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

[Rahul]

I don't know if it's going to "eclipse" DISCO, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings even a little bit. The late 24th/Early 25th century is a much wider canvas upon which to paint stories, and it's good that TBTB finally realized that.

Introducing:
Star Trek: The Next Generation (and a Half)

Star Trek: Two and a half Generations.
Star Trek: How I met your motherlover Picard.
Star Trek: The Next Gen Theory.
Star Trek: Picard and recreations.
Star Trek: The Fresh Picard of Bel-Air.
Star Trek: Picard Nine-Nine.

While true, Kurtzman made some joke like "Wouldn't you guys love to know who the bad guys are?" recently. This suggests there actually are antagonists for the season. Thus it will be serialized, and it's not going to be some heavily internalized/cerebral look at an elderly Jean Luc. Also not a "mystery" plot like DIS Season 2. Maybe more action-oriented, or dealing with political intrigue.

We don't know if season 2 won't have a big antagonist at this point. I doubt it's going to be "purely" a mystery story. The question is wether the antagonist is another fraction on the search (like the Romulans in TNG's "The Chase"), or part of the big mystery (say, the angles themselves, like the sphere builders on ENT's xindi season), or something like the "demons" that contrast the "angels".

But anyway, I really doubt they will have an entire long season arc without a major bad guy. It's just not that type of show...

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Star Trek: Picard Nine-Nine.

If the Picard show isn’t this now, I’m going to be heartbroken

 

[Takeru]

‘This could lead to the end of the federation’
‘The very universe is at risk’
‘Earth is under direct threat of imminent destruction’

Ignoring that heroes usually (but not always) save the day, these sentences can never ever be spoken in DSC and have any real stakes, while it is part of Prime continuity. Does a story have to have such high stakes to work in Trek? No. But a fair chunk of them do. All good things. The dominion war in DS9. Best of Both Worlds. Anything with Species 8472. A chunk of all Borg stories tbh. At least two of the movies.

Those sentences weren't real stakes in the 24th century either, the dominion war, various borg attacks, species 8472 etc. were never actual threats to the federations existence, that the federation wouldn't fall was always a foregone conclusion, the question was never if but only how the heroes would save the day. Real stakes were always of a more personal nature, will Picard be saved for example and those still work in the 23rd century.

So yes, those sentences can be spoken in the 23rd century and it won't make a difference.

 

[jaime]

Those sentences weren't real stakes in the 24th century either, the dominion war, various borg attacks, species 8472 etc. were never actual threats to the federations existence, that the federation wouldn't fall was always a foregone conclusion, the question was never if but only how the heroes would save the day. Real stakes were always of a more personal nature, will Picard be saved for example and those still work in the 23rd century.

So yes, those sentences can be spoken in the 23rd century and it won't make a difference.

As I said, ignoring the fact ‘heroes usually save the day’. Because sometimes, these days especially, they don’t. (Fall of the federation is forever mooted as apotential future trek series. Kind of misses the point though.)

 

[Rahul]

Those sentences weren't real stakes in the 24th century either, the dominion war, various borg attacks, species 8472 etc. were never actual threats to the federations existence, that the federation wouldn't fall was always a foregone conclusion, the question was never if but only how the heroes would save the day. Real stakes were always of a more personal nature, will Picard be saved for example and those still work in the 23rd century.

So yes, those sentences can be spoken in the 23rd century and it won't make a difference.

The stakes were "what will be the costs"?
Like, we probably knew Earth wouldn't get destroyed in the 24th century. But we didn't knew if it wouldn't get attacked, how severe that attack will be, if any of the other familiar races would get attacked, if alliances will break down or be built, and most of all, every single character could have died in the finale. And quite a few did. Never "all of them". But "whom of them?".

That is never actually possible to happen on Discovery. Everyone from Burnhams family is safe, while she herself is probably doomed. There still are stakes - for the characters! Anyone from the cast that isn't an already known character has an open ended fate. But all the galactic/politics/science stuff? We know how everything ends. And every single change they do on the way (spore drive) is going to be endlessly bashed until it's retconned out of existence again and the situation "back to normal".

