Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 1x02 - "Maps and Legends"

[GhoulEddie74]

Apparently you don't remember some of the complaining when Dench was kept for the Craig films and in the same role. "But this is a different continuity! This makes no sense!"

Exactly. It's a new continuity. There wouldn't be an explanation.

 

[fireproof78]

"They have no intention of showing the TOS Trek as is. That's what ST Disco era holographic Enterprise means. So yeah. I'm out. Also for someone that used consume" End of quote.

Well, if that's why he's not watching Picard, then he wasn't that interested in it to begin with.

Again, GR moved on as soon as financially possible.

 

[Zombie Cheerleader]

Apparently you don't remember some of the complaining when Dench was kept for the Craig films and in the same role. "But this is a different continuity! This makes no sense!"

Exactly. It's a new continuity. There wouldn't be an explanation.

I have blocked it from my memory.

 

[mswood]

I'm not a big fan of profanity that's hundreds of years old still being used in the Federation. It didn't ruin it for me though. Rafi seems familiar? Where did Picard know her from?

You mean like calling someone a son of a bitch. That's been used in multiple episodes describing both friends and enemies. Or how about Shit, something used by both Picard and Data on TNG or TNG films. Both examples of profanity that have been used for hundreds of years.

 

[King Bob!]

Even in "day 1" of TOS Vulcans were portrayed as, overall, an honest and virtuous race.

Ones that practiced forced child bonding and fights to the death for control of women. Ones who weren't too virtuous to constantly bang on humans, from the top down...

T'Pau: Are thee Vulcan or are thee human?

Oh, ye of little faith. Of course they are.

Ruins the whole series, it does.

Not even a little bit. Though it felt a bit like they were poking at people who had a true love for the original Enterprise and TOS. I gave "Maps and Legends" a '7', and that was primarily down to pacing issues.

 

[GhoulEddie74]

I'd block Quantum of Solace from memory, too, if I could.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

I wouldn't call it wonderful - I don't enjoy that people are miserable, though I do get annoyed that they're miserable over something so trivial.

What I don’t understand in turn is why other people can look at a historical period setting and complain if they see all-too-obvious inaccuracies or anachronisms, but the minute it’s sci-fi it’s all supposed to be meaningless, trivial scenery that can be replaced at a whim (whereas the story shall remain immovable down to calendar dates?), as opposed to well-considered work of production designers and makeup artists converging onto an immersive universe over decades.

Of course Star Trek needs to look futuristic, but that’s why it’s best when it self-updates as time passes in-universe. When you go back, overwrite and redesign elements, it takes you out of that lived-in world, giving you the slightest discomfort by saying you can never be sure what it looks like, which goes against suspension of disbelief. I mean, are you really saying you can’t see the other side of the issue, ignoring decades of Bermanverse tradition where reverence for TOS was the norm? Why does only TMP have to be the new norm?

For all we know, a future production will simply choose to be TOS-reverent and accept DSC as canon but in a different visual style (like Rebels and The Clone Wars are both different ways of representing known live action). Likewise, PIC could be seen as the DiscoVision representation of what was suggested in “The Visitor” and TNG/VGR finales.

 

[Zombie Cheerleader]

What I don’t understand in turn is why other people can look at a historical period setting and complain if they see all-too-obvious inaccuracies or anachronisms, but the minute it’s sci-fi

You do realize the "fi" in Sci-Fi means fiction. right? A historical setting isn't fiction, even if the story being told is.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

You do realize the "fi" in Sci-Fi means fiction. right?

You do realize that the “fi” doesn’t mean “can change like it’s a dream and not an internally consistent invented future setting”? Just as a historical period setting can take you into that world, a future-historical period setting can take you into that future world, in both cases easing the viewer into suspension of disbelief as opposed to creating waitaminute-moments. Did the writers want you to stop and think about the DSC Enterprise or not be distracted and keep looking at the main action? What visual choice do you make to help that along?

