Does Prodigy's semi cancellation make Legacy more likely?

[fireproof78]

Omg, someone wants to follow up on 21 seasons worth of Trek history, and storylines that are wide open for greater exploration that structural constraints in the 1980s-2000s prevented! Instead we need to beat legacy fans over the head with the idea that their Star Trek is dead, and needs to be remade for... the CW audience with an HBO level budget!

Hyperbole. That was delicious.

Some people really love Star Trek but really seem to hate any kind of continuity and building up on established history.

No. It's just not the first, second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth drawing item for Trek for me. It's not hatred to be less than enthused by a project promising nostalgia and nothing else.

Some people especially seem to enjoy Star Trek history being "deconstructed" because they don't want any kind of baggage or history, and want things set in the infinite present where the past and future don't matter. For me, that's just perfectly disposable content.

All content is perfectly disposable content. Meaning is made by the viewer not shared history as such. You can use continuity as a beautiful tool to weave in and out of prior themes, or build something new.

It's facile to suggest that the only way to tell more stories about a character is to dwell on their past. That makes no sense. People grow and change over their lives. Picard was not the same person on the Enterprise that he'd been on the Stargazer, so why the hell would you expect a story about Picard 20 years later to be about the same Picard in the same kind of stories? That's not the only way to do more with a character, it's just the lazy, sucky way. Season 1 had the right idea, with some flaws in execution. But seasons 2 & 3 responded to those flaws in the wrong way, by throwing the baby out with the bathwater, deciding that boldly going where the story and characters hadn't gone before had been a mistake, and retreating to the safe, timid option of pandering to familiarity.

Exactly so. It's not continuity that's the problem; it's the idea of stagnation within that continuity. That the only way to tell these stories is for the characters to remain exactly the same and to be where they were before (i.e. a starship captain with the same crew.)

Legacy, if born out the way that Matalas wants it, will be more of the same. Characters will not change. The galaxy will not change. The ship's crew will be all these name dropped characters to say "See, it's totally like the last time and this is they're family!"

 

[El Maestro]

It's facile to suggest that the only way to tell more stories about a character is to dwell on their past. That makes no sense. People grow and change over their lives. Picard was not the same person on the Enterprise that he'd been on the Stargazer, so why the hell would you expect a story about Picard 20 years later to be about the same Picard in the same kind of stories? That's not the only way to do more with a character, it's just the lazy, sucky way. Season 1 had the right idea, with some flaws in execution. But seasons 2 & 3 responded to those flaws in the wrong way, by throwing the baby out with the bathwater, deciding that boldly going where the story and characters hadn't gone before had been a mistake, and retreating to the safe, timid option of pandering to familiarity.

I don't know, this is all pretty subjective. I don't think you're wrong, and even if I did, I'm just a guy, but I think that there's a lot of baggage tied up in JLP as a character due to TNG's ignominious box office record, as well as wider trends in the cultural landscape, combined with the business needs of franchise entertainment, streaming or otherwise.

First and foremost, I think it is a little naive to expect that there would be absolutes, e.g. "NO nostalgia at all," or "it must be ALL nostalgia" or whatever. Second, many fans were clamoring for a better resolution to the TNG characters/era than they got with NEM, which was a mean-spirited sour wreck of a movie, and it cast a long shadow on the franchise. Third, while you may have preferred S1 the wider fanbase was lukewarm at best on it. This is not an appeal to the masses as being correct, but rather related to my next point which is that the fans voted with their wallets and eyeballs and for better or worse wanted to have more TNG presence in PIC. So that's what happened: a business decision. It's not that surprising, because the "new take" on JLP in season 1 was just more sad-sack JLP and after NEM not many wanted to see that. You call that "pandering to familiarity." Ok, I guess. But fans weren't wrong to feel they way they did about TNG's end nor were they wrong to be excited about the potential to "fix" it.

For me personally, I rather enjoyed the TNG resolution aspects of PIC but really that's it. I think it was a pretty mediocre to bad show otherwise and I don't expect it to age well. The problem wasn't the nostalgia. The problems are related to plotting, characterization, dialogue, etc..."writing," essentially.

