Dark: DS9 S6, ENT S3, DSC S1 Not As Dark: DS9 S7 (the tide had turned in The War), PIC S1 (the worst all happens in flashbacks) Not Really That Dark: DSC S2
As others have mentioned about other shows, I don’t think you watched Ent too closely either, especially season 4. I’d advise going back and watching season 4 again. Pay special attention to Storm Front pt. 2 where Archer preaches to Alicia that in the 22nd century mankind has conquered racism and everyone on earth lives as brothers and sisters. At the end of season 4, we find out that mankind has simply replaced racism with unfounded fear, distrust, and anger, at aliens, non humans. My point is that you’re relatively new to the franchise, and I think your belief that Ent depicted an idyllic earth which was all love and peace and friendship, is misguided. BTW, “this is not Star Trek” was the most common complaint leveled at Ent by Trek fans, at the time, followed closely by “it sucks.”
It's all star trek. You just don't like some of it. There was a time when TNG wasn't considered star trek.
I'll admit I'm kind of enjoying the show, but I'm almost viewing it as a guilty pleasure. If you forget it's supposed to do with Star Trek you can try and enjoy the plot. The problem is this really doesn't feel like it takes place in the same universe as the other shows. I'm almost enjoying the absurdity of it sort of like how I used to watch Ancient Aliens as a comedy. Even if you ignore the aesthetic qualities that are completely at odds with Star Trek such as the camera angles, lighting, 20th/21st century dialogue ("Dude", "Protip", "My ass got fired", "We're shit out of luck"), etc., the plot makes no sense in universe. In the first episode we're told that 14 planets threatened to secede from the Federation if they offered humanitarian aid to Romulus. What? An alliance of dozens of species suddenly turned into bloodthirsty xenophobes? None of the various wars the Federation has fought did that to them and the Romulans were actually allies in the Dominion War. There are lines of dialogue that imply that class distinctions exist in the Federation that come out of nowhere. We see people smoking and learned in the most recent episode that one of the characters is a recovering drug addict. I mean, WTF?! I think there's an old TNG episode where Wesley had to have the whole concept of drug addiction explained to him and still couldn't wrap his head around it. I might be willing to overlook that as some over-the-top cartoonishly utopian Roddenberry, but in Little Green Men Quark acted like he'd never seen anyone smoke before. Nog had to explain to him what it even was. In the latest episode we also had Seven take bloody revenge on like dozens of people. She waited until Picard had left the room because, apparently, she didn't want to disillusion a naive old man with how ugly the real world was. When the hell did this happen?! What happened between the Voyager finale and now to make Seven think this? The Romulans are scrappy underdogs after one of their stars explodes. You can possibly look at a star chart and make sense of them not being a major military power, but we're shown a refugee planet with sword-wielding Romulans that look like elves from LOTR (Come on! We were all thinking it!) and barely a whit of 24th century technology. Remember that plot in DS9 where the Federation was trying to donate some industrial replicators to the Cardassians when the Maquis stole them? Even if we were willing to accept that the Federation government wasn't willing to lift a finger to help a handful of refugees, are we expected to believe that out of countless billions of Federation citizens, Picard can scrap together enough donations so their planet doesn't look like something from the middle ages? Darkness and grit didn't just fall out of the sky in DS9. In Homefront/Paradise Lost for example Admiral Layton's attempted military coup was instigated by a terrorist attack, the likes of which Earth hadn't seen in over 100 years, carried out by shapeshifters who had infiltrated the government and were the leaders of a powerful military empire, and Sisko still managed to talk him down. I never had trouble believing DS9 and TNG took place in the same universe. There's no setup for any of the conflict in Picard. Things are only happening because the writers very transparently want them to happen for the story they want to tell, not because they would happen in-universe.
I think they would happen in universe. That it makes audiences uncomfortable doesn't make it out of place.
Care to qualify your statement? I thought I gave a few good reasons that what we were seeing didn't make sense in-universe.
If you went back to 1988 after TNG Season 1 just ended, then brought someone to 1999 and showed them DS9 Season 7, they'd be like "What the Hell?" It would be a total shock to their system. The first two seasons of TNG and the last two seasons of DS9 are about as far from each other as you can get. They're opposite ends of the spectrum. TNG S3-S7 and DS9 S1-S5 were just one big, long transition from one to the other. It was so slow and gradual that it eased people into the difference. It changed in increments instead of all at once. But because DSC premiered in 2017 and PIC premiered in 2020, they couldn't afford to incrementally change things from the Berman Era. And I'm glad they didn't. The way some people here seem to be, I wonder how disoriented they would've been going from TOS to the TOS Movies to TNG, if they'd been older? I'll let you in on a little something. Even though I started off with the movies, I was always pretty amazed at the jump from TOS to the TOS Movies. In the early-'90s, I wondered what a jump from TNG to the TNG Movies would be like. The jump we got wasn't as much as the jump I thought we'd get. Picard actually is that jump.
