Spoilers Season 3 Cast Announcement

[eschaton]

How many generations does a people need to occupy a certain place before it becomes legally theirs then? They colonized a planet no one else had a claim for. Just because it came within the Federation's sphere of influence hundreds of years later, it doesn't give them the right to deport the Ba'ku. The Federation shouldn't behave like the 16th century Spanish and Portuguese, freely and legally destroying colonies of other states built on virgin lands merely because the Pope drew a straight line on a globe and said "this part belongs to you now."

I'm not saying it's an open/shut moral issue at all in favor of displacement. However, the way that the story is structured clearly is meant to have us empathize with the desire of a single village of privileged white folks to live in their slice of rural paradise over a technological advance which could positively impact the lives of billions of people. It's really not all that different from a handful of rich people in mansions blocking a project which benefits the greater public (highway, public housing, wind farm, etc..) because they are the local property owners and believe their own rights trump those of anyone else.

And yeah, I suppose the difference here is those wealthy people in mansions would be part of the same nation as those whose lives would be improved. But people always argue local self-determination when it comes to zoning (at least in the U.S. context) regardless, so I think the analogy holds up.

Again, they could have told the story here well, but the choices they made in terms of storytelling destroyed the intended message about respecting the rights of primitive indigenous people.

 

[SJGardner]

I'm not saying it's an open/shut moral issue at all in favor of displacement. However, the way that the story is structured clearly is meant to have us empathize with the desire of a single village of privileged white folks to live in their slice of rural paradise over a technological advance which could positively impact the lives of billions of people. It's really not all that different from a handful of rich people in mansions blocking a project which benefits the greater public (highway, public housing, wind farm, etc..) because they are the local property owners and believe their own rights trump those of anyone else.

And yeah, I suppose the difference here is those wealthy people in mansions would be part of the same nation as those whose lives would be improved. But people always argue local self-determination when it comes to zoning (at least in the U.S. context) regardless, so I think the analogy holds up.

Again, they could have told the story here well, but the choices they made in terms of storytelling destroyed the intended message about respecting the rights of primitive indigenous people.

My problem with this analogy is that the mansions of the rich people would be built on unincorporated land that already belongs to an organized government that has the sole right to decide how it develops it. I would agree with you if the Ba'Ku were Federation citizens who came to the planet some fifty years ago and now would be resisting the central government's effort to incorporate them.

But they were colonists from a foreign state that may or may not exist anymore, and colonized virgin land in a period when humanity hadn't even left their own solar system yet. It's not the Federal government trying to dismantle a squatter colony of rich bored Beverly Hills hipster kids on former BLM land that was recently granted to an oil company, but more like what would've happened if the English found hypothetical descendants of the Vinland colony thriving in Newfoundland and tried to remove them because they were just immigrants from civilized Denmark and weren't native to the place.

 

[Sci]

That message doesn't work though, because the Ba'Ku aren't indigenous to the planet. They are settlers from elsewhere.

I hate to break it to you, but human beings aren't indigenous to North or South America, the Pacific Islands, Australia, Asia, or Europe, either. Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, Asians, and Europeans are all the descendants of settlers from elsewhere (Africa). Yet it's still colonialism if you go to their lands and forcibly relocate them in order to take something of value from their land.

The planet was uninhabited when the Bak'u arrived and has no indigenous inhabitants; it's theirs, and forcibly relocating them is colonialism.

 

[eschaton]

I hate to break it to you, but human beings aren't indigenous to North or South America, the Pacific Islands, Australia, Asia, or Europe, either. Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, Asians, and Europeans are all the descendants of settlers from elsewhere (Africa). Yet it's still colonialism if you go to their lands and forcibly relocate them in order to take something of value from their land.

The planet was uninhabited when the Bak'u arrived and has no indigenous inhabitants; it's theirs, and forcibly relocating them is colonialism.

Due to the elongated life provided by the metaphasic radiation, many of the individual Ba'Ku (including Anji and Sojef) were still alive, despite it being centuries. In a very real way it was still a first-generation settler colony.

Again, I understand the intent, but the way the story was constructed made it...not a great allegory at all.

