Spoilers Star Trek: Picard General Discussion Thread

[eschaton]

IIRC it was the second episode that Chabon received a story credit on. Which makes me wonder, presumably then the original plan for Season 2 still involved the alternate timeline storyline somehow? Or it could have just been as vague as the idea of the captured Borg Queen in some other situation.

It's my impression that all the weird psychodrama about Picard's mother was added by Goldsman. Certainly that stuff was much easier to film with COVID protocols, since it was a handful of actors hanging out in standing sets they had left over from Season 1.

 

[James Cole]

You weren't who I had in mind when I made my last post. Even though we haven't really hashed it out, I've got a feeling you don't like Discovery for legitimate reasons that I simply disagree with or don't find to be an issue, and it wouldn't go further than that. I'm pretty sure you're not one of those "[[censored]] sucks! They made Star Trek woke! Burnham's a Mary Sue!" types.

I won't defend the Abrams Films because I'm not a fan of those either.

Honestly I'm so so so used to lurking online. After some crazy life events I'm in regular contact with over a hundred people that I've all met initially in real life, then keep in touch online. Having detailed conversations with strangers makes me realize just how different that part is, especially with general online anonymity and toxicity. It doesn't help that nuanced issues are often reduced to quippy 280 character Tweets.

I have to say, at least the JJ Abrams films are clear about being in an alternate timeline that operates either de facto or de jure as a parallel universe (I remember all the heated debates in 2009 over branching timeline vs it already being different -- but by the time of STB Simon Pegg was like either it was already different or became different in the past thanks to time travel). Whereas Discovery/SNW are a rolling soft reboot that never sets out clear ground rules with the audience spelling out what exactly they're doing. Look, I admit TOS is quite dated, and short of making either a Star Trek: Mad Men or Star Trek: Forbidden Planet that completely deconstructs or doubles down on it, revisiting the era for more than a cameo would be a problem while both still complying with canon and targeting the general public (but the Star Trek: Vanguard book series is a very good proof of concept that it's at least possible to square that circle if you could roll with the retro-modernist designs). But at the same time TOS is the load bearing foundation for the rest of the franchise, and chipping away with it here and there without an overarching plan just causes endless frustration and problems.

I liked Picard seasons 1 and 2, but if Terry Matalas makes a truly *amazing* season 3, how will he explain not making this kind of amazing thing happen in the first two seasons? We could have had *three* amazing seasons if he would have started off with this mindset, vision and fan orientated yet still main stream reinvigoration of the 24th century franchise.

Very very diplomatically. Would suggest checking out the Robert Meyer Burnett interview with him in full.

Yeah, the reason why all the characters were paired off on their own adventures most of the time was because of Covid restrictions.

If you have season 2 on Blu ray, the deleted scenes and blooper reel show how often they were using green screen to have all the characters in the same room. At least they did a better job of it than Arrested Development season 4 on Netflix!

 

[fireproof78]

But at the same time TOS is the load bearing foundation for the rest of the franchise, and chipping away with it here and there without an overarching plan just causes endless frustration and problems.

I would tend to agree that having some sort of plan would be nice, but I think too much weight is put on TOS in terms of current production development. How much connective tissue was between TMP or TNG to TOS? Just enough. The foundation remained, but it allowed for greater expansion and even some experimentation in the characters and format. I think the franchise can endure because anything new is building on what came before, not chipping away at it.

 

[gvn2fly]

It's also worth noting COVID scrambled their plans for Season 2 to some extent which still isn't 100% clear.

Like, Michael Chabon said - in an interview - that he had already written two scripts for Season 2 in February of 2020. He strongly inferred the entire season's writing was already done.

Ultimately, Chabon got story credit for the season opener, and no script credits. It's clear his scripts were pulped. And COVID-19 making the production impossible is the only reason I can think if they'd do this.

I'm not sure when Matalas was brought on board, but I believe I read the time travel plot was his idea with Akiva coming up with the Picard's past trauma angle. I'm not sure how much Matalas was involved with the planning of the season's outline or if they switched to the time travel plot because they needed to start filming and couldn't build the sets needed due to COVID? Remember, filming for season 2 was delayed quite a bid due to COVID.

They also had COVID related shutdowns when people in production tested positive. I recall an interview with DeLancie saying CBS was paying a lot of money due to multiple shutdowns. I read in another interview or maybe it was from that Matalas interview with Meyer that they lost a planned filming location due to the production being shut down and they were unable to get it back. With Chabon's scripts being scrapped, lack of standing sets, COVID shutdowns, COVID restrictions and actors wanting to take precautions, actors having to work in "pods" or pairs, the time travel plot feeling really stretched, I feel like the production had some problems.

