# New Star Trek on CBS All Access January 2017



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Press release: http://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-series/


> A totally new _Star Trek_ television series is coming in January 2017! The new series will blast off with a special preview broadcast of the premiere episode on the CBS Television Network, and the premiere episode and all subsequent first-run episodes will then be available exclusively in the United States on CBS All Access.
> 
> The brand-new _Star Trek_ will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966.
> 
> ...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Yay, another subscription and another monthly fee just to watch an "exclusive". I'll pass... I'm getting tired of being montly fee'd to death.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

> The new series will blast off with a special preview broadcast of the premiere episode on the CBS Television Network, and the premiere episode and all subsequent first-run episodes will then be available exclusively in the United States on CBS All Access.


And so the reluctant broadcast net has set a date. But I'm not sure what it means - CBS will stream "first-run" episodes of an original show on its streaming service January 2017? Presumably by then they will have a "no commercials" plan, though they have remained strongly committed to their affiliates.

I have been operating on the assumption that 2017 will be the year we will begin to know what the new age of TV will look like cost-wise. That's the year my current commitment to Dish expires.

But the idea of the show is fun to think about.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

And looking at the supported devices, I'd have to watch it on my computer. No listed support for either the Amazon Fire Stick or Playstation.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

dpeters11 said:


> And looking at the supported devices, I'd have to watch it on my computer. No listed support for either the Amazon Fire Stick or Playstation.


In 14 months, I expect this will radically change one more time. New devices will be introduced and CBS will embrace more devices by then. Or they will not survive.

My guess is they are still negotiating contracts with the other devices.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> In 14 months, I expect this will radically change one more time. New devices will be introduced and CBS will embrace more devices by then. Or they will not survive.
> 
> My guess is they are still negotiating contracts with the other devices.
> 
> ...


I actually completely missed that this was 2017. You're right, they have some time


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

CBS All Access does work well, albeit I watched on my Intel Computer Stick until I cancelled the service. Because our CBS station is an O&O we could watch it live. But CEO Les Moonves will be looking for strong revenue streams and right now the commercials make it worthless IMHO even though I have to wait 8 days for AutoHop to work. Still, the year 2017 looks like the year almost every network, broadcast or cable, will have found a place in the streaming lineup.


----------



## bertman64 (Aug 25, 2007)

_I just canceled after getting 30 day free trial to CBS: All Access. Like Hulu Plus with commercials but 2.00 cheaper per month. You get next day showings of new CBS shows whereas they are not giving these to Hulu. But with Hulu I get next day for NBC, ABC, FOX, and CW shows plus I got 2 months free with purchase of a new Roku 3. Then I got another Roku 3 for 49.99 by paying 60.00 for 3 months of Sling TV. Now I just need a Roku 4 to go with a new RCA 4K 65 inch TV I got at Samsclub for 799.00! All this after canceling Directv and the 6 HD DVRs I had amassed paying 199.00 for many just to lease them. After reading about what would be offered to someone out of contract on here I called to cancel but was going to keep it if they gave me the same deals they gave to some of you: 30.00 off for 12 months, Free DVR for 12 months, 5.00 credit for 12 months plus Sunday Ticket FREE with a new 12 month contract. Well I got none of that and a lecture about how they had given me over 900 in discounts the last 2 years! So I canceled and then they add 200.00 saying I am still in contract. So I write and email 3 times telling them the only new DVRs activated in the last 2 years were replacement units under their PROTECTION PLAN. So they finally clear my account so that is why I got no good offers. But I am happy all this occurred and I am free from the approx. 3,000.00 I was paying them each year! Anyway back to the topic: I will try CBS: All Access again to get this new Star Trek no doubt! But keeping Hulu Plus for now and may upgrade 4.00 per month to commercial free plan once my trial is over!_


----------



## Nighthawk68 (Oct 14, 2004)

I does say:
"Star Trek franchise will also be distributed concurrently for television and multiple platforms around the world by CBS Studios International."
I read this as becoming available on tv stations as well as streaming. If we have to subscribe to CBS All Access, then I will just wait and buy the Blu Ray season sets. I won't pay monthly DirecTv, monthly CBS and buy the Blu Rays.

