[TV] New Star Trek Show in Development?

[LawBeefaroni]

A lot of it comes down to value as well. $6 a month for one show someone is interested in vs $11 a month to Netflix for dozens.

Make a deal with Amazon or Netflix. Let us subscribe to first-run Star Trek for a small fee - say, $1.00/month with ads, $2.00 without. You'd be maximizing sales rather than maximizing per-sale profit, which would probably be the way to go if you have a product you want to pass on to millions.

They're leveraging one show (Star Trek) to sell us dozens (the All Access product).

[Jeff V]

A lot of it comes down to value as well. $6 a month for one show someone is interested in vs $11 a month to Netflix for dozens.

Make a deal with Amazon or Netflix. Let us subscribe to first-run Star Trek for a small fee - say, $1.00/month with ads, $2.00 without. You'd be maximizing sales rather than maximizing per-sale profit, which would probably be the way to go if you have a product you want to pass on to millions.

They're leveraging one show (Star Trek) to sell us dozens (the All Access product).

It's CBS. They've not had a single product of interest in decades...and they presume to sell us dozens?

[LawBeefaroni]

A lot of it comes down to value as well. $6 a month for one show someone is interested in vs $11 a month to Netflix for dozens.

Make a deal with Amazon or Netflix. Let us subscribe to first-run Star Trek for a small fee - say, $1.00/month with ads, $2.00 without. You'd be maximizing sales rather than maximizing per-sale profit, which would probably be the way to go if you have a product you want to pass on to millions.

They're leveraging one show (Star Trek) to sell us dozens (the All Access product).

It's CBS. They've not had a single product of interest in decades...and they presume to sell us dozens?

If someone buys it for Star Trek they've bought the other stuff. So yes.

Subscriptions also have a way of going uncancelled. They are far more preferable, from the seller's standpoint, to a single one-time sale.

[LordMortis]

It's CBS. They've not had a single product of interest in decades...and they presume to sell us dozens?

CBS get top rated shows all of the time... and then they never end them because they stay top rated for reasons I don't get. See: NCIS and BBT (Both shows were great. Both shows are long in the tooth. But both shows are still at the top of the ratings heap)

Maybe they should move NCIS and BBT to subscription only to generate interest in their service?

[LordMortis]

Subscriptions also have a way of going uncancelled. They are far more preferable, from the seller's standpoint, to a single one-time sale.

How much AOL still worth again? It's to the tune of billions, isn't it? Mind blowing.

[Zaxxon]

Maybe they should move NCIS and BBT to subscription only to generate interest in their service?

I'm a little confused, because I thought this was (kind of) their strategy. The only streaming service that had the NCISs was All Access, and then Netflix got it earlier this fall. I don't think they really know what they want All Access to be at this point--Trek will only be there, some other CBS stuff will air regularly and then only be there, and other CBS stuff is available on Netflix or other outlets.

Money; it's complicated.

[Jeff V]

A lot of it comes down to value as well. $6 a month for one show someone is interested in vs $11 a month to Netflix for dozens.

Make a deal with Amazon or Netflix. Let us subscribe to first-run Star Trek for a small fee - say, $1.00/month with ads, $2.00 without. You'd be maximizing sales rather than maximizing per-sale profit, which would probably be the way to go if you have a product you want to pass on to millions.

They're leveraging one show (Star Trek) to sell us dozens (the All Access product).

It's CBS. They've not had a single product of interest in decades...and they presume to sell us dozens?

If someone buys it for Star Trek they've bought the other stuff. So yes.

Subscriptions also have a way of going uncancelled. They are far more preferable, from the seller's standpoint, to a single one-time sale.

This is why their scheme is so unappealing to me, it is $6 for one show. Only one show. There's not a damn thing else they have I'm interested in. It's all a matter of perspective, and this is my perspective -- the perspective of a customer they are trying to get.

We need a poll, though...how many people here are willing to pay $6 for that show? Somehow I think we're going to fall short of the epic Walking Dead or GoT threads. The only person I know outside of OO that would even be interested in the show doesn't have cable or broadband -- and would never pay for it. If the pilot doesn't hit it out of the park and drive hoards of subscribers, this show will be DOA. It's going to be very hard for a limited subscriber base to generate enough buzz to inspire people to subscribe...I think most are just going to say "fuck that" when told they have to pay. Or even if they don't, just overcoming the inertia of a subscription process is enough to dissuade many.

[LawBeefaroni]

This is why their scheme is so unappealing to me, it is $6 for one show. Only one show. There's not a damn thing else they have I'm interested in. It's all a matter of perspective, and this is my perspective -- the perspective of a customer they are trying to get.

