Kuertzman co-wriote Countdown so he probably sees that as part of his canon
First Picard Show pic!
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Kuertzman co-wriote Countdown so he probably sees that as part of his canon
Countdown is incompatible with the Novels on Multiple levels however...
Bits of it might end up in there but at the time it was written - Picard and the others were characters that were never expected to be seen again - so like most tie-in material, he might cherry-pick aspects that he likes but I doubt the backstories of all the characters are the same as the comic.
I'll put good money on Data still being dead.
Yes, there have been worse example of technobabbel. No, this doesn't excuse this one.
Also - this example is a LOT worse because of the wide-reaching consequences. The bigger the impact of an event in a story or fictional universe is - the better it needed to be thought out.
As such, the supernova wasn't thought out AT ALL - because it quite frankly never played a role in the story of ST09, despite "giving Nero a purpose for revenge, without having the heroes actually have commited evil deeds".
That's not an argument. There hasn't been canonical Star Trek in the prime universe since 2009. And DIS certainly didn't address the issue at all.
Yes, I know for us hardcore nerds hanging out on internet forums - and knowing what Star Trek:Online EVEN IS - we are aware this event was supposed to take place in the "prime" timeline.
For EVERY single casual viewer - this event was super obviosuly part of a rebooted backstory. A backstory that - gain, in the terms of the story as it unfolded on screen - is a future that never even happened in the story it was told in.
Imagine someone doing a "Back to the Future"-continuation. And suddenly insisting it has to take place in the alternate future created by Biff Tannen, instead of the real present. Sure, it would make canonical sense in-universe. But it would be a stupid idea regardless, and super confusing to everyone that isn't a hardcore Back to the Future fan.
Letting major in-universe change have happened because of an alternate-rebooted-backstory-vision is stupid as hell, and gonna' confuse everybody that's only there for for Picard and has only basic familiarity with the deep weeds of Trek lore.
I'm sure they'll explain it in the show for those who haven't seen or even remember ST09.
I agree.
Depends on how they explain it in the show. I am highly skeptical that they are going to just let the scene in 09 be the only explanation. Especially with Kurtzman at the helm, I could see in weaving in some of footage from 09 like he did with the Cage footage.
This objection all seems predicated on the idea that they are just going to move forward without bothering to explain how they got there. If they do that then it is stupid and expects too much of the audience.
But, I'll be highly surprised if they do so.
Regardless, I see no issue utilizing the Hobus supernova as an inciting event to set the stage.
I really don't see it being that complex - this show is set more than 15 years later.
All a general audience needs to know is that the RSE collapsed due to an environmental disaster that destroyed Romulus and that is the cause of the current social-political context. They might mention Spock but I doubt it, it's redundant information for the show they are creating.
That's enough information for normal people and fans will simply add in their own details anyway.
All a general audience needs to know is that the RSE collapsed due to an environmental disaster that destroyed Romulus and that is the cause of the current social-political context. They might mention Spock but I doubt it, it's redundant information for the show they are creating.
That's enough information for normal people and fans will simply add in their own details anyway.
This is Star Trek! Everything is all connected except for the stuff I don't like!
In all seriousness, I don't see it being that complex. I just think the supernova is a good backdrop to expand upon.
Also I think people are confusing what we know as audiences with what the characters know.
Even if Picard mentions Spock - all he knows is that he was sucked into a black hole never to be seen again - he has absolutely no idea about alternative time-lines and nobody else does either.
Even if Picard mentions Spock - all he knows is that he was sucked into a black hole never to be seen again - he has absolutely no idea about alternative time-lines and nobody else does either.
But that was precisely the purpose of the supernova. It (a) destroyed Romulus, and (b) gave them the reason to create the black hole that sent them back in time. Sure, they could have combined those somehow -- an Federation experiment creates a black hole that destroys Romulus -- but that would have been just as techo-crap. But, such is the life in Star Trek.
I remember that movie -- it was called "Back to the Future II".
If they wanted to explore how Marty and Lorraine grew up to be different people, as they did in ST'09, then why not. I'd watch it.
Are you suggesting that ST'09 was confusing to everyone except hard core fans. I just don't think that's true.
B4 would became the new Data, I thought.
It would be something to see if Picard does have a passion to command the Enterprise again. He's not Kirk but there's something about sitting on that chair that makes Captains want to remain.
Last edited:
Third time's a charm... Does no one else see BEVERLY CRUSHER in the bottom left of this picture, walking on screen and seeming to notice JLP standing and looking lost?
Going to starfleet to request a ship would be something I think Picard would do for an important mission he must attend to.
not to be honest, no - I see an extra in the bottom left.
This. It's been part of Star Trek Online's backstory since it launched, it was covered in the backstory comic, it was featured in the movie (again, co-written and co-produced by the guy running Star Trek)... It's only the silly fans who want The Last Jedi and now Game of Thrones remade that dispute it at all.I never took it as anything but canon...
If a completely new creative team were coming in, anything's possible (a la endless Terminator movies selectively ignoring their predecessors), but Kurtzman isn't going to wipe away one of his biggest successes especially in such a weirdly continuity obsessed fandom.
Sorry for not responding earlier: I think you're right, and for that matter, I think you're so *obviously* right that I thought the question was rhetorical.Third time's a charm... Does no one else see BEVERLY CRUSHER in the bottom left of this picture, walking on screen and seeming to notice JLP standing and looking lost?
Just looks like a woman to me. Probably just an extra.
I never gave her much thought because her clothes and what looks like her handbag looked pretty contemporary. Then again, there are several others in the picture, Sir Patrick included, whose outfit looks contemporary with the level of detail we're given, so who knows. She's like Schrodinger's Beverly at this point for me.
Yeah, the thing is - they need to introduce and explain the Hobus supernova to audiences, as if the movie ST2009 never happened, or at least assuming everybody who watched it completely forgot about the Romulus incident even happening (which is probably very close to the truth).
Now if they do that, that's perfectly fine! Hell, @JoeZhang 's "backstory" would be entirely sufficient:
It's just a landmine the writers should really, really be aware of that it even IS a landmine.
Because it they don't recognize it as such - and assume that "well, the audience already knows" - they gonna' run into backlash like the first season of DIS, where they didn't even realize they could run into wild problems alone through the choice of setting.
Now all of this is speculation at this point, because we have limited information, and really only this one Kurtzman quote.
But as far as I'm concerned - I see this as a point of very likely, potential failing, and definitely confusion, and think the inclusion of this event isn't worth the troubles that come with it, especially it's questionable status of "having or having not have happened" anyway.
Similar threads
