The furthest I'll go is to say they didn't make Picard to be anyone's first Star Trek series. It's something you should watch after you've seen TNG.
I think that if CBSAA started out with Star Trek: Picard back in 2017, the show would have been quite different. If anything, Michael Chabon would not have been the showrunner and we wouldn't have gotten the nonsensical plot that was season 1.
I agree but at some point they need to stop saying it's in the Prime Universe because they are afraid fans won't think it is legit if it doesn't have that "Prime Universe" seal of approval.
They only did that originally so that the viewing audience didn't think the show took place in the Kelvin timeline. But your point stands.
Until fans stop putting that on weight on it. They are trying to sell a product and the last several years have taught them that Prime sells.
Actually, the alternate universe Kelvin timeline sold far, far more than the 'prime' timeline has. Rather, the logic was more that "Kirk," "Spock," and "the Enterprise" sells, not some random new crew on some random new ship. That's why we got SNW.
Section 31 was never envisioned as a streaming movie first, and yet, that's what's going to happen.
That wasn't my point. Whether S31 was to be a show or a movie, neither it nor a movie with Patrick Stewart as Picard is going to be on the big screen (see next.)
If they are under the assumption that the only ones that will show up to theatres are Trek fans in spite of advertising, and they are aware how some Trek fans are negative about Section 31 being a part of Trek lore, its how you can figure that they'd want something "safer", with a movie based around a character in the public consciousness, i.e. Picard.
Who went to see Picard the last time he was in a feature film, back in 2002? Not enough, apparently. So why would tons of people pay money to see a 100-year-old Picard twenty-two years later?
I think a good chunk of the Discovery and SNW viewership have no idea what "Prime" is. They just see something like looks like Star Trek.
For the 'casual viewer,' yes. The question is, how many 'casual viewers' are actually watching these shows in contrast to die-hard fans? Does anyone honestly think that casual viewers who know nothing about Star Trek are watching Lower Decks?
For the record: I consider SNW and first two seasons of DSC to be a different take on the TOS Era as well. And I say that as a fan of Discovery.
My position on it is that any differences between TOS and DSC/SNW are due to the Temporal War. Similar to when it was said in "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" (SNW) that the Eugenics Wars used to take place in the 1990s but now they happened in the mid-21st Century.
Anyone who's insisting "Nope! There's no change at all!" is ignoring the new information from "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" and are giving the same answers they've been used to giving over and over again for all these years. They're doing it out of habit more than anything else, rather than processing and incorporating what's been spelled out in the show itself.
I tend to think those people are more into just being apologists/line-toters for CBSAA/P+ and haven't been able to disavow themselves from that mindset. That's just my opinion, though.
Right? I can see not liking that they did it, but what’s done is done; it’s pointless to create these crazy head canons to make it not true.
Even I don't believe that the producers of SNW have any intention of making the ship, the sets, the props, the costumes, the VFX, etc. somehow morph into what we saw in TOS. I get that this is TOS for the 21st century viewer. That's all fine and dandy. But to me, this is more than just replacing Kirstie Alley with Robin Curtis. There are huge fundamental differences between CBSTrek and Roddenberry/Berman Trek that wouldn't have been an issue had they not tried to shoehorn their show into a '60's-'90's fictional universe. The producers tell the audience to ignore it and that it's all the same. I don't buy that. But that's just me.
