CBS: Star Trek
 

...

This is just a terrible move to provide the show to their app only, which will cost $5.99 per month.

They'd be better off licensing it to Netflix or Amazon.

Yeah, as a Trekker I was excited about the announcement until I read that part and was like, "Oh. This is dumb. Guess I won't be watching it past the pilot until available elsewhere."

The involvement of Kurtzman doesn't inspire confidence. Hopefully he hires a good showrunner and isn't involved that much.

It's amazing how Big Bang Theory has made old mediocre TV, comics, etc. into a new popular genre.

It sounds like CBS is going in the direction of the new movies because they're still under the delusion that one of the largest and most loyal fanbases in all media isn't a good way to make money. Instead they're thinking that the Orci team is capable of replicating the success of a House of Cards without the brilliance in scriptwriting or product.

I was hopeful that they'd listen to Michael Dorn and give the Captain Worf Show a try, but not while they're working with this shit right here.

And I imagine to make it more palatable and open to new viewers, they're going to set it in the alternate universe, too. They're not going to work within the politics or the story-telling of the previous Star Trek series.

I have low expectations for this. This smells bad. It will probably suck dick.

Shut the **** up.

It actually has nothing to do with BBT.

Amazon, Hulu and Netflix have all been trying to attain the rights to programs from the 60-90's so that they can provide more Original series and entertainment.

The networks have been trying as well. Coach was brought back this last summer with the entire original cast but after 8 episodes, it was scratched because it wasn't working.

Fuller House is going to Netflix, X-Files back to Fox, Twin Peaks at Showtime, The Muppet Show at ABC, Xena: Warrior Princess at NBC and many more to come.

I knew it! ****ing Les Moonves had ulterior motives for re-launching Star Trek and because of that, like SNR, I have extremely low expectations.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...ent-cbs-836710

We're looking to do original content on All Access and build up that platform. Netflix is our friend a competitor. They compete with [CBS Corp.'s] Showtime. All Access will put out original content and knowing the loyalty of Star Trek fans, this will boost it… There's about a billion channels out there and because of Star Trek, people will know what All Access is about."

All the series have done well in terms of streaming. Added in to that, Star Trek is a huge international franchise. Our international distribution guy is going crazy; he can't wait to get out to the marketplace and sell that. Right away, we're more than halfway home on the cost of the show from international alone. The risk is small in seeing the track record. We think it'll be great and bring in a lot more subscribers. We're really excited about it. [Star Trek 2017 is a] world-class effort that will make all Star Trek fans proud.

The on-All Access is dumb. I was marginally interested before. Won't even watch the pilot now, don't want to get sucked in.

I'm not a Kurtzman/Orci/Lindleof fan, at all. They generally have good ideas but after a number of episodes, the story falls apart. It happened with LOST, Fringe and Sleepy Hollow. Star Trek II, IMO, was a complete and utter disastrous sham of a movie.

I'll be shocked if pilot is even watchable.

To be clear, you're talking Into Darkness, not II, right?

It may as well have been II. Paramount could have asked any random Star Trek fan to write a fanfic script based on Kahn in the new parallel universe. That's basically what happened in this movie. No new characters or villains. Lines upon lines of dialogue STRAIGHT UP lifted out of Wrath of Kahn. The same plot points. Not to mention the tendency for this team to make cute references to the old show, as if they think, "Just saying 'Gorn' or 'Tribble' will satisfy the hardcore nerds."

It wasn't as bad as Final Frontier or Insurrection, but it's by far the most uncreative pile of dogshit ever to be found in a Star Trek movie.

Will I watch the new series? I'll check it out. But honestly, I'm more excited for something like Star Trek: Axanar than I am this series.

No. They blatantly ripped of Wrath of Khan, but did it poorly and insulted ST fans everywhere. Into Darkness is an abomination; Wrath of Khan is the best ST movie ever made.

Right. I can't even remember how it was enumerated.

I refused to see it in the theater because of Lindelof's involvment but did purchase the DVD last holiday season for $3.99.

It took me like three nights to get through that piece of crap. $3.99 was $3.98 too much.

My wife likes it, but I don't think she'd ever seen any ST until I showed them to her... so you can't call her a "fan."

**** CBS. This isn't 1999. I'm not buying a subscription to your new service just to watch Star Trek sight unseen. You are not the NFL. Even the NFL ran into wall trying to worm their way into the basic channels. This reeks of arrogance and dipshittery.

CBS, Paramount and Les Moonves don't get it.

They think that the name "Star Trek" has so much value that people will drop their pants and bend over for $5.99 a month when Into Darkness sucked, Enterprise wasn't good until the final season and they've had far, far more misses than hits with the franchise.

They need someone who's a huge Star Trek fan to produce the program, not another guy with no vision, whose TV shows quickly fall out of favor with fans.

This has disaster written all over it.

I started to write something about how this is a dumb idea, but it occurs to me that it's also a step toward what TV is going to be in the future.

