Well I enjoyed it greaty. A great popcorn movie.
Spoilers Did Picard finally ''right the ship'' with Picard season 3?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
- Status
Well I enjoyed it greaty. A great popcorn movie.
And who was a major contributor to that movie AND also a significant, might even say KEY, contributor to the whole Trek enterprise?
And who was a major contributor to that movie AND also a significant, might even say KEY, contributor to the whole Trek enterprise?
Kurtzman, who is far better with mindless popcorn movies like Transformers and Mummy than deep meaning shows like Star Trek. That's why Matalas s3 Picard is a masterpiece.
Masterpiece of manipulated emotions.
Do you feel manipulated by season 3?
And, pray tell, in what way is S3 of Picard any more “deep meaning” than Transformers?
Michael Bay, John Rogers, and Ehren Kruger haven't been tried yet in Star Trek
And, believe it or not, Rogers was soft pitching a Star Trek crime series to Terry Matalas on Twitter
What deep meaning is present in Picard season 3?
Ironically, the absence of deep meaning is related to the mystery box structure of the story, which is a recurring problem of contemporary Star Trek. Matalas didn't stray from this, or some of the other formulas, that have recently defined shows. There simply isn't time for the details and consequences of the season's central tension to be explored.
Oh, no doubt. There are structural issues inherent with the decisions being made all across the board with a lot of these mystery box level shows. Point being, some keep bringing this season up, missing the point that it shares a lot of commonality with the shows they tear down to bring up Picard season 3.
Kurtzman didn't work on PIC Season 2. Or SNW, or Lower Decks, or Prodigy.
Thats the joke.Michael Bay, John Rogers, and Ehren Kruger haven't been tried yet in Star Trek
I think Akiva Goldsman, Patrick Stewart, and Julie McNamara (who left Paramount+ in June 2021) deserve the blame for season 2.
Maybe in a week or two I'll try and devote 45 minutes to a pro-Terry Matalas take on season 2. Season 2 is at least fresh ground for analysis. Season 1 seems to be love it or hate it, and relitigating three year old debates just entrenches people in their initial positions.
I guess I need to include more emojis in my reply to jokes...
Terry was showrunner for Half the season. He was in the writers room, he pitched the time travel plot.
Stop ignoring his contributions just because he made something you liked.
FWIW, after PICARD season 3, PICARD season 2 is my second favorite season of NuTrek. I think the basic idea for the season is sound... Q, time travel to Star Trek's version of the early 21st century, Jurati and the Borg Queen... It just falls apart in the middle and second halves.
The first two episodes are great. 203 suffers from the forced Elnor dies so Raffi is in conflict with Picard part but otherwise works. Then the cliff effect hits.
In my opinion, I think most of these debates revolve around what people value in seeing something called Star Trek.
The Transformers comparison is actually pretty apt. There were Generation 1 fans who HATE the Bay films because they changed the look of the characters and they feel like they ripped the heart out of Optimus Prime's character (i.e., for a lot of children of the 80s, Optimus Prime was their surrogate TV father that they watched die in the movie). And there are fans who got into Transformers because they just want to watch giant transforming robots fight each other, and they don't get hung up on the characterizations and visual consistency.
Same dynamic here.
I think there's a contingent of fans that don't really care whether there's visual consistency in Star Trek, and don't get hung up on conflicting elements of canon that drives others crazy. They just care about whether there's an interesting story and themes. The other side loves seeing the connections between old and new, and feels it enriches the experience to have that consistency, but that is dismissed by the other side as just "nostalgia" that's not good storytelling for them.
The Transformers comparison is actually pretty apt. There were Generation 1 fans who HATE the Bay films because they changed the look of the characters and they feel like they ripped the heart out of Optimus Prime's character (i.e., for a lot of children of the 80s, Optimus Prime was their surrogate TV father that they watched die in the movie). And there are fans who got into Transformers because they just want to watch giant transforming robots fight each other, and they don't get hung up on the characterizations and visual consistency.
Same dynamic here.
I think there's a contingent of fans that don't really care whether there's visual consistency in Star Trek, and don't get hung up on conflicting elements of canon that drives others crazy. They just care about whether there's an interesting story and themes. The other side loves seeing the connections between old and new, and feels it enriches the experience to have that consistency, but that is dismissed by the other side as just "nostalgia" that's not good storytelling for them.
Last edited:
I grew up on TRANSFORMERS. I HATED the Michael Bay TRANSFORMERS movie, which is why I never bothered with any past the first one.
I think that grossly oversimplifies some people's positions. For me, the story and characters are the most important part. The interconnectivity is something I enjoy, and in fact make various "head canon" (to borrow to popular turn of phrase) to make it all exist as one continuity. To me that is part of the fun is finding creative solutions for apparent discontinuity. It isn't that it isn't important; it's that it takes a second-tier importance to if the characters are enjoyable.
I dismiss nostalgia just because it's meant as a "feel good moment." Which is fine but does it add to the story will be my first question? And if not then I'm less inclined to give it a pass, because it feels like it is pandering to a specific emotional part of me, and I do not find pandering endearing.
Mileage will vary as to how people rate such things.
That's a really great summation of something pretty complex into a single paragraph.
Hell, one thing I find so infuriating about SNW is it exists somewhere on the continuum between continuation and reboot.
- Status
Similar threads
