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

[HotRod]

Except for Picard, all of the live-action series have been prequels (at least initially) set in Trek's past.

It's not the setting that makes something nostalgic.

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

Strange New Worlds is about exactly that. It's about exploring something NEW with pretty much every episode. Yes, it has a few returning characters, but with the exception of Spock, we know virtually nothing about anyone.

and serves the section of the fanbase that has gone underserved otherwise since 2017.

The franchise doesn't owe you anything. They produce various television shows. You either enjoy them, or you don't.

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.

Of course a creator would want to put their own spin on things. These are creative people.

Plus people vehemently dislike certain aspects of Star Trek because they love the franchise so much.

those people need help.

A comeback story is much more aspiring than more hate click dopamine hit videos anyway.

are you new to the internet?

We got the best Star Trek music of the 21st century

By rehashing music from the 80's and 90's? Plus Michael Giacchino would like a word...

Canon/continuity/established lore was respected, especially regarding the TOS Constitution class with the USS New Jersey

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.

Matter of opinion. Discovery certainly feels like Star Trek and SNW is probably the most Trek has felt like Trek since 1969.

The writing wasn't perfect, but it was much improved compared to any other live action NuTrek season I've seen.

Pretty much on par with anything else thats recently been made.

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.

point proven

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

Who? Shaw? He's literally a rip off of a character from Jaws.

Matalas isn't perfect. But like Manny Coto, he came into a bad situation and managed to greatly improve things.

a situationhe played no small part in making, which he promptly swept under the rug and hoped we didn't notice.

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

Sure it is.

 

[fireproof78]

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

Well, we Trek the way we Trek and if others don't Trek that way then how can we know they Trek?

 

[James Cole]

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.

I guess, I can try and see the populism argument because I hated ST09, and good lord was that a work of "populism" in the sense that it aggressively courted a general audience, broke some of the "sacred guardrails" of the franchise, and JJ Abrams basically used Star Trek, which he didn't care about, to audition for Star Wars, which he did care about.

I don't really see PICARD season 3 as an everyone else thinks this, so you should too case. More like, earlier NuTrek actively pissed off a lot of people, and this season is trying to appeal to a larger portion of the fanbase. So I see it as an argument to expand a coalition that before was too narrow. So maybe the Abramsverse was too broad, and NuTrek had been too narrow? Then again, that could just be me disliking both the Abramsverse and Kurtzman parts NuTrek

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.

Look, if they could get Manny Coto, or Ron Moore, or Rene Echevarria, or Naren Shankar back... But the style of Michelle Paradise or Akiva Goldsman shouldn't be the only way forward either.

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.

For me, that means nothing matters. SNW can't even keep up continuity with DISCOVERY. So if it might as well be THE ORIVILLE, I need to find it to be interesting to watch on those terms, not on the well it's Star Trek so don't miss out on anything terms.

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 Star Trek fanbase has historically had leftist, liberal, moderate, and conservative fans. Pluralism should be welcomed. People like Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz really set me off, but at the same time I think it's a good thing they are Star Trek fans, and potential common ground could be had.

As a moderate liberal, I found some of the recent content to be very heavy handed. Star Trek shouldn't be just for the 6-8% of the population that are progressive activists. Talking with someone need not equal full agreement when you do have points of commonality.

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.

True, but I found the arc of him realizing how happy having a family makes him, and fills a void he didn't know was there, is well done.

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.

Sidney is effing amazing. Great characterization, great casting. That is showrunner dependent.

They already fixed Data's death in season 1 and this season ruined that and what that meant by resurrecting him yet again.

I saw season 1 as making it even worse, so I guess different viewpoints...

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?

Well, I would pick TOS/TAS+TOS FILMS+TNG/DS9/VGR/ENT over the Abramsverse and rest of live action NuTrek, and all that was there first. PICARD season 1 was a partial rupture, and season 3 tries to repair what I and others consider some of the damage. Just because someone "breaks" something, it doesn't mean they get to constitutionalize the breakage and render it irreversible.

