AN Forums

Star Trek TV & Film


The budget of First Contsct would likely not even cover the actors salaries in the new Trek films. Prior to them, Trek movies were known for being relatively low budget. In fact, the series premier of Voyager cost more to produce than most of the TOS films.


I’m really looking forward to seeing more of Number One on the screen. It’s a shame that the NBC execs couldn’t have been more open minded about a female first officer, because I reallly enjoyed Majel playing here. I think Rebecca Romijn is a fine choice and should do well.


August 4, 2018


Finally someone is brining back TV characters that actually need revived! I really can’t wait to see this! We are also finally getting something post-Nemesis.

I also have to say that I take no small pleasure in the amount of people who are admitting that they will finally sign up for CBS All Access for this.


@dragonrider_cody Cody, I’m sorry, but “Meh”.

I’ve got enough streaming services to last me for quite some time. This won’t get me to sign up for another.

Mark Gosdin


:joy::joy::joy: Well, good for you. I was actually referring to groups that I follow on Facebook and Reddit. The amount of people changing their tune is pretty entertaining, especially as some of them were just downright nasty and rude. :joy::joy::joy:


Yep, while I like Picard, What’s the point? I mean in Star Trek Online, he became the ambassador to Vulcan. Honestly, STNG was great, but it just wasn’t Patrick Stewart that made it so. lol


I really don’t get why CBS doesn’t just air this show on its actual network(s), in any capacity. Do they consider it not good enough? Even Supergirl, which “flunked out” of CBS, is still airing on a real network.

TBH, I didn’t mind Nemesis. It wasn’t the greatest capstone for the TNG era, but I have a sneaking suspicion that any sort of continuation of the TNG era would lead to a Fuller House-grade disappointment.

…can there even be bona fide “OG Trek” type shows made any more? I suspect that TNG had way too much violence and romance for the modern era. Even the episode of ST: Enterprise where Tucker gets pregnant might be too much nowadays.

I dunno if NBC can be faulted for not being open minded about anything as they were extremely progressive for the 1960s. So instead of a female XO, we wound up with designed-for-women Spock, and an enduring cultural icon.

<2 decades later, Trek boldly went there and gave us the female XOs with Major Kira officially and Jadzia Dax unofficially; “The Best of Both Worlds”? :roll_eyes: :wink:


IThere are a lot of reasons why CBS doesn’t air this on their network.

  1. It doesn’t fit their demographics. Sci-fi shows have never performed well on CBS; Supergirl being the most notable recent example. However, Supergirl does fit in with the CW’s demographics, but required a number of large budget cuts to air there.

  2. They don’t really have anything to pair it with, and they actually have very few holes in their lineup. CBS has one of the strongest prime time lineups on TV.

  3. Bryan Fuller wanted more freedom with the show, and didn’t want to worry about the FCC standards that broadcast networks have to deal with.

  4. Most importantly, CBS needs to grow its streaming platforms as broadcast and network TV are dying. While their numbers are okay now, they aren’t stupid. There is no future growth in broadcast TV. Star Trek is one of the strongest properties they have and perfect to promote All Access.

A Star Trek series would probably fit better on the CW. However, they don’t have the audience to support such an expensive show, even with Netflix funding much of it. Not to mention, CBS would have to split the advertising revenue with Warner Media.

Streaming is the future. Broadcast TV is not.

Also, I can’t help but laugh at your suggestion that TNG has too much violence or romance for modern TV. The violence on TNG can’t hold a candle to modern TV shows, and Discovery out does TNG on both. The violence is one of the reasons some people have claimed it’s too dark.

Besides, since when was TNG overly violent? Even DS9 and Voyager had more violence, and definitely more romance. :thinking:


CBS has found places to plug in new shows, like Instinct or the infamous flop Doubt. Finding holes in the schedule doesn’t seem to present too much of a problem for the network.

As for Sci-fi on CBS, there could be a place for it as Person of Interest and, inexplicably, Scorpion did well there. Perhaps Supergirl flopped not because of its genre but because the only “buzz” it had came from Jebra “Low Energy” Bush? :rofl:

…CBS’ lineup does seem rather weak these days as the network’s stalwart, NCIS, is just a shell of itself with much of the iconic cast departing.

I’m circling back to the “STD not good enough for network TV” as the Hawaii 5-0 reboot is not going behind the paywall,and neither is the new Magnum PI reboot. Both of which seem to use similar strategies to STD when it comes to relaunching a franchise.

Perhaps why broadcast TV and streaming are blurring the distinction between themselves. The major cable providers with which I am familiar all allow broadcast TV (live, DVR’d, or on-demand) to be streamed on mobile, without using billed cellular data. Aside from that, there is also Hulu, which Fox was able to use successfully in its bid to use The Orville as “penicillin” to counter STD. :smile:

There’s also the possibility of partnering with Netflix, even just to reshow it. Or the “common sense” approach of showing the prior season of STD during the summer months in order to attract new fans to pay for CBS AA for the coming season?

