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

[nilepez]

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.

My dad literally signed up for All Access to watch Discovery and Picard and he was watching star trek from day one.

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.

Hardly a new thing. They did the same thing with Discovery, except in that case they aired it on CBS instead of streaming it.

 

[Meeho]

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

You didn't have to worry, most theaters were empty.

 

[Meeho]

Post the sources then.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvrd6VtgWF7CwaZH1S0N-Qg
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeCJB88u93eq91U0rlJsW-A

 

[5150Joker]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvrd6VtgWF7CwaZH1S0N-Qg
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeCJB88u93eq91U0rlJsW-A

How can you possibly take that Overlord retard seriously? The mask and sound effect for his voice is enough to turn him off in the first 10 seconds. The first one linked some 4chan supposed leaks and we'll see how that pans out -- if the predictions of the plot are correct then that leaker will have more credibility. If it's as bad as it was outlined (the female scientist being a tranny, Q's one liner, Rios dying) then the show will flame out fast.

 

[M76]

How can you possibly take that Overlord retard seriously? The mask and sound effect for his voice is enough to turn him off in the first 10 seconds. The first one linked some 4chan supposed leaks and we'll see how that pans out -- if the predictions of the plot are correct then that leaker will have more credibility. If it's as bad as it was outlined (the female scientist being a tranny, Q's one liner, Rios dying) then the show will flame out fast.

I don't like your source, so I ignore it. This is what discussions have come to?

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.

But they are bad, I've seen them, and since CBS doesn't release numbers you are just engaged in wishful thinking. I mean you can't get any more wishful thinking than this: "Oh the shows are great people just don't want to sign up to see them even for free"

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.

It didn't meet expectations = FLOP in current age entertainment media. There will always be people who have no critical thinking skills to see the plotholes, they'll always have that audience. Making good stories that fit the original narrative wouldn't affect those people.

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.

If you include marketing and distribution, and the share cinemas take, plus taxes and fees it might just be breaking even at this point. Oh they are weeping all right, but they are not going to come out and admit they failed.

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.

Again, without actual numbers you are just gaslighting here. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that neither picard or discovery is doing very well in the viewer retention department. And even worse in attracting subscribers. A show in its third season won't bring in any new subs it didn't already.

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.

Again, you asserting they haven't failed is just that, a baseless assertion that you have zero evidence for and as such can be dismissed without evidence.
And you are allowed to like them, but they go counter to the core values of star trek, which means you only ever liked star trek for superficial reasons and not its core values.

 

[Meeho]

How can you possibly take that Overlord retard seriously? The mask and sound effect for his voice is enough to turn him off in the first 10 seconds. The first one linked some 4chan supposed leaks and we'll see how that pans out -- if the predictions of the plot are correct then that leaker will have more credibility. If it's as bad as it was outlined (the female scientist being a tranny, Q's one liner, Rios dying) then the show will flame out fast.

I go by their previous reporting record and how it panned out, not the goofy presentation.

 

[OFaceSIG]

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.

I have tried it on my Amazon FireTV which outputs dolby 5.1 with everything else, no go. I've tried it with my Chromecast Ultra which outputs Dolby 5.1 with dolby 5.1 with everything else, no go. There are no apparent options in the settings either.

Also, if you're wondering my sound system notifies me when it's decoding dolby, so I know when it's occuring.

It's just really frustrating because in Europe, anybody on Amazon can watch Picard and I know Amazon doesn't **** around with tech.

Greedy incompetent CBS.

 

[ManofGod]

Do you suppose we will ever have a new true Star Trek TV show ever again?

 

[jimthebob]

Do you suppose we will ever have a new true Star Trek TV show ever again?

Not unless CBS loosens the grasp they have and let fans make the films fans want to make. Until then, I don't believe a "true" Star Trek will ever been produced again. Keep in mind I enjoyed STD and STP for what they are but I came to the realization early on (much more so with STD than Picard) that it's not Star Trek as I knew it. If you can get past that, they can be somewhat enjoyable. My two cents.

