Star Trek: Picard (CBS All-Access)

[Bolt]

An interesting read. The author, a self proclaimed Trekkie, speaks quite favorably of the show..

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20200123-star-trek-picard-why-trekkies-are-the-greatest-fans-of-all

[Dobber]

35 minutes ago, Bolt said:

An interesting read. The author, a self proclaimed Trekkie, speaks quite favorably of the show..

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20200123-star-trek-picard-why-trekkies-are-the-greatest-fans-of-all

Nice article. I am a proud Trekkie too and hope for the best for our franchise. Like the author points out....one of the unique things about Star Trek was the positive view of our future, and why comments from Stewart himself and the current powers that be are concerning as it seems they clinically view that as a weakness that needs to be tempered and changed.  

As it stands after one episode, I did like what I saw for the most part. Like the article said, I reserve judgement until I’ve seen it all and so far I do want to keep watching.

Chris

Edited January 25, 2020 by Dobber

[sh9000]

1 hour ago, Roy Focker said:

This is my biggest complaint.  They show them in classic uniforms that aren't tailored to fit!

I think I'll continue to watch this show just to see Patrick Stewart act.

Not sure if I'll like the show or not.

I have no complaints.

[CoryHolmes]

On 1/23/2020 at 7:10 PM, Seto Kaiba said:

 

The Ugly

  Hide contents

Within two minutes of being introduced, it is painfully obvious that Dahj is another Burnham-esque Mary Sue.  The very first thing we see her do after three men beam into her apartment, beat her, and put a bag on her head is that she kills all three in ten seconds flat using their own weapons and without removing the bag.  Then she starts hallucinating Jean-Luc Picard for reasons...?  She literally didn't even make it to the OP before outing herself as a Mary Sue.

Dahj is on a mission to tick every box on the Mary Sue litmus test.  She "just knew" how to automatically kick the asses of a group of apparently trained assassins and mysteriously "just knows" Jean-Luc on a deep, personal level.

 

 

So Imma take a stab at this one.

 

Spoiler

If Dahj being an android/synthetic/whatevertermtheyuse is what the character is, then it makes sense that she'd be programmed with that knowledge.  Just as she's programmed to walk, talk, simulate breathing, etc.

 

If she's a flesh-and-blood human, then yes, Mary Sue.

 

[azrael]

2 hours ago, Roy Focker said:

This is my biggest complaint.  They show them in classic uniforms that aren't tailored to fit!

Considering the length of the scene, I'd let that go.

[pengbuzz]

On 1/23/2020 at 4:17 PM, Dynaman said:

It tanked because ST fans had gotten FAR too picky about what was "acceptable" and that was the problem the reboot was trying to handle.  Sadly for Trek the old fans are not accepting of anything and there are not nearly enough new fans to make up for it. 

Discovery tanked because it sucks.

How does it suck? Well...

1) It lacks the optimism of TOS, which is set ten years later than this series. I'm sorry, but a LOT of Star Trek's appeal is hope; underestimate its' importance and you lose most of what makes Star Trek what it is. I mean, who in their right mind would want to live in THAT kind of world?

2) For a prequel, it doesn't look like anything that TOS could have come from. Unless you're planning to rewrite TOS (in which case wouldn't this become the new "TOS" and TOS become it's "TNG"?), then this needs to hook into it. And having the ships look so much more advanced doesn't help matters. Where does this leave TOS then? And if it isn't the same universe as TOS, then what the hell is the point?  Just make it its' own series and stop worrying about what it's supposed to lead to!

3) "Edgy" may work for a lot of sci-fi, but having the Federation as "edgy" just doesn't work. An organization dedicated to keeping the peace, peaceful exploration and research, and safe commerce for all it's members and allied constituents has no business being "edgy". That's akin to dressing the entire US Military all in black armor and balaclavas and standing guard on every street corner.

4) It tried being something else instead of Star Trek: while it has all the trappings of Star Trek, it feels more like "Got in space" (see point 3). It doesn't feel like it's own show really, but all the "best ideas" they could find from other genres and shows.

Lastly: pointing an accusing finger at "old fans" and claiming "they are not accepting of anything" is really just unfair. No one has the right to tell anyone what they should and should not like. Can we state that we dislike something? Of course; that's our right and we use that every day here! But to say that fans "are not accepting of anything" just because they don't like Star Trek: Discovery? To try to put this politely: they have the right to dislike what they dislike.

And think about it: if it were any good, there would be more new fans of it than there are now.

The "old fans" do not owe it to anyone to "like a series" just so newer fans can be brought on board. We start getting into that mindset, and pretty soon, it becomes a game of "you need to do this for someone else", and thus one's likes and dislikes are held hostage for someone else. Instead, series need to stand on their ability to deliver a compelling story with an equally compelling cast and writing.

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by pengbuzz

[blackconvoy_D01]

Picard tanked?

WTF? No it didnt.