 

[Longinus]

You do realize the "fi" in Sci-Fi means fiction. right? A historical setting isn't fiction, even if the story being told is.

It is about world building though. Good fictional setting has 'realness' like it was history. It kinda damages the verisimilitude if things are changed willy-nilly.

 

[Gonzo]

You are quite right, yes.

Indeed. And, I think, we get caught up in minutia and miss the story bits. Which, if you're not invested in the story or the characters then that makes sense.

But, I do wonder if people are watching PIC and immediately throw up their hands in frustration of the brief glimpse of the Discoprise?

It didnt bother me, its highly unlikely we will ever see the Enterprise we saw in ToS again on the TV, especially when they went to all the trouble of creating a new high resolution one regardless of any reset we get in Discovery.

 

[Zombie Cheerleader]

It is about world building though. Good fictional setting has 'realness' like it was history. It kinda damages the verisimilitude if things are changed willy-nilly.

Only for some people. Most can roll with it
I've no problem with the "realness" being updated as technology both real and imagined evolves. That's world building too. Stagnation in the name of nostalgia isn't.

 

[Zombie Cheerleader]

People seem to forget that. There is also T'Pau's side eye towards Kirk and McCoy as Spock's "groomsmen". And her shoulder shrug at Kirk having to fight under Vulcan's atmosphere.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Oh, ye of little faith. Of course they are.

Ruins the whole series, it does.

pathetic manchildren

 

[Search4]

Regarding the Admiral scene, they cut the part from the original trailer where Picard tells her “a young woman came to see me ... she could be in serious danger”.

I guess since the young woman was already dead that was not needed.

Probably needed in the preview so they didn’t foreshadow the twin twist.

 

[Greg Cox]

Sarek and T'Pau were good.

Although, as far back as his very first appearance, Sarek hid a serious medical condition from his wife, refused to speak to his own son for eighteen years, and was introduced as a murder suspect, with even Spock admitting that his father was perfectly capable of killing in cold blood if he had a "logical" reason to do so.

(Reposted because I fucked up the quotes the first time. My apologies to the folks who already "liked" it.)

 

[King Bob!]

Only for some people. Most can roll with it
I've no problem with the "realness" being updated as technology both real and imagined evolves. That's world building too. Stagnation in the name of nostalgia isn't.

Problem is, a lot of folks are celebrating "change" at the same time trying to convince everyone the story is the same one they've been telling for 53 years.

I have no issue with treating things as a "rolling retcon", where they are going to change what they want to change regardless of whether or not it makes sense within the general universe they are claiming to use. But, we should be clear that is what it is. TOS has essentially been retconned out of existence (within the universe and in the real world if it is supposed to be our future), not only based on visual changes, but the ignoring of story elements and general change in who and how the stories are being told.

 

[Longinus]

Only for some people. Most can roll with it
I've no problem with the "realness" being updated as technology both real and imagined evolves. That's world building too. Stagnation in the name of nostalgia isn't.

Well, we have had this discussions many times on Discovery forums, I really don't think there is much to add. For decades Trek tried to keep pretty decent visual continuity, so that when older eras were revisited they appeared pretty much as they were when first seen. Some people preferred that approach, some other prefer updating. It is just a matter of taste, no one is really right or wrong.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's like if Xena had more money but worse writers

Okay, now you have me tempted.

 

[Zombie Cheerleader]

Problem is, a lot of folks are celebrating "change" at the same time trying to convince everyone the story is the same one they've been telling for 53 years.

And that's a problem why?

I have no issue with treating things as a "rolling retcon", where they are going to change what they want to change regardless of whether or not it makes sense within the general universe they are claiming to use. But, we should be clear that is what it is. TOS has essentially been retconned out of existence (within the universe and in the real world if it is supposed to be our future), not only based on visual changes, but the ignoring of story elements and general change in who and how the stories are being told.

It has ever been thus. From TOS season one on. Because fiction is mutable.