I love behind the scenes information so I would really love to hear what the plan for the season was (if there was one) and how COVID impacted what we saw on the screen.

 

[Lord Garth]

Youtube tried to get me into a "where marvel went wrong" video, the first 10 seconds asserted that phase 4 had been a flop. Stopped it there and checked - A quick look at the box office dismissed that, putting it ahead of phase 1 and about equal with phase 2 on a budget:revenue basis.

These people. They're like the boy who cried, "Wolf!"

I don't watch any Marvel films, so I have no idea how good or bad they actually are (I'm honestly not into them), but I wish the current landscape of films would all flop (Marvel or otherwise). I'm dead-serious. When this current era of "Everything has to be a big tentpole filled with superheroes and gigantic budgets!" falls, then maybe they'll start making medium-budget movies again, where they can start taking more chances, a film can flop without hurting them so badly, and they can make more things that aren't just sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes, and spinoffs. "What are you talking about? You're on a Star Trek board! Star Trek's filled with sequels, prequels, spinoffs, and even a reboot!" Yeah, I know. But I don't think all big films should be those. I don't think all tentpole films should be those. They shouldn't dominate the box office so completely, and I wish that would change...

... but I know that's not going to happen any time soon, so we're stuck with the reality of where cinema's going to be for the foreseeable future. And I agree with Jonathan Frakes: Star Trek's future is on television.

Films in the '50s and most of the '60s became super-extravagant, overdoing themselves to outdo TV, and they overshot the mark. These films started underperforming, allowing studios to take more chances on films that were lower-budgeted and better in-tune with what a new generation wanted, leading to New Hollywood in the late-'60s and the most of the '70s. I hear teenagers talking sometimes, and they're starting to get sick of superhero movies. It's starting. I don't necessarily think films today should go back to New Hollywood (those films were too self-indulgent sometimes). I just want them to do Something Else.

But I suspect what I want and what a lot of the Fandom Menace's audience wants with films in general are two different things. They want to feel like they did in the '70s, '80s, '90s, or whenever, when they went to see movies when they were kids. They think they can relive that experience, but they can't. They're not that age anymore, so they never will. They want to go backward to their childhood (and yet they paradoxically hate it when movies try to do that) and I want to go forward to something else.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'm not a fan of Trek movies in general, and I really did not like Into Darkness, but I accept it was a financial success. On the other hand I did like Beyond, one of the top films out of all 13, but it was clearly disappointing for the studio.

I thought the 2009 Film and Beyond were okay for what they were: summer blockbusters that treated Star Trek as if were a comic book movie.

Even though I wasn't the hugest fan of them, I didn't dislike them. And I knew that these films would eventually lead to Star Trek coming back to TV, which actually could lead to Star Trek I'd be more of a fan of. Discovery and Picard turned out to be those things I'm more of a fan of. So my instincts turned out to be right. So I supported the 2009 Film even though it wasn't really my thing. And whenever non-fans who went to go see the 2009 Film asked what I thought of it, I gave out a canned answer. "I thought it was great!" It got annoying after a while, but I did it anyway. "I thought it was great!" Everyone I knew at work asked me that. Everyone I still knew from when I was in high school or college asked me that. That was an interesting time.

Then came Into Darkness. Only one person asked me about Into Darkness. I'd switched jobs and no one at the new job knew I was a Trekkie. But this one friend of a friend of mine, when I went into some random store, came right out and asked me, "So how much do you hate the new Star Trek movie?"

 

[James Cole]

I don't watch any Marvel films, so I have no idea how good or bad they actually are (I'm honestly not into them), but I wish the current landscape of films would all flop (Marvel or otherwise). I'm dead-serious.

Have you tried Guardians of the Galaxy? I found it fun and easily rewatchable, while the other MCU ones are watch once and be done with it at best.

... but I know that's not going to happen any time soon, so we're stuck with the reality of where cinema's going to be for the foreseeable future. And I agree with Jonathan Frakes: Star Trek's future is on television.

It's been argued that the sweat spot for a Star Trek feature film budget wise is around $100 million. JJ trying to scale it upwards didn't really work... but he still got his production fee and Kurtzman got the alternate TV license, so...

