Star Trek Picard is not Star Trek

[Armus]

I liked Gene's vision best during the first season of TOS.

 

[XCV330]

At least Short Treks is safe!

Until the backlash about the Tribbles Cereal started on places with wonderful people like YouTube. I think the last little subatomic particle of faith I had in fandom died then.

 

[Gonzo]

Same here. Despite the frustration I think the OP was willing to at least have some discussion. But, they also stated they didn't want to start the discussion so perhaps this isn't the place for them.

That's OK. Doesn't equal trolling. Also, getting ready for mod. *eats popcorn*

I don't think its the discussion the OP wanted to avoid but the collapse into the usual circle spinning, dizziness then falling over that always seems to happen.

After all I have said similar in the past when I have posted to try and stop the stupidity before it starts.

Even though it always starts anyway.

The problem with the forum is not that some don't like or have issues with the show and post accordingly that is fine, the real issue is those who cant seem to handle any kind of doubt or negativity about the show even when its warranted and start asking for posts to be deleted, its always the same individuals as well.

Like the forum is a territory that needs to be defended, it just makes them look like they are the one's who can't handle it rather than the posters who are not happy.

 

[DaveyNY]

Another Bingo! Seriously these posts pop up faster than I can fill out my card

That's why I switched to the Drinking Game.

"Now GET OFF MY LAWN!"

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

IMO, while neither Discovery nor Picard show the conflict-free pseudo-communist, monolithic utopia of the early seasons of TNG (the "Gene's vision years" ), it is IMO an "optimistic" view of the future, in the vein of TOS and the bulk of TNG and DS9, because it acknowledges that life (in space) is DANGEROUS, but no matter how difficult things are, the heroes will find a save the day or at least try their best for as long as they can, rather in a "dystopia" (or even real life) where most problems aren't solved.

 

[fireproof78]

Like the forum is a territory that needs to be defended, it just makes them look like they are the one's who can't handle it rather than the posters who are not happy.

Fandom is rather insular in that way. Things become extremely personal even if they are not meant to be, which means that I, as a fan, can be very reactionary. It's not pretty but it is very human.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I cannot for the life of me fathom any serious comparison between Picard and BSG at all. Picard is really not much darker than TNG. It's purely a question of how long the camera lingers, what sort of mood the music sets, how many stories there are, etc. TNG shows gore for a few seconds and then cuts away and gives you some time to calm down with the characters talking alongside a tense but not too tense soundtrack and next week you'll forget all about it because the show is episodic. Picard lingers on what you see to drive home the point and doesn't give you as much of a calming down moment afterwards and you can't forget what it does give you because it's all one big story.

But that is all a question of technique NOT story. The story of Picard is no darker than what we saw on TNG. Worf murdered the man who killed his mate. Starfleet ordered Picard to commit genocide (a fair step up from not rescuing refugees). Maddox wanted to treat Data as property. All of that stuff was already there in TNG and if it didn't make the Federation any less utopian then it doesn't make it any less utopian now.

Picard is optimistic and believes he can make a difference. Maddox is optimistic and a far sight better person than he was on tng. Soji is sweet and optimistic and dedicating herself to helping people. Raffi is damaged, but clearly working hard to be a better person. Zhaban and Laris are cynics, but cynics who believe in Picard deeply and very uncynically. Elnor is a borderline innocent child. There's plenty of light in this series.

By comparison, NuBSG is fundamentally dark in almost every way. It's baked into the series dna so far that really the *only* points of light I can even remember are their pride in their battle prowess (which is still all about the darkness, just in a positive way) and their faith in their religion (which also turned out to be seriously dangerous in some episodes). They even took the classic jokester character from the original and turned him into a super-angry chick with alcohol issues and scathing sarcasm.

I agree with this to a degree. Yes, there is darkness in Star Trek, even when left to the imagination (in TOS, seeing people willingly walk into disintegration chambers in one of my favorite TOS episodes, along with the camera work and music is creepy!) Star Trek can do darkness really well, and sometimes shines when it does it.

