Not your granny's TV

[JohnD]

Selling soap in 1966 is far different than in 2016.

When TOS first aired a production had to have 26 new episodes to maintain a weekly time slot for national programming. The following 26 weekly time slots that year would be filled with repeats. IMHO the most audience friendly arrangement of all.

Ah but greed whittled down the cost / profit margin first in cable (where audiences ever since have had to pay for programming / commercials). Greed also reduced what a network was willing to pay for a TV series shrinking the number of required episodes per season to as few as 6 for the Frasier TV series in 2000. Six.

The time slots would be filled with cheap programming fodder shows (especially around the holiday season).

Now the greedy require a subscription in addition to cable† costs (CBS All Access) to even watch the new Star
Trek TV series beyond the first episode.
† or dish or direct

Point being, unless the series is a wowser! smash hit for Star Trek fans to incorporate into their already over priced cost of living budgets the monthly expense of CBS All Access subscriptions, the new Star Trek TV series is doomed to fail before it ever starts.

Perhaps it would be in the best interest of Star Trek and its fans to raise money to buy Star Trek from CBS and make it a co-op with a board consisting of the likes of JJ Abrams, Doug Drexler, Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, Jonathan Frakes, Gabe Koerner, etc. Star Trek Productions Inc.

As I said, unless the new series is one that grabs Trek fans and won't let go... the layers of profiteering CBS has buried it under will insure its failure.

 

[Shalashaska]

Hey guys, look, it's a Trekkie writing off a new series, that we know nothing about, before it even starts!

What a unique sight to behold!

 

[Dukhat]

Now the greedy require a subscription in addition to cable† costs (CBS All Access) to even watch the new Star Trek TV series beyond the first episode....As I said, unless the new series is one that grabs Trek fans and won't let go... the layers of profiteering CBS has buried it under will insure its failure.

Spoken like someone who knows absolutely nothing about today's business model.

Know all those awesome TV shows that you love watching? Most of them are on cable/dish/FIOS/whatever. You're already paying to see them. When you stream movies/TV on Netflix, Amazon Plus, Hulu, or whatever, you're paying for that too. And do you know how many people pay for all this stuff? A lot.

CBS All Access isn't only showing Star Trek. They'll have other stuff too for the whopping 6 bucks you have to pay to have it.

And you know what else? After each season streams on CBS AA, they will quickly have them in stores on DVD/Bluray for people who don't have CBS AA to buy them and watch them then. Profit!

Perhaps it would be in the best interest of Star Trek and its fans to raise money to buy Star Trek from CBS and make it a co-op with a board consisting of the likes of JJ Abrams, Doug Drexler, Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, Jonathan Frakes, Gabe Koerner, etc. Star Trek Productions Inc.

1. Star Trek is not for sale, and never will be.

2. No fan would be able to afford it if it was.

3. This is not how things work.

 

[JohnD]

Spoken like someone who knows absolutely nothing about today's business model.

Know all those awesome TV shows that you love watching? Most of them are on cable/dish/FIOS/whatever. You're already paying to see them. When you stream movies/TV on Netflix, Amazon Plus, Hulu, or whatever, you're paying for that too. And do you know how many people pay for all this stuff? A lot.

CBS All Access isn't only showing Star Trek. They'll have other stuff too for the whopping 6 bucks you have to pay to have it.

And you know what else? After each season streams on CBS AA, they will quickly have them in stores on DVD/Bluray for people who don't have CBS AA to buy them and watch them then. Profit!



1. Star Trek is not for sale, and never will be.

2. No fan would be able to afford it if it was.

3. This is not how things work.

A whopping six bucks in addition to the one hundred bucks paid for cable (as you yourself admit we are already duped into paying).

Soon it will be a list of monthly fees and application fees and distance to the satellite fees and let's not forget sound... would you like sound with that show?

Laying back in the manure of the way things are and doing nothing about it is what makes it the way it is (and getting worse).

You, sir, are making a case for the "intelligence and wisdom" of going down with a sinking ship and for it to be foolish to even try to survive. Cheers to you, sir. Happy drowning.

 

[Dukhat]

That's funny, because I've had Netflix for years and have never paid more than the $7.99 per month fee.

And I don't have cable because I can't justify the $60-$100 per month for tons of channels and shows that I'll never watch. But I can certainly justify my 8 bucks for Netflix. And I'm betting that that's CBS's mentality too. Which obviously works.

You make zero sense.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

JohnD, if you object so strongly to the subscription model, why not just wait until the new series makes it to iTunes (as we all know it eventually will)?

Then you can buy a Season Pass and keep everything forever. Nothing monthly would be necessary. And since you have the files on your computer, it's not streaming.

 

[F. King Daniel]

They wouldn't be doing this if they hadn't crunched the numbers and decided they're most likely to make a profit on it

 

[theREVENGEofKAHN]

CBS isn't stupid. They might be greedy but not stupid. They probably have enough confidence in the concept of the show and the popularity of the brand to headline it for their streaming service. Other streaming services seemed too expensive when they started but eventually got cheaper as the quality of programming grew. I think CBS is planning on giving us some quality content to give us enough incentive to pay for their service. Case in point how many people pay for HBO just to watch Game of Thrones. Lets not dismiss this show before we have seen it.

 

[AviTrek]

Being on a subscription service has really hurt House of Cards, Daredevil, Man in the High Castle Mozart in the Jungle, Orange is the New Black, Game of Thrones, and many others.