We need a poll, though...how many people here are willing to pay $6 for that show? Somehow I think we're going to fall short of the epic Walking Dead or GoT threads. The only person I know outside of OO that would even be interested in the show doesn't have cable or broadband -- and would never pay for it. If the pilot doesn't hit it out of the park and drive hoards of subscribers, this show will be DOA. It's going to be very hard for a limited subscriber base to generate enough buzz to inspire people to subscribe...I think most are just going to say "fuck that" when told they have to pay. Or even if they don't, just overcoming the inertia of a subscription process is enough to dissuade many.

I tend to agree with you. That's the gamble CBS is willing to make, though. They obviously don't view the new Star Trek as something for the masses but rather as a hot property they can leverage to sell other stuff.

[Blackhawk]

I think part of the problem is the Star Trek is an automatic draw with a built-in audience, but the rest of CBS's stuff is not the stuff that particular audience is interested in.

[Jeff V]

I think part of the problem is the Star Trek is an automatic draw with a built-in audience, but the rest of CBS's stuff is not the stuff that particular audience is interested in.

The ploy would likely be more successful if, say, SyFy was the network doing this to spin off a subscription service. Or commit to additional programming that would satisfy this interest group. Back when DS9 was running, WGN used it as the climax of a 4 hour block of geek-related programming on Saturday afternoons. Something similar might catch my interested (although catching it every week is probably out of the question these days). Not sure if it would be $6 worth of interest though.

[Blackhawk]

The CW could pull it off. They have Arrow, The Flash, Legends of Tomorrow, iZombie, The 100, Penn & Teller: Fool US - all shows that have an audience overlap with Star Trek.

[Zaxxon]

And all of which are already on Hulu.

[geezer]

This is why their scheme is so unappealing to me, it is $6 for one show. Only one show. There's not a damn thing else they have I'm interested in. It's all a matter of perspective, and this is my perspective -- the perspective of a customer they are trying to get.

We need a poll, though...how many people here are willing to pay $6 for that show? Somehow I think we're going to fall short of the epic Walking Dead or GoT threads. The only person I know outside of OO that would even be interested in the show doesn't have cable or broadband -- and would never pay for it. If the pilot doesn't hit it out of the park and drive hoards of subscribers, this show will be DOA. It's going to be very hard for a limited subscriber base to generate enough buzz to inspire people to subscribe...I think most are just going to say "fuck that" when told they have to pay. Or even if they don't, just overcoming the inertia of a subscription process is enough to dissuade many.

I tend to agree with you. That's the gamble CBS is willing to make, though. They obviously don't view the new Star Trek as something for the masses but rather as a hot property they can leverage to sell other stuff.

FWIW, Jeff, I agree with you as well... (Or maybe, "I fear you are right" is more accurate.)

[Blackhawk]

And all of which are already on Hulu.

I was referring only to the network's target audience, not the larger picture.

[Jeff V]

And all of which are already on Hulu.

I don't think we necessarily want to re-classify what already is into a new paradigm; it's more of a suggestion of what it would take for that paradigm to be successful. And that's an opinion, to be sure. That 4-hour block in a bygone era was something I planned my weekends around. 16/20 hours per month of that I think would be worth the extra fee. Could they sell enough to provide that much programming, though? The shows of course don't all need the budget of a Star Trek, but there is some cost on their end. If I'm paying extra for it, I'm also not tolerating any of these 16-episode seasons then perpetual reruns bullshit -- it doesn't have to be the same shows, but I want fresh programming every week for my pound of flesh. And that means more than just a handful of shows -- so more cost. It's hard to imagine that a rotation of a dozen or more shows will all be of roughly equal interest, though.

[Rumpy]

It's going to be very hard for a limited subscriber base to generate enough buzz to inspire people to subscribe..

This. This is what I've been saying, and I think it could be their blindspot.

[Defiant]

It's CBS. They've not had a single product of interest in decades...and they presume to sell us dozens?

CBS get top rated shows all of the time... and then they never end them because they stay top rated for reasons I don't get. See: NCIS and BBT (Both shows were great. Both shows are long in the tooth. But both shows are still at the top of the ratings heap)

Maybe they should move NCIS and BBT to subscription only to generate interest in their service?

I could see making a new show under the NCIS umbrella, but moving a highly successful show to online only seems like a very bad idea.

[Defiant]

FWIW I certainly get your point - it's already annoying to have to subscribe to Hulu, Netflix, etc. etc. etc. as various content providers choose up partners and segment their shows amongst various platforms, and CBS will just be one more platform to manage. (That said, for years I've been listening to people complain that they want to get just ESPN, or just the big networks and add ESPN or CNN or, God forbid, just Fox News or whatever.) Bringing it back on topic, we are now going to have the chance to get 4-5 hours of new Star Trek EVERY MONTH for the price of a Pumpkin Spice Latte, or 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a movie ticket. That hardly seems outrageous.

