“Jean-Luc Picard is back”: will new Picard show eclipse Discovery?

[Rhodan]

Hmm, what about Picard in his full space archeologist mode?

 

[BillJ]

Hmm, what about Picard in his full space archeologist mode?

That's what I'm thinking the show will be. Maybe connected to Discovery through the red dots we see in the season two trailer.

 

[caliginous]

Hmm, what about Picard in his full space archeologist mode?

That works for a couple of episodes but mostly Archeology is boring.

 

[eschaton]

That works for a couple of episodes but mostly Archeology is boring.

Tell that to Indiana Jones.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

So would it be an oversimplification to say that this could be analogous to the arrowverse setup?

I mean, I’ve never watched Arrow, but I do watch the flash, supergirl, and legends. I started watching black lightning but couldn’t get into it.

Maybe that’s what Trek needs to evolve into?

To some extent, probably. But it does have to be mentioned that Picard and DSC seem rather unlikely to have many crossovers. Maybe little shout outs here and there, or if somebody's really truly insistent, perhaps a single time travel arc, but that's probably it. If you're hoping for a Star Trek 'arrowverse' situation, then you should probably be hoping that those Captain Pike/Number One rumors prove just as accurate as the Picard ones did. Or that the other undisclosed concepts are more closely related to Picard's show.

I only originally asked the question since DSC has been *ahem* somewhat polarising (at least here), and a Picard show may not have the same reaction. It makes me wonder whether CBS would continue to make the effort to make a show that has proved contentious (DSC) if they hit on a property that proves to be more successful (JLP).

Every Trek show is going to be contentious among the fanbase. Maybe if Picard's show achieved Game of Thrones level notoriety, there might be some sense in focusing all their eggs in the one basket. But that's not going to happen. If their goal is to bring in as many scifi/trek fans as they can and also keep them around, then more shows are better and more diverse shows (ie, something for everyone) are best.

I sure hope that the Picard show will outshine DIS!

Because let's be honest here: DIS is not really pulling mainstream audiences, big numbers or in any way being part of our current pop culture. It's a niché show, that very few people pay a LOT of money for to make it profitable enough to continue.

Say what now? I was under the impression CBSAA cost 6 bucks a month, or 10 if you prefer the 'nicer' version. I had no idea Discovery had suddenly become a crowdfunding vanity project driven by fans willing to dump hundreds of bucks on a new Star trek show.

Tell that to Indiana Jones.

He didn't really do much archaeology in those movies, though...

 

[caliginous]

Tell that to Indiana Jones.

Next time I see him, I will!

 

[ozzfloyd]

This archaeologist doesn't think archaeology is boring. ;-)

 

[eschaton]

Here's an idea - include a young Ensign Sisko-Yates as a secondary character. If the show takes place in 2399, Sisko's second child would be 23, which means (if they went into Starfleet) relatively fresh out of the academy. Basically a clean slate as a character (unlike bringing back Nog or something) yet it would allow for following up on a lot of DS9-related characters in the background.

 

[BillJ]

Here's an idea - include a young Ensign Sisko-Yates as a secondary character. If the show takes place in 2399, Sisko's second child would be 23, which means (if they went into Starfleet) relatively fresh out of the academy. Basically a clean slate as a character (unlike bringing back Nog or something) yet it would allow for following up on a lot of DS9-related characters in the background.

Please, no.

 

[caliginous]

This archaeologist doesn't think archaeology is boring. ;-)

I love archaeology, I just don't think it will make an exciting star trek show. I love technology but Picard as a software developer would not inspire me

 

[BillJ]

I love archaeology, I just don't think it will make an exciting star trek show. I love technology but Picard as a software developer would not inspire me

I'm not sure how hunting down an ancient technology, while trying to deal with Klingons and Romulans who are doing the same, would be boring?

Which is what I'm basically thinking this series will be.

 

[caliginous]

I'm not sure how hunting down an ancient technology, while trying to deal with Klingons and Romulans who are doing the same, would be boring?

Which is what I'm basically thinking this series will be.

because you can't do that for more than a couple of episodes + it's been done already.

 

[BillJ]

because you can't do that for more than a couple of episodes + it's been done already.

Why can't you do it for more than a couple episodes? And everything has pretty much been done over 700-plus hours of Star Trek.

Michael Burnham's backstory is pretty similar to Worf.

 

[eschaton]

because you can't do that for more than a couple of episodes + it's been done already.

I actually think Star Trek has done a relatively bad job showing the tremendous age of the universe and all the weird ancient wonders which should be littering the galaxy. I mean, intelligent life surely has been around in the Trekverse for billions of years. Why are most ancient civilizations not appreciably more ancient than Earth's own Paleolithic?

 

[caliginous]

I actually think Star Trek has done a relatively bad job showing the tremendous age of the universe and all the weird ancient wonders which should be littering the galaxy. I mean, intelligent life surely has been around in the Trekverse for billions of years. Why are most ancient civilizations not appreciably more ancient than Earth's own Paleolithic?

lack of imagination.

 

[caliginous]

Why can't you do it for more than a couple episodes? And everything has pretty much been done over 700-plus hours of Star Trek.

Michael Burnham's backstory is pretty similar to Worf.

And Burnham's backstory is IMO dull and unoriginal. I'd like something better with Picard.

 

[BillJ]

And Burnham's backstory is IMO dull and unoriginal. I'd like something better with Picard.

What can you do that hasn't been done in Star Trek before?

 

[Scout101]

So, basically looking for The Buried Age, part 2?

I'm not against that, just feels like what people are suggesting. It was a pretty solid premise

 

[eschaton]

lack of imagination.

Yes, that's my point. Trek has historically done "prehistory" badly. I'm not a Star Wars fan in general, but the expanded universe there has generally done a much better job showcasing the immense history of galactic civilization, much of which has been lost to the mists of time and legend. In contrast, Trek makes it seem like space was a big empty nothing with some hyper-evolved energy beings wandering about until all of the races we know and love sprung from their homeworlds roughly concurrently.

 

[BillJ]

Putting – maybe – an end to a debate that has been ongoing for millennia, the researchers found there are “six core trajectories which form the building blocks of complex narratives”. These are: “rags to riches” (a story that follows a rise in happiness), “tragedy”, or “riches to rags” (one that follows a fall in happiness), “man in a hole” (fall–rise), “Icarus” (rise–fall), “Cinderella” (rise–fall–rise), and “Oedipus” (fall–rise–fall). The most successful – here defined as the most downloaded – types of story, they find, are Cinderella, Oedipus, two sequential man in a hole arcs, and Cinderella with a tragic ending.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/b...c-plots-are-there-in-all-stories-ever-written