 

[ManofGod]

Not unless CBS loosens the grasp they have and let fans make the films fans want to make. Until then, I don't believe a "true" Star Trek will ever been produced again. Keep in mind I enjoyed STD and STP for what they are but I came to the realization early on (much more so with STD than Picard) that it's not Star Trek as I knew it. If you can get past that, they can be somewhat enjoyable. My two cents.

I could never accept that then, because I have also read most of the Star Trek novels over the years. I had no issue with the 2009 reboot because books would take similar tacts but, these new shows are not even remotely similar to Star Trek, nor do they even follow the Kelvin timeline.

 

[Jagger100]

5150Joker : oh no, not the Orville. This looks like a bad Red Dwarf revised to look like Star Trek. Much more pitiful than funny.
@Jagger100S9 was completely in line with Star Trek. Voyager was not completely bad but quite boring.

DS9 is the exception that makes the rule.

Most Star Trek today is basically Generic Space Shoot 'em up dancing around in a Star Trek Skin Suit a la Silence of the Lambs.

 

[Aurelius]

But they are bad, I've seen them, and since CBS doesn't release numbers you are just engaged in wishful thinking. I mean you can't get any more wishful thinking than this: "Oh the shows are great people just don't want to sign up to see them even for free"

Just because you, personally, feel they're bad doesn't mean they are. No, CBS doesn't release numbers, but when it renews shows more than once, when it can directly point to a show as a factor boosting viewership and sign-ups, that's indicative of some kind of positive trend. I'm not claiming that they're blockbuster hits, just that they've attracted enough interest from viewers to justify renewals. And I didn't pull the Apple TV+ figures out of my ass -- there's a broad critical consensus that some of Apple's shows are very good, but only about 10 percent of eligible freebie users have signed up according to analyst estimates.

It didn't meet expectations = FLOP in current age entertainment media. There will always be people who have no critical thinking skills to see the plotholes, they'll always have that audience. Making good stories that fit the original narrative wouldn't affect those people.

I'm sorry, but you're just moving goal posts to make your argument fit. Do you even know what Disney's expectations for the last two Skywalker saga movies were? No, you don't. And in general, Disney's benchmark for a successful movie these days is over $1 billion at the box office... it had several in 2019. They might not have been as successful as they could've been, but they were successful.

If you include marketing and distribution, and the share cinemas take, plus taxes and fees it might just be breaking even at this point. Oh they are weeping all right, but they are not going to come out and admit they failed.

Please show me the marketing, distribution and theater share costs that support your argument. Oh, right, you don't have any. If you're going to make claims like that, you need data; don't just make up bullshit and hope I'm gullible.

Again, without actual numbers you are just gaslighting here. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that neither picard or discovery is doing very well in the viewer retention department. And even worse in attracting subscribers. A show in its third season won't bring in any new subs it didn't already.

I love how you claim I'm gaslighting because I have no numbers (never mind the evidence of renewals and increased sign-ups), but then promptly say you have "no doubt in my mind whatsoever" that the shows are failing... without providing numbers. Like I said just a moment ago, you're making up bullshit and hoping I'll fall for it. If you have concrete evidence the shows are failing, provide it with your next post or drop this assertion forever. No exceptions, no excuses.

Again, you asserting they haven't failed is just that, a baseless assertion that you have zero evidence for and as such can be dismissed without evidence.
And you are allowed to like them, but they go counter to the core values of star trek, which means you only ever liked star trek for superficial reasons and not its core values.

Aaaaaand here's the gatekeeping. "You're not a 'real' fan if you like the new shows in any way."

Yes, I know full well that classic Trek aspires to an ideal of what humanity could be, and that many of its stories are parables that reinforce this. The streaming shows are much grittier, more action-centric and portray a Federation that's more fractured and less idealistic than what Roddenberry envisioned.

