fourteen years ago I paid over $110 a month on DirecTV and had fewer channels and only a handful of HD channels.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Who said that? It all depends on how much content you watch. I would need to pay several times more to watch the same content that I watch on FiOS for around $70 a month. I have never paid so little for so much content. Fourteen years ago I paid over $110 a month on DirecTV and had fewer channels and only a handful of HD channels.


Lots of people still say it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Even back when C-Band was a direct and clear example of what a la carte pricing would look like, they would still say it, making excuses for why in their world it would be different.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

bicker said:


> It's called Hulu Plus.


It's called Hulu Plus *for the time being.* FOX, ABC, and NBC could decide not to give their shows to Hulu and keep them for their own streaming services.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Actually it's not called Hulu Plus any longer. Hulu dropped the Plus from their name recently. Now it's just Hulu, even if you pay for it (as I do).


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

DancnDude said:


> At some point these networks streaming providers will start bundling together to offer up each other's shows. Put them all together and we've gone full circle.


No, it won't happen.

The reason is iTunes. Or rather, the iTunes Music Store, as it was known in a previous life.

iTunes basically "killed" the music industry in the mid-00's when it became the dominant way to sell music digitally, to the point where the RIAA members were begging Apple to give them some air. They were stuck between a rock and a hard place - the iPod was dominant and the only way to sell DRM music was iTunes - sure there were other music stores, for the dozens of players that no one had.

The only way the music industry could proceed was to sign up an agreement with Amazon - the only company big enough to take on Apple. But to do that meant agreeing to Amazon's terms, which was DRM free. This forced Apple to renegotiate all their music contracts, and in exchange for DRM-free music, Apple would have to allow them to set music pricing - $0.79, $0.99, and $1.29 instead of an across-the-board $0.99/track.

The video industry took notice and they basically decided it was not in their best interest to let that happen. So they basically agreed to not only make their content accessible to many providers, but to ensure that not one provider will have access to all content. Or to allow one provider to get big enough that they would lose control.

They also realized that if they provided their own streams, they could "break" the DVR grip as well because online streams could make ads unskippable.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

jamesbobo said:


> This is just the beginning. If this does well, ABC, NBC and FOX will have streaming services with exclusive content and a monthly fee. How much are you willing to shell out?
> 
> First, there was HBO. That did well, so there was Showtime, and at first both showed the same movies. Then they got exclusive contracts with the studios as well as exclusive programming. Then came Cinemax, Starz and finally Epix, all with exclusive movie deals and shows.
> 
> ...


And thus bittorrent was born.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Netflix, having no commercials, is a ridiculously better deal than anything else. Heck it costs less than the internet access used to view it. No commercials, no interruptions is such a better way to watch tv. 

There is tons of rerun content out there, the price does not to have to go up.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

jth tv said:


> Netflix, having no commercials, is a ridiculously better deal than anything else. Heck it costs less than the internet access used to view it. No commercials, no interruptions is such a better way to watch tv. There is tons of rerun content out there, the price does not to have to go up.


But notice that the Netflix content is going down in quality. Fewer newer movies. Lost deal with epix. Better inventory on Hulu these days.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I'd pay for Netflix just for the original programming, even if they never got another blockbuster movie.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Speaking of Star Trek returning to tv, STTNG returned to my home's television this week courtesy of my 9 year old son, who discovered it on Netflix and is now a new fan. He hasn't seen any of the various series, and has only seen the Abrams movies. I'm enjoying revisiting the show through his eyes.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

If the TV networks (CBS, FOX) all streamed at low prices, I wouldnt have an issue with this model. However the providors (Comcast, Time Warmer, etc..) want their pound of flesh, then if a streaming device like Apple TV gets popular I can see them wanting a cut too...... Too many hands out wanting to get paid.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

robojerk said:


> If the TV networks (CBS, FOX) all streamed at low prices, I wouldnt have an issue with this model. However the providors (Comcast, Time Warmer, etc..) want their pound of flesh, then if a streaming device like Apple TV gets popular I can see them wanting a cut too...... Too many hands out wanting to get paid.


How low? Then you are only dealing with 4 or 5 channels since you seemed to name the OTA networks. What about TBS, FX, ESPN, CNN, Fox News, USA, etc?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I'd pay for Netflix just for the original programming, even if they never got another blockbuster movie.


I watch about two series a day in Netflix. Their overall quality of available shows has dropped because they are bankrolling their own series.

Hulu is making the same mistake. It drives costs up and lowers overall quality. Hulu at least sells commercials to make up some revenue.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jamesbobo said:


> FOX, ABC, and NBC could decide not to give their shows to Hulu


Doesn't Hulu have VERY long-term contracts with the various networks (it is a joint venture of ABC/Fox/NBC, according to Wikipedia), AND threats from the government about collusion if they don't keep getting the networks' content?

(...or maybe I'm thinking in the reverse, that they have to provide their shows to OTHER streaming providers or else possibly get government intervention...)


