Moonves: Why Trek Streaming

52 thoughts on “Moonves: Why Trek Streaming”

1. I’m a little surprised that some folks are upset by the paid streaming concept. If Trek had been put on Netflix or HBO no one would have said “boo”.

2. If Trek had been put on Netflix or HBO, we’d be getting a lot of other desirable material for the monthly cost. Moonves is saying straight out that they’re hoping to use Trek fans to slurp up more profits — the pitch isn’t “we have such a great idea that we need to charge viewers so we can film it with the budget it deserves.”

3. IMHO: The current pay-streaming environment is unsustainable. The continuation of building sandboxes with proprietary content is doomed to failure and will lead to wholesale mergers in the near future. The business model that calls for viewers who want to watch shows on Netflix, Hulu, CBS AA, etc. to pay an access fee to each is going to collapse from public resistance. What is most likely to happen in the next few years is that there will be a super-Netflix that provides 99% of all programming, including what is now on cable/satellite. And you can bet that the cost will be quite similar to a full-featured cable channel lineup today. That’s the only business model that makes any sense. nnAs for Moonves’ desire to have Trek be the ticket into his own particular sandbox, it will likely be successful to a certain extent. But I still don’t think that CBS AA will be able to be the super-Netflix of the future. It will likely merge into it as a relatively minor participant.nnA side note on Moonves: This is the same guy who for two decades has been denigrating anything to do with Trek on his marvelous on-air network. It is ironic to say the least that he now calls it a “family jewel” after he’s been kicking Trek in the family jewels for many years.

4. Of COURSE it will lead to mergers. That’s the whole point. These corporate stooges want to reap huge initial profits from “proprietary” content and when they’re finally sated and feel they’ve milked and drained the well as much as possible they will leverage the material to cash out. This has nothing to do with the “family jewel” and “satisfying” the fans. Moonves ultimately wants to kick the fan base in the family jewels.

5. Sure, there’s a LOT of benefit to CBS to place Star Trek in All Access…but not to the fans. Moonves is essentially saying, “We can milk the fans using something they really want, by making this the only way to get it.” That mentality gave birth to pirating, and I guarantee, Star Trek will be pirated with gusto.

6. Iu2019ve seen a lot of ranting about the fact that the new series is coming to All Access. But consider this:nnStar Trek fans often like to consider themselves special. Most of us seem to think that weu2019re a bit smarter than the average TV watcher and a bit more forward-thinking. One reason why everyone wants Trek to come back to TV is so that we wonu2019t need so much mindless slam-bang action (as big-budget Hollywood movies seem to need) and can get character-driven stories about big ideas.nnIf the new Star Trek were going to be on BROADCAST television, it would need sufficient ratings to attract advertising revenue, which means a certain amount of appealing to the lowest common denominator. VOD might allow us to sidestep that.nnBeing on a video-on-demand service means that as long as Star Trek attracts enough paying subscribers to recoup its costs, itu2019s a success. So being on VOD means that the new show can appeal to serious Trek fans without having to bring in a lot of folks who want non-stop action or endless romance or various kinds of drivel.nnVOD means that we can have character-driven stories about big ideas, which means that having Star Trek on All Access may be the very thing that ensures that we get the kind of Star Trek that so many of us have been wanting.nnNo guarantees, of course u2014 a lot of it depends on the quality of the writing (and the cast and directors, of course, but mostly the writing). But it gives us the POSSIBILITY, whereas other formats might not.nnNow that I think about it, I think that maybe itu2019s actually a GOOD thing that CBS is putting the new Trek on All Access, because it gives us possibilities that broadcast TV wouldnu2019t.

7. Great post and I whole heartedly agree!

8. CBS has to make money on the show, or they’ll stop making it; they’re a TV network, not a charity. The way to ensure that the new series dies is for everyone to bootleg it.

9. I’m pretty sure the regular ways of making money via TV through advertising, merchandising, and product placement work for all the other shows out there on the networks. Certainly doesn’t seem to be holding them back. This is a way of milking the fan base.

10. Think of it this way. With broadcast TV, the studios traditionally made money on the program by selling ads based on ratings, which were based on a more or less random sampling of TV viewers. With VOD, every viewer becomes a “Nelson family,” and can have much more direct impact on the quality, tone, and direction of a show. If they produce a show that’s terrible, the number of views will quickly reflect that — and the number of subscribers will plummet. The model works because they have to create a show people are willing to pay directly to view. This has the potential to create a much meatier, satisfying show for fans than the more abstract feedback provided by traditional ratings. They won’t find success by playing it safe but by pushing the envelope.

11. Thanks!

12. As long as they hire decent writers and Kurtzman is too busy with Transformers 7 to keep a close watch, great.

13. The only reason you people are bitching about this is because the new show will be (most likely) set in the Abramsverse and you don’t like that. But it can’t be set in the original continuity, and it can’t be written like it used to be, either (also, Star Trek is an action-adventure franchise anyways; it isn’t 2001 or Interstellar, as was shown here: Star Trek is…

14. And why can’t it be set in the prime continuity?

15. Because that’s over, and should stay that way. The continuity that should be used for this series (and is being used) is the current one from the new movies, which is popular with millions of people compared with the original which is only being loved by a small number of aging fans.