As recently as 7 years ago, I believe the world would agree with you. But consider TNG from the position of the current “zeitgeist”: Two virile, swaggering leading men who “slay” their way across the galaxy, racking up “notch counts” a light year long (including subordinates*); Couple that with the “male gaze” fanservice (eg: Dr. Crusher + Troi aerobics episode), and the #MeToo crowd is froth with rage.

DS9 was, strangely (given the modern-day memes), borderline platonic. In contrast to the Kirk/Picard/Riker swagger, Sisko was a borderline monk who was only ever interested in 3 women, one of whom was a ghost.


After all that, I honestly have to question if you even watched Star Trek? :thinking:. If you think sex and violence were major points in the shows, then we clearly didn’t watch the same thing. Picard had very few love interests in the show. Riker flirted a lot, but much of his romance interests were throw away one-liners with little or no substance. Other than the long, on again-off again relationship between Troi and Riker, and the season seven relationship between Troi and Worf, there were no long term relationships on TNG. Poor Geordi couldn’t even get laid…lol

Now contrast that to DS9, where Sisco had two serious relationships. Bashir was in love with Dax, who later married Worf. Bashir would also fall for Ezri Dax, and she would also hook up once with Worf. There was also Rom and Leeta, Miles and Keiko, and even Bajoran Dukat and Kai Winn. All of these relationships took place over multiple episodes, and in many cases, multiple seasons. These weren’t the one and done, never to be mentioned again episodes we got on TNG.

However, using the female characters as shallow eye candy should have never been tolerated, even on TNG. Troi’s character improved immensely once they allowed her to put away her boobs.

Even though 7 of 9 was also clad in spandex, they at least gave her character some intelligence and a back story to counter balance it. Not to mention, she she as extremely tough. Although, I can definitely see why Mulgrew was very unhappy with her being added to the show. Seven could have been just as strong a character without the spandex.

And as I’ve mentioned before, every suggestion you have made just works against the business case that CBS has. They don’t want All Access to succeed. The NEED it to. Allowing one of their flagship shows to stream elsewhere actively works against that goal.

It has nothing to do with Star Trek itself. The show is largely paid for by the Netflix and Canadian cable deals. It has nothing to do with the show “not being good enough”, and everything to do with needing strong shows for their new platform. It’s not any different than Disney brining back Clone Wars for its new streaming service, after ending their deal with Cartoon Network, or even Paramount using Voyager to launch UPN (other than UPN being available OTA in some markets.)

If a network doesn’t have faith in a show, they banish it to Saturday nights or cancel it very early. They don’t use it to promote a brand new service, and they don’t add additional episodes to a first season that was already over budget.


Wonder no longer for I can assure that I’ve seen Trek. :smile:

In fact, when I saw Trek, one of the promos that the network ran posed the question of who had more luck with the ladies, Picard or Riker. Unlike with Kirk (Shatner or Pine), it was implied instead of rather overt, but the two of them, ah, “sought out new life” across the galaxy in a way that would make a NBA player’s jaw drop :wink:

I’m not sure there were shallow female characters on TNG. Troi showcasing her assets made sense as her job relied upon being able to read and manipulate others.

DS9 had relationships but they were so rote, more there to advance narrative goals. None of the swagger seen in the male leads of the prior 2 series. In fact, the only swaggering was done by Bashir, but he was strangely-and sadly-stymied & subverted at almost every turn. :cry:

Critically, none of the major relationships shown were healthy relationships (eg:Sisko, Odo, Kai “Hillary” Winn, Grand Nagus Zek, and even Rom were all shamelessly manipulated), the closest we came to seeing a healthy relationship was between Kira and poor Vedek “Bro” Bareil.

Kiko & Miles O’Brien were, of course, famed for being the first loveless marriage in space.

DS9 might be “best Trek”, but not in the relationship department. Even Achilles had his heel.

Mulgrew should’ve been unhappy as it was necessary to completely rewrite her character to accommodate Seven. Before Seven appeared, Mulgrew was “Fair and Balanced”. Afterward, she became the “Bleeding Heart” in order to serve as a foil to Seven’s ruthlessly pragmatic approach to everything. Later on, VOY seemed to hit upon using Chakotay to foil Seven (without compromising his established character), if only they’d thought of that sooner.

IMHO Seven basically killed Voyager…just as Seven basically killed Married…with Children :frowning:

The other networks don’t seem to have this same dire need?

But if CBS’ need is so dire then why aren’t they locking their best titles behind it? So far, all we have fully paywalled are niche shows, shows that may have been “critical darlings” but have met with a lukewarm reception from the viewing public.

Except for the ~3 Paywalled titles, I (and millions of others) already can stream all CBS shows on my phone/laptop/internet device, with no additional money going to CBS AFAIK.

When every broadcast channel has to have its own exclusive streaming service, then streaming becomes broadcast (but worse) and the golden goose is killed.


The other broadcast networks are all partners in Hulu. NBC also attempted to launch their own stand alone streaming service, but it crashed and burned pretty quickly. CBS has no ownership stake in Hulu. Even with their ownership stake in Hulu, which will double when they acquire Fox, Disney is still launching its own streaming service.

