“Jean-Luc Picard is back”: will new Picard show eclipse Discovery?
- Thread starter Groppler Zorn
- Start date
I guess my only problem with having Q is that …. well Q shouldn't age. Atlhough I guess I could see Q giving Picard a hard time telling him he is presenting himself aged so Picard could better relate to him or something.
Picard "Since when do Q's age"
Q "Well Picard I thought it would make you humans feel better since you have experienced a great deal of your time since the last we met. I was even thinking of growing having one of those beards like Riker".
Picard "Since when do Q's age"
Q "Well Picard I thought it would make you humans feel better since you have experienced a great deal of your time since the last we met. I was even thinking of growing having one of those beards like Riker".
AFAIAC, I am more than willing to overlook the guy's aging, his performance as Q more than makes up for it.
This thread is for both shows in relation to each other.
Any other Picard discussion is in the future of Trek sub-forum.
https://www.trekbbs.com/forums/future-of-trek.13/
IIRC someone said it won’t get its own dedicated sub forum until shortly before it comes out.
I must be an outlier then since that sounds more interesting than what's been announced thus far...
Ignoring the contradictions in your previous post and taking it at face-value: Yeah, yeah that would make you an outlier. Now there's nothing wrong with it, a unique viewpoint can offer some interesting perspectives.
But for most people, the "character" in a tv-show or movie is pretty much defined by the actor, more so even than from the writers. That's the whole reason why movie-stars exist in the first place! You can't just have Jesse Eisenberg play Cpt. Jack Sparrow, and expect the original fans to unquestionably show up. That's why such a change of famous actor/role is usually such a big deal: The press circus around each new James Bond, or when they try to create credibility to the recast (say Quinto), by casting Nimoy in the same movie as an older version, thus giving it "the blessing".
But do that too often, and people won't take it seerious. See the new "Lethal Weapon" television series. Or even our new Spock - everyone seems to like Peck, me too, but so far I have seen absolutely no excitement for the role of Spock returning again. I mean, I'm sure it's going to get smoother by than the new MacGuyver without Richard Deean Anderson - but it simply isn't the same thing, or a big deal anymore. Whereas Stewart returning to the role of Picard simply is.
Also, if I were mean, I would just say you often made a point that you don't actually like the character of Picard (or TNG) that much - and thus look very indifferent to Stewart returning to the role. Which would make a whole lot more sense, and you doubting that Patrick Steward the actor is actually bringing something to Picard the character would simply be grandstanding/provocative behaviour to elicit a response. But that would be talking about something completely different.
It could be fun if they did a crossover. Either Michael is sent to Picard's show/time because of some space-spore-nebula-coffee anomaly for one episode or the other way around, what do you people think?
Or Picard is hesitant about something and he runs a Disco simulation to get inspiration from it... Nah!!! That will never work.
Or Picard is hesitant about something and he runs a Disco simulation to get inspiration from it... Nah!!! That will never work.
You never watched a Superman or Batman movie I take it.
Please no ...just no. Make it stop!
I have. And saying that Adam West's Batman is really the same character than Michael Keaton's would be absurd. They really are same in the name only. Hell, Keaton's Batman is completely different than Clooney's and they're supposed to be in same continuity, in films made succession to each other in very short period of time.
There's also a massive difference between something that's an adaption from an already existing source material - and a character being completely created in live-action medium for the first time.
There will always be many, many Sherlock Holmes. But what defines the Benedict Cumberbatch-Holmes mostly is, well, Benedict Cumberbatch's take on it. It would be pretty foolish to try to remake the specific Cumberbatch-version of Sherlock with another actor.
Yeah. I think it's helpful here to think about not just TV, but drama. Especially classical drama like Shakespeare (which of course Stewart has a background in).
We all know that if we go to see a straight-up Shakespearean play (rather than an interpretation), the dialogue isn't going to differ one whit from the original. And most people who like the theater are going to have seen many of the plays before. When you go to see Shakespeare, you're going in large part to see what the director and the actors can do with a plot arc and script which are foreordained. In a lot of ways, that puts a lot more of the focus on performance, rather than on "immersion." You self-consciously watch the play knowing it is a play, and see what the players are doing with the material they've been given.
Last edited:
This is absolutely the case for most people and I get that. I just don't share it or experience it in a different way than most.
Ah, I see. Since I do not care about TNG or Picard then I must be a provocateur?
I was enjoying the back and forth with Logninus in an attempt to share my perspective that has come from actually being upset and angry and depressed at casting choices and actors. I simply wanted to move past that since, to me, the actor is someone I don't know but I can know the character and the character is what draws me in. Yes, the actor's performance has an impact as that character not as an extension of the actor. It's a weird line, I know, one that I am not articulating well clearly.
However, perhaps it is best served if I go back to my old ways of being frustrated and angry at casting choices and regarding them with incredible importance. Hooray! Stewart is back. I can't wait to see what he brings to Picard and hopefully there will be some new adventures and exploration for that character.
As I explained, it would be a younger Picard therefor an era in the age of the character I find interesting.Fire, it is still funny that you said that you would be more interested of Hardy's Picard after spending several pages explaining how the actor doesn't matter to you!
Ah, I see. Since I do not care about TNG or Picard then I must be a provocateur?
Naw man. "Not liking Picard or TNG" is completely fine. I have of course the complete opposite opinion. But we're here to like different things and spects of the same franchise. I don't like a whole lot of what DIS did in season 1. And yet I'm still here, because I like it enough to come back and talk about it. It's the Tom Hardy/Spock-without-Nimoy parts of your arguments where I assume provocative behaviour. Not in the sense of trolling or anything, probably just an over-the-top attempt at snark.
This is absolutely the case for most people and I get that. I just don't share it or experience it in a different way than most.
I was enjoying the back and forth with Logninus in an attempt to share my perspective that has come from actually being upset and angry and depressed at casting choices and actors. I simply wanted to move past that since, to me, the actor is someone I don't know but I can know the character and the character is what draws me in. Yes, the actor's performance has an impact as that character not as an extension of the actor. It's a weird line, I know, one that I am not articulating well clearly.
However, perhaps it is best served if I go back to my old ways of being frustrated and angry at casting choices and regarding them with incredible importance. Hooray! Stewart is back. I can't wait to see what he brings to Picard and hopefully there will be some new adventures and exploration for that character.
And that's it! I genuine like reading your comments when you actually try to explain what you think! Because it's so different from how I see it. Even if you think you're not articulating it super clearly - it actually offers a perspective I simply hadn't thought of.
I’m not seeing anything contradictory in that statement.
Similar threads