Lets see, its still over a year away, hopefully something more will come out in the next week or two.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Nighthawk68 said:


> I does say:
> "Star Trek franchise will also be distributed concurrently for television and multiple platforms around the world by CBS Studios International."
> I read this as becoming available on tv stations as well as streaming.


That's not for the USA, CBS Studios International is the division that distributes CBS produced programming and formats to foreign channels around the world:
https://www.cbssi.com/
http://www.cbscorporation.com/portfolio.php?division=99


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

And here...we...go!

Each network slowly unveils their streaming services at a $6-$10+ per channel monthly cost... then starts to have unique content on those streaming services, hoping you will "cut the cord" and go to them... then you find out that unless you only want to watch a couple of shows a month, you're suddenly spending WAY more than you were spending for your satellite/cable subscription just to get a few new shows you like.

Welcome to that less-than-awesome less-costs-more future some of us have been leery of...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are some really good award winning programs that I will never see because I refuse to pay for them.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> There are some really good award winning programs that I will never see because I refuse to pay for them.


I've only recently realized just how many such shows - award winning or just shows I'd enjoy - are out there. And with streaming they will be out there until I get around to them or die.

I'm paying a lot for satellite TV.

In the meantime I'm paying a lot for high speed cable internet, and would do so anyway.

And I'm paying for Amazon Prime, and would do so anyway.

I'm also paying for Netflix in frustration specifically because A&E dropped "Longmire" which was its highest rated scripted show but the ratings came from undesirable old people like me.

And I've discovered Acorn TV where there is some really great TV that (1) was made elsewhere and (2) appeals more to old people like me.

The Millennials already stream, many never having had a cord to cut. Like many old people, I'm pretty sure they've got the right idea but I'm still addicted to "regular" TV. I have to figure out how to avoid withdrawal symptoms.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Next: Jon Stewart comes to SVOD on HBO Now: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/219833-svod-jon-steward-on-hbo-now/

The trend is continued. We'll see how the market evolves.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

I'm a little more concerned about carrying the ST torch than I am about distribution. What commonly happens is that when something gets this large or iconic it starts to crumble under its own weight. The multiple series and movies sort of prove this. As much as I like and respect JJ Abrams, I'd watch the old movies over and over before I'd watch another Transformers-inspired ST movie.

My advice on the cancellation of _Enterprise_ was "OK, you've wrung about every drop out that you can for now, so everybody involved go do something else not tied to this franchise for now and then we can rebuild it from the ground up in 5 or 10 years without the baggage of all the people currently involved, hopefully with fresh ideas (and fresh people)." Times up.

ST is big, demonstrated by how I can talk about it using just two letters, and everyone still knows what we're talking about. Its a really high bar, and nearly impossible without full self-consciousness holding everyone back. IOW, good luck with that. Success has many fathers while failure is an orphan, and so everyone wants to be involved or attached or claim territory or fame regarding something as big as ST (which is why the long hiatus was suggested in the first place). Maybe they would be better off just doing ST without calling it ST and without referencing or paying tribute to the mythology or the historic narrative altogether, which would unshackle them nearly completely, and lower expectations.

What they should capture is the familiar Kirk-Spock-Bones dynamic by using 3 new characters completely different from all of the original three. That relationship is what the core of the show was about. Go there; do that.

I think a better space show could be built on the sensibilities and art direction of _Alien_, actually, which got it all very realistically (believably) correct, 36 years ago.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Chuck Lorre had this on a vanity card, at least on Big Bang:

R.I.P.

Network Television

1948 - 2015

CBS recently announced that it was bringing back the series Star Trek, but not for the CBS network, for a streaming video on demand system called CBS All Access. In lieu of flowers, CBS has requested that mourners send them six bucks a month.

http://www.chucklorre.com/index-bbt.php?p=509


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TomCat said:


> ST is big, demonstrated by how I can talk about it using just two letters, and everyone still knows what we're talking about.