[Seto Kaiba]

4 hours ago, Dobber said:

That’s not my point, of course the Federation could and would be the only neighboring power that would be willing to help but It still doesn’t explain why the Romulans can’t do it themselves. All the Major Powers sufferer horrendously in the Dominion War.  As I said they are still an interstellar Empire that rivaled the Federation and the Klingons. Where is their StarFleet and ShipYards.

Granted, it's a fair question... but they do note back in Deep Space Nine that the Romulan Star Empire and Klingon Empire had both taken especially heavy losses during the Dominion War.  The Romulans were already hurting even before the war started thanks to a Changeling impersonating Colonel Lovok of the Tal Shiar orchestrating that joint operation with the Obsidian Order that ended in the destruction of a joint Romulan-Cardassian fleet that crippled both the Tal Shiar and Obsidian Order.  Pile on top of that all their losses from the Dominion War, Shinzon's coup d'etat, and the inevitable dustup over who would lead the Empire in the wake of the self-declared Praetor having died after assassinating the Continuing Committee and the entire Senate.  There was probably a very brief but very furious free-for-all over ownership of the Romulan government that did them no favors.

The Romulans had less than eight years to pick up the pieces after Shinzon completely demolished their government and left the Empire rudderless and probably at war with parts of itself, it wouldn't be surprising if they didn't have the resources to consider an ambitious project like building a fleet capable of evacuating Romulus in one go.

 

4 hours ago, Dobber said:

If there is time enough to build a freaking FLEET of ships why couldn’t existing ships from both governments at least get the evacuation started.

That's the million dollar plot hole... why were the Romulan fleet and Federation Starfleet not ALREADY hard at work evacuating the planet or at least preparing it for evacuation while the fleet of evacuation ships were being built at Utopia Planitia?

Moreover, why was this evacuation fleet being built EXCLUSIVELY at Utopia Planitia?  It's the Federation's second-oldest Starfleet shipyards after the San Francisco orbital yards, but it's not like it's the only high-capacity shipyard they have.  There's like a dozen different ones in the Sol system alone that've been mentioned over the years, never mind others outside it like Deep Space 5, 40 Eridani A, Starbase 47, and Antares.  It doesn't really make any sense that they'd put all their eggs in one basket the way they did.

 

4 hours ago, Dobber said:

Still makes no sense that the Feds are the “Bad Guys” in this scenario. Especially after they legitimately tried to do it and then suffered a great loss themselves.

It really doesn't... the show is reaching REALLY hard to try and make Starfleet and the Federation into the a-holes for being unable to save Romulus after the fleet they bent over backwards to purpose-build for the job was destroyed out of the blue by a synthetic revolt, and it doesn't exactly seem unreasonable to ban the creation of artificial lifeforms when the ones they'd already made were apparently so put-out by their treatment that they launched a terrorist attack that left a planet uninhabitable, directly killed 90,000+ Federation citizens, and indirectly resulted in the deaths of almost a billion Romulans and undermined a major diplomatic move to solidify peaceful relations with the Romulan Star Empire.  It's hardly unfair for the Federation Council to take a step back from that and say "maybe creating sentient beings with abilities far exceeding that of organic lifeforms in a lab is probably a bad idea".  That it's a bad idea should've been pretty obvious considering Dr. Soong was murdered by one of his own creations and the whole "let's create superhumans in a lab" thing was kind of how the ball got rolling on the Eugenics Wars.

 

4 hours ago, Dobber said:

I still don’t buy that if there is time available to negotiate, order, then build an entire MASSIVE Fleet and crew it, and then apparently do it again before the planets are destroyed, that they couldn’t be evacuated with the time and what was available from BOTH governments.

It definitely doesn't quite scan with the idea that this wasn't something they could see coming a long way off...

 

That said, 900 million people is a LOT of people... and Starfleet hasn't often been depicted as having a huge number of ships.  The one and only time a defintite number was put to it was in a Discovery episode, which claimed Starfleet c.2257 operated over 7,000 ships of various classes.  I'd assume that's counting small utility ships, border patrol craft, and other assorted odds and ends such as the unmanned cargo ships, otherwise it doesn't quite tally with other Star Trek shows that've pointed to Starfleet having several hundred to at most a thousand or so ships of the line.  Most of them aren't very big either, being able to hold a few hundred people tops like the Miranda and Intrepid classes.  It's only the really big ones, the Galaxy, Nebula, Sovereign, etc. that could handle 10,000 evacuees or so at a time.

One would imagine they could've dug into the Starfleet surplus depots like the one they visited in the TNG "Unification" two-parter and given those ships skeleton crews to maximize Starfleet's evacuation potential... and the evacuation ships themselves were likely intended to operate with tiny crews or to be crewless like the robot transports that were all over TAS.

 

4 hours ago, Dobber said:

You guys keep missing the point that the Federation DID attempt to help, and at great cost. It’s like the show is trying to have it both ways, they help and don’t help. That’s why I find it unbelievable that with all that time they still can’t evacuate the populations.

Well, yeah... they're really REALLY forcing this dystopian thing on the show.  If you sit down and look at it, Picard's grievances don't really make sense in context... unless there's something else we're not being told.  Starfleet gave rescuing the Romulans a valiant try, but were undermined in their efforts by an unexpected third party's interference.

