"Star Trek Picard Is Not a Sequel to The Next Generation Says Producer"

[Noname Given]

This AIN'T gonna be TNG redux - in fact, those TNG fans expecting the Utopian dynamic to be maintained may be very disappointed:

https://variety.com/2020/tv/feature...d-cbs-all-access-1203459573/#article-comments

“In a way, the world of ‘Next Generation’ had been too perfect and too protected,” he says. “It was the Enterprise. It was a safe world of respect and communication and care and, sometimes, fun.” In “Picard,” the Federation — a union of planets bonded by shared democratic values — has taken an isolationist turn. The new show, Stewart says, “was me responding to the world of Brexit and Trump and feeling, ‘Why hasn’t the Federation changed? Why hasn’t Starfleet changed?’ Maybe they’re not as reliable and trustworthy as we all thought.”

 

[fireproof78]

This AIN'T gonna be TNG redux - in fact, those TNG fans expecting the Utopian dynamic to be maintained may be very disappointed:

https://variety.com/2020/tv/feature...d-cbs-all-access-1203459573/#article-comments

Well, that will be a very quick way to annoy many.

 

[Lord Garth]

This AIN'T gonna be TNG redux - in fact, those TNG fans expecting the Utopian dynamic to be maintained may be very disappointed:

https://variety.com/2020/tv/feature...d-cbs-all-access-1203459573/#article-comments

Well, that will be a very quick way to annoy many.

They'll come in two categories: The Mock Outraged and then The Disciples of the Church of Latter-Day Roddenberrians.

The mock-outraged are easily dealt with and called out. I don't even think they're really worth the bother. The disciples, on the other hand, could generate some interesting philosophical discussion. I'd actually look forward to that.

 

[picardjean-luc]

They'll come in two categories: The Mock Outraged and then The Disciples of the Church of Latter-Day Roddenberrians.

The mock-outraged are easily dealt with and called out. I don't even think they're really worth the bother. The disciples, on the other hand, could generate some interesting philosophical discussion. I'd actually look forward to that.

I can also spot the Disciplines very easily. They're the ones who would've argued that the Federation's primary mission is making first contact with new aliens, be diplomats to resolve intra and inter-planet conflicts, and avoid conflict/warfare at all cost. It is all because these are supposedly following Gene's "visions for Star Trek."

Who are the Mock Outraged though? Do you consider YouTubers like Midnight's Edge and Major Grin to be one of them?

 

[Lord Garth]

Who are the Mock Outraged though? Do you consider YouTubers like Midnight's Edge and Major Grin to be one of them?

I don't know anything about Major Grin, but I don't think the people behind Midnight's Edge are even Star Trek fans. They just found an audience they can tap into. They rip apart everything they don't like at length but will never talk about what they do like, beyond lip-service. But that's enough about them.

I'm not going to single anyone out. But I think the Mock Outraged are generally people who will try to dig up anything to justify their dislike of the series. They'll reach as far as they can and it always looks forced. Another tendency is to think "Everything after ____ sucks!" They like something made only up to a certain point. After that, it all "sucks". If something newer actually does what they said they'd wish it would do, they'll move the goalposts. It happens every time, without fail. The real trick is in figuring out how to separate people who genuinely want things to improve and those who won't like it no matter what.

 

[donners22]

This AIN'T gonna be TNG redux - in fact, those TNG fans expecting the Utopian dynamic to be maintained may be very disappointed:

https://variety.com/2020/tv/feature...d-cbs-all-access-1203459573/#article-comments

Doesn't sound particularly different on that quote.

Starfleet and the Federation had its bad eggs even in the TNG days; hell, the Admiral gone bad was one of the stories '90s Trek ran into the ground. Our heroes were the ideal ones, and others had flaws to allow our heroes to step in. It's a detail which tends to be forgotten when people try to pot modern Trek as being too pessimistic.

This just sounds like a situation where the bad eggs weren't thwarted, and wound up taking things in the wrong direction.

 

[Jayson1]

Doesn't sound particularly different on that quote.

Starfleet and the Federation had its bad eggs even in the TNG days; hell, the Admiral gone bad was one of the stories '90s Trek ran into the ground. Our heroes were the ideal ones, and others had flaws to allow our heroes to step in. It's a detail which tends to be forgotten when people try to pot modern Trek as being too pessimistic.

This just sounds like a situation where the bad eggs weren't thwarted, and wound up taking things in the wrong direction.

I don't think that is what they are going to go with in terms of the Federation. Their won't be bad eggs. They are going to say the entire Federation is rotten. Which of course you can look at episodes and things like Section 31 and sort of see how it could go bad but I know their is a difference between plot and theme. The question isn't whether or not you find plot reasons to tell the story of the Federation going bad. Of course their is. DS9 did it plenty of times. The question is will it feel like Trek and will it feel right or will it feel disrespectful to the spirit of Trek. I think how much people love the show is going to come down to how they stick the landing. If the show ends though with the idea the Federation can't be saved and you go with the "Kill the past" message I think people will hate it and i'm not sure I will like that kind of ending either. I prefer the idea that the Federation needs to be saved. Not the, Federation needs to be destroyed.

Jason