What I'm saying is that focusing on the nostalgia as the reason for the badness lets those responsible for the badness off the hook. No one here (that I have seen, and I am definitely not saying it) is saying that "the only way to tell more stories about a character is to dwell on their past." This is reductive and dismissive. What I am saying is that it is not unnatural for JLP's past exploits and characters to appear in a show about him, and, focusing on the fact that you didn't like the nostalgia and that alone is the reason the show is bad is facile because it's like criticizing the top 3 feet of a mountain of trash but ignoring the mile of trash below it.

A few people are really stuck on this. If the show was better I suspect that the TNG resolution stuff would bother them a lot less.

 

[fireproof78]

Season 3 was the same style as Season 1. It's not the nostalgia = bad. It's that nostalgia is used as a cover for a multitude of sins.

 

[Christopher]

I don't know, this is all pretty subjective. I don't think you're wrong, and even if I did, I'm just a guy, but I think that there's a lot of baggage tied up in JLP as a character due to TNG's ignominious box office record, as well as wider trends in the cultural landscape, combined with the business needs of franchise entertainment, streaming or otherwise.

Of course audiences have a lot of investment in the character of Picard, which is why it was good for season 1 to let us revisit him in a smart way, one that acknowledges that a beloved character and the world around him can transform and change and go in radically new directions. Season 1's story and characterization were informed by what came before, absolutely, yes -- Picard was still haunted by Data's death, the Romulan supernova had transformed the political landscape, the defect behind his Irumodic Syndrome in AGT was killing him, etc. But it moved forward from that past into something new, something that evolved out of it. That's hugely different from just rehashing familiar elements the way seasons 2 & 3 did. Season 1 used the familiar as a launching point to go somewhere new; seasons 2 & 3 used the familiar as a crutch.

First and foremost, I think it is a little naive to expect that there would be absolutes, e.g. "NO nostalgia at all," or "it must be ALL nostalgia" or whatever.

Who the hell is saying anything that stupid? I sure never did. I hate reducing things to binary absolutes. Nothing in life is that simplistic.

Second, many fans were clamoring for a better resolution to the TNG characters/era than they got with NEM, which was a mean-spirited sour wreck of a movie, and it cast a long shadow on the franchise.

Key word, better. I wasn't against revisiting the characters, but only some things in season 3 actually were good. Worf maturing into a serene sensei was marvelous, showing real character evolution. Data's resurrection could've been stupid, and it was contrived as hell, but it was handled in a thoughtful way that wasn't just a reset button, and it gave us an absolutely magnificent resolution for Data and Lore that was the high point of the entire season. But so much else just didn't work. It was not better, not on the whole

Third, while you may have preferred S1 the wider fanbase was lukewarm at best on it.

I repeat: The first season had flaws in the execution. That does not mean the answer was to throw the whole experiment out and retreat into lazy pandering. Lots of shows stumble in their first seasons. TNG sure did. The brave thing would've been to stick with what the show was meant to be and do it better. Instead, they panicked and gave up, which was an overreaction.

Season 3 was the same style as Season 1.

Style, by definition, is superficial. I'm not talking about "style," I'm talking about story. I'm talking about the complete erasure of everything established in season 1. The abandonment of all its promising worldbuilding about synths, the Romulan Free State, the Fenris Rangers, etc. The systematic removal of most of season 1's cast over the course of season 2. There was no attempt to make the three seasons feel like an organic progression from one to the next; each season seemed to have an outright contemptuous lack of interest in the show's previous storylines. That's a hell of a messy way to structure a series, regardless of "style." Hell, Picard isn't even a series. It's three separate miniseries that pay lip service to sharing a reality.

 

[fireproof78]

Of course audiences have a lot of investment in the character of Picard, which is why it was good for season 1 to let us revisit him in a smart way, one that acknowledges that a beloved character and the world around him can transform and change and go in radically new directions. Season 1's story and characterization were informed by what came before, absolutely, yes -- Picard was still haunted by Data's death, the Romulan supernova had transformed the political landscape, the defect behind his Irumodic Syndrome in AGT was killing him, etc. But it moved forward from that past into something new, something that evolved out of it. That's hugely different from just rehashing familiar elements the way seasons 2 & 3 did. Season 1 used the familiar as a launching point to go somewhere new; seasons 2 & 3 used the familiar as a crutch.