But, on the other side of the coin, and this is where I'm finding some fault with this series and DSC, is that they're wallowing in it. To me, part of Star Trek was to see that darkness, but show that anything or anyone can be brought from it and into the light, to where it's a better place.

Wanting to always have Section 31 looming over everyone, or a rogue high-ranking officer, or something that's always showing this darker side of things is getting a little worn now, since we're 2 new series into a plan to have multiple series available to watch.

I'm sure that there will be other versions of Star Trek to watch and will not highlight this darker side, but when your 2 trumpeted series show the same outlook, it can get tiresome.

 

[fireproof78]

What I like about DSC and Picard is that it shows how hard you need to fight for that better place.

I don't consider that dark. As Picard would say, "That is no error. That is life."

 

[Gonzo]

What I like about DSC and Picard is that it shows how hard you need to fight for that better place.

I don't consider that dark. As Picard would say, "That is no error. That is life."

Yeah but people only say that when they have screwed up themselves. or want someone else to feel better.

Its just another way of letting themselves off the hook or someone else off the hook.

Ultimately its just an excuse.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I think the people shocked by Picard haven't seen a lot of Trek in a while. We filter stuff through memories and then reconstruct what we like. TWOK is certainly one that I don't view with any great nostalgia-the Ceti Eels are famous enough, but Terrell's suicide, Khan's blowed up visage, Spock's death, and the like all stick with me and not in a good way.

It's there.

I suspect that those who are waving the "not Star Trek" banner probably have not seen much Star Trek beyond TNG. You and I and others have brought up numerous episodes from the pre-2009 eras that show the types of features that they wish to reject. Conversely, they cannot summon examples to support there arguments. Indeed, they really don't try.

The bigger problem I see is how they are choosing to reject the series. They are welcome to hate the show and turn it off. They are welcome to express their opinion about the show. However, it seems that people are doing so in a manner that is most incendiary and calculated to create division. Indeed, there may be some activism behind it, trying to rally other "fans" in order to force changes to the franchise--at least in their minds. It's more of a carry-over from other franchises, which have been themselves more responsive to fans.

There is a lot of fruitful ground for criticizing Picard. Is the pacing uneven? Is it making too many logical leaps? Is it borrowing too many conventions from pop culture? How well is it using the conceits of science fiction to explore contemporary topics? How is the acting? Are the tropes and archetypes being used creatively or lazily? Etc. Addressing those sorts of questions actually might have an impact on those of us who are enjoying Picard.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah but people only say that when they have screwed up themselves. or want someone else to feel better.

Its just another way of letting themselves off the hook or someone else off the hook.

Ultimately its just an excuse.

I'm resisting very hard my snarky response here because I find this comment rather odd. Mistakes are a part of life. Is there a way to live a mistake free life? If not, then it is not an excuse-it is life.

 

[Lord Garth]

I suspect that those who are waving the "not Star Trek" banner probably have not seen much Star Trek beyond TNG. You and I and others have brought up numerous episodes from the pre-2009 eras that show the types of features that they wish to reject. Conversely, they cannot summon examples to support there arguments. Indeed, they really don't try.

The bigger problem I see is how they are choosing to reject the series. They are welcome to hate the show and turn it off. They are welcome to express their opinion about the show. However, it seems that people are doing so in a manner that is most incendiary and calculated to create division. Indeed, there may be some activism behind it, trying to rally other "fans" in order to force changes to the franchise--at least in their minds. It's more of a carry-over from other franchises, which have been themselves more responsive to fans.

There is a lot of fruitful ground for criticizing Picard. Is the pacing uneven? Is it making too many logical leaps? Is it borrowing too many conventions from pop culture? How well is it using the conceits of science fiction to explore contemporary topics? How is the acting? Are the tropes and archetypes being used creatively or lazily? Etc. Addressing those sorts of questions actually might have an impact on those of us who are enjoying Picard.

