First Picard Show pic!

[Rahul]

Oh, and the reason that they were discontinued had nothing to do with the shaky foundation and everything to do with Paramount's mismanagement.

Paramount is absolutely blameless. They let J.J. Abrams do whatever he wanted. He delivered ST09, which was a win for everybody involved. And then he gave them a choice, to either

A) Let the sequel be directed by another director, or
B) wait 4 years until J.J. Abrams has finished his personal film

They did the latter. There was no convincing Abrams to immediately return - this guy just got his break in Hollywood, but also wanted to be known as an "auteur", instead of solely "franchise director", so he insisted on doing a smaller, more personal film inbetween every big blockbuster. He did this until Star Wars. Like his role model Nolan did. And is honestly a good personal choice for a director.

Paramount did the absolute right thing, and waited for him. (Look at how other sequels with a different director turn out - Pacific Rim 2 anybody?).

It wasn't their fault Abrams & Co. so utterly dropped the ball on "Into Darkness" (Treks "TLJ"-movie - not being bad, good reviews, but pissing of a huge chunk of the core fanbase). And was absolutely not worth the wait. After that there was no coming back from that for the sequel. Yes, the marketing for "Beyond" wasn't that great. But to be fair - Paramount did a shitload of marketing. It was just...bland. And people didn't remember it. But that was because, quite honestly, the movie itself was pretty bland. It's good. But there was never a way to sell that movie as an exciting blockbuster for mainstream crowds. Because...it just isn't.

 

[Antonovus]

I'm not thrilled with the name of the show.

 

[Lord Garth]

Funnily enough, I criticized them as well and now as I've watched some old DS9 clips I realized the DS9/VOY uniforms were just as baggy and creased as these ones.

Yup. So all of this should make '90s fans happy.

 

[fireproof78]

Paramount is absolutely blameless. They let J.J. Abrams do whatever he wanted. He delivered ST09, which was a win for everybody involved. And then he gave them a choice, to either

A) Let the sequel be directed by another director, or
B) wait 4 years until J.J. Abrams has finished his personal film

They did the latter. There was no convincing Abrams to immediately return - this guy just got his break in Hollywood, but also wanted to be known as an "auteur", instead of solely "franchise director", so he insisted on doing a smaller, more personal film inbetween every big blockbuster. He did this until Star Wars. Like his role model Nolan did. And is honestly a good personal choice for a director.

Given the market that is mismanagement to wait so long. Sorry, I do not absolve Paramount completely in this instance.

It wasn't their fault Abrams & Co. so utterly dropped the ball on "Into Darkness" (Treks "TLJ"-movie - not being bad, good reviews, but pissing of a huge chunk of the core fanbase). And was absolutely not worth the wait. After that there was no coming back from that for the sequel.

Which has zero to do with the base premise of the Kelvin universe and does not substantiate the notion that it needed to be discontinued.

Yup. So all of this should make '90s fans happy.

Hah-ha...I'll believe that when I see it

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

Yup. So all of this should make '90s fans happy.

The future is frumpy.

 

[ITDUDE]

Yup. So all of this should make '90s fans happy.

Pretty sure the target audience of STP is exclusively the 90's Trek Fans. Sure they may catch a few new trek fans (say from Kelvin movies or Discovery show) but target audience is definitely existing TNG fans.

 

[Lord Garth]

Pretty sure the target audience of STP is exclusively the 90's Trek Fans. Sure they may catch a few new trek fans (say from Kelvin movies or Discovery show) but target audience is definitely existing TNG fans.

Any of us who goes into watching Star Trek: Picard should tell ourselves: Come as you are.

 

[Rahul]

Given the market that is mismanagement to wait so long. Sorry, I do not absolve Paramount completely in this instance.

They chose the better out of two options. Had another ddirector taken over directly after ST09, and delivered a bad movie - holy hell would peple have been pissed at Paramount.

Yes. In retrospect that still would have probably been the better choice. But only witht he benefit of hindsight. At that time - having a longer gap between sequels was absolutely reasonable. That was before the Avengers. Sequels often took more than 3 years to make. Having then 4 was the safer decision than risking it all with another director.

Which has zero to do with the base premise of the Kelvin universe and does not substantiate the notion that it needed to be discontinued.