Who the hell is saying anything that stupid? I sure never did. I hate reducing things to binary absolutes. Nothing in life is that simplistic.




Key word, better. I wasn't against revisiting the characters, but only some things in season 3 actually were good. Worf maturing into a serene sensei was marvelous, showing real character evolution. Data's resurrection could've been stupid, and it was contrived as hell, but it was handled in a thoughtful way that wasn't just a reset button, and it gave us an absolutely magnificent resolution for Data and Lore that was the high point of the entire season. But so much else just didn't work. It was not better, not on the whole




I repeat: The first season had flaws in the execution. That does not mean the answer was to throw the whole experiment out and retreat into lazy pandering. Lots of shows stumble in their first seasons. TNG sure did. The brave thing would've been to stick with what the show was meant to be and do it better. Instead, they panicked and gave up, which was an overreaction.




Style, by definition, is superficial. I'm not talking about "style," I'm talking about story. I'm talking about the complete erasure of everything established in season 1. The abandonment of all its promising worldbuilding about synths, the Romulan Free State, the Fenris Rangers, etc. The systematic removal of most of season 1's cast over the course of season 2. There was no attempt to make the three seasons feel like an organic progression from one to the next; each season seemed to have an outright contemptuous lack of interest in the show's previous storylines. That's a hell of a messy way to structure a series, regardless of "style." Hell, Picard isn't even a series. It's three separate miniseries that pay lip service to sharing a reality.

You put it better than I. Style was not the right word.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Of course audiences have a lot of investment in the character of Picard, which is why it was good for season 1 to let us revisit him in a smart way, one that acknowledges that a beloved character and the world around him can transform and change and go in radically new directions. Season 1's story and characterization were informed by what came before, absolutely, yes -- Picard was still haunted by Data's death, the Romulan supernova had transformed the political landscape, the defect behind his Irumodic Syndrome in AGT was killing him, etc. But it moved forward from that past into something new, something that evolved out of it. That's hugely different from just rehashing familiar elements the way seasons 2 & 3 did. Season 1 used the familiar as a launching point to go somewhere new; seasons 2 & 3 used the familiar as a crutch.

I'm only quoting this bit, but I can't say enough how glad I am to see some appreciation of Season 1. It's by far, by far the best season for me. Subsequent seasons were variously polluted by the notion of 'giving fans what they want', instead of telling a cogent story. Season 1 stands as the finest season of 21st century Trek for me.

 

[Christopher]

Season 1 stands as the finest season of 21st century Trek for me.

I wouldn't go that far, but at least it was trying to be innovative and move the universe forward, and it introduced so many interesting characters and ideas that seasons 2 & 3 just threw away.

 

[Omegaphallic]

Hyperbole. That was delicious.


No. It's just not the first, second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth drawing item for Trek for me. It's not hatred to be less than enthused by a project promising nostalgia and nothing else.


All content is perfectly disposable content. Meaning is made by the viewer not shared history as such. You can use continuity as a beautiful tool to weave in and out of prior themes, or build something new.


Exactly so. It's not continuity that's the problem; it's the idea of stagnation within that continuity. That the only way to tell these stories is for the characters to remain exactly the same and to be where they were before (i.e. a starship captain with the same crew.)

Legacy, if born out the way that Matalas wants it, will be more of the same. Characters will not change. The galaxy will not change. The ship's crew will be all these name dropped characters to say "See, it's totally like the last time and this is they're family!"

Except in season 3, characters DID change, Beverly got combat skills, Geordie is a father which made him for more causious, Denna manages not to crash the ship, we see Riker dealing with inner darkness from his sons death, and come out the other side, we see the how learning he's a father shapes Picard's judgement, Worf is less viking, more Sholin monk vibes, Seven has an interesting relationship towards her commanding officer, Ro and Picard finally deal with the rift between them. Data's got some Lore in him among others and now not only does he have emotions, but what is new is he has instincts and aging. Raffi gained a cool mentor relationship with Worf. Our favourite Irish Romulan MILF finally hooked up with Picard.

All real growth and change, but in a way that that is explained and congruant with who the characters were before.

