Heres my take on paying for this show by a sub', I don't trust that the product will be worth the price of the sub, especially after seeing the ship. The last three movies have been questionable (I did like Beyond though), and Enterprise was cancelled. And they want me to pay for a sub to see a 13 show season for this Star Trek show, with a bunch of question marks over it, and have to watch a bunch of commercials that will cut into the episode length of the show? Really?
Lucifer was also in it's pilot season, typically pilot seasons can be shorter than a show that's proven itself and been picked up for a full run. Not sure if season 2 of Lucifer will have a longer season (not that it really needs one).
So half the episodes per season of the other Star Trek shows....
Sorry man, but in 2016 television has changed in terms of number of episodes per season. The entire landscape is shifting. If you don't recognize the impact that Sopranos and The Wire had on the content and quality of what is being done since then, you should at least recognize how they opened the door for the shortened episode counts.
Setting aside the fact that, say the BBC, has been successful with far less number of episodes for ages and ages ... the American television landscape is different top to bottom. The network standard of 20 to 30 shows spread out over what is eerily similar to a school year (no new episodes in the summer) is a remnant of the 1980s that is now gone forever.
First, the networks themselves changed. Summer episodes and half seasons and new windows were created. Then HBO stepped in.
We now have shows being created by media outside of the big networks. And shows being delivered by means outside of the networks.
You get a show like Orange is the New Black dropping 13 episodes and binged on Netflix.
In 2016 Stranger Things, all 8 tiny episodes of Stranger Things, set the internet on fire with critical acclaim. It too was binge watched.
The pros of this paradigm shift are pretty amazing. You get tighter storylines. You get story arcs and interconnectedness. You get less filler. And ... you get the opportunity to attract big time talent. For instance you get Kevin Spacey, largely a film star and not a TV star, getting involved in a Netflix show. You get Matthew McConnaghey and Woody Harrelson getting involved in a season of a show, then that is followed up with Colin Farrell, Vince Vaughan and Rachel McAdams. Film stars doing TV shows. Because the committment is a smaller window of episodes and the quality of the content is higher.
This is the legacy of what the Sopranos and other non-network shows have given us. Shorter seasons. But better shows. And access to this content is at an all-time high because you can get it and watch it at your pace, your schedule. That largely leads to binge watching full seasons of Jessica Jones or Daredevil in a weekend, but there are others who take it at their own pace.
How you feel about CBS' version of this product is certainly a fun topic of debate. They have ads. They have a price tag. They're also offering it in foreign markets in a much more accessible way than the US market. So have at it.
But you really need to accept the fact that TV moved on from the 28 episode model of network scheduling. And we're all better for it because the quality and the accessibility is vastly different. We get shows we can watch on our schedule, and we get them with better storylines acted out by a mix of the best actors because scheduling their time in between projects is much much easier.
Welcome to 2016! (I didn't eve.n mention Game of Thrones, Madmen, Baz Luhrman's massively expensive The Get Down, and on and on and on and on)
Nice long post of.. fanboyism...
For one Star Trek was on broadcast TV.. your bring up pay to watch shows.. congrats on totally missing the point...
Star Trek is not on a pay to watch network.. CBS is a broad cast network.. that's trying to hide it behind a paywall
You seem to not be able grasp the difference between a broadcast network and a pay network... hint.. HBO, Netflix, Showtime are pay net works... they do not broadcast for free.. like Star Trek did..
broadcast shows tend to be over 20 episodes.. lets take a look at the 2015 shows on CBS and count the episodes... (unlike you who are using pay TV as your argument.. ill use the Broadcast stations own shows to show the difference..
The Big Bang Theory: 24 episodes a season... rated number 2 behind NFL football in the country..CBS
NCIS: 24 episodes a season... rated number 3 in the country.. CBS
NCIS: New Orleans: 24 episodes a season rated number 4 in the country... CBS
Madam Secretary: 23/22 episodes a season rated number 9 in the country... CBS
Criminal Minds: 23/24 episodes a season rated number 10 in the country.... CBS
Blue Bloods: 22/23 episodes a season rated number 12 in the country... CBS
There you have it.. Broadcast TV shows that are CBS.. their top 6 shows and where they rated... so please do not talk about pay TV and there limited run seasons...