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?

For me, trying to hold Matalas accountable for season 2 is like trying to hold Bryan Fuller accountable for DISCOVERY season 1. Yes, Matalas had some more lasting influence in the respective first two episodes, but he was never the senior showrunner, on set, or in the edit bay.

The massive drop off after 201 and 202 alone shows the difference with Matalas there, and him effectively gone. At least season 2 had Dave Blass and company.

The broad outline of the season seems fine... Q, alternate reality, time travel, new take while respecting earlier Trek lore on 21st century Earth... It's in the execution that it falls apart.

 

[fireproof78]

I guess, I can try and see the populism argument because I hated ST09, and good lord was that a work of "populism" in the sense that it aggressively courted a general audience, broke some of the "sacred guardrails" of the franchise, and JJ Abrams basically used Star Trek, which he didn't care about, to audition for Star Wars, which he did care about

He cares more about Trek than people will ever give him credit for. And that's sad that his status as loving Star Wars means he becomes persona non grata in the franchise.

However, in my opinion, nothing in Trek should be sacred. In broad strokes it has the capacity to be many different things and I welcome that, even if it isn't for me.

Look, if they could get Manny Coto, or Ron Moore, or Rene Echevarria, or Naren Shankar back... But the style of Michelle Paradise or Akiva Goldsman shouldn't be the only way forward either.

Agreed.

For me, that means nothing matters.

Sorry to hear that. I use to be that way but it was too frustrating and the thing supposedly meant for fun became a burden.

People like Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz really set me off, but at the same time I think it's a good thing they are Star Trek fans, and potential common ground could be had.

100% agree and I welcome that dialog and common ground.

For me, trying to hold Matalas accountable for season 2 is like trying to hold Bryan Fuller accountable for DISCOVERY season 1.

Well, yes, he was in a way, since he used up a large chunk of the budget on the first two episodes resulting in a lot of scrambling and reworking.

The broad outline of the season seems fine... Q, alternate reality, time travel, new take while respecting earlier Trek lore on 21st century Earth... It's in the execution that it falls apart.

The elements were not that great to begin with. Respecting the lore doesn't make a good story.

 

[TerryTrek]

Not a single person who has been critical of the season has denied its obvious success with the masses. But as someone mentioned, popularity doesn't equal quality. Some of the stupidest films ever made are huge box office hits. Does that make them the greatest films ever made? Should we hand the Oscar to Michael Bay for the Transformers films?

Transformers 1 was a hit and then it went downhill from there. The first Transformers was incredibly effective at being a summer popcorn blockbuster. Holding Star Trek to Oscar standards is ridiculous.

Picard S3 did what it needed to do, it worked as an effective final TNG movie. If it wasn't popular with fans, it would have failed in that objective. So ultimately it's popularity matters, and it's a metric that whatever Matalas did for S3... worked.

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.

What people? The same five guys on this board.

I think Matalas and the legacy of Picard S3 will survive that...

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

That makes me happy.

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.

Maybe they could just have the characters recite dialogue verbatim from an actual TOS episode. I'd watch that.

 

[fireproof78]

Holding Star Trek to Oscar standards is ridiculous.

Holding Trek to any standard beyond "Did it entertain" is equally ridiculous.

Maybe they could just have the characters recite dialogue verbatim from an actual TOS episode. I'd watch that.

Ah, yes. So much for strange and new.

This is what people are failing to grasp at any level. That this popularity will not lead to new; it will in fact lead to old, familiar, repetitive, derivative, going back to the well again and again to rather than doing anything new.

If that's what is desired from Trek then I would ask those who think Terry is the brave and new to at least be honest that all that is desired is "safe and familiar." Because, that's all Season 3 was, with action and lasers to cap it off. You know, the things that newer Trek has been derided for again and again.

At this point the ignorance is staggering at the lack of awareness of the hypocritcal standard, and starting to be unbelievable.

 

[Set Harth]

broke some of the "sacred guardrails" of the franchise,

That's just what Abrams does. He did the same thing in Star Wars. He never seems to want to play by the rules of the sandbox.

