Star Trek Discovery

[MrFanti]

it should be free.

So where does the revenue come from to create sets, pay writers, etc...?

[Telvin]

So where does the revenue come from to create sets, pay writers, etc...?

Advertisers...just like every other show on network television. As long as a show gets good ratings, advertisers pay for spots during the show. That is how the sets, writers, actors, and etc get paid.

[MrFanti]

Advertisers...just like every other show on network television. As long as a show gets good ratings, advertisers pay for spots during the show. That is how the sets, writers, actors, and etc get paid.

Hmmm....
And should porn and NETFLIX be free too?

[MrFanti]

Addendum: It's also one of the most expensive television production in history at cost of 8 to 8.5 million dollars per episode. $10.99/Month for commercial free CBS Discovery is cheap - most porn is more expensive than this.

[blackchubby38]

Hmmm....
And should porn and NETFLIX be free too?

You're comparing two different business models to a television show. While I don't have an issue with CBS using Discovery as a way to get people to sign up for CBS All Access, I can also understand why people who are fans of the franchise would balk at wanting to pay $5.99 a month/$60.00 a year to watch one television show.

I think what CBS should have done is made all the episodes available on CBS All Access for those who want to binge watch the episodes at once. So if you wanted to see them, you would have to sign up for the service. But make it a weekly show on their network.

[trish]

I love everything Star Trek and was looking forward to Discovery until I found out I'd have to subscribe to an extended service just to see it. I'm already paying Comcast about $200/mo to watch less than 40hrs/mo. That's $5/hr. The average cost of a movie ticket in the U.S. is $8.12 and that's for 2 hours of 'entertainment.' Star Trek Discovery is $5.99/hr which is $11.98 for 2 hours. That 1.47 times the average cost of a movie. Subscription-access is a scam. There are better things to do with your money and time.

[cochar102]

I've enjoyed it, but the new Klingons looks really awful, i don't understand why they have been changed again.

However, i'm really looking forward to the next episodes alongside with "The Orville", is nice to have all that Trek stuff again!

[bluesoul]

Advertisers...just like every other show on network television. As long as a show gets good ratings, advertisers pay for spots during the show. That is how the sets, writers, actors, and etc get paid.

actually this is incorrect. this is how a studio recoups it's investment and makes a profit not how it pays for the show.

a studio basically invests in a particular property by giving a budget then it attempts to recoup it's money back through advertising and licensing (in this case, netflix has the licensing to distribute the show outside the united states)

because this is cbs' biggest ip, they're using it to launch cbs all access to compete with netflix, hulu, amazon prime and the soon-to-be disney streaming service then offload shows from the network

about the show: i think it has a lot of problems. i really dislike the "new" look of the klingons, i find the language and delivery very distracting. how many times did captain georgiou (michelle yeou) say "number 1". then why is number 1 called michael? then how annoying is michael?
they couldn't even have had a good opening theme.

basically, i liked nothing about it

[Telvin]

actually this is incorrect. this is how a studio recoups it's investment and makes a profit not how it pays for the show.

a studio basically invests in a particular property by giving a budget then it attempts to recoup it's money back through advertising and licensing (in this case, netflix has the licensing to distribute the show outside the united states)

So let me get this straight. This budget you are talking about does not pay for the sets, writers, actors, and etc. That money comes from where? Where is this budget money going then?

So the advertising (and licensing) is only recouping the money that was budgeted plus making profit? This budget money that seems to go no where and is used for nothing.

[bluesoul]

So let me get this straight. This budget you are talking about does not pay for the sets, writers, actors, and etc. That money comes from where? Where is this budget money going then?

So the advertising (and licensing) is only recouping the money that was budgeted plus making profit? This budget money that seems to go no where and is used for nothing.

the budget comes from the studio and investors- with the studio agreeing to distribution and marketing (or one of those). cbs owns the television rights, roddenberry ent. owns roddenberry holdings and paramount studios owns the film rights. can you now work out how they raised money for a budget or do you still think they waited until the show was done and divided advertising revenue to pay for the show?

So the advertising (and licensing) is only recouping the money that was budgeted plus making profit?

correct.

i work at a film studio. advertising revenue doesn't funnel down to anyone below the line. so saying advertising is how they pay the writers, actors etc is completely incorrect. that's how youtubers build their budgets, not a film or television studio

ask another foolish question, and i might not be so kind next time