[TV] New Star Trek Show in Development?

[Daehawk]

Not in the USA.

Shit thought it said 'including' US. Guess its CBS or nothing.

[Rumpy]

I'm guessing it will show up on Netflix for the U.S. and Canada. It will be at least one season behind, but I bet that's part of the deal they made.

How much faith do you have in a show, or how much money do you put behind a show, if those are the platforms for it's being viewed?

Or more precisely, if CBS All-Access is the main gateway for most people, a platform that seems to be counter-intuitive to the whole idea of a streaming service. With the service having ads, they're going to have a tough time convincing people to subscribe, which means they're going to have a tough time getting the numbers they need to keep it funded. Then they'll cancel it and say, "See, we knew Star Trek as a series was no longer viable", and ignore the real reason behind the failure.

[Blackhawk]

Some things collected from Comic-Con. Some of it actually sounds like they're at least pointed in the right direction.

[Daehawk]

Big info dump

Among the revelations Fuller dropped were the news that Discovery will have a female lead, and that the character will be a human but not the ship's captain.Additionally, the show will be set approximately 10 years before Captain Kirk took command of the USS Enterprise, meaning Star Trek: Discovery will exist more or less in the same time period as the original show.

-He confirmed his prior statements from Comic-Con that the show is set in the prime universe (the original universe that is, not the alternate reality created in the current movies series) and stressed again this will be a much more serialized series than Trek has been typically.

-There will "absolutely" be a gay character on the show. Fuller's fellow EP Alex Kurtzman told him they should have a gay character, but Fuller was already planning it.

Fuller hasn’t made it specific in the writing whether the (non-lead) captain is male or female, so that's still to be determined, as casting has not happened yet.

-“We’ll probably have a few more aliens than you normally do in a Star Trek cast,” he said. The aliens will include both new races and some re-imaginings of existing races. He is prepared for some purists to bemoan any alterations of designs from how they originally looked, but felt they had to reflect that they were making the show in 2016, with modern technology and makeup.

[Kasey Chang]

The only people who's onboard and important enough to be the lead, but NOT the captain, are

* Doctor
* Chief Engineer
* Chief of Security
* XO

Really, that's about it, right?

[Blackhawk]

The only people who's onboard and important enough to be the lead, but NOT the captain, are

* Doctor
* Chief Engineer
* Chief of Security
* XO

Really, that's about it, right?

Only the way they've written Star Trek in the past. It might actually be interesting to look at things from the perspective of a lower crew member working their way up through the ranks. Maybe a specialist with a certain are of expertise that, due to whatever political situation, makes her a regular advisor to the Captain and drops her on away missions.

[El Guapo]

The only people who's onboard and important enough to be the lead, but NOT the captain, are

* Doctor
* Chief Engineer
* Chief of Security
* XO

Really, that's about it, right?

Only the way they've written Star Trek in the past. It might actually be interesting to look at things from the perspective of a lower crew member working their way up through the ranks. Maybe a specialist with a certain are of expertise that, due to whatever political situation, makes her a regular advisor to the Captain and drops her on away missions.

Maybe this will basically be Star Trek: Redshirts. It'll be a different redshirt as the lead each week.

[Jeff V]

The only people who's onboard and important enough to be the lead, but NOT the captain, are

* Doctor
* Chief Engineer
* Chief of Security
* XO

Really, that's about it, right?

Wasn't Spock the Chief Science Officer? Communications Officer has also been prominent in the Star Trek shows.

It's always been a little off that the ship's captain routinely leads dangerous away missions. A "real world" Star Trek would likely use highly trained, highly educated commandos.

[Isgrimnur]

The episodes that moved down the chain were pretty good. Reginald Barclay, anyone?

And yeah, if they wanted to go for realism, the captain should never be the first one down into an unknown situation. Give us a strong representation of the marine security contingent.

[El Guapo]

The episodes that moved down the chain were pretty good. Reginald Barclay, anyone?

And yeah, if they wanted to go for realism, the captain should never be the first one down into an unknown situation. Give us a strong representation of the marine security contingent.

After TOS they went away from that. Of course, having the first officer be on the initial response team is only somewhat better.

