Yes, pretty much. But member Kirk, Spock, Enterprise, Picard? Oh, I member! $$$$$
People caught on, though, unfortunately for Bad Robot.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
CBS Makes Star Trek: Picard Pilot Free On YouTube 'For a Limited Time'
- Thread starter erek
- Start date
People caught on, though, unfortunately for Bad Robot.
I used to read a lot of Trek books back in middle and high school. I know they were good, probably had a better good to bad ratio than the Star Wars EU. However, I don't believe that the creators of Trek have ever considered them as cannon. This is proven by Enterprise disregarding them. That means, no matter the quality of the material, the post-DS9 books (something Nemesis ignored) and anything post-Nemesis is not considered official cannon.
It should also be noted that prior to the Viacom and CBS merger there were pretty strict limits on how the movies and shows could and could not interact or reference each other. Picard is the first Trek series to be able to directly deal with events from the movies.
I think Discovery is one of the worst pieces of Trek media in a long time, easily worse than the worst parts of Enterprise or Voyager. Picard I'm still undecided on. I just don't believe in gatekeeping bullshit. It is entirely possible for people to enjoy both modern Trek media and old Trek media and like them for entirely different reasons. I enjoy Trek 09 (despite it's myriad of faults) while also still loving old Trek. I don't like them for the same reasons, but that really doesn't matter.
respecting canon, established world and good writing != gatekeeping
No, being a dick, trying to kick people out of "your" fandom that don't like things exactly like you do, and engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy=gatekeeping.
We can also add COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IGNORING THE ENTIRE MOTHER FUCKING MESSAGE OF THE FRANCHISE IN THE PROCESS!
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
Rather like when they made a Wing Commander Movie, which did not fit in at all with the established cannon. The games and books established that universal cannon and the movie, as fun as it might have been, was nothing like the game in any way. The fighters had shields and did not have WW2 era cannons. The Kilrathi did not destroy a shipyard and steal a navi device in cannon.
How is shitting on a show one finds bad trying to kick people out of something?
I, myself, wonder the caps locked part about the current shows.
Wow, you are playing almost every card from the toxic fan playbook. You know damn well I'm not talking about your opinion of the show.
I was speaking in general. I haven't noticed others trying to kick anyone. Other than JJ and Kurtzman, of course.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
Are you the writer of STD in hiding?
And I was speaking of the general "if you like this thing you're not a true fan and ruining my Star Trek" attitude. Don't shit on people just because they like things you don't.
Was Michael jettisoned out of an airlock in the first episode? Is the original, not Space Hitler, Georgo the captain? Was the moron that thought of the mushroom drive physically thrown out of the CBS offices? If the answer to all of them in no then I am not a writer on STD.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
I really like TNG, but I also like Discovery. Guess I'm not a "true fan". 
The Abrams films are...eh. Decent action movies I guess, but not Star Trek-feeling. Even Discovery in many ways is more action-y than Star Trek, but I still enjoy it more than the newer movies.
The Abrams films are...eh. Decent action movies I guess, but not Star Trek-feeling. Even Discovery in many ways is more action-y than Star Trek, but I still enjoy it more than the newer movies.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,036
I am the audience, I speak as a fan of all Star Trek shows, I even liked Enterprise and the new movies (except wrath of kahn), I liked the supposedly weakest Star Trek cinemas like Generations and Insurrection too, so if my opinion doesn't count whose does? I think CBS couldn't afford to cancel STD which they advertised as their platform seller show. It would be a colossal loss of face. The fact that netflix pulled funding after 1 season, and didn't even want to syndicate Picard tells me how successful STD was. And the fact that STD switched showrunners so many times isn't an indicator of the higher ups being satisfied with it either.
Critical consensus? If I remember correctly there was also a critical consensus about STD, and a lot of namecalling. I never said you pulled the numbers from thin air, I said the shows clearly isn't interesting to "eligible audiences" if they don't sign up even for free.
I'm pretty sure their expectation was to break bank, and not barely break even. I don't know how is that moving any goalposts. They paid 4 billion for SW to make money, not to put out mediocre to bad movies with mixed reception.
So you think those numbers are public? That is the weakest attempt at explaining away a point I saw today. The marketing budget is usually close to the production budget for high caliber blockbuster movies. That is a consensus among industry insiders and experts.
I'm not familiar with taxing in other regions but most european countries put about 50% tax on services in total, so you do the math.
See above. Even if the movies don't loose money, a critical failure and a failure to win audience approval is still a failure. If there was any evidence that the movies are huge success the woke media wouldn't waste any time to rub it in to the so called "toxic fandom". Sometimes a lack of evidence for sg, can be the evidence in itself.