It helps that you are posting in a thread with the title spelled out. I was slightly confused until looking back at the thread title.

Star Trek jumped the shark when they blew up the planet Vulcan. They left the timeline I cared about. I realize that makes it easier on the writers ... they do not need to fit their universe into the universe of TOS, TNG, DS9 or Voyager. The current movies are not a prequel to the universe I grew up with. They are an alternate to the universe I grew up with.

As long as they are still doing "wagon train to space" (for the most part) I'll watch the movies. Not first run, since it isn't my universe but they will eventually be on something I already pay for.

If CBS makes the new series "CBS All Access" only I won't watch. My wife suggested that we could buy DVDs eventually but there are plenty of interesting shows I already get ... I do not believe I'll miss this one.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

And I think there are plenty of Star Trek fans that won't pay the $6. I know a guy that was very willing to pay $500 for a ticket to the Star Trek convention in Vegas plus all the regular costs of going out there etc for 2016, but won't be getting this.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

I'm looking forward to the completion and release of Star Trek Axanar.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> And I think there are plenty of Star Trek fans that won't pay the $6. I know a guy that was very willing to pay $500 for a ticket to the Star Trek convention in Vegas plus all the regular costs of going out there etc for 2016, but won't be getting this.


The demo for folks who are really looking forward to this skews heavily towards those savvy enough to find ways to get the episodes by the next morning. Or even before they are streamed.

For instance, Napster and iTunes are not what killed the record industry. What killed the record industry was them gouging us at 18 bucks a CD for 2 good songs and 8 mediocre ones. Now, its $1.29 per cut, which we can preview and cherry-pick, which seems reasonable, finally. People will pay for value, but will look for other avenues when they feel like they are getting a bad deal. I would not say $6 for CBS is a bad deal, but mine is not the only opinion.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

RunnerFL said:


> Yay, another subscription and another monthly fee just to watch an "exclusive". I'll pass... I'm getting tired of being montly fee'd to death.





James Long said:


> There are some really good award winning programs that I will never see because I refuse to pay for them.





TomCat said:


> I'm a little more concerned about carrying the ST torch than I am about distribution. What commonly happens is that when something gets this large or iconic it starts to crumble under its own weight. The multiple series and movies sort of prove this.


Just turn the TV off.

End of problem.

Been the best year for lack of TV frustration I can remember. No TV. No frustration.


----------



## Eddie501 (Nov 29, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> Just turn the TV off.
> 
> End of problem.
> 
> Been the best year for lack of TV frustration I can remember. No TV. No frustration.


Curious then why you are on a forum dedicated to discussing TV, in a thread about TV shows?


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

SayWhat? said:


> Just turn the TV off.
> 
> End of problem...


Maybe a more effective way to end the problem is to block trolls.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

And so from Comic-Con *we are told* that Gene Roddenberry had "an optimistic vision of the future compared to the unrest and negativity we're living through today." Except his vision was to be set on board a large interstellar spaceship in the 23rd century. The show ran from 1967-69 in the middle of unrest and negativity he and I were living through then. How the heck did the promotion of "Star Trek: Discovery" get dragged into the nutty current times. Sometimes people drive me nuts.

Anyway, *what else we are told* about the CBS All Access show is it "won't be episodic" but rather will tell stories like a novel. That means to me it won't be like most of the episodes of most of the previous Star Trek TV franchises where there is a continuing story arc, but each episode has its own complete, satisfying story arc frequently associated with a character ongoing story arc. The reason for this is apparently streaming allows a different way to present stories on television:



> "Because it's on CBS All Access, won't miss anything," [showrunner Bryan] Fuller said of the streaming service. "It's all at your fingertips."


Anyway, *we are reminded*:



> The first episode will air on CBS with subsequent episodes available on the network's digital and VOD platform. Netflix has international rights.










I was kinda looking forward to this show....


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Was?

I find it better to ignore the pre-hype completely. Then there is less chance of expectations being dashed, or raised too high. Roll the dice; watch for yourself, instead.