 

[fireproof78]

That's just what Abrams does. He did the same thing in Star Wars. He never seems to want to play by the rules of the sandbox.

What rules? Rules than fans had assumed existed because no one told them otherwise?

Again, no rules should be sacred. Abrams also created a film similar to A New Hope in The Force Awakens, though the character beats have a different tone and make the film an enjoyable adventure post OT.

 

[TerryTrek]

He went from being a passive, traumatized shell of his former self in Season One. That was his Season One arc. Michael Chabon is the one who brought Picard back to his assertive, driven self.

No they weren't. That story was already over for them when "Nepenthe" aired. They had moved past that, and that was what allowed them to counsel Jean-Luc. Matalas had to contrive an in-universe reason to revive internal conflicts these characters had already resolved.

I do not at all agree that having Will say such horrible things to Jean-Luc as "you've killed us all," or having Deanna manipulate Will's emotions, constitutes "repairing" their characters. Honestly those struck me as far more disrespectful to those characters than anything "Nepenthe" established.

I have no idea why Will and Deanna in S3 talked about Nepenthe like the entire planet is rural. It's a planet. There's plenty of room for there to be cities.

Never should have happened. Characters who have already died twice should stay dead. Bringing him back is ridiculous, it undermines verisimilitude, it's emotionally dishonest, and it's (however unintentionally) disrespectful to those audience members (like myself) for whom S1's depiction of Jean-Luc's grief over Data's death helped them process real-life loss.

I agree he mostly did right by these three characters, although I do wish he had found more for Beverly than for her entire emotional life to revolve around male characters (again).

I appreciate the time and effort you put into these replies.

But do I have to rewatch Picard Season 1 to respond to you? Because if so... Yeah, not worth it.

Suffice it to say audiences seemed to have enjoyed what Terry did with these characters for S3, so at a very baseline level... his decisions were popular ones and satisfying ones. Even if you aren't grooving to them.

Hopefully you found some things you enjoyed about the season.

I refuse to watch RLM anymore. Their misogynistic humor has alienated me.

They're not specifically misogynistic, their equally offensive to all groups. It was beautiful watching their gradual mental decline as the writing for Pic S2 went off the rails. More entertaining than the show itself.

 

[fireproof78]

I love how someone's mental decline is entertainment now. Disgusting.

 

[hellojane]

The Star Trek fanbase has historically had leftist, liberal, moderate, and conservative fans. Pluralism should be welcomed. People like Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz really set me off, but at the same time I think it's a good thing they are Star Trek fans, and potential common ground could be had.

100% agree! There's room for everyone as long as they're not being hateful. Common ground is very important.

True, but I found the arc of him realizing how happy having a family makes him, and fills a void he didn't know was there, is well done.

Sidney is effing amazing. Great characterization, great casting. That is showrunner dependent.

But it ruins the canon which you claim is the issue with other series and the other seasons. So it's okay to you for them to throw out 35 years of history and canon to make Jack work? But it's not okay to bend and set aside canon in any other spot?

I like Sidney too. She's one of my favorites of the TNG kids. Great casting for sure. But what is amazing about her? What great characterization? We know....nothing about her! Other than she flies fast and is in a fight with Geordi. Oh that she's nice to Seven. Tell us what's amazing about Sidney.

For me, trying to hold Matalas accountable for season 2 is like trying to hold Bryan Fuller accountable for DISCOVERY season 1. Yes, Matalas had some more lasting influence in the respective first two episodes, but he was never the senior showrunner, on set, or in the edit bay.

So basically everything good he gets credit for, but anything bad that happened was totally out of his hands or he had nothing to do with. Got it. Everything past episode 1 he had no hand in, knowledge of, or any input on I suppose.

Suffice it to say audiences seemed to have enjoyed what Terry did with these characters for S3, so at a very baseline level... his decisions were popular ones and satisfying ones. Even if you aren't grooving to them.

