Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Television Entertainment

'Star Trek: Discovery' Gets September Premiere Date On CBS & CBS All Access, Season 1 Split In Two ( 243

Nellie Andreeva, writing for Deadline: Star Trek: Discovery will debut Sunday, September 24, with a special broadcast premiere on the CBS TV network airing 8:30-9:30 PM. The first as well as the second episode of the sci-fi series will be available on-demand on CBS All Access immediately following the broadcast premiere, with subsequent new episodes released on All Access each Sunday. Originally slated for a January 2017 premiere, Star Trek: Discovery's debut was first pushed to May and then to fall 2017. At CBS' upfront presentation, the company announced that Star Trek: Discovery's first-season order had been increased from 13 to 15 episodes. The expanded season now will be split into two. The first eight episodes will run Sundays from September 24 through November 5. The season then will resume with the second chapter in January 2018. The break also will allow the show more time for postproduction on latter episodes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Star Trek: Discovery' Gets September Premiere Date On CBS & CBS All Access, Season 1 Split In Two

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    We have entered a spectacular binary star system in the Kavis Alpha sector. Doesn't this asshole star realize gender isn't binary?

  • Hmm. Cautious optimism on this one.

    I hated the Abrams movies, but looks like they're avoiding that direction. The question for me is, is there really anything left that's new to say in the way of Star Trek stories, or will they just recycle old stories with new spiffy efffects.

    • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:30PM (#54649577)

      The question for me is, why would I want to pay $6/month just to watch a few episodes of Star Trek: Discovery?

      • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:44PM (#54649715) Homepage Journal

        I wish CBS would get on the ball and put their channel On Demand stuff like the rest of the networks like ABC, NBC have, on the existing streaming services like Playstation VUE...Sling, DirectTVNOW...etc

        I"m certainly NOT going to pay extra $6 just to get them on there, not worth it.

        • by jsm300 ( 669719 )
          Actually, I'm fine with what they are doing, although I don't think it is the smart thing for them to do. I think they are gambling that people will want to see each episode as soon as it comes out, and therefore will be pay the monthly fee for a while. But I think this plan of theirs is going to backfire. People who are willing to take chances will be more likely to just download it from various torrent sites rather than pay a montly subscription. I prefer to remain legal, but I'm also patient. I would h
          • by zlives ( 2009072 )

            i am sure they have forseen this and will only allow you to watch 1 episode a month

      • The question for me is, why would I want to pay $6/month just to watch a few episodes of Star Trek: Discovery?

        Especially if you already have CBS in your cable tier. That's why when I come back from the road to find I have missed a CBS episode, I have to Kodi it instead of being able to watch it on CBS streaming.

      • It's free to air in the US.

        • I believe that's only the pilot episode.

          • That won't go over very well... But if the pilot's good, I'll catch it when it makes it to Prime or Netflix in the US maybe 5 years from now. I'm in no rush.

            • On the other hand, I could probably wait until the end of the second part of the season to sign up for a free trial and watch it all in one go.

              At worst, I pay $5.99 - not much more than a movie rental before I cancel.

      • by EvilSS ( 557649 )

        The question for me is, why would I want to pay $6/month just to watch a few episodes of Star Trek: Discovery?

        Well if you are patient you don't have to pay anything (and can still be 'legal' about it). Just wait for the season to wrap up in winter 2018 and sign up for a free 7 day trial. Binge the show that week, cancel, then next year do the same thing with a new email address.

        OK that last part might be a bit sketchy, but still...

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        You could wait for it to finish and then watch it all in one month for $6. Or just pirate it. If you weren't going to pay anyway then they didn't lose anything.

    • by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:42PM (#54649695)

      People have been asking "have all the good stories already been told" for centuries, yet new ground continues to be broken.

      "Star Trek" is merely a starting point - and a limited one at that given that this is a brand new series. I'm sure they've got plenty of opportunity for good stores. That doesn't mean they'll deliver - it could be crap - but the chance is there.

      Then again I've always been of the opinion that even bad sci-fi can still be worth watching. I actually mildly enjoyed watching Andromeda . . .

      • by k6mfw ( 1182893 )

        yet new ground continues to be broken.

        maybe I'm too lazy to watch any new stuff, some of it I just don't get (maybe I'm too old). It seems to me when Roddenberry came up with his ST idea, it was new stuff. Space travel was new, having a command staff where not everyone is a white guy whose native language is english was new.

        Previous decades the big thing for TV and movies was westerns. Someone wrote in 1957 TV Guide there are only seven plots to a western. I wonder for space stuff, how many plots?