16. Living outside the US, and with poor internet speed/connection, I worried I won’t be able to see the new series. I just hope they also release it on DVD

17. So you’re basically saying that Trek isn’t work $5 an episode. After all you could get a cup of coffee for that.

18. You will, international distribution will be different. May well be on Sky One. May be on netflix. Maybe both. But it won’t be CBS action outside of the U.S.nnThe only people I feel sympathetic for are those in the US that can’t get broadband.

19. If every episode was “The Inner Light” or “City on the Edge of Forever?” Sure. But that’s not what Moonves et al are saying. They aren’t even pretending that they’re going pay-per-view to make a better product (which they’d do if they had half a brain among the execs — put out a press release saying that the new platform allows them to give the franchise room to grow and the opportunity for a bigger-budget production with better cast, sets, etc.). Instead they’re bragging about how Trekkies are reliable people they can milk to launch their pay network. If I’m being asked to pay for episodes, I should be told all the reasons they’ll be as good as if not better than previous shows, not asked to trust a group of execs who’ve shown very little concern for the long-time fan base.

20. Uh…you’re absolutely wrong, but nice try. My concern is that charging extra for Star Trek is contrary to everything Gene designed the show around. I enjoyed the JJ movies.

21. could you possibly sound like more of a CBS shill? Is that you, Moonves?

22. That’s because they already subscribe to those services. This is an extra added expense that serves no purpose other than to milk fans.

23. Hey look, it’s a CBS executive posing as a fan.

24. Again, this is pure speculation but it seems to me that it can be set in both. To avoid the technological disconnect of placing it in the 25th or 26th century as a regularly evolved scenario of either timeline, it can be in set in the 25th century but with the backstory that both timelines converged at the great Universal war which decimated the Federation and all the warring empires (Klingon, Romulan, Cardassian, etc.) setting their technological progress back several centuries through the economics of rebuilding the respective empires. This way all of this is in the future of the various Kirks, Picards, etc. and would only essentially violate a few frames of ST:E (which only about a dozen rabid fans actually even remember let alone care a darn about).nnnThis setting would allow for the series to be as gritty as modern audiences demand since it would be set in a universe devastated by war and struggling to rebuild even a fraction of what had gone before, Yes, it would still be populated by the obligatory hot Millennials, but at least there would be some rationalization of these crazy split timelines.nnnI fully expect this suggestion to be totally ignored by Alex & Co. as they likely will just stick to the JJverse, but in case they wanted to use it, they’re welcome to it… for a reasonable option fee of $1M… heheh

25. I’d love to see product placement on Trek: A Klingon steps out of the shower with a bat’leth in one hand and an Old Spice applicator in the other; A Ferengi is bidding 10 bars of gold pressed latinum on an ebay sale of smuggled dilithium crystals on his iPhone 27s; A Cardassian and a Bajoran are hugging while swilling Coke and crooning “I’d like to teach the world to sing”; and of course the viewscreen on a bird of prey has the label LG: Life’s Good But Death With Honor Is Better.

26. Indeed, they are sticking to the ‘JJverse’, as you call it, but with different characters on a different ship.

27. Sorry to have misread you, then. But this new show being on CBS’s version of Netflix is better than it being on CBS itself, since it would never last long enough on a network these days.

28. I post comments in the News section here regularly. If you were here regularly, you’d recognize my name…

29. “I’d love to see product placement on Trek”nnnMaybe Kirk could phone someone on his nokia? Maybe Uhura could order a Budweiser classic?

30. No, that’s not profitable. He want’s to take people who will buy anything with Trek written on it and extract as much money as possible while spending as little as possible.

31. That, BTW, is the whole basis of the american economy over the last 30 years. People aren’t satisfied with making a profit off the back of work and risk, they need to make more and more and more.

32. Listen up you primitive screwheads… By product placement I meant technology companies who wanted to get people excited about their new products. Such as the new Apple iPad pro is very similar to the pads they used on next generation. Instead of calling things by company names or ordering a Budweiser you could show people new types of devices and things like that, and then reveal its a product they’re working on where they’re actually selling. Kind of like how the Bourne movies used cutting-edge modern day technology that could be found anywhere. Not Uhura ordering a Budweiser

33. Primitive screwhead. That’s me! I love that! I’m going to have it put on a T-shirt! 🙂

34. ^My sentiments exactly.

35. Don’t mind him, he’s just a (sexually) frustrated fan thinking that CBS owes him anything as far as the old continuity’s concerned, and that he must be catered to because ‘he’s an original fan’.

36. *smile*

37. I have paid $ 8569 this month.I’m finally getting 97 Dollars p/h,….It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is simple,dedicated and easy way to get rich.Three weeks from now you will wish you have started today…. nn===>>> Visit Website in my u0420u0154u0150u0166u0128u0139u0114nn180

38. Shouldn’t you keep that to a raised eyebrow, or is this 1st season Spock?

39. I was never able to see Voyager or Enterprise during their original runs as my area didn’t have UPN. I wished online streaming had been an option back then.

