CBS Makes Star Trek: Picard Pilot Free On YouTube 'For a Limited Time'

Meeho said:
Umm, they've destroyed all the characters and themes from the original, shat on them pretty hard. Rey killed the Skywalker line, among other things, and you can't kill the past more symbolically (and literally) than that.
Click to expand...

Johnson had zero involvement in Force Awakens or Rise of the Skywalker, they are irrelevant to this. As far as Johnson himself, aka the person that wrote the line, I've really never seen any evidence from interviews that he was trying to say that the line was meant to be taken as something people should do. TLJ was utter garbage, but nothing about it screams "we should kill everything in the past". If anything, it does the opposite. Even what happened with Luke, as dumb as it was, seems to be more about the idea of relying on myths and legends to solve your problems. Luke even used his own legend to distract the First Order and give the resistance time to escape. If the line was meant to actually be something people should do, it would have come from one of the heroes, not the primary antagonist that spent the entire movie trying to manipulate and turn the primary protagonist.

Edit: On the subject not "Not Trek". I was reading people's thoughts on Twitter and there was an observation made that I think fits perfectly. Modern Trek is more Battlestar Galactica than anything else. The tone, the characters, the language, a lot of is drawn from what BSG did. BSG's popularity completely changed modern sci-fi (for the worse).
 
2. Modern slang (although this can be excused because it is a TV show and the wider audience needs to relate)
Click to expand...

Nope, this is a cardinal sin of story-telling....if you're looking to the future, MAKE SOME SHIT UP.
Unless this person is some kind of 24th century Historian this is cringe-worthy writing and is enough to utterly derail the context of being set in the future. I only saw the first episode, this is some lazy-assed pandering if it continues.
Fucking millennials and their inability to grasp.... ;)

3. Romulan commodore w/sunglasses looked really weird and out of place like a cosplayer gone wrong.
Click to expand...

New Star Trek: Doesn't Care.
Old Star Trek: "what are those on your face?" Answer: "I'm allergic to Retnox 5". See, they made the *attempt* to normalize it for the future....

I don't know how many of you interact daily with Gen Z but I do everyday (esp while gaming) and I can guarantee you old Trek wouldn't appeal to them.
Click to expand...

I have teens.....neither one is into *any* modern media.....nothing in prime time, they follow no modern anything on cable, its all shit like Friends or old black and white shows (go figure!)......they're far more into old stuff they can watch in the afternoons and then YouTube in the evening where there is so much Bespoke entertainment made just for them that their attitude is "why bother with any of this crap that's being made today, it's all stupid, unfunny, or made for Boomers" and I think they're probably right on the latter......tv is still being made for people, well, of my boomer-like age it seems.....but people like me think it sucks because HOllywood assumes my kids are watching, not me.....and I don't need to be lectured or brow-beaten by a couple of asshat 20-somethings or 45 year old hollywood-entrenched message-senders.
Thanks, I'll form my own opinions about how the world should work, kids.

Picard, from what I'm reading here and elsewhere, feels like a TV show that has no story to tell.........just messages to be broadcast. So like a big moral commercial designed to influence, not entertain, me.

All they need to do is bring Will Wheaton into it for the perfect storm of suck.....
 
Last edited:
HeadRusch said:
Nope, this is a cardinal sin of story-telling....if you're looking to the future, MAKE SOME SHIT UP.
Unless this person is some kind of 24th century Historian this is cringe-worthy writing and is enough to utterly derail the context of being set in the future. I only saw the first episode, this is some lazy-assed pandering if it continues.
Fucking millennials and their inability to grasp.... ;)
Click to expand...

I feel like BattleStar Galactica did it the right way with their usage of "frack". It was changed enough to where you still KNEW they were cursing, while using different lingo than what you hear today.

I was actually thinking about something today, why is CBS trying to reel in the younger folk so hard? I mean, probably safe to say the vast majority of the Trek fans are over 40 these days.. and I think these changes will turn off a lot of them. I think it would have been better to appeal to what the old-Trek fans loved about the shows.. but CBS seems to be disregarding that in lieu of trying to capture the younger audience... which might succeed since most probably have no standard of what the older Trek series (TNG in this case since it is focused on Picard) was like (I'm assuming this and discovery or maybe the recent movies would be their first entry into the Star Trek universe)
 
Last edited:
illli said:
I feel like BattleStar Galactica did it the right way with their usage of "frack". It was changed enough to where you still KNEW they were cursing, while using different lingo than what you hear today.