 

[The Wormhole]

Denna manages not to crash the ship,

Wow, again with the "Deanna crashes the ship" joke? Contrary to popular belief, she was not actually flying the ship when it crashed in Generations. Yes, she was for some reason sitting at the helm, but dialogue states Data had taken control of flight operations, which means it was in fact Data who crashed the ship there. Meanwhile in Nemesis, Picard ordered her to ram the Enterprise into the Scimitar, and therefore she can not be held responsible for that.

Our favourite Irish Romulan MILF finally hooked up with Picard.

And was then shoved aside and ignored for the rest of the season.

 

[Christopher]

Except in season 3, characters DID change,

Yes, I've already acknowledged that some things in the season worked well. It's facile to reduce something to an all-or-nothing binary. The season has some good elements, but overall was still a bad idea.

Beverly got combat skills

That's not a change. TNG repeatedly showed Beverly as a character willing to throw the Hippocratic Oath out the window and destroy enemies -- see "Sub Rosa," "Suspicions," and "Descent, Part 2."

Denna manages not to crash the ship

This sexist joke should have died long ago. Deanna did NOT "crash the ship." She piloted a gigantic ship that was already crashing to a safe landing with zero casualties. That is an amazingly GOOD job of piloting.

we see Riker dealing with inner darkness from his sons death, and come out the other side

Which would've been nice if it hadn't felt like he was being artificially regressed several years from where he was emotionally in season 1. Just because change happens doesn't automatically mean it's done well.

, we see the how learning he's a father shapes Picard's judgement,

No, we see the writers rehashing The Wrath of Khan and David Marcus, and in a way that doesn't make a damn bit of sense. How does a doctor in the 24th century, where birth control for both sexes is canonically established as routine and reliable, get pregnant by accident? How does it make any sense that she cut herself off from her entire life just to keep Picard from finding out? And the timing doesn't work out with Nemesis at all.

Seven has an interesting relationship towards her commanding officer

I question "interesting"; it was a one-note, unpleasant conflict that was "resolved" in the most slapdash and cliched way possible by just giving the captain an unearned deathbed redemption. Also, Seven's actually interesting romantic relationship with Raffi was tossed aside as if it had never happened.

, Ro and Picard finally deal with the rift between them. Data's got some Lore in him among others and now not only does he have emotions, but what is new is he has instincts and aging. Raffi gained a cool mentor relationship with Worf.

Yes, those parts worked. But so much didn't. The season was a hodgepodge of bits and pieces, and the good things rarely got more than one episode's worth of attention.

Our favourite Irish Romulan MILF finally hooked up with Picard.

The credit for that goes to season 2. Season 3 paid lip service to Laris and then forgot her, along with everything else from seasons 1 & 2 that was rudely flung overboard rather than developed as it deserved.

 

[fireproof78]

All real growth and change, but in a way that that is explained and congruant with who the characters were before

Somewhat but then pushed aside in favor of returning to being "the crew of the Enterprise. " That's the frustrating part.

 

[FederationHistorian]

And was then shoved aside and ignored for the rest of the season.

Which was par for the course for all three seasons. Even though she was one of the more interesting characters on the show.

Wow, again with the "Deanna crashes the ship" joke? Contrary to popular belief, she was not actually flying the ship when it crashed in Generations. Yes, she was for some reason sitting at the helm, but dialogue states Data had taken control of flight operations, which means it was in fact Data who crashed the ship there. Meanwhile in Nemesis, Picard ordered her to ram the Enterprise into the Scimitar, and therefore she can not be held responsible for that.

This sexist joke should have died long ago. Deanna did NOT "crash the ship." She piloted a gigantic ship that was already crashing to a safe landing with zero casualties. That is an amazingly GOOD job of piloting.

Maybe the “sexist” joke is actually a dig at the writing of Troi and nor Troi herself.

Seven's actually interesting romantic relationship with Raffi was tossed aside as if it had never happened.

It's not like they did much with it in S2 either.

Which would've been nice if it hadn't felt like he was being artificially regressed several years from where he was emotionally in season 1. Just because change happens doesn't automatically mean it's done well.

