Spoilers Did Picard finally ''right the ship'' with Picard season 3?

[The Commander]

The Voyage Home is not about the mysterybox of the probe.

The probe is basically an allegory for human-made climate change/natural desasters.

Moreover, Picard season 3 is not really about the Changelings, or the Borg, or the details of the mysterybox. The reason people might give some things a pass here where it would stick out like a sore thumb somewhere else, is that those details were only a means to an end with reuniting these specific characters and seeing how they’ve changed, but how they’re a family and meant to be on the bridge of the Enterprise together in the end.

That's correct. It's always about the characters. But the character arcs should be connected to the plot in a logical and satisfying way. I don't think that was the case in Season 2 (multiple characters and storylines that went nowhere) and only barely the case in Season 1.

 

[The Wormhole]

Both actors/characters have been there since the first episodes of season 1. Both have been featured in cast photos. Both actors have been in most of the episodes of Discovery (e.g., they've appeared in more episodes of Discovery than Andrew Robinson guest starred as Garak in Deep Space Nine). And both actors have had entire episodes where subplots were devoted to their characters. Yet, in all of that time, the writers of the show didn't flesh them out nearly as well as they could have except to either show them being defined by their upbringing, driven by traumatic emotions, or kicking someone's ass.

Mileage may vary, but I would argue it's indicative of how the writing in many ways failed with the Burnham character, and it speaks to the lack of depth in characterization.

None of that changes the fact that they are literally billed as the most minor characters in the episodes. That is, they get end credit "co-star" listing. Which at that status, the show has already done more with the characters than it was ever obligated to. Comparing them to Andrew Robinson as Garak is a complete non-starter, he was always listed as "Guest Star" and sometimes even "Special Guest Star." That alone makes his role more significant. I ask again, don't you even television?

And that photo you linked is not an official cast photo, rather just a photo that was taken when everyone was on set. Here's an example of an official cast photo, taken from season 3.

 

[Farscape One]

From 2009 to the present, there have been 3 movies and 5 television series produced under the Trek banner. Except for Picard, all of the live-action series have been prequels (at least initially) set in Trek's past.

If season 3 of Picard is a "nostalgia wank fest," I would argue the past 14 years have been rooted in using nostalgia that turned inward. And that's fine, if you've liked that direction. But let's not pretend that Strange New Worlds isn't as much rooted in watching a set of legacy characters in a familiar setting as Picard season 3 is. The only difference is that Picard keeps the LCARS looking like it did 30 years ago.


Both actors/characters have been there since the first episodes of season 1. Both have been featured in cast photos. Both actors have been in most of the episodes of Discovery (e.g., they've appeared in more episodes of Discovery than Andrew Robinson guest starred as Garak in Deep Space Nine). And both actors have had entire episodes where subplots were devoted to their characters. Yet, in all of that time, the writers of the show didn't flesh them out nearly as well as they could have except to either show them being defined by their upbringing, driven by traumatic emotions, or kicking someone's ass.

Mileage may vary, but I would argue it's indicative of how the writing in many ways failed with the Burnham character, and it speaks to the lack of depth in characterization.

Excellent point about the comparison with Detmer and Owosekun vs. Garak. To extend that, both DISCO bridge characters have appeared more often on their show than ANY of the secondary/recurring characters from DS9.

DS9 was far better at bringing depth to all their characters, even the recurring ones. Dukat, Winn, Weyoun, Damar, Rom, Nog, Martok... the list goes on. Hell, we know more about Morn than we do either Detmer or Owosekun, and he never uttered a single word in the entire series!

 

[The Commander]

It broke no barriers and did nothing groundbreaking. It pulled at the heartstrings in regards to nostalgia.

It closed decades old chapters (the Borg and Picard's familiy situation) and gave the TNG crew the send-off they deserved - the final (10 hour) TNG movie. That was the mission for this season - nothing more, nothing less. And I think it succeeded.

It also setup a potential spinoff that can tell new stories (if it wants to).

 

[The Wormhole]

DS9 was far better at bringing depth to all their characters, even the recurring ones. Dukat, Winn, Weyoun, Damar, Rom, Nog, Martok... the list goes on. Hell, we know more about Morn than we do either Detmer or Owosekun, and he never uttered a single word in the entire series!

Again, with the exception of Morn everyone you mentioned were all listed in the credits as Guest Star or Special Guest Star. That's why they get more attention than Detmer and Owo. Guest Stars get more to do than Co-Stars. Why is this such a difficult concept?

 

[Farscape One]

Again, with the exception of Morn everyone you mentioned were all listed in the credits as Guest Star or Special Guest Star. That's why they get more attention than Detmer and Owo. Guest Stars get more to do than Co-Stars. Why is this such a difficult concept?

