• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Star Trek: Picard General Discussion Thread

You're right about that. I get a distinct feeling I'm in Kurtzmanland. Not in Kansas anymore!

What did you actually expect to find on this board? I mean, a lot of people pretend to believe that CBS's shows are somehow unpopular among Star Trek fans, but that can't actually be the case; if that was true Picard wouldn't exist.. Did you drink the haterade?
 
Correction: It has become obvious Kurtzman, Goldsman, Chabon have never seen a single episode of Star Trek before and know about the property mostly from Futurama and TBBT
You're just pulling chit outta yer arse now.
Desperation to prove ones point, doesn't make for a coherent Ideology.

The "Alter of Roddenberry" is an imaginary place where one lives in the past without any real substance.
Unless perhaps, one is using a substance that Mr. Roddenberry found enjoyable.
In which, case we're back to imaginary thought processes.
 
Last edited:
You're right about that. I get a distinct feeling I'm in Kurtzmanland. Not in Kansas anymore!

Ok, you've claimed there's no social commentary, only to have the obvious social commentary pointed out.

You've made a string of claims about vices and character flaws which you believe have been eliminated in the setting, only to have it pointed out those things have been shown to be commonplace since the show's inception.

You've insinuated GR had some higher purpose in creating Trek only for that to be debunked by actual facts about the human being (bear in mind we have posters here who actually knew him).

You've put forward a fantasy of what TOS and TNG were, a fantasy which is easily demonstrated as such by reference to specific episodes.

Telling us you see and feel no creativity in the show is not an argument when we apparently all do, in fact many of us see it as lovingly built onto what came before with higher production values and budges. Again, go away and re watch the first season of TNG and tell me honestly this isn't better made television.
 
Whatever happened to stardates on this show? I’ve yet to see a single one or hear it mentioned and the first PIC novel even omits all dates from Admiral’s Log entries.
 
Whatever happened to stardates on this show? I’ve yet to see a single one or hear it mentioned and the first PIC novel even omits all dates from Admiral’s Log entries.
IIRC there were some stardates (mirrored) on Gabriel Hwang's profile Raffi was looking at in Stardust City Rag that put his date of birth somewhere in the mid-2370s.
 
You've insinuated GR had some higher purpose in creating Trek only for that to be debunked by actual facts about the human being (bear in mind we have posters here who actually knew him).

"Facts" = meaningless Ad Hominem attacks against character to deny that Gene had positive vision for the future he wanted and what Star Trek was.

This is one of the things I hate the most about this forum, this nonsense idea that because Gene and Berman weren't the "perfect humans" they portrayed the future of Star Trek as, that the vision of a positive Star Trek, or Genes vision for a positive future are thus bunk. Seriously how in hell is it relevant that Gene didn't personally live up to his own ideals for what a 23rd century human was? How is it relevant that Berman was a creepy abuser? It's not relevant at all to how Star Trek's future or the vision and DNA of the show was represented.

It's garbage nonsense fallacy that is repeatedly used on this forum to just completely ignore the constant valid critiques of the writing and portrayal of the Federation of these newer shows.
 
No one is denying that Star Trek (mostly) attempts to portray the Future as something hopeful.

What some of us are saying is that while Mr. Roddenberry posited that, as the reason for his thoughts on the direction of the show, it wasn't the end all-be all dirge that many now feel is the last word.
Just watching the shows that Gene actually wrote himself, proves that to be a total fallacy that came along afterward.
(even to some extent, in his own mind)


Opinions about the worthiness of the writing of each individual series are worth noting, just not to the degree that some feel compelled to compare, without taking into account the above.
 
Last edited:
"Facts" = meaningless Ad Hominem attacks against character to deny that Gene had positive vision for the future he wanted and what Star Trek was.

This is one of the things I hate the most about this forum, this nonsense idea that because Gene and Berman weren't the "perfect humans" they portrayed the future of Star Trek as, that the vision of a positive Star Trek, or Genes vision for a positive future are thus bunk. Seriously how in hell is it relevant that Gene didn't personally live up to his own ideals for what a 23rd century human was? How is it relevant that Berman was a creepy abuser? It's not relevant at all to how Star Trek's future or the vision and DNA of the show was represented.

It's garbage nonsense fallacy that is repeatedly used on this forum to just completely ignore the constant valid critiques of the writing and portrayal of the Federation of these newer shows.
See, I love the Cthulhu mythos but I can aknowledge that Lovecraft was extremely xenophobic in the truest sense of the word, I love Bond novels. They are really well written despite the fact that they are racist, misogynistic garbage by a man who shared this world view. I can differentiate between the author and the work.

It becomes problematic, however, when a part of the fanbase treats said author as an untouchable saint who is above all critizism, if he becomes idolized in an almost Hubbardian way. That's the moment when it is the duty of reasonable people to take a step back and say: wait a moment, this person has faults like everyone else. maybe even more.
 
Last edited:
I don't think icheb deaths just a throwaway part of the plot for shock value.

I think it's going to be a core part.


Remember ichebs cube suffered sub matrix collapse, thats why Voyger was able to rescue him.

And that was because icheb was a weapon deliberatly assimilated to cause that.

What if the romulans wanted to do exactly that. They put a price out for icheb so they could gain access to his implants and DNA.

They backward engineered his inbuilt weapon and incorporated it in to the romulans that went on to be assimilated by the cube in Picard causing its submatrix collapse.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top