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> But notice that the Netflix content is going down in quality. Fewer newer movies. Lost deal with epix. Better inventory on Hulu these days.


I tried free Hulu. Once! It was overpriced!!

Most of the stuff I watch on Netflix has been old crap, and IMO, it's STILL worth far more than the price, just because of no *expletive deleted* commercials.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

allan said:


> I tried free Hulu. Once! It was overpriced!! Most of the stuff I watch on Netflix has been old crap, and IMO, it's STILL worth far more than the price, just because of no *expletive deleted* commercials.


Except you PAY for Netflix. Hulu has a noncommercial option which you PAY for. You need to compare similar packages.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Except you PAY for Netflix. Hulu has a noncommercial option which you PAY for. You need to compare similar packages.


The last I'd heard Hulu + had commercials. I don't know if that's still true, and I don't know if their ads were as bad as the free version, but seeing their free crap didn't make me want to pay for them.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Hulu Plus has been rebranded to just Hulu. You can pay to have the commercials removed. It makes the cost a couple of dollars more a month. I like it. It's a lot like using my DVR at that point, except I don't have to hit the skip button for commercials, they simply aren't there.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

allan said:


> The last I'd heard Hulu + had commercials. I don't know if that's still true, and I don't know if their ads were as bad as the free version, but seeing their free crap didn't make me want to pay for them.


The commercial portion has commercial spots at the same point as the broadcast. Movies that did not have commercials don't have commercials at all. The commercials on the tv shows are much shorter than the broadcast breaks. As ereth said, the commercial free is a slight up charge and works perfectly.

Netflix is now $10 a month. Hulu without commercials is $12. With is $8.

The Netflix inventory is slowly eroding. I am watching less and less. And more Hulu. My abc affiliates are so poor in PQ for some shows that I watch the Hulu version.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Netflix is $8/mo and still has WAY, WAY more content than Hulu at the same cost.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> Netflix is $8/mo and still has WAY, WAY more content than Hulu at the same cost.


It is $8 for grandfathered accounts only. $10 for new accounts and will be going to $10 in the next two years.

As for content. Yes, if you want to watch crappy documentaries. The quality programming has dropped off the face of the earth. Many items that were in my queue are long gone. And I don't see them adding much of anything recent.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> The commercial portion has commercial spots at the same point as the broadcast. Movies that did not have commercials don't have commercials at all. The commercials on the tv shows are much shorter than the broadcast breaks. As ereth said, the commercial free is a slight up charge and works perfectly.
> 
> Netflix is now $10 a month. Hulu without commercials is $12. With is $8.
> 
> The Netflix inventory is slowly eroding. I am watching less and less. And more Hulu. My abc affiliates are so poor in PQ for some shows that I watch the Hulu version.


Isn't Hulu still only 720P video and stereo audio?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Does Hulu have any original content that only on Hulu and not some other network?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Does Hulu have any original content that only on Hulu and not some other network?


Yes they do.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

danterner said:


> Speaking of Star Trek returning to tv, STTNG returned to my home's television this week courtesy of my 9 year old son, who discovered it on Netflix and is now a new fan. He hasn't seen any of the various series, and has only seen the Abrams movies. I'm enjoying revisiting the show through his eyes.


 I've been watching Voyager on Netflix; I realized I'd never seen more than a few episodes of it. I'm almost done with season 5. I have to say I'm enjoying it: more holodeck episodes (which I hate) than I'd like but not as many as I remember on STTNG... and of course there's Seven of Nine!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Isn't Hulu still only 720P video and stereo audio?


Not sure. My devices are showing 1080 but that could be the devices up scaling although they don't for other services.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> Yes they do.


 I guess I forgot about The Mindy Project until you reminded me they do.

What are some other examples?


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

madscientist said:


> I've been watching Voyager on Netflix; I realized I'd never seen more than a few episodes of it. I'm almost done with season 5. I have to say I'm enjoying it: more holodeck episodes (which I hate) than I'd like but not as many as I remember on STTNG... and of course there's Seven of Nine!


Yes, if he likes STTNG, I'm looking forward to watching DS9 and Voyager with him. And I've actually only seen maybe a dozen or so episodes of Enterprise, so we've got a lot to watch. Next to STTNG, Voyager was probably my favorite, though I agree with your distaste for the holodeck episodes.


----------



## Saturn_V (Jun 2, 2007)

jsmeeker said:


> I guess I forgot about The Mindy Project until you reminded me they do.
> What are some other examples?


11.22.63?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Considering networks are now cutting back on the number of commercials they show (some by 50%) on their own volition, I don't see why anyone should have to pay extra to remove commercials.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...commercial-time-as-viewers-become-numb-to-ads

Also last I've heard CBS still benefits from the Government benefits of being a broadcast network and they've gotten cable companies to pay them to rebroadcast the network. They shouldn't be charging anyone anything. It's CBS, not HBO. I'm sure the quality of the new Star Trek show won't be anywhere near what Game of Thrones is.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

morac said:


> Considering networks are now cutting back on the number of commercials they show (some by 50%) on their own volition, I don't see why anyone should have to pay extra to remove commercials.