Since this series is going to be TOS-era, though, I do wonder whether some nerds would be outraged if the captain's not going down with the away team.

[Isgrimnur]

They should open the series like they did with 007 and Dr. No. Have the captain called in on the carpet for injuries or crew losses because of his insistence that he be in the initial landing parties, with strict orders that he not continue the practice.

[El Guapo]

They should open the series like they did with 007 and Dr. No. Have the captain called in on the carpet for injuries or crew losses because of his insistence that he be in the initial landing parties, with strict orders that he not continue the practice.

Star Trek: Human Resources Division.

[Isgrimnur]

Everyone has a boss.

[El Guapo]

Everyone has a boss.

The end of every season could be HR giving the captain his performance review. And the season finale could be a cliffhanger, where it's unclear whether or not the captain is going to receive an administrative demerit for violations of the Federation Code of Conduct! Tune in next season to find out!!!

[Isgrimnur]

It worked for The Menagerie.

[Kasey Chang]

Wasn't Spock the Chief Science Officer? Communications Officer has also been prominent in the Star Trek shows.

Neither of whom ever needs to be off the ship to do their jobs.

Technically, neither should the chief engineer or the doctor.

Which really leaves the XO, and no one else.

[Jeff V]

A case can be made for the communications officer, especially if they are the expert in communicating with new sentient species. Probably though you'd have some sort of diplomatic corps, again, possibly trained to be commandos as well.

Science officer would be brought down when it is safe to do so.

[Holman]

Maybe this will basically be Star Trek: Redshirts. It'll be a different redshirt as the lead each week commercial break.

Fixed.

[Holman]

Big info dump

Among the revelations Fuller dropped were the news that Discovery will have a female lead, and that the character will be a human but not the ship's captain.Additionally, the show will be set approximately 10 years before Captain Kirk took command of the USS Enterprise, meaning Star Trek: Discovery will exist more or less in the same time period as the original show.

-He confirmed his prior statements from Comic-Con that the show is set in the prime universe (the original universe that is, not the alternate reality created in the current movies series) and stressed again this will be a much more serialized series than Trek has been typically.

I am *thrilled* to learn this!

[stessier]

CBS has added a no commercial streaming option - $9.99 (up from $5.99).

That is a lot of money for one station's worth of content.

[Isgrimnur]

It does include local channel streaming, which someone like Jeff would like, if he found it worth the funds. Of course, he should probably wait until they get the NFL added.

CBS, unsatisfied with splitting the broadcast rights to Thursday night NFL games, is in talks to nail down the digital streaming licenses for its online subscription service CBS All Access, CEO Les Moonves said Tuesday.

[El Guapo]

If I could stream the local CBS NFL broadcast from my phone as a subscriber then I would very likely sign up for this service during football season.

[tjg_marantz]

So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

[Jeff V]

It does include local channel streaming, which someone like Jeff would like, if he found it worth the funds. Of course, he should probably wait until they get the NFL added.

CBS, unsatisfied with splitting the broadcast rights to Thursday night NFL games, is in talks to nail down the digital streaming licenses for its online subscription service CBS All Access, CEO Les Moonves said Tuesday.

I already pay for CBS streaming. However, CBS is double-dipping, I would need to pay extra for the app that would make the streaming that I already pay for useful.

[geezer]

So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

Assume you only got it for StarTrek. That's 4 hours of original programing a month for $10. $2.50 for an hour of enjoyment. Pirates are assholes.

[Jeff V]

So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

Assume you only got it for StarTrek. That's 4 hours of original programing a month for $10. $2.50 for an hour of enjoyment. Pirates are assholes.

Now multiply that by every show you watch in the course of a month and you'll see why people will go way out of the way to discourage this business model.

[geezer]

So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

Assume you only got it for StarTrek. That's 4 hours of original programing a month for $10. $2.50 for an hour of enjoyment. Pirates are assholes.

Now multiply that by every show you watch in the course of a month and you'll see why people will go way out of the way to discourage this business model.

I'm unmoved. I mean, let's assume you have 10 shows you absolutely, positively have to watch each month. That's 100 bucks, but more importantly, that's *40 hours* of time. WTF? Who can do that in addition to all the free stuff that's available? (And if you can, 100 bucks is nothing for an entire workweek of entertainment.)