So they are in fact giving half the normal season of episodes, behind a pay wall that still has commercial intruptions as well as shafting NA consumers do to having to pay for CBS all access and not allowing them to watch it through Netflix like everyone else.
Even if you make the claim that because its more expensive to make then other shows do to effect costs.. they are only doing 10 episodes and still hiding it behind a pay wall.. as well as ignoring the fact, TNG, DS9, Voy, ENT all had 22+ episodes... and CGI effects have gotten cheaper and quicker to do because of advancement in technology.... before you spout costs have gone up.. it has not by that much.. as views have all gone up as the population has grown.. what has gone up is the amount used now in movies and shows.. before you would have a CGI fly by now you have interactive CGI effects with the actors.. when you add many a scenes with actors like you do in game of thrones the costs go up.. but Star Ships with no actors being scene from the outside and phaser effects are pretty cheap compared to what it used to cost.... well and now the actors demand more money as well...
And yet 8 small episodes of Stranger Things, and the 13 episode seasons of Game of Thrones seem to garner a lot more traction in pop culture than Big Bang theory!
Thanks for bringing up the key problem networks have right now in measuring their shows' engagement with the audience ... the ratings system which can not account for the exact paradigm shift in delivery that I've been posting about.
This not only helps others reading this thread understand the real value in what is happening with the streaming phenomenon, but it also helps us understand how out of touch you are with where television is going.
If you think Blue Bloods is getting a bigger market share than Stranger Things, you're not quite aware of how television shows have shifted. Again, welcome to 2016!
There you go again... bring up non-broadcast shows.... congrats you still cant seem to grasp the difference..
I'm bringing up two of the hottest and most popular shows in the country right now. But hey, again, if you think this old model that is a relic of the 1980s is still valid, maybe the fact that CBS is trying to do its own version of streaming ala Netflix and Hulu and tapping its new Star Trek show to pioneer this move might be evidence that again ... things are different!
Welcome, yet again, to 2016! You'll likely catch up to the rest of us about the same time Pokemon Go stops being a thing.
Relic of the 80's.. and yet 3 of the top 5 shows are CBS, are free and are 22 to 24 episodes long per season.. oh and they many more viewers then those pay to watch shows.. and blow out all of the Netflix,Hulu excusive shows in viewership..
Lets take a look at millions of viewers shall we... for 2014-2015 shows
The Big Bang Theory 21.3 million viewers per episode avg, 24 episode CBS show.
NCIS 20.0 million viewers per episode avg, 24 episode CBS show
The Walking Dead 19.9 million viewers per episode avg, 16 episode AMC show.. the only pay cable show to reach the top 44
NCIS: New Orleans 18.3 million viewers per episode avg, 23 episode CBS show
Empire 17.3 million viewers per episode avg, 18 episode FOX show
Top 5 viewership TV shows.. 3 are CBS and 23 episode or better shows only 1 is a on a pay cable show and none are premium channel shows or internet tv show
Game of Throne.. the one people keep bring up was ranked 45 with 9.4 million viewers a episode avg... and yes I know these are 2014/2015 listing but 2016 listing are not up to date
Now add to the FACT that Star Trek has a TON more name power then any of the top 5 and there is no reason it shouldn't be on broadcast TV...
when i was a kid back in the 70's, the series used to have 32-36 episodes per season.
then we had 2 strikes in last few decades, 1 by actor guild and other by writer guild, then they made the seasons shorten to 20-24 episodes and some for limited 12-15 episodes for spring/summer slot "replacements for cancelled shows".
soap opera is whole different ballgame.
there wasn't much reruns in fall season episodes in 70's, most just ran until holiday weeks, and reruns mostly appeared in months of january due to sport games and championships.
and now i see reruns keep coming back after 3-4 weeks of new airings in betweens by stretching out the new episodes until may.
So half the episodes per season of the other Star Trek shows....
Sorry man, but in 2016 television has changed in terms of number of episodes per season. The entire landscape is shifting. If you don't recognize the impact that Sopranos and The Wire had on the content and quality of what is being done since then, you should at least recognize how they opened the door for the shortened episode counts.