Patrick Stewart is really trying to force this "the Federation is becoming isolationist" to fit his real world contemporary political views into it, but it doesn't tally with the story he's telling where Starfleet put a GARGANTUAN amount of effort into trying to save all the people on Romulus and failed because they were sabotaged by a third party rather than because they weren't trying.

 

 

2 hours ago, Roy Focker said:

This is my biggest complaint.  They show them in classic uniforms that aren't tailored to fit!

Nah, now it's more realistic!  Uniforms come in two sizes: too big, and too small.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dobber said:

...one of the unique things about Star Trek was the positive view of our future, and why comments from Stewart himself and the current powers that be are concerning as it seems they clinically view that as a weakness that needs to be tempered and changed.  

Yeah, that's the main reason I don't like Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard.  That aspirational future where we'd conquered things like bigotry and inequality and so on was what made Star Trek such a draw, and now that's going away in favor of "see the future? exactly the same sh*thole you're in now but with lasers".

[Seto Kaiba]

35 minutes ago, blackconvoy_D01 said:

Picard tanked?

WTF? No it didnt.

Er... they've kind of lost sight of what they were talking about.  The "why it tanked" discussion was about Star Trek: Enterprise, which did tank and was cancelled after 4 seasons due to embarrassingly low ratings.  @pengbuzz misaimed, and assumed it was about the currently-in-the-process-of-tanking Star Trek: Discovery that nearly didn't get funded for a third season because Netflix was not happy about constant budget overruns and lower than expected average viewership.

[Seto Kaiba]

1 hour ago, CoryHolmes said:

So Imma take a stab at this one.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

If Dahj being an android/synthetic/whatevertermtheyuse is what the character is, then it makes sense that she'd be programmed with that knowledge.  Just as she's programmed to walk, talk, simulate breathing, etc.

 

If she's a flesh-and-blood human, then yes, Mary Sue.

 

Spoiler

They've established that she's got a positronic brain in a flesh-and-blood body, so "I know kung fu" might be justifed but her super strength and super speed are NOT.

 

[Keith]

So, Picard is Caprica?

[Dobber]

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Granted, it's a fair question... but they do note back in Deep Space Nine that the Romulan Star Empire and Klingon Empire had both taken especially heavy losses during the Dominion War.  The Romulans were already hurting even before the war started thanks to a Changeling impersonating Colonel Lovok of the Tal Shiar orchestrating that joint operation with the Obsidian Order that ended in the destruction of a joint Romulan-Cardassian fleet that crippled both the Tal Shiar and Obsidian Order.  Pile on top of that all their losses from the Dominion War, Shinzon's coup d'etat, and the inevitable dustup over who would lead the Empire in the wake of the self-declared Praetor having died after assassinating the Continuing Committee and the entire Senate.  There was probably a very brief but very furious free-for-all over ownership of the Romulan government that did them no favors.

The Romulans had less than eight years to pick up the pieces after Shinzon completely demolished their government and left the Empire rudderless and probably at war with parts of itself, it wouldn't be surprising if they didn't have the resources to consider an ambitious project like building a fleet capable of evacuating Romulus in one go.

 

That's the million dollar plot hole... why were the Romulan fleet and Federation Starfleet not ALREADY hard at work evacuating the planet or at least preparing it for evacuation while the fleet of evacuation ships were being built at Utopia Planitia?

Moreover, why was this evacuation fleet being built EXCLUSIVELY at Utopia Planitia?  It's the Federation's second-oldest Starfleet shipyards after the San Francisco orbital yards, but it's not like it's the only high-capacity shipyard they have.  There's like a dozen different ones in the Sol system alone that've been mentioned over the years, never mind others outside it like Deep Space 5, 40 Eridani A, Starbase 47, and Antares.  It doesn't really make any sense that they'd put all their eggs in one basket the way they did.

 

It really doesn't... the show is reaching REALLY hard to try and make Starfleet and the Federation into the a-holes for being unable to save Romulus after the fleet they bent over backwards to purpose-build for the job was destroyed out of the blue by a synthetic revolt, and it doesn't exactly seem unreasonable to ban the creation of artificial lifeforms when the ones they'd already made were apparently so put-out by their treatment that they launched a terrorist attack that left a planet uninhabitable, directly killed 90,000+ Federation citizens, and indirectly resulted in the deaths of almost a billion Romulans and undermined a major diplomatic move to solidify peaceful relations with the Romulan Star Empire.  It's hardly unfair for the Federation Council to take a step back from that and say "maybe creating sentient beings with abilities far exceeding that of organic lifeforms in a lab is probably a bad idea".  That it's a bad idea should've been pretty obvious considering Dr. Soong was murdered by one of his own creations and the whole "let's create superhumans in a lab" thing was kind of how the ball got rolling on the Eugenics Wars.

 

It definitely doesn't quite scan with the idea that this wasn't something they could see coming a long way off...