[LordMortis]

A case can be made for the communications officer, especially if they are the expert in communicating with new sentient species.

SAPIENT! SAPIENT SAPIENT SAPIENT! Damn you, Leonard Nimoy. I have no idea why that bothers me but it does. House flies could be argued sentient and all mammals definitely are.

....


I don't see my paying $10 a month for Star Trek. If I'm not doing it for Game of Thrones, nothing will convert me. I would sit through commercials to stream it for free though. *shrug*

[stessier]

So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

Assume you only got it for StarTrek. That's 4 hours of original programing a month for $10. $2.50 for an hour of enjoyment. Pirates are assholes.

Now multiply that by every show you watch in the course of a month and you'll see why people will go way out of the way to discourage this business model.

I'm unmoved. I mean, let's assume you have 10 shows you absolutely, positively have to watch each month. That's 100 bucks, but more importantly, that's *40 hours* of time. WTF? Who can do that in addition to all the free stuff that's available? (And if you can, 100 bucks is nothing for an entire workweek of entertainment.)

Who would do that when you could get cable for $100/ month and get 168 hours * 200 channels = 33,600 hours worth of entertainment options? Their cost structure is ridiculous.

[geezer]

So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

Assume you only got it for StarTrek. That's 4 hours of original programing a month for $10. $2.50 for an hour of enjoyment. Pirates are assholes.

Now multiply that by every show you watch in the course of a month and you'll see why people will go way out of the way to discourage this business model.

I'm unmoved. I mean, let's assume you have 10 shows you absolutely, positively have to watch each month. That's 100 bucks, but more importantly, that's *40 hours* of time. WTF? Who can do that in addition to all the free stuff that's available? (And if you can, 100 bucks is nothing for an entire workweek of entertainment.)

Who would do that when you could get cable for $100/ month and get 168 hours * 200 channels = 33,600 hours worth of entertainment options? Their cost structure is ridiculous.

Someone who feels the 4 hours of entertainment is worth $9.99. To be clear, I don't have any problem with people thinking that the price/value calculation doesn't work for them (even if I think the idea that 4 hours of a marquee property and its attendant production costs are worth less than a stupid cup of "gourmet" coffee is at least as ridiculous, but I digress) . I have a problem with people wanting the content and stealing it because they think they should be the arbiter of what the creator gets to charge for it. As a consumer your valid options are to compensate the producer and receive the product or choose not to.

[El Guapo]

So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

Assume you only got it for StarTrek. That's 4 hours of original programing a month for $10. $2.50 for an hour of enjoyment. Pirates are assholes.

Now multiply that by every show you watch in the course of a month and you'll see why people will go way out of the way to discourage this business model.

I'm unmoved. I mean, let's assume you have 10 shows you absolutely, positively have to watch each month. That's 100 bucks, but more importantly, that's *40 hours* of time. WTF? Who can do that in addition to all the free stuff that's available? (And if you can, 100 bucks is nothing for an entire workweek of entertainment.)

Who would do that when you could get cable for $100/ month and get 168 hours * 200 channels = 33,600 hours worth of entertainment options? Their cost structure is ridiculous.

Someone who feels the 4 hours of entertainment is worth $9.99. To be clear, I don't have any problem with people thinking that the price/value calculation doesn't work for them (even if I think the idea that 4 hours of a marquee property and its attendant production costs are worth less than a stupid cup of "gourmet" coffee is at least as ridiculous, but I digress) . I have a problem with people wanting the content and stealing it because they think they should be the arbiter of what the creator gets to charge for it. As a consumer your valid options are to compensate the producer and receive the product or choose not to.

You guys might be arguing past each other. I don't think Jeff V (or stessier) is justifying pirating the CBS content, they're just arguing that CBS is (planning on) overcharging for it. As a consequence, large number of people aren't going to buy it. And naturally some percentage of people will inevitably pirate it, though I don't think anyone is endorsing that.

[geezer]

So when it gets pirated because 10$ for one channel's worth of programming is silly, they'll complain about ratings and cancel it.

Assume you only got it for StarTrek. That's 4 hours of original programing a month for $10. $2.50 for an hour of enjoyment. Pirates are assholes.