Setting aside the fact that, say the BBC, has been successful with far less number of episodes for ages and ages ... the American television landscape is different top to bottom. The network standard of 20 to 30 shows spread out over what is eerily similar to a school year (no new episodes in the summer) is a remnant of the 1980s that is now gone forever.
First, the networks themselves changed. Summer episodes and half seasons and new windows were created. Then HBO stepped in.
We now have shows being created by media outside of the big networks. And shows being delivered by means outside of the networks.
You get a show like Orange is the New Black dropping 13 episodes and binged on Netflix.
In 2016 Stranger Things, all 8 tiny episodes of Stranger Things, set the internet on fire with critical acclaim. It too was binge watched.
The pros of this paradigm shift are pretty amazing. You get tighter storylines. You get story arcs and interconnectedness. You get less filler. And ... you get the opportunity to attract big time talent. For instance you get Kevin Spacey, largely a film star and not a TV star, getting involved in a Netflix show. You get Matthew McConnaghey and Woody Harrelson getting involved in a season of a show, then that is followed up with Colin Farrell, Vince Vaughan and Rachel McAdams. Film stars doing TV shows. Because the committment is a smaller window of episodes and the quality of the content is higher.
This is the legacy of what the Sopranos and other non-network shows have given us. Shorter seasons. But better shows. And access to this content is at an all-time high because you can get it and watch it at your pace, your schedule. That largely leads to binge watching full seasons of Jessica Jones or Daredevil in a weekend, but there are others who take it at their own pace.
How you feel about CBS' version of this product is certainly a fun topic of debate. They have ads. They have a price tag. They're also offering it in foreign markets in a much more accessible way than the US market. So have at it.
But you really need to accept the fact that TV moved on from the 28 episode model of network scheduling. And we're all better for it because the quality and the accessibility is vastly different. We get shows we can watch on our schedule, and we get them with better storylines acted out by a mix of the best actors because scheduling their time in between projects is much much easier.
Welcome to 2016! (I didn't eve.n mention Game of Thrones, Madmen, Baz Luhrman's massively expensive The Get Down, and on and on and on and on)
Nice long post of.. fanboyism...
For one Star Trek was on broadcast TV.. your bring up pay to watch shows.. congrats on totally missing the point...
Star Trek is not on a pay to watch network.. CBS is a broad cast network.. that's trying to hide it behind a paywall
You seem to not be able grasp the difference between a broadcast network and a pay network... hint.. HBO, Netflix, Showtime are pay net works... they do not broadcast for free.. like Star Trek did..
broadcast shows tend to be over 20 episodes.. lets take a look at the 2015 shows on CBS and count the episodes... (unlike you who are using pay TV as your argument.. ill use the Broadcast stations own shows to show the difference..
The Big Bang Theory: 24 episodes a season... rated number 2 behind NFL football in the country..CBS
NCIS: 24 episodes a season... rated number 3 in the country.. CBS
NCIS: New Orleans: 24 episodes a season rated number 4 in the country... CBS
Madam Secretary: 23/22 episodes a season rated number 9 in the country... CBS
Criminal Minds: 23/24 episodes a season rated number 10 in the country.... CBS
Blue Bloods: 22/23 episodes a season rated number 12 in the country... CBS
There you have it.. Broadcast TV shows that are CBS.. their top 6 shows and where they rated... so please do not talk about pay TV and there limited run seasons...
So they are in fact giving half the normal season of episodes, behind a pay wall that still has commercial intruptions as well as shafting NA consumers do to having to pay for CBS all access and not allowing them to watch it through Netflix like everyone else.
Even if you make the claim that because its more expensive to make then other shows do to effect costs.. they are only doing 10 episodes and still hiding it behind a pay wall.. as well as ignoring the fact, TNG, DS9, Voy, ENT all had 22+ episodes... and CGI effects have gotten cheaper and quicker to do because of advancement in technology.... before you spout costs have gone up.. it has not by that much.. as views have all gone up as the population has grown.. what has gone up is the amount used now in movies and shows.. before you would have a CGI fly by now you have interactive CGI effects with the actors.. when you add many a scenes with actors like you do in game of thrones the costs go up.. but Star Ships with no actors being scene from the outside and phaser effects are pretty cheap compared to what it used to cost.... well and now the actors demand more money as well...
