Gene's Vision involved Rose-Tinted Glasses paid for with money earned from selling plastic and metal trinkets.
Spoilers Star Trek: Picard General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
I have a feeling he won't, he'll make vague allusions to "canon"/"feels wrong"/"no creativity"/"no social commentary" without expanding on what that means and hand wavingly suggest that it doesn't live up to the idealised (and largely imaginary) legacy of TOS and TNG.
That season 1 of TNG contained some of the most cringeworthy TV ever made and that the whole "Gene's Vision" thing is largely revisionism is neither here nor there, it's become part of the culture of Star Trek and questioning it, no matter how rational or evidence based that criticism is, is unforgivable.
Star Trek fandom has, in some quarters, gained a great many parallels to religion, that which must be believed without debate.
Who said Gene Rodenberry was perfect? Not even his idea of Star Trek future was perfect. But it was an optimistic vision of the future. This show is an antithesis of that.
As others have mentioned, Stewart signed on to the show because he liked the artistic vision.
How did you manage to not know that? This was all over the place in the months leading up to the show's release. I can understand not following the coverage of the show after deciding that you hated it, but how did you manage to decide that you were going to hate it before knowing anything about it?
Translation of another batch of Dix's posts: "If Patrick Stewart does something I don't agree with, it must be because of money! No other possible explanation."
The evidence is the show itself. All of it.
I previously named some of the things, like drug use, alcoholism, profanities, etc. , all things that are not inherent to nor relevant for the 24th/25th Trek future. Who wants to see that crap in the Trek future? It's something that we have outgrown by that time. But not according to hacks who have hijacked the franchise since 2009.
I'm not so sure about that. There certainly is darkness there, but I believe that the story will be a positive one. It will be about overcoming that darkness. Picard has not lost his integrity, and am confident that ultimately he will prevail in the moral sense. I have much more issues with versions of Star Trek where the supposed hero accepts and embraces the moral decay like Sisko and Archer did.
Well, frankly, it's hard to imagine why he would take part in such a dreadful production. Except, of course, the dough. One would thing Stewart wouldn't sell himself to third rate screenwriters and producers. Lure of money and fame did it, however. A shame.
Scotty, Pike, McCoy and Cochrane were all heavy drinkers to name a few. Picard always liked Whisky and owns a Vineyard.
Drug use has been a recurring theme throughout Trek since it's inception.
Profanities? Rodenberry wanted to push the boundaries on that in TOS and was prevented by censors.
This thread contains more Fail than Gideon's birth control industry.
Similar threads
- Poll