Yeah, it's annoying. It wouldn't be as bad if it were split up by content type than by the network. I wouldn't mind paying $10 for a service that offered a new Star Trek show and similar content (eg, Sci Fi shows and movies).

The competitive landscape is already pretty well formed - it's going to be various channel / movie bundles (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc.) competing with each other alongside a few channels with enough branding to stand on their own (HBO, ESPN, etc.).

There's no reason why a new service that concentrated on a certain genre couldn't be successful.

Though one thing that would be idea if there were a few BIG players, and you could get subscriptions to services through them. EG, Have netflix, but if you want CBS content, add, say $5 to your subscription. Want Sci Fi shows and movies? Add $10 and get the sci fi subscription.

That way, we would only have to go to 1 or 2 places to get what we wanted. And, frankly, the interface on Netflix is better than other places.

[El Guapo]

FWIW I certainly get your point - it's already annoying to have to subscribe to Hulu, Netflix, etc. etc. etc. as various content providers choose up partners and segment their shows amongst various platforms, and CBS will just be one more platform to manage. (That said, for years I've been listening to people complain that they want to get just ESPN, or just the big networks and add ESPN or CNN or, God forbid, just Fox News or whatever.) Bringing it back on topic, we are now going to have the chance to get 4-5 hours of new Star Trek EVERY MONTH for the price of a Pumpkin Spice Latte, or 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a movie ticket. That hardly seems outrageous.

Yeah, it's annoying. It wouldn't be as bad if it were split up by content type than by the network. I wouldn't mind paying $10 for a service that offered a new Star Trek show and similar content (eg, Sci Fi shows and movies).

The competitive landscape is already pretty well formed - it's going to be various channel / movie bundles (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc.) competing with each other alongside a few channels with enough branding to stand on their own (HBO, ESPN, etc.).

There's no reason why a new service that concentrated on a certain genre couldn't be successful.

Though one thing that would be idea if there were a few BIG players, and you could get subscriptions to services through them. EG, Have netflix, but if you want CBS content, add, say $5 to your subscription. Want Sci Fi shows and movies? Add $10 and get the sci fi subscription.

That way, we would only have to go to 1 or 2 places to get what we wanted. And, frankly, the interface on Netflix is better than other places.

I think that's right. Especially to the extent that CBS-like single channel services proliferate, I would think there would be a market for a convenient "aggregator" company. Though to some extent that's what we already have - that's essentially Hulu (and to somewhat lesser degree, Netflix and Amazon).

In terms of a la carte compilation, HBO was one of the big dominoes to fall. Now that that has, the next (maybe even final) really big cable nut to crack is sports, and specifically live sports.

[Defiant]

Though one thing that would be idea if there were a few BIG players, and you could get subscriptions to services through them. EG, Have netflix, but if you want CBS content, add, say $5 to your subscription. Want Sci Fi shows and movies? Add $10 and get the sci fi subscription.

.
And it looks like Amazon is doing *just* that. (Although I prefer netflix's interface and performance, if this allows the downloading of stuff to watch on the go like Amazon prime, that would be very nice).

Looks like there's a variety of different subscriptions available, some of them based on the provider (Showtime, Starz, Acorn TV, etc) and a few by content (eg, there's monsters and nightmares which appears to be Horror movies of the last decade).

The subscriptions run $3-9/month. I wonder if you could easily stop/start subscriptions (eg, so you just spend a month or two with one subscription, and then either stop and maybe subscribe to something else for a couple of months).

[RunningMn9]

if this allows the downloading of stuff to watch on the go like Amazon prime, that would be very nice.

Sadly it does not. I got the trial for the Showtime sub last night, and there is no option to download. But I'll pay $9 a month for a while to go through and watch all of the seasons of Homeland with my wife.

[RunningMn9]

I wonder if you could easily stop/start subscriptions

You just press a "subscribe" or "cancel subscription" button. The only caveat is that if they charge you for the month, you don't get any refunds - you are canceling the renewal. So you can still use it for the rest of the month.

[Drazzil]

All they are doing is driving more people to piracy.

[Defiant]

if this allows the downloading of stuff to watch on the go like Amazon prime, that would be very nice.

Sadly it does not. I got the trial for the Showtime sub last night, and there is no option to download. But I'll pay $9 a month for a while to go through and watch all of the seasons of Homeland with my wife.

I wonder if it depends on which subscription you get (or which show/movie within a subscription), since not every prime video is downloadable (presumably due to different licensing agreements).

You just press a "subscribe" or "cancel subscription" button. The only caveat is that if they charge you for the month, you don't get any refunds - you are canceling the renewal. So you can still use it for the rest of the month.

That's fine. So a customer can decide on a show or two he wants to watch, binge on it over a month or two and then quit, and then renew the subscription six months or a year down the line (to watch a new show or the next season or something).

[Blackhawk]

By some amazing coincidence, all Star Trek is leaving Amazon streaming in a couple of weeks.

[Defiant]

This is the best possible choice. Bryan Fuller—who worked on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager back in the day, before going on to create Pushing Daisies, Wonderfalls and Hannibal—is masterminding the new Star Trek TV show.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/hannibals-bryan- ... 1758068994

His two DS9 episodes were good (but not great), but he apparently is a fan of the series. And Wonderfalls was very good. (haven't seen the other two shows). So this is promising.

[Jeff V]

I might have to pay their blood money come football season, but I'm not going to watch this out of principle.

[Rumpy]

Well, I admit it's promising that they have someone already with previous Trek experience. That's somewhat reassuring. Won't likely happen, but I think it would be interesting to see a series set into the continuing future of the Prime universe, following the aftermath of the destruction of Romulus. What Abrams did to create NuTrek could also retroactively create an interesting scenario for the Prime universe. With Romulus destroyed and Spock gone among others, everyone's coming to grips with it, shaking the galaxy to its core and nobody would really know who to trust anymore. Set it 30-50-100 years after those events and you wouldn't necessarily have to refer to previous characters and instead rely on the events that carried it forward.

[Malificent]

This is the best possible choice. Bryan Fuller—who worked on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager back in the day, before going on to create Pushing Daisies, Wonderfalls and Hannibal—is masterminding the new Star Trek TV show.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/hannibals-bryan- ... 1758068994

His two DS9 episodes were good (but not great), but he apparently is a fan of the series. And Wonderfalls was very good. (haven't seen the other two shows). So this is promising.

Damn it. Now I'm going to have to watch this. Everything he's done has been amazing. I just hope this doesn't get in the way of American Gods.

[Blackhawk]

Set it 20 years ahead. In 'real time', it has been six years since Romulus exploded, fifteen years since Voyager returned. Add five more years. That's far enough to bump the look, the tech, the uniforms, and redo the politics, but still close enough to have the occasional cameo or guest star.

Of course, that likely won't happen. Still, it would be great to see High Chancellor Worf.

[Malificent]

This is the best possible choice. Bryan Fuller—who worked on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager back in the day, before going on to create Pushing Daisies, Wonderfalls and Hannibal—is masterminding the new Star Trek TV show.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/hannibals-bryan- ... 1758068994

His two DS9 episodes were good (but not great), but he apparently is a fan of the series. And Wonderfalls was very good. (haven't seen the other two shows). So this is promising.

Damn it. Now I'm going to have to watch this. Everything he's done has been amazing. I just hope this doesn't get in the way of American Gods.

I also just discovered Bryan Fuller is involved in an Amazing Stories reboot. Just take all my free time now - pour these show directly into my eyeballs please.

[Kraken]

I had never heard of Bryan Fuller, but I did like both Pushing Daisies and Wonderfalls. Both of those shows grew repetitious toward the end of their short runs, each being built on a simple conceit that was hard to keep fresh. The ST universe doesn't suffer from that flaw, so the new show shouldn't, either.

Not that I'll see it unless it eventually comes to either cable or DVD.

[Blackhawk]

2 episodes of DS9
22 episodes of Voyager
Created Pushing Daisies and Dead Like Me
4 episodes of Heroes

I dunno. we'll see.

[Daehawk]

We loved Pushing Daisies...forgot about that show.

Probably wont watch it. huge fan but I no longer watch tv. Have 2 seasons of Walking Dead and Sleepy Hollow on DVR and not recorded or watched X-Files since it returned and Im a huge X-Files lover. I just refuse to watch tv...Im about tired of the PC. No idea what Ill do someday soon other than look at a wall.

[Defiant]

By some amazing coincidence, all Star Trek is leaving Amazon streaming in a couple of weeks.

The shows have gotten renewed.

[Defiant]

Paramount Must Explain 'Star Trek' in Court or Lose Ownership

[hepcat]

Wow, I had written off the fan made kickstarter movie because...well...because I'm a snob. But after seeing the trailer in that link, I really hope they get a chance to release it. It looks pretty damn good.

[sgoldj]

I am not such a snob, there have been several good fan based Star Trek episodes to my mind. The sequel to "Who Mourns Adonis"; the time travel episode with Sulu/Takai. Two examples.

[Rumpy]

Paramount Must Explain 'Star Trek' in Court or Lose Ownership

From that link:

Producers of the crowdfunded film argue they shouldn’t be left guessing about what they’ve infringed nor should they be required to sift through each movie and TV episode to determine the claims against them.”

Are they that daft? Seems pretty clear to me. They seem to really be grasping at straws.

[Daehawk]

On a side note I think Christopher Doohan does a fan dam tabulous job as Scotty on Star Trek Continues.