Continuing his speaking tour, CBS Corporation president Les Moonves followed up on his comments from last week with a new presentation at the Deutsche Bank Media, Internet & Telecom Conference this morning, where he talked about some more detail into the business side of the upcoming STAR TREK television relaunch on the CBS All Access streaming service.

Interestingly, Moonves gave one of the clearest public statements about the split between CBS and Paramount ownership rights for Star Trek, and finally laid out the details behind that “not related to Star Trek Beyond” line in the STAR TREK 2017 released back in November.

When [CBS] split from Viacom ten years ago, January 1, 2006, one of the big sticking points, as you can imagine, was “Star Trek.” You know, we both wanted it.

They said “It’s a movie!” and I said, “No, no, no, it’s a TV show.” Actually, we’re both right. So they kept the feature film rights, we kept the television rights; they have [“Star Trek Beyond”] coming out July 22.

Our deal with them is that we had to wait six months after their film is launched so there wouldn’t be a confusion in the marketplace.

That six-month window is plenty of time for the upcoming Trek film to be released in theaters domestically and internationally, and be out in both digital and physical home-media releases for the 2016 holiday season.

Once STAR TREK BEYOND is out of the way, that clears up room for the 2017 series to take over the Trek mantle: that is, until Paramount decides if it will exercise its option to bring back the movie cast for a fourth feature.

*   *   *

Moonves also offered some more comments on the expected financial impact of international distribution, which he first mentioned last week.

“Star Trek” is an expensive show, it’s the family jewel, obviously. The previous “Star Trek” shows that we sold to Netflix did extraordinarily well; I don’t think it’s a great surprise that Trekkies would go to the [streaming services] of the world. So we sort of felt that we had a tiger in the bottle.

We announced “Star Trek,” and internationally, we basically have covered 60% of the cost of the show already… to make up that [other] 40%, it’s not going to take a whole lot of subscriptions, and it says to the world that we are very serious about this.

When you put something on [All Access], it’s got to be something special, something you wouldn’t find on the [CBS broadcast network], something that will attract subscribers. As I said, “Star Trek” was kind of a no-brainer: there aren’t a lot of [properties] out there with that kind of following.

In 2017, when “Star Trek” starts on All Access, we think that’s going to be extraordinarily successful.

Finally, he discussed the somewhat limited marketing push for the streaming service, something he expects the corporation to ramp up surrounding the Star Trek launch next year.

I think when “Star Trek” starts, which is in January 2017, I think you’re going to see a larger marketing push for [CAA] right then because there will be a lot of people who will sign up then.

In addition, we’re looking at offering a package of Showtime OTT [streaming] and All Access together, at a lower price point; we think that will be very effective.

The truth of the matter is, we haven’t pulled out all the stops. We gave both of them – Showtime OTT and CBS All Access – twenty seconds during the Super Bowl, which shows that we’re serious about them because that’s a lot of money, but we think they’re going to be both very effective and next year, it’s going to add a substantial amount to our bottom line.

You can listen to Moonves’ full comments on the streaming webcast recording right here.


Order Star Trek: Enterprise Season 3 Blu-ray today!

Order Star Trek: Enterprise Season 4 Blu-ray today!

  • Godzilla

    Interesting. Makes me wish all of the star trek rights would get under one roof. Also indicates that this show truly will have nothing to do with the reboot verse.

    • Well, that’s still not totally cleared up yet – not until someone from CBS officially lays out the show’s story.

      • Godzilla

        True. But “avoid confusion in the marketplace” says a lot to me.

        • Yes, it’s certainly an indicator, for sure. Just staying on the side of caution 😉

        • Brian Thorn

          Polite way of saying “avoid over-saturating the market with Trek as they did in the ’90s.”

          • jerr

            more like “Paramount and CBS not competing against each other.”

          • Brian Thorn

            Eh, maybe. I think if they could get some good synergy between the movie and TV without really competing with each other. They just don’t want audience burn-out again.

          • jerr

            CBS would have to pay Bad Robot for the JJ’verse rights. “Burn-out” or franchise fatigue was B&Bs excuse for ENT’s low ratings.

          • Zarm

            Yes! Exactly! I hate the ‘oversaturation’ line – it’s just an excuse for them turning out poor products, then blaming their failure on the franchise and the fans instead of admitting the quality of what they were creating.