 

That said, 900 million people is a LOT of people... and Starfleet hasn't often been depicted as having a huge number of ships.  The one and only time a defintite number was put to it was in a Discovery episode, which claimed Starfleet c.2257 operated over 7,000 ships of various classes.  I'd assume that's counting small utility ships, border patrol craft, and other assorted odds and ends such as the unmanned cargo ships, otherwise it doesn't quite tally with other Star Trek shows that've pointed to Starfleet having several hundred to at most a thousand or so ships of the line.  Most of them aren't very big either, being able to hold a few hundred people tops like the Miranda and Intrepid classes.  It's only the really big ones, the Galaxy, Nebula, Sovereign, etc. that could handle 10,000 evacuees or so at a time.

One would imagine they could've dug into the Starfleet surplus depots like the one they visited in the TNG "Unification" two-parter and given those ships skeleton crews to maximize Starfleet's evacuation potential... and the evacuation ships themselves were likely intended to operate with tiny crews or to be crewless like the robot transports that were all over TAS.

 

Well, yeah... they're really REALLY forcing this dystopian thing on the show.  If you sit down and look at it, Picard's grievances don't really make sense in context... unless there's something else we're not being told.  Starfleet gave rescuing the Romulans a valiant try, but were undermined in their efforts by an unexpected third party's interference.

Patrick Stewart is really trying to force this "the Federation is becoming isolationist" to fit his real world contemporary political views into it, but it doesn't tally with the story he's telling where Starfleet put a GARGANTUAN amount of effort into trying to save all the people on Romulus and failed because they were sabotaged by a third party rather than because they weren't trying.

 

 

Nah, now it's more realistic!  Uniforms come in two sizes: too big, and too small.

 

 

Yeah, that's the main reason I don't like Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard.  That aspirational future where we'd conquered things like bigotry and inequality and so on was what made Star Trek such a draw, and now that's going away in favor of "see the future? exactly the same sh*thole you're in now but with lasers".

Thanks for your responses, pretty much exactly what I was thinking and feeling. I also like your thought on the first point. That does track well. 
 

Chris

[pengbuzz]

7 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Er... they've kind of lost sight of what they were talking about.  The "why it tanked" discussion was about Star Trek: Enterprise, which did tank and was cancelled after 4 seasons due to embarrassingly low ratings.  @pengbuzz misaimed, and assumed it was about the currently-in-the-process-of-tanking Star Trek: Discovery that nearly didn't get funded for a third season because Netflix was not happy about constant budget overruns and lower than expected average viewership.

Yeah...my bad.

*Goes to corner and contemplates pocket lint*

Edited January 26, 2020 by pengbuzz

[CoryHolmes]

11 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

 

Yeah, that's the main reason I don't like Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard.  That aspirational future where we'd conquered things like bigotry and inequality and so on was what made Star Trek such a draw, and now that's going away in favor of "see the future? exactly the same sh*thole you're in now but with lasers".

To be fair, that worked for BSG and it got lauded for it.  I personally despised it, and I get told I have awful taste in TV shows.

[sketchley]

10 minutes ago, CoryHolmes said:

To be fair, that worked for BSG and it got lauded for it.  I personally despised it, and I get told I have awful taste in TV shows.

Yeah, I never got into BSG because, well... entertainment is escapism, and when it stops being that and imitates the news, I don't need it!

Nevertheless, I've already been-here-done-that.  Remember "Stargate Universe" and how they got rid of what made the original show unique, and copied BSG?  Look how long that show lasted...

And just like SGU, that's not a critique of the acting, writing and so on of ST:Disco and Picard.  SGU and Disco are well made (haven't seen Picard... yet).  The fundamental problem is the replacement of the gimmick that made the show unique by the  gimmicks that worked for different unique shows.

[CoryHolmes]

Just now, sketchley said:

Yeah, I never got into BSG because, well... entertainment is escapism, and when it stops being that and imitates the news, I don't need it!

Nevertheless, I've already been-here-done-that.  Remember "Stargate Universe" and how they got rid of what made the original show unique, and copied BSG?  Look how long that show lasted...

And just like SGU, that's not a critique of the acting, writing and so on of ST:Disco and Picard.  SGU and Disco are well made (haven't seen Picard... yet).  The fundamental problem is the replacement of the gimmick that made the show unique by the  gimmicks that worked for different unique shows.

Actually, I really loved SGU.  I called it the DS9 of the franchise, the entry that subverts most of the tropes the others used.  I thought it was brilliant how the PTBs more or less looked at the TV Tropes entry for their shows and decided to do the exact opposite.

[sketchley]

31 minutes ago, CoryHolmes said:

Actually, I really loved SGU.  I called it the DS9 of the franchise, the entry that subverts most of the tropes the others used.  I thought it was brilliant how the PTBs more or less looked at the TV Tropes entry for their shows and decided to do the exact opposite.