Maybe some people don't heal as fast, and Riker was one of them. Considering the criticism held to those critical of Shaw's outburst for his Battle of Wolf359 trauma despite being decades removed from that event, you think there'd be a bit more sensitivity here.

No, we see the writers rehashing The Wrath of Khan and David Marcus, and in a way that doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

Star Trek is always rehashing TWOK these days. At least it wasn't Khan or Augments this time.

How does a doctor in the 24th century, where birth control for both sexes is canonically established as routine and reliable, get pregnant by accident?

It's only 99% effective at preventing conception.

How does it make any sense that she cut herself off from her entire life just to keep Picard from finding out?

She passed judgment that Picard would value the mission and duty over family, no matter how dangerous. And knew the rest of the crew would tell Picard about his kid.

And the timing doesn't work out with Nemesis at all.

It lines up with Picard being promoted to deal with the Romulan supernova as explained in the PIC premiere, which is probably more important to the show.

The season was a hodgepodge of bits and pieces, and the good things rarely got more than one episode's worth of attention.

Almost like there should be a sequel show to explore these in more detail.

 

[Christopher]

Maybe the “sexist” joke is actually a dig at the writing of Troi and nor Troi herself.

No, it's just a rehash of the generations-old misogynistic joke that women are terrible drivers.

It's not like they did much with it in S2 either.

Exactly. The fact that season 2 did so little with it is even more of an indictment of season 3 for not even doing that much. It was barely anywhere, but season 3 walked it back to total nonexistence.

Maybe some people don't heal as fast, and Riker was one of them. Considering the criticism held to those critical of Shaw's outburst for his Battle of Wolf359 trauma despite being decades removed from that event, you think there'd be a bit more sensitivity here.

It is nonsensical to ask us to be "sensitive" to people who don't even exist. The only question is how the writers chose to depict those characters' behavior, and both Riker and Shaw could've been written better.

It's only 99% effective at preventing conception.

Again, I'm talking about the writing. In DS9, when they wanted to do an unplanned-pregnancy plot, the writers were intelligent enough to realize that the question of how the partners' contraception failed should be addressed. These writers didn't even seem aware of the issue of contraception or safe sex, which makes them backward compared to people who were writing 24 years ago.

She passed judgment that Picard would value the mission and duty over family, no matter how dangerous. And knew the rest of the crew would tell Picard about his kid.

That's exactly the problem -- the writers' assumption that every decision Beverly Crusher made had to be exclusively centered on Jean-Luc Picard. That is at best artificial, reducing other characters to mere extensions of the title character, and at worst backwardly sexist in assuming that a woman is incapable of making life choices that aren't exclusively defined by a man.

It lines up with Picard being promoted to deal with the Romulan supernova as explained in the PIC premiere, which is probably more important to the show.

No, it doesn't line up with that at all. That happened no earlier than 2381, just 20 years before season 3. If Beverly got pregnant after than, then Jack couldn't be more than 19. But he's explicitly said to be in his mid-20s.

Almost like there should be a sequel show to explore these in more detail.

Except these are producers who had two seasons' worth of opportunity to explore season 1's ideas in more detail, but just threw them out in favor of telling unrelated stories. Why should we expect them to be any less slapdash about these ideas?

 

[FederationHistorian]

No, it's just a rehash of the generations-old misogynistic joke that women are terrible drivers.

Even though the Ent-D has had how many women flying the ship again over its seven year run? Not to mention children.

Maybe that's why they made such a big deal with Troi. Since even Wesley could fly the ship. Unfair to Troi, but still.

Exactly. The fact that season 2 did so little with it is even more of an indictment of season 3 for not even doing that much. It was barely anywhere, but season 3 walked it back to total nonexistence.

So you see S3 as regressive, particularly with queer people.

It is nonsensical to ask us to be "sensitive" to people who don't even exist. The only question is how the writers chose to depict those characters' behavior, and both Riker and Shaw could've been written better.

Tell that to other members on BBS.

Again, I'm talking about the writing. In DS9, when they wanted to do an unplanned-pregnancy plot, the writers were intelligent enough to realize that the question of how the partners' contraception failed should be addressed. These writers didn't even seem aware of the issue of contraception or safe sex, which makes them backward compared to people who were writing 24 years ago.