But you know what? I don't think they represent the betrayal of Trek that you think they do. In both cases, it's that they treat that ideal as something you have to constantly work for, rather than take for granted; there is always a Section 31 or similar faction ready to undo things in the name of power, or fear, or greed. And when the shows express their ideals, they frequently do so "on the run." That is, they're not stopping for expository scenes that patiently explain what they're trying to convey. Discovery has great discussions about the choice between peaceful subjugation (Saru's species) and imperfect freedom, questions of love and identity (see the relationships of Stamets and Tyler), environmental exploitation... Picard, so far, appears to be exploring what it means to be alive (androids, former Borg), society's obligations of care (the reasons Picard left Starfleet) and likely other concepts.

More importantly, even if these elements weren't present... you know it's possible to appreciate multiple things for different reasons, right? That you can enjoy popcorn fare and thought-provoking material without one negating the other? Yeah, in some ways Discovery and Picard may be more superficial, but liking them doesn't mean I don't value the more explicitly concept-oriented earlier shows for what they set out to achieve. Unfortunately, you seem so hung up on purity-testing fans that you can only 'allow' someone to like a show you don't if you see them as a lesser person for doing so. Life's too short to waste time hating other people for enjoying harmless things.

 

[ManofGod]

Just because you, personally, feel they're bad doesn't mean they are. No, CBS doesn't release numbers, but when it renews shows more than once, when it can directly point to a show as a factor boosting viewership and sign-ups, that's indicative of some kind of positive trend. I'm not claiming that they're blockbuster hits, just that they've attracted enough interest from viewers to justify renewals. And I didn't pull the Apple TV+ figures out of my ass -- there's a broad critical consensus that some of Apple's shows are very good, but only about 10 percent of eligible freebie users have signed up according to analyst estimates.



I'm sorry, but you're just moving goal posts to make your argument fit. Do you even know what Disney's expectations for the last two Skywalker saga movies were? No, you don't. And in general, Disney's benchmark for a successful movie these days is over $1 billion at the box office... it had several in 2019. They might not have been as successful as they could've been, but they were successful.



Please show me the marketing, distribution and theater share costs that support your argument. Oh, right, you don't have any. If you're going to make claims like that, you need data; don't just make up bullshit and hope I'm gullible.



I love how you claim I'm gaslighting because I have no numbers (never mind the evidence of renewals and increased sign-ups), but then promptly say you have "no doubt in my mind whatsoever" that the shows are failing... without providing numbers. Like I said just a moment ago, you're making up bullshit and hoping I'll fall for it. If you have concrete evidence the shows are failing, provide it with your next post or drop this assertion forever. No exceptions, no excuses.




Aaaaaand here's the gatekeeping. "You're not a 'real' fan if you like the new shows in any way."

Yes, I know full well that classic Trek aspires to an ideal of what humanity could be, and that many of its stories are parables that reinforce this. The streaming shows are much grittier, more action-centric and portray a Federation that's more fractured and less idealistic than what Roddenberry envisioned.

But you know what? I don't think they represent the betrayal of Trek that you think they do. In both cases, it's that they treat that ideal as something you have to constantly work for, rather than take for granted; there is always a Section 31 or similar faction ready to undo things in the name of power, or fear, or greed. And when the shows express their ideals, they frequently do so "on the run." That is, they're not stopping for expository scenes that patiently explain what they're trying to convey. Discovery has great discussions about the choice between peaceful subjugation (Saru's species) and imperfect freedom, questions of love and identity (see the relationships of Stamets and Tyler), environmental exploitation... Picard, so far, appears to be exploring what it means to be alive (androids, former Borg), society's obligations of care (the reasons Picard left Starfleet) and likely other concepts.

More importantly, even if these elements weren't present... you know it's possible to appreciate multiple things for different reasons, right? That you can enjoy popcorn fare and thought-provoking material without one negating the other? Yeah, in some ways Discovery and Picard may be more superficial, but liking them doesn't mean I don't value the more explicitly concept-oriented earlier shows for what they set out to achieve. Unfortunately, you seem so hung up on purity-testing fans that you can only 'allow' someone to like a show you don't if you see them as a lesser person for doing so. Life's too short to waste time hating other people for enjoying harmless things.

Except that they have not even flowed along with the Kelvin timeline and its objectives. (Claiming to and actually doing so are two different things.)