How do Co-stars get less to do than Guest Stars?

Does a guest in your home own more of the property than the co-owner of the house?

A co-star is there on a regular basis. A guest star is not. Obviously, a co-star should get more to do than the guest star. Certainly at least equal to what a guest star gets to do.

 

[137th Gebirg]

SAG rules?

 

[hellojane]

I feel I should mention, once again, that I generally liked the season. I had issues here and there, but overall, it was enjoyable.

What it wasn't, however, was the second coming of Star Trek. It was an enjoyable season of Trek that most definitely beat you over the head with the nostalgia hammer in a herculean effort to garner an emotional response. And it worked.

Picard season three was flawed but passable entertainment. It broke no barriers and did nothing groundbreaking. It pulled at the heartstrings in regards to nostalgia. It was safe. If that’s what “the masses” want, more power to them. But let’s make no pretenses that this was any sort of a remarkable season of television. It really wasn’t.

Basically this. Thank you. For me, there's two things about this season. Yes, I enjoyed it and thought it was for the most part good (other than some straight up baffling decisions). Yes, I was happy and satisfied with the ending and where they left them. Multiple moments and scenes across the season seriously got to me. Again, I really enjoyed it mostly. For the most part, I'm satisfied if this is where we leave this cast as a whole. I'm grateful they got another chance after Nemesis. However, we can still call out the issues and that the season mostly coasted off vibes and nostalgia. Thinking something is good and enjoying it doesn't equal "omg best season of Trek eva!!".

As we get some time away from the series, I think it's important to start looking at it with a critical eye and calling out stuff that didn't work.

 

[Sci]

Both actors/characters have been there since the first episodes of season 1. Both have been featured in cast photos. Both actors have been in most of the episodes of Discovery (e.g., they've appeared in more episodes of Discovery than Andrew Robinson guest starred as Garak in Deep Space Nine). And both actors have had entire episodes where subplots were devoted to their characters.

And none of that matters, because they are not part of the principal cast. They are day players who rank below guest stars on the call sheet.

 

[Campe]

It closed decades old chapters (the Borg and Picard's familiy situation) and gave the TNG crew the send-off they deserved - the final (10 hour) TNG movie. That was the mission for this season - nothing more, nothing less. And I think it succeeded.

That’s all well and good. But let’s be fair: While Picard’s familial situation was resolved (albeit I don’t necessarily believe it needed to be) and, sure, the Borg are done. Until another writer decides to bring them back.

As for the goodbye to TNG cast, I do agree that it was a good farewell for them. And while this is the crew I grew up with, I’m also ready to move on from them for good. I don’t need further follow ups for them.

It also setup a potential spinoff that can tell new stories (if it wants to).

Sure. As I’ve said, if that’s the direction they decide to go, good deal.

 

[fireproof78]

Plus, as I've mentioned before, it's not so much the success of the season that is turning people off, it's the deification of its production staff, namely Lord Terry Matalas, that has raised eyebrows.

It's his newfound popularity that has persons like myself, worried as to what it will mean for the future of Star Trek.

Agreed. Again, this past season was well put together, and I would say built well off of themes both from TNG and the first two seasons. However, it still had the indulgences of current Trek with the CGI, as well as heavy leaning on nostalgia and ignoring some pretty big aspects of character development, specifically what happened with Beverly, Jack's relationship to Starfleet as well as past criminal record, and Troi's limited use. It's good but not flawless. I would not classify it as "best ever."

I don’t think anyone is ignoring that the season is well-received. That doesn’t mean it appeals to all. And no, despite what you keep saying, not loving season three doesn’t make a minority option irrelevant. It makes it a minority opinion.

Yes, indeed. People need to be aware that opinions, especially in a franchise that espouses egalitarianism, should be welcome rather than stated to be minority. So what if it's the minority opinion? Why does that matter? If the idea is that Trek should appeal to as many possible would we not want to hear the minority opinions to determine what might be off putting for some?

 

[James Cole]

I hated 09 and ID, but I do give it credit for reigniting interest in the franchise. BEYOND, at least, was really, really good.

I don't think that was sustainable, though. At least, not as a series.

Definitely not at a ~$200 million budget with Bad Robot taking a massive upfront production fee!

Case for what? This is absurd. Share your opinions. This popularity contest garbage is smacking of 6th grade bullshit and I would like to belive that Trek could leave that behind. As it stands, it feels very juvenile and does tells not me nothing about what you like. Might as well say, "all the cool kids are doing it."

