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

[fireproof78]

I'm not subscribing. So, for the first time ever with Star Trek, I'll wait for the DVDs. Which, if I represent any significant portion of the potential audience, means I'll get one season before CBS blames the cancellation on ratings instead of their business plan.

Complaints about the fractured streaming model are growing. People have been unplugging from cable, which has nice big packages that include all your favorite stuff, and moving to streaming instead. Cable was expensive. Streaming is cheaper. But now the fractured market, where each stream subscription contains only a small percentage of everything you want to enjoy, begins to add up to the same costs that made people unplug from cable.

Forget that.

I can understand that, but having no investment in cable, the cost is minor, especially if I just want to plunk down 6 bucks or whatever after its all aired and catch up.

I just don't see it as that big of a deal. I'm sure I am missing something though.

 

[eyeresist]

I suspect the move is an indication they see a lot of streaming of the current Star trek offerings currently on All Access and that traffic shows them there is a viable market

Interesting theory.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Netflix press releases mentioned Star Trek's strong streaming performance several times, too, come to think of it. There's been a lot of sustainable success there.

 

[The Overlord]

I hate break it to you but CBS is in business to make money.

I'm not sure how much money CBS will make with this service, unless it is drastically improved by time it has the Star Trek show ready to launch. It doesn't seem as viable as Netflix or Hulu.

 

[fireproof78]

I would imagine that CBS took its time, and watched the market evolve before deciding to fully commit to that business model. Having watched the company I work for slowly add technological changes based upon their testing and and research I can understand the slow, analytical, approach.

With over a year's worth of time to enhance their product, as well as produce the new Trek, I think CBS has plenty of time to make it work.

 

[Autistoid]

I suspect the move is an indication they see a lot of streaming of the current Star trek offerings currently on All Access and that traffic shows them there is a viable market

Likely because the rest of their content is so weak, this is what is so commical about these clowns.

Anyone under the age of 30 that might be inclined to be a trek fan, isn't gonna go out of their way to subscribe to cbs.

It's the extreme opposite of whath as been happening with younger demographics.

The star trek demographic, are all fixated on AMC, HBO, and netflix.

 

[Autistoid]

Streaming sites like Netflix, which has a large library and no ads are the future.

CBS All Access feels like trying to graft the old media model on the age of the cord cutter. CBS All Access really seems lame compared to Netflix.

I doubt we would be getting the same level of complaints if CBS just made this show for Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Prime.

Problem being, none of us know what All Access will look like come January 2017.

What is with this magical apologist talk?


We know dam well it's not gonna change for the better.

At best it becomes add free as they tack on NFL to it's package and jack the price.

Star Trek fundamentally belongs on some other service not tied into cbs, it's not rocket science.

It's not just the cbs that sucks and a handful of amc and hbo shows that are good.

The entire appraoch to film making is different.

Every bit of CBS is at odds with the direction other content is going.

 

[Autistoid]

Does the All Access option mean that CBS is planning to go significantly darker and more adult with the new Trek series than has been the norm for the previous shows?

I hope not. They should go lighter if anything. Sick of sci-fi shows being all doom and gloom.

+1

a) The number of shows that are actually that gloomy are highly overstated.

I have no idea the world you live in, but a show like DS9 is never gonna rank dark and gritty to the majority of a modern audience.

b) Game of Thrones is an examination of what is assentially a feudalist world, by exstension elements of feudalism are gonna be all abound. Star Trek no matter the interpretation, is not a dystopia, or anything of the sort. Spies, section 31, wars by any measure is still in relative terms much better than what we have now, and is quite on par with TOS.

c) Say what you want, but the average person wants the speach and conversations to be something that can actually identify with. If a random person had the supermarket shows more personality than every character in TNG combined it's a sign maybe we've gone to far in that direction.

d) A happy bright future is relatively boring, unless you approach everything with a campy vibe where the action and intrigue don't go deeper than 45 mins.

 

[eyeresist]

Problem being, none of us know what All Access will look like come January 2017.

What is with this magical apologist talk?

We know dam well it's not gonna change for the better.

We don't know that. We do know that putting Star Trek on All Access is a pretty good indication CBS want to turn it from a back-catalog into a premium outlet. They probably have a few other new projects in the pipeline. I suspect they want to have their very own Netflix. So things might be very different in two years time.

Of course, they could still screw things up royally, which would be entertaining in itself.

 

[Autistoid]

Problem being, none of us know what All Access will look like come January 2017.

What is with this magical apologist talk?

We know dam well it's not gonna change for the better.

We don't know that. We do know that putting Star Trek on All Access is a pretty good indication CBS want to turn it from a back-catalog into a premium outlet. They probably have a few other new projects in the pipeline. I suspect they want to have their very own Netflix. So things might be very different in two years time.

Of course, they could still screw things up royally, which would be entertaining in itself.

With someone like kurtzman they know exactly what they are doing.

They got the guy from hercules for fuck sake, to run their marquee brand.

They are building a demographic that consists of old folk, teenagers, and people that are just not that bright.

 

[BillJ]

They are building a demographic that consists of old folk, teenagers, and people that are just not that bright.