No, it still does. Because "Into Darkness" was the movie that defined what that movie franchise would be. That's usually how trilogies work. "Empire Strikes Back" defined the Star Wars trilogy, Spider-Man 2 the Sam Raimi trilogy. Because while the beginning and conclusion are often more entertaining - the middle part of any story is where the actual meat is.

As such, "Into Darkness" should have made clear what this trilogy actually wants to be for the whole audience. Still a kinda' prequel to the 5-year mission? Or a re-imagining with the series' most famous villain? And again - it tried to be both, at the same time. If I had to break the problems of that movie down to a single line, it would be "it has absolutely no idea what it wants to be".

 

[ITDUDE]

Any of us who goes into watching Star Trek: Picard should tell ourselves: Come as you are.

Ah, they should use that as the theme song
It could actually work..

 

[fireproof78]

They chose the better out of two options. Had another ddirector taken over directly after ST09, and delivered a bad movie - holy hell would peple have been pissed at Paramount.

Yes. In retrospect that still would have probably been the better choice. But only witht he benefit of hindsight. At that time - having a longer gap between sequels was absolutely reasonable. That was before the Avengers. Sequels often took more than 3 years to make. Having then 4 was the safer decision than risking it all with another director.

As opposed to Into Darkness when people were stilled pissed at Paramount.

Neither option was good. Four years was too long.

As such, "Into Darkness" should have made clear what this trilogy actually wants to be for the whole audience. Still a kinda' prequel to the 5-year mission? Or a re-imagining with the series' most famous villain? And again - it tried to be both, at the same time. If I had to break the problems of that movie down to a single line, it would be "it has absolutely no idea what it wants to be".

Agree to disagree then. The trilogy was about Kirk coming in to his own. Now, probably not what people expected after 09 but I think the trilogy knew what it wanted to be. It just didn't deliver it in a way that appealed to casual fans, and pissed of some hardcore segments. Ugh, that was a miserable time with the ranting and raving at Into Darkness like Abrams had burned the franchise to the ground.

Into Darkness could have been better but it wasn't the train wreck it got made out to be. It knew what it wanted to be, and it tried to push forward with it. Instead, they got ripped apart and fear sank in. And the mismanagement started where they couldn't decide how to go forward with Beyond.

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that the events in 09 are absolutely appropriate to utilize as a background for this Picard show, nor does it change the dramatic possibilities.

 

[Dukhat]

No, it still does. Because "Into Darkness" was the movie that defined what that movie franchise would be. That's usually how trilogies work. "Empire Strikes Back" defined the Star Wars trilogy, Spider-Man 2 the Sam Raimi trilogy. Because while the beginning and conclusion are often more entertaining - the middle part of any story is where the actual meat is.

As such, "Into Darkness" should have made clear what this trilogy actually wants to be for the whole audience. Still a kinda' prequel to the 5-year mission? Or a re-imagining with the series' most famous villain? And again - it tried to be both, at the same time. If I had to break the problems of that movie down to a single line, it would be "it has absolutely no idea what it wants to be".

I'm not quite sure I agree with you. The producers and director of Into Darkness knew exactly what the film was supposed to be: a popcorn action/adventure flick taking place in the future. Do you think the producers and directors of, say, the Fast & Furious movies sit down during every preproduction meeting and deeply ponder just what their next movie is supposed to be about other than some paper-thin plot to get their actors driving around in fast cars?

As great and entertaining as I found the Kelvin universe films, there was no deeper meaning to them other than being a series of action movies where the plot is exactly the same: Evil guy threatens the universe and good guys Kirk, Spock, et.al defeat him with a lot of pew-pew. In that regard, Into Darkess was just fine as the next film in the line.

 

[Rahul]

I'm not quite sure I agree with you. The producers and director of Into Darkness knew exactly what the film was supposed to be: a popcorn action/adventure flick taking place in the future. Do you think the producers and directors of, say, the Fast & Furious movies sit down during every preproduction meeting and deeply ponder just what their next movie is supposed to be about other than some paper-thin plot to get their actors driving around in fast cars?

Actually, the Fast & Furious movies do have a consistent theme and every single movie is about that: Friends are your real family. Yes, that's paper-thin, and extremely on the nose. But they have it. And they are consistent about it. There's a reason these dumb movies are so friggin' successfull.

As great and entertaining as I found the Kelvin universe films, there was no deeper meaning to them other than being a series of action movies where the plot is exactly the same: Evil guy threatens the universe and good guys Kirk, Spock, et.al defeat him with a lot of pew-pew. In that regard, Into Darkess was just fine as the next film in the line.