Basically, this series can change their characters. But it can't change the universe's status of "normal". Any sequel series can do both. It's simply another layer of additional appeal for different people that DIS can never tap into, like Enterprise at the time.

 

[fireproof78]

Basically, this series can change their characters. But it can't change the universe's status of "normal".

I prefer character changes so I am ok with that.

 

[Noname Given]

‘This could lead to the end of the federation’
‘The very universe is at risk’
‘Earth is under direct threat of imminent destruction’

Ignoring that heroes usually (but not always) save the day, these sentences can never ever be spoken in DSC and have any real stakes, while it is part of Prime continuity. Does a story have to have such high stakes to work in Trek? No. But a fair chunk of them do. All good things. The dominion war in DS9. Best of Both Worlds. Anything with Species 8472. A chunk of all Borg stories tbh. At least two of the movies.
Some will say ditch the continuity. But (a) they haven’t and (b) the continuity for many is a big part of Treks appeal.
It’s an inherent problem with prequels. You can see what you like about Lucas, but he at least made sure there were stakes in his prequels, even though we knew what was coming. In fact he made that tension part of the story.
The one thing you can do is make characters that we care about to put in jeopardy or watch grow.
Which is why I think moving away from the Klingon war stuff is Key to DSC continuing.
It’s also why the Picard series will do well...it already has a character people have some attachment to, and can also have big stakes if it needs them. It’s likely of course Picard will die in the end, it’s a trend for actors with cult characters. I was actually surprised when Deckard didn’t die in Blade Runner 2049.

^^^^
These three sentences could never be spoken in the 24th Century Star Trek era either with any real sense of legitimacy either GIVEN we saw glimpses of the 25th, 26th, 29th, and 31st century Federation during the runs of TNG, DS9, ST: V and ENT.

Do you REALLY think that when some situation or some line like that comes up in any episode or feature film that the heroes won't ultimately save the day? Come on and be honest here, each episode or film is about the journey to the end of the given story, not the result; and NO ONE thinks the Federation/Universe will be destroyed <--- And if they do, it's only because the PTB (IE owners of the franchise) have said this will be the END of <X>...oh, and we're restarting with <Y> going forward.

So please, lets be a bit more honest with ourselves here.

 

[Rahul]

I prefer character changes so I am ok with that.

I like both.

^^^^
These three sentences could never be spoken in the 24th Century Star Trek era either with any real sense of legitimacy either GIVEN we saw glimpses of the 25th, 26th, 29th, and 31st century Federation during the runs of TNG, DS9, ST: V and ENT.

Do you REALLY think that when some situation or some line like that comes up in any episode or feature film that the heroes won't ultimately save the day? Come on and be honest here, each episode or film is about the journey to the end of the given story, not the result; and NO ONE thinks the Federation/Universe will be destroyed <--- And if they do, it's only because the PTB (IE owners of the franchise) have said this will be the END of <X>...oh, and we're restarting with <Y> going forward.

So please, lets be a bit more honest with ourselves here.

Again, one unanswered question is "at what costs?". We know humans will be around for the future, and Earth won't get destroyed (not until at least a fixed point in the very far future). And even that is pretty iff-y, considering half of these examples involve the "Temporal Cold War", or straight up changing history. EVERYTHING ELSE is open to change. There have been big changes to the status quo of Star Trek in the past. And (except in prequels), there will be in the future.

Contrast with DIS and ENT, where - right from the beginning - we have extremely detailed knowledge of the future and past history of all main players, species and fractions involved. The only surprises we can ever get are completely new things (like the Xindi, or Red Angels), that then immediately run into the problem of "how can they be so important if they never appeared again?", and the detailed minutae of how certain well-known events happened. But both are a lot more difficult to pull off, and the results so far mixed at best.