 

[Meeho]

Yes, I know full well that classic Trek aspires to an ideal of what humanity could be, and that many of its stories are parables that reinforce this. The streaming shows are much grittier, more action-centric and portray a Federation that's more fractured and less idealistic than what Roddenberry envisioned.

Please, enough with the modern/classic Trek nonsense, already. There is no such thing. Trek is Trek. When you go against decades of canon and the established premise and set universe, disregard or directly oppose them, you can't then pretend it's some modern version or whatever just because you would like to cash in on the brand. It is then something completely separate and different. You can make it more in this genre or the other, like e.g. Winter Soldier vs Guardians for Marvel, but Guardians will never be Star Wars just because they fly in spaceships and have hyperjumps.

 

[Aurelius]

Please, enough with the modern/classic Trek nonsense, already. There is no such thing. Trek is Trek. When you go against decades of canon and the established premise and set universe, disregard or directly oppose them, you can't then pretend it's some modern version or whatever just because you would like to cash in on the brand. It is then something completely separate and different. You can make it more in this genre or the other, like e.g. Winter Soldier vs Guardians for Marvel, but Guardians will never be Star Wars just because they fly in spaceships and have hyperjumps.

Well, I already showed that I don't think it's really going against the premise and universe, but even if there was a fundamental break on those fronts... it's still Star Trek. And pretending that it's not is the definition of gatekeeping. It's treating fandom as an exclusive club where you're not allowed in unless you share the exact same loves and hatreds. There's a certain irony to it, really; Trek is supposed to embody inclusivity, diversity and individuality, but here you are demanding exclusion, homogeneity and conformity.

 

[Meeho]

Well, I already showed that I don't think it's really going against the premise and universe, but even if there was a fundamental break on those fronts... it's still Star Trek. And pretending that it's not is the definition of gatekeeping. It's treating fandom as an exclusive club where you're not allowed in unless you share the exact same loves and hatreds. There's a certain irony to it, really; Trek is supposed to embody inclusivity, diversity and individuality, but here you are demanding exclusion, homogeneity and conformity.

So, the next Star Wars movie could be set on Earth in a WW2 Belgium village and be about hardships of wartime farming, while using the Force to shapeshift into cows to avoid military patrols. Got it.

 

[Darunion]

So, the next Star Wars movie could be set on Earth in a WW2 Belgium village and be about hardships of wartime farming, while using the Force to shapeshift into cows to avoid military patrols. Got it.

I might pay to go see that at the theater...

 

[Ranulfo]

Hardly a new thing. They did the same thing with Discovery, except in that case they aired it on CBS instead of streaming it.

That was my point though. Discovery was a one time showing on one day. They're streaming Picard on youtube for a "limted time", so a week? Two? You could say they learned from the last time or are desperate for more eyeballs to get people to subscribe or both.

 

[Derangel]

Again, you asserting they haven't failed is just that, a baseless assertion that you have zero evidence for and as such can be dismissed without evidence.
And you are allowed to like them, but they go counter to the core values of star trek, which means you only ever liked star trek for superficial reasons and not its core values.

Screw you, dude. You don't have to like modern Trek, that's fine, but don't be a gate keeping ass to people that do. This very statement is completely antithetical to something you claim to love. You have turned into what Trek has always preached against. The entire fandom is so fucking toxic because of attitudes like yours.

 

[ManofGod]

Screw you, dude. You don't have to like modern Trek, that's fine, but don't be a gate keeping ass to people that do. This very statement is completely antithetical to something you claim to love. You have turned into what Trek has always preached against. The entire fandom is so fucking toxic because of attitudes like yours.

The problem is, "modern trek" does not even properly follow the cannon of the Kelvin timeline, let alone the original cannon. It is more like it is occurring in a alternate universe, not even a parallel one or alternate timeline. It really is not Star Trek, anymore.

 

[Derangel]

The problem is, "modern trek" does not even properly follow the cannon of the Kelvin timeline, let alone the original cannon. It is more like it is occurring in a alternate universe, not even a parallel one or alternate timeline. It really is not Star Trek, anymore.

