Spoilers Star Trek: Picard General Discussion Thread

[fireproof78]

^^^^
But - it was the exact same situation with ST:TMP - and the majority of us just went with it. IMO - that's what I've always tried to do with Star Trek for the most part because contrary to what a lot of fans like to believe Star Trek has NEVER been wholly consistent internally from day one - and there's never been an overarching 'plan' all the Star Trek productions from the original to TNG to the current batch have had ZERO issues ignoring established 'continuity' if it interferes with the story they're telling at the moment.

Exactly so and the Klingons could have gone on without comment. I needed no explanation from TOS to TMP to TNG and didn't need one with DSC. Its an interstellar empire. There is going to be variety and the need to explain everything is becoming tiresome.

There is 50 years of inconsistencies to explain. Have fun.

 

[Datasbeard]

^^^^
But - it was the exact same situation with ST:TMP - and the majority of us just went with it. IMO - that's what I've always tried to do with Star Trek for the most part because contrary to what a lot of fans like to believe Star Trek has NEVER been wholly consistent internally from day one - and there's never been an overarching 'plan' all the Star Trek productions from the original to TNG to the current batch have had ZERO issues ignoring established 'continuity' if it interferes with the story they're telling at the moment.

I agree that Star Trek has suffered from consistency issues throughout its run. But we (well, you ) were in a very different place in 1979 than we are today (or in 2017, when Discovery premiered). The longer something lasts the better established its elements become, and in 1979 there was vastly less canon to go off of, and hence vastly less to be upset about. Indeed, the size and scope of the Klingon re-design then may be very similar to Discovery's, but it's hardly fair to compare the two. Look at something a bit more modern, like Generations. There, we have a slightly different transporter effect than we were seeing on DS9 at the time, but we have the familiar Enterprise and Klingon BoP, looking just as we would expect. That's a different order of magnitude from what Discovery did. I think the very motivations behind changes in Discovery and changes in prior series and films are different. Bigger budgets and new filming tech always mean some amount of upscaling, in terms of effects, in terms of sets, etc. Changing writers and film crews meant inconsistencies, in both visual and story elements. Sure. None of that bothers me. That's not what was behind most of the changes in Discovery, though, as I think we all know. And the giant mea culpa they issued with the offhand corrective dialogue in S2 is basically an admission that it wasn't a good move on their part. To keep playing the Discovery S1 apologist by constantly saying, "Come on, Star Trek has never looked the same," is a little bit disingenuous, in my view.

 

[fireproof78]

To keep playing the Discovery S1 apologist by constantly saying, "Come on, Star Trek has never looked the same," is a little bit disingenuous, in my view.

How about this-it's a giant interstellar empire-I expect variety in design, species and ship language.

 

[Lord Garth]

I agree that Star Trek has suffered from consistency issues throughout its run. But we (well, you ) were in a very different place in 1979 than we are today (or in 2017, when Discovery premiered).

I was four months old when TMP was released so I can't speak from first-hand experience but if you went 13 years thinking of the Klingons looking one way and then suddenly they look another way, there are some people who'd wonder "What gives with the change?" I would not have been one of those people. I would've thought "This looks awesome!" but the other viewpoint would've been just as valid.

As far as that person in 1979 is concerned, there is no other Star Trek that came later. It's always just been TOS and later TAS. That, to them, was the whole of Star Trek. Just like to someone in 2017, TOS-ENT and the Films were the whole of Star Trek prior to Discovery.

 

[Lord Garth]

If Discovery had featured some TNG-style Klingons, too, perhaps descendants of Klingons who didn't contract the virus, that would have been fine, too. For that matter, it could also have featured some more bizarre-looking Fuller-type Klingons, with an understanding that these were individuals whose ancestors were affected by the virus in different, less predicable ways. All of this could have been done very easily, with a small bit of dialogue.

I rationalized it as: TNG Klingons (a.k.a. "Regular" Klingons) look half-way between TOS Klingons and DSC Klingons. The DSC Klingons were an early attempt to correct the Augment Virus that went too far the other way.

 

[Datasbeard]

How about this-it's a giant interstellar empire-I expect variety in design, species and ship language.

Totally fine with that. As I said before, had they shown the new Klingons along with some more familiar ones, I don't think it would be a problem. Half the inconsistency comes from the sloppy way in which they tried to correct it later.

 

[Datasbeard]

I rationalized it as the TNG Klingons look half-way between the TOS Klingons and DSC Klingons. The DSC Klingons were an early attempt to over-correct the Augment Virus that went too far the other way.

Yup, I think that would also be fine. But based on what they did in S2, that isn't the route they're going.

 

[Datasbeard]

I rationalized it as: TNG Klingons (a.k.a. "Regular" Klingons) look half-way between TOS Klingons and DSC Klingons. The DSC Klingons were an early attempt to over-correct the Augment Virus that went too far the other way.