          • (Roc) Wayne Alford

            Bad Robot owns nothing in the Star Trek or Star Wars universe and as a matter of fact when JJ tried to garner some rights to Star Trek Paramount sided with CBS to deny BR getting any ownership of any licensing. BR is currently contracted to make Star Trek movies. BR has a stellar reputation working for CBS and Paramount but Paramount has the ability to choose another company to make the movie and the idea that any movie continuity would be limited by BR rights is absolutely preposterous.

          • Captain Jon

            It was oversaturation…of a mediocre product! Despite it’s rich premise and several incredible episodes, Voyager never rose above being an average series. And Enterprise, despite another rich premise, just failed to consistently be more than average. Both shows didn’t live up to their potential and were disappointing to many fans. Yes, there are fans who love both shows, but for many in the fanbase they just never took off the way they needed to in order to be successful.
            As for Nemesis, I enjoy it. It’s lower on my list of Trek films, but I still find some entertainment value in it. But again, it’s very disappointing because it was supposed to be TNG’s curtain call. It wasn’t the film fans needed to say goodbye so many didn’t give it a chance.
            But I think multiple Trek series and a feature film franchise could run at the same time as long as they’re all high quality. Look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe, for example. Trek could’ve and should’ve had that going in the 90’s. The movies could’ve been an opportunity to crossover and weave various storylines from the series together. Insurrection should’ve been a TNG/DS9 movie, but it wasn’t. Nemesis could’ve been the ultimate 24th Century crossover film with TNG/DS9/VOY casts, but it wasn’t.
            Trek stopped living up to its potential because Berman found a formula that worked with TNG and stuck to it with VOY and ENT. He played it safe and failed to realize that he needed to shake things up and play by a different set of rules with the other series, which is what DS9 did under Behr’s direction.

  • Locutus

    So what happens when Nu-Trek 4 gets the green light? Does Trek Series VI have to go on hiatus around movie-launch time? I’m guessing they will just have to coexist and cope with marketplace confusion at that point.

    • That is a good question for sure – but it’s sure to be several years down the road, if happening, so there’s time for the two parties to figure it out. With 8+ months (assumed) between Trek TV seasons, there’s room to squeeze a movie window in there.

    • Godzilla

      Its probably just a one time agreement

      • The Fox

        its becuase paramount gave bad robot a 3 movie contract.

        once that expires, it doesnt matter and cbs wont extend the license.

        • Kyle Hicks

          If they had a three movie contract, why is Bad Robot making a 4th film? Did they renew the contract then? Cuz I think they actually did and have another movie or two coming in the reboot franchise…

          • Kyle Hicks

            I was not aware they walked. So Beyond is it then? After this no JJverse?

    • Captain Jon

      I wouldn’t worry about that too much. If Series VI starts each season in January and runs until June, Paramount can release NuTrek IV in the summer, fitting it into the natural hiatus between seasons. All these two need to do is work together and not compete. That’s what they’re afraid will happen is that the film franchise will compete with the TV franchise. It doesn’t need to be that way as long as they coordinate.

  • Brian Thorn

    The rumored, generally accepted story was that CBS and Paramount had a “gentlemen’s agreement” that CBS would not launch another Star Trek television series until after Paramount had made three movies. The “six months after the movie” part is news, I think.

    • (Roc) Wayne Alford

      That is correct it is a collaborative effort. At the same time for one staff hiring has to take place which is public so it’s critical to lead the buzz then have the buzz lead you. And second it’s unfair for CBS to be forced into black out when the 50th anniversary is a prime time to promote the new series. Both franchises support each other and are represented by the same legal team. You will find that a lot of people carry access badges to both CBS and Paramount they share a tremendous amount of resources. The entire rivalry conspiracy is not actually real. Everyone will find out in 2017

  • Zarm

    Well, that’s nice to know- that it’s something they didn’t have the option of launching in the 50th year; not that they didn’t try, but that they were contractually barred from doing so.

  • Visitor1982

    I think this show points more to a new universe or prime universe show, than to a JJ Abrams universe show.

    Also, it seems, Paramobius was right about the non-compete contract.

    It also baffles me how quiet it is regarding Star Trek Beyond, which premieres in 4 months! Does no one have faith in it?

