One of the great downsides to creating sequels to franchises from a few decades ago, whether it’s this or the Star Wars sequels (which ended up a grim mess) is that, invariably, our characters didn’t have the happy ever after endings we might assume. Drama being what it is, we see that they’ve suffered and changed and not everything is rosy. That can be a little depressing.
The essential challenge of a sequel made many years after an original work is that the popularity of the original is based on what it was and how it was perceived by viewers in its day. But a distant sequel is not part of the creation that its fans loved. It's almost inevitably a commentary on the thing that they enjoyed, and sometimes a critique - if not directly of the art itself, then of the time and circumstances of its creation. And often, it's a reflection of the writers perceptions of the fandom itself. And for many fans, that commentary/critique just will not be a satisfactory "revival" of the object of their adoration, no matter how it's presented.
The reason Galaxy Quest is the best Star Trek movie is that it's the only one that incorporates what is arguably the most significant, influential aspect of Trek into its world and storyline. That aspect is the fandom created by Trek. So it's a kind of sequel, a commentary and critique that succeeds by not dragging the time-worn, sometimes ambivalent original performers and staff back into the spotlight to uncomfortably deconstruct their past work in public.
Earth's a big planet. Plus he could have visited Mars and the Moon and heck maybe for one episode even a ship.
Stewart is playing a 97-year-old man. Picard is closing in on the century mark. He can't do the things he did back in the 80's. The show is called STAR Trek. What kind of show would Star Trek be if it never left Earth?
Sir Patrick brought back his patented Captain Jean-Luc Picard Command Voice after waiting for two seasons, and it was worth the wait. It could be very interesting, if the characters and plot are well-done! One of my favorite Star Trek novels is Articles of the Federation by Keith R.A. DeCandido, and almost the entire book is set in the Palais de la Concorde (the Federation's combination White House/Capitol building -- it's about the first year in office for a new Federation President) in Paris.
But the name of the show wouldn't be Star Trek. The name would be Picard. It would be different from what we have seen done before but that would be one of it's hooks. It would be very different from all the other shows. Plus we are talking maybe 10 episodes a year. I could see issues coming up with 26 new ideas while never leaving the system but seeing as how Patrick Stewart you could get a great episode in "Chain of Command" that amounted two great characters actors in a single room I think they could get 10 in a year and maybe 30 over 3 or 4 years.
It's not really he age think that bothers me. Picard has lost something. Riker is 70 but he still has that loyalty to duty, to Picard and that great laid back attitude and humor we all loved in tng. Riker seems largely unchanged in attitude and manner. Patrick lost his voice about 8 or so years ago. His voice was a main part of the character. It could be age or something else that cause him to lose it. Shatner is almost 92 and his voice while wavering ever so slightly now and then sounds strong and smooth. I will give Patrick this. The scene where he finally takes charge sounded good and it was a glimpse of the old Picard in command. He seemed to be a follower the last two seasons and it hasn't set right with me. We'll see how this goes but I'm looking forward to seeing just how much lead Picard will take inthe next ep.
Jeanluc Picard is a retired Admiral, not an active admiral. He doesn't has the authority like what he had in TNG and the movies. I remember that Picard in TNG final episodes, "All Good Things" also have similar problem. He lost his authority, but still persistent to make him worthy. Compared to the "Future Picard" in All Good Things", Jeanluc in Picard is still way better.
Good point. I forgot The Orville also didn't put Star Trek in it's name as well even though we all know without a single doubt that it is 100% pure official canon Trek.
Remember too that Picard is a man who has been shaped by the past 20 years post-Nemesis, including the events on Mars which caused so much loss of life and caused him to resign his commission. Part of the narrative of Picard is that life experience and ageing shape who we are. When we meet Picard in Season 1 he is almost broken, ready to die. He was not the man we knew. But as the Seasons have progressed, he had regained that spark, albeit with the patina of age and the experiences and losses he has endured. Say what you want about any other aspect of the show, but that part reflects the reality for many outstanding people as age and loss take their toll and I think Stewart handles it beautifully.
I'm in the camp that the whole point of PIC is to show an older Picard who has gone through quite a lot since we last saw him in Nemesis. He has changed, but that comes with growing older and dealing with what life threw at him--both emotionally and physically--as time went by. Time can be a mother, and few of us will endure it half as well as Picard (or Sir Patrick) does at his age. So I definitely disagree that Picard doesn't have any charisma or authority, it's just that it's changed since his days on the Enterprise. One could say that one of the perks of being an admiral is that he doesn't have to always bring the thunder to get things done or get his point across. All that being said, I do miss Picard's TNG-era voice. It was something of a trademark of both the character and Sir Patrick. It's still a powerful voice that can command clearly, but it has been affected by time. And that's perfectly fine and not even uncommon. Two of my favorite rock singers don't have the same voices they had 40 years ago, and I'm beginning to notice that even my own voice is changing as well as I grow older. It happens.