I like it, too.  Arguably the characters are much more memorable, and much more developed then the ones in the other two series.  However, its biggest flaw is that it doesn't have a "villain" to focus on (E.g.: while ST:Disco comes up comparatively lacking on the writing and editing aspects, it does have excellent villains to draw us through the seasons [never mind the enraging depiction of the Klingons!])

That said, SGU just doesn't feel like it's taking place in the same universe as the other Stargate shows (shades of Disco, Picard, eh ).  I think it also hurt the show that the longer it went on, the less they used the gates—while that worked for and fit the story of SGU, that's the main unique gimmick to those shows, and taking it away turned it into another one of the hundreds of other SF shows set on a spaceship...

[Sanity is Optional]

1 hour ago, sketchley said:

Yeah, I never got into BSG because, well... entertainment is escapism, and when it stops being that and imitates the news, I don't need it!

Nevertheless, I've already been-here-done-that.  Remember "Stargate Universe" and how they got rid of what made the original show unique, and copied BSG?  Look how long that show lasted...

And just like SGU, that's not a critique of the acting, writing and so on of ST:Disco and Picard.  SGU and Disco are well made (haven't seen Picard... yet).  The fundamental problem is the replacement of the gimmick that made the show unique by the  gimmicks that worked for different unique shows.

There's space (ha) for both types, but it really needs to be clear up-front what type of show it is. Of course, for anything that's a sequel/prequel it should follow the genre of the work it follows.

BSG was popular not because it was dark and gritty, but because it was well done dark and gritty with good production values and good acting. Even the plot was decent (aside from the dart-board "who's secretly a cylon" bit). For other examples, look at Dark Matter. Contrast with say Firefly which was much more light-hearted.

 

[Lolicon]

I'm a lifelong Star Trek, ever since first seeing TWOK when I was 5 or 6 years old.

If you liked/disliked any of the Star Trek shows/movies, that's cool.

What I can't abide is the sentiment that can be summed up in one line: "I hate [insert episode/series/movie] because it's a betrayal of Gene's vision!"

Regarding Gene's "vision": f*** Gene's vision. TOS was a mostly terrible show, and Star Trek didn't become good until they booted his sleazy ass upstairs and out of the way (and yes, Gene Roddenberry was a sleazy dude).

People who are that hung up on Gene's "vision" should go watch TMP and reruns of season 1 TNG. That's Gene's "vision."

Gene had a good idea, but it took the input and work of many others that came after him to make Star Trek into something worthwhile.

As far as Picard? It's okay so far. It's hard to gauge a series from just its premiere episode. A good recent example of this is The Expanse. It's one of the best sci-fi shows I've seen in ages, but it takes a few episodes before it really gets moving.

I don't get the impression that Picard is somehow a betrayal of Gene's "vision" or any nonsense like that. Yeah, there's conflict and turmoil in the galaxy. So what? Conflicts are what make stories interesting. I don't subscribe to the notion that the future has to be bright and shiny and full of track lighting and no one ever disagrees with each other for it to be "optimistic."

As far as BS science like somehow resurrecting Data from a single positronic neuron or whatever? Yeah, it's BS. You know what else is BS with regards to real science? Warp drives, cloaking devices, self-replicating mines, counselors on the bridge, and tons of other stuff on Star Trek.

As a wise friend of mine would often say: Nobody hates a franchise as much as its fans. 

[Guyffon]

5 hours ago, Lolicon said:

I'm a lifelong Star Trek, ever since first seeing TWOK when I was 5 or 6 years old.

If you liked/disliked any of the Star Trek shows/movies, that's cool.

What I can't abide is the sentiment that can be summed up in one line: "I hate [insert episode/series/movie] because it's a betrayal of Gene's vision!"

Regarding Gene's "vision": f*** Gene's vision. TOS was a mostly terrible show, and Star Trek didn't become good until they booted his sleazy ass upstairs and out of the way (and yes, Gene Roddenberry was a sleazy dude).

People who are that hung up on Gene's "vision" should go watch TMP and reruns of season 1 TNG. That's Gene's "vision."

Gene had a good idea, but it took the input and work of many others that came after him to make Star Trek into something worthwhile.

As far as Picard? It's okay so far. It's hard to gauge a series from just its premiere episode. A good recent example of this is The Expanse. It's one of the best sci-fi shows I've seen in ages, but it takes a few episodes before it really gets moving.

I don't get the impression that Picard is somehow a betrayal of Gene's "vision" or any nonsense like that. Yeah, there's conflict and turmoil in the galaxy. So what? Conflicts are what make stories interesting. I don't subscribe to the notion that the future has to be bright and shiny and full of track lighting and no one ever disagrees with each other for it to be "optimistic."

As far as BS science like somehow resurrecting Data from a single positronic neuron or whatever? Yeah, it's BS. You know what else is BS with regards to real science? Warp drives, cloaking devices, self-replicating mines, counselors on the bridge, and tons of other stuff on Star Trek.

As a wise friend of mine would often say: Nobody hates a franchise as much as its fans. 

Totally agree with you lolicon 

[sh9000]

 

[Dynaman]

6 hours ago, Lolicon said:

I'm a lifelong Star Trek, ever since first seeing TWOK when I was 5 or 6 years old.