    • danielcw

      Look at how Paramount marketed Mission Impossible 5. It started to be very quite as well. Then they ramped it up closer to launch

    • (Roc) Wayne Alford

      In a reverse bizzarro world it does. The youtube trailer for Beyond has 14 million views and youtube only counts about a quarter of actual views. The trailer has millions of other views in other locations. A new trailer and broader promotion begins in May

    • Captain Jon

      I don’t see much point in trying to build up hype right now. The trailer in front of Star Wars introduced Beyond to the public consciousness. But with Batman vs. Superman and Captain America coming out between now and Beyond, what’s the point? Most of the focus will be on BvS and CA, so Beyond will only get lost in the shuffle. It’s better that they let those two movies hog their time in the spotlight and then make the big push around Memorial Day weekend through to Beyond’s premiere. Otherwise, it’ll be wasted marketing dollars.
      Keep in mind, very few franchises (if any) will be able to sustain the hype that Star Wars did a year in advance of its release. Star Wars is a beast of its own when it comes to marketing and merchandising.
      Just be patient. Paramount knows this is a 50th Anniversary event and they’ll unleash their strategy soon enough.

  • Moshe Z. Matitya

    “Once STAR TREK BEYOND is out of the way, that clears up room for the 2017 series to take over the Trek mantle: that is, until Paramount decides if it will exercise its option to bring back the movie cast for a fourth feature.”

    Does that mean that when the fourth film is released, the TV series will have to stop?

    • Doubtful. It will probably just mean they’ll need to coordinate their calendars again.

    • rrcivil

      A lot of streaming shows release their entire”season” at once so a future film could come out in the summer (like STB) and the new trek TV season drops in January. Just like in the coming year.

      • Brian Thorn

        CBS won’t do that with Star Trek though. They’re already talking about not being able to buy All Access for one month and binge-watch the whole season.


    The bickering over the rights to Star Trek is as annoying and obstructive as the Democrats vs the Republicans. I look forward to the day when Paramount and CBS can join forces and give the fans more than they could ever have hoped for instead of less. Starving the fans is not the answer. They should create a fan film channel at the very least and keep the blood flowing in between big projects.

    • (Roc) Wayne Alford

      They aren’t bickering over the rights they are collaborating in order to make the Star Trek franchise as successful as possible. They are 2 sibling companies under the same parent company

  • archer923

    If Star Trek doe so well on Netflix etc. Why hasn’t DS9 remaster been green lit… This is also confusing. So they can’t have the show out at the same time. But TNG R was being done. And haven’t they made that TOS BD and promoted it, along with Into Darkness. This makes no sense. So people weren’t confused before. But now they are?

    • The Fox

      its apparently on the table but it would be an incentive for people to subscribe to all access.
      CBS stuffed up with the TNG remastered series in that they ONLY gave it the HD treatment without expanding upon it like they did with TOS and new footage ad stuff.

      I cant confirm that they will do it, but i am told its the plan.
      Intially however the plan was to remaster (or possibly reanimate) the animated series, but with the dissapointing sales of TNG blue rays (which is cbs’ own fault as they never syndicated the series and as such the prices were too high) they decided to put it on somewhat of a hold.

      Bottom line, its coming, it may not be soon, but by the time I am 40 we will definatley have Ds9 and voyager remastered.

      • Currently CBS has no plans to remaster either DS9 or Voyager, which we know because we have been in direct contact with those involved with the TNG remastering project. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the truth after the TNG Blu-ray numbers.

        The choice to not “expanded upon” the footage in TNG was a specific, deliberate choice made at the beginning of the project – again, we know this not just because of what’s on the Blu-ray interviews, but because we have actually been inside the CBS Digital offices and met with the team who did the work on the project.

    • Currently CBS has no plans to remaster either DS9 or Voyager, which we know because we have been in direct contact with those involved with the TNG remastering project. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the truth after the TNG Blu-ray sales figures fell far short of the financial goal.

      Regarding the “TNG vs. Into Darkness” issue, you must remember that TNG is a long-established property and wouldn’t reasonably be considered a confusion to the marketplace as compared to a brand-new show.

      • Zarm

        I’ve heard that a lot; I’m curious, do we know how far short of the goal the sales fell, or have any primary theories as to why? Because I know I shelled out a HECK of a lot of money for series I already owned on DVD (and I certainly got my money’s worth, don’t get me wrong!). I know a lot of people who were enthusiastic about the project, and I know TNG is popular… so it always frustrates/confuses me that they didn’t perform well enough for a potential project for DS9/VOY to be viable. I don’t understand how that happened.