And yet 8 small episodes of Stranger Things, and the 13 episode seasons of Game of Thrones seem to garner a lot more traction in pop culture than Big Bang theory!
Thanks for bringing up the key problem networks have right now in measuring their shows' engagement with the audience ... the ratings system which can not account for the exact paradigm shift in delivery that I've been posting about.
This not only helps others reading this thread understand the real value in what is happening with the streaming phenomenon, but it also helps us understand how out of touch you are with where television is going.
If you think Blue Bloods is getting a bigger market share than Stranger Things, you're not quite aware of how television shows have shifted. Again, welcome to 2016!
There you go again... bring up non-broadcast shows.... congrats you still cant seem to grasp the difference..
I'm bringing up two of the hottest and most popular shows in the country right now. But hey, again, if you think this old model that is a relic of the 1980s is still valid, maybe the fact that CBS is trying to do its own version of streaming ala Netflix and Hulu and tapping its new Star Trek show to pioneer this move might be evidence that again ... things are different!
Welcome, yet again, to 2016! You'll likely catch up to the rest of us about the same time Pokemon Go stops being a thing.
Relic of the 80's.. and yet 3 of the top 5 shows are CBS, are free and are 22 to 24 episodes long per season.. oh and they many more viewers then those pay to watch shows.. and blow out all of the Netflix,Hulu excusive shows in viewership..
Lets take a look at millions of viewers shall we... for 2014-2015 shows
The Big Bang Theory 21.3 million viewers per episode avg, 24 episode CBS show.
NCIS 20.0 million viewers per episode avg, 24 episode CBS show
The Walking Dead 19.9 million viewers per episode avg, 16 episode AMC show.. the only pay cable show to reach the top 44
NCIS: New Orleans 18.3 million viewers per episode avg, 23 episode CBS show
Empire 17.3 million viewers per episode avg, 18 episode FOX show
Top 5 viewership TV shows.. 3 are CBS and 23 episode or better shows only 1 is a on a pay cable show and none are premium channel shows or internet tv show
Game of Throne.. the one people keep bring up was ranked 45 with 9.4 million viewers a episode avg... and yes I know these are 2014/2015 listing but 2016 listing are not up to date
Now add to the FACT that Star Trek has a TON more name power then any of the top 5 and there is no reason it shouldn't be on broadcast TV...
Your entire list is based on Nielsen ratings which are a flawed metric in 2016. And now even the networks realize this. TV is changing. That's what I mean by relics of the 80s. Your stats aren't capable of accounting for how viewership is working right now. They simply can't measure things accurately in 2016.
You get a show like Orange is the New Black dropping 13 episodes and binged on Netflix.
In 2016 Stranger Things, all 8 tiny episodes of Stranger Things, set the internet on fire with critical acclaim. It too was binge watched.
The pros of this paradigm shift are pretty amazing. You get tighter storylines. You get story arcs and interconnectedness. You get less filler. And ... you get the opportunity to attract big time talent. For instance you get Kevin Spacey, largely a film star and not a TV star, getting involved in a Netflix show. You get Matthew McConnaghey and Woody Harrelson getting involved in a season of a show, then that is followed up with Colin Farrell, Vince Vaughan and Rachel McAdams. Film stars doing TV shows. Because the committment is a smaller window of episodes and the quality of the content is higher.
Falling Skies and The Walking Dead did this as well...Walking Dead still does of course. Their quality levels were/are definitely up there.
Don't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there... you can make a difference.
-Captain James T. Kirk
I must be on the internet again, there's actually an argument about how long a TV season should be. And, don't take this the wrong way, guys, but you got suckered into an argument for which there is no answer: an individual season/series can be anywhere between 3 through 30 episodes (and consider that to just be a soft example), and can vary wildly between different networks and regions.
I'm welcoming a shorter season run for this, it's something I thought would be a great idea for Trek to do after the BSG miniseries aired. Although Discovery is the first new Trek series since then, a multitude of other shows have benefited from a truncated season order, allowing for tighter writing on a lighter budget, with fewer filler episodes. This bodes well for the show's quality.
