Forbes feels it's a terrible move to make people pay to watch ST

[JirinPanthosa]

People pay extra for premium channels to see GAME OF THRONES. People sign up with Netflix to see DAREDEVIL.

Doesn't seem to hurt the shows' popularity any.

HBO and Netflix have a reputation for high quality original series. CBS All Access has a reputation of laggy back episodes of Survivor. And both of them were focused on movies before they ever had boutique original programming.

If the new Star Trek is as good as Game of Thrones, people will pay to see it. Even Star Trek fans are going to go in really skeptical. If their friends come to them raving "THIS IS THE GREATEST SHOW EVER EVEN BETTER THAN THE ORIGINALS", they will pay. If they say "Eh, maybe on the level of Voyager or Enterprise", they won't bother and they'll hang tight for an opportunity to watch without paying.

If you're charging upfront for episodes you're betting on quality, critical rep and word of mouth. Do you honestly expect a new Star Trek series to have those things, or do you hope they *might* have them?

On the other hand, before South Park, Comedy Central was pretty much an SNL repeat delivery system. So you never know. I don't even know what the hell Fox was showing before The Simpsons.

 

[Count Zero]

Let's not forget that the first episode will air on CBS so people won't have to pay up without getting a taste of it first. Of course, this also means that they'll have to deliver right from the start. This may actually turn out to be the best Trek pilot we've ever gotten.

 

[Melakon]

It's fine. It's 6 bucks. That's not so bad.

That depends on whether you're living on a fixed income or not.

 

[Dukhat]

If people can spend $60 a month on high-speed internet access so they can come here and bitch about how they'll have to pay $6 a month for streaming, that's kind of a no-brainer.

 

[cardinal biggles]

People pay extra for premium channels to see GAME OF THRONES. People sign up with Netflix to see DAREDEVIL.

Doesn't seem to hurt the shows' popularity any.

Yeah, but Netflix and HBO have stuff worth seeing besides those two shows.

They do, but I also know a few people who subscribe to HBO only those months of the year when the new season of Game of Thrones is airing; the day after the finale, they call up their cable company and drop it from their package.

Besides watching the new Star Trek show, what would this CBS service have? Frankly if its just shows from the CBS network, I wouldn't be tempted to keep the service after watching the Star Trek series and would just renew it next year when they got more Star Trek.

They have recently broadcast episodes of pretty much every show the network airs. In some cases they have all or most of the entire run of the series (particularly series produced by CBS Television Studios, such as Elementary, Hawaii Five-0, and the various NCIS shows) available for streaming. There are also classic shows like I Love Lucy, Mission: Impossible, Cheers, Frasier, and all the Star Treks available for streaming.

Unless they have stuff from Showtime as well, they would have a rather poor library compared to other subscription services.

Showtime content is currently available through an over-the-top (OTT) subscription service similar to HBO Now.

I'll be honest, I've subscribed and dropped and subscribed and dropped CBS All Access, in part because I was just too busy to keep up with all of those shows plus the ones I was watching via other platforms, and the classic content wasn't all that enticing (the Treks, Cheers, and Frasier are available on both Netflix and Hulu, and until recently Netflix also had Mission: Impossible and the original Hawaii Five-O). I could see myself being one of those people who just signs up long enough to binge Trek each year. But I also think that CBS will start to develop other original programming for All Access besides Star Trek, if only to keep up with Netflix and Hulu. But Trek will be the flagship show that they use to raise its profile, same as Phase II would have been what they built the Paramount Television Service around back in '78, and Voyager was the crown jewel of UPN.

 

[Cyrus]

I am not paying for CBS all access. I am hoping between now and Jan 2017 they change their minds and have all the new episodes air on CBS, and let CBS all access have exclusive right to reruns of the show. Or make the series episodes also available on CBS on demand

 

[Salinga]

The last time I watched Star Trek for free was 1994 (dubbed on German TV). After that I rented it on VHS as UK import or bought it on DVD/Bluray. So I pay for Star Trek for 20 years now.

 

[The Overlord]

People pay extra for premium channels to see GAME OF THRONES. People sign up with Netflix to see DAREDEVIL.

Doesn't seem to hurt the shows' popularity any.

Yeah, but Netflix and HBO have stuff worth seeing besides those two shows.

They do, but I also know a few people who subscribe to HBO only those months of the year when the new season of Game of Thrones is airing; the day after the finale, they call up their cable company and drop it from their package.

But I think HBO has enough quality programming that they can keep a lot of Game of Thrones fans around for the rest of the year, I'm not sure CBS All access can keep people around after they watched Star Trek.