Why don't you quit insulting people?

The folks that don't look too bright are those making a determination about something fourteen months before it premieres.

 

[Autistoid]

They are building a demographic that consists of old folk, teenagers, and people that are just not that bright.

The folks that don't look too bright are those making a determination about something fourteen months before it premieres.

We know they are going with kurtzman in five minutes time your gonna be claiming they are doing it for a reason.

CBS is clearly approaching this with an angle. That star trek equals action.

You yourself admit this is what you want to see.

 

[BillJ]

We know they are going with kurtzman in five minutes time your gonna be claiming they are doing it for a reason.

Of course there's a reason. They already have a successful relationship with him and his production company.

CBS is clearly approaching this with an angle. That star trek equals action.

You yourself admit this is what you want to see.

Of course it is. Because that is what even Roddenberry said it was.

 

[Trekkin]

I thought all the Trek series had a fair bit of action, it was just executed better in some than in others.

TOS had a lot of fist-fights and the like, whereas the latter series dropped a lot (but not all) of that. However that left the 'modern' Trek with space battles, which they didn't always have the budget to pull off - for every 'Sacrifice of the Angels', we'd have an episode with 5 minutes of the characters talking about how much damage they were dishing/receiving. Abrams films don't have the budget issue, so they can do more showing and less telling (and even then, STID only had three scenes you'd call 'pew pew'...and one of those was just Khan running around with throwing knives and a big gun.)

It's too early to even guess how this new series could approach SFX, stunts and spectacle, let alone what the show runners will want to do with it.

 

[Autistoid]

I thought all the Trek series had a fair bit of action, it was just executed better in some than in others.

TOS had a lot of fist-fights and the like, whereas the latter series dropped a lot (but not all) of that. However that left the 'modern' Trek with space battles, which they didn't always have the budget to pull off - for every 'Sacrifice of the Angels', we'd have an episode with 5 minutes of the characters talking about how much damage they were dishing/receiving. Abrams films don't have the budget issue, so they can do more showing and less telling (and even then, STID only had three scenes you'd call 'pew pew'...and one of those was just Khan running around with throwing knives and a big gun.)

It's too early to even guess how this new series could approach SFX, stunts and spectacle, let alone what the show runners will want to do with it.

The point is it was one possibility to where the plot will go.

Instead of nutrek where it's the only possibility where plot will go.

 

[1001001]

What is with this magical apologist talk?

We know dam well it's not gonna change for the better.

We don't know that. We do know that putting Star Trek on All Access is a pretty good indication CBS want to turn it from a back-catalog into a premium outlet. They probably have a few other new projects in the pipeline. I suspect they want to have their very own Netflix. So things might be very different in two years time.

Of course, they could still screw things up royally, which would be entertaining in itself.

With someone like kurtzman they know exactly what they are doing.

They got the guy from hercules for fuck sake, to run their marquee brand.

They are building a demographic that consists of old folk, teenagers, and people that are just not that bright.

Okay, that's enough of that.

I understand there's going to be lots of opinions and speculation over the next 14 months, but let's remember to discuss the show (which doesn't even exist yet, but we're arguing!) and not the fans.

This kind of comment is unnecessary. Everyone may consider this a friendly warning to stay on-topic and leave the personal stuff out of it.

Thanks.





Man, they can't start the new show forum fast enough...

 

[Trekkin]

I thought all the Trek series had a fair bit of action, it was just executed better in some than in others.

TOS had a lot of fist-fights and the like, whereas the latter series dropped a lot (but not all) of that. However that left the 'modern' Trek with space battles, which they didn't always have the budget to pull off - for every 'Sacrifice of the Angels', we'd have an episode with 5 minutes of the characters talking about how much damage they were dishing/receiving. Abrams films don't have the budget issue, so they can do more showing and less telling (and even then, STID only had three scenes you'd call 'pew pew'...and one of those was just Khan running around with throwing knives and a big gun.)

It's too early to even guess how this new series could approach SFX, stunts and spectacle, let alone what the show runners will want to do with it.

The point is it was one possibility to where the plot will go.

Instead of nutrek where it's the only possibility where plot will go.

That has nothing to do with what I said. It also has nothing to do with the show airing via subscription, so I'm gonna let it drop.

 

[Rojixus]

Netflix or bust, that's the only way I'd watch a new Star Trek legally.

 

[Autistoid]

Netflix or bust, that's the only way I'd watch a new Star Trek legally.

Meh I think it'd be fine if it was anything other than a CBS specific service.

If they paired up with the Syfy network, or even showtime itself I' think it might have a shot.

The problem is CBS is acting at odds with the whole premise of premium tier television.

Premium tier television is the only real source for adult(35-18) oriented content these days. As the big screen has largely jumped ship for pacific rim type movies.

 

[Squiggy]

Cable was expensive. Streaming is cheaper. But now the fractured market, where each stream subscription contains only a small percentage of everything you want to enjoy, begins to add up to the same costs that made people unplug from cable.

Forget that.

You can get pretty much every streaming service and it would still add up to less your typical cable package.