The case for making a Star Trek: Legacy that hits the notes that PICARD season 3 did that none of the other live action NuTrek seasons had done, and serves the section of the fanbase that has gone underserved otherwise since 2017.

Why would any business consciously alienate a large portion of their own fanbase? What purpose would that serve?

Executives not understanding Star Trek. A new group of creators wanting to put their own stamp on the franchise. Bad market research. Irrational actors. Egos. Not getting the importance of merchandising revenue.

Youtube, which basically thrives on people hating on everything, is not a reliable metric. Rotten Tomatoes isn't either when the reviews for season 3 are a way smaller sample than season 1. User ratings for IMDB are about the same across both seasons.

Videos about things people like also do well. Many behind the scenes interviews about PICARD season 3 have good numbers. Plus people vehemently dislike certain aspects of Star Trek because they love the franchise so much. A comeback story is much more aspiring than more hate click dopamine hit videos anyway.

I want Starfleet Academy and judging by your beloved social media metrics, so do a lot of other people. There's room for SFA and a new 25th century show. It's not either or.

Is there though with Paramount+ belt tightening, and less money to through around in an era of high interest rates? Unfortunately at the moment it's a zero sum game. And since SFA would be tied to DISCOVERY/SNW, that's also the zero sum game of TOS and through that the intercontinuity of everything from 1966-2005 being overwritten.

I'm still waiting to hear how it was a major victory outside of "we got to see everyone together and everyone was happy at the end". What great story beats and storylines did we get out this season? What great character work did we get? Please tell me outside of Troi and Riker, which as said before, was basically all on the actors and that season 1 had set them up a great arc.

• The PICARD arc about never having a family from GEN was followed up
• We got to see an entirely new interplay between Picard and Riker at in different stage in their relationship
• Geordi was shown having a family after all of his bad luck with relationships in TNG
• The bad death of Data from NEM was fixed, with a great fresh new take on the character
• Shaw and Sidney LaForge are the best new characters introduced to Star Trek since 2005... the crew of the USS Titan were believable as Starfleet professionals
• We got the best Star Trek music of the 21st century
• Behind the scenes, we got to see Doug Drexler, the Okudas, and more Berman-era veterans return to the franchise
• The season was a period piece, not set in the "infinite present" of no defined past or future
• Canon/continuity/established lore was respected, especially regarding the TOS Constitution class with the USS New Jersey, while the Locutus DNA alterations, the Borg navigational computer virus, that Section 31 would have needed Changeling prisoners to create the virus from DS9, and even why the Holodeck would have independent power during a crisis all added to existing lore

Often when something is popular, there are valid reasons as to why. While I don't think Matalas is the second coming, I think he is the most competent of all the Nu Trek showrunners, and has a good pulse on the fandom, and knows how to interact with them.

He certainly managed to win over many critics, and this season at least holds up to the average level of quality of any Berman-Trek season.

The only difference is the nostalgia overload of the cast of TNG being back together, with the Enterprise-D thrown in as well. They dangled the nostalgia carrot, and the masses ate it up.

It also got the tone, continuity, verisimilitude largely right. It "felt like Star Trek", not a generic SF show with some Star Trek trappings and CW style dialog. It also offered some nuance.

But was the writing any better? Not really. Half of it was ripping off elements from other films and series, or taking character histories from films completely outside the franchise, as with Shaw.

Almost every plot is bound to have some retreads. The writing wasn't perfect, but it was much improved compared to any other live action NuTrek season I've seen. The serialized arc stayed with what was planned from the beginning, without massive changes mid stream. The season won't be incredibly dated in 5 years. Meanwhile another season had been repeatedly criticized for taking from Mass Effect, Firefly, Alien...

Things that had previously driven certain segments of the fandom crazy, were excused because it was done involving a character they had a previous attachment too.

A lot comes down to writing and execution. The Crusher hid a son plot depends especially on this. It doesn't make perfect sense, but it makes plausible enough sense for the plot to hit that mark then move on.

Picard S3 is "NuTrek." They just painted it an overload of nostalgia, handed out rose coloured glasses.

I'm fine with serialization and characters having some conflict. But I do want the already established tone, continuity etc elements as well.

I feel like if Jack Crusher was on any other Trek show or had any other name and any other parents, he would not being getting as many passes as he's gotten from the fanbase. Also, I hate to say it and open this can of worms, but if he'd been a daughter instead of a son I also feel like the reception would have been much different.

A son or daughter working really depends on the writing, the actor/actress hired, and how they play off Picard. And Soji was already a surrogate daughter, so it made sense here to go with a son.

If by righting the ship you mean a bunch of 90s cast members, familiar music, and familiar production design but many of the same writing tropes as other modern trek shows then sure.