They're not making the connection that as long as they're paying to see Picard, they're contributing to its success. They're pissed off enough to be mock-outraged. But not pissed off enough to walk away in disgust. Which they would do if they were genuinely outraged.

 

[Kor]

Fandom is rather insular in that way. Things become extremely personal even if they are not meant to be, which means that I, as a fan, can be very reactionary. It's not pretty but it is very human.

"We learn by doing."

Kor

 

[DaveyNY]

I'm resisting very hard my snarky response here because I find this comment rather odd. Mistakes are a part of life. Is there a way to live a mistake free life? If not, then it is not an excuse-it is life.

Yeah, stay in bed with your head mostly under the covers and have someone spoon feed you for your entire life.
And hope like Hell that person doesn't die before you do.

 

[Gonzo]

I'm resisting very hard my snarky response here because I find this comment rather odd. Mistakes are a part of life. Is there a way to live a mistake free life? If not, then it is not an excuse-it is life.

Of course they are but too often excuses are made and lessons are not learned because of it.

There are different kinds of mistake, the kind that occur due to lack of awareness, foresight, ignorance or innocence and then there are those mistakes that people do knowing its wrong or questionable.

That is when legitimate reasons turn into excuses.

 

[Dix]

I agree with the OP, like 99%.

This show has as much Star Trek in it as the movie Alien or Terminator. Those are great movies, they're just not Star Trek. One could put in there a character called Data (there is already an android in Alien), call the space-agency 'Star Fleet', and slap a title 'Star Trek' on it. It still wouldn't be Star Trek simply because it takes place in space or has a few characters that bear the name from it. Alien is simply about something else. Star Trek depicts space travel in a different way. Of course, there is a difference between a movie and a series. While a Trek movie may contain less of those elements that a TV show/series has, conversely, a series can have and has less of elements of a movie. So, a Star Trek series usually deals with a space travel in a particular way, more or less in a realistic fashion. It's about science fiction, in a way how technology and its advances influence space travel and our lives. It's about philosophical questions and dilemmas. It's about strong, memorable characters, who can even serve as role models. It's about meaningful, thought-provoking stories. It's about exploring the unknown. It's about human adventure in space. That's what Star Trek usually is at its core and how it should be. Those are the things that all Star Trek series, from TOS to Voyager, and, to a lesser extent, Enterprise, had. This has been a successful formula for Star Trek for decades. It's no wonder so many people got to love those shows and those memorable characters. That formula, the true spirit of Star Trek, has been ditched by the latest productions, STD and STP. There may be Star Trek in the title, but it's far removed from the values and aesthetics of Star Trek. People are not dumb. They see it for themselves. They realize they have been duped. There may be here some fans who say they have been supposedly fans since 60s, trying to imply OPs views have no merit because he was "born much later", which is ridiculous, almost ad hominem, but there are many, many others, who also are "old fans", and who, like me, the OP, and so many others, after watching all the episodes so far of STP (and nowadays 5 episodes out of a complete 10 of the whole season are equivalent of half, or even complete season of the older shows), have come to consider this show to be a garbage. So, guess what, there are those who have been fans for decades as well, and yet they hate it. They too think it's not Star Trek. So much about the "authority" of those "old fans" here at TrekBBS, who supposedly can tell us what the "real history of Trek" and its fandom has always been. As if people are not familiar with the history. I personally don't buy those unconvincing pseudo arguments for a second. I get the impression that with each passing episode of "Picard" there are less and less folks who are prepared to unconditionally defend this show, which in its core is everything but Star Trek. Except maybe here at TrekBBS. The Kurtzmanland. Where everything made by Kurtzman & Co. is awesome and great, and unequivocally Star Trek; anyone doubting that, or even daring to take a critical approach, is either in error, ignorant, deluded, not knowledgable enough, or simply a troll. Well, guess what... there are FOUR lights!

It's trying to be like a gritty scifi show because that's popular now but the problem is it really lacks a lot of good characters.

If you want a gritty sci fi show watch Expanse, Man from High Castle, Dark Mirror or Firefly, Battle Star Galactica. There's tons of others that do this type of show better. This just depressing and seemingly hates the audience it's going for.