Again, it could be done. I like late ENT very much. But still - it's an additional, completely unnecessary burden that the writers put upon themselves. And especially in a longer running television show, it's guaranteed they are going to stumble not once, but multiple times over it.

 

[fireproof78]

I like both.

If I had a preference for both, then give me both. But, this is Star Trek. Long term consequences within the world are not always presented or consistent in their application, hence the popular notion of the reset button as applied to TNG and VOY in particular but TOS was guilty of it too. So, I would prefer character growth if I have one over the other.

Yes, prequels paint the production team in to a corner, and yes, they'll stumble over it. I am struggling to see this as an issue in terms of the overall enjoyment of the show, so I might be missing something. I mean, you could even apply this to every Batman movie. Batman is always Batman. So, where is the tension in knowing that Batman will be Batman in the next film in some way, manner or form?

I personally would rather seem them feel limited and have to work within constraints than limitless and tell ridiculous stories. But, again, I might be reading something wrong here.

 

[Rahul]

If I had a preference for both, then give me both. But, this is Star Trek. Long term consequences within the world are not always presented or consistent in their application, hence the popular notion of the reset button as applied to TNG and VOY in particular but TOS was guilty of it too. So, I would prefer character growth if I have one over the other.

Yes, prequels paint the production team in to a corner, and yes, they'll stumble over it. I am struggling to see this as an issue in terms of the overall enjoyment of the show, so I might be missing something. I mean, you could even apply this to every Batman movie. Batman is always Batman. So, where is the tension in knowing that Batman will be Batman in the next film in some way, manner or form?

I personally would rather seem them feel limited and have to work within constraints than limitless and tell ridiculous stories. But, again, I might be reading something wrong here.

I don't know, I'm always a fan of high stakes in a story, wether they are personal or not. But I mean this in "real stakes", aka stuff we don't know how it ends. It's IMO not "high stakes" if the outcome is already predetermined. Not just by applying real-world logic ("they would never do that"), but by the outcome already being predetermined in-universe. As in: we already saw the resuls in a sequel.

As an example: A story about an exploration vessel on a single mission. That can be extremely high stakes when it's possible the entire ship can be lost! That's the type of story drama that's also possible in prequel. If the USS Discovery get's in a serious situation (as long as Pike and Spock aren't on board) - that's high stakes! Everything in this situation can theoretically happen - everybody dies, the ship is lost but the crew survives, the situation is solved with/without a personal sacrifice.... Some of those are unrealistic ("everybody dies"), but in-universe that's a possibility. The stakes are real. Batman really could have died at the end of "Dark Knight Rises".

Wheras a klingon-Federation war in a prequel setting might have a much bigger scope. But the stakes aren't as high. We already know the outcome. This isn't "Inglorious Basterds". In the end, everything is going to be more or less neatly tied up, to reach a predetermined outcome we already know. The highest possible stake in this scenario would be again "do these characters survive". But if these events are tied together ("if our heroes die, the klingons will win the war"), the personal stakes become diluted once again.

Really, I like to have BOTH personal AND plot stakes in my story. If it's only about the plot, the story becomes very unpersonal very fast, and if it's only about the characters, I'd much rather watch a conventional drama - because that does this shit usual better than a schlocky sci-fi show. The appeal of science-fiction is having both at the same time. That's certainly possible to pull off in a prequel - by having "smaller" plot stakes where the outcome isn't pre-determined - but the writers really struggle with that, and a sequel simply would have avoided this issue altogether.

 

[fireproof78]

Wheras a klingon-Federation war in a prequel setting might have a much bigger scope. But the stakes aren't as high. We know the outcome. This isn't "Inglorious Basterds". In the end, everything is going to be more or less neatly tied up, to reach a predetermined outcome we already know. The highest possible stake in this scenario would be again "do these characters survive". But if these events are tied together ("if our heroes die, the klingons will win the war"), the personal stakes become diluted once again.

