ChiefsPlanet - Movies and TV CBS: Star Trek

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Media Center (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- -

CBS: Star Trek (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=295820)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 12182082)

I agree Dane. CBS is going to have to add alot more exclusive/original programming than just Star Trek

At the end of ST:NG, it cost Paramount $4 million per episode, making it so they were unable to turn much of a profit. That was 1994 and everything, from casting to VFX to directors are far more expensive in 2016 for a program like Star Trek.

I just don't understand how they think they'll be able to recoup $78 million (13 episodes times $6 million per, which is on the low side) from an internet subscription channel.

While Netflix has 36 million subscribers, CBS would need 13 million subscribers to break even. That doesn't seem likely, considering 95% of all of their content can be viewed OTA.

It just doesn't seem well thought out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 12179583)

I just don't get how CBS thinks that people will pay $5.99 a month for a service that is free for ABC, Fox and NBC.

It's completely senseless.

Being a Trek junkie, I will likely pay for one month, just enough to binge watch the series, and then cancel. My guess is that my tactic will mirror 90% of the subscribers they gain specifically sure to this new series. I do the same thing with Showtime for Homeland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vegas_Dave (Post 12182970)

For this reason alone, I wonder if CBS will make every episode available immediately.

I'll venture to guess that they will treat it like a network series to increase revenues.

If the series is a gigantic hit, I'll bet they air it on CBS during summer months, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 12178181)

With so many reasons to be excited about CBS All Access’ upcoming trip to the Star Trek universe, it’s hard to believe that there can possibly be new announcements that amp up our interest even higher. And yet now it’s happening. While nothing is confirmed by anyone involved behind the scenes just yet, it appears as if the show’s first season will take place between the film Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country and the events of Star Trek: The Next Generation. And that’s far from the only awesome factoid.

Fans always wonder about what goes on between major timelines within popular franchises, and few have as many established points of reference as Star Trek. The new show’s narrative would allow for showrunner Bryan Fuller and his killer crew to develop a new branch of the mythos with a new crew, while also firmly fitting into established territory, which is a good fit for both them and us.

And if BirthMoviesDeath is to be believed, we might not even need to get too used to those new characters from one season to the next, as the series is allegedly being considered as an anthology. So while this first season will take place in this particular window of time, the second season could be set in the years before Spock and Kirk ever met, or in the time of recovery following Deep Space Nine’s war years. It’s a concept that has worked for shows like American Horror Story and American Crime, so adapting it for a preexisting fictional universe has some crazy intriguing potential going for it, and Star Trek’s near infinite avenues to storytelling could make this series as important and enjoyable as any others that came before it.

There’s also another rumor floating that Bryan Fuller has figured out a way to give this new Star Trek series a set of villainous Klingons for the protagonists to have problems with. Sure, most of the Klingons are peacefully dealing with humanity, but there are always bushy-eyebrowed exceptions to be found. And if this ends up happening, we can probably expect several other callbacks to the universe in fun ways like this.

This potential timeline placement obviously means the new show will have nothing to do with the current franchise spearheaded by J.J. Abrams, and it will do more to honor Star Trek’s TV roots. And that’s perfectly fine with us. Considering we won’t get this show for a while, we’ll have some time to considering all the options. What do you guys think about these new details, assuming they’re true?

http://www.cinemablend.com/televisio...et-131077.html

Why does this article read like it is spoken by a Millennial who has had too much Starbucks?

My guess is that the premiere will do a big number when they air it on CBS (which they've already said they're going to do) and they'll quickly work out some deal to air the whole season. Probably something like the episodes will premiere on the app then air on TV a couple weeks later.

Also I don't hate the idea of an anthology format, if for no other reason than it keeps alive my dream of the TNG cast getting a non-shitty send-off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamie (Post 12183187)

I will be shocked if a brand new Star Trek pilot draws big numbers on CBS and there would be no incentive for anyone $5.99 per month to watch an episode two weeks early, which would defeat the purpose of the app.

FWIW, CBS All Access has less than 100,000 subscribers while Netflix has more than 30 million.

At this point I've seen so many reboots I'm just not really interested anymore. An anthology format is just an annual reboot. No thanks.

I might be swayed to come back if they did a story from the Klingon's point of view during the war. Or maybe the Romulans. At this point, the Federation is just so much watered down trash that there is just no excitement there anymore. Abrams destroyed it for me, and after the last trailer I don't expect Pegg can save the next one.

I was intrigued by Axanar, but Paramount pretty much killed that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by unlurking (Post 12183356)

I enjoyed the Star Trek reboot (that first one he did) as much as I enjoyed the Star Wars "reboot" (copy of the first one ever made) because both of the movies had a sort of a feel for the franchises to me. They were nice popcorn munching movies and I was entertained, but that's been done now. At this point in both cases they would have to offer the same thing for me to be interested: Great stories told by great actors with great dialogue. The franchises themselves don't offer enough for me to pay attention to either a movie or a TV show.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 12183248)

As of right now I am uninterested. I'd rather watch old episodes of the original or TNG on Netflix.

And this is coming from an old die hard Star Trek fan. I had seen every episode of the original show at least ten times by the time I was fifteen years old. I used to play a game just to annoy my sister where I would name the episode and give a competent spoken synopsis within the first ten to twenty seconds of the show.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 12182099)

I would actually be interested to know how much they spent on visual effects back then, and whether or not they could do more for less nowadays. Look at all the shows on TV now, from "GoT" to "Shannara" to "Flash". I would think 20+ years ago it cost much more money to do CGI and starfields and such. And how much of it at the end was for the salaries, as well; no one was a household name at first but by the end of the series they were all popular, especially Stewart.

(Don't get me wrong, I still think it would bomb, because I just don't see the interest for it. Whatever's left to be wrung out of Star Trek storylines is going to happen in the films anyway.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367 (Post 12185676)

VFX are still very expensive, which is why LucasFilm hasn't produced a live action Star Wars series.

GOT does some green screening but they mostly film on location. 13 episodes costs HBO nearly $80 million this past season but they have a gigantic subscriber base in order to justify those costs.

As I mentioned earlier, Netflix has more than 30 million subscribers and CBS All Access has less than 100k, so I can't see how this series will be a "winner" for CBS, unless they hire complete unknowns and build cheesy sets, like those in the '60's.

As I expected, CBS will treat the new series like a traditional series: No binge watching.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...tm_source=SFFB

According to a conference call held with reporters by CBS’s president, Les Moonves, the new Star Trek series will debut in January 2017, with one episode released per week. It’s not much different from how CBS airs its programs now, except that “All Access” will cost an extra $6 a month. T

he news that Star Trek was returning to TV excited devoted fans of the franchise, but online chatter mostly focused on how quickly they’d be able to watch the season before unsubscribing from the service. The fan site TrekCore acknowledges, sadly, that such a “binge and bail” tactic won’t be possible—which is exactly what CBS wants. As cable cord-cutting grows more common among younger viewers, networks need to find a new way into their pockets, which is why the weekly cliffhanger may not be going anywhere anytime soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 12183248)

FWIW, CBS All Access has less than 100,000 subscribers while Netflix has more than 30 million.

I can't believe that CBS has 100k subscribers.

What are they buying?

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious (Post 12216122)

I can't believe that CBS has 100k subscribers.

What are they buying?

Why would anyone subscribe now? Do they have anything that's exclusive to the service that's worth $6/month? They have no shows that air on CBS that even come close to the Netflix originals.