        • I wonder for space stuff, how many plots?


          • by sconeu ( 64226 )

            I though there were 6 type A subplots and 9 type B sublots, so to get one of each in your story. You therefore multiply six by nine to get the total.

        • by Strider- ( 39683 )

          maybe I'm too lazy to watch any new stuff, some of it I just don't get (maybe I'm too old). It seems to me when Roddenberry came up with his ST idea, it was new stuff. Space travel was new, having a command staff where not everyone is a white guy whose native language is english was new.

          Other than its progressive surface and the fact that it was in space, TOS really wasn't much more than a spaghetti western, in space. It was pretty much just an action series, with the bad guy of the week, and pretty much completely episodic. People forget that, and imho, the Abrams moves are a return to what Trek originally was.

          It wasn't until TNG and the later movies that things started to become pseudo-philosophical and the like, with the long drawn out conversations around conference tables and what not

        • Roddenberry wasn't really original beyond taking place in space. It is was Wagon Train to the Stars in concept, not exactly a new idea. What he did was do it better once he got past the bug of the month.
          • by k6mfw ( 1182893 )
            hey, that would be Westerns Plot #1 by Frank Gruber: "1. THE UNION PACIFIC STORY. Into this classification fall all stories that have to do with the construction of a railroad, telegraph, or stage-coach line. Stories of wagon trains crossing the plains and mountains, accounts of building toll roads, also come into this grouping."
      • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:57PM (#54649811) Journal

        When I rewatched Enterprise (or rather rewatched the first two and a half seasons and the rest of season 3 and 4 that I had simply abandoned), I found, quite sadly, that there were some rather good episodes, and some of the best came in the last season after the production team and writers clearly knew the show was dead. But it's always about two things; does the crew jive with the audience, and is there enough good stories to outweigh the bad ones?

        Obviously there are going to be rehashings, that's sort of inevitable consider the sheer volume of Trek episodes and movies out there, but if they can find a new angle then even a rehashed story can become interesting.

        I'll say this about it. Star Trek Continues has demonstrated how good writing and a love for the source material can produce some outstanding SciFi, so if some fans working with fundraised cash can put together some pretty goddamned good science fiction episodes, surely a big studio can do the same if it wants to.

        • Yep, I found the same when I watched Enterprise for the first time several years ago; it had some really good episodes. The best ones were in seasons 2 and 4. Season 3 was annoying however because of the whole Xindi arc which was obviously inspired by 9/11 and brought in a bunch of militarism that was absent in the first 2 seasons. And season 4 had an excellent 2-part set of episodes set in the Mirror Universe, which BTW had an excellent intro (unlike the rest of the Enterprise show; the opening intro an

          • That's one of the worst parts of Enterprise. That bad Rod Stewart-imitation theme song was just terrible, and the "remix" somehow found a way to make it worse. They could have taken any of the action incidental music and patched together a better theme song.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:58PM (#54649817)

      The abrams movies weren't star trek, they were just shitty action movies with star trek character names and branding. they litterally through all of star trek in the garbage to create that steaming pile.

      • The phrase I coined to refer to that is 'Star Trek-flavored movies'. Artificially flavored, of course. With sucralose.
    • Read some scifi. They've **always** be rehashed stories from before.

  • by aicrules ( 819392 )
    I would love to watch this series...but the hell I'm not gonna subscribe to another service to do I guess I don't really want to watch it.
    • Yep. It's bad enough they've more or less gone full-blow with the PC route. But to expect me to a). Pay to watch it, and b). Watch it one week at a time is just too much. I MIGHT watch it if you put it on a service I am already paying for (that would be Amazon Prime) AND if you make all episodes available at once (i.e. such as the Netflix House of Cards approach). Otherwise, CBS can just fuck off.
      • Realistically, I'm going to pirate at least the first episodes.

        I subscribed to HBO Go basically just for Game of Thrones, though their catalog is far, FAR more appealing than CBS's.

        3-4 episodes a month for $6 comes down to a buck or two an episode. That seems worthwhile, right?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        oh god it cast a female and black lead. SO PC. I AM SO OFFENDED. i am going to throw a tantrum on slashfuck because i am a sexist pig who deserves a kick in the balls from a hot dominatrix in leather.

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:25PM (#54649549)
    As a lifelong Star Trek fan I could give two shits. DSN was plenty of ST for one lifetime, and BSG pretty much put a bullet in the idea of Star Trek as the best ship-based SciFi franchise.
    • by elrous0 ( 869638 )

      Yeah, in a post BSG world, Star Trek is going to look pretty hokey if they don't really have their writing game in order. And DS9 was the last Star Trek series to have good writing for its time, and that was 20 years ago.