The Kelvin timeline is basically dead at this point. Unless Trek 4 magically materializes and isn't another reboot. Discovery is doing it's own thing (despite claims to the contrary) and Picard does follow the original timeline, using events set up in Trek 09 as a launching off point. Regardless, none of that has anything to do with the toxic attitudes displayed in the fandom these days.

 

[ManofGod]

The Kelvin timeline is basically dead at this point. Unless Trek 4 magically materializes and isn't another reboot. Discovery is doing it's own thing (despite claims to the contrary) and Picard does follow the original timeline, using events set up in Trek 09 as a launching off point. Regardless, none of that has anything to do with the toxic attitudes displayed in the fandom these days.

Yet Picard is supposed to follow the Kelvin Timeline and therefore, it does a horrific job of it. The fact that ST4 will probably never see the light of day does not change that.

 

[Derangel]

Yet Picard is supposed to follow the Kelvin Timeline and therefore, it does a horrific job of it. The fact that ST4 will probably never see the light of day does not change that.

WTF are you talking about? Picard was NEVER supposed to follow Kelvin. If it was following Kelvin it would be Vulcan that was blown up, not Romulus.

 

[ManofGod]

WTF are you talking about? Picard was NEVER supposed to follow Kelvin. If it was following Kelvin it would be Vulcan that was blown up, not Romulus.

I am not going to argue with you, go do the research yourself. (Romulus was destroyed by a super nova, which occurred in the 2009 reboot, which started the Kelvin timeline, referenced for the USS Kelvin.) And Vulcan and Romulus were both destroyed in the 2009 reboot.)

 

[pendragon1]

fans - "stop messing up our shows!"
non fans- "stop being toxic"
whos acutally the toxic ones?!

WTF are you talking about? Picard was NEVER supposed to follow Kelvin. If it was following Kelvin it would be Vulcan that was blown up, not Romulus.

isnt the supernova that picard talks about the one that destroyed romulus in the new movies, ie the kelvin timeline?!

 

[Derangel]

I am not going to argue with you, go do the research yourself. (Romulus was destroyed by a super nova, which occurred in the 2009 reboot, which started the Kelvin timeline, referenced for the USS Kelvin.)

I think you need to rewatch 09 or read up on the events. The destruction of Romulus happened BEFORE the reboot. The super nova and Spock's attempts to stop it resulted in the time vortex that catapulted Spock and the Narada into the past. The destruction of the USS Kelvin happened when the Narada came out of the time vortex. The super nova happened in the original timeline as the BACKSTORY for what caused the reboot.

 

[Derangel]

fans - "stop messing up our shows!"
non fans- "stop being toxic"
whos acutally the toxic ones?!

You are grossly (and likely intentionally) misrepresenting what is going on.

 

[ManofGod]

I think you need to rewatch 09 or read up on the events. The destruction of Romulus happened BEFORE the reboot. The super nova and Spock's attempts to stop it resulted in the time vortex that catapulted Spock and the Narada into the past. The destruction of the USS Kelvin happened when the Narada came out of the time vortex. The super nova happened in the original timeline as the BACKSTORY for what caused the reboot.

Except that the Supernova never occurred in the original timeline and never in the original cannon.

Edit: read some of the novels, or perhaps all of them. Also look through the original cannon and you will see no reference to Romulus being destroyed by a Supernova. If you can show me otherwise, before the reboot ever happened, I would like to see that (I mean before the reboot was ever even considered or written.)

 

[pendragon1]

You are grossly (and likely intentionally) misrepresenting what is going on.

seems like the gist of it to me and then the non-fans never watch the stuff they demand. plenty of examples out now.

 

[Derangel]

Except that the Supernova never occurred in the original timeline and never in the original cannon.

The backstory for Trek 09 has been considered cannon since the movie came out. Like it or not (and there are several reasons not to, but whatever) it IS cannon to the original timeline. I don't feel like digging up the estimated dates again, but the supernova happened a few years after Nemesis. There was a, cannon, prequel comic made for Trek 09 that went into more detail on it (it was still dumb).

seems like the gist of it to me and then the non-fans never watch the stuff they demand. plenty of examples out now.

This has nothing to do with the type of attitude I was calling out.