Audiences find the Fast and the Furious movies popular and satisfying too. That doesn't mean they're the greatest thing ever. Popularity doesn't equal good or great movies or seasons of tv.

They're not specifically misogynistic, their equally offensive to all groups. It was beautiful watching their gradual mental decline as the writing for Pic S2 went off the rails. More entertaining than the show itself.

This is gross. Do better.

 

[TerryTrek]

I love how someone's mental decline is entertainment now. Disgusting.

Oh it totally is entertaining. If you can't recognize their satirical humor, I can't help you.

Audiences find the Fast and the Furious movies popular and satisfying too. That doesn't mean they're the greatest thing ever. Popularity doesn't equal good or great movies or seasons of tv.

That's desperately cherry-picking. There are countless examples of where popularity with audiences, critics and fans does indeed showcase quality and success. MCU Phase 1-3 for example. That seems to be what WB, Paramount, Universal and Sony are all trying to emulate.

Because... ultimately these projects are made to be popular and successful.

 

[Campe]

That's just what Abrams does. He did the same thing in Star Wars. He never seems to want to play by the rules of the sandbox.

Good. I would rather see a story try something new and fail spectacularly as opposed to doing the same old thing time and time again. That's why I appreciate The Last Jedi and season one of Picard. We can (and have on this board) argued their quality until we're blue in the face (quality, of course, is subjective) but we have to agree that they tried to break the mold.

I want bold storytelling. Not safe warm blankets. I'm in the minority. I'm not blind to that.

 

[TerryTrek]

For me, trying to hold Matalas accountable for season 2 is like trying to hold Bryan Fuller accountable for DISCOVERY season 1. Yes, Matalas had some more lasting influence in the respective first two episodes, but he was never the senior showrunner, on set, or in the edit bay.

I'll do you one better.

See Chris Monfette's interview with Popcast.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

He literally says S1 was Chabon's vision.

S2 was Akiva's vision (and Chris and to work under that as a staff writer) and S3 was Terry's vision, and that Terry always wanted the show to be a ship-based TNG adventure.

Glad the stars aligned for him to have gotten his way with S3.

 

[Sci]

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

Standard SAG contract rules. Day players billed as "co-starring" are narratively insignificant and earn less money per episode than the principal cast and guest stars.

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

Absolutely not an applicable analogy.

Suffice it to say audiences seemed to have enjoyed what Terry did with these characters for S3, so at a very baseline level... his decisions were popular ones and satisfying ones. Even if you aren't grooving to them.

Hopefully you found some things you enjoyed about the season.

There's quite a bit I enjoyed about S3! And I'm happy it's achieved so much popularity. But, it also had serious narrative flaws, one or two of the decisions was artistically gross, and it's not fair to attribute to Matalas artistic work that was accomplished by Chabon. A reasonable evaluation of S3 is that it broadly succeeded at being the kind of story it wanted to be, but there were some serious missteps along the way. I think Matalas is capable of doing work of greater artistic depth, and I hope he gets the chance to do so in Star Trek: Legacy.

They're not specifically misogynistic,

Their entire Mr. Plinkett character is built around misogynistic humor.

their equally offensive to all groups. It was beautiful watching their gradual mental decline as the writing for Pic S2 went off the rails. More entertaining than the show itself.

That is not a very good counter-argument.

 

[hellojane]

That's desperately cherry-picking. There are countless examples of where popularity with audiences, critics and fans does indeed showcase quality and success. MCU Phase 1-3 for example. That seems to be what WB, Paramount, Universal and Sony are all trying to emulate.

Because... ultimately these projects are made to be popular and successful.

You keep arguing this season was a success and great because it was popular. Lots of things are popular and a success and satisfying. That has nothing to do with whether it's a great story or not. People keep asking you to share with us why this season was so great and satisfying and whatever to you and all you come back with is "it's popular". Is that the only barometer?

 

[fireproof78]

Oh it totally is entertaining. If you can't recognize their satirical humor, I can't help you.