You can call it what you want.
You like the new shows despite them going againts the established values of star trek, that means you don't care about leaving those values. So you like it for something else, and not because it is good Star Trek.
Both in Picard and STD the main issue is not that there is a dark side to the federation, that can happen and already was explored in TNG, Voyager and DS9, it is the fact that characters do and act in ways that is completly incompatible with their position, they never could be in that position if they did the things they do in the show, and Picard is complete disconnect from the Picard in TNG. I'm sorry but I cannot look past that. The Picard in TNG would not have servants, he would fight against the villain using servants.
And I never said you can't like them. The only thing I hate is when people call me toxic for calling out the shows plotholes and progressive virtue signaling from critics. But my biggest pet peeve is when they make the assertion that "Star Trek was always woke".
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
I really like TNG, but I also like Discovery. Guess I'm not a "true fan".
The Abrams films are...eh. Decent action movies I guess, but not Star Trek-feeling. Even Discovery in many ways is more action-y than Star Trek, but I still enjoy it more than the newer movies.
I think you forgot to wear your old man glasses when STD came out.
5150Joker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,568
What makes you think those of us who accept or even like the new Trek aren't fans? Just because we're not fat neckbeards crying about the past doesn't make us non-fans. On the contrary, it makes us the real fans because we're happy to have Trek around rather than absent by boycotting anything that deviates from our narrow expectations.
But that can be valid criticism. The fan part.
And it's ok to shit on opinions one disagrees with
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,036
There is a difference between enjoying them for what they are, and liking them as star trek canon.I really like TNG, but I also like Discovery. Guess I'm not a "true fan".
The Abrams films are...eh. Decent action movies I guess, but not Star Trek-feeling. Even Discovery in many ways is more action-y than Star Trek, but I still enjoy it more than the newer movies.
I enjoyed the 2009 movie, but it was definitely not Star Trek. And I even liked Beyond as a scifi action flick, just needed to forget that it is star trek. But for STD and Picard even if I Try to forget that it is star trek then there is no value left. Besides I also need to somehow accept that picard is not picard. Which is not easy when even the actor is the same. With the kelvin movies the new actors made me disassociate them with the Shatner lead crew automatically.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,036
I don't know what you think the message of the franchise is. But the message I recognize as core star trek was already utterly and completely ignored by STD, and Picard doubled down on it.
I'm not disagreeing that STD and Picard aren't holding to the core of what Trek used to be, in fact I feel like Trek stopped being "Trek" with Enterprise. However, the gatekeeping attitude people display towards those that do like those series is antithetical to Trek's message of acceptance. TOS was all about a bright future where humans have moved past our petty BS and are able to get along, understanding and accepting all of our differences.
Honestly, "modern Trek" feels more like a true version of what humanity would turn into if our history went down a similar route.
pendragon1
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 52,196
lol ok then.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,036
So there is the issue. Star Trek was never about accepting differences. It is a post-scarcity meritocracy. The crew on TNG or VoY or TOS wasn't accepted because "let's embrace our differences" they were accepted because they were damn good at their jobs. They weren't accepted because of some great enlightement, but because they contributed. And if you contribute then your difference is irrelevant. The problem with STD, (and modern society) is that they want us to embrace and praise difference for the sake of it. I don't care about your differences if you earned your place, but if you get your position because you're different that I can't look past. And Michael in STD seemed to have nothing apart from being a black female with a man's name. I couldn't believe the character earned that position, because she was selfish, impulse driven, angry, petty, all qualities incompatible with being a high ranking starfleet officer.
I saw Star Trek 2009 three times in the theater. I still think it's bad and it started the abomination we have posing for Star Trek today. I enjoyed it for the possibility of getting good ST with renewed interest. How naive...
I would never rather have shit that pisses on what was once good, instead of having the great past works only. SW prequels were bad but I could either take them or leave them. The sequels ruined the story and characters so much that it takes effort to forget how much they ruin retroactively while enjoying the originals. The new ST shows are like eating dog shit from a plate labeled Wagyu steak. Sometimes it's better to just stay hungry.
And, no, you can't be a Star Trek fan and like the new shows. I mean, you CAN like them (though I don't understand how), but not as Star Trek, because they objectively aren't Star Trek. You would have a point if one thought so because you liked Enterprise. There is a crucial difference.
Last edited:
Retrieve all the political correctness setting the improbable like old crippled, or slim and tiny lady fighting big musled man (Picard). Make the science fit with something believable. Also remove badass undisciplined supposedly genious but with completely stupid behavior (Discovery), and those series, as Star Trek alternate style, would fit. And put some better looking people with some good acting that fit the role. I'm not saying they are ugly but unremarkable at best and unfit for their role, and also completely over-acting. There are some okay characters and actors but too few. The only actor and character and the way he was played, that made Star Trek Discovery attractive, was Jason Isaacs. In Picard I'm searching to see if there could be one. Not yet revealed.