You can't pick and choose which series is authentic Star Trek, just as you can't be selective about what's canon or not (if it's on screen, then it's certainly canon). I hated Enterprise and used to think it wasn't real Star Trek, but that was not for me to say. It was part of the Trek franchise and Trek history. You can express discontent about certain Trek movies or TV shows all you want, just like fans have been doing for decades. But unless you're Q, you can't change reality.
And what is the point of Star Trek, then? Can you define it in a way everyone will agree with? Because otherwise I think what you're saying is just that Picard doesn't fit the Star Trek niche you enjoy. For my part, Picard, like Discovery, does what my favorite Trek shows do: it espouses an ardent optimism; challenges that optimism as characters wade through darkness with a dash of pop morality; takes me to strange and wonderful new worlds; and tells stories with verve, energy, and occasional lunacy. It's great Star Trek in my eyes, so I would hazard that "the point of Trek" is not as clear-cut and universal as you suggest. The idea that the creators sat down and said, "Let's make a mediocre Star Trek show," is surely a very silly and unlikely possibility, no?
The precedent is, of course, current events, and Star Trek has commented on current events at times. In the broader sense, the Federation has been shown to have varying degrees of xenophobia--nothing as extreme as what we see in the prequels to Picard, but it appears at least as early as Balance of Terror.
Camera angles and lighting define Trek? As for dialogue, it's always an issue. We can't write actual 2399 dialogue since we don't know what that would sound like. I don't know why it's preferable to go to some bland lowest-common-denominator version of English rather than to use current vernacular. But this does bother some people, yes. See, for example, US-Soviet relations after 1945. Did she kill dozens of people? We see her kill one (who richly deserved it), but judging from the color of her weapons fire, she didn't kill the guards. A bit too subtle, though. I missed it outright myself.
TOS at times used phrases and slang that were very much based in the 20th (and even 19th!) Century, So what's the problem again?
I would. But, then, I think "In the Pale Moonlight" is one of the best episodes in the entire franchise.
While I have problems with.. well every series in some way.. so does most everybody.. Yes.. every series was a bit dark in some way, even Tng had the exploding head, and other things.. hell shown Picard being tortured in a way.. So Picard or Disco isn't your cup of Earl Grey.. Owell.. as the saying goes, suck it up buttercup.. or not watch.. you can watch or read years worth of stuff, and maybe the next series will be to to your liking more and you can try again. go ahead and express your opinion, have at it.. but don't gate keep..
Not that people will agree with it, largely because I've been typing it over and over again, but, here we go... To start on a light note: Of course I'm thinking it. My signature and avatar are meant to reflect it. Thinking it! Good being, I am celebrating space elves. That's not accurate at all. For starters, we have the conflict of the Dominion War, which is referenced in "Insurrection." The Federation is becoming more desperate for allies, indicating all is not well within. Then you have the Romulan conflict with Shinzon. Despite the Romulans being an ally in the Dominion War that doesn't mean that they would be always be so. The US and Britain were allies with Stalin, with leaders being known famously known as "The Big 3" (FDR, Churchill and Stalin). I would suggest reading up on post war relations between those three powers (hint: it got rather chilly). The idea that several centuries of hostilities would be removed by a mutual enemy is naive, at best. Finally, you do have the Federation willing to dedicate assets to the Romulan cause, until there is another attack. Now, with the above conflicts cited, the Dominion War being very costly in terms of personnel, ships and supplies, and then another attack and I can quite imagine the Federation going, "We can't spare it." Hell, Sisko faced a similar argument for attacking a high profile target during the Dominion War. As much as I love a post-scarcity future things do take time to build, to train and to equip. That is all assuming that the Romulans were forthright with the Federation regarding the nature of the catastrophe. Well, given the Klingon response to the Praxis disaster ("It's an internal matter!") are we truly to believe the Romulan leadership would be like "Oh, hey, by the way, we're facing a huge crisis. Any chance we can get a hand?" Romulans are proud, secretive and paranoid, at least at the leadership level. Why would they trust the Federation? Look at how Gowron treated Starfleet with the Khitomer Accords. And the addiction stuff? So, we are going to base this assumption on what a 17 year old kid knows? With due respect, that is generalizing a lot based upon one person. We see Beverly is able to recognize an addiction with the planet they are sent to supply "medical supplies." We see free alcohol consumption, there is a reference to "sucking salt" and it is considered a "nasty habit." There is holo-addiction with Barclay (something he never got over), as well as Janeway's frequent caffeine use. The idea that addiction has been eliminated does not bear up under scrutiny nor is supported any where on screen. tl: dr To quote Abraham Lincoln: "A shit-ton."
Um, the elaborate planet encompassing force field and thousands of kill sats?! And with Romulus going bang, we had not only its capital destroyed but major population hub and economic engine gone: the Romulan Star Empire was highly racist and quasi-totalitarian, the top down chain of command grinds to a halt, the bulk of its fleet gets mangled by civil wars and rivals like the Klingons or Breen (and the myriad races they've enslaved all rise up in rebellion).