This.

Star Trek is in the title.

That's how they fool people nowadays.

 

[Armus]

I think there is a right and a wrong way to criticize in fandom. The forum full of fans may not be the best place to start threads about how the show sucks. Perhaps to make a comment on an existing thread soliciting general comments would be a better place. I think there is room for criticism and for expressions of one's personal preferences if they are expressed in the right way. People need to stop saying stuff like "this isn't Star Trek" because it just leads to circular arguments.

 

[Lord Garth]

I agree with the OP, like 99%.

This show has as much Star Trek in it as the movie Alien or Terminator. Those are great movies, they're just not Star Trek. One could put in there a character called Data (there is already an android in Alien), call the space-agency 'Star Fleet', and slap a title 'Star Trek' on it. It still wouldn't be Star Trek simply because it takes place in space or has a few characters that bear the name from it. Alien is simply about something else. Star Trek depicts space travel in a different way. Of course, there is a difference between a movie and a series. While a Trek movie may contain less of those elements that a TV show/series has, conversely, a series can have and has less of elements of a movie. So, a Star Trek series usually deals with a space travel in a particular way, more or less in a realistic fashion. It's about science fiction, in a way how technology and its advances influence space travel and our lives. It's about philosophical questions and dilemmas. It's about strong, memorable characters, who can even serve as role models. It's about meaningful, thought-provoking stories. It's about exploring the unknown. It's about human adventure in space. That's what Star Trek usually is at its core and how it should be. Those are the things that all Star Trek series, from TOS to Voyager, and, to a lesser extent, Enterprise, had. This has been a successful formula for Star Trek for decades. It's no wonder so many people got to love those shows and those memorable characters. That formula, the true spirit of Star Trek, has been ditched by the latest productions, STD and STP. There may be Star Trek in the title, but it's far removed from the values and aesthetics of Star Trek. People are not dumb. They see it for themselves. They realize they have been duped. There may be here some fans who say they have been supposedly fans since 60s, trying to imply OPs views have no merit because he was "born much later", which is ridiculous, almost ad hominem, but there are many, many others, who also are "old fans", and who have, like me, the OP, and so many others, after seeing all episodes so far of STP (and nowadays a 5 episodes out of a complete 10 of the whole season are equivalent of half, or even complete season of the older shows), consider this show to be a garbage. So, guess what, the are fans for decades as well, and yet they hate it. They too think it's not Star Trek. So much about the "authority" of those "old fans" here at TrekBBS, who supposedly can tell us what the "real history of Trek" and its fandom has always been. As if people are not familiar with the history. I personally don't buy those unconvincing pseudo arguments for a second. I get the impression that with each passing episode of "Picard" there are less and less folks who are prepared to unconditionally defend this show, which in its core is everything but Star Trek. Except maybe here at TrekBBS. The Kurtzmanland. Where everything made by Kurtzman & Co. is awesome and great, and unequivocally Star Trek; anyone doubting that, or even daring to take a critical approach, is either in error, ignorant, deluded, not knowledgable enough, or simply a troll. Well, guess what... there are FOUR lights!

There are people who disagree with me now. There were people who disagreed with me 20 years ago, when I was on the "other side".

 

[Nerys Myk]

Now, picture the leader of the Romulan ZV as Ian McKellen in boob plate.

It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Zod]

I think that its more accurate to say that this is not the star trek we are used to. With new stories each week over a long season.

This is more akin to DS9 but even more tight. They only have 10 episodes and not 26.

I find it intriguing. By definition it can't be the Trek we are used to. Picard is an elderly man and has been out of Starfleet. Even if he had not been tossed out by now he would have most likely been retired.

This is a story that is not nearly as negative as you think OP. Its about an old man who still has value. Still has something to do, something to live for. It's a subject not talked about nearly enough in our youth obsessed culture.

I think that the show doesn't have to be the Trek you are used to or even expected to be. It still is something good and worth watching.