Star Trek Picard is not Star Trek
- Thread starter AnotherGalaxys
- Start date
G
Gonzo
Guest
Same here in regards to TNG and the TOS films prior to that, although I did watch all of DS9 and Voyager, I don't think I missed a single episode, same with Enterprise for my sins.
My coverage after the fact of TOS itself is limited at best.
I also enjoyed the Kelvin films and loved the Vengeance, I still think they should have repaired it, painted it white and given it to Kirk but not built any more.
Alas I am in the minority on that last bit.
I was in college starting in 1998 and didn't have a reliable VCR. And I kinda gave up on Voyager for a few seasons there.
I didn't read the whole thread. Did the OP ever post after the first page? The first post seemed like the OP was at least open for discussion (that's what this forum is for, right?). But then the second was, shall I say, much less so.
EDIT: Looks like my question was answered by the OP.
EDIT: Looks like my question was answered by the OP.
Last edited:
Picard has its problems, but I'm really enjoying it, and so glad to see Patrick Stewart back giving his all again. Same goes for Discovery, and the reboot trilogy,
The 'trouble' with Star Trek is, because it has run for so long, there have been many creators and writers having their own different take on the material. Then we find, if there has been an initial lack of success, the show or film series end up being retooled into something different again!
The only thing that is true about Star Trek to all fans is that it means something different to everyone, and your objectivity is usually mixed with the enthusiasm for the nostalgia of what we grew up with.
Nothing is ever the same as when we were younger.
The 'trouble' with Star Trek is, because it has run for so long, there have been many creators and writers having their own different take on the material. Then we find, if there has been an initial lack of success, the show or film series end up being retooled into something different again!
The only thing that is true about Star Trek to all fans is that it means something different to everyone, and your objectivity is usually mixed with the enthusiasm for the nostalgia of what we grew up with.
Nothing is ever the same as when we were younger.
I grew up in TNG era (which i consider to be the BEST series) , but also with TOS. My favourite movie is TMP , 2nd FC and TWOK. Is just that i cant find some elements that were important in Star Trek in the new series/movies. For example FC has a lot of action (much more effective and well done that all the JJs CGI), while keeping Star Trek optimism and feeling. That movie is the perfect example of what Star Trek was in the 90s and what now It isnt. Of course i like to watch new Star Trek series and movies but i cant enjoy this new material.
For me all that tiresome dialogue in the borg cube, that forced nostalgic references to the old Trek, the cut-head , torture, desintegration scenes have 0 interest. Some people are saying here that Star Trek always had violence and torture for example in Chain of Command, but that had nothing to do with this. There is a big difference between efectism and something that is showed for a purpose, like the incredible moral opposition to torture that had that episode.
What they did with Icheb is an insult for a lot of people that wanted him back. I wont watch more episodes until the one with Riker and Troi because is good to see them back and their scenes with Picard could be interesting.
For me all that tiresome dialogue in the borg cube, that forced nostalgic references to the old Trek, the cut-head , torture, desintegration scenes have 0 interest. Some people are saying here that Star Trek always had violence and torture for example in Chain of Command, but that had nothing to do with this. There is a big difference between efectism and something that is showed for a purpose, like the incredible moral opposition to torture that had that episode.
What they did with Icheb is an insult for a lot of people that wanted him back. I wont watch more episodes until the one with Riker and Troi because is good to see them back and their scenes with Picard could be interesting.
No doubt Troi is dead, like in the AGT timeline, so Riker has fled to the Nexus to recreate her and a family, and Picard goes in after him to seek his help. But Riker should beware of bridges, so you might want to avoid that episode, too.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Voyager S1 was hard going in places but it was new which did help a lot, sort of like you didn't know if an episode was going to be any good until you watched it, if it wasn't then it was too late by that point.
It did improve though after they moved away from the bloody Kazon, the Borg stuff was good and Sevens addition helped a great deal, the Hirogen and Species 8472 was also good along with the Krenim arc.
Same with Enterprise after the whole Xindi filler was over with, the later Romulan/Vulcan and Temporal Cold War stuff was solid.