5150Joker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,568
Says who?
Look, if you guys want to jerk to Shatner and TOS all day long, feel free, nobody is going to stop you. Go do 24 hr marathons of that hot garbage and then hit up 4chan and cry about how the new material isn't canon and make some whiny YT videos while you're at it too. Just don't go around shitting on every thread about the new shows because it doesn't conform to some vision you have of Trek.
Last edited:
Bull shit. I liked most of the ST shows and really liking Picard so far. Honestly I don't even hold the ToS to a very high standard. Discovery was th only one I couldn't get into.
The koodies came from the screen, because <gasp> there was a woman on the screen. Oh the SJW horror
Random Youtube content provider is not a source. Shit like you're claiming (and I just keep repeating this) would have hit all the business news channels, if there were reliable sources. A business failure involving CBS/Viacom and Netflix (or with Picard, Amazon) is news and they'd absolutely cover it. And yet here we are. CNBC coverage? Nope. Yahoo Finance? No. Bloomberg Business? No. Financial Times of London? No, Barrons? No. In fact, the only coverage is a year old video from some lightly watched youtube channel (and yes, 100k is small at this point).
And given that lack of any coverage on this story, outside of the rando youtuber, your assertion is just as baseless.
Yes, because it doesn't cost you much of anything to have a video sitting on Youtube. OTOH, there's no way you're going to air a single episode on CBS for a month, it's too expensive (and more than likely anyone that was going to watch it caught it on day 1).
The goal is for people to see the first ep and hope they subscribe to the service and watch the rest and maybe find other shows they like.
I think it's cute how you think people who disagree with you aren't fans.
pendragon1
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 52,196
good for you. feel better after you rants?
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,036
You want bloomberg business and financial times to report on hollywood rumors? There is nothing to cover by financial news as CBS isn't releasing numbers, and for good reason. If the numbers were in their favor they'd be parading them about not hiding them.
I don't know if you've been living under a rock for years, but "random" youtubers have been much more reliable sources of information than any traditional media for a while now.
The traditional media who seem to be highly antagonistic towards the audience, almost always being on the wrong side of the pitchfork. They are more a propaganda extension of the industry than actual news.
Many of them being owned by the same conglomerates that own hollywood production companies, so of course they won't run rumors that paint a less than ideal picture.
So we're still at "don't like your source therefore it doesn't count".
I claimed nothing more than STD not being the success story CBS wanted, and netflix stopping the funding of it, then outright passing on picard, and of course the constant turnover of showrunners, are all facts that all suggest STD is an ongoing failure.
And the only reason it's still running is because cancelling it would be too much of an embarrasment to CBS, and wouldn't bode well for the reputation of all access. So are you going to face these facts, or continue pretending that STD is a huge success, because yahoo finance didn't report that it wasn't?
PS: At your 100k comment, ROTFL, you think the more people see something the truer it becomes?
CBS not releasing exact numbers doesn’t mean much one way or another. Most streaming services use vague statements to talk about their shows. How many times has Netflix said a series “broke records” without giving data? Amazon basically never comments on its original shows. Disney has only made vague claims about Mando. Thats just how these companies operate. Everyone wants their own secrets and doesn’t want to give anyone any barging chips for contracts or ad deals.
Ooh well I guess I've been schooled. I didn't realize Rumors were now considered facts. This concerns Netflix, CBS and Amazon. Guess what? All of those are covered on business news outlets. Every last one of them. A rumor that's a year old that is completely and utterly unconfirmed is not news, it's just gossip. But you believe what you want. I think there's a channel that has a rumor that the earth is flat. You might want to check out before you travel.
I'm sure I don't feel as good as you, the God of trek fans.
pendragon1
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 52,196
"whos acutally the toxic ones?!"
"I think it's cute how you think people who disagree with you aren't fans."
"I'm sure I don't feel as good as you, the God of trek fans. "
made my point for me. you dont agree with someones opinion and get nasty for no reason. im also not a huge trek fan i just know it's lore.
"I think it's cute how you think people who disagree with you aren't fans."
"I'm sure I don't feel as good as you, the God of trek fans. "
made my point for me. you dont agree with someones opinion and get nasty for no reason. im also not a huge trek fan i just know it's lore.
Last edited:
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
The novels were written as cannon and followed the Star Trek Universe cannon very closely. (Not all of them, mind you but then again, it was clear when it was not.)