40. The news that there will be new Star Trek affects me much as spores do. 🙂

41. Great points and I mostly agree. However, looking at Kurtzman’s track record, and I don’t just mean with the last two JJ-Trek films, I’m doubting that the new show will be anything short of non-stop action and endless romance or various kinds of drivel. Kurtzman’s shows all go for a certain kind of tone that I just don’t feel fits with Star Trek. He is very much in the “post 9/11 world, life is drab” mindset and not in the “there is still hope for humanity/ look at the lighter side of life” mindset.

42. That’s kind of the point though. If EVERY current TV station spins off their own streaming service at $5 or $6 or more a month, it starts to make cable feel more affordable. Some are trying to make it out that this is about whinny Star Trek fans. That’s not it. It’s about TV watchers who don’t want to pay two dozen different companies for streaming privileges. ABC, NBC, FOX and The CW all use Hulu and NetFlix to stream their content. What makes CBS so special that it can’t do the same?

43. This of it this way. NBC, ABC, FOX and the CW all use Hulu and NetFlix to stream their shows to the masses. Why is CBS so special they can’t do the same?

44. Dusty go home. Better yet, go watch the new Star Wars. I think you’ll find that more your speed. And hey, JJ directed it, so you’ll be sure to enjoy it!

45. Don’t listen to Dusty. It has not officially been said what continuity the new show will be set in. It could in the Prime U, it could be the JJ-verse, it could be a reboot of the reboot and be set in a whole new continuity. Heck, it could be set so far in the future it could fit with all of the above. We won’t know till it’s officially said.

46. I am a true fan and as a true fan I support new productions that are worth my time. If a new film or show with the Star Trek name sucks, it’s not worth my time or money. You know who appreciates your way of thinking? Studio heads, who push out whatever drivel they can with a popular IP’s name on it and expect to roll in the money. Stop giving them free money!

47. Oh yeah, that’s right, anybody who doesn’t like Star Trek the same way you do isn’t a real fan, but a butt-kisser of corporate execs at Paramount and CBS. Please excuse me while I vomit.nnnGet this through your head-you aren’t getting back the original continuity of Star Trek because its time is up, and that’s all there is to it. Also, you don’t get to define what is real Star Trek, and who’s a real Star Trek fan and who isn’t; anybody that became a fan of Star Trek because of the Abrams movies is just as much as fan as you are. Stop with the purist ‘get out of my sandbox’ bullshit, and either deal with the franchise as it is now, or stop watching it altogether. But whatever option you choose, yo can’t get rid of us that do like the Abrams movies (we’re here to stay) or change back time.

48. Milo, Star Trek’s an action-adventure franchise, as shown here (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/8/8c/Star_Trek_is….jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150826142955&path-prefix=en) put that in your pipe and smoke it.

49. You are forgetting one thing: the CBS Group (which owns the TV shows) is a separate company from Viacom (which owns the movies, including JJ’s). I am guessing CBS would have to pay Viacom if they set the new show in the JJ-verse, and why would they do that since the Prime Universe is so vast? Besides, as someone pointed out on this thread, if the new show is set a couple of centuries after the Next Gen era, the difference between the two universes would not necessarily be noticeable.

50. It’s true that Kurtzman’s involvement doesn’t exactly fill me with hope. But he won’t be making the new show alone, and I’m hoping that the magic of Star Trek will manage to manifest in spite of him. ;-)nnAfter all, even Gene Roddenberry didn’t make TOS alone; TOS would have been a somewhat different show without the many contributions of Gene Coon and Bob Justman and Dorothy Fontana and Leonard Nimoy and on and on.nnThey didn’t hire a respected-but-not-exactly-famous character actor, expecting him to invent the Vulcan neck pinch or the Vulcan salute, but that’s what happened. They didn’t expect their new line producer to change Star Trek forever by inventing the Prime Directive and the Klingons, but that’s what happened. They didn’t know their script doctor was going to invent Sarek and Amanda and Andorians and Tellarites, but she did.nnIt’s quite possible that Kurtzman will produce dreck. It’s very, very possible. But it’s also possible that the Star Trek magic will happen and that various writers and producers and even actors will rise to the occasion and will create something good. We know this because it’s happened before. ;-)nnOne thing in our favor is that Star Trek fans are everywhere. Even many people who’d never proclaim themselves serious fans have a soft spot in their hearts for Star Trek and want it to be the hopeful and humane beacon of light that it has been to so many people. Such people tend to go the extra mile when Trek is involved.nnnnThe first episode of TOS ever broadcast was “The Man Trap,” which is not a great example of what Star Trek would come to be. It would be less than a year before we got such standouts as “The City on the Edge of Forever” and “The Devil in the Dark,” but if all we’d had to go on was “The Man Trap,” we’d never have suspected that such wonderful episodes were coming. And TOS was FAST, compared to how long it took TNG to find its feet. So even if the new show is of “The Man Trap” quality in the beginning, that won’t tell us much about what it could become.nnnTL:DNR — I’m only cautiously hopeful about the new show, but I am hopeful.

Comments are closed.