Your statement and that article say vastly different things. This is a thread about Star Trek on CBS All Access, and therefore genre dramas from top-shelf production companies, while that article is talking about reality programming shows like Adam Ruins Everything, Billy on the Street, Road Spill and Super Into on truTV, and unspecified reductions in advertising on Viacom cable networks. VERY big difference.

The article also talks about switching from 2 1/2 minutes of advertising you can skip over or ignore to 30 second advertising you have to interact with. I'd surely pay just as much do do away with 30 seconds of interactive advertising as I would to do away with 2 1/2 minutes of advertising I could skip over or ignore.



morac said:


> Also last I've heard CBS still benefits from the Government benefits of being a broadcast network and they've gotten cable companies to pay them to rebroadcast the network. They shouldn't be charging anyone anything.


For the programming on their broadcast network. This is about CBS' streaming service, for which they receive no such "government benefits".



morac said:


> It's CBS, not HBO. I'm sure the quality of the new Star Trek show won't be anywhere near what Game of Thrones is.


Maybe it will maybe it won't. But HBO costs more than double what CBS All Access costs.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

bicker said:


> Maybe it will maybe it won't. But HBO costs more than double what CBS All Access costs.


Then again, HBO has John Oliver, so it is worth hundreds of times as much.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Then again, HBO has John Oliver


Blech.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

It looks like unless given a reasonable price for just the new trek series? I might have to skip it altogether or resort to magic and feel dirty. There's nothing on all access that I view worth $6/month + commercials. Commercial free? Maybe. I'm teetering on cutting the cord entirely. I would have done so two years ago if not for the protests from my family and it appears they're starting to see things my way. An antenna + Netfix(or Hulu) + a little guilty magic is all I need. We have HBO and Showtime right now and find that beyond a series or two, we watch none of it. The Showtime app in particular is a pain in my ass that requires frequent visits to a pc to resolve log out virtually every time we try to use it (only an occasional issue with HBO). Both are gone at the end of this month when our promotion pricing ends. Even at $15/mo for both? I don't view them as worthwhile.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Saturn_V said:


> 11.22.63?


Argh.. I presume all of these will be there next summer.. (this, Mindy Project.) I think I may have to subscribe to commercial free Hulu for a month and binge on it for these exclusive shows.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I hope the new series is after Picard. I was never fond of the prequel stuff.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> I guess I forgot about The Mindy Project until you reminded me they do.
> 
> What are some other examples?


There are at least two. I used them for a test search with the Mini and the Bolt. But I don't normally watch Hulu so I can't remember what they are. I've had Hulu free for the last 18 months or so from Bing Rewards. But that is ending next month so I will put it on hold or cancel it. Since I've only used it a few times during that same time period. And that isn't working paying for it.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Back to ST on cbs. Is binge watching going to be a possibility? Or are they going to pull episodes so you have to stay subbed?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Back to ST on cbs. Is binge watching going to be a possibility? Or are they going to pull episodes so you have to stay subbed?


Nobody knows at this point. I doubt that CBS even knows.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> Nobody knows at this point. I doubt that CBS even knows.


Oh. I thought the app already existed and was wondering what they do with existing programming.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Oh. I thought the app already existed and was wondering what they do with existing programming.


At this point there is no original programming, so we don't yet know how they will handle it.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

It does exist, but there's no guarantee that they'll treat the new Trek like other programs.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Understood. Thanks to both of you.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

They're inconsistent with current programming. Some shows have all episodes. Others only have the most current 5 or so.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Chuck Lorre's vanity card for tonight's Big Bang Theory was relevant.

http://www.chucklorre.com/index-bbt.php?p=509


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Bryan Fuller, who started his career writing for DS9 and is known more recently for Hannibal and Pushin' Daises, has been named co-creator and showrunner. Good news in my opinion.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Azlen said:


> Bryan Fuller, who started his career writing for DS9 and is known more recently for Hannibal and Pushin' Daises, has been named co-creator and showrunner. Good news in my opinion.


Yes and no in mine.

I loved Pushing Daisies and liked Hannibal a lot.
Fuller also did Wonderfalls which I haven't seen but gets a lot of raves.

Buuuuuuuttttt, I didn't care much for his staff work on Voyager.
In fact, most of it bored me.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Yes and no in mine.
> 
> I loved Pushing Daisies and liked Hannibal a lot.
> Fuller also did Wonderfalls which I haven't seen but gets a lot of raves.
> ...


I was thinking along the same lines but the Voyager stuff was done before all the other stuff he did. He seems to have improved significantly since his work on Voyager.


----------



## TheSlyBear (Dec 26, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Buuuuuuuttttt, I didn't care much for his staff work on Voyager.
> In fact, most of it bored me.


Still miles better than someone who never liked Trek to begin with.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TheSlyBear said:


> Still miles better than someone who never liked Trek to begin with.


Well, the fact that he worked on the show doesn't mean he liked it.


----------