I was actually thinking about something today, why is CBS trying to reel in the younger folk so hard? I mean, probably safe to say the vast majority of the Trek fans are over 40 these days.. and I think these changes will turn off a lot of them. I think it would have been better to appeal to what the old-Trek fans loved about the shows.. but CBS seems to be disregarding that in lieu of trying to capture the younger audience... which might succeed since most probably have no standard of what the older Trek series (TNG in this case since it is focused on Picard) was like (I'm assuming this and discovery or maybe the recent movies would be their first entry into the Star Trek universe)
Click to expand...
Star Trek is one of CBS's most recognizable and valuable IPs. They want to change into something that is profitable over the long-term, which means remaking it to appeal to a younger crowd. To CBS that means dumbing it down, making it hip, and making it woke.
 
HeadRusch said:
Nope, this is a cardinal sin of story-telling....if you're looking to the future, MAKE SOME SHIT UP.
Unless this person is some kind of 24th century Historian this is cringe-worthy writing and is enough to utterly derail the context of being set in the future. I only saw the first episode, this is some lazy-assed pandering if it continues.
Fucking millennials and their inability to grasp.... ;)



New Star Trek: Doesn't Care.
Old Star Trek: "what are those on your face?" Answer: "I'm allergic to Retnox 5". See, they made the *attempt* to normalize it for the future....
Click to expand...

It's only a cardinal sin according to traditional ST fans, I don't think most people outside the sphere will care. For instance, the general consensus on Picards subreddit is positive about this series and there's far more people there than here on [H]. I can already tell that CBS is done with traditional Trek, hardcore fans of the old stuff shouldn't expect it to come back. I would have been fine w/a continuation of TNG in modern times but that didn't happen so I can adapt and enjoy the new take as well. I'm just a general fan of the Trek universe and so I'm enjoying this series so far -- a lot more than STD for sure.
 
5150Joker said:
For instance, the general consensus on Picards subreddit is positive
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
erek said:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...r-trek-and-more-in-one-new-streaming-service/
Click to expand...

The future TV landscape is looking increasingly clear: an à la carte selection of major media companies' individual libraries, with a streaming service for each company. Disney recently launched its own service called Disney+ to early success, and WarnerMedia has begun pulling its properties like the popular sitcom Friends from other streaming services as it prepares to launch its own offering.
Click to expand...

No, it's actually looking increasingly murky and uncertain. With more and more streaming services cropping up people will just say fuck this shit, at least with cable we had everything at one place. It's the exact opposite of a la carte, because you literally have to buy the entire menu to be able to access all you want and you can't even do it at one place. It's like having starters at one place, then main course at another, and dessert at yet another establishment. Nobody wants that.

Every new streaming service that is started makes things worse for everyone, nobody wins, not the already existing services, not the new ones, and especially not the consumer.

When will they realize that their best option is to start one all encompassing streaming service where users can access the library of all companies, then divide the proceeds based on watched minutes?
 
wyqtor said:
The thing which probably bothers me the most about this new show is the pretty obvious lack of a science consultant. Things are so bad that I'm actually starting to miss Voyager's technobabble. Also, the design of the new ship(s) is horrible. It looks like both Starfleet and the Romulans took many steps backwards compared to the elegance of the D'Deridex warbird, Defiant, Intrepid, Prometheus, Akira, and all the other ship classes we knew and lovel. It truly is no longer Starfleet when they can't design good-looking new ships any more.

The real 'Trek of this generation is probably The Expanse.
Click to expand...

They can't use any ships from TNG/TOS era without paying fees for usage permission from CBS. They have to change everything 25%+ from established canon so JJ Abrams/Bad Robot can license the stuff themselves to make money from it. Also allows CBS/Viacom or whoever still owns TNG/TOS rights to save their brand. Old coke vs New Coke. Lawyers and hollywood executives fighting over cash. They'll crash and burn the whole thing in the end.
 
