Would it really matter if the next Trek series were on linear TV?

[BillJ]

Actually my cable bill is $240/month after you add in phone/internet. My $2500 spent on Star Trek is what I paid for them.

A lot of it is my own fault for liking Star Trek and supporting the property over the years. Like alot of other fans I'm to the point of not enjoying getting soaked.

Enjoy your Hulu right now... as soon as it begins to cut into network/cable viewership, you'll see caps on how much streaming you can do in a given month.

I actually already have Netflix and its' subpar collection of streaming material.

[BillJ]

jefferiestubes8 wrote:

---

This is the kind of direct-to-Hulu (or Direct-to-Netflix or Direct-to-youtube) i'm talking about where a network may not be involved for broadcasting the show. Would the budget be there for Star Trek?

I absolutely guarantee that the budget for this show is well below what a network spends on any reality show. So I doubt the budget would be there for any non-reality show (action, comedy or drama).

[AviTrek]

BillJ wrote:

---

Actually my cable bill is $240/month after you add in phone/internet. My $2500 spent on Star Trek is what I paid for them.

A lot of it is my own fault for liking Star Trek and supporting the property over the years. Like alot of other fans I'm to the point of not enjoying getting soaked.

Enjoy your Hulu right now... as soon as it begins to cut into network/cable viewership, you'll see caps on how much streaming you can do in a given month.

I actually already have Netflix and its' subpar collection of streaming material.

Wow, where you getting Cable from that it's $160 for cable alone, and $240 in total? Most companies are offering triple plays for ~100. Throw in a DVR and some premium channels and I can see getting to $160 for all three. Where is your extra $80 going? Maybe it's time to investigate other cable alternatives instead of bashing CBS/Paramount for wanting to make money.

[BillJ]

AviTrek wrote:

---

Maybe it's time to investigate other cable alternatives instead of bashing CBS/Paramount for wanting to make money.

No one is bashing CBS/Paramount for wanting to make money, CBS/Paramount gets bashed for charging $130 for Star Trek season DVD box sets, when other companies are charging a third to one-half for comparable sets (with better feature sets).

No one likes to be gouged.

As for the cable... hey it's really the only game in town besides getting a dish and I have been very underwhelmed by their performance.

[AviTrek]

http://www.timewarnercable.com/cincinnati/

$94.85/month for triple play in Cincinnati Ohio.

[jefferiestubes8]

BillJ wrote:

---

As for the cable... hey it's really the only game in town besides getting a dish

AviTrek wrote:

---

$94.85/month for triple play in Cincinnati Ohio.

that should be helpful to BillJ but he hasn't said how many premium channels and premium sports packages he had.
I would gather more than 1 at $160/month (cable TV only).

[BillJ]

AviTrek wrote:

---

http://www.timewarnercable.com/cincinnati/

$94.85/month for triple play in Cincinnati Ohio.

jefferiestubes8 wrote:

---

that should be helpful to BillJ but he hasn't said how many premium channels and premium sports packages he had.
I would gather more than 1 at $160/month (cable TV only).

I feel honored that everyone is actually worried about what I pay...

I actually live in Northern Kentucky... which is about three minutes away from Cincinnati. And those deals you talk about AviTrek are for new subscribers (we see the same thing with our current provider Insight Communications, which we've had for nearly a decade).

And yes I do have more than just a basic cable package. When you have a family with six people with six diverse interests... you have to. Doesn't change the fact that cable goes up at an astronomical rate every year... just got an $18/month ding, without a change in my services. Thank god for deregulation.

[timelord1010]

YARN wrote:

---

I'd be willing to pay if I were allowed to download the episode.

$1 per episode isn't bad. I don't think I would go higher than $3 per episode.

At any rate, I'd like to see Trek back on a mainstream network before hoping for any schemes like these.

After thinking about it Paramount / CBS is charging roughly
$3.00 per episode for the DVD sets. I would not pay to just stream a show, I would pay maybe $1 to $3 for a download that I could save on my computer or a disc. What I would really like is direct to DVD at a price that is in the same range as other hour long TV shows.