Mental health is not funny...at all. Sorry but that's not something I mock.

I want bold storytelling. Not safe warm blankets. I'm in the minority. I'm not blind to that.

Same. Safe and warm is reruns. I use reruns for that.

But it ruins the canon which you claim is the issue with other series and the other seasons. So it's okay to you for them to throw out 35 years of history and canon to make Jack work? But it's not okay to bend and set aside canon in any other spot?

The term is double standard. When it is done "correctly*" and people like it then it's good and canon is not important. When it's done incorrectly then it is bad.

*correctly=how a fan would have done it.

I like Sidney too. She's one of my favorites of the TNG kids. Great casting for sure. But what is amazing about her? What great characterization? We know....nothing about her! Other than she flies fast and is in a fight with Geordi. Oh that she's nice to Seven. Tell us what's amazing about Sidney.

Indeed. The relationship between her and Geordi is warm enough but it's basic. There's a character there in so far as

Audiences find the Fast and the Furious movies popular and satisfying too. That doesn't mean they're the greatest thing ever. Popularity doesn't equal good or great movies or seasons of tv.

Again, this is a huge point that I keep going back to. Saying it's popular does not equal good. It's popular so more will be made. But not everyone is going to accept that or want a rerun of a successful season.

ETA: Obligatory YT video about the "appeal to the people" logical fallacy.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Sci]

You keep arguing this season was a success and great because it was popular. Lots of things are popular and a success and satisfying. That has nothing to do with whether it's a great story or not. People keep asking you to share with us why this season was so great and satisfying and whatever to you and all you come back with is "it's popular". Is that the only barometer?

I mean, for the kind of story PIC S3 is trying to be -- a good time watching the band get back together -- then popularity is a fairly important metric of success. If large numbers of people aren't having fun watching the Beatles reunite to play their biggest hits one last time, then the concert isn't doing what it's setting out to do.

But, "getting the band back together to play their greatest hits one last time" is not a particularly deep or artistically meritorious kind of concert. It's not the kind of concert that's going to do all that much that's new or challenge its audience.

I do think PIC S3 deserves credit for the new things it does. It does give a new level of depth and sophistication to the TNG characters, because narratively it would be impossible not to in modern television. But the two ultimate goals of the season were #1 to get the TNG crew back on the Enterprise-D bridge and #2 evolve Jean-Luc into being a Good Dad. #2 is new, #1 is not. The band got back together to play all their biggest hits plus one new song, their last new song.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it's also very different from the kind of story Chabon was telling in S1.

 

[TerryTrek]

You keep arguing this season was a success and great because it was popular. Lots of things are popular and a success and satisfying. That has nothing to do with whether it's a great story or not. People keep asking you to share with us why this season was so great and satisfying and whatever to you and all you come back with is "it's popular". Is that the only barometer?

Because ultimately if it wasn't great for so many fans and audiences, it wouldn't be popular.

I say this with movies as well. There's a fair argument for a film being great if it is successful, and has critical, audience and fan approval and strong WOM (and box office). The later being measurable metrics.

For example, Avengers 2012 wasn't exactly Citizen Kane.. but it was great in the context of being a summer blockbuster. It did everything it needed to do and had strong critical, audience and fan approval, with strong box office and WOM.

 

[Sci]

Because ultimately if it wasn't great for so many fans and audiences, it wouldn't be popular.

I say this with movies as well. There's a fair argument for a film being great if it is successful, and has critical, audience and fan approval and strong WOM (and box office). The later being measurable metrics.

For example, Avengers 2012 wasn't exactly Citizen Kane.. but it was great in the context of being a summer blockbuster. It did everything it needed to do and had strong critical, audience and fan approval, with strong box office and WOM.

I think I can extend your metaphor here to make a point.

I agree with you that PIC S3 could be equated to The Avengers. The issue is, PIC S1 was The Dark Knight. And the people who liked PIC S1 wanted PIC S3 to be more akin to Logan than The Avengers (or Avengers: Endgame if you want to make the comparison more literal).