My impression was the reason it was on their own streaming and Netflix was because No one else wanted Trek. Me personally I think they should have gone Netflix through and through so there was no expense for the American audience ignoring that fact for a second.
I actually agree with this. I think it was a Nerdrotic Youtube Live-stream that his co-host suggested that CBS all-access should promote a lot of other things to get other people to their service - like back-episodes of soap operas.
Trek is supposed to be a niche show, being sci-fi, regardless of its general popularity. It just doesn't seem to bring in the numbers that shows like Hawaii 5-O, or soap operas, do. If they really want their streaming service to succeed, I don't get why they think Star Trek was the way to go.
If it weren't behind that pay wall, I'd probably give it a go to see if the criticisms match my own experiences. But, it is, and I'm not going to pay out that much more, even once, for something I won't use once it's done. I can get a lot of
other shows on something more prevalent, like Hulu or Netflix.
(I'm mostly looking for old stuff I missed out on, like various anime, and I can find a lot of that on those two alone, or for free with commercial on services like Crunchyroll.)
For example - DC's streaming service! The fact that they have back-issues of comics, the cartoon movies and shows, some of which I didn't get to see before it left Netflix (like Batman Brave and the Bold) is a strong draw for me. You can't find old issues like that unless you go coming through comic shops, or pay out the nose online. I may not have a physical copy, but being able to read up on the lore and see how it compares is fascinating for me. I am tempted to give that a try for a month or so. It might be closer to summer due to finances, but the thought and temptation is there.
That's mostly doing it right. That's DC's specialty: Comics. And they have a
lot of comics to read up on.
As much as I liked Scorpion, Person of Interest, and the new MacGyver, those aren't a strong enough draw for me to sign up for CBS, even if they were pulled from netflix and hulu. And, neither is STD. Now, if they had The Pretender, and some other old shows that you can't find anymore except over-the-air on retro channels, like AirWolf or the A-Team
(both of which got dropped from Netflix all of a couple months after I first signed up - grr!), then maybe I'd think about it.
Is STD's biggest problem that pay wall? I think the biggest reason they decided to drop it on YouTube is to see if that is actually the case. Did they come out and state that? No. But, one can infer that by the fact it's there, and it's generating numbers for the devs to consider.
(Aside: I'm of the opinion that it's not. Is Burnham likeable yet? Has she apologized to anyone for some of the stupid mistakes she's made, yet? Is she the red angel going around to correct the timeline?
Apparently, depending on where you get your news, Netflix wasn't happy with how STD performed for season one and refused to back season two. (I'm not going to bother looking up where I read it, or heard it (youtube), because y'all can google it.) It seems to me that they weren't impressed with the final product, or they weren't impressed with whatever hidden numbers output they got from said final product.)
Still, CBS all access, and Disney's streaming service, and any other late comers, are probably going to see a lot of subscribers rotate in and out of membership, because I doubt people are going to pony up to pay for each and every streaming service that might have one thing that they may be curious about. We're starting toward a glut of services, each with their 'own unique content that you can't find anywhere else', and we'll have the problem of way too many channels like we do with Cable, now.
You want a piece of the pie, well, the more people asking for a piece the slimmer those pieces are when it's finally served. If the economy were doing significantly better, the pie might be bigger. But, from all I've seen, it's not, so people have to budget and plan ahead. I know I have to.
Having something that people can only get from you may be good, and all, but when you've seen the last person come through that actually is interested, there's no more growth. (We're BattleTech Fans. We should be very familiar with this.)
Will it be enough to keep providing or expanding that kind of content?
Pardon for the long dissertation.
I'm inclined to agree with a lot of the online dissenters.
I don't like that the show is being put together by Paramount, and not in-house at CBS so that we have to have this 25% difference BS. I dislike that Star Trek is being used as the flag-ship for a service that doesn't even have its own identity yet, and it's showing in whichever numbers you put value in. I dislike that Les Moonves was in charge and not only didn't know much about Star Trek, but actually looks down on sci-fi shows in general. You have a guy in charge with an attitude like that, you get people assigned to the show of varying and dubious quality. (Rumor has it that most of the STD Story Group is now comprised of mostly soap opera writers. I bet a look through IMDB can clarify if that's true or not.)
It doesn't help that the star ship is ugly. It doesn't help that we got mixed weird designs from the start for the major alien antagonist that didn't meet aesthetics established in even Enterprise. Anyone remember those Klingon ships which predate STD? And, from the sounds of it, the main character is effectively Heero Yuey from Gundam Wing!
So, I have a question of comparison for those who actually have kept up with the show: How does it compare, thematically and tonally, to other sci-fi? I've watched the new Lost in Space, and Dark Matter, and Travellers on Netflix. I've been able to watch the Orville. Now catching up on The Librarians on Hulu. As benchmarks, how does it compare to these?