 

[Sci]

Due to the elongated life provided by the metaphasic radiation, many of the individual Ba'Ku (including Anji and Sojef) were still alive, despite it being centuries. In a very real way it was still a first-generation settler colony.

So? That's not really relevant. They're still a sovereign nation with sovereignty over uncontested territory. The UFP has no right to seize their world.

 

[Vale]

Due to the elongated life provided by the metaphasic radiation, many of the individual Ba'Ku (including Anji and Sojef) were still alive, despite it being centuries. In a very real way it was still a first-generation settler colony.

The rest of TNG would have been quite different if in "Evolution" the nanites had said "actually we've been here for 2000 generations and you're only first generation occupiers of our ship, the Enterprise is ours, bye".

*Edited to fix horrible grammar and spelling. Twice. Because it's late and I'm tired.

 

[Qonundrum]

Let me get this out of the way. For all its flaws, I love TNG. It was the first live-action Trek series to premiere when I was able to watch it first run. The memories I have will last a lifetime. As I look around my living room, I have the TNG series and movies on Blu-ray, I have a Locutus of Borg figurine, the Hot Wheels Enterprise-D, the TNG comm badge hanging on my wall.

I’m just not interested in constantly reliving the past. I want to move forward. All of time and space is a huge playground, yet we constantly revisit the same characters over and over again.

We’re becoming the Talosians.

I'm ambivalent. On one hand, the entire bridge crew is returning and can hopefully belt out a season that puts all the movies from 1994-2002 to shame.

On the other, when Kirk's era's movies took place in the 80s, how many fans felt the movies were so unlike the show that spawned them and that the characters were nothing like what they were. It's why Kirk gets a proper coming of middle-age story (TWOK) whereas the 21st century movies just lipsync it to the beat. That, and the 80s movies also did what you say in expanding the universe - even if they did go back to the well in the corner, for a minor springboard only, with Khan-- though how many people in the 60s were constantly drooling over him in the way TNG fans wanted everything subsequent to be "BorgBorgBorgBorgBorgBorgBorgBorg" all the time or else they weren't liked (for many reasons, and even the Borg movie hasn't aged well IMHO, YMMV...) Kirk movies rightly expanded the show's universe. TNG films started the small universe syndrome gack. A lot of 21s century Trek - like or dislike - ha, objectively speaking, been using small universe syndrome along with changing characters. Even speech patterns - compare 80s Kirk movies to TOS. There's far more that's similar and not different for "accessibility". Compare TNG's PICARD revival to TNG - TNG had its flaws, but the modern TNG cast are given the same burger joint slang that doesn't suit their style. It's a big enough of a difference, and prior to the 21st century no sci-fi show worth the genre had anyone saying "tech" as if all the subsequent syllables were for the erudite only. Never mind "ex-B's" (sounds like a bunch of frat kids newly expelled), pointless callbacks in an attempt to be clever, etc...

Spoiler: PIC and DSC spoilers and other fluffy bunny milkweed woven hats

That said, I was pleasantly surprised by the punk dude returning, and the modern series genuinely impressed got the Borg Queen and Q done really well, and it's cool when something new - even when delving into small universe syndrome - can still pull something approaching a better rabbit out of the hat...

Other bits and pieces, not so much... and at times it feels like they're not trying. It's a mixed bag. But the stuff they got right was amazing. Guinan becoming a generic TV trope rejected from a Harry Potter movie, not so much... even Guinan-with-the-candles-but-without-the-fire-suppression-system wasn't as cringey (hint: it was, and the scene screwed up its own continuity in the same scene no less so 21st century Trek slipping on itself isn't the first era to goof up...)


Thankfully DSC moved several hundred years into the future, but for all the behind the scenes problems Trek shows have had, DSC's has had the most chaotic and ended up being more twaddle rather than engaging sci-fi. YMMV and even the drek of Nemesis is still one I won't rewatch (unless it's the ramming scene isolated from the rest of that rubbish script, which does the same small universe stuff that modern Trek has also done yet is less popular, which speaks volumes), but after the latest PIC episode I do have to wonder what they will do with the whole cast returned. Hopefully something good. But, yeah, for a modern series claiming they don't want the older fans, they seem to be clinging far more to everything accessible for the established fans than the new fanbase, though they're getting that too. I wonder how those fans will be catered to in 30 years' time...