        (Also, as I semi-complained on another thread… what does that mean? With no DVD releases since ’05 or so, no new copies on the shelves, and no plans to transition to the new resolution/format, are DS9 and VOY just going to be the ‘abandoned series,’ even in the 50th year, because they were unlucky enough to come out in pre-HD days? I mean, we’ve got them on streaming, but in terms of the treatment all other Trek is getting- even that of more variable quality or divided fanbase than an acknowledged hit like DS9, they sure seem to be getting left out in the cold even more than the lack of a remastered/blu-ray release…)

        • Can’t speak to the goal, but we know that many of the seasons were very, very low-selling for this type of release. Some didn’t even hit 15,000 units — globally — even after more than a year after release.

          • Zarm

            Wow. That’s just shocking to me.

          • proximablack

            Not that shocking to me. Most BR season boxsets I’ve seen, even for very recent shows, are around $20-40, and for most older classic shows the price is around $20 at most. At release the price for TNG BR’s to my knowledge were around $60-80 (right?) with a list price of $117.99 or something. That is just ridiculous pricing for a 80’s-90’s TV show. They no doubt counted on the “classic, beloved” status of the show, but there’s only so high you can go on the price before people find it unacceptable. When you add up that most people interested in the show already coughed up ridiculous prices for the DVD’s and are able to stream the show on Netflix they have anyway, and more and more people are switching to streaming instead of discs, it’s not really that surprising that the HD restoration was not enough to get people to buy the same episodes again. They simply priced themselves out of the game, not only for newcomers who might be curious to pick up a season if it was priced more reasonably, but for many longtime fans as well who are fed up with these prices for Trek discs compared to other shows.

          • reinhold23

            Currently, all the sets can be bought new on Amazon for $37-53 (the only exception is S7 at $75), which seems a lot more reasonable.

          • proximablack

            Yes, and the whole series collection for $180 ($25 per season), but it’s taken too many years to even get down to these prices. They will probably sell better as they get cheaper, but it’s taking them a long time to do that, and will it be too late with streaming taking over? $37 is still a lot for one season, like I said most old shows are available for $20 or less. Most X-Files seasons seem to be available for $14.99 for example.

          • DC Forever

            They priced them way too high. I finally bough season 7 used for $40. Just can’t spend $70 per season.

  • GIBBS v2

    So does that mean we nothing until December so the new show is “not confused with” the movie? While that makes sense from Star Trek Beyonds point of view to maximize your dollars it does not make sense if your launching a show in January. Something has to give along the way.

    • Promotion may start, but the actual release of the show is scheduled for next January.

      • Brian Thorn

        Hopefully, CBS will air the pilot immediately after the NFL Conference Championship game. The ratings would likely be huge.

        • iMike

          They may do what they did with Supergirl … air the pilot on broadcast television to entice viewers.

  • Tony Hunt

    Free TV Mr. Moonves. THAT’S what made Star Trek the international phenominon that it is, not making people pay for it.

  • Wes

    Boycott it all you want. CBS is a business and they have the rights to the television rights to Star Trek, and if you want to boycott the new series just because you’re unhappy with the service it will be on shows that you obviously do not care about the franchise anymore. It makes me sick that all of these “fans” want the series to be cancelled before it even begins just because it’s on CBS All Access. I’m disappointed in the way the fans treat the franchise now. They treat it like it’s the perennial pariah just because of the last two films. Well, let me tell you something… here is some facts for you. Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness have the highest box-office receipts and Rotten Tomatoes ratings of any of the previous ten films before those two. I’m not happy that the fans are willing to jump ship because of that and become embroiled in a social media civil war over the viability of the reboots as a part of the overall franchise. CBS has caused a lot of fans anger, but so has Paramount. So, this civil war that people are perpetuating on social media makes me absolutely sick. Star Trek is 50 years old, and this may be the last significant milestone because I feel like the franchise will be dead in 10 years, and it will be the fans’ anger over how it was treated will be the death of the franchise. Forgive me if I’m pessimistic about the future of the franchise, but it is how I feel about it.