Not really an issue with this show, but I am curious why the Sulu movie kiss was cut. What passes for journalism only implies it is a sensitivity issue, or a political correctness issue, because they are basically all click bait whores now. Bloggers living in Mom's basement. My best guess would be the scene didn't work well, so they edited it out for that simple, creative reason. Still like to know (better to ignore the pre-hype doesn't mean I am always able to comply) :sure:


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Thank god for broadcast the net and plex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'll watch the pilot on CBS... then probably not be able to watch the rest of the series for years... I don't have Netflix or Amazon Prime, and I'm not looking to sign up for CBS All-Access for this show... and I don't want every other network to start their own similar streaming with exclusive content "channels..." Beware people... this is what your "a la carte" and streaming is likely to lead to... fragmentation.

For what it's worth, the non-episodic nature sounds more like the original Star Trek. While a few episodes built on something that came before, largely original Star Trek was not episodic and you don't really have to watch them in any particular order, with a few exceptions.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The only positive I see in the new series is that it is in the "prime" timeline (not the current alternate timeline of the movies) and features a different ship. It does not appear that they will be taking the characters that I know and cared about from the 60's and "re-imagine" them. I hate character changing re-hashes.

Star Trek: Discovery seems to be more of a Voyager or Deep Space 9 story ... another mission, not the Enterprise. It has not been revealed where in the "prime" timeline the stories will be placed. I hope it will not overlap or affect the rest of the canon of the "prime" timeline. But if I don't watch it when and where it is set and the characters it includes are irrelevant ... I'll just consider it another novel or cartoon or other "not quite Star Trek" story.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

James Long said:


> The only positive I see in the new series is that it is in the "prime" timeline (not the current alternate timeline of the movies) and features a different ship. It does not appear that they will be taking the characters that I know and cared about from the 60's and "re-imagine" them. I hate character changing re-hashes.
> 
> Star Trek: Discovery seems to be more of a Voyager or Deep Space 9 story ... another mission, not the Enterprise. It has not been revealed where in the "prime" timeline the stories will be placed. I hope it will not overlap or affect the rest of the canon of the "prime" timeline. But if I don't watch it when and where it is set and the characters it includes are irrelevant ... I'll just consider it another novel or cartoon or other "not quite Star Trek" story.


Take a look at Star Trek Axanar (axanarproductions.com). It takes place prior to TOS and is focused on Captain Kelvar Garth of Izar.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'll watch the pilot on CBS... then probably not be able to watch the rest of the series for years... I don't have Netflix or Amazon Prime, and I'm not looking to sign up for CBS All-Access for this show... and I don't want every other network to start their own similar streaming with exclusive content "channels..." Beware people... this is what your "a la carte" and streaming is likely to lead to... fragmentation.


As it stands right now, CBS is choosing its own path. NBC, ABC, and Fox to one degree or another rely upon a combination of Hulu and their own sites. Ignoring movies, for TV Netflix is Netflix. just as Acorn TV is Acorn TV, both giving you access to a lot of content you can't get elsewhere. Amazon Prime really is a wholly different retailer package that offers some exclusive content.

CBS All Access gives you lives streaming access to your local TV channel as well as all network shows on-demand streaming. I think it's an interesting approach that deserves consideration. It means you still have access to live local news from a broadcast channel meaning it is an "out" to avoid buying a package when you "cut the cord" if you can't get OTA or don't want an antenna.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

A ~1 minute trailer is out. It just shows the Discovery leaving a space dock and already has Trek fans in an uproar. lol




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1165731836811970


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

phrelin said:


> As it stands right now, CBS is choosing its own path. NBC, ABC, and Fox to one degree or another rely upon a combination of Hulu and their own sites...
> 
> CBS All Access gives you lives streaming access to your local TV channel as well as all network shows on-demand streaming. I think it's an interesting approach that deserves consideration. It means you still have access to live local news from a broadcast channel meaning it is an "out" to avoid buying a package when you "cut the cord" if you can't get OTA or don't want an antenna.


I think FOX is starting to stream its stations live. Couple of them, so far.

