The guy that plays him is also getting up there in age. So unless Skydance's next great idea is to make a Young Picard show, I doubt we'll see much of Sir Patrick on screen anymore.
This is not an equivalency. Unless they stopped releasing present day stuff for years and only released Legion of Superheroes era stuff and WWII Justice Society stuff.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a fact.
It's a great equivalency.
When Star Trek came back to TV after its break we got the TOS-era Discovery first it's true. But the next series in the pipeline was the TNG era Picard, followed by the TNG era Lower Decks and Prodigy.
TOS era 59 episodes
TNG era 120 episodes
Future era 46 episodes
When TV Star Trek returned, it wasted little time going full TNG.
And now it's done with only 23rd and 32nd centuries running.
You have advocating for gatekeeping and the reclassification of anything you don't like as not being real, true or faithful. This is just another attempt to deligitimise something.
For purposes of things like wikis as well you go from the latest point something was seen in the timeline. Ni'var not Vulcan for example is the correct present day name.
Discovery addressed this in its way when Georgiou went through the Guardian. She didn't die she went back in time but by the present she is in fact now dead.
Things that have not been seen or addressed since the 24th century have their futures unwrit and are in a sense of limbo being alive in the 2370s or 2380s but who knows for how much longer. And even earlier we never saw Christine Chapel die in the films but she is near certainly dead by 2401 however she's just alive in the 2280s until further notice. That is the only sense in which the 'present' is not at the latest calendar point.
Again we circle back to you needing to accept that things you don't like are legitimate and true. You can headcanon them out if you really want but that will only apply to you individually.
So much to unpack here.
I wonder why she is skeptical of Klingons.
Because it looks to the past rather than the future.
Because there's no real vision for any of it. They want this big sprawling universe, but there's nothing that really binds any of it together.
They spent the Kurtzman years throwing concepts at a wall and hoping something would stick. Very little did.
Actually, that was UPN's doing. 20 episodes were produced for season 1, just like DS9 season 1. UPN just held over 4 of them to air a month earlier than the other networks. (They did the same with season 2, which it had 4 of theirs held back for the 22 episode season 3 of VOY.)
Second year cadets get field duty. Nog on DS9, and Sisko said he remembered field duty on a starbase in his sophomore year.
I would largely disagree with this. Discovery season 1 is unlike its bretheren sure but its course correction in terms of tone stuck. It spent season 2 planning on and then going to the future and the new time period stuck for 3 seasons and a whole other spin off.
Strange New Worlds' genre hopping with its episodes is the whole point it's an episodic adventure series designed to be new and different week by week.
Lower Decks didn't change for 5 seasons and was a laugh riot the whole way.
Picard is the only show that really suits your point. Seasons 1 and 2 kind of work together with a little handwaving but it was a bigger reinvention than between DSC seasons 1 and 2. And then season 3 reinvents even further to the point it doesn't even fit the chronology of the previous season.
If each show were taking that almost anthology approach maybe then I could agree or if they just kept cancelling shows after 1 season and coming up with whole new concepts. But I would argue it's a pretty consistent era of television.
I probably phrased it badly. When you do this type of storytelling, people are looking for connections between them and an overarching narrative that contains them all. There is no narrative thread that binds them together. I can watch one without any narrative desire to see what the rest offer.
With something like Star Wars, the Force, Jedi and Sith are a narrative thread that weaves its way through pretty much every Star Wars story out there. Trek has never had anything like that to bind its disparate parts together. There's no follow up desire. Which is probably why the Star Wars franchise is still far more popular than Trek with modern viewers.
Isn't it also prudent to not create an interdependency between your shows? Short of the Big Annual Crossovers one could watch any of the Arrowverse shows pretty much in isolation and not miss much. There might be some confusing references here and there but nothing that jeopardises the narrative. That way a person can glut on the shared universe as much or as little as they like and be satisfied.
For me personally I feel each show should tell its own story and by telling all these separate stories they are telling the story of the universe.
Is not the Federation, Klingon and Romulan Empires etc not enough of a connective element in that way?
Small scale crossovers like guest stars and references to events seen in other shows have been a part of Star Trek since the 80s. We're regularly reminded of the world outside our hero ship.
We're reminded of it, but they never have any real effect on each other and we now live in a world where audiences expect interconnected narratives.
And I don't think that there are some governments out there really counts as being interconnected.
Of course, these are just my mindless ramblings and everyone's mileage will vary.
Oh and they'd be the first to complain when they're then forced to watch too many shows of course.
Mindless ramblings are the best ramblings.And I don't think that there are some governments out there really counts as being interconnected.
Of course, these are just my mindless ramblings and everyone's mileage will vary.
One of those things where you have to find a sweet spot. It isn't easy. From a Star Wars point-of-view, there is just too much of it. These companies think they can just keep pumping this stuff out and people will show up for it.
Quantity is an important factor.
Whatever you do it'll be the wrong decision to a lot of vocal people online.
That's why those folks who don't have constructive criticism should be ignored.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
