McCoy: Hey, remember that woman you fell in love with, but then she died?
Kirk: You’ll have to be more specific.
Spoilers Star Trek: Picard General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Kirk: You’ll have to be more specific.
It would be the most unnatural thing and feel even worse than the way they dumped the Trip/T'Pol relationship in These are the Voyages.
It speaks to the fact that they think it was done satisfactorily. It doesn't say "Whelp it clearly sucked so let us never talk of it again!"
But... but... but... I thought CBS made each and every single writing and production decision based on a meticulous analysis of every single Trek-related youtube comment section, facebook post, subreddit and forum discussion in existence....... you mean to say that is not so?
I have conducted research with top men and they have informed me the following:But... but... but... I thought CBS made each and every single writing and production decision based on a meticulous analysis of every single Trek-related youtube comment section, facebook post, subreddit and forum discussion in existence....... you mean to say that is not so?
We learned that we need to figure out the end earlier. .... it’s just our own fault for not doing it well enough. - Akiva GoldsmanIt speaks to the fact that they think it was done satisfactorily."
Last edited:
Yeah, ok, Mr. Goldsman.
I don't know if believe them or not, but that is a partial quote from AkivaYeah, ok, Mr. Goldsman.
https://blog.trekcore.com/2021/04/s...tes-akiva-goldsman-picard-strange-new-worlds/
I just want more episodic Trek set in the TOS time period and for it to look good and be written well.
I’m also annoyed that the relationship between those two characters that got together in the series finale was never mentioned again when one of the characters reappeared on a different show. The producers obviously have no respect for continuity.
We’re talking about Worf and Troi, right?
We’re talking about Worf and Troi, right?
Even Worf and Troi won't talk about Worf and Troi anymore. 
Why are you posting this in the Picard forum? Sounds like SNW will be exactly what you're after.
It was a general observation about current Trek. That's why.
First and foremost, casual viewers aren't expected to know Maddox, Hugh or Icheb. The use of older characters is two fold. One using established characters that are appropriate for a new story help build a foundation that this universe is fully realized. The 2nd and much more minor reason for there use is for it to provide a deeper connection to diehard fans.
For example, using a doctor that Picard has a history with could easily be Crusher. It doesn't need to be. But it makes sense that the doctor Picard sees is someone he trusts. Crusher of course would be one, but it could be any of number of doctors he has had a prior and trusting relationship with. Using one that we have never seen or heard of before but tying it to the Stargazer gives us the diehard fans a connection to an earlier part of Picard's life. But you notice they don't describe what the Stargazer is, it's not needed, and the causal fan or the person who has never seen anything before isn't going to need to. The scene gives you what you need to follow. This is a doctor that Picard has a past with and its someone who knows something of Picard's earlier life.
Icheb use is perfect and so was his brutal death. It's shown in this story that this was a deeply personal connection, tied to the greater Borg issues that is a part of the connecting backstory of that season. And it's brutality helps show why Seven is the way she is. It works for diehard viewers, it works for casual viewers and it works for new viewers.
Hugh is a rather great fit with this story, as he is a character from he past that has motivations for the role he serves, he also has ties to Picard and die hard fans might connect it. But the story is told that even if you have never seen the show you can see there is a relationship to both Picard, the Borg, and finding individuality.
Bringing up, a past relationship is only relevant if it has any bearing on who Seven or her life at the moment. It literally serves no purpose in legitimate storytelling.
On if Picard would object to being copied? Thats not so cut and dry. There is one terrible second season episode where we discover how the crew feels about having clones of themselves made without consent. But we also know that he has no issue with having artificial parts to prolong his life, also from a second season episode. We do know that he has no issue with his body and mind being destroyed and recreated, on a rather frequent basis, unlike say McCoy who has never been very comfortable with it. We know he has no issue with the idea of this being legitimate life. The only real issue is if Picard would be upset that he wasn't allowed to die. At the end he did seem worried about having an longer then typical life for a human. Thats the one issue he did bring up. And the idea of an android body mimic the true life functionality (including death) of a human is part and parcel of TNG, so that's definitely not something new.
Now of course because so much of a character is still not defined, an audience member is free of course to have their own subjective feelings about character traits and beliefs that haven't been clarified previously.
My personal interpretation is as long as he still felt all the sensations that a human would feel (good and bad), that his functionality was the same as his natural form, and that he was still mortal, I think Picard would be ok with it. I do thing he would still have a while to fully come to term with it. Just like I assume that it took Picard much more than what we saw on TNG to process and come to terms with what happened to him as Locutus. And really outside of Family and I, Borg the tv show really didn't give it much attention (First Contact brought it back up as well as several episodes in this series which make sense as both of these examples would bring them to the forefront of your consciousness),
I already had that. It was called TOS and was a great time. It was also over 50 years ago
Doesn't mean we can't have both episodic AND serialized Trek at the same time. I mean, Interstate highways were constructed half a century or more ago and I've thoroughly enjoyed the old roads and their quality...but that doesn't mean new paved roads aren't welcome or a good thing.
There’s no reason we can’t have both. I love serialized stories. My wife and I have truly enjoyed the streaming era with some stories that truly delve into areas that Film and until recently TV really haven’t been able to delve into. We recently watched Netflix’s The Queen’s Gambit and just last night started Mare of Easttown from HBOMax. Truly phenomenal in both regards!
But on my own (as the wife isn’t much of a Trek fan), I’m working my way through TOS again and loving it. It’s a totally different type of storytelling and I can appreciate it differently for what it is. Is it a bit of nostalgia? Sure. But the standalone nature works well for it in my eyes!
But on my own (as the wife isn’t much of a Trek fan), I’m working my way through TOS again and loving it. It’s a totally different type of storytelling and I can appreciate it differently for what it is. Is it a bit of nostalgia? Sure. But the standalone nature works well for it in my eyes!
"But audiences these days want serialized storytelling."
And?
They also watch episodic sitcoms and episodic dramas and standalone movies. "But audiences want this kind of thing" is a largely meaningless defense of any type of entertainment because audiences want MANY different types of things and one does not negate others.
And?
They also watch episodic sitcoms and episodic dramas and standalone movies. "But audiences want this kind of thing" is a largely meaningless defense of any type of entertainment because audiences want MANY different types of things and one does not negate others.
That's not the point of why I say it. I say it because it creates a risk adverse culture within the production teams and they are going to be extremely cautious in terms of changing things. I agree that audiences want many things, but what they say they want and what they will actually buy is completely different.
I wasn't referring to your comment. I respect your reasons and have no issue with your reasoning. I was expressing my own feelings on the subject.
I do hope you get what you want.
Similar threads