Now multiply that by every show you watch in the course of a month and you'll see why people will go way out of the way to discourage this business model.

I'm unmoved. I mean, let's assume you have 10 shows you absolutely, positively have to watch each month. That's 100 bucks, but more importantly, that's *40 hours* of time. WTF? Who can do that in addition to all the free stuff that's available? (And if you can, 100 bucks is nothing for an entire workweek of entertainment.)

Who would do that when you could get cable for $100/ month and get 168 hours * 200 channels = 33,600 hours worth of entertainment options? Their cost structure is ridiculous.

Someone who feels the 4 hours of entertainment is worth $9.99. To be clear, I don't have any problem with people thinking that the price/value calculation doesn't work for them (even if I think the idea that 4 hours of a marquee property and its attendant production costs are worth less than a stupid cup of "gourmet" coffee is at least as ridiculous, but I digress) . I have a problem with people wanting the content and stealing it because they think they should be the arbiter of what the creator gets to charge for it. As a consumer your valid options are to compensate the producer and receive the product or choose not to.

You guys might be arguing past each other. I don't think Jeff V (or stessier) is justifying pirating the CBS content, they're just arguing that CBS is (planning on) overcharging for it. As a consequence, large number of people aren't going to buy it. And naturally some percentage of people will inevitably pirate it, though I don't think anyone is endorsing that.

You're right. I just get grumpy when I see something that implies (or I guess when I infer that..) pirates are somehow justified in their actions because of stupid pricing policies.

[Punisher]

I am hoping the give the first episode for free so that we can see if it's interesting, but even with that, I am more likely to wait for the end of the season, then pay for one month an watch them all then cancel...

[El Guapo]

I am hoping the give the first episode for free so that we can see if it's interesting, but even with that, I am more likely to wait for the end of the season, then pay for one month an watch them all then cancel...

Yeah, that's what I'm assuming most people will do, unless CBS guts it by limiting the episodes available, but then that reduces the value proposition further for everyone.

[Zaxxon]

The first episode will be on CBS.

[Jeff V]

The first episode will be on CBS.

Which, for me, is still not "free" since you cannot stream content via web or app without ponying up their pound of flesh.

[stessier]

CBS has added a no commercial streaming option - $9.99 (up from $5.99).

That is a lot of money for one station's worth of content.

About that no commercial option...well, it's true because we don't call them commercials. They are "promotional interruptions." Oh, and if you are streaming a live program, you'll still see all the commercials you would see if you were watching the OTA broadcast. Brilliant!!

There are some caveats to CBS’ “commercial-free” option. CBS isn’t spending much time highlighting these asterisks, but they tell you interesting things about the TV ecosystem in 2016:

-If you stream a CBS show live, when it first airs, you’ll still see ads — the same ones you’d see on conventional TV, depending on the local TV market you’re in.

-CBS says “select on-demand shows will include promotional interruptions.” I talked to a CBS rep for a translation: The “promotional interruptions” will be brief, but un-skippable, promos — 15 seconds at most, and no more than two promos per half-hour — for other CBS shows. They’ll show up in about 10 percent of CBS’ episodes, and about 20 percent of its titles — generally its newer shows. That’s because CBS has sold on-demand rights to some of those shows to subscription services like Amazon or Netflix, and in some cases those services have exclusive rights to an ad-free “window” for those shows.

[Rumpy]

They must have a different meaning of "commercial-free" than everyone else. And why would anyone be streaming it live? Have the show uploaded ahead of time. Seriously, you'd think they'd think of these things. Their service sounds worse and worse everytime I hear more about it. And $9.99 sounds like a ripoff when you hear their plans for it. It's as if they're trying their hardest to screw their customers.

And isn't that false advertising? How can they claim one thing and do something completely different while making people pay more for it?

[stessier]

And isn't that false advertising? How can they claim one thing and do something completely different while making people pay more for it?

I think they can get away with it because a commercial is trying to sell you something. The Promotional Interruption is just CBS making you aware of one of it's programs. It's a fine line.

[Isgrimnur]

And it's not like the FCC is going to step in on a streaming service. You might have a complaint to the FTC about their choice of advertising words.