I'm a little apprehensive to bring this topic up as I'm actually pretty satisfied with CBS All Access being the home for new Star Trek. But I can't help but think putting Discovery, Picard, and all the future live action shows on a cable channel somewhere would benefit the new shows and increase their popularity just simply by making it more accessible. How many times have you read "I ain't paying to see Star Trek when I already pay $XX per month for cable!" on the Facebooks or Twitter or whatever? The Paramount Network is the one that I really think makes the most sense. It used to be Spike, which used to be TNN, and if you remember TNN/Spike at one time was airing about 1,315 (give or take) TNG/DS9/VOY episodes per day. I know when they re-branded as 'The Paramount Network', they said they wanted prestige programming with a rural setting (like Yellowstone), but they're showing things like John Wick, Bar Rescue and Cops, so I don't think Trek would be a stretch. Plus, with the Viacom/CBS merger, The Paramount Network becomes a sister subsidiary to CBS All Access, making it more likely. It really makes the most sense. CBS All Access can still be the exclusive 'streaming' home to 'new' Star Trek - but on cable, The Paramount Network is where you would turn to. And if anything, Star Trek feels like it BELONGS on anything branded 'Paramount' just based on tradition. BBC America and IFC also comes to mind as they seem to air a lot of TOS/TNG/VOY episodes during the day. But they're also owned by a competitor. Not sure if CBS would want to ship out 'new' Trek to a competitor. Just my three cents. I really do struggle with keeping my Threads short. Thanks to those who actually read this far, whether or not if you agree with the post. =) Moderator(s): I wasn't 100% sure where to put this. I seriously considered just putting it in the general Star Trek forum, but since it deals with how 'future' Trek would be released, I put it here. Apologies if that was an error of judgement.
Regular Broadcast TV is.... well not yet on life support but it is approaching retirement. I think it is clear streaming is the future. I would re badge CBS All Access to The Paramount Network, especially if they have global ambitions. Outside of North America most people have never heard of CBS, Paramount however is a relatively known brand.
1 - many have dumped cable, so it would be irrelevant 2 - the more you have the more you dilute it ... quantity or quality? After letting Abrams thumb his nose at canon and trash ST, it's time to put it to bed. Let it rest in peace. Enjoy what we have. Bonanza, MASH, All In the Family, Happy Days .... all kept on the air far beyond their prime because the suits wanted to continue milking a cash cow.
If JJ Abrams were actually involved with these new series, then you'd have a point. Not a point I'd necessarily agree with, but still a point. But he's not. So it's a non-issue. Then there's Rick Berman, who ran Star Trek into the ground by the end of his tenure. If Alex Kurtzman had continued to make Star Trek the way Rick Berman did, then not only would you have a point but I'd also even agree with you. But he's not. It's important to differentiate between different creative teams and different regimes. Someone saying Discovery isn't any good because of JJ Abrams is like someone saying TNG wasn't any good because of Harve Bennett. I'm not quite sure what I think of year-round Star Trek. As long as all the series aren't done by the same creative team and as long as they each carve out a different niche, then it should be okay even if I don't like all of it. If it were all by the same exact people and there weren't any real way to tell the series apart, then I'd agree that it would be a one-way ticket to Burnout. If this were 10 or 15 years ago, I'd want Star Trek on the Sci-Fi Channel. But, as the channel is now? No way. AMC would be a good channel for Star Trek. They'd put out a higher-class series. But, otherwise, I prefer that Star Trek is on a streaming service. If it were a Netflix Original, that would be my first choice. But CBS All Access isn't bad.
I stand by my statements. Everything since Enterprise (and even it to a degree) are just the suits milking a cash cow. They have a captive audience of addicted trekkies who will watch anything at all with "Star Trek" on it, regardless of quality or canon. It is no longer about vision or concept or ideas, it is only about profit. As for Abrams, he incited me to something I'd not done in twenty years - walk out on a movie. To this day if i see his name associated with anything ST, it is the kiss of death.
If anything was milking a cash cow, it was Voyager - safe, predictable and trope-filled, with the writers tightly constrained to their frustration. TNG, Enterprise and many of the movies had similar issues. Much of the Berman era was about pouring out a vast quantity of Trek with little care for quality or creative vision. I don’t enjoy the Kelvin films and Discovery because I’m an “addicted Trekkie”, blinded to quality and uncaring about canon. I enjoy them because I think they’re at least as good - and often better - than much of previous Trek.