    • TrekRules

      Again, box office means nothing unless it is adjusted for inflation. When you do, the 2009 barely beats TMP and Into Darkness drops to 5th so you can’t say they are more successful because really they are not. First Contact or Wrath of Khan would never have been able to make the money either of these films made – it wasn’t possible at the time. But look at Into Darkness – made in 3D so the tickets cost more yet it made less money than the 2009 film which means less people came back to see this version. Their costs were also much higher – even Final Frontier has a better budget to box-office ratio than they do and neither made the 8x back that Wrath of Khan did. And don’t forget foreign box-office saved Into Darkness when it wasn’t a factor in most of the previous 10 films. You can’t just quote dollars and say they are successful and therefore good without qualifying them a little because once you do, the reboot is not successful. That’s why people like me complain – you are only looking at part of the info and saying how successful they were when everything else says otherwise.
      I am willing to give the show a chance but seeing as how dedicated they seem to the JJ universe right now, I am concerned they are going to use the same approach in the series and it won’t be good. The movies have shown they have no issues doing dumb things and not worry about the consequences – I don’t want a show doing the same thing.

      • (Roc) Wayne Alford

        Total lies and a real old story and proven false and Foreign market is a major market to just negate it is being fully retarded America is not spending 90 billion dollars a year in foreign markets because they don’t count
        Who pays you people to create financial lies? You couldn’t be an accountant for Burger King let alone understand the complexity of how movie profits are managed to look lower by funneling the cost into the production side of the house. You want to talk about a disaster Paramount lost over 50 million making Nemesis and never recouped that money. Star Trek was a debt machine sucking dollars and literally costing money to own. And dont forget all of Paramobius lies about how Star Trek Beyond would never be made, how the set was sold and the whole thing went bankrupt etc etc and now the whole cast makes more money on one movie then all previous casts made for all the movies combined. The flop lies are real old and tiring

    • russrjn

      The point is fans are totally turned off to the dog turds cranked out by JJ Abrams…..he sucks at scifi…look at the latest Star Wars as an example of dog turds he cranks out

  • Look I like Trek as much as anyone, the last two movies WERE a reboot. Not a very good remake for the franchise but all the studios care about is selling tickets, thank you Paramount for allowing me and my Trek mates to see it for free, cause I surely wouldn’t have paid to see that last drek.

    As for a new series, I just finished watching both DS9 and Enterprise last month for the very first time. I did pay to stream it, but they were both so bad and formulaic that watching each show episode after soap opera like episode was the only way I could view it. IMHO CBS is going to have to do a whole lot better then the movies or previous Trek entities to get my dollars for a streaming service where Trek would be the only show I watch.

    The rest of their programing is dull, listless and predictable. If CSI, and Hawaii Five-0 are examples of what they are going to do with a new Star Trek, then I can wait another 5 to 10 years before I watch the series in its what will surely be a three year run. Enterprise ruined the Series franchise with poor stories, and a forgettable cast. Don’t repeat the mistake of making a space soap, go bacteria to the original formula that made each week a new adventure. Where the characters grow with the telling of a story.

    TNG was quite good, but still didn’t really hit the G spot. Trek is a cerebral journey not an homogeneous emotional farce like Voyager… make us thing about social issues and a return to space exploration, that is what kept Trek alive for 50 years.

    • Visitor1982

      Clearly a TOS fan. Can’t stand TOS myself. Bad stories, bad acting and so outdated.

      • Indeed I am a TOS fan, the acting was bad, the stories though we’re good. If not for three eh, seasons and people like me who threw a tantrum to get it back. You and I wouldn’t have anything to Disqus right now. The show had its merits, and when the world was still dreaming of going to the Moon, Trek gave us imagination and hope. That is the essence of the franchise that has been lost my friend.

        • (Roc) Wayne Alford

          The new show will take all the quality set and fx of the new movies and produce stories that fit a series better than a one hit action epic. Bryan is promising to go back to the original series style of story and action so you may be very happy

          • Thanks Wayne I have been reading good things about it and I trust Bryan Fuller, I was a Hugh Hannibal fan. I trust him and your opinion.

          • Hayde Christiansson

            Hugh Hannibal

          • Darn auto correct, but you knew what I was trying to say… happy now?

    • FrostUK

      Season 4 of DS9 is the best season of any Star Trek as far as I’m concerned, there was plenty about social issues and space exploration there, and the stories were excellent. Homefront, Paradise Lost and Rules of Engagement are still relevant today.