[BillJ]

timelord1010 wrote:

---

After thinking about it Paramount / CBS is charging roughly
$3.00 per episode for the DVD sets. I would not pay to just stream a show, I would pay maybe $1 to $3 for a download that I could save on my computer or a disc. What I would really like is direct to DVD at a price that is in the same range as other hour long TV shows.

The problem there is that you're missing out on a massive amount of revenue by not doing a first run network/cable run. Revenue that would be needed to make the series financially viable.

[AviTrek]

timelord1010 wrote:

---

After thinking about it Paramount / CBS is charging roughly
$3.00 per episode for the DVD sets. I would not pay to just stream a show, I would pay maybe $1 to $3 for a download that I could save on my computer or a disc. What I would really like is direct to DVD at a price that is in the same range as other hour long TV shows.

WB sells its DTV animated movies for $20-$30 depending on the edition. Thats for a 70 minute animated movie.

MGM sold the SG1s DTVs for $15/$40 DVD/BD. That was 98 minutes of live action.

If Star Trek were to go DTV(which it won't), you need to expect it to be in a similar price range. That's the only way to even begin to justify the costs of producing it.

[BillJ]

AviTrek wrote:

---

WB sells its DTV animated movies for $20-$30 depending on the edition. Thats for a 70 minute animated movie.

MGM sold the SG1s DTVs for $15/$40 DVD/BD. That was 98 minutes of live action.

If Star Trek were to go DTV(which it won't), you need to expect it to be in a similar price range. That's the only way to even begin to justify the costs of producing it.

That means you're looking at $18 to $25 per 45 minute episode (depending on format). Good luck getting that one to fly.

[Harvey]

Well, fans ate up the BABYLON 5 "Lost Tales" DVD in mid-2007. That was only 75 minutes, and it had a suggested retail price of 24.95.

Of course, for various reasons, that series didn't continue, so who knows how long it could have sustained itself.

[BillJ]

Harvey wrote:

---

Well, fans ate up the BABYLON 5 "Lost Tales" DVD in mid-2007. That was only 75 minutes, and it had a suggested retail price of 24.95.

Of course, for various reasons, that series didn't continue, so who knows how long it could have sustained itself.

If they sold that well... there would have been more.

The economics of Babylon 5 are completely different than Star Trek, that 75 minute 'movie' probably cost less to make than a single 42 minute episode of Enterprise.

[Harvey]

BillJ wrote:

---

If they sold that well... there would have been more.

Warner Bros. wanted more, but they were unwilling to produce them at a higher budget. J. Michael Straczynski declared that this was a deal breaker, and walked away from making any further installments. Without his involvement, any further DVD movies became dead in the water.

Sales were actually pretty reasonable, according to all sources.

The economics of Babylon 5 are completely different than Star Trek, that 75 minute 'movie' probably cost less to make than a single 42 minute episode of Enterprise.

Oh, the 75 minute "movie" was made for dirt cheap--less than the cost of an episode of BABYLON 5, even. But CBS Paramount, if they wanted to make as much money as possible, could easily produce similarly budgeted installments of STAR TREK on DVD/Blu-Ray. It would probably suffer the same problems as "The Lost Tales," which would be a limited number of actors, extras, sets, and visual effects.

Of course, this is all speculation. Personally, I have heavy doubts that the model that the OP proposes could be sustained at all--there's just too much free programming on TV, as well as dirt cheap programming on Netflix and cable, to attract a large enough customer base to fund a new STAR TREK series. The Straight-to-DVD route might be more viable, but there hasn't been any indication that it would be sustainable.

[BillJ]

Harvey wrote:

---

Sales were actually pretty reasonable, according to all sources.

But an increased budget would've probably made additional installments unprofitable. Even with reasonable sales, would the increased production budget cause an equal uptick in sales?

Of course, this is all speculation. Personally, I have heavy doubts that the model that the OP proposes could be sustained at all--there's just too much free programming on TV, as well as dirt cheap programming on Netflix and cable, to attract a large enough customer base to fund a new STAR TREK series. The Straight-to-DVD route might be more viable, but there hasn't been any indication that it would be sustainable.

Guess I'm spoiled... but I don't want Star Trek done on the cheap.