If you liked/disliked any of the Star Trek shows/movies, that's cool.

What I can't abide is the sentiment that can be summed up in one line: "I hate [insert episode/series/movie] because it's a betrayal of Gene's vision!"

Regarding Gene's "vision": f*** Gene's vision. TOS was a mostly terrible show, and Star Trek didn't become good until they booted his sleazy ass upstairs and out of the way (and yes, Gene Roddenberry was a sleazy dude).

People who are that hung up on Gene's "vision" should go watch TMP and reruns of season 1 TNG. That's Gene's "vision."

Gene had a good idea, but it took the input and work of many others that came after him to make Star Trek into something worthwhile.

As far as Picard? It's okay so far. It's hard to gauge a series from just its premiere episode. A good recent example of this is The Expanse. It's one of the best sci-fi shows I've seen in ages, but it takes a few episodes before it really gets moving.

I don't get the impression that Picard is somehow a betrayal of Gene's "vision" or any nonsense like that. Yeah, there's conflict and turmoil in the galaxy. So what? Conflicts are what make stories interesting. I don't subscribe to the notion that the future has to be bright and shiny and full of track lighting and no one ever disagrees with each other for it to be "optimistic."

As far as BS science like somehow resurrecting Data from a single positronic neuron or whatever? Yeah, it's BS. You know what else is BS with regards to real science? Warp drives, cloaking devices, self-replicating mines, counselors on the bridge, and tons of other stuff on Star Trek.

As a wise friend of mine would often say: Nobody hates a franchise as much as its fans. 

I agree with some (Gene was human and certainly did not live up to the ideals of ST that he espoused) but TOS a terrible show?  Thems fighting words.

[Mazinger]

6 hours ago, Lolicon said:

A good recent example of this is The Expanse. It's one of the best sci-fi shows I've seen in ages, but it takes a few episodes before it really gets moving.

Hmm, I keep hearing so much about that show, but I couldn't get past the first 2 episodes. Once I've gotten past all my shows, maybe I'll try again.

Also, TOS was not a terrible show in the context of when it was made, though it had more than a few terrible episodes? Paradise Syndrome, ahem...

[Seto Kaiba]

7 hours ago, Dynaman said:

I agree with some (Gene was human and certainly did not live up to the ideals of ST that he espoused) but TOS a terrible show?  Thems fighting words.

There's no denying TOS was campy as f*ck, but then consider when it was made.

Despite its problematic production values, it was still a highly thought-of series that was one of the network's best-performing TV series in its programming block.  TOS is a terrible show?  Audiences certainly didn't think so.

Yeah, Gene was... a character.  Dude REALLY wanted to hire strippers as actresses, all of his story treatment descriptions of female characters are skeevy as hell and he often called for female characters to be played by actresses with "strip queen" builds.  What he conceptualized as far as the bright future that Star Trek belonged to still struck a massive chord with viewers.  In the middle of the Cold War, here was a show that dared to dream of a world where we'd put petty political pissing contests and other human evils like racism, sexism, religious discrimination, etc. behind us and created a mature society that was worthy of heading out to explore and settle the great wilderness of space.

That belief that humans could be better than they are lasted until Star Trek: Discovery, which took a turn for the dystopian with a racist main character who wore her racism like a badge of honor and rampant sexism throughout the second season.  That the bleak and hopeless tone seem to be continuing into Picard is an enormous negative for the series in my opinion.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Seto Kaiba

[hachi]

On 1/23/2020 at 9:11 AM, mechaninac said:

The old, pre-woke, business model was to "give the consumer what they want and they'll beat a path to your door."  The customer was always right.

The new, post modern, woke paradigm is to vandalize beloved properties into loathsome mockeries of what they were, and to belittle, castigate, and vilify (insert preferred epithet here) the fan base, that made the franchises prosperous in the first place, when they reject the garbage they are told they should brainlessly accept and consume, because if they deign to voice their displeasure it's not because the crap they've been served stinks... no, no, no, it's because the "neanderthals" are too uncouth to appreciate the distinctive new bouquet.

Star Trek was 'woke' from the beginning. The current garbage is just the result of companies trying to make money off it and failing in the execution. And whoever said '"neanderthals" are too uncouth to appreciate the distinctive new bouquet'? (Or was this from another franchise lol) As for myself, I am not interested in prequels so I'm really liking ST Picard.

[Dobber]

Yes, Star Trek has always been progressive, but it was also unique in it’s time. Now you can’t watch anything without a message. Also, it could be thought provoking in showing both/all sides to an argument. Not the current “My side is always right and the other has no merit or value” and  also portraying the other ideals in the most extreme caricaturist is fashion. It’s no longer thought provoking but becoming insulting and preachy in the worst ways. 
 

Chris

[Dynaman]

The "Kirk Speech" is not know for it's non-preachy message.  And I'm sure anyone on the opposite side of the message of the week from TOS found it insulting.