It seems that CBS/CW (same top management) are the only big nets not providing recent shows on their free streaming sites; these are the only two that don't seem to be there for free (if built-in non-skip commercials is considered 'free') on AppleTV. Most cable nets seem to offer this.

So, CBS/CW is an outlier. It will be interesting to see which approach is most successful.

I have lots of opinions (as you may know). One is that ST would be best served by being as unshackled from its own legacy as is possible. The less it resembles what has gone before and the characters that have gone before, the more the door is open for creativity. So that is the approach I would like to see them take.

Either way, it still takes talented writers and actors.

I am not watching the movies. The first JJ Abrams one was very disappointing to me for two reasons. First, it seemed to be 'Transformers In Space' rather than ST. Second, I just can't get my head around Chris Pine as Kirk. He's a fine actor, probably, but maybe not much more than just a haircut. Doesn't exactly blow my skirt up. He's a Janeway, or an Archer, and hardly in the league of a Picard, or a Sisko, or a Kirk. The others are terrific, but I feel Kirk is woefully miscast here. I could name thirty other actors I would have rather seen take that role.

I'll go back and watch TNG or DS9 from beginning to end before I will suffer through 'Transformers In Space' again.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

phrelin said:


> As it stands right now, CBS is choosing its own path. NBC, ABC, and Fox to one degree or another rely upon a combination of Hulu and their own sites. Ignoring movies, for TV Netflix is Netflix. just as Acorn TV is Acorn TV, both giving you access to a lot of content you can't get elsewhere. Amazon Prime really is a wholly different retailer package that offers some exclusive content.
> 
> CBS All Access gives you lives streaming access to your local TV channel as well as all network shows on-demand streaming. I think it's an interesting approach that deserves consideration. It means you still have access to live local news from a broadcast channel meaning it is an "out" to avoid buying a package when you "cut the cord" if you can't get OTA or don't want an antenna.


But at the cost... if NBC, ABC, and FOX see that CBS has a "good idea" and they do it too... you could be looking at upwards of $30+ to just get your basic broadcast network shows one day via this model and no way to get bundle discounts because each one is direct-from-the-manufacturer purchased! So, people who freak out now about cable/satellite increases haven't seen anything yet IF this kind of fragmentation to the distribution system happens. For as evil as people want to make Dish, DirecTV, Time-Warner, etc... there's no doubt in my mind that IF we continue to evolve in the way some seem to want, we will LONG for the days of pay-tv that we have now.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> But at the cost... if NBC, ABC, and FOX see that CBS has a "good idea" and they do it too... you could be looking at upwards of $30+ to just get your basic broadcast network shows one day via this model and no way to get bundle discounts because each one is direct-from-the-manufacturer purchased! So, people who freak out now about cable/satellite increases haven't seen anything yet IF this kind of fragmentation to the distribution system happens. For as evil as people want to make Dish, DirecTV, Time-Warner, etc... there's no doubt in my mind that IF we continue to evolve in the way some seem to want, we will LONG for the days of pay-tv that we have now.


Well not exactly. The way things have evolved so far regarding ordinary TV programming I could easily live with just having:

my CBS local with streaming (if they ever go to no ads),
Hulu with no ads for the other broadcast net shows,
Acorn TV, and
Amazon Prime (which for us is just a bonus with free shipping)
Netflix and the "cable premiums" which are there to subscribe to as options.
But that's us, not everyone else. i do understand what you are saying.

That's why it was so great to see Dish introduce the Flex Pack without the expensive ESPN/Disney channels and with expensive locals being an optional add on so OTA is a choice for those who can get it and want to avoid that cost. Plus there are additional add ons that people might want.

What's happened is things have evolved to the point that the number of options out there is almost mind-boggling if you have high speed internet, which in my case I'd have even if no one had developed streaming TV. But even if you don't have access to high speed internet, the Flex Pack type system reflects the change in budget options for your home entertainment and that was forced because of the streaming options.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Well, yeah... if you literally only watch a handful of channels that's fine... but... remember too... outside of their own original content, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix and others depend on all those other networks creating content that they make profit on before allowing those companies to stream the episodes later for additional revenue. IF the network doesn't get its money for original airings, they will start to ask Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc for more money... and either that content goes away OR the prices to those services go up too.