 

[BillJ]

I'm ambivalent. On one hand, the entire bridge crew is returning and can hopefully belt out a season that puts all the movies from 1994-2002 to shame.

I hate to say it, but I think the announcement killed completely my interest in season two.

 

[Tuskin38]

I hate to say it, but I think the announcement killed completely my interest in season two.

I don't understand why.

 

[BillJ]

I don't understand why.

Honestly, I don’t either. Maybe it is just the piling of nostalgia on top of nostalgia.

 

[Vale]

I hate to say it, but I think the announcement killed completely my interest in season two.

Does knowing Strange New Worlds has been renewed for a second season already and will be introducing more TOS characters in it completely kill your interest in the first season?

 

[Quinton]

The only reason the cast announcement (slightly) dampened my enthusiasm toward season two is that season three sounds so much shinier.

I am, at times, a slave to nostalgia. It's not a constant by any stretch, but there is nothing more nostalgic to me (not just in Star Trek, but any of my interests) than the prospect of revisiting TNG/DS9/VOY-era characters.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't get the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes over "nostalgia". So what if they bring back past character and actors? How and why is important to me. Is there a story there?

 

[BillJ]

I don't get the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes over "nostalgia".

There is none of that for me. Just a general sense of malaise.

 

[BillJ]

Does knowing Strange New Worlds has been renewed for a second season already and will be introducing more TOS characters in it completely kill your interest in the first season?

I’ll have to wait and see. But I’ve generally not been a fan of CBS’ over reliance on nostalgia.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There is none of that for me. Just a general sense of malaise.

Don't get that either.

 

[BillJ]

Don't get that either.

Different folks and all that.

 

[fireproof78]

If nostalgia is the only thing it's hard to find exciting news in it. It's like someone saying their cooking a favorite meal only to reveal it's their favorite. The interest is diminished because it appears to appeal to a select few.

 

[Danja]

Even speech patterns - compare 80s Kirk movies to TOS.

I read an article about Kirk's 60's speech pattern.

The scripts were being rewritten so quickly, Shatner had no idea what he was going to say from one moment to the next. Hence ... the staccato ... speech pattern.

The man was waiting for his cue!

 

[Alexander Corrino]

I think people put too much into this TNG announcement. The teaser says “joining the cast”. That doesn’t mean the entire season will have them from start to finish. It’s entirely possible that they won’t appear until Jean-Luc needs them to help him with a part of a mission that, for some reason, he can’t ask Starfleet for help with, so, he turns to his old friends. (This would be very reminiscent of the TOS movies, which IS a theme they’re going for.)

People are - again - mounting massive nostalgic expectations, a mistake they already made when PIC itself was announced, despite all of Sir Patrick’s statements that the show would not be like TNG. A rude awakening happened then and it will most likely happen again in season 3 because as soon as they hear “The Next Generation” some people forget the one mantra that drives the show: “Set a tone that is as unlike as the one on TNG as possible”.

And no this is not “they turned around and will now do what THE FANS want after all”. Sir Patrick said right from the beginning that his wish for PIC was to show all the TNG characters and where they are now in their lives. Which means their lives and dreams and goals are different now, just as different as everything is now for him. They’re still old friends, yes, they referenced it right in the first season where he declined to ask them for help, but that does not automatically mean we’ll be getting TNG season 8. I know how tempting it is and how powerful nostalgia can be, but I think it would be wise to remember the premise(s) under which PIC was made.

They have already said that they’re going to shake up the Trek universe in some major ways. Sir Patrick himself said PIC’s ending is “unexpected” and “questionable” (interview with direct quote here: https://collider.com/star-trek-picard-series-finale-patrick-stewart-comments/). Literally NONE of this hints at this being “the TNG crew solves one last little morality problem of the week with as few consequences as possible because we don’t want to upset anyone”.