Alex, when I say Netflix, you can definitely assume I also mean Hulu, Prime and the rest (just easier to write!).
Also, regards Drexler, he's really not a fan of JJ Trek (similar to LeVar Burton in terms of opinions on it, only a lot stronger). I also hate those types of tabloids (not a big fan of the media generally to be honest), so without knowing anything about the article's author, I do agree with his opinions nontheless.
Jay K, thanks for clarifying what you mean by "Netflix;" I was afraid you might be singling out that service specifically.
Regarding Drexler, I can understand why he's not a fan of JJ Trek, (I know at least one person whose been a Trek fan since she was a kid that's considering skipping "Beyond" in theaters just because of how much ID and the JJ–verse alienated her, so I understand the sentiment,) and while I'm not huge on it myself, I do understand that it makes sense for the kind of spectacle that most big–screen outings tend to be. I'm also generally not a fan of reboots, especially when the propery that's rebooted is something that didn't need a reboot to begin with, which is why I've never been that big on the JJ–verse. (ID also left a terrible taste in my mouth too, and I had some issues with Trek XI as well.)
As may have been said here, and has definitely been said elsewhere, don't get too worked up over the streaming aspect of this.
14 months is a long time in today's media landscape. By next January they may change their strategy altogether, or alter their pricing, or who knows what else. Another pattern of late has been for episodes to be made available for free for a limited time after airing...maybe they will do some of that.
While I agree with you that 14 months is a long time in today's media landscape, that's exactly the reason why I am worked up over the streaming aspect of this, and am kind of happy to see that I'm not the only person who is. You're right that CBS could change their strategy by next January, but there's a better chance of them doing that if they're subjected to a constant backlash over it than there is if everyone seems to just go with it. The longer people complain about this, the more likely they are to second guess the "streaming only" idea, and to eventually change it. Episodes are typically made available for free when they air on actual TV channels for a limited period of time; for streaming everything is behind a paywall from the get–go.
Also, few seem to be thinking of the obvious solution where we simply wait for the season (which will probably be short like modern series are trending) to be over and subscribe for a single month to binge-watch them all.
This is something else that I'm not fond of with throwing the show on CBS All–Access. I don't want the kind of short season that non–network shows typically get; I want a decent–length season like CBS broadcast shows typically get, even if it's broken down into two halves the way a lot of network shows are. My real issue goes beyond paying the $5.99 a month to the issue of not actually being able to view what I'm paying for because the All–Access player is crap that's unlikely to be redesigned, and my internet connection is obnoxiously unreliable without any alternative providers. (I'd have dumped my ISP a decade ago if there were a better alternative.) Unless CBS plans to lay a line to my house to provide reliable internet access, I'm likely going to have an issue even if their player doesn't get all wonky like it always inevitably does.
Guys, this is exactly how TNG was born, instead of streaming it was first run syndication. That was a huge success story. Can the same be repeated? Theres no reason to suggest it won't work. We are just a handful of fans and regardless of what you say now, you may just be saying something different in a years time when CBS tease you with trailers and a cast, a new ship etc... It is also only $5.99 a month and you don't just get Star Trek for that price too.
1701D, there's a huge difference between TNG being in first–run syndication and this new series being on a streaming service. First–run syndication wasn't network television, but it still had a decent level of respect, and was still available to everyone who had access to network TV. The "joke service" of 1987 was cable television, and while there's plenty that Gene Roddenberry could be criticized for with regards to his ideas for TNG, his hardline position that TNG not be relegated to cable where it would have been laughed out of existence is certainly not one of them. Things have changed and cable is now very widely respected while stream is the "joke service." I would not mind this winding up on a competent cable channel (read: not SyFy) if it were the only way for it to be picked up, but the simple truth is that it doesn't even need to go to cable because the CW's president has already stated that he wanted a Trek series on that network. Likewise, CBS Inc.'s willingness to show the premiere on CBS's actual broadcast channel is proof that they're not opposed to the idea of having Trek on CBS proper. There is absolutely no reason why this show couldn't and shouldn't be on the CBS broadcast channel, or at the very least, the CW. This isn't a worldwide money–grab either; international markets are going to be getting the show on traditional TV channels while only U.S. (and Canadian?) viewers will be subjected to paying through the nose for a third–rate streaming service that's being forced down our throats. I already pay for cable; if I want to watch something that CBS broadcasts and that I've missed, I either use my DVR or quickly catch it on–demand before they move it to All–Access, since I'm still paying for the "free" on–demand content as part of my overall cable bill every month. I won't pay for HBO on–demand, (I'm already paying for HBO proper,) and unless this is Prime Universe Trek, I'm not paying for All–Access either.