They have recently broadcast episodes of pretty much every show the network airs. In some cases they have all or most of the entire run of the series (particularly series produced by CBS Television Studios, such as Elementary, Hawaii Five-0, and the various NCIS shows) available for streaming. There are also classic shows like I Love Lucy, Mission: Impossible, Cheers, Frasier, and all the Star Treks available for streaming.

Considering how I have mostly moved beyond network shows (with a few exceptions) and mainly watch the more edgy stuff that the cable companies offer, none of that holds any appeal for me. I don't find CBS shows on their own entertaining enough, that I would want to pay 6 bucks a month for just their library and nothing else.

Showtime content is currently available through an over-the-top (OTT) subscription service similar to HBO Now.

That's pretty lame that you have to pay for a different service to watch the Showtime stuff, instead of it being incorporated to the CBS service.

I'll be honest, I've subscribed and dropped and subscribed and dropped CBS All Access, in part because I was just too busy to keep up with all of those shows plus the ones I was watching via other platforms, and the classic content wasn't all that enticing (the Treks, Cheers, and Frasier are available on both Netflix and Hulu, and until recently Netflix also had Mission: Impossible and the original Hawaii Five-O). I could see myself being one of those people who just signs up long enough to binge Trek each year. But I also think that CBS will start to develop other original programming for All Access besides Star Trek, if only to keep up with Netflix and Hulu. But Trek will be the flagship show that they use to raise its profile, same as Phase II would have been what they built the Paramount Television Service around back in '78, and Voyager was the crown jewel of UPN.

I think if CBS is expecting Star Trek to turn around this service by itself for a couple years, I think they are making a huge gamble that may not pay off.

Frankly I have done some digging and this service is not well reviewed in general, too many ads despite being a pay service, lots of technical glitches and of course, a very limited library. CBS will have to put in a lot of work beyond just making a Star Trek show to turn that boat around, especially if they want people to sign for longer then the time it takes to binge watch Star Trek.

For example:

http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/2014/10/cbs-all-access-streaming-service-review/

I hope that because I live in Canada, CBS will just sell the Canadian rights to Netflix or something, so I won't have to deal with this bad service site.

 

[Elder Knight]

I wouldn't bother watching it until (and if) knowledgeable people here said it was any good. If it's a dud, so be it.

 

[Gaith]

Hey, she was only in a handful of episodes anyway.

... This BBS has come to a sad pass indeed if razor-sharp wit like the above isn't quoted and appreciated.

 

[TheAdmiralty]

It's as if they are trying to hold Star Trek fans hostage.

That's exactly why it's a good business move. If they went with a 100% original show it might flop and not draw in anyone to their streaming service. A show with a built in following will help on that front a lot more than an original show.

Let's not forget that the first episode will air on CBS so people won't have to pay up without getting a taste of it first. Of course, this also means that they'll have to deliver right from the start. This may actually turn out to be the best Trek pilot we've ever gotten.

It wouldn't surprise me if they pull out all the stops with the budget for the pilot. That could be good to see.

 

[eyeresist]

It wouldn't surprise me if they pull out all the stops with the budget for the pilot. That could be good to see.

Ohhhhh... Now you have me hoping that the pilot will see theatrical distribution elsewhere in the world. Another Star Trek movie!

 

[TheAdmiralty]

It wouldn't surprise me if they pull out all the stops with the budget for the pilot. That could be good to see.

Ohhhhh... Now you have me hoping that the pilot will see theatrical distribution elsewhere in the world. Another Star Trek movie!

Ehh, I doubt that, unless it's massively successful they may do a special event thing for it.

But there's a good chance it'll be feature length. Keep in mind that Encounter at Fairpoint, Emissary, and Caretaker all had the budgets of medium sized feature films at the time, so I could see them putting at least that much resources into this pilot with the success of their streaming service hinging on it and all.

 

[VOODOOXI]

New York Post

'CBS is already ruining Star Trek reboot..I fear CBS is boldly going into a disaster"

http://nypost.com/2015/11/02/cbs-is-already-ruining-the-star-trek-tv-reboot/

 

[eyeresist]

New York Post

'CBS is already ruining Star Trek reboot..I fear CBS is boldly going into a disaster"

http://nypost.com/2015/11/02/cbs-is-already-ruining-the-star-trek-tv-reboot/

This is what happens when you let Trekkies write for the grownup press. Nu Trek is vile! We want Ron Moore! This as-yet unproduced series is already a flop!

The only legit criticism is the distribution model, and we have yet to see how that will actually shape out.

 

[EnriqueH]

Yeah, at first I was screaming, "YEAH!" and then I saw that All-Access thing and I could practically feel my entire body deflate to the immortal sounds of womp, womp, womp.

But then I just looked at the bright side: We *do* pay for HBO and other channels just for certain shows, but as others have pointed out, those channels are established already.