      DS9 formulaic? Maybe as a product of the 1990s, but it pushed the envelope more than the other shows.

      • I was pleased with DS9, and most of Enterprise too. Not everything can be consistently perfect, what I am most pleased about isome that each of the shows helped others find something they enjoyed about what is a long running and we’ll loved series. Thank you ForstUK.

  • (Roc) Wayne Alford

    #1 This article confirms that CBS Star Trek continues to work very closely with Paramount as they are both owned by National Amusements
    #2 It’s all but guaranteed the new show is going back to the original TOS/TOS movie timespan
    #3 It is very likely to be a shared universe between the two halves of the franchise. The Enterprise will be in the Paramount universe while Reliant or some other less popular ship will be on CBS but will need that link to the Enterprise to boost it’s legitimacy
    #4 Just as the Flash recently visited CBS Supergirl to boost ratings. Benedict Cumberbatch, Karl Urban and other actors and writers will be engaged in the new show ( keep an eye out for John Eaves the primary designer for the Movie universe as well as any word from ILM)

  • Justin Brochure

    Where do these people come from? Star Trek did well on nextflix because netflix already has a huge audience. Anybody who has a family member who watches netflix knows they binch watch tv series then move on to the next. Star Trek was simply another show to watch.

    Limiting access to Star Trek in order to promote your own streaming services will kill it. Star Trek needs to be available everywhere so more people can see it. If you limit access then the only people you are going to get is the most hardcore trekkies. If you put it up on tv and all the most popular media sites you will expose it to the causal viewer and pick up a bigger audience which means more ad revenue and more sales in merchandise. T.V. executives are some of the dumbest people on this planet.

    • Ryan Spooner

      binge 😉

    • JDM

      Good points, but if I may, I don’t get the sense that their overall goal is to promote STAR TREK, but rather to use TREK to promote their streaming service. Yes, the show might get a larger audience on TV, but it would also have more competition, as well, and on a major network where “new” shows, even within established franchises, tend to come and go a bit more quickly than on cable. Eventually, I hope TREK is returned to regular television, but for now, I can understand them hedging their bets. Granted, it’s been almost 11 years now, but ST ENTERPRISE had a rather ignominious demise that seems to have made a lot of the more casual fans in and out of the industry wonder of TREK would ever be resurrected or if it would simply be resigned to the rerun and nostalgia heap. If that’s the case, as I believe it is, then it’s proof that JJ Abrams hasn’t gotten nearly the respect he deserves from fans – if not for the movies, themselves, then for the way they have served this franchise by bringing in new viewers. On that note, even if the TV show doesn’t take place in the reset universe, I’d expect them to take a similar approach to the show’s style and pacing. I doubt even Nicholas Meyer could avoid that, and I know from seeing him talk about it in documentaries that Rod Roddenberry respects and maybe even enjoys Abrams’ version, defending it by saying that his father told a reporter once that he hoped someone in the future could do with TREK what he and the other custodians of the time could not. I’m like you guys in that I really miss the topical nature, substance, and character development that the new movies either lack or have in too short a supply. Still, one of TREK’s strengths in my opinion is its ability to successfully stray a little ways out of the sci-fi sandbox, if you will, and visit other genres within the framework of the show(s) and movie(s).

    • bytor


      The thing is, the traditional TV model is dying. It’s a slow death, sure, but it is happening all the same. And in particular, younger folks are cutting the cord at a pretty good pace. Heck, in our house the only live TV is in the family room and the master bedroom. All the kids don’t even bother with it. They stream everything.

      And let’s not forget, they limited access in a sense when they launched Voyager along with UPN, as UPN never had the market penetration that CBS/NBC/ABC do. Creating exclusive content is what compels people to buy your service. Just ask HBO. Or Netflix.

      Finally, Trek isn’t the only new show planned for CBS All Access.

      • Kyle Hicks

        I would actually concur. I got to thinking-IF people have TVs in today’s era, it’s smart TVs. Most people are starting to cut the cord, as you said, not only because that’s where TV’s going, but simply because it’s cheaper and more convenient to watch online, as you can literally watch WHENEVER. For example, say you’re a Trek fan and the series was NOT going to be on All Access. Say it aired on regular CBS and their affiliates at 8 PM every Friday. If you work second or an early third shift…you’re going to miss it with no way of watching it UNTIL it goes on a streaming service. So why even have the middleman that is network TV and just put it on All Access? You not only can watch it whenever, but now in a marketing sense, you have a marketing jewel that everyone wants to watch exclusively on your service. That’ll drive in people, likely in droves.