Good aesthetics plus good execution... think back to the ORVILLE vs DISCOVERY debates...

Might it be because the TNG characters are better characters and have more depth than those on Discovery? That maybe more people care about these characters and like watching their interactions with each other more than what the Discovery writers have put forward?

Hell, some of the new characters in season 3 are the best new Star Trek characters in two decades!

Most of the writers behind season 2 were also behind season 3. So I see it as season 3's fault for completely ignoring the conduit.

Again, Akiva Goldsman was the showrunner for season 2. It is common throughout Star Trek history that when a new showrunner takes over, they all introduce plot points that their former boss vetoed. See TNG with the transition from Michael Piller to Jeri Taylor, DS9 with Piller to Ira Steven Behr, VGR with Piller to Taylor to Brannon Braga to Kenneth Biller, and ENT with Braga to Manny Coto.

Plus, as I've mentioned before, it's not so much the success of the season that is turning people off, it's the deification of its production staff, namely Lord Terry Matalas, that has raised eyebrows.

It's his newfound popularity that has persons like myself, worried as to what it will mean for the future of Star Trek.

Paramount could decide to just doubledown on the nostalgia, based on the success of this season and turn the franchise inward on itself and become nothing more then a nostalgia wank fest.

Matalas has pretty much stated that those are his intentions with the franchise.

Why can't we have both? I can't stand DISCOVERY and SNW, and SFA will replace the former. Why can't legacy fans that don't like NuTrek also have their cut of the pie?

Matalas isn't perfect. But like Manny Coto, he came into a bad situation and managed to greatly improve things. And he seems committed to the creative integrity of Star Trek, the importance of continuity, and wants to pick up all the hanging threads from the Berman era instead of hitting the reset button and soft rebooting everything.

If season 3 of Picard is a "nostalgia wank fest," I would argue the past 14 years have been rooted in using nostalgia that turned inward. And that's fine, if you've liked that direction. But let's not pretend that Strange New Worlds isn't as much rooted in watching a set of legacy characters in a familiar setting as Picard season 3 is. The only difference is that Picard keeps the LCARS looking like it did 30 years ago.

Continuation vs reboot. SNW is just not believable set a few years before TOS.

 

[Farscape One]

Yes, indeed. People need to be aware that opinions, especially in a franchise that espouses egalitarianism, should be welcome rather than stated to be minority. So what if it's the minority opinion? Why does that matter? If the idea is that Trek should appeal to as many possible would we not want to hear the minority opinions to determine what might be off putting for some?

Fully agreed here. IDIC, after all.

 

[hellojane]

As for the goodbye to TNG cast, I do agree that it was a good farewell for them. And while this is the crew I grew up with, I’m also ready to move on from them for good. I don’t need further follow ups for them.

The only ones that season made me want to some possible follow ups on are Riker, Troi, and Geordi. Given the setup for Legacy and who would be on it, that'll probably happen. But even then, I'd just want an episode or two at best.

I have no desire to see Picard, Crusher, or Data again and I hope we leave all three where this finale left them. Let these people be happy where we left them and ride off into the sunset.

 

[fireproof78]

The case for making a Star Trek: Legacy that hits the notes that PICARD season 3 did that none of the other live action NuTrek seasons had done, and serves the section of the fanbase that has gone underserved otherwise since 2017.

Then make the case, as you often do. What I am pushing back against is the populism stance. I don't take the appeal to the majority as something good. That means the case is so weak that the only way it can stand up is by saying "Well, lots of people like it so you should too." No thank you. I don't agree with many of your opinions on Season 3 but you articulate them well.

Why can't we have both? I can't stand DISCOVERY and SNW, and SFA will replace the former. Why can't legacy fans that don't like NuTrek also have their cut of the pie?

I want both. I don't want to be told that Matalas is the only way forward. That's how we got so many TWOK riffs.

Continuation vs reboot. SNW is just not believable set a few years before TOS.

This is where you and I will probably never agree. I do not treat Trek as a period piece, so things do not have to perfectly line up. I treat them as dramatizations of real world events in universe. So if the aesthetics don't perfectly line up that's fine. Star Trek as literal history is something I left behind long ago.

 

[Campe]

This is where you and I will probably never agree. I do not treat Trek as a period piece, so things do not have to perfectly line up. I treat them as dramatizations of real world events in universe. So if the aesthetics don't perfectly line up that's fine. Star Trek as literal history is something I left behind long ago.

I just treat them as fictional stories told over an almost 60 year period. Yeah, there will be inconsistencies and updates, some better than others.