Ranulfo said:
They can't use any ships from TNG/TOS era without paying fees for usage permission from CBS. They have to change everything 25%+ from established canon so JJ Abrams/Bad Robot can license the stuff themselves to make money from it. Also allows CBS/Viacom or whoever still owns TNG/TOS rights to save their brand. Old coke vs New Coke. Lawyers and hollywood executives fighting over cash. They'll crash and burn the whole thing in the end.
Click to expand...
The remerger consolidated the licences again, though there is apparently some baggage still with the Bad Robot licence, thus making it all a mess for a bit longer. At least now there is hope for Star Trek revival, slim as it is.
 
Showrunner Michael Chabon decided to answer some common questions on Instagram



The sunglasses still look stupid, but it does at least look like there was some thought put into the design of things.
 
Derangel said:
Showrunner Michael Chabon decided to answer some common questions on Instagram



The sunglasses still look stupid, but it does at least look like there was some thought put into the design of things.
Click to expand...


While he has some valid points about classic tools never changing, one would think technology based on electronics doesn't fit on that spectrum as even in the last 20 years we went from using landlines to tiny mobile computers for communication. I don't think people 300-400 years from now would be using earbuds to listen to audio, they would have something far less conspicuous and advanced to use. What he said about curse words is very true, any society that banned them or aspired to do away with them would be a robotic dystopia because you're trying to wipe away basic expression of human emotion. I didn't like his JL explanation though and I found it very irritating when she kept calling him JL. It was completely out of character for him and Picard isn't the type to let the loneliness of some outpost get to him where a subordinate starts calling him by his initials--Riker was very close to him but always remained formal and I doubt Raffi is any closer than he was. Nonetheless, I'll keep watching because it's still better than STD despite it's obvious flaws.
 
5150Joker said:
While he has some valid points about classic tools never changing, one would think technology doesn't fit on that spectrum as even in the last 20 years we went from using landlines to tiny mobile computers for communication. I don't think people 300-400 years from now would be using earbuds to listen to audio, they would have something far less conspicuous and advanced to use. What he said about curse words is very true, any society that banned them or aspired to do away with them would be a robotic dystopia because you're trying to wipe away basic expression of human emotion. I didn't like his JL explanation though and I found it very irritating when she kept calling him JL. It was completely out of character for him and Picard isn't the type to let the loneliness of some outpost get to him where a subordinate starts calling him by his initials--Riker was very close to him but always remained formal and I doubt Raffi is any closer than he was. Nonetheless, I'll keep watching because it's still better than STD despite it's obvious flaws.
Click to expand...

I could see humans hundreds of years in the future using things that look like 2000's era ear pods as part of some retro-tech fad. Humans tend to romanticize the past and I don't see that changing in a few hundred years, but I'd think that romantization would take the form of more "sleek" looking retro tech than those ugly ass sunglasses.

I still don't like "JL" either. If it was almost any other Trek character but Picard I could see it working, but it just feels so not Picard to allow it even in the situation he described.
 
5150Joker said:
While he has some valid points about classic tools never changing, one would think technology based on electronics doesn't fit on that spectrum as even in the last 20 years we went from using landlines to tiny mobile computers for communication. I don't think people 300-400 years from now would be using earbuds to listen to audio, they would have something far less conspicuous and advanced to use.
Click to expand...

Maybe but the reality is that headphones are not that different than what they were in the 70s or 80s (and probably not from the 60s either). Earbuds from the mid 80s are largely the same as today. yes they're wireless, they look better now and the sound is presumably better, but over all, this isn't that different from wired earbuds today. But hey, maybe if Les Paul was alive, he'd have some ideas. he did imagine iPods in the 50s (and I think he imagined CDs in the same presentation, but I could be wrong on that one). FWIW, when he proposed people would be carrying around all their music in their front pocket, those in attendance thought his idea was ridiculous.
 
Derangel said:
I could see humans hundreds of years in the future using things that look like 2000's era ear pods as part of some retro-tech fad. Humans tend to romanticize the past and I don't see that changing in a few hundred years, but I'd think that romantization would take the form of more "sleek" looking retro tech than those ugly ass sunglasses.

I still don't like "JL" either. If it was almost any other Trek character but Picard I could see it working, but it just feels so not Picard to allow it even in the situation he described.
Click to expand...
Using 2000s style earbuds in 2400 would be akin to using steam engines from 1700s now.
 