  • Tod Abbott

    The question I have (and that can’t be answered at this point) is whether CBS’s commitment is stronger to All Access or to Star Trek. If the show is good and well received, but dying on All Access, will they decide to broadcast it or offer it to another streaming service.

    • iMike

      If they’re spending the money on the series but it just doesn’t take off on All Access, I would imagine they would move it. However, putting it on the CBS television network would be a disaster. I can’t think of one sci-fi show that’s performed well on network television in the last few years that and that hasn’t ended up being canceled. It’s too bad CBS doesn’t have a cable network; high concept series tend to do much better on cable networks than broadcast networks.

      However the line “The truth is, we haven’t pulled out all of the stops” makes me think there’s a lot more going on behind the scenes that hasn’t yet been revealed. CBS does own Showtime, so offering both online subscriptions as a 2 for 1 deal could be big. They might also sell Series VI to Netflix after the season has aired, as most broadcast networks do with their shows.

      Who knows … ? We still have a long time to wait so I’m sure a lot more details will come out between now and then.

      • reinhold23

        “I can’t think of one sci-fi show that’s performed well on network television in the last few years that and that hasn’t ended up being canceled.”

        Does Fringe count?

      • Kyle Hicks

        Well considering how long it took CBS to open up and get the last 6 up there (just realized, technically according to CBS canon this is the 7th series, as last I heard TAS was canon, but regardless, it IS up on Netflix), I would highly be surprised if they sell it to Netflix after the season-and series-is wrapped up.

  • DC Forever

    Makes sense.

  • alphaswift

    This had better be available in Canada.

    • Kyle Hicks

      All Access option will be a States-only thing, as CBS said, but the series will be distributed internationally for airing on network TV.

  • Dennis Willman

    What confusion? The reboot movie series blows. If this new show is set in the prime universe timeline, it won’t be hard to distinguish Real Star Trek from Not Star Trek.

  • Kyle Hicks

    I really don’t see CBS making this last more than a season, All Access or not, personally. I see this as a way to simply sucker people in and keep them there, nothing more. It’s also a way to silence us fans, much like naming Rod Roddenberry as executive producer was after the fans on started to rant and rave about this series being an All Access exclusive. This won’t last more than a season, and it’s a bait and switch move all the way. Why? CBS doesn’t WANT it to succeed. Hope I’m wrong, but I play Star Trek Online, and the fact that they let some of the crap that goes out into that game in the state it goes into it live tells me one thing: CBS doesn’t give a damn about Star Trek anymore.

  • Kyle Hicks

    You know, there is something about this that concerns me. In all technicalities…CBS Television Studios has never actually made a Star Trek series. They just got the rights to the Trek TV series when CBS and Viacom split after ENT in 2005, which was why ENT was cancelled and Berman let go and they sat on this for so long. CBS Television Studios has no experience handling Trek, with the exception of Star Trek Online. This concerns me. Deeply. We now have inexperienced people under CBS handling something that they’ve never actually handled before, which might be why they hired the seasoned help, true…but all the same, that seasoned help still has to answer to the inexperienced people over them. (For the record, ENT was technically made by Paramount Television under the flag Paramount Communications. It was not until 2005 when Paramount Television came to CBS in which they renamed it CBS Television Studios, taking the previous 6 series, counting TAS, over to CBS as the rights holders.)

  • Kyle Hicks

    To be honest, much as I want it to…I don’t see this series thriving much beyond a season. Here’s why. CBS has no experience making Trek series. The last one was simply AIRED on a CBS channel, but ENT was made by Paramount Televison. Granted, CBS Television Studios is still Paramonut TV under a new name…but there are new heads that that division has to answer to, heads that only have experience in MARKETING Trek. And CBS doesn’t seem like the corporation that will defer to the experienced veterans in Trek that they hired on to make the show. Hope I’m wrong, but I kind of can see that CBS will get cocky with it, say “our way or no way,” and thus causing the death of another good sci-fi series created by CBS.

  • Alexander Dickerson

    I would like for the new Star Trek to take place 100 or 200 years after The Next Generation.