I'll also add that part of the reaction is in the context of all the other changes. The spore drive, the D7—the completely unfamiliar rest of the Klingon fleet, for that matter—the Enterprise, the phaser beams, everything. Nothing was salvaged of the original aesthetic, and obviously that's the source of all this frustration. The Klingons in isolation could be rationalized in many ways, for example as you suggest.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'll also add that part of the reaction is in the context of all the other changes. The spore drive, the D7—the completely unfamiliar rest of the Klingon fleet, for that matter—the Enterprise, the phaser beams, everything. Nothing was salvaged of the original aesthetic, and obviously that's the source of all this frustration. The Klingons in isolation could be rationalized in many ways, for example as you suggest.

If they didn't say it was a "visual reboot", I'd be right with you. But they said it was a "visual reboot", so I take it on those terms.

I could do without the overly elaborate necks on the Klingons but I loved their ships in S1 before they united again and went back with the traditional D7.

The Disco Enterprise, I have mixed thoughts about. I think they did a good job mixing the TOS aesthetic with the DSC aesthetic, since that was their goal, but the bridge is too busy-looking for my tastes.

 

[DaveyNY]

Apparently, Mr. Fuller thought that doing a complete change would be just fine and that a majority of the fan-base would just roll over and accept it without question.

Even if he were still involved in the shows today, I believe that he would have seen that his assumptions were wrong and the "corrections" that did occur in season 2 would still have happened.

Most times, change just for the sake of change is hard to swallow wholeheartedly.

 

[BillJ]

I think the Fuller hire will be seen as a massive misstep a few years down the road.

 

[DaveyNY]

I think the Fuller hire will be seen as a massive misstep a few years down the road.

Not so much as a misstep, more perhaps as a miscalculation.

After all, if it weren't for him and Kurtzman approaching CBS with their proposal, we would still probably only have the outlook of a possible fourth movie to look forward to.

 

[BillJ]

After all, if it weren't for him and Kurtzman approaching CBS with their proposal, we would still probably only have the outlook of a possible fourth movie to look forward to.

I thought Kurtzman hired Fuller to develop the series after already getting a green light from CBS?

 

[DaveyNY]

My knowledge of the exact events may be foggy due to not paying all that much attention while things were developing back then.
But I thought Fuller was the one who started things off by approaching CBS with Kurtzsman in tow and CBS preferred that the latter be the one handling the overall production.

My understanding was that Fuller was mainly interested in developing his specific ideas of the show while Kurtzman would be the go-between.
But again, I may be mistaken.

 

[fireproof78]

Totally fine with that. As I said before, had they shown the new Klingons along with some more familiar ones, I don't think it would be a problem. Half the inconsistency comes from the sloppy way in which they tried to correct it later.

I think it would have helped but I don't see it as necessary.

Heck, I like the DSC Klingons better than the TNG era ones.

 

[Datasbeard]

Heck, I like the DSC Klingons better than the TNG era ones.

Totally. If this doesn't scream "warrior", I don't know what does… /s j/k

 

[fireproof78]

Totally. If this doesn't scream "warrior", I don't know what does… /s j/k

Give me more of that than the constant Space Viking stereotype we got in TNG.

 

[Datasbeard]

Give me more of that than the constant Space Viking stereotype we got in TNG.

Yeah, there was a bit too much of that at times. But the Klingon culture was explored in some depth, e.g. in "Redemption" or "Suspicions", and then even more on DS9. I would gladly welcome seeing some Klingon artists and scientists in Discovery or other iterations of Trek. (We certainly haven't gotten any of that so far. The Disco Klingons seen even stupider than their TNG counterparts.) But based on what we're seeing so far, it seems we may be getting a bit of that in Picard, at least with respect to the Romulans. The Romulans were similarly one-dimensional throughout most of TNG, with some notable exceptions ("The Defector", "Clues").

 

[Noname Given]

I agree that Star Trek has suffered from consistency issues throughout its run. But we (well, you ) were in a very different place in 1979 than we are today (or in 2017, when Discovery premiered). The longer something lasts the better established its elements become, and in 1979 there was vastly less canon to go off of, and hence vastly less to be upset about. Indeed, the size and scope of the Klingon re-design then may be very similar to Discovery's, but it's hardly fair to compare the two. Look at something a bit more modern, like Generations. There, we have a slightly different transporter effect than we were seeing on DS9 at the time, but we have the familiar Enterprise and Klingon BoP, looking just as we would expect. That's a different order of magnitude from what Discovery did. I think the very motivations behind changes in Discovery and changes in prior series and films are different. Bigger budgets and new filming tech always mean some amount of upscaling, in terms of effects, in terms of sets, etc. Changing writers and film crews meant inconsistencies, in both visual and story elements. Sure. None of that bothers me. That's not what was behind most of the changes in Discovery, though, as I think we all know. And the giant mea culpa they issued with the offhand corrective dialogue in S2 is basically an admission that it wasn't a good move on their part. To keep playing the Discovery S1 apologist by constantly saying, "Come on, Star Trek has never looked the same," is a little bit disingenuous, in my view.