M76 said:
Using 2000s style earbuds in 2400 would be akin to using steam engines from 1700s now.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of thing they worked on in ST Original and NG. This is why those new Star Trek are not really Scifi, but fantasy as some people mentioned already, because they don't care of those things and science doesn't matter against the political message, they so much focus on.
The result is that if you're not a complete political addict to their behavior you get to be always displeased watching the series where you can only see flaw after flaw in a some kind of depressing situation which is the opposite of what the previous series were feeding you with.
So the result is a bitter flavor after watching everyone of those episodes. After watching an episode of TNG or TOS, I was happy and eager to watch the next one.
After watching Discovery and Picard, I'm only stuck to watch the next episode by the unfinished plot, but I'm not really happy by what I'm watching and feel like I'm fed with unnecessary political agenda all along while the plot is kind of slow, basic and quite implausible.
This could change in the next episodes but I have very little hope left.
Frankly, even for propaganda, they've done a lazy job.
 
5150Joker said:
It's only a cardinal sin according to traditional ST fans, I don't think most people outside the sphere will care. For instance, the general consensus on Picards subreddit is positive about this series and there's far more people there than here on [H]. I can already tell that CBS is done with traditional Trek, hardcore fans of the old stuff shouldn't expect it to come back. I would have been fine w/a continuation of TNG in modern times but that didn't happen so I can adapt and enjoy the new take as well. I'm just a general fan of the Trek universe and so I'm enjoying this series so far -- a lot more than STD for sure.
Click to expand...

Understood, and I'm not trying to shake my cane and take it away from you......enjoy it for what it is, I simply can't because of what I've enjoyed before and this, to me, doesn't quite scratch the itch.

RE another post above: I liked the Expanse first season, by the second season I was already growing bored with the 'too many characters, not enough happening that mattered to me'........Game of Thrones is how people want to write these shows now...take an entire season for your bloated party of adventurers to move 10 squares on the graph paper, like the worst run game of D&D you've ever played.
 
The plot feels like it's starting to move in earnest as of episode three, and there are complaints to be made about how long it took to get going. You could also say it doesn't initially aspire to the highest ideals of Star Trek, although I'd say it's more about struggling to restore those ideals in the face of bleak odds (and it's sad that people see this as a negative political statement).

At the same time, I look at this thread and there is so, so much gatekeeping going on. 'Real' Star Trek wouldn't have earbuds, or swearing, or this kind of story, or... for goodness' sake, people. While I don't want to give Picard a free pass, it does feel like many fans just want more episodes of TNG. Oh, you'll say you don't, but you've set such a narrow range of "acceptable" behavior that the show wouldn't be allowed to stray very far from that '80s/'90s formula.

Modern Trek could never really return to the old days. Viewers expect different; the days of the "magic reset" (where almost everything is resolved neatly in one episode) and obvious parables are over. For that matter, the world itself is different. The earlier shows were often based on 20th-century idealism; I don't think audiences would buy into that in an era when corruption and hatred have (hopefully only temporarily) overthrown optimism and inclusiveness in places like the US. This isn't to say Picard perfectly nails the new mode, but it was only ever going to go forward.
 
Derangel said:
I still don't like "JL" either. If it was almost any other Trek character but Picard I could see it working, but it just feels so not Picard to allow it even in the situation he described.
Click to expand...
that really bothered me, just sounded off and he(picard) wouldnt allow it.
 
Aurelius said:
Modern Trek could never really return to the old days. Viewers expect different; the days of the "magic reset" (where almost everything is resolved neatly in one episode) and obvious parables are over. For that matter, the world itself is different. The earlier shows were often based on 20th-century idealism; I don't think audiences would buy into that in an era when corruption and hatred have (hopefully only temporarily) overthrown optimism and inclusiveness in places like the US. This isn't to say Picard perfectly nails the new mode, but it was only ever going to go forward.
Click to expand...
There is no "modern Trek". There is Trek. What you are saying is people don't want Star Trek, so they made something else, except they still called it Trek because the name has value. The problem is, those who wanted Trek aren't watching, and those who didn't want Trek also aren't watching. Same with Star Wars. Congratulations, two franchises ruined, old audience lost, new audience not gained.
 
