Regarding a scenario where the CBS network premiere gets great ratings and then the online/app viewings tank, I think the problem is that we'd never know or find out. Obviously, if they moved it back to network, we could make an assumption that they felt it would do better there. But if they're like Netflix, they're not going to actually make their viewing numbers public for the "All Access" app viewings. Trying to measure how many people are watching will presumably consist of nothing but anecdotal evidence. Unless, I guess, the numbers are *amazing* and CBS touts "X Million are watching on All-Access!" But I would guess Star Trek fans skew at least a *little* older on average/mean than even "Star Wars", which has more younger, hipster casual fans. So there might be a good hunk of Star Trek fans who don't want to pay for the app to watch the show. Not to mention all the other obvious stuff, including even very "plugged in" people who use Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu not wanting *another* service subscription.
I have a pair of rabbit ears I use to pull in local HD channels, though I don't use them very often, mainly just local news, sporting events and stuff like the Oscars. Yes, I'm in Los Angeles and I get a lot of perfect channels. My story was in reference to back when I was a child growing up at my Grandmother's house in the 1970s...you literally did have to go outside and turn the antenna with a pipe wrench to get specific channels (all 3 of them). We only got 2 of the networks, ABC and CBS and a local PBS station. I never saw NBC shows until I moved to a larger town. As far as the "shared experience" thing goes, I get enough of that on social media these days. I prefer to wait until TV seasons are complete and show up Netflix where I can watch them without commercials and at whatever pace I want. I got burned too many times getting sucked into series that would invariably get canceled, so now I wait until complete seasons are finished and renewal notices have been announced. Once a show gets a second season I'll watch the first, then wait until it gets renewed for season 3 before starting on the 2nd. I pay for internet at home but no TV services. I've been able to find plenty of entertainment to keep me occupied on the various streaming services (though Netlfix is the only paid service) or directly on the network websites. If I'm watching a current season show I usually wait until 3 or 4 episodes are available and then I'll watch them together, then wait a month until another batch is available. That works for me, many nights I don't watch any TV at all.
I'm far too old to be a millennial. I'm firmly a Gen-X with not much color left in my hair (but I still have all my hair!).
I disagree with some of this comment. I've definitely cared about all the TV series' crews, with the exception of Enterprise, mainly because that show was pretty poor and misguided (not to mention it being a simulation!). I'm with you about not caring about the latest movie crews as I find those movies to be shallow throwaways. As for the franchise tropes, you could say that many of those elements are the DNA of the franchise and serve as thematic markers for the Trek universe. I don't think they should be abandoned, they should be bolstered with new and innovative characters and situations. It's all bout the writing, not just a list of tropes. Take for example DS9 which was a pretty major departure from previous Treks while still dealing with many of the so-called tropes. What made that series excellent was the quality of the writing (as well as a great crew).
Yes it has, because today we have choices that never existed before. If the internet existed in the 50s, 60s, etc, and people had the option of either 1) watching broadcast TV, where they were slaves to the scheduling of shows and they had to rearrange their whole life around a specific day and time in order to watch their favorite shows, or 2) being able to watch what they like and when they like, then which option do you think would win out? Today we have freedom of choice. People have chosen what's most convenient to them and that is what the legacy networks are finally beginning to realize. Netflix of course was able to read the trends much sooner and has benefited from their insight - today they are a global player providing services to 140 countries.
I had Netflix free for a year about a year ago and found their choices very limiting. None of the really good stuff was available for streaming - you still had to use their mail-order service to get those. And how long will it be before the big Netflix competitor arises from out of nowhere and begins signing studios to exclusivity to keep that programming off of Netflix. It happened in cable when HBO started getting big and had everything. Then the Showtimes started up and snatched programming away from HBO, so you had to subscribe to both to get it "all." I'm not saying there's anything wrong with competition, but sometimes the customer in this business gets caught in the middle. As I recall, back in the 60s, missing a TV show was no big deal. If you missed it - oh well! You couldn't watch it all - and no-one knew any different, so it didn't matter. Life went on.
The great thing about the various streaming services is that you can cancel and restart anytime. If there isn't anything that you want to watch for the foreseeable future, you can cancel until something you like is added. For those who take issue with having to add CBS All Access on top of other streaming services, you can simply cancel one or more of those services at the end of the month just before Star Trek starts and just pay for CBS All Access. However, I read recently that Star Trek is going to be a weekly series. So you may have to stick with CBS All Access for however many weeks the series is streaming.
Sure, missing the odd episode of Gilligan's Island or Mannix wasn't an issue back then (nor would it be now), but programs have changed. Now we get much more serialized content where if you miss a single episode, you may be lost when you do tune in again. Gotta move with the times. I'd hate to be stuck with 20th century restrictions.