Eventually all the CBS content you can watch on other platforms (like Star Trek reruns) will only be available on this CBS service. And Fox will have one, and ABC will have one, and so on, and we're going to have to subscribe to all these mini-Netflixes to get access. It's why Netflix is investing so heavily in original programming, because they know someday their original programming is all they'll have.

Well yes. Its becoming more "ala carte" which is what people have been asking years for.

I thought 'Into Darkness' had moments approaching greatness.

But yes, it was the stupid script/Khan reboot idea that was its undoing.

They would have been better off coming up with an original idea than attempting a Khan ripoff.

Ron Moore needs to be that guy. He's got experience of producing quality sci-fi shows, knows how to write, and most importantly, knows Star Trek. Hell, he practically created half of the universe himself. He knows how to create intrigue and curiosity about new alien species, and how to refresh and give a facelift to the old ones. You give him the power to make ALL the calls, and Star Trek will succeed.

Unfortunately... yeah... Paramount.

I have a feeling we're going to regret these Star Trek reboot movies for a long, long, time.

Public TV stations operate on licenses. If they went to an all pay format, I'd suspect there would be pushback. But, the big boy networks all own major cable stations also. They could just put their worse shit on free TV and sell their best stuff

Two problems remain, however:

1. No one knows what's "good" until it connects with an audience. If network execs knew what was going to connect, they wouldn't spend $250 million a year doing pilots. No one every knows beforehand.

2. While subscription services are great and give businesses like Netflix, Amazon and now Hulu (not to mention HBO Go! and Showtime's new app) opportunities to create original programming, the overwhelming majority of revenues come from Over The Air advertising on the Big Four networks.

They can put it on free TV and if its a hit, move it to pay TV.

If the Internet is the only way to get ala carte then they are not listening to the consumer.

Looks like this show will have to be a downloaded show off a torrent site if I want to watch it. I pay too ****ing much to TWC a month to ship off more money for a service where I receive just one show of interest. They can blow it out their ass.

There's far more money with OTA networks than the subscription model.

When shows like The Big Bang Theory and Two and a Half Men draw 20 million viewers per week, the network is earning hundreds of millions per season and even more when it goes to syndication (if it's produced by the network). They'd lose that money moving to a $5.99 per month subscription model.

For example, HBO complains about the $60 million dollar budget for 13 episodes of Game of Thrones, yet NBC had no problem paying the six "Friends" one million per episode for a 24 episode season, or $144 million per season, just for the actors. They did it for ER, too.

Streaming just can't compete with that at this time.

Potentially great news: Bryan Fuller's one of the showrunners.

That's great. Hannibal was amazing

More good news: Nicholas Meyer will be on the writing team.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/26...nicholas-meyer

Please bring the Khan and leave the whales.

How much do I trust CBS to do this right?

http://www.pd4pic.com/images/hand-fi...r-distance.jpg

Bryan Fuller and Nicholes Myer is a pretty strong pedigree

Any leaked info on when and where in the Star Trek universe the show will be set in?

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

Other than having nothing to do with Abrams reboot, none of that make me any more excited. Was already very skeptical about this project, and this just makes it worse.

Very cool

I like the sound of it. Between Undiscovered Country and Next Generation should be ripe for potential stories.

this

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.

People will pay for exclusive content which is what's this new Star Trek will be right?

HBO, Showtime, Netflix, etc

But HBO, Showtime and Netflix offer much more content than CBS.

Everyone in America receives CBS for free. The same can't be said for the premium channels.

I wonder if they're going to stick to the Enterprise theme (i.e. having a ship named Enterprise), which has been the series' "Artoo and Threepio" since the get-go in the 60s. If so, they launched the NCC-1701B at the start of "Generations" (it's what Kirk was "killed" on when it was hit by the Nexus ribbon) and NCC-1701C was mentioned in an episode of TNG when it came back in time during a battle at a Klingon outpost. So would they use the B ship?

Personally, I'm not so sure the whole Star Trek universe has much left in it to tell. The brilliance of "a 'Wagon Train' to the stars" has sort of run its course. Yes, when TOS was on the air, it was cutting-edge to have a black woman in a job, and kissing a white guy, and to have minorities like an Asian and a Russian in the crew. But the newness of that aspect is long-gone, and the power-trio aspect of TOS (Kirk as brawn, McCoy as emotion, Spock as brain) has also never been recreated. "DS9" was decent. "Voyager" was kind of a dud. "Enterprise" more of the same. "TNG" had 7 strong seasons. "DS9" had 7 so-so seasons. "Voyager" had 7 weak-ass seasons. "Enterprise" had 4 weak-ass seasons. Can we see the diminishing returns here?

I hope this works but I just can't see it happening.

Star Trek The Next Generation worked because of Patrick Stewart and IMO, it took a few seasons before it become a really good series. That kind of leash just doesn't exist today.

If CBS is to have any success, they'll need to spend a lot of money on this series, like GOT type of money, where they're shelling out $6-10 million per episode. Quite frankly, I don't see that happening, especially since it'll be for their start up internet channel, with the only difference between it and OTA broadcasts is Star Trek.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

Subscribers have access to every show CBS has ever aired, although personally, I don't see much value in such a service.