[Seto Kaiba]

54 minutes ago, Dynaman said:

The "Kirk Speech" is not know for it's non-preachy message.  And I'm sure anyone on the opposite side of the message of the week from TOS found it insulting.

To be fair, if a viewer felt the Kirk Summation of the week was aimed at them and found it insulting... then it was doing its job.  The whole point of episodes like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" was to throw the sh*ttyness of certain types of human behavior into sharp relief, and in so doing encourage positive change.  It was hamfisted as f*ck but boy did it work, and it was woven into the narrative well enough that it didn't feel like being preached at (most of the time).

Gene Roddenberry took the same thinly disguised morality tale format that'd sold so well in westerns at the time and simply repurposed it for his sci-fi series.  "Wagon train to the stars" indeed.

I kinda have my doubts whether Star Trek: Picard can achieve that, given that Patrick Stewart seems to be aiming for nothing more sophisticated or morally complex than "Brexit is bad".

Edited January 27, 2020 by Seto Kaiba

[mechaninac]

12 hours ago, hachi said:

Star Trek was 'woke' from the beginning. The current garbage is just the result of companies trying to make money off it and failing in the execution. And whoever said '"neanderthals" are too uncouth to appreciate the distinctive new bouquet'? (Or was this from another franchise lol) As for myself, I am not interested in prequels so I'm really liking ST Picard.

TOS was not woke, far from it; heck, the current state of affairs wasn't but a cautionary tale penned by futurist writers warning their present audiences of the dangers of possible dystopian futures. It was firmly grounded in classical liberalism and the ideals of western democratic values, and a product of its time.

The current garbage is a combination of echo chamber thinking combined with sanctimonious shallow activism, and a misguided attempt to placate and attract SJW twitter mobs as new fans at the expense of preexisting fans, coherent narratives, interesting and thought provoking stories, and tone.

The neanderthals quip was just my way of colorfully, and hopefully in amusing fashion, expressing the disdainful and elitist attitude of industry insiders and shill media who never miss an opportunity to attack anyone with the temerity to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.

Prequels are almost always problematic, and rarely done correctly, so I don't blame anyone for having no interest in them.

[hachi]

21 hours ago, Dobber said:

Yes, Star Trek has always been progressive, but it was also unique in it’s time. Now you can’t watch anything without a message. Also, it could be thought provoking in showing both/all sides to an argument. Not the current “My side is always right and the other has no merit or value” and  also portraying the other ideals in the most extreme caricaturist is fashion. It’s no longer thought provoking but becoming insulting and preachy in the worst ways. 
 

Chris

>> Now you can’t watch anything without a message.

Are you taking about the prequels or current non-Trek shows in general? It seems unfair to drag ST into preachy category. (Disclaimer again I haven't watched the prequels.) That said having progressive themes is a trend and most of the time with trends of course many will follow. Will things go back to the way they were? I think ultimately there will be change, whether we like it or not. For example I am not fond of the US cartoons these days (esp. the so-called CalArts style) but I doubt the style goes back to the 'old look' that I was used to. I get that I am not the audience, but I just don't like it, but what can I do?

>> My side is always right and the other has no merit or value

As a non-American I have observed this to be applicable to all sides. I think it's best to have a compromise but I dunno, I'm not a sociologist/scientist so my brain can't imagine a solution. (Doesn't help that some external forces are deliberately stoking the flames.) I wonder how people 100, 200 years from now will think of all this.

[pengbuzz]

18 minutes ago, hachi said:

As a non-American I have observed this to be applicable to all sides. I think it's best to have a compromise but I dunno, I'm not a sociologist/scientist so my brain can't imagine a solution. (Doesn't help that some external forces are deliberately stoking the flames.) I wonder how people 100, 200 years from now will think of all this.

At the rate our world is going, that will be explorers from another star system sifting through the debris that once made up our planet, silently drifting in space and still quite warm and radioactive...

... and probably littered with SJW logos and slogans spray painted all over the larger rocks. :p

[hachi]

10 hours ago, mechaninac said:

TOS was not woke, far from it; heck, the current state of affairs wasn't but a cautionary tale penned by futurist writers warning their present audiences of the dangers of possible dystopian futures. It was firmly grounded in classical liberalism and the ideals of western democratic values, and a product of its time.

The current garbage is a combination of echo chamber thinking combined with sanctimonious shallow activism, and a misguided attempt to placate and attract SJW twitter mobs as new fans at the expense of preexisting fans, coherent narratives, interesting and thought provoking stories, and tone.

The neanderthals quip was just my way of colorfully, and hopefully in amusing fashion, expressing the disdainful and elitist attitude of industry insiders and shill media who never miss an opportunity to attack anyone with the temerity to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.

Prequels are almost always problematic, and rarely done correctly, so I don't blame anyone for having no interest in them.

They want new fans because the pre-existing fans, are, *ahem* growing old. I can understand this from a business standpoint. The more new fans, the bigger the fan base becomes and hopefully $$$.  It will suck for the older fans most of the time. I myself doubt there'll be anything that can top DS9 (storywise).