With the exception of VOY's finale and the first few episodes of ENT (to sample the series), I walked away from new Star Trek for six years. From 1999 to 2005. I'll gladly do it again if I get to the point where I don't like it anymore. Unlike other people, I don't hate-watch or watch something I don't like. I have enough shit to deal with in Real Life. Why would I want to watch something I can't stand during my free time? If I can watch whatever I want, it's going to be something I actually enjoy. And I'm actually quite picky when it comes to quality (or at least my perception of it) and my preferences in general. Anyone who knows me in real life will tell you that. I also happen care about canon. But it's more like a game, where I try to see where it fits. It's supposed to be fun. It's not a religion or a way of life. I'm not sure about Doctor Who, but Star Trek's continuity still holds up better than the continuity of, say, Marvel or DC. Even now. Those are the only other franchises I can think of, besides soap operas, with continuing lore spanning half a century or more. EDIT: I thought about Sherlock Holmes, on the literary end, but it looks like his Official Canon only seems to span from 1887 to 1927. (link) So if we leave out Marvel and DC Comics, and just look at TV, then the only genre franchise comparable to Star Trek at all is Doctor Who. Both are in uncharted territory as far as running this long. I don't know enough about DW to say anything about what it's doing right now, but I like that Discovery and Picard are branching out in different directions. So will Section 31, Lower Decks, and Pike (if it happens). No two of these seem as if they'll be alike.
I assume the reason Trek is on CBS-AA is that their number crunchers have decided this is the way they can maximise profit. Maybe if CBS-AA dies their catalogue will end up elsewhere, but for the next few years at least, they're aiming at people who learn of these things through YouTube trailers and the like. The hard-core fanbase with money to spare. Are you aware good sir, that Star Trek has always been about making money? Since the original pilot episode?
Never more brazen than when the Great Bird added in a scene - against Nimoy’s protests - to flog his own IDIC merchandise.
Anyway, original topic: I don't see any sensible Cable Network that will give Star Trek the same attention that CBS All Access is. And no way would we have Discovery and Picard. It would be one or the other. If Star Trek were on AMC, I'd like to think they'd make it more like Mad Men but they could go the other way and make it like The Walking Dead. People who think "STD isn't Star Trek!" would come screaming back if they saw what Walking Dead Trek was like. I've never seen The Walking Dead but I'm going to make the wild, crazy guess they'd probably hate it even more. Then there's HBO Trek.
I am quite divided on this one. On one hand Star Trek at its finest always adressed the current issues of the time. Being broadcast on Television would expand the reach of those messages and at the same time attract new audiences that tune in by accident and maybe like what they see. Attacting new fans is harder on a streaming site where people usually only search for what they know. On the other hand - with the current downfall of regular Television with their (lack-of) quality programming - a high value production would be in a bad neighborhood with all those cheaply produced "reality" shows. People that want intelligent entertainment are starting to stay away from it so that takes away viewers. On top, the ratings system does not work on a show like Star Trek. JMS can tell you a lot about this with the cancellation of B5s sequel Crusade. So I guess, an initial release via a streaming service is fine, but after the show has had it's (7 or so Season) run and the DVD/BR Boxes are in the stores it should go to cable network to be shown with the rest of the bunch.
I think it's only a matter of time before reruns of DIS, PIC, the still unnamed S31 show, etc., winds up in US syndication. CBS still has a whole division dedicated to selling reruns of shows. With the recent expansion of digital-only local cable channels in many markets, it's almost almost like 1969 again as far as second-run syndication in the US goes. I'm sure that any shows that initially ran on CBSAA will be edited for TV (more to include commercials and fit a 60-minute time slot than for content, IMO), but I think it's more of a question of when they'll show up on a cable outlet more so than if. I'm inclined to think, however, that any CBSAA show will only enter syndication after it's completed its original run.
Oh yay, another “Abrams is the Star Trek Antichrist” post when the truth is that he made several extremely successful films that not only made tons of money, they reinvigorated Star Trek so that we could get all these new shows that CBS is making now. As for your examples of “cash cow” shows that “the suits kept milking: every one of those examples are not shows that suffered from being on the air too long (you might have a case with Happy Days but at least it spawned several successful sequels.) Berman Trek, on the other hand, is another matter. When you start to have episodes in your new shows that literally have the same plot/storylines as episodes from the previous show, then it’s time to say, enough. And that wasn’t even done.
I think maybe I need to offer a little clarification here. What I had in mind was something closer to how the actual CBS broadcast station ran the first season of the CBS AA show The Good Fight as a summer replacement show, or how the Amazon Prime show Transparent had a run on Sundance TV. I was thinking season one and two of DSC could have a run somewhere on like The Paramount Network or wherever. And season one of PIC could run there too maybe a year or so after all the episodes have premiered on CBS AA. I guess technically what I was referring to actually was a form of syndication. But with it being just 10-15 episodes per season for the shows, I wasn't sure if 'syndication' was the right word to use here. To be syndicated, I think there needs to be a certain number of episodes to qualify. And with DSC and PIC being super serialized, I don't know how well that plays into syndication. But again, yeah, syndication might actually be the best word to describe what I was talking about. Anyway, apologies for not being clearer on this. Sometimes my short attention span gets the best of me.
Cable? What's that? Haven't had cable for about 10 years. Didn't even have a tv for about 5 years, until broke down and bought a pretty nice roku enabled 4k tv 50" set for about $280 last Black Friday so guests can watch Netflix or Amazon. Syndicatation, cable, tv channels... such archaic terms. If something is not available through on-line, I'm not interested, and sure as hell ain't going to be paying any money for it.