I do have to comment on one interesting aspect of this thread: its very existence speaks well toward the state of online piracy, and broadcasters' switch from stick to carrot to draw viewers in. Five years ago, this discussion wouldn't even exist, we'd have all just gone and torrented it.
I must be on the internet again, there's actually an argument about how long a TV season should be.
4 episodes, 6 if we're lucky, and 13 if we want to sell it to the Yanks.
And no adverts.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
When you only have a budget for sets made of cardboard or filmed in a bloke's shed in Kent you have to work on your scripts and characters so the audience don't notice your special effects are felt tip drawn directly onto the negatives .
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I will be one of the ones that avoids this online fiasco. Paying for content with Ads is not something I am willing to do, especially for streaming content. Streaming content isn't a magazine. Online, we get what we pay for or else. That is a lesson these broadcasters will have to learn as they dive into the streaming content business.
It feels like broadcasters are trying to push people into accessing certain free video hosting websites instead of accessing the content in the proper manner.
It feels like broadcasters are trying to push people into accessing certain free video hosting websites instead of accessing the content in the proper manner.
Very true, it will actually promote people to find ways to watch it and not paying for it.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
Comments
Relic of the 80's.. and yet 3 of the top 5 shows are CBS, are free and are 22 to 24 episodes long per season.. oh and they many more viewers then those pay to watch shows.. and blow out all of the Netflix,Hulu excusive shows in viewership..
Lets take a look at millions of viewers shall we... for 2014-2015 shows
The Big Bang Theory 21.3 million viewers per episode avg, 24 episode CBS show.
NCIS 20.0 million viewers per episode avg, 24 episode CBS show
The Walking Dead 19.9 million viewers per episode avg, 16 episode AMC show.. the only pay cable show to reach the top 44
NCIS: New Orleans 18.3 million viewers per episode avg, 23 episode CBS show
Empire 17.3 million viewers per episode avg, 18 episode FOX show
Top 5 viewership TV shows.. 3 are CBS and 23 episode or better shows only 1 is a on a pay cable show and none are premium channel shows or internet tv show
Game of Throne.. the one people keep bring up was ranked 45 with 9.4 million viewers a episode avg... and yes I know these are 2014/2015 listing but 2016 listing are not up to date
Now add to the FACT that Star Trek has a TON more name power then any of the top 5 and there is no reason it shouldn't be on broadcast TV...
then we had 2 strikes in last few decades, 1 by actor guild and other by writer guild, then they made the seasons shorten to 20-24 episodes and some for limited 12-15 episodes for spring/summer slot "replacements for cancelled shows".
soap opera is whole different ballgame.
there wasn't much reruns in fall season episodes in 70's, most just ran until holiday weeks, and reruns mostly appeared in months of january due to sport games and championships.
and now i see reruns keep coming back after 3-4 weeks of new airings in betweens by stretching out the new episodes until may.
Your entire list is based on Nielsen ratings which are a flawed metric in 2016. And now even the networks realize this. TV is changing. That's what I mean by relics of the 80s. Your stats aren't capable of accounting for how viewership is working right now. They simply can't measure things accurately in 2016.
Falling Skies and The Walking Dead did this as well...Walking Dead still does of course. Their quality levels were/are definitely up there.
Don't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there... you can make a difference.
-Captain James T. Kirk
I'm welcoming a shorter season run for this, it's something I thought would be a great idea for Trek to do after the BSG miniseries aired. Although Discovery is the first new Trek series since then, a multitude of other shows have benefited from a truncated season order, allowing for tighter writing on a lighter budget, with fewer filler episodes. This bodes well for the show's quality.
I do have to comment on one interesting aspect of this thread: its very existence speaks well toward the state of online piracy, and broadcasters' switch from stick to carrot to draw viewers in. Five years ago, this discussion wouldn't even exist, we'd have all just gone and torrented it.
4 episodes, 6 if we're lucky, and 13 if we want to sell it to the Yanks.
And no adverts.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
But yes, I've often assumed that a lot of British series tend to be great because of the tighter writing for the shorter run...
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Very true, it will actually promote people to find ways to watch it and not paying for it.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.