Bottom line... If this is Prime Universe Star Trek, I don't care what any of you guys say, you'll be signing up. CBS All Access has to start somewhere, they will undoubtably put more exclusive and original content onto All Access and what better show to start with than their biggest property, a property that has always done better in the first run syndication 80's and 90's equivalent to today's 21st century streaming on demand. Plus all we're talking about is $5.99 a month, that's $71.88 a year, the price of a plastic star trek ship from DST.
If it's Prime Universe Trek, I might sign up, maybe. I didn't say I won't be watching this, I just said I might not pay for all–access; I'll very likely buy this on Blu–Ray the day the full season comes out, and possibly pay for it on iTunes, but this has to be Prime Universe Trek that's on par with TNG–VOY if I'm going to consider paying for All–Access and not being able to enjoy the show because of constant technical glitches. As noted above, on–demand streaming isn't comparable to first–run syndication in the slightest; it would be analogous to sticking TNG on cable in the '80s when virtually no one was using it, and even the best shows on cable were typically viewed as joke and usually didn't last more than a couple of seasons. $71.88 a year is hardly cheap, especially for a service I have to use in the middle of the night just to have a shot at seeing something in halfway decent quality, and given what Trek DVD/Blu–Ray Discs typically go for, I could pay $30–40 more and own the thing on Blu–Ray without having to worry about whether or not I'll only get to see a fraction of an episode before I start having problems. It's not paying for the show that I have a problem with, it's paying for a shoddy service that relies on my shoddy internet connection, doubling the chances that I won't be able to watch the show at a sane hour, and then adding insult to injury by running ads on top of that. I will be watching this, that much is obvious; it's just a matter of how I'm going to pay to watch it, and whether or not I'm going to put up with a headache service like All–Access or just wait for the Blu–Ray release that I'd buy regardless of where this ran, and possibly an iTunes release as well.
Also, the real problem isn't getting die–hard Trek fans to pay for this, CBS acknowledged that; the real problem is getting people who might pick this up if they were just casually watching an episode on CBS to pay for All–Access, and that's not likely to happen. Casual fans and curious newcomers aren't going to shell out for some esoteric streaming service to check this out, and that's going to wind up unnecessarily hurting it.
The comments I've read on various Trek sites and other general tv and movie sites have not been all celebratory. A LOT of negativity,hence my previous comments about Trek fans,lol! Only thing I post amongst all that negativity is this. You can piss and moan all you want,but in the end you KNOW you'll be watching it.
I look forward to it......while still sitting on my fence till I see ship designs and casting.
J-R!
Oh, there's no question I'll be watching this; it's just a matter of how I'll be watching it. If it's Prime Universe Trek, I'll definitely be buying the Blu–Ray Disc release the day it comes out, and possibly another release as well. Maybe I'll try All–Access and if it doesn't give me the kind of headache I had the last time I used it, I'll keep the subscription too. If it's JJ–verse Trek, I'll just wait for the Blu–Ray release and avoid All–Access. I'm not negative about the series itself, and I'm actually cautiously optimistic about it; what I'm negative about is CBS All–Access and the blatant money–grab that's likely to damage the series instead of helping it, and right now a new Trek series needs to be in front of as many eyeballs as possible; if it wasn't pulling in the numbers to justify remaining on an actual network I would be completely behind moving it to All–Access, but it's not even getting a proper chance on a network outside of the pilot episode.
Also, we have a new name next to Kurtzman's as a fellow EP, Heather Kadin. According to the IMDB she's served as EP for Limitless, Sleep Hollow, Scorpion, and Matador. Make of that what you will.