But sure, dismiss the marketing experts at CBS that spent a lot longer than you crunching the numbers. After all, you think JJ Abrams would work for a fan Co-op owning a show that will never be for sale.

 

[HIjol]

John, I can see that your pain runs deep...but, as an alternative to sharing it with us, how about sharing the excitement and anticipation of a new Series! Of the 50th Anniversary! Of the new Movie!

The name of your Thread is "Not Your Granny's TV"

Indeed, not, for many of our Grannies! But I will bet a lot of our Grannies liked Star Trek! Which do you like?

 

[JohnD]

I am not pointing to CBS alone, my friends. No. I started the thread going back to the beginning citing the costly changes over the 5 decades since TOS first and last aired on NBC. CBS is only the latest in the trend of what I believe the new Star trek TV series is up against in becoming a success.

My only point in this thread is the success of Star Trek for my life long love of Trek.

Even my fan fiction script is written only with the success of Trek in mind and at heart.

 

[HIjol]

Very glad that you express a love for Star Trek...be excited! Many new Voyages on the Horizon. We shall see, but the upcoming adventures just might be...enjoyable!

 

[Dukhat]

Even my fan fiction script is written only with the success of Trek in mind and at heart.

I'm pretty sure every Trek fan fiction is written with that in mind.

 

[JohnD]

I'm pretty sure every Trek fan fiction is written with that in mind.

Indeed, sir. Yes indeed.

 

[2takesfrakes]

My only point in this thread is the success of Star Trek for my life long love of Trek.

Even my fan fiction script is written only with the success of Trek in mind and at heart.

I share your hope and concern for the future success of STAR TREK, I truly do. I have never known a world without this franchise. It's one of the many things about entertainment that I simply take for granted.

That stretch between the cancellation of ENT and the first reboot was extremely disconcerting! And it's not as though CBS is releasing a STAR TREK that I, personally, would've preferred (it's starting to sound like another crew/ship/century), but the mass appeal aspect is very promising. Whatever its potential shortcomings ... it will be slick and sexy and, undoubtedly, most Trekkies won't feel like they were ripped off. I'm just glad that TNG's already been and gone, it's made me more tolerant of the rest of the franchise.

By the way, JohnD, I've noticed that your Fractured Universe story is unwinding, nicely. But when you see these authorised STAR TREK writers publishing fan fiction for profit - OK? - for easy money, doesn't that take any of the fun out of it, for you? I'd want in .... I'd have to get me some of that! Because it's one thing to want STAR TREK to be successful. It's quite another to voluntarily get ripped off. I get the "doing it for love" angle, but if it was me, personally, I don't know ... I hate losing money.

 

[Kor]

I canceled cable after Mad Men finished, as it was the only show I cared enough about to watch brand new episodes, and it was the only reason I had cable in the first place. Any other shows I am interested in will come to Netflix soon enough, at only $8 a month.

If I really want to watch the new Trek series, another measly $6 a month is just fine.

Kor

 

[Anji]

Star Trek on special access channel? Sound to me like CBS isn't serious about producing good Trek but prostitutionalizing it to get people to subscribe. If that's the case don't be surprised folks if this series stinks too. They could be bring on the big names to get the public to subscribe and then not give them the creative freedom to produce a good series. I know I lived through the Paramount years.

IF THIS IS THE CASE, CBS needs to rethink their strategy. Star Trek is a series for the people and should be on regular channels. We saved it, it's ours. We will determine whether it stays in production.

 

[Dukhat]

Star Trek on special access channel? Sound to me like CBS isn't serious about producing good Trek but prostitutionalizing it to get people to subscribe. If that's the case don't be surprised folks if this series stinks too. They could be bring on the big names to get the public to subscribe and then not give them the creative freedom to produce a good series. I know I lived through the Paramount years.

IF THIS IS THE CASE, CBS needs to rethink their strategy. Star Trek is a series for the people and should be on regular channels. We saved it, it's ours. We will determine whether it stays in production.

I'm pretty sure CBS knows what it's doing.

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

Star Trek on special access channel? Sound to me like CBS isn't serious about producing good Trek but prostitutionalizing it to get people to subscribe. If that's the case don't be surprised folks if this series stinks too. They could be bring on the big names to get the public to subscribe and then not give them the creative freedom to produce a good series. I know I lived through the Paramount years.

IF THIS IS THE CASE, CBS needs to rethink their strategy. Star Trek is a series for the people and should be on regular channels. We saved it, it's ours. We will determine whether it stays in production.

Why would CBS pay Bryan Fuller, who I bet doesn't come cheap anymore, to run a show and then take away creative control away? I don't think you hire Fuller, someone with a fairly unique style and creativity, just so you can make Star Trek run of the mill. There are plenty of show runners that could do that, and people would still pay to watch it because it's Trek. No I think they hired Fuller because he has the possibility of bringing them profits and critical acclaim.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Star Trek on special access channel? Sound to me like CBS isn't serious about producing good Trek but prostitutionalizing it to get people to subscribe. If that's the case don't be surprised folks if this series stinks too. They could be bring on the big names to get the public to subscribe and then not give them the creative freedom to produce a good series. I know I lived through the Paramount years.

IF THIS IS THE CASE, CBS needs to rethink their strategy. Star Trek is a series for the people and should be on regular channels. We saved it, it's ours. We will determine whether it stays in production.

Oh please.