 

[ManofGod]

The backstory for Trek 09 has been considered cannon since the movie came out. Like it or not (and there are several reasons not to, but whatever) it IS cannon to the original timeline. I don't feel like digging up the estimated dates again, but the supernova happened a few years after Nemesis. There was a, cannon, prequel comic made for Trek 09 that went into more detail on it (it was still dumb).



This has nothing to do with the type of attitude I was calling out.

No, the backstory is not considered cannon, unless you consider rewriting the entire future history of Star Trek cannon. Like I said, show me this before the reboot was ever written or considered, I would like to see that.

 

[Derangel]

No, the backstory is not considered cannon, unless you consider rewriting the entire future history of Star Trek cannon. Like I said, show me this before the reboot was ever written or considered, I would like to see that.

Stop moving goal posts. You do not get to decide what is or is not considered cannon. That is up to the people in charge of the franchise.

 

[ManofGod]

Stop moving goal posts. You do not get to decide what is or is not considered cannon. That is up to the people in charge of the franchise.

So essentially, you cannot provide that for me? That is not moving anything, I am stating things as they are. Or are you saying that all the novels written were never cannon? Please, show me where it was cannon prior to this Kelvin Timeline reboot?

 

[Derangel]

So essentially, you cannot provide that for me? That is not moving anything, I am stating things as they are. Or are you saying that all the novels written were never cannon? Please, show me where it was cannon prior to this Kelvin Timeline reboot?

When were the novels ever considered cannon? Personally, I've always thought of them as akin to the Star Wars EU. Possible events, but not 100% cannon. If you're going to make up bullshit reasons for it not being cannon that would also make Enterprise non-cannon because it completely ignored the pre-Kirk books.

 

[Meeho]

I am not going to argue with you, go do the research yourself. (Romulus was destroyed by a super nova, which occurred in the 2009 reboot, which started the Kelvin timeline, referenced for the USS Kelvin.) And Vulcan and Romulus were both destroyed in the 2009 reboot.)

Yes, but he is also correct in that Picard is set in Prime, not Kelvin timeline.

 

[ManofGod]

When were the novels ever considered cannon? Personally, I've always thought of them as akin to the Star Wars EU. Possible events, but not 100% cannon. If you're going to make up bullshit reasons for it not being cannon that would also make Enterprise non-cannon because it completely ignored the pre-Kirk books.

Since they were written. You would be amazed how fleshed out the Star Trek Uninverse is made, through the novels. That is not made up, despite your insistence to the contrary.

 

[M76]

Screw you, dude. You don't have to like modern Trek, that's fine, but don't be a gate keeping ass to people that do. This very statement is completely antithetical to something you claim to love. You have turned into what Trek has always preached against. The entire fandom is so fucking toxic because of attitudes like yours.

Sour grapes, eh? 'Modern trek' meaning STD, and Picard are only star trek by name. Whether you like it or not. I'm sorry, but if you like this garbage that is a clear indication that you either

1. never watched the originals
2. never understood their politics
3. liked them for all the wrong reasons

You can like them, all you want, just don't expect me to recognize them as equals of the originals, and definitely don't expect me to stop criticizing them.
If seeing and calling out plotholes and how the shows go head on against established star trek values as imagnied by Gene Roddenberry makes me toxic, then I'm proud to be toxic.

 

[ManofGod]

Yes, but he is also correct in that Picard is set in Prime, not Kelvin timeline.

View attachment 222635

So, not Star Trek cannon at all but a completely different and alternate universe then? Also, I see no similarities between 2009 reboot and STD.

 

[Meeho]

The backstory for Trek 09 has been considered cannon since the movie came out. Like it or not (and there are several reasons not to, but whatever) it IS cannon to the original timeline.

Actually, the separate license it was made under makes that debatable. At least it was in line with canon, wether one considers it being a part or not.

 

[ManofGod]

Actually, the separate license it was made under makes that debatable. At least it was in line with canon, wether one considers it being a part or not.

Make an alternate Universe of it, that is fine. However, rewriting original cannon to make it fit a new idea is not acceptable.