News Starfleet Academy Coming to P+
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Legacy though would be different from Picard season 3. Picard season 3 was about celebrating and saying goodbye to the TNG characters for the last time. Even though you would have Seven of Nine and maybe other older Trek characters in the show, I assume the focus would be about a New Generation of characters. The TNG gang wouldn't be showing up. Picard season 3 also at least showed all the TNG people were in different places in their lives. It wasn't like everyone became Captain and where our doing space exploring. Captain Shaw also is IMO a example of what new characters would look like.
Last edited:
SNW still brings something new to the table, the memberberries are just an appetizer to that meal. If Legacy were like Picard S3, then you'd have an entire meal consisting of just appetizers.And SNW ISN'T?
SNW has Pike, Kirk, Spock, Chapel, Uhura, M'Benga, Scotty, April, and Number One.
(This is to say nothing of a revamped Gorn).
Matalas has talked about what he wants to do with Legacy, and it's basically just a checklist of planets, characters and aliens from the 90s he wants to bring back. To paraphrase him "what if we revisit Bajor? See what the Cardassians are up to these days? Catch up with General Martok?" Hard pass on all of that, and I say that as someone who loves General Martok.
I wouldn't mind him producing and/or writing.
Someone else needs to be the showrunner, however. He risks resurrecting all that was bad about 90's Trek (LGBTQ+ erasure, women being reduced to being helpmates for the guys, etc.).
That makes it sound sort of like DS9. DS9 basically took the setting of TNG and even some of the characters and basically did their own thing with it. Instead of a alien station and a crew that had fewer Starfleet people in it to help make it feel different it seems like his idea would basically use the passage of time since TNG ended to show how everything has changed. Plus I feel like he would be done with Borg, which might have been one of the reasons they brought back and killed the Borg Queen again.
The shows Captain would be Seven. One of the main stories of Picard season 3 was Shaw dead naming Seven. I don't think he would fall short on those issues.
Actually, the whole Shaw deadnaming Seven thing proves that Matalas reverted to a 1990s mentality on social issues as well in Picard S3. There are many respectable workplaces in the western world which don't tolerate deadnaming today, including militaries. Deadnaming should be completely unheard of in Star Trek's time, yet instead, Mr. "I Love the 1990s and Want to Replicate that Decade as Much as Possible" not only has it be a thing, he actually has a Captain publicly deadnaming an officer on his ship and requiring everyone else to do it.
Matalas has already fallen short on those issues.
Maybe people in Starfleet don't care as much because of their hatred for the Borg. He doesn't have a issue with Seven being gay. But has a issue with her being ex-Borg.
Deadnaming is still deadnaming regardless the reason for it. And besides, we see in the finale Shaw was referring to her as "Seven of Nine" in his official reports, indicating that perhaps Starfleet does have an official policy against deadnaming, it's just not enforced at all if he's able to publicly do it and get away with it.
Seven's dark past is another reason why I've been pushing for Legacy.
She is unlike any other Captain the Enterprise has ever had before (How many Captains have had Seven's long history of doing Very Bad Things?)
She's nowhere NEAR the goody-goody that Kirk, Picard, Pike, and Archer were.
Last edited:
Maybe but sometimes conceits have to be made for the sake of story. Or else the characters are perfect people and wouldn't that go back more to the TNG stuff, than the story they were telling?
One more reason why I've never liked TNG.
They were just TOO perfect. I couldn't relate to any of them.
Shaw's a pretty bad captain though. Immediately set up as an antagonist to Picard, Riker and Seven. He's supposed to be wrong.
He was your typical petty bureaucrat.
He liked the rank and the perks. He just couldn't abide being out of his comfort zone and actually DOING the job.
Last edited:
Which is terrible storytelling in Star Trek. He lacks any measures of chark or having a point that could make him at least understandable if wrong.
The greatest hits tour doesn't really interest me. But more than that it's repeating Season 3 mistakes of repeating story points but at the expense of character consistency.
Bullshit. For all his exceedingly questionable character flaws, someone doesn't get into the Captain's chair if they stick to their comfort zone and don't qualify for the chair.
If that were true of Shaw, he'd be like the alternate blue-shirt Picard we saw in "Tapestry," who was always too afraid to push himself and never ranked up or moved into the Command division.
Roddenberry's insistence that humans of the late 24th century were that stripped of personal conflict and emotionally sterile could be extremely off-putting for the first couple of years. That's why when characters like Dr. Pulaski appeared I was happy, among other reasons.
Yeah, Roddenberry's view of what humanity should be in a couple of hundred years is less realistic than warp drive.
He got humans so right in TOS but by the time TNG went into production he'd become a pretty eccentric and self-righteous (and inflexible) man who insisted that his vision of humanity was the only way to go. When a multi-breasted Deanna Troi isn't the dumbest thing 1980s Roddenberry came up with then you know it was a bad idea.
Not to mention Ferengi with huge nutsacks.
Similar threads