 

[hellojane]

Videos about things people like also do well. Many behind the scenes interviews about PICARD season 3 have good numbers. Plus people vehemently dislike certain aspects of Star Trek because they love the franchise so much. A comeback story is much more aspiring than more hate click dopamine hit videos anyway.

Videos about positive stuff do do well but they're outnumbered mostly by the negative ones. I haven't wanted to say anything because it felt pointless, but I've long been side eyeing the people involved with this season going out of their way to cozy up with and pal around with the worst people YouTube has to offer. That often told me exactly who this season was meant to be playing to and appealing to.

The PICARD arc about never having a family from GEN was followed up

• Geordi was shown having a family after all of his bad luck with relationships in TNG
• The bad death of Data from NEM was fixed, with a great fresh new take on the character
• Shaw and Sidney LaForge are the best new characters introduced to Star Trek since 2005... the crew of the USS Titan were believable as Starfleet professionals
• We got the best Star Trek music of the 21st century
• Canon/continuity/established lore was respected

The Picard act about never wanting a family was nice and well written and part of your beloved canon and lore. Not everyone has a desire to have a family. Picard knowing the Picard name would end with him was a nice yet sad throughline throughout TNG. Matalas took a bulldozer to that bit of canon to create Jack. Yes, it was nice Geordi had a family but anybody doing a followup could have written that. Terry Matalas isn't the only one who could give him a family lol. Anybody writing the show would have. They already fixed Data's death in season 1 and this season ruined that and what that meant by resurrecting him yet again. That's debatable about Shaw and Sidney even though I liked both of them. I mean all we know about Sidney is that she can fly fast, likes Jack, and is mad at Geordi. Hardly great characterization there. We've spent the past ten weeks being yelled at that this season was great because it ignored the canon and continuity and established lore from the first two seasons. Now it's that oh it fixed that and it was respected. Which is it?

A son or daughter working really depends on the writing, the actor/actress hired, and how they play off Picard. And Soji was already a surrogate daughter, so it made sense here to go with a son.

This is a moot point because they would never give Picard a daughter in the first place or act like a daughter can give you any legacy. They did okay with one of Geordi's daughters. The other one just stood there for the most part. Any other daughters the TNG crew has were basically ignored because everything was about sons.

Again, Akiva Goldsman was the showrunner for season 2.

Again, Matalas worked on season 2. He was involved with season 2. Why does he only get credit for the good and none for the bad?

 

[The Wormhole]

How do Co-stars get less to do than Guest Stars?

They're the last ones listed because they're roles are the least important.

Does a guest in your home own more of the property than the co-owner of the house?

A co-star is there on a regular basis. A guest star is not. Obviously, a co-star should get more to do than the guest star. Certainly at least equal to what a guest star gets to do.

Yeah, I don't think you understand what a "co-star" means. Go back and look at the end credits of the 90s shows. They list all the minor roles in the episodes as "co-stars" or "co-starring." You know, roles like "Unnamed Ensign" or "Klingon #5." That's what "co-star" means. That's what the characters like Detmer, Owo, Bryce and Rhys are, since that is how they are listed. And if you look at the credits for a Disco episode, you will notice the other minor characters in an episode like Random Unnamed Alien the Fourth are listed right there amongst the bridge crew. The heading "co-stars/co-starring" is the last one listed for actors because it's the least important. Since the bridge officers are listed there, the show has already done far more with them than it was ever obligated to.

Seriously, doesn't anyone even Television around here?

 

[fireproof78]

Videos about positive stuff do do well but they're outnumbered mostly by the negative ones. I haven't wanted to say anything because it felt pointless, but I've long been side eyeing the people involved with this season going out of their way to cozy up with and pal around with the worst people YouTube has to offer. That often told me exactly who this season was meant to be playing to and appealing to.

I know my opinion is a minority one but I'll carry on for reasons. I used to find a lot more value in YouTube than I do now. I think the biggest change was participating in a thread on a Star Trek film (on another forum) and the discussing devolved in to just YT videos making the points for posters. At that point in time I realized that the videos didn't actually help the discussion. And going to the comments didn't add to the discussion either because now you have several lines of conversation that no one is actually sharing with the other side. And, ultimately, YT is a self-serving enterprise that benefits by more people viewing, so it doesn't come across as genuine as even conversations here.

So, ultimately, catering to the YT crowd is perhaps even more off putting because it adds little to the conversation in my mind. I would rather hear people's opinions here and be able to engage with them, rather than just get a lecture from a video were there is no interactivity on the part of the content producer.

Seriously, doesn't anyone even Television around here?

No, we only Trek around here.

 

[The Wormhole]

No, we only Trek around here.

I'm starting to question how many even do that.