But I suspect what I want and what a lot of the Fandom Menace's audience wants with films in general are two different things. They want to feel like they did in the '70s, '80s, '90s, or whenever, when they went to see movies when they were kids. They think they can relive that experience, but they can't. They're not that age anymore, so they never will. They want to go backward to their childhood (and yet they paradoxically hate it when movies try to do that) and I want to go forward to something else.

Haha I guess you didn't like Super 8? What about Stranger Things? But yeah, many of the people that take issue with the current genre output are Gen X.

Mid-budget wise, what are say 5 of your favorite non-franchise films to come out in the last decade or so?

 

[Lord Garth]

Have you tried Guardians of the Galaxy? I found it fun and easily rewatchable, while the other MCU ones are watch once and be done with it at best.

I haven't seen Guardians of the Galaxy. The last Marvel Movie I saw was X-Men: First Class in 2011.

Haha I guess you didn't like Super 8? What about Stranger Things? But yeah, many of the people that take issue with the current genre output are Gen X.

I haven't seen Super 8 either. I have seen the first few episodes of Stranger Things. I liked it, but it didn't hook me.

Mid-budget wise, what are say 5 of your favorite non-franchise films to come out in the last decade or so?

I have to step just a tiny little bit outside of the last 10 years to make this work, but I'll stick to 2010 or later and under a budget of $50 Million.

Beyond the Black Rainbow
Captain Fantastic
Arrival
Ex Machina
The Imitation Game

 

[James Cole]

I haven't seen Guardians of the Galaxy. The last Marvel Movie I saw was X-Men: First Class in 2011.

Oh that's a good one! Maybe also try Deadpool if you like dark humor, and since you loved Picard season 1, Logan seems good for you!

I have to step just a tiny little bit outside of the last 10 years to make this work, but I'll stick to 2010 or later and under a budget of $50 Million.

Beyond the Black Rainbow
Captain Fantastic
Arrival
Ex Machina
The Imitation Game

Hmm... have you seen Devs, an FX/Hulu miniseries? It's from the writer/director of Ex Machina, and has Alison Pill in it. I tried twice but couldn't get into it, but maybe you would?

 

[Lord Garth]

Oh that's a good one! Maybe also try Deadpool if you like dark humor, and since you loved Picard season 1, Logan seems good for you!


Hmm... have you seen Devs, an FX/Hulu miniseries? It's from the writer/director of Ex Machina, and has Alison Pill in it. I tried twice but couldn't get into it, but maybe you would?

The darker the humor, the better.

I almost went to see Deadpool with some friends, but we instead watched a DVD of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? that another one of them brought over. The last time I'd seen Roger Rabbit was in the theater, when I was 8, so it was like watching a whole other movie. I couldn't believe how much went over my head the first time. But I'll give Deadpool a look at some point.

Devs is something I've wanted to see. I don't have Hulu, but I see it's on Amazon. I can probably binge the whole first season on a slow day.

 

[James Cole]

Devs is something I've wanted to see. I don't have Hulu, but I see it's on Amazon. I can probably binge the whole first season on a slow day.

It's been really easy to get a free month of Hulu (and again with a new email address...). Hulu also has the series 12 Monkeys. See Terry Matalas (and three other Picard season 3 writers) cut their teeth over four seasons. Understand all the Easter eggs as they happen. Before Todd Stashwick was Liam Shaw, he was Deacon...

 

[Tosk]

It's been argued that the sweat spot for a Star Trek feature film budget wise is around $100 million.

If I spent $100 million on a movie, I'd have a sweat spot too.

 

[FederationHistorian]

And I agree with Jonathan Frakes: Star Trek's future is on television.

And I have to disagree with Frakes here. I still think there is a future in film. The only reason its future is on tv is because Paramount does not want to think outside the box in getting the films made. They only want to make their 2 hour blockbuster that can both compete with Marvel while still being mid budget. In their mind, that’s the only way to make a Star Trek film. They don’t want to make a 3 hour Trek film, even though the original 3 hour cut of NEM (before they cut 50 minutes worth of footage) was cheaper to produce than the two hour INS ($60M to $75M), and its not unusual for trek films to exceed 2 hours (TMP, and Into Darkness both 2 hrs and 12 min). They also don’t want to shoot back-to-back films a la Avengers movies, even though back-to-back Trek films would still be half the cost of those Avenger films.

JJ trying to scale it upwards didn't really work... but he still got his production fee and Kurtzman got the alternate TV license, so...

Yes, it did work. Abrams made them to fit in with the comic book movies that were coming out, and they made Star Trek popular enough that it could come back to tv. The difference is he’s likely realistic that it costs $200M and change for sci fi franchises like Trek to be in the top ten grossing films of the year. Whereas Paramount generally want mid budget films and won’t spend more that what they spent on Top Gun: Maverick.