5150Joker said:
While he has some valid points about classic tools never changing, one would think technology based on electronics doesn't fit on that spectrum as even in the last 20 years we went from using landlines to tiny mobile computers for communication. I don't think people 300-400 years from now would be using earbuds to listen to audio, they would have something far less conspicuous and advanced to use. What he said about curse words is very true, any society that banned them or aspired to do away with them would be a robotic dystopia because you're trying to wipe away basic expression of human emotion. I didn't like his JL explanation though and I found it very irritating when she kept calling him JL. It was completely out of character for him and Picard isn't the type to let the loneliness of some outpost get to him where a subordinate starts calling him by his initials--Riker was very close to him but always remained formal and I doubt Raffi is any closer than he was. Nonetheless, I'll keep watching because it's still better than STD despite it's obvious flaws.
Click to expand...

M76 said:
Using 2000s style earbuds in 2400 would be akin to using steam engines from 1700s now.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but we're still using incandescent lightbulbs 150+ years after their invention/commercialization. Sure we've invented better things since then but you can still go out and buy one with no problem. And even old school models can be rigged up these days. Granted that likely won't be the case in 200 more years.

Its also someone who has an advanced understanding of robotics, and presumably technology, that's using them so the fact that they're doing it out of love of the retro or that they ould have rigged it as a one-off type of device isn't super unusual.
 
CptCabbit said:
Possibly, but we're still using incandescent lightbulbs 150+ years after their invention/commercialization. Sure we've invented better things since then but you can still go out and buy one with no problem. And even old school models can be rigged up these days. Granted that likely won't be the case in 200 more years.

Its also someone who has an advanced understanding of robotics, and presumably technology, that's using them so the fact that they're doing it out of love of the retro or that they ould have rigged it as a one-off type of device isn't super unusual.
Click to expand...

And we have people now that prefer the sound from vinyls, maybe a similar situation in the future. People preferring the sound from magnetic driven earbuds instead of some trans-phasic audio implant. Or like anything, diminishing returns on improvements to audio.
 
Meeho said:
There is no "modern Trek". There is Trek. What you are saying is people don't want Star Trek, so they made something else, except they still called it Trek because the name has value. The problem is, those who wanted Trek aren't watching, and those who didn't want Trek also aren't watching. Same with Star Wars. Congratulations, two franchises ruined, old audience lost, new audience not gained.
Click to expand...

Star Wars is a really bad example. Rise still did over a billion dollars worldwide. It's hardly a case of "no one watching".
 
Derangel said:
Star Wars is a really bad example. Rise still did over a billion dollars worldwide. It's hardly a case of "no one watching".
Click to expand...
Solo outright lost money and the ultimate closure to the grand Star Wars 9-movies saga just matched an in-between filler spinoff Rogue One at the box office, while barely turning a profit due to ballooned production costs. And got outperformed by the likes of Aquaman. Combined with the massive fan backlash, non existing merchandise sales and empty Disney theme rides. So, yes, Star Wars is a great example of shitting on the established fanbase and not attracting a new one to make it worth it.
 
Meeho said:
There is no "modern Trek". There is Trek. What you are saying is people don't want Star Trek, so they made something else, except they still called it Trek because the name has value. The problem is, those who wanted Trek aren't watching, and those who didn't want Trek also aren't watching. Same with Star Wars. Congratulations, two franchises ruined, old audience lost, new audience not gained.
Click to expand...

Why do gatekeepers always make unsupported claims about there being no demand?

Picard not only set a viewership record on its premiere, but led to a record number of CBS All Access sign-ups. I have yet to see results for the next two episodes, but it's reasonable to believe the audience numbers didn't completely fall off a cliff. Meanwhile, to address your Star Wars follow-up, you're still making a demonstrably false claim when you say "no one's watching." Over $1 billion in box office is a lot of people watching, and your comparison only really suggests that Rogue One was particularly popular, not that Rise of Skywalker was a flop. Remember, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi both turned in considerably lower revenue than A New Hope, so if anything the pattern of the original trilogy is just repeating itself.

Again, this isn't to excuse genuine faults. Picard's early pacing was slow (it appears to be picking up), for example. But to claim Star Trek has been "ruined" by the streaming shows is a serious stretch and, yes, carries that distinct whiff of gatekeeping. If it's not to your liking, that's fine -- but don't pretend a popular show or movie is a disaster just because it doesn't conform to your narrow definitions of what the franchise is allowed to be.
 
