I think it says that they have faith in it to boost users for their streaming service.Yeah, I was about to post about this earlier today. But after learning it was only going to be offered on their paid streaming service, I lost interest.
IMO, by making it available on that said service. CBS doesn't have much faith in it either.
It's too bad as it sounded promising, something new and original, and the best part not connected to the movies.
Exactly. All networks are moving to more proprietary systems. That's why the first major STAR WARS VII interviews on late night were with Jimmy Kimmel - because Kimmel's on ABC, owned by Disney, which owns Lucasfilm. Even though it's not Leno or Letterman anymore, those two shows are still the top of late-night. But Disney's keeping it more "in the family". Pretty soon you'll see "Dancing with the Star Wars Stars" and the such, only ABC/Disney/Lucasfilm/Marvel stars on their talk shows.I think it says that they have faith in it to boost users for their streaming service.
I am pretty sure JJ Trek shows that they gave up on capitalism vs socialism in Trek. This is not the old days you could alieanate half of your audience because you barely had competition. This the time of The Expanse, Foundation, Killjoys and tons of ohter shows competing with you.I remain indifferent to this news, except for the pay streaming thing. That's a turn off imho.
Having watched TOS as a youngster, then TNG, then DS9, Voyager, countless films, etc I recognize that its time for Hollywood to pull this vehicle out, blow the dust off it's old dry bones, rebrand it, and sell it to an all new group of up-and-comers who can be swayed by all of the usual indoctrination disguised as culturally in-beat social commentary....
Meh, I have little expectations or concerns about another Trek reboot, but if it gets off he ground, receives good reviews, and has a relatively long streaming run, I'll rent the series when it comes out in whatever format is the newest at the time and give the series a fair shot.
I'll check back for developments and reviews in a few years to see if it's worth my time.
I realize that it's a tough market out there for TV these days, but this can't be the way to go about it. Seems like it would just alienate even more people. I'm already disgusted with Satellite and Cable, because you have to pay so much for so many channels I simply do not watch. Just to see the 5 shows a week that I do watch. Plus you're bound to the night that show airs, unless you want to pay extra for DVR. The onDemand doesn't let you FF anymore. This is one reason why I like Netflix and Hulu, watch what I want, when I want.CBS is looking to compete with Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, and even HBO GO. They're taking a hugely popular product and driving viewers to their pay service. It's a smart business move, but it'll have to be a "wait and see" on whether it works or not.
Yep! That piece of casting news for Star Trek: Discovery definitely piqued my interest!!!!! Big fan of Issacs!Jason Isaacs announced he will be the next Captain. Don't know about the rest of you but this makes me even more interested.
Absolutely agree with you Cartel_Al_Jabr (prolly my first time!)It's just a setting. It could have it's own era, it's own region of space to explore and it's own unique baddies to fight.
Exactly, something that already happened with Enterprise. And then again with NuTrek.I think it will be a visually updated version of 'the Cage' episode era trek (from what I've heard). I suspect it won't carry forward much of the 1960s TOS tech (consoles with buttons, etc), and will be something of a reboot, of the visual style of TOS.
That's definitely it; I remember when Enterprise aired, many of us thought it looked too advanced for the time period (except the Grappler, which was interesting). The Shen Zhou (sp?) and the Discovery look far too advanced; if they are going to do a prequel series, then conform to the look of the past!It appears to want to utilize 24th Century technology in a 22nd Century time period.
It meshes much better with the reboot movies than it does with "The Cage," which is about when the show is set. To be clear, I would never expect a Star Trek show made in 2017 to look like a show made in 1965 (although it would be fun). But that's why setting it during that era is a bad idea. I just see no good reason why it was necessary. If they changed the Klingons to a never-before-seen alien species and made Michael's adoptive father another Vulcan (I do think a human raised by Vulcans is interesting and has potential), they could have set the show 50-100 years after Voyager and opened the story up to endless possibilities that weren't subject to continuity restraints.Just curious: Does the tech not mesh with what we saw in the nu-Trek films? I can see it not fitting with the original Trek series of course but I didn't feel it clashed with Abrams Trek. Perhaps just because I'm even less of a purist!