I see your point. I just don't agree. The outcome is already determined since "Star Trek" so I'll just be more invested in characters and not worry about the "higher stakes" of the story. Higher stakes become tiresome.

Also, by this argument, no WW2 drama could be interesting because the outcome is predetermined. At least, if I'm following this argument completely.

 

[Rahul]

I see your point. I just don't agree. The outcome is already determined since "Star Trek" so I'll just be more invested in characters and not worry about the "higher stakes" of the story. Higher stakes become tiresome.

Also, by this argument, no WW2 drama could be interesting because the outcome is predetermined. At least, if I'm following this argument completely.

A story without stakes is IMO worthless.

And the good WWII stories are dramas. Where the stakes are personal. A WW2 movie that's about "who will win this war" is boring. Will these characters survive (say, Dunkirk), or how will the people cope, that is interesting again. Star Trek is really bad at this.

 

[fireproof78]

A story without stakes is IMO worthless.

And the good WWII stories are dramas. Where the stakes are personal. A WW2 movie that's about "who will win this war" is boring. Will these characters survive (say, Dunkirk), or how will the people cope, that is interesting again. Star Trek is really bad at this.

Yeah, you and I get completely different things out of stories and Star Trek in general. I think Star Trek is inconsistent with how characters react, but when it does it well it does it really well. But, I'm also the guy who thinks Kelvin Kirk's arc is an amazing piece of character work, so what do I know?

 

[Jinn]

I started watching Star Trek in 2010(-ish). When I started watching Voyager I already knew that the ship wouldn't return home until the series finale. When I watched DS9 I already knew when the Dominion War would begin - and end. About two thirds through my TNG watch-through I learned that Data would die in Nemesis. I also knew that in the end everything would be fine, the Federation would get the Klingons to join by the 26th century and everything else. Yet I enjoyed a lot of these stories. I think execution is a much more important factor than how universe changing a story can be.

 

[Mudd]

Yep.

The era of the biggest network audiences in American history was one in which we knew that no matter what happened absolutely nothing would change.

 

[Rahul]

I started watching Star Trek in 2010(-ish). When I started watching Voyager I already knew that the ship wouldn't return home until the series finale. When I watched DS9 I already knew when the Dominion War would begin - and end. About two thirds through my TNG watch-through I learned that Data would die in Nemesis. I also knew that in the end everything would be fine, the Federation would get the Klingons to join by the 26th century and everything else. Yet I enjoyed a lot of these stories. I think execution is a much more important factor than how universe changing a story can be.

A lot these examples are Spoilers though. And people react differently to them. If I like the property I try to avoid them like the plague - I don't go online until I have seen the latest episode of Game of Thrones for example.

Other people completely don't care about Spoilers, and it doesn't diminish their enjoyment in the slightest. That's okay. Everyone has their own preferences. It's just weird for a show to tell a story in a way that it's own predecessors function as Spoilers.

 

[fireproof78]

That's why characters matter so much more.

And I hate avoiding spoilers so much. Much rather just discuss it and not worry about.

 

[Discofan]

Yep.

The era of the biggest network audiences in American history was one in which we knew that no matter what happened absolutely nothing would change.

Just like when there is an international meeting about Global Warming...

 

[Lord Garth]

One of my favorite shows right now is Better Call Saul. With all due respect to DSC, Better Call Saul is my favorite current series. It's all about character and how several of them become their Breaking Bad selves.

For Star Trek, I became a fan with TVH. So, right off the bat it was spoiled for me that the Enterprise was destroyed and Spock died and came back to life.

Later on, during DS9, I knew the Federation wouldn't fall during the Dominion War. How did I know this? Because DS9 had to share its universe with VOY and the TNG Movies. Voyager had to get home to a Federation that was intact and the movie-going audience would wonder "What the Hell is going on?!" if the Federation was destroyed. So, even before DS9 ended, I knew how DS9 would end. In broad strokes anyway.

 

[Discofan]

Whatever it is, with Picard/Patrick Stewart in it, I am pretty sure it will hold my interest.