Wow, viewership records on a show bringing back popular characters from a tv show with devoted (to say the least) fans after twenty years off the air. Amazing. So amazing they offer the first episode up for free on youtube instead of the Discovery deal that was on CBS over the air for one night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
Aurelius said:
Why do gatekeepers always make unsupported claims about there being no demand?

Picard not only set a viewership record on its premiere, but led to a record number of CBS All Access sign-ups. I have yet to see results for the next two episodes, but it's reasonable to believe the audience numbers didn't completely fall off a cliff.
Click to expand...
On CBS All Access! Those are the same things that were said for STD. It's not an achievement of much worth and subscriptions took such a nosedive after the initial drive for STD that CBS stopped giving data and Netflix cut its funding significantly.

Meanwhile, to address your Star Wars follow-up, you're still making a demonstrably false claim when you say "no one's watching."
Click to expand...
Sure, take it literally.

Over $1 billion in box office is a lot of people watching, and your comparison only really suggests that Rogue One was particularly popular, not that Rise of Skywalker was a flop. Remember, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi both turned in considerably lower revenue than A New Hope, so if anything the pattern of the original trilogy is just repeating itself.
Click to expand...
That is the pattern for almost all movies. What wasn't a pattern for previous two trilogies is the third movie tanking to 50% of the first's box office. AND the previous movies turned much, much higher profits. Financially, TROS is the biggest SW failure to date after Solo. Both ROTJ and ROTS turned a profit several times higher, and an order of magnitude better relative to cost. That is not a performance that Disney gave four billion dollars for.

Again, this isn't to excuse genuine faults. Picard's early pacing was slow (it appears to be picking up), for example. But to claim Star Trek has been "ruined" by the streaming shows is a serious stretch and, yes, carries that distinct whiff of gatekeeping. If it's not to your liking, that's fine -- but don't pretend a popular show or movie is a disaster just because it doesn't conform to your narrow definitions of what the franchise is allowed to be.
Click to expand...
So far, for STD and the new movies, merchandise doesn't sell, investors are pulling out, viewer numbers are so bad they started hiding them, last movie lost money, STD spat out shorts while scrambling to keep the series running, and all production news and behind the scenes info suggests much of the same with Picard. Funding is so dire they reedited half the show to save money.

You're taking bits and pieces of numbers that on the surface and by themselves seem somewhat positive, but are failing to see the bigger picture and the relative standing of those figures.

EDIT: And let's not forget the recent news of abandonment of CBS All Access. You don't do that with a successful service.
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
On CBS All Access! Those are the same things that were said for STD. It's not an achievement of much worth and subscriptions took such a nosedive after the initial drive for STD that CBS stopped giving data and Netflix cut its funding significantly.
Click to expand...

Oh, there's no question that CBS is limiting the potential audience by putting the new Trek productions on All Access, but that doesn't mean the shows are struggling due to quality; it might just be that people aren't willing to pay $6 to $9 per month just to get one or two programs. Look at Apple TV+ for example. It has a few particularly good shows (most notably Little America and Mythic Quest, at the moment) but only so many people signing up even when they qualify for a free year.

Meeho said:
Sure, take it literally.
Click to expand...

It applies both literally and figuratively. When a supposed flop has over $1 billion in revenue, it's safe to say it didn't drive a mass exodus away from the franchise. At best you can say the potential viewership wasn't as high as it could've been.

Meeho said:
That is the pattern for almost all movies. What wasn't a pattern for previous two trilogies is the third movie tanking to 50% of the first's box office. AND the previous movies turned much, much higher profits. Financially, TROS is the biggest SW failure to date after Solo. Both ROTJ and ROTS turned a profit several times higher, and an order of magnitude better relative to cost. That is not a performance that Disney gave four billion dollars for.
Click to expand...

Hold on a damn minute. Rise of Skywalker cost $275 million to make, and has pulled in over $1 billion at theaters so far. In other words, it nearly quadrupled its budget just in its initial launch window, but it's supposed to be a "failure?" While I'm sure Disney and Lucasfilm are taking notes about how they can improve future Star Wars flicks, I'm pretty sure they're not weeping and gnashing their teeth.