Regarding media, I've already realized they can be really biased. (Who owns them? Businessmen! And they have their own agenda, whatever that is.) And there will be elitists, past, present, and future in any industry. The thing is it is just more visible now because of the internet. Imagine flame wars etc using snail mail, it doesn't have the same impact and distribution as today's social media.

[mechaninac]

^ Attracting new fans is a sound strategy; however, what we're seeing is not a growing fan base, but a dwindling one because of the type of people the industry is trying to get:  A never satisfied, easily triggered, fickle demographic who will NEVER pay off... they don't really watch the shows, and worse, they don't buy the media and merchandise.  Stuff from STD does not sell (that goes for TLJ, TRoS, TerminatorDF, etc.) and I expect STP won't fare much better in the bottom line department.  The fans they are attempting to get are a net profit loss as all that twitter warriors are interested in is ragging on something until it is tailored to their sensitivities, then they lose interest and proceed to the next target; and the old fans, who did support franchises with their purchasing power, get tired of these shenanigans and end up soundly rejecting the sanctimony they see in the new, and finding solace in the old stuff.  So, not only do these pandering fools in the industry fail to attract new fans, but they also succeed to alienate the old... a double loss proposition.

[Dobber]

1 hour ago, hachi said:

>> Now you can’t watch anything without a message.

Are you taking about the prequels or current non-Trek shows in general? It seems unfair to drag ST into preachy category. (Disclaimer again I haven't watched the prequels.) That said having progressive themes is a trend and most of the time with trends of course many will follow. Will things go back to the way they were? I think ultimately there will be change, whether we like it or not. For example I am not fond of the US cartoons these days (esp. the so-called CalArts style) but I doubt the style goes back to the 'old look' that I was used to. I get that I am not the audience, but I just don't like it, but what can I do?

>> My side is always right and the other has no merit or value

As a non-American I have observed this to be applicable to all sides. I think it's best to have a compromise but I dunno, I'm not a sociologist/scientist so my brain can't imagine a solution. (Doesn't help that some external forces are deliberately stoking the flames.) I wonder how people 100, 200 years from now will think of all this.

I’m referring to all media. While I do agree everyone can and does act like “my side is always right” media (news, entertainment, social) is extremely biased to one side so it’s just the same thing over and over. 

23 minutes ago, mechaninac said:

^ Attracting new fans is a sound strategy; however, what we're seeing is not a growing fan base, but a dwindling one because of the type of people the industry is trying to get:  A never satisfied, easily triggered, fickle demographic who will NEVER pay off... they don't really watch the shows, and worse, they don't buy the media and merchandise.  Stuff from STD does not sell (that goes for TLJ, TRoS, TerminatorDF, etc.) and I expect STP won't fare much better in the bottom line department.  The fans they are attempting to get are a net profit loss as all that twitter warriors are interested in is ragging on something until it is tailored to their sensitivities, then they lose interest and proceed to the next target; and the old fans, who did support franchises with their purchasing power, get tired of these shenanigans and end up soundly rejecting the sanctimony they see in the new, and finding solace in the old stuff.  So, not only do these pandering fools in the industry fail to attract new fans, but they also succeed to alienate the old... a double loss proposition.

What he said ^^
 

Chris

[hachi]

22 hours ago, mechaninac said:

^ Attracting new fans is a sound strategy; however, what we're seeing is not a growing fan base, but a dwindling one because of the type of people the industry is trying to get:  A never satisfied, easily triggered, fickle demographic who will NEVER pay off... they don't really watch the shows, and worse, they don't buy the media and merchandise.  Stuff from STD does not sell (that goes for TLJ, TRoS, TerminatorDF, etc.) and I expect STP won't fare much better in the bottom line department.  The fans they are attempting to get are a net profit loss as all that twitter warriors are interested in is ragging on something until it is tailored to their sensitivities, then they lose interest and proceed to the next target; and the old fans, who did support franchises with their purchasing power, get tired of these shenanigans and end up soundly rejecting the sanctimony they see in the new, and finding solace in the old stuff.  So, not only do these pandering fools in the industry fail to attract new fans, but they also succeed to alienate the old... a double loss proposition.

I've been reading comics-related sites/blogs and the same dilemma is there. The older fans (and not-so-old but anti-SJW) are complaining. But I think part of it is the failure of execution of their ideas, and that the big 2 companies (Marvel and DC) are greedy. However outside of the traditional comic shops the comics for kids are thriving and the companies (and authors) who locked on to this much younger demographic are making $$$. On this end of acquiring more fans the Star Trek license owners might not be doing a very good job. I just hope they learn their lesson regarding JJ Trek and the prequels. (Though I guess the major holdup for the movie sequel was the actors salaries? And I don't like the idea of Tarantino making a Trek movie.) In this context, you gotta admire the Gundam franchise. Even though I am not a hardcore fan, Bandai are able to make me open my wallet even for shows I don't even finish.

Regarding vocal fans on opposite ends, this is why I don't usually join online debates, the whole thing is just tiring.