Netflix has a ton of TV series and they are adding more all the time. The movie selection is also fine if you watch a lot of independent movies (like myself) and don't really care about the big studio blockbusters (I generally don't). Netflix is also producing a lot of their own series now and they are buying up distribution rights like mad for independent films, they go to Cannes, SXSW, Sundance, etc. and plop the checkbook on the table. So, lots of content and of the type that interests me. If you want multi-plex stuff then well, look elsewhere. As far as competitors signing exclusive content, already been happening for several years. Amazon has stuff that nobody else has, ditto for Hulu and Netflix. There are also free services like Crackle and more niche offerings like Warner Instant Archive. I'm not going to pay for 5 different services at a time, but I'm also not going to pay for cable TV channels either. I view them the same way. I jump around from service to service and never pay for more than 1 at a time. Keep Netflix for a couple months, then decide I want something different and I'll jump over to Hulu for a bit. Then go back and see how things are progressing at Netflix a few months later. It serves my purpose and I don't need cable. If I really want a blockbuster title my library (3 blocks from my house) has a ton of movies, they also offer their own free streaming service and there's a Red box at the grocery store. And I live in a city with great Rep Theaters, Indie theaters and all kinds of other entertainment. Life is good.
Ironically, I have come to think of shows that don't serialize to be "innovative." Praising Black Mirror again but I love that I can just watch any episode by itself. What's old is new again, etc and so forth. So I guess if any franchise show would benefit from that, it would a show from the era where that was the norm.
Horses for courses. Certain types of shows lend themselves to the episodic model, like Black Mirror, The Twilight Zone, I Love Lucy, etc. Other types of shows tell a story that develops and builds on previous events over the course of its run - shows like Game Of Thrones, Better Call Saul/Breaking Bad, etc. But one trend is clear, serialized shows are in the ascendancy, probably for two reasons. One is that they tend to be more interesting (when done well) - they're like extended movies where time can be devoted to fleshing out characters and events in more depth compared to a 90-120 min movie. The other reason is that networks prefer a serialized narrative precisely because it's likely to attract a loyal audience that won't want to miss a single episode. It's really a win-win as far as I'm concerned.
Star Trek TV series to be more graphic, Bryan Fuller hints by James Hibberd | June 23 2016 — 3:52 PM EDT CBS The upcoming Star Trek TV series will be unlike any previous small-screen incarnation of the franchise in at least one key respect, showrunner Bryan Fuller points out: It won’t be bound by broadcast content standards. In a red carpet interview with Collider, Fuller said that the eagerly awaited new show, which will debut on CBS in January but then switch to the streaming service CBS All Access, will have a rather different prime directive than the previous 762 hours of TV-sized Trek, which either ran entirely on broadcast networks or in syndication. “Because we’re CBS All Access, we’re not subject to network broadcast standards and practices,” says Fuller, who famously pushed the boundaries of broadcast TV content on his last series, NBC’s Hannibal. “It will likely affect us more in terms of what we can do graphically. ButStar Trek’s not necessarily a universe where I want to hear a lot of profanity, either.” Maybe not a lot, but even a little profanity would be quite different than the generally chaste small-screen Trek universe that’s familiar to fans of The Next Generation, Voyager or Deep Space Nine. Fuller also confirmed that the first season, which debuts next January, will consist of 13 episodes. Casting is underway, and Fuller says he’s considering actors for his roles in “a colorblind prism and a gender-blind prism.” The writer-producer was also asked if the franchise might include gay characters for the first time. “I think the progressive audience that loves Star Trek will be happy that we’re continuing that tradition,” he says. The original Star Trek was, of course, an envelope-pushing show for its time, featuring progressive ideals and an inclusive, racially diverse cast. Trek even aired TV’s first interracial kiss (between William Shatner and Nichelle Nichols) in a 1968 episode that certain stations refused to air. 'Star Trek' TV series to be more graphic, Bryan Fuller hints »
Well, that's what they say, but: Did Star Trek really show TV’s first interracial kiss? » Star Trek Fact Check: TV's First Interracial Kiss? »
This might be good, providing they don't go totally overboard. It might signal a series more in tone of DS9 than the other variants. DS9 also had longform arcs, which seems likely with the new show too as we're only getting 13 eps per season, so I doubt they'd do alien-species-of-the-week type eps. I don't know what he means here - will the prime directive itself be different in the literal sense or figuratively (as in different thematic emphasis overall)?
According to Fuller's answer concerning the format, it seems that your are probably right regarding an arc vs. standalone episodes. At least, he kind of hints at a longer arc. There's been a lot of speculation about the format and setting of the new series. What would you like to put out there now, to wet the appetite for the audience? 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." People got excited about the word "crews," plural, in the teaser trailer. Yeah. Does that have a specific meaning? Or was that sort of a word that was used? No, I think we will be seeing lots of crews in the story. One of the things that is exciting for me is that we are telling a "Star Trek" story in a modern way. We're telling a 13-chapter story in this first season. It's nice to be able to dig deep into things that would have been breezed passed if we were doing episodic and had to contain a story to an episode. New 'Star Trek' Details Confirmed: Not an Anthology Series, Will 'Eventually' Revisit Characters »
It's probably better if you don't ask. Those that don't like NuTrek reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally don't like it.
I have no idea what this means. I personally like the idea of a Star Trek where more natural interactions and commuincation between people (and other beings) are depicted. Too bad HBO isn't involved in this series.