It's too early to tell.

And when I think about it: I'm not a big TV show watcher, but I did watch HBO for The Sopranos back in the day and that was in the early days of "binge watching" and before HBO was the almighty TV show channel. I did watch AMC for Mad Men alone for a while and then I got into Breaking Bad. I saw The Shield for whatever channel that was on.

So, in all likelihood, I'll be watching Star Trek on CBS All Access.

 

[fireproof78]

I'll start saving my pennies now, that way it doesn't hurt so much if it does flop.

Personally, given the large lead time on this announcement (over a year) CBS has been planning this out for a while. They have plans, models and contingency plans in place many eventualities. The idea that the new Trek series is going to flop because CBS Access is a streaming service is, um, oddly conclusive, given that we have no specific data points to draw from.

Maybe there should be a kickstarter for fans to be able to draw upon in order to pay for their first month to watch the show.

 

[Warped9]

Man, as crude as it was back in the day there was something to be said for watching a new show free on television through an antenna.

Then along comes cable with better reception and more options and it's tolerable in terms of cost.

Now you can have access to hundreds of channels--most of which you will never watch--and your monthly cable or satellite bill can be insane if you really think about it. A lot of the best content is on specialty channels which you now have to pay extra for.

Some have migrated to online streaming which works for some but not all people. But even there it's one expense after another. I understand it's cheaper in the U.S. but in Canada we are raped when it comes to television, internet and cellphone services.

After all is said and done we fork over a lot of money we could spend better elsewhere for a handful of programming we actually watch.

This whole CBS All Access thing reminds me of what Rogers did when acquiring the sole national broadcasting rights for the NHL in Canada. Rogers waved a crazy bag full of cash in the NHL's face, who got so dizzy with greed they quickly fell to their knees and unzipped Rogers' pants. In exchange the only way for a lot of hockey viewers to watch games they're interested in is to fork over more cash than before to cater to Rogers' new monopoly.

Human beings really are shit to each other. Despite what we see on television and in film most people do not live the middle class dream usually portrayed simply because that middle class has been and is being squeezed into near extinction. Yeah, people always find a bit more cash for things they want (and likely don't really need) and rationilze the expense as just "this one little thing."

I've grown past a lot of having to see or have something right now. I've grown past being dazzled by something just because someone slaps a familiar name on it. I've been taken in and burnt by hype sufficiently in years past. I've learned to become very frugal with the few bucks I have.

CBS could have earned a lot of good will by putting this new Trek series on their regular network where immediately a lot of viewers, both casual and avid alike, could see it. And not just the pilot, but the whole series. Or they could have syndicated it to one of the existing specialty channels.

But, no, not when they see an opportunity for another cash grab.

So as far as I'm concerned they can go to hell.

Forget it.

What are the odds this new series will be so fantastic that I will find it impossible to ignore? Given the trends in television I've seen and the dude in charge is connected to the worst version of Trek I've ever seen the odds are miniscule. Yeah, it could happen otherwise, but I seriously doubt it.

They will have to prove me wrong.

They could have released it on their regular network and made it available for online streaming the day after for those who missed the initial broadcast. Instead they're going to pry more than a few more bucks out of your pocket.

They can screw themselves as far as I'm concerned.

 

[M-Red]

I'm thrilled about this news...a new Trek series! Finally...


I'm definitely going to buy it. It's $6/month. Literally, America's welfare recipients and many of the homeless could set aside $6/month if they wanted to. And TV isn't "free" anymore anyway.


Awesome news! Can't wait!

 

[Cinema Geekly]

I think the show is doomed. And for all I know it could be the best Trek show ever made. Regardless of what you think about a show like Firefly you can't deny that it was well received and that show was only TV. Quality isn't always an assurance.

In this case its a desperate attempt to try and launch their over-the-top streaming service. The problem they face is two fold. Firstly they aren't Netflix, Hulu, or even Amazon. Those are seen as 100% streaming services as in this is all they do and even then Hulu hasn't found any ground outside of that. Amazon is starting to and Netflix has started to take hold as a place people can go to for quality programming. This CBS thing is like a distant 5th or 6th place in the market already and Trek isn't going to fix that.

The second issue (as I see it) is perception. Like I said it took sometime before people looked at Netflix airing original shows and thought of them as something other than "crappy shows not good enough for TV". They had to establish their identity. People look at CBS and think "they are already a network channel, so if they have a web exclusive show then it probably isn't good enough to air on their flagship channel".

Star Trek is popular but I don't think this is popular enough to drive enough people to subscribe to an already dubious service that is far more limited to any other pay to play streaming service out there. They are far better off shipping to one of those services or just airing it on TV.