And this is the part where I fully agree, but also where I think the problem lies: Into Darkness claimed to be more than that. And failed. It was an attempt at a political allegory, but without actually having anything profound to say. There's a reason this movie doesn't end with "saving the world", but a 9/11-image collage and some "fear"/"revenge"-speec of Kirk.

In retrospect - that movie would have been served WAY better if they simply stuck to a simpler theme - like F&F - but at least wholeheartedly embraced it. "Kirk coming to his own" as @fireproof78 suggests could have worked. But in the end it was way too cluttered with bits and pieces of a wild variety of themes, and never got beneath surface level on any of them.

I mean the "pew pew" was very servicable. But our heroes didn't even have a goal in the end - they are purely situationally reactive ("reach Earth", "stop Marcus", "stop Vengeance", "catch Khan"). It's a weird movie, in which every single scene and sequence is made incredible competent and entertaining, but that ends up being way less than the sum of it's parts.

 

[Rahul]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Not sure if its been posted. Here is the video clip from which we saw the first "official" Picard pic.

Edit: Lol, I guess it's been posted couple days ago.

Okay, that uniform collar is actually absolutely atrocious. Way too loose and wide, and absolute ill-fitting. It really reminds me of fan-films, where the uniforms always looked kinda' wrong. Like, too wide shirts, instead of actual uniforms.

I just don't understand how they could get that so wrong, especially since they got the collars so right in the past:

These are the Starfleet Academy versions of the uniforms from the TNG era with the colored collar.

So the scene could be Picard at the Academy.

Weirdly, the DIS uniforms' biggest problem IMO is also their collar, but for very different reason.
Seems to be the common thread of the new Star Trek shows.

That being said, I actually really like what else they did with the uniform. A bit more detail. I like the rank pips now being on the right side, maked the whole thing more balanced with the emblem on the left. All in all a really nice update.
Just.... the collars. why?

Patrick Stewarts' costume though? That just looks - fuckin' right on the money!
Like, super subtle, works great on Patrick Steward, still looks futuristic and not something from present day, and even is vaguely in line with the TNG-era civilian aesthetics - just better.

 

[Dukhat]

And this is the part where I fully agree, but also where I think the problem lies: Into Darkness claimed to be more than that. And failed. It was an attempt at a political allegory, but without actually having anything profound to say. There's a reason this movie doesn't end with "saving the world", but a 9/11-image collage and some "fear"/"revenge"-speec of Kirk.

I'm not sure ID 'claimed' to be anything, but that's just me.

Okay, that uniform collar is actually absolutely atrocious. Way too loose and wide, and absolute ill-fitting. It really reminds me of fan-films, where the uniforms always looked kinda' wrong. Like, too wide shirts, instead of actual uniforms.

Either they just didn't care about new Starfleet uniforms because the show isn't supposed to be about Starfleet, or they hired a bargain-basement costume designer. Either way, I've seen better uniforms in fan films.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Didn't Into Darkness flat-out condemn drone warfare and execution of terrorists without trial?

 

[BillJ]

Yup. So all of this should make '90s fans happy.

They desperately tried to make long-time fans happy with Discovery, why would the playbook be any different for Picard?

 

[Lord Garth]

They desperately tried to make long-time fans happy with Discovery, why would the playbook be any different for Picard?

You took my post the wrong way. ITDUDE and everyone else got the joke.

While I'm a hardcore fan of Discovery, my entire attitude toward Picard is "just go with it". I'm not down in a hole, losin' my soul over whatever this show does.

 

[fireproof78]

"Kirk coming to his own" as @fireproof78 suggests could have worked.

Well, I mean, that's how I took the movies...

They desperately tried to make long-time fans happy with Discovery, why would the playbook be any different for Picard?

Because, according to the Internet the fans are not happy

 

[Longinus]

Yes. This. The supernova is from the "Hobus star", and not that of Romulus. How do people not get this? Even in ST'09, Spock starts the mind-meld narrative with "129 years from now, A star goes supernova". A star, not Romulus' star.

Because is is nonsensical information form some non-canon comic? For a supernova to be an immediate threat to Romulus, it obviously must be pretty near.

 

[Longinus]

They desperately tried to make long-time fans happy with Discovery, why would the playbook be any different for Picard?

Well, I certainly hope they do a better job this time!