People have been griping about the $2 Netflix price increase lately... "grandfathered" folk who just now are seeing this price increase. It's $2 increase on a $10 service... that's a huge price increase relative to total cost... over what $2 added to the average Dish or DirecTV bill would be... so, when the prices go up at these streaming services, they (for the moment anyway) tend to be much higher proportionally.

And then, of course, for anyone who watches a lot of different channels... there is nothing beating the cable/satellite price model right now.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Well, yeah... if you literally only watch a handful of channels that's fine... but... remember too... outside of their own original content, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix and others depend on all those other networks creating content that they make profit on before allowing those companies to stream the episodes later for additional revenue. IF the network doesn't get its money for original airings, they will start to ask Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc for more money... and either that content goes away OR the prices to those services go up too.
> 
> People have been griping about the $2 Netflix price increase lately... "grandfathered" folk who just now are seeing this price increase. It's $2 increase on a $10 service... that's a huge price increase relative to total cost... over what $2 added to the average Dish or DirecTV bill would be... so, when the prices go up at these streaming services, they (for the moment anyway) tend to be much higher proportionally.
> 
> And then, of course, for anyone who watches a lot of different channels... there is nothing beating the cable/satellite price model right now.


IMHO the Netflix price increase is to support their original content which is worth it. The way I view Netflix is I pay $6 for all those old movies and TV shows that I'd like to watch for nostalgic reasons but don't have time for. The balance is for original content or some recent TV shows I missed. But for me, Netflix (and Amazon Prime) is a premium channel like HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc.

Hulu is a whole different story. It's a joint venture of The Walt Disney Company, 21st Century Fox, and Comcast through their Disney-ABC Television Group, Fox Broadcasting Company, and NBCUniversal Television Group divisions. It is part of the measured viewing revenue system for shows from the broadcast and cable channels, of interest here include ABC, Fox, and NBC. My prepaid eyes on an NBC show episode on Hulu a couple of days after it airs are worth more to NBC than my eyes on that episode watched on my Hopper with AutoHop skipping commercials.

So in terms of the broadcast nets if one subscribes to a no commercials version of Hulu (available now) and CBS All Access (not available yet), and both give you extra original programming, it seems like a potential win for everyone because there will still be many, many OTA viewers and cable/satellite subscribers.

I already subscribe to Hulu for original content. If and when a commercial free CBS All Access subscription becomes available, then I will subscribe to it and drop my Locals Pack Add-on.

In any event, May 2017 has been my planned cut-the-cord target. If it wasn't for the fact that the redwoods have grown to the point when the wind blows the signal drops, the Flex Pack pricing might have kept me in the Dish fold with Acorn TV and Amazon Prime (because we're Prime customers anyway) and then simply rotating subscriptions between Hulu, Netflix, and CBS All Access for access to original programming.

IMHO the past ten years have been an intriguing time in home entertainment options which, contrary to what I thought back in 2007, has greatly expanded the number scripted TV shows available to most home viewers while providing them cost control options. It appears to me that the TV industry has adapted. But I am acutely aware of the fact that the adaptation has included more content produced outside the U.S. affecting employment of U.S. workers.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> ... there's no doubt in my mind that IF we continue to evolve in the way some seem to want, we will LONG for the days of pay-tv that we have now.


You may have hit on something. When the Betamax and DVD releases of movies happened, that was the start of the gravy train. I would hate to think how much money the big nets would like to think that I owe them for skipping a million or two commercials in the last 40 years.

It became known as 'free TV', except that it wasn't if you suffered through the commercials. (I did not).

But it was quite evident, the handwriting was on the wall decades ago, that content would eventually all be delivered as PPV, with payment due in other ways than by suffering the commercials.

Well, that day is quickly approaching. *My gravy train will be grinding to a halt*, someday soon, I fear. C'est la vie.

We'll have to depend on the marketplace working, supply and demand favoring us, to get a decent deal, because they all want all of our money, and will stop at nothing to pick our pockets.