      • Yeah, in a post BSG world, Star Trek is going to look pretty hokey if they don't really have their writing game in order

        Called it--from now on the appearance of angels in the finale and imaginary spirit advisors are to be the hallmarks of good writing. Anything else will be considered just hokey.

        (In all serious, I love Star Trek, Ron Moore, and 99% of BSG)

    • BSG pretty much put a bullet in the idea of Star Trek as the best ship-based SciFi franchise.

      You have got to be kidding. While I heartily agree that the BSG miniseries and first 2 seasons were fantastic, it quickly went down the drain, starting with the occupation of New Caprica, and especially later with the "Final 5" and the ridiculous series ending. That all really kinda ruined BSG for me, especially as far as being "the best ship-based Sci-Fi franchise". Unfortunately, unlike the Matrix movies where

      • by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) <> on Tuesday June 20, 2017 @07:02AM (#54653061)

        When BSG was airing, Ron Moore routinely did a pod cast on each episode - he makes it painfully clear in those pod casts that the "Final Five" were not a thing at all until the writers noticed that the fan base had cottoned onto these missing five humanoid cylons and started writing them into the core of the story.

        Thats why they had to fudge it at the end to account for the screwed up numbering (we had numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 named early on - of course they had set apart the five so it would make no sense to slot them in as 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12, so they slotted "Daniel" in as 7 and all of a sudden we went from 12 models to 13).

        That right there ruined BSG for me - it became obvious that there was no overall story arc planned out, it was being made up as they went.

      • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

        My general feeling for the "quality" of BSG -- absolutely excellent for the first 1.5 seasons, culminating in the Pegasus storyline. After the Pegasus arc, Season 2 floundered and stumbled a bit until the end, but the end of Season 2 was excellent, and I think the New Caprica storyline and the exodus was extremely well done as well. Once they escaped New Caprica, the series floundered a lot more and nosedived, never to recover. Even while I liked overall the season 3 ending, the final five thing was a bit r

  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:28PM (#54649563)

    The Desgrassi Jr. High cast (sans the kid in the wheelchair) is not exactly filling me with confidence. Are they making a show to tell a good story--or to advance a very specific political/social agenda?

    But I'll reserve judgement, out of respect for the Battlestar Galactica reboot, which I also expected to suck but which turned out great.

    • I'm on the fence about Discovery--I hope it's good, but I'm afraid it will be more trash.

      I am scared about the "diversity" factor as well, but with a major caveat. Star Trek has ALWAYS had a great deal of diversity (a black woman, a Russian, and a Japanese guy on the bridge crew in the 60s; female captain, black captain, etc.). Diversity alone should not scare any Trek fan. What does make me nervous are some of the quotes in the media about how they are approaching diversity. IMHO Trek's diversity has histo

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The irony is that if the original series came out now, these same people would be complaining bitterly about the diversity.

    • Wasn't Star Trek always SciFi with a political/social agenda? Not a hardcore fan but that was always my take on it. Except for the movies. Especially the last three.

      • Whatever Roddenberry's flaws, he really was a social justice warrior of his time, and pretty much planned Star Trek from the get-go as a means of taking on controversial issues, but using science fiction as a means of getting it past the network skittishness for not wanting to freak out the advertisers or affiliates. He had every intention of poking certain people in the eye, whether they noticed it or not.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        His signature gives it away. There are no major Asian female characters in Star Wars. No black women. But for some reason, what matters is the representation of white males. And they have to be good guys, because there are so few examples of white male heroes for white boys to admire. If course they can't have non-white or non-male role models, that's just silly.

  • * Add massive amounts of time between seasons!
    * Take one season and split it into two!

    Well done CBS!

    • by EvilSS ( 557649 )

      * Add massive amounts of time between seasons! * Take one season and split it into two!

      Well done CBS!

      Sorry, you know a show with less than 3 months between seasons that airs in the US?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:44PM (#54649719)

    See subject & Star Trek Continues [] - this episode's outstanding (titled "The Fairest of them all")

    * "In every revolution, there's 1 man w/ a vision" & "Who told you that?" + "YOU did..."

    (These guys have REAL potential...)


    P.S.=> It continues (pun intended) after the StarTrek TOS episode "MIRROR, mirror" (bearded Spock & all)... apk

  • by GNious ( 953874 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:47PM (#54649739)

    Who cares when it releases on obscure channel in a single country - Proper question is, when does it release world-wide on Netflix?