I think it's dumb. The first 13 episodes of a new Star Trek series will cost a minimum of $60 million dollars, which means, they'll need 7,700,000 subscribers for the first 13 weeks in order to break even.

I'm guessing that outside of a very small amount of diehards, most of the viewership will come after the initial 13 weeks so that people can binge watch 13 episodes for $5.99.

Whatever the case, this doesn't seem like a very good or well-thought out idea, especially since NBC, ABC and Fox are free.

LMFAO

These clowns never learn. TO THE SHIP!

http://cdn.mos.techradar.com/art/int...ay2-970-80.jpg

CBS jus made this become the 'most pirated show ever'

.

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xXpPweAooeE" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>



Uh...

I thought it was okay for what it is. It's not like there's footage to use yet ...

Beats the hell out of that macgyver promo. Sheesh...

The VFX appeared really low rent. I don't know if that's because of the render or not.

Also, I can't figure out how they're going to pull off a January 2017 air date when they haven't even announced a cast or begun principle photography (let alone, VFX).

I'm guessing the actual creative team for the show had nothing to do with the promo.

One would hope...

Watched it on my phone...

I'm with you, I'm not sure how they're going to get it ready to air weekly in 8 months without a cast.

Maybe somebody is already working on externals (ships, space, etc). Still would have a lot of mundane vfx to do in a very short time, basically anything involving a cast member. No telling how much of their sets would even be practical.

Well, it not like it's a movie. TV shows generally don't get that kind of lead time. For a convenient example, TNG was still casting in April of 1987 and the pilot aired in September.

If you only knew...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_lvG0jm0B5Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Worse than I imagined?

Putting together a well funded series is difficult enough without announcements and promos but good grief, Moonves should know better.

Let's grab lunch sometime ;)

Soon!

I'm finishing up two records for MegaTrax this month but will have some time in June. :)

Joe Menosky and Aron Coleite have reportedly joined the writing staff of the upcoming "Star Trek" TV series for CBS All Access.

Bryan Fuller ("Hannibal," "American Gods") and Alex Kurtzman ("Fringe," "Sleepy Hollow") are producing the series which also recently hired acclaimed "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" director Nicholas Meyer to produce.

Joe Menosky was staff writer on "Star Trek: The Next Generation," "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" and "Star Trek: Voyager" with his credits including famed episodes like "Darmok," "Clues," "Time's Arrow," "The Chase" and "Suspicions" for TNG along with "The Thaw," "Future's End," "Scorpion," "Distant Origin", "Year of Hell," "The Killing Game," "Hope and Fear," "Timeless," "Equinox," "Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy" and "Blink of an Eye" for 'Voyager'.

Aron Coleite is a comic book writer best known for his work on "Ultimate X-Men". He also has TV experience, working on all four seasons of NBC's "Heroes". The pair join novelist Kirsten Beyer who has penned numerous "Star Trek: Voyager" and "Buffy" books.

Fuller himself got his start on both DS9 and Voyager, penning episodes like "Empok Nor," "The Raven," "Living Witness," "Drone," "Bride of Chaotica," "Gravity," "Dark Frontier," "Juggernaut," "Relativity," "One Small Step," "Fury," "Flesh and Blood" and "Friendship One".

The new series is not going to be connected to the films, and has been speculated to take place in the original pre-Abrams Trek universe. It is expected to be set in the decades between Kirk and Picard. Production begins later this year for an early 2017 premiere.

They are making good hires in regards to this aside from Aron and 3 of his 4 seasons of writing for Heroes.

Still... this all has me feeling like

http://i.imgur.com/xTqvvF1.gif

Remember all those rumors about Star Trek 2017 being set between Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and Star Trek: The Next Generation? Well showrunner Bryan Fuller says you can forget about them.

Bryan Fuller spoke to Moviefone on the Star Trek 2017 timeline rumors and had this to say:


I mean, it’s funny. I’ve read that we’re [set] before “Next Generation,” after [“Star Trek VI: The] Undiscovered Country,” which is false. I’ve read that it’s an anthology show, which is not accurate. So it’s interesting to see those suggestions, and seeing the truth mixed in with them and going like, “Oh, they got that part right…” But it’s sort of on the truth-o-meter on PolitiFacts. It’s sort of like some truth, and a lot of like, “No — pants on fire! That’s not true.”

We think this is fantastic news, Star Trek needs to move forward not backward. Rehashing the past of Trek has been tried before and it has never inspired or grabbed an audience like moving forward. Star Trek: Enterprise had some great moments, but we aren’t sure the franchise can withstand another Enterprise.

It sounds like Fuller has learned a lesson from Trek’s past and possibly the Star Wars movies. The prequels never got the kind of enthusiasm and support that Star Wars: The Force Awakens got. It might be something to do with an audience wanting to move the story forward, not see it written in reverse.

When Moviefone asked Fuller if we’d be seeing some familiar Star Trek faces all he said was…


Eventually. Eventually.

That probably means we are set after Star Trek Nemesis!

http://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2016/0...et-before-tng/