And I’m not claiming that all these streaming services will be successful. Several have already failed, like NBC’s SeeSo, and I’m sure many more will do so. I’m sure there will be more bundles in the future as well, such as the CBS/Showtime one, services like VRV, or additional Hulu bundles.

And it’s probably worth noting that streaming is not a very profitable business right now, so “golden goose” is a pretty laughable term. Netflix is the most successful, but their profit margins are extremely thin and they are heavily in debt. Most of their positive cash flow actually comes from their old, but still profitable DVD by mail business.

Hulu is expected to lose around a billion dollars this year, though those losses are spread among its four parent companies. Several of the smaller, free streaming services like TubiTV, Viewster, PlutoTV, and others are unprofitable, even without expensive originals, and have to keep securing more venture capital to keep growing. There will eventually have to be some consolidation.

This is actually the same situation cable was in until the mid and late 90’s. Cable networks like USA, Nickelodeon, and MTV all lost money for more than a decade and took years to make back their investments once in the black.

CBS is just doing what Netflix and Amazon are doing, and investing in more original content to get more subscribers. CBS is also considerably smaller than the companies that own the other networks, and it’s extremely unlikely that they will remain independent for the foreseeable future. The only thing that has kept CBS in its current state is the control of its stock by National Amusements and the Redstone Family. A stronger streaming service should help the selling price when CBS is finally absorbed by another company.

Edit: Now that I think about it, I wouldn’t be too surprised if the Fox Network attempts to launch its own streaming service, once it’s separated from the rest of 21st Century Fox. A shrinking broadcast network will then be a much bigger part of their company. :thinking:


Star Trek: The History of Jean-Luc Picard


That doesn’t surprise me to hear, as the DVD-by-mail business offers the selection that viewers actually want. If it weren’t anti-HD (odd as Netflix Streaming is pro-HD), I’d probably be a subscriber.

It fascinates me that Netflix has gone to such lengths to assiduously avoid associating its streaming service with its “cash cow” mail service. TBH I don’t know how Hastings weathered the Qwikster storm, CEOs have been “George Zimmer’d” for less.

This glut of streaming services is definitely a case of killing the golden goose. Too much content fragmentation: Not only does a streamer have to subscribe to a fistful of services, but actually finding out which service(s) are streaming any given title is not so convenient for the end user.

Streaming today is pricey & inconvenient and it is only getting worse, it is almost as bad as broadcast ever was…and with torrent technology better than ever, continuing corporate stupidity is going to have consumers realizing it is more convenient to once again take to the virtual high seas.

CBS is following Netflix off the cliff, more like, though Netflix offers more value. Far more. Amazon, thanks to Amazon Prime, has a unique edge in the subscriber department.

A stronger streaming service should help the selling price when CBS is finally absorbed by another company.
If CBS doesn't actually want All Access to succeed long-term, but just wants it to last long enough to serve as a "Potemkin Village" to make the company look more attractive so that they can con a higher price in a buyout (hire Mark Cuban to consult lol), then its business model for it almost makes some sense.

All in all, CBS All Access is anti-consumer, and as cool as Captain Picard is, I have no confidence that Patrick Stewart could course-correct Kurtzman, who is toxic to Trek. After all, Stewart was a proponent of the oft-derided Argo sequence in Nemesis. :wink:


Let us remember that Amazon tried mightily to mess that up for Anime Fandom by using the NTBSD Anime Strike. ( NTSBD = Never To Be Sufficiently Damned )

Mark Gosdin


I’m still somewhat shocked that Amazon apparently realized that they’d earned themselves a golden sombrero with Anime Strikeout and canceled it.

The fallout from the AS disaster continues as recently my Amazon-subscribing pals were astonished that Bezos’ Iron Curtain of Anime had been torn down: we were trying to find which sites were streaming a show, and they didn’t consider Amazon because “we don’t pay for Anime Strike”.


The shut down of Anime Strike had more to do with a change in management than anything else. They fired most of the upper management in entertainment, and the new guys shut down all of their in house channels. Strike wasn’t the only one that got the axe. The channels remaining are all third party, where Amazon just serves as a convenient channel for additional revenue.

Many of the channels, like Shudder, actuallt offer extra perks if you subscribe directly through them or an App Store. While Amazon Channel susbscribers have more limitation in content. Shudder even initially locked Amazon out of their Job Bob Brigg’s marathon, until their servers crashed under the strain. Eventually, they spread it out to Amazon and VRV to make up some for those who couldn’t watch it initially.


If the Amazon entertainment management team was doing things right they wouldn’t have gotten the boot, or at least it would have been way less likely.

The existence of a more fragmented streaming environment, even fragmenting under a single banner like Amazon did, appears to run counter to the everything in one place philosophy of Amazon, Wal-Mart, Target and others. Eventually someone, some entity, will try to pull as much of the streaming under one banner as possible as a value proposition. It should be interesting to see how this shakes out.

Mark Gosdin


@mgosdin , @dragonrider_cody

While I get this is part and partial of the CBS All Access conversation, where a Star Trek show actually airs, please bring the conversation back to Star Trek as this is the Star Trek thread. Thank You