    • obscure channel

      Obscure channel? You mean the company that owns the Star Trek IP? CBS/Paramount is not obscure by any measurement.

      But the originating network is going to premiere before Netflix, so it's going to be at least that date, possibly later.

      • by GNious ( 953874 )

        Sry, I thought it was obvious when placed next to "single country" - no one outside of the USA can access it, so to us it's a fair bit more "obscure" than Netflix :)

        • Obscurity has nothing to do with access. They're well known. And their release pretty much defines the earliest date anyone else will have their hands on it. Netflix tends to go for simultaneous release - even when they're not the primary producer. So it is likely you'll see that.

    • by Misagon ( 1135 )

      Netflix has the exclusive rights to the show outside the US and Canada.
      Each episode will be available in 188 countries within 24 hours from the US premiere.

      You could have simply looked it up. ;)

  • Splitting it in two will also allow it to exist after the end of BBOTT 2. If BBOTT 2 doesn't happen, then pushing it to September puts part 1 after BB 19 is over as well.

    In either case, I won't pay for CBS All Access without BB. One 24 hour a day show I will, one hour a week, nope.

    There is nothing besides BB I would watch for free, much less pay for. I know this from experience of having All Access for BB in other years.

  • Aye aye Captain, let's put it on Netflix everywhere else but make US consumers jump through stupid hoops. Also, we won't air it on the broadcast network in the US and we'll charge money for the app access with no other compelling content, then dribble the episodes out as long as we can. I'm giving all I've got!
    • I still watch a little bit of network TV (on Hulu, of course), but I can't remember the last time I watched anything from CBS. I am definitely not going to subscribe to something for one show that I may or may not like. Looking at their plans for this show, they seem to have learned all the wrong lessons from how TV has changed in the last decade.

      • by enjar ( 249223 )
        We have an antenna connected to a TiVo plus the usual suspects with respect to streaming services. If they had followed in the footsteps of Starz by offering this as an add-on to Amazon Prime for a few bucks a month I'd likely have given it a shot, or even offered it straight up on Amazon as a subscription I'd have taken a look. But another login, a show that looks kinda meh and a backlog of other stuff that's been getting decent reviews or I'm already into? Plus GoT coming back July 16th ... I can wait to
  • season 1.5 on showtime after CBS All Access fails?

  • Between the 'streaming only' delivery of it (I'm not paying for that any more than I'd pay for cable anymore) and the whole Axanar debacle, CBS can kiss my ass, Do Not Want. If I feel the need for a Star Trek fix, there's reruns of all of it on the H&I Channel.
    • Oh, and one more big 'FUCK YOU' to CBS, since someone reminded me of it: Sueing 'Star Trek Continues' into non-existence. If you never had a chance to see it, it was excellently written, acted, and produced, professional, broadcast-quality.
      • I was unaware they'd done that. That's horrible. It was a perfect continuation of the old series.

        They should have bought it out and kept it going if they couldn't abide it's independent existence.

        • They should have bought it out and kept it going if they couldn't abide it's independent existence.

          It was really going to make them look like assholes when more people watched that than their new series.

      • by ZenShadow ( 101870 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @05:52PM (#54650639) Homepage

        Okay, wow.

        1: Star Trek Continues has never, to the best of my knowledge, been sued by CBS. In fact, they apparently have a pretty good relationship from what I've heard.

        2: Axanar was probably a scam. Do some research on the guy behind it, and then ask yourself: where did the million bucks go? They had pro-bono representation, so it's doubtful they spent anywhere near that on their short-lived defense. They produced only a few minutes of video. And they were so flagrant about violating Trek IP that they were single-handedly responsible for CBS deciding they had to clamp down on fan productions -- and CBS could have done far, far worse than they did.

        You can hate on CBS for a lot of things, but at least do it for something they deserve to be hated on for... Axanar is not so clear cut, and I have no clue where you came up with the supposed ST:C lawsuit.

        • Okay.. some of my information, apparently, is out of date. Last I'd heard, ST:C was in a legal kerfuffle with CBS, mainly over the fact that they were producing a broadcast-quality program, and CBS wanted them to either stop completely or dumb it down to the point where it looked like a skit done in a hallway at a science fiction convention. Apparently they've backed off that.
  • by p51d007 ( 656414 ) on Monday June 19, 2017 @05:40PM (#54650531)
    If it isn't on "free TV" I won't bother. Also, you can bet it will interject political correctness, and be biased against anything of a "democratic" nature.
  • I'll pass. It won't even be worth downloading a torrent off the pirate bay and will probably be another "Enterprise" joke.

"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault