http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/11/star-trek-returns-to-a-new-tv-landscape/413680/
The Atlantic thinks its a good idea.
The Atlantic thinks its a good idea.
Forbes feels it's a terrible move to make people pay to watch ST
- Thread starter VOODOOXI
- Start date
Well... let's examine the word ''paying''. When you watch a Star Trek movie, whether on the big screen or the small, you're paying for a movie ticket, or maybe paying for the episodes (either on physical media or streaming). Certainly this is more likely to be the case these days, now that not many free-to-air television channels rerun any of the shows any more. Unless you're downloading them all illegally, of course, in which case you're obviously not paying.
Basically, if you're watching Star Trek these days, you should already have paid for it. One way or another. So, what exactly is the problem with paying to watch a new TV series?
Unless, what you are REALLY saying when you tell us that you ''won't be paying to watch Star Trek'', is that you won't watch the new Star Trek, or that you'll be watching the new Star Trek, illegally, by downloading it from a torrent site?
Yeah, but does anyone actually think like this? For most people, they buy a TV package, they don't pay for an individual show.
I think everyone is missing the point of how this is different and worrying - Star Trek's goal should be to BUILD a new fanbase - not try to make the existing dwindling one pay.
How will this build a new audience? Do people seriously expect someone is going to pay for an entire streaming service just for one show, that they aren't even yet a fan of?
I don't think people are thinking this through properly - where are new viewers gonna come from? Are they gonna join CBS and pay an extra fee on top of whatever they already had just because their friend said one show was good? It's sounding like a glorified series of webisodes made for an existing fanbase.
Well, if this show fails in America, they sure as hell aren't gonna keep making it just for Europeans, and a few people in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
So it basically effects us a hell of a lot - it dies in America, and we have no Trek either.
For what it's worth, here is my perspective as a somewhat new fan.
Thanks to Netflix I have managed to watch almost every episode of ever version of Star Trek. I am making my way through the third season of Enterprise.
I already subscribe to 4 different streaming services. It's cheaper than having cable/satellite. As much as I adore Star Trek, I have no desire to be sign up for a 5th streaming service. Besides, CBS All Access has nothing else to offer me. (And yes I know first world problems. If I can subscribe to 4 streaming services I can subscribe to a 5th.)
The other streaming services I use have more value than CBS All Access from my vantage point. They have shows/movies in many categories from, not only other networks, but other countries that I enjoy watching. CBS All Access (at this point in time) would only offer me the new Star Trek series. I don't see the value in paying for a service to get only one show out of it. Also, as a new fan I have yet to make my way through all of the Star Trek content. I haven't even started on the movies or the animated series. Unless CBS yanks Star Trek from the other streaming sites, I still have new content to enjoy. Even if they did yank the shows from the other services I still don't think I would sign up.
Unfortunately for CBS, and as entitled at this may make me sound, audiences (especially younger audiences) are used to having access to content from a number of services/platforms. Take HBO for example. You can pay for it through your cable company, you can pay for it as a standalone streaming service or you can pay for it in connection with a Sling TV subscription. CBS could very well be setting themselves up for a losing battle by making their content (potentially) exclusive to one service.
Thanks to Netflix I have managed to watch almost every episode of ever version of Star Trek. I am making my way through the third season of Enterprise.
I already subscribe to 4 different streaming services. It's cheaper than having cable/satellite. As much as I adore Star Trek, I have no desire to be sign up for a 5th streaming service. Besides, CBS All Access has nothing else to offer me. (And yes I know first world problems. If I can subscribe to 4 streaming services I can subscribe to a 5th.)
The other streaming services I use have more value than CBS All Access from my vantage point. They have shows/movies in many categories from, not only other networks, but other countries that I enjoy watching. CBS All Access (at this point in time) would only offer me the new Star Trek series. I don't see the value in paying for a service to get only one show out of it. Also, as a new fan I have yet to make my way through all of the Star Trek content. I haven't even started on the movies or the animated series. Unless CBS yanks Star Trek from the other streaming sites, I still have new content to enjoy. Even if they did yank the shows from the other services I still don't think I would sign up.
Unfortunately for CBS, and as entitled at this may make me sound, audiences (especially younger audiences) are used to having access to content from a number of services/platforms. Take HBO for example. You can pay for it through your cable company, you can pay for it as a standalone streaming service or you can pay for it in connection with a Sling TV subscription. CBS could very well be setting themselves up for a losing battle by making their content (potentially) exclusive to one service.
Last edited:
I don't see what the problem is, frankly.
Everything is moving to streaming. More and more people are canceling their cable and satellite services and going streaming only. It's way cheaper (for now, anyway) and you pay only for what you want. $8 for Netflix, $8 for Hulu, $15 for HBO Now, $10 for Showtime, $6 for CBS....still less expensive than your average cable/satellite bill. They're all easily dropped and re-added too. No hassle, unlike cable/satellite packages. Also, no real equipment other than a streaming device; no big boxes taking up space. No (or few) commercials. Binge watching.
Streaming only (no cable/satellite) is the way of the future. It's coming. Deal with it.
Everything is moving to streaming. More and more people are canceling their cable and satellite services and going streaming only. It's way cheaper (for now, anyway) and you pay only for what you want. $8 for Netflix, $8 for Hulu, $15 for HBO Now, $10 for Showtime, $6 for CBS....still less expensive than your average cable/satellite bill. They're all easily dropped and re-added too. No hassle, unlike cable/satellite packages. Also, no real equipment other than a streaming device; no big boxes taking up space. No (or few) commercials. Binge watching.
Streaming only (no cable/satellite) is the way of the future. It's coming. Deal with it.
Just a quick note on the thread title.
Under the name of the "Contributor" of the article.
Under the name of the "Contributor" of the article.
As someone whose sole income is disability payments, I would tend to disagree. Just spent two weeks flat broke and out of food due to an overdue bill and having to buy new shoes. There's only one check a month.
From my perspective, it isn't the fact that it's streaming only so much as it's only going to be on the CBS streaming service, which is unavailable to anyone outside the US, such as myself. Star Trek is a mainstream franchise with a worldwide fanbase, in fact STID actually did better in the overseas box office than in the US. By limiting this series to the US only and cutting off a decent percentage of Trek fandom, CBS has already shot itself in the foot regarding this show.
At first when I heard that it was streaming only, I was very dismayed. Then I realized: It's 6 bucks a month and your first week (at least now) is free. I refuse to pay for cable. I watch only a few shows so what's the point? The way I look at it, I end up spending $18 for the season. I would be shocked if it was more than 13 episodes so you wait a week after the premiere, get your first week free and then subscribe. Cancel the minute it's over. $18. Three venti white chocolate mochas. I can live with that. Unless I hate the pilot. Then I'm not out a dime. And I can get those mochas. 
(Of course, I'll be married by then, so I might have to ask the wife if it's okay. She likes The Good Wife, so I bet it'll work out.)
(Of course, I'll be married by then, so I might have to ask the wife if it's okay. She likes The Good Wife, so I bet it'll work out.
)
^However, CBS don't care about overseas so much. Most of their income is from the home market, so why should Star Trek be any different? They're not making TV for the world, they're making it for the US - if other countries happen to like it, that's just the icing on the cake.
EDIT: This is in response to The Wormhole above.
EDIT: This is in response to The Wormhole above.
It still sounds like piss-poor marketing to produce a series for an established franchise like Star Trek and then intentionally lock-out half its fandom.
I do think cable TV will go the way of the dodo eventually and streaming will replace it as television and the internet become evermore merged. That said there are any number of existing streaming services already going to make this series available. Asking people to pony up more for yet another streaming service simply for one show is begging for trouble, as I see it.
I thought it might not matter to other other markets where CBS would sell it to other services. But if it doesn't fly with CBS' streaming service in the U.S. then it won't bode well for it continuing for other markets to air.
Regardless of whatever I might think of the eventual product this doesn't sound well thought out business wise.
I thought it might not matter to other other markets where CBS would sell it to other services. But if it doesn't fly with CBS' streaming service in the U.S. then it won't bode well for it continuing for other markets to air.
Regardless of whatever I might think of the eventual product this doesn't sound well thought out business wise.
Give up one or two packs of cigarettes a month.
Boom.
CBS will be selling the broadcast rights internationally.
They aren't locking out other markets. The series will be offered to those markets to syndicate as they see fit.
But you won't be paying for an individual show. You'll be paying for every show CBS All Access provides, Star Trek 2017 being only one of them. Which is no different than paying whatever ridiculous amount of money per month cable or satellite TV currently is, just to see the one or two shows that you actually care about.
So to answer your above question, yes, people buy TV packages all the time just to watch one or two shows.
You could have 3-4 services and still pay a quarter of cable and have 10,000s of viewing choices You get a lot for $6-10
I can save you money right now. You probably have a cable broadcast tier...lower your tier to one with fewer channels. I probably just saved you $30-70. Or, get rid of cable altogether..just saved you $100 plus. Pay for Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime and CBS access..That's roughly $35 total. If you lower down just one tier I've found your extra $6 for you. You're welcome.
I can save you money right now. You probably have a cable broadcast tier...lower your tier to one with fewer channels. I probably just saved you $30-70. Or, get rid of cable altogether..just saved you $100 plus. Pay for Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime and CBS access..That's roughly $35 total. If you lower down just one tier I've found your extra $6 for you. You're welcome.
Exactly. It's not paying $6 a month for one show, but all the All Access line up and live shows. Heck, even some of their older shows are part of the line up that I'm interested in, like JAG, Frasier, and other shows.
Also, I believe part of the agreement is CBS will be syndicating with international partners. So, there is access for international fans as well that doesn't involve a streaming service.
I don't think it is as dire as being painted.
Maybe, with a year's head start. Only recently got down to about a pack a day. But homeless people probably need that six bucks to eat.