Nothing new there. The big nets didn't want to give us TV shows. They didn't really even want us to watch the dumb commercials. The only one and single thing they ever wanted, was for someone to buy the ad time from them. Period. Instead of 'What's in your wallet?' it was 'Open your wallet, Capital One'.

Well, their house-of-cards captive-audience strategy is still crumbling, as it was in 1977 when I got the Betamax. Not much left, now. Shards. Rubble.

As I still tell my colleagues, 'the only reason we are even here is to give them something to separate the commercial breaks from each other'. They never have much of a comeback for that one.

And I will not miss commercials. The ones I can't skip, or suffer through the first 5 seconds of scrambling for the remote, are still JUST AWFUL. I do not understand why every action movie commercial seems to need a soundtrack full of annoying tympani and tom toms.

*DUM dum dum dum DUM dada dum dum DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!* Give us an f'ing break from that stupidity, please, it's never going to persuade me to go see your stupid movie. Probably make me stay away, actually. Lame. Capital L. C'est la mort.

But it is not a matter of 'IF', it's a matter of 'WHEN'. The new, non-gravy train is pulling out of the station, and neither you nor I have the power to stop it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The other thing... IF we go too far down the road, and the PPV-a la carte streaming model becomes the thing... Even when that collapses because people just will not be able to pay enough to make it work on a one-to-one basis... it will be hard to turn back to what we have now.

It's like... all the people who used to love Amazon and post messages hoping their local brick & mortar stores would close... and those have been closing... they see Amazon taking advantage of being a bigger fish in a now smaller pond... but it's not so easy to just re-open all those chain stores that went out of business IF the Amazon model becomes not to your liking one day. You'll have to just sit and wait for the next revolution, and hope it is better, and that you live to see it!

I think... as an example... fans of the old radio serial. TV killed those... but in the mid 1990s when MP3s started to become a thing... before they were commercially viable... just an unintended consequence of MPEG for movies... and then the iPod and other MP3 players started making it possible to carry lots of audio around... I started talking to older people at work and telling them that it seemed to me, the time was right for a resurgence of the old radio serial, only in MP3 form.

I didn't know then, but learned a few years later, that a company like Big Finish was doing this on CD in the form of full-cast audio plays... they are still going strong to this day, and they offer downloads as well as CDs for most products... like their famous Doctor Who among others... and it still makes me think how it might be possible this could be a thing with ALL the other properties studios own here in the US, to make new audio stories... hiring good actors and saving all the video F/X budgets to product top-notch audio adventures for a new wave of fans.

And some old fans of the radio serial days might still be alive to see this coming... but look how long it took to come back around! I hope TV delivery doesn't go south in a way that it will be missed for a generation before it can make a comeback again!


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

The CBS price point is just unrealistic. $6/month for shows that are on "free" TV (but not most sports) some out of syndication worn out reruns, and Star Trek. Just unrealistic. 

CBS is banking on the cult following of ST. Fact is the last TV series was cancelled and the current (pretty awful) movie series is going down the typical diminishing returns sequal business model that is modern Hollywood. 

But I think the main point is made up thread when it was pointed out that the ST fanbase skews heavily towards that who won't have to pay the $6. Yep. The technology to actually make things on the internet live behind unbreakable paywalls just does not exist. Every episode will be available, free, on 1000 sites, within hours of being shown.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Pay extra for it and it still has commercials? Yeah, no thanks... CBS can pound sand on this for sure.

http://variety.com/2016/voices/columns/new-star-trek-on-cbs-all-access-1201843135/


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Well, the article includes this:



> I asked DeBevoise if All Access might offer an ad-free option before the premiere of "Star Trek: Discovery." "It's something we're likely to pursue in the near- to mid-term," he said. "I can't give you an exact time frame, but we're looking pretty hard at it." The ad-free option, which would cost more, could arrive "before January," he added.


And CEO Les Moonves has indicated it will likely happen.

If they do, I'll drop my Dish Locals Pack and work with ad-free Hulu and ad free All Access.


----------