Meeho said:
So far, for STD and the new movies, merchandise doesn't sell, investors are pulling out, viewer numbers are so bad they started hiding them, last movie lost money, STD spat out shorts while scrambling to keep the series running, and all production news and behind the scenes info suggests much of the same with Picard. Funding is so dire they reedited half the show to save money.

You're taking bits and pieces of numbers that on the surface and by themselves seem somewhat positive, but are failing to see the bigger picture and the relative standing of those figures.
Click to expand...

Wasn't including the alternate-timeline Trek movies in the mix. And aside from your citing older data that doesn't really apply any more, you have yet to show that this supposed trouble is specifically due to the fan reaction to Discovery/Picard and not, say, the fact that they're attached to a single-broadcaster streaming service.

As it is, it feels like we're dancing around the core problem here: from all indications, you think these shows and movies have failed (they haven't) because they don't conform to what a subset of devotees want them to be. That is, 'real' fans aren't allowed to like them because they've supposedly betrayed the spirit of the decades-old originals.
 
Aurelius said:
Hold on a damn minute. Rise of Skywalker cost $275 million to make, and has pulled in over $1 billion at theaters so far. In other words, it nearly quadrupled its budget just in its initial launch window, but it's supposed to be a "failure?" While I'm sure Disney and Lucasfilm are taking notes about how they can improve future Star Wars flicks, I'm pretty sure they're not weeping and gnashing their teeth.
Click to expand...
That was just a guess based on previous movies, it is speculated that it rose well over $300 due to extensive reshoots and reedits. Wouldn't surprise me of it ended up closer to $400. But even if we are very conservative and take it at face value, with marketing the total cost comes at about $500 million. That is an estimate on the lower side. For it to break even, it would have to gross $1 billion at the box office, which it just managed. So, in the best case scenario, it broke even or made a profit in the tens of millions. That is bad.

Wasn't including the alternate-timeline Trek movies in the mix. And aside from your citing older data that doesn't really apply any more, you have yet to show that this supposed trouble is specifically due to the fan reaction to Discovery/Picard and not, say, the fact that they're attached to a single-broadcaster streaming service.

As it is, it feels like we're dancing around the core problem here: from all indications, you think these shows and movies have failed (they haven't) because they don't conform to what a subset of devotees want them to be. That is, 'real' fans aren't allowed to like them because they've supposedly betrayed the spirit of the decades-old originals.
Click to expand...
We seem to be talking past each other and running in circles. You failed to see my points completely judging by your summary. I guess there is no point in rehashing the same things again. I could post happenings behind Picard, you would say it's unverified, so we'll just have to come back to it when it plays out, one way or the other.
 
Meeho said:
I could post happenings behind Picard, you would say it's unverified, so we'll just have to come back to it when it plays out, one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Because it is, you've offered zero proof.
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
There is no "modern Trek". There is Trek. What you are saying is people don't want Star Trek, so they made something else, except they still called it Trek because the name has value. The problem is, those who wanted Trek aren't watching, and those who didn't want Trek also aren't watching. Same with Star Wars. Congratulations, two franchises ruined, old audience lost, new audience not gained.
Click to expand...
Makes you wonder who spent 1-2 billion dollars on each of these sequels. Also, all the people I see in the theaters are people who've seen the other movies, but then this is H, so you probably don't even go to movie theaters, because everyone is on their phones the entire time, the chairs are uncomfortable and the floors are sticky. /sarcasm
 
OFaceSIG said:
WhyTF doesn't CBS All Access have surround sound?
Click to expand...
It depends on the device. Not sure if any TV apps have it, but Apple TV and Android TV have surround. Also, if you get it through Amazon, you get surround sound.
 
Meeho said:
Solo outright lost money and the ultimate closure to the grand Star Wars 9-movies saga just matched an in-between filler spinoff Rogue One at the box office, while barely turning a profit due to ballooned production costs. And got outperformed by the likes of Aquaman. Combined with the massive fan backlash, non existing merchandise sales and empty Disney theme rides. So, yes, Star Wars is a great example of shitting on the established fanbase and not attracting a new one to make it worth it.
Click to expand...
Solo was among the 4 or 5 most fun SW movies that have been made. It's better than every prequel and all sequels with the possible exception of TFA. I'm sure it didn't help that a bunch of bros sat around scream SJW because it <gasp> had a girl in the cast. OMG it was so devastating. I had to bring anti koodie spray to avoid being infected :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top