That being said, its probably to the benefit of Abrams that they aren’t making movies. A 5.5 hour Kelvin film that can be viewed in its entirely at film festivals, and afterwards release in 3 part 100+ minute installments on streaming would be better from a storytelling perspective. Remember he did create Lost, Alias, Fringe. And could probably make a good Kelvinverse tv show.

 

[James Cole]

Yes, it did work. Abrams made them to fit in with the comic book movies that were coming out, and they made Star Trek popular enough that it could come back to tv. The difference is he’s likely realistic that it costs $200M and change for sci fi franchises like Trek to be in the top ten grossing films of the year. Whereas Paramount generally want mid budget films and won’t spend more that what they spent on Top Gun: Maverick.

If Beyond was so successful, why have any further sequels been in development hell for 7 years?

That being said, its probably to the benefit of Abrams that they aren’t making movies. A 5.5 hour Kelvin film that can be viewed in its entirely at film festivals, and afterwards release in 3 part 100+ minute installments on streaming would be better from a storytelling perspective. Remember he did create Lost, Alias, Fringe. And could probably make a good Kelvinverse tv show.

A major criticism of JJ Abrams is that he can start big but never close. ST09 annoyed the hell out of me, but it was successful in what it set out to do. Then STID dropped the ball. Beyond (STB?) was really weird in that it's the most
'Star Trek' of the three Abramsverse films, but also the most generic. For Star Wars at least he can blame Rian Johnson and Kathleen Kennedy.

I was a fan of Alias for it's first two seasons, but then it imploded. Lost was big when it was on the air, but it had no master plan and completely missed the landing. No long lasting pop cultural impact or legacy fanbase. Fringe was a lot better than it deserved to be, starting off as an X-Files meets Sliders mashup. I really liked seasons 2 and 3, but then it did the bizarre reset button. FWIW I own all of Lost and Fringe on Blu ray, so I'm not a complete hater.

 

[Lord Garth]

And I have to disagree with Frakes here. I still think there is a future in film. The only reason its future is on tv is because Paramount does not want to think outside the box in getting the films made. They only want to make their 2 hour blockbuster that can both compete with Marvel while still being mid budget. In their mind, that’s the only way to make a Star Trek film. They don’t want to make a 3 hour Trek film, even though the original 3 hour cut of NEM (before they cut 50 minutes worth of footage) was cheaper to produce than the two hour INS ($60M to $75M), and its not unusual for trek films to exceed 2 hours (TMP, and Into Darkness both 2 hrs and 12 min). They also don’t want to shoot back-to-back films a la Avengers movies, even though back-to-back Trek films would still be half the cost of those Avenger films.

I think there will be another Star Trek movie someday, just not in the foreseeable future, like I said. JJ has to be officially out of the picture (they have to say someone else is producing the next Star Trek movie) and Paramount has to get past its shell-shock realization that they can't compete with Marvel and get on with it. They either can't do it, or they won't do it.

Jonathan Frakes offered to direct the next Star Trek movie, and JJ Abrams basically gave him the cold shoulder. It has to be a pride issue. "I make Cool Trek! I don't want this director who makes Geek Trek!" So now he makes No Trek. I think Frakes knows what the attitude of the movie people are and that it's not going to change with these people.

 

[Tuskin38]

If Beyond was so successful, why have any further sequels been in development hell for 7 years?

Even successful films can have development hell sequels.

 

[James Cole]

Even successful films can have development hell sequels.

Trying to be objective as possible, the main sticking points seem to be getting outside investors (China was a big source for STID and STB) and the actors not wanting to take a pay cut.

JJ Abrams' development deal at Warner Bros is drying up under the Zaslav regime. A certain YouTuber that's seen Picard season 3 recently mentioned that JJ might be in play to come back and direct Star Trek 4. So who knows...

 

[James Cole]

Today Robert Meyer Burnett is interviewing Terry Matalas and Todd Stashwick. The live stream is talking mostly about 12 Monkeys (minor spoilers for that series into season 3). Part 2 is coming tomorrow after the AFC trailer.

 

[Tuskin38]

Jessie Gender's first thought watching Picard S3 "Someone liked Fallout 3" hmm

https://twitter.com/jessiegender/status/1619530368117538817

 

[The Wormhole]

As someone who doesn't know what Fallout 3 is, is that praise or comdemnation?