I don't consider myself a 'Discovery Apologist'. I like (and understand) the production choices they made, and do dislike others (but still understand why they were made.)

To me though as a TOS fan who saw it on NBC, and watched reruns (and also saw and loved as well as disliked aspects of the TOS films); to me it's a bit disingenuous for some TNG era fans to make a claim like you did (IE - "oh there wasn't as much so it's not as big a deal...")
^^^
Give me a break because one reason TNG didn't go over well in it's first two seasons (when many stations were sandwiching new TNG episodes between classic TOS episodes <-- KCOP Channel 13 in the L.A. area did that for quite a while - WAS because GR decided to retcon a vasst amount of what TOS fans had loved for two decades in his attempt to make his (at the time as he called it) "real vision" for Star Trek. And yes, while TOS fans like myself bristled; eventuially TNG grew its own base of new fans some who got into everything and found they liked TOS - as well as other who thought TNG WAS the "true" version of Star Trek. It's funny to watch some (not all) TNG fans loose their sh*t when no version of old 24th century ship models appear in STP teasers and trailers, and they're all trying to come up with ANY OTHER excuse that "Hey the Production Team may redo the 24th century, like they did the 23rd. Yes, you may get a Galaxy Class on the screen at some point - but yes, it also may be 'tweaked' is some way like Pike's 1701 was for STD.

The fact is: TOS fans liked TOs, and didn't care for a lot of the retcons and GR suddenly having a different vision (probably because he was much older, and could no longer coerce young actresses onto his casting couch <--- Which he did quite a bit during the 1960ies and the run of TOS.)

But yeas, excuse me for laughing at some (not all) of the younger TNG 's fans arguments that the designs in TOS are 'too old' and any update it good; but when a TNG design aesthetic appears touched/changed again, they loose their collective sh*t.

As to budget size - I really hate when fans try to claim "TOS was done on the cheap and looked it..." because NO - it wasn't.

TOS for it's time HAD SFX shots that were on par with modern (for the time in the 1960ies) sicence fiction outing like "2001: A Space Odyssey" - and the Bridge set was a good (and expensive set to do.) Star Trek was the most expensive series on TV for it's day, and tremaijned so, even as other network science fiction shows (like "Logans Run" and others of the 1970ies).

TNG was the same way (although in it's first season it HEAVILY reused set pieces from the TOS era films; and it's sets were good enough that they were redressed and used in STV and STVI and STVII the last being the first TNG feature film). TNGs SFX were also at modern feature film level as well.

In fact the bdget differences between STD ($8 million per episode) while in the 1990ies TNG was at around $1 million per episode compared to TOS which ran between $100,000 to $200,000 back in the 1960ies. Yet funny no TNG fan calls TNG 'cheap' or 'done on a shoestring budget' even today.

Here's the facts about the franchise from 1966 to today:

- They were ALL well funded for the time in which they were produced.

- There has NEVER been real/hard continuity or consistency with any of them. No one involved has had an overarching plan for the entirety of the 'Star Trek' universe as a whole; although they may have plans for a run of episodes (DS9, ENT) - a full Season (ENT Season 3 and now STD and STP). But even within that framework, NONE have ever let an existing piece of previous continuity curtail the story that they want to tell. If they need to ignore or change something they do it; and that's gone for EVERY iteration including TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, STD, and from the looks of it STP and all the feature films.

Hard core TNG fans had to deal with the JJ films; but even ENT pretty much kept to the "EARTH itself is pretty Utopian - no sickness, no poverty, no money" paradigm of TNG (TOS HAD money/currency, and the Federation used it too - and there was still poverty and other problems in the original TOS era).

STP is the first time TNG fans have had to deal with something they directly and dearly love being changed in a major way (more directly akin to how TNG retconned a LOT of the original TOS era).

It's not that a lot of the TOS era fans are 'apologists'. It's more that we've been through this VERY thing with Trek many times before and made peace with the fact that Trek changes.

STP is taking what many a TNG fan loved for 18 years on TV and in many ways turning it on it's ear. Many are totally fine with it, some have issues here and there, and some are losing their sh*t; but honestly, it's fun to see TNG fans go through now, what a great many of us TOS fans went through in 1987.

Bottom line: You'll live, and find things to enjoy in the new paradigm ; or you won't and move on. But in the end, (like those who made TNG in 1987) - the current producers have nothing to apologize for as they are doing what they feel is now a 'modern' take on Star Trek.

 

[eschaton]

I have no idea what was going on with Fuller, but he sure seemed like he was going through some sort of meltdown around the time he was fired from Discovery. He also left American Gods after the first season, abandoned The Vampire Chronicles, exited Amazing Stories, etc. As far as I can see, he's basically done no real work since 2016 which has come to fruition.

To me, this smacks of developing some sort of substance abuse problem. Though I suppose it could be something related to mental health as well. It's just kinda rare that you see someone who is capable of quality work fail at four different production projects in a period of 3-4 years.