I'd be amazed if it even came up in the meetings.

That's exactly the problem -- the writers' assumption that every decision Beverly Crusher made had to be exclusively centered on Jean-Luc Picard. That is at best artificial, reducing other characters to mere extensions of the title character, and at worst backwardly sexist in assuming that a woman is incapable of making life choices that aren't exclusively defined by a man

I haven't heard any complaints from the cast, so...

No, it doesn't line up with that at all. That happened no earlier than 2381, just 20 years before season 3. If Beverly got pregnant after than, then Jack couldn't be more than 19. But he's explicitly said to be in his mid-20s

1) Maybe it was rekindled as soon as NEM ended. They were still repairing the Ent-E by the end of the movie.

2) PIC S3 is a season where its supposed to be the 250 anniversary of Starfleet, when Federation Starfleet has been established to have been around since 2161 (meaning the season should be set in 2411), and United Earth Starfleet existed as early as 2143 (meaning the season should be set in 2393). Instead Starfleet is conflated with the launch of the NX-01 in 2151

Just accept the writers are bad at double checking facts and math.

Except these are producers who had two seasons' worth of opportunity to explore season 1's ideas in more detail, but just threw them out in favor of telling unrelated stories. Why should we expect them to be any less slapdash about these ideas?

It was a different writing team for S2 &3, and different showrunners from S1. I have no idea if the writers from S2 & 3 will return or not. Just that fans want Matalas to be the showrunner for Legacy.

 

[The Wormhole]

Maybe that's why they made such a big deal with Troi. Since even Wesley could fly the ship. Unfair to Troi, but still.

The joke is completely inaccurate since as I noted above, despite Deanna sitting at the helm, dialogue in the scene establishes Data was the one who had taken over piloting.

(as Soran climbs to the rocket Picard crawls under the rock bridge. Soran spots him and fires his phaser at him. Meanwhile the saucer section re-enters the planet's atmosphere)

[Enterprise-D bridge]

DATA: I have rerouted auxiliary power to the lateral thrusters. I'm attempting to level our descent.
RIKER: All hands, brace for impact!

Data was the one piloting the ship when it crashed. But for some reason everyone for the past twenty-nine years has blamed Deanna and made idiotic "woman driver" jokes when she is completely blameless in the matter. You want to blame someone for crashing the ship, blame Data. He was the one doing the actual piloting. Deanna just for some reason sat at the helm.

You'd think with the obsess nature Trek fans are reputed to have, someone would have actually paid attention during that scene.

 

[Christopher]

Even though the Ent-D has had how many women flying the ship again over its seven year run? Not to mention children.

But none of them crashed the ship, so obviously the sexist joke wouldn't have been made in those cases.

So you see S3 as regressive, particularly with queer people.

Yes, exactly.

I'd be amazed if it even came up in the meetings.

That's an indictment, not a defense. In this day and age, people should be aware of safe sex and responsible parenting decisions. There's no excuse for writers failing to consider such fundamental issues with fictional characters. The sudden unplanned pregnancy is an outdated, discredited trope that writers need to stop using (and I say this just as much for Kyle and Chrissie in Superman & Lois's season 3 finale as for Picard and Crusher here).

Just accept the writers are bad at double checking facts and math.

Yes, that is my point. I don't know why you see it as a defense when it's the very thing I'm criticizing.

Data was the one piloting the ship when it crashed.

I don't think that follows from the passage you quoted. He just said he rerouted power. That's part of the ops manager's job, to allocate ship's resources to needed systems so that others can do their jobs. He didn't take control of piloting, he was assisting Deanna in her piloting.

 

[fireproof78]

You'd think with the obsess nature Trek fans are reputed to have, someone would have actually paid attention during that scene.

Not at the expense of a joke.

 

[The Wormhole]

Not at the expense of a joke.

Of course. I can hear Ryan George now:
"Wasn't Data actually piloting the ship in that scene? Why are we blaming Deanna and not him?"
"So we can make a women drivers joke."
"That makes sense."

 

[The Old Mixer]

Beverly was around 55 at the time of Nemesis. The simplest explanation for her and Jean-Luc not using birth control is that they didn't think they had to.

 

[fireproof78]

Darn Baku planet!