I rank them thus:
TOP
Favorites: TWOK, TVH (for completely different reasons)
Just Underneath: TUC, FC
Still Like It A Lot: TSFS
MIDDLE
I'm more impressed than entertained: TMP
Don't care what anyone says, I still like it: TFF
I enjoyed them, then I was over them: 2009 and Beyond
My stock in it has risen thanks to Picard: Nemesis
Ehhh...: Insurrection
BOTTOM
Don't like: Into Darkness (the only Star Trek from 2009 on that I haven't liked)
.
.
.
(insert gap)
(insert another gap)
.
.
.
Bottom of the Fucking Barrel: Generations
This same post you are complaining about forced nostalgia. Which is it?
Whatever one thinks of this show, none of us has seen the entire story yet. This is a strange new streaming world, where a single story is spread out over the season. Judging it now, would be like judging Deep Space Nine solely on "In the Pale Moonlight".
What about the Borg chopping up crewmen in First Contact?
G
Gonzo
Guest
I think some members are probably better off just waiting and binge watching it all at the same time.
It may go some way in balancing the good and the bad as they see it.
Voyager S1 was hard going in places but it was new which did help a lot, sort of like you didn't know if an episode was going to be any good until you watched it, if it wasn't then it was too late by that point.
1998 would have been season 7 of DS9 and season 5 of Voyager. I don't think I saw too much of seasons 5 and 6 of Voyager and missed a handful of DS9 eps just because I didn't know when it was on for a bit there.
I eventually did go back and watch all of Voyager. While I like Seven, I really didn't like the Hirogen, 8472 or the Krenim arc. And Voyager was what ruined the Borg for me.
As I said, I watched all of Enterprise. And I may be the only one who really doesn't like season 4. I think I did at the time but time can change your opinion.
To me PIC is more than just black and white. It contains things I like and other contents I'm concerned about or dislike. But it isn't completely bad in all possible facets. And that's just me, preferering TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager over JJ Trek and Discovery. Picard is a character with a name and Patrick Stewart can pull it off like hardly another. And he is sourrended by great fellow actors. PIC is not better or worse, it is simply different!
That explains why you don't like it, and that's fine- but you don't have to like it for it to be Star Trek and it will still be Star Trek whether you watch it or not.
It doesn't feel like "Star Trek" because fundamentally it feels flawed to me. Has Star Trek always dealt with social issues? Yes, of course. Does "Picard?" Yes, however here's where it stumbles. For instance, the income inequality with Rafi was handled in a way "Star Trek" would not handle it. If "Star Trek" wanted to do an income inequality story, they'd have a ship go to a planet. "Star Trek" was never about Earth, and by all accounts, mankind by the 24th century had solved this issue. They're calling it "Star Trek" they've got to play by the established rules and "First Contact" established this.
PICARD: The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the twenty-fourth century.
LILY: No money! That means you don't get paid.
PICARD: The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.
But suddenly here's Rafi complaining about living in a small home while Picard has his huge vineyard (complete with phasers hidden under the furniture). I get you want to talk about a social issue, but that's not how it's done on "Star Trek."
PICARD: The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the twenty-fourth century.
LILY: No money! That means you don't get paid.
PICARD: The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.
But suddenly here's Rafi complaining about living in a small home while Picard has his huge vineyard (complete with phasers hidden under the furniture). I get you want to talk about a social issue, but that's not how it's done on "Star Trek."
I don't think it was meant to be such a commentary. I think it was Rafi angry at Picard and just slinging mud.
It's hard to argue that when the story isn't done.
Picard also said they’d evolved beyond petty notions like revenge, which was plainly false. Why take his other high-sounding lines as gospel?
Greed still exists in the 24th century - some humans wind up in the Orion Syndicate, for instance - and even in a post scarcity society some things are limited. Raffi points out Picard’s antique furniture, which is presumably considered more valuable or prestigious than replicated. Space on Earth must be a premium, and may again be inherited.
Further, a vineyard requires workers. Picard had family, and now he has very loyal friends. Raffi has nobody.
It’s easy to see a level of resentment developing.
Last edited:
Similar threads
