Yes. Easily. I got a bachelors in tv writing and they are doing nonsense that any of us would have failed if we did. It's not the only part of writing. But the fundamentals they are pretty terrible at too. Considering that the characters act like juvenile stupid people rather than the responsible intelligent adults they were originally written as. Nutrek characters have acted like gossipy emotional teens in highschool rather than people who care about responsibility in distinguished organizations. If you want proof that nutrek is bad writing, look at Mike just riff off like 2 minutes of the kind of crap that passes as "profound great writing" these days: (35m15s) And that's nutrek at it's peak. Just this hogwash nonsense that any trek fan could improv better than they release in the official show. I didn't want to come and rain of people's parade, but people badgered me in a topic that was just supposed to be about canon details. People wanted an argument. So yeah, you got one. Star Trek Picard sucks and is not star trek. An 8 year old could write better television than they have. They don't know or don't care about the most basics of continuity. They literally don't know about Time's Arrow and the apologists just look worse and worse considering that the finale explicitly proved them wrong. I don't like this. I don't like being combative. But a bunch of ST:Picard stans came into a topic about canonical errors and then tried to pick fights that people had any criticisms at all. I'm sorry, but if your show has Picard's dad say "You lived longer than me, but I got to keep my hair" even though Picards dad lost his hair and died old... you don't care about canon. I haven't heard a single good reason why they should phone in the writing as much as they have, just a bunch of "well maybe if you view time travel x way they aren't wrong" or "maybe they were bad before too". But it's never a "it's smart now because X" because it's not smart now because we can all see it's not smart now. The few of you who pick fights picked this fight, and you lose. Guinan of prime timeline in Picard 2024 has no memory of Time's Arrow, and I don't care how much you contort yourself that literally makes no sense unless you just don't care. And Kurtsman and Goldsman just don't care. And I have more respect for you all than I do for them so you really should respect yourself and stop carrying water for people like them who don't care. I remember when ENT's TATV came out, and Morpheus said it was terrible. And he was right. Trek deserves our respect, and that means not pretending it is good when its terrible. ST PIC Season 2 is better than season 1, but it is still terrible, and anybody with any sense of the the fundamentals of logic and writing and trek could write better than what they produce.
I would suggest sending them the notes and their grade. I would be curious as to their response. I will not. No Youtube video randomly posted gets my click. With due respect, it is Trek. Just because we don't like it doesn't make it not Trek. Otherwise, TNG is not Trek because it's not like TOS! I work with 8 year olds. No, they couldn't. I wrote as an 8 year old. No I couldn't. I reread some of my 8 year self telling stories and they were...poor. I love how the only default accusation give to the writers is apathy. They don't care. Then why should I? Trek deserves nothing from me. TOS is still TOS, whether it is respected or not. Picard is still Star Trek whether I agree with it or not. Generally speaking, I don't care for Picard or TNG. But I don't get to declare things as Trek, just because continuity (note, not canon) isn't be followed. Otherwise, we should just declare all Trek after TOS noncanon. With all due respect, the fight is coming up because the standard for new Trek is unreasonable to a certain degree. And, in my opinion, that is to the detriment of good discussion is going and seeking out canonical "errors" for the sake of what? Actually, I don't know what the end goal is. I grew up with Trek fandom and YATI as an acronym. But now, finding errors is part of the viewing experience?
Correct. Also correct. Not carrying water, just like their product. For the record, I was a fan of Doctor Who LONG before I was a fan of any Star Trek product, and over there whatever is expedient to the story at hand is true, and it is ALL canon no matter how much it contradicts itself. Personally, I view Trek in very much the same way. It's neat when it connects, but I care not when it doesn't, and it hasn't been connecting all the way back to George R. Kirk. But you do you. It does not, anymore than Marvel deserves my respect, or Doctor Who, or Battlestar Galactica. It requires me to simply watch when I enjoy it, and not watch when I do not. It is not a religion, it is a set of fictional stories set in a common universe. OK, so maybe it is a religion.
Ah, the true colours shine through at last. I was waiting for this moment. The classic villain breakdown, like Dukat in Waltz - though it'd be more interesting if you just said you should have killed us all instead of going on tantrum citing a bachelors (sic) of TV writing and rubbish YouTube videos as authority.
And they're writing for a major SF franchise and being paid for it. You? I have BA in Art. Now listen while I tell you how Van Gogh sucks and Picasso is a hack...
From what university and in what year? BA, BS, or BFA? Post one of your scripts; I'll tell you if the writing is better than in PIC. No they don't. Goodness this worship of space military institutions is tiresome. RLM's "insights" are tiresome, irrational, and misogynistic. Not interested. Please post one of your scripts. No one badgered you. You falsely described things as continuity errors that were not continuity errors. You don't own Star Trek; you don't get to decide that. That argument is absurd. Getting one incredibly minor continuity point wrong about whether or not Maurice went bald because he appeared once for like thirty seconds in a single episode that aired thirty years ago, means they don't care about canon?????? Get a grip, man! Oh no! Does that mean we won't make it to regionals this semester??
It is unfortunate that you seem happy that your antagonism aspired to provoke a negative emotional response. It's hardly a "tantrum" to list the ways in which this show is flawed. But it seems clear that such frustration was your and a few other people's goal. And you, for a moment, provoked the response you wanted. You successfully heckled somebody who knows the show is bad to tell you to your face that the show is bad and tell you why. But even if you are going to choose to be antagonistic. I'm not going to play into that any further. I made a civil topic about Picard criticisms and you and some people like you wanted to make me into a Bond villain for daring to criticize the show. Rather than, like responsible adults, saying "hey maybe I shouldn't hang out in a topic about criticisms if I can't handle hearing criticisms" or entertaining the idea that people could have a different opinion than you. Anyway, I said my piece, I'm not going to argue further. As I said before, you and a few people like you should look in the mirror and see if this kind of antagonism is really something you think is a good use of your time. Or if perhaps there was a more healthy way to handle hearing criticism of Picard. I didn't invade your topics, you came into a criticism topic only to fight the idea that criticism could exist. So congrats, you've defended your echo chamber with rudeness. I agree, they have a job they are unqualified for or not interested in doing well. And that you compare Picard writers to Van Gogh or Picasso shows how deluded in favor of this show that you apparently are. Van Gogh and Picasso don't have glaring errors that BAs in Art can identify. Nutrek writers/showrunners do. You act like them having the position they have somehow would imply they are above criticism. This is a logical fallacy and makes no sense. I need to leave. This is getting beyond silly. Like I said, you defended your echo chamber with nonsense and bad arguments, congrats. I'm going to go the the 99.9999999999% of the rest of the world that is willing to acknowledge that STPIC is not the Picasso of Trek. I regret that some of you were so invested in antagonism rather than just allowing for criticism to exist or avoiding it if you were not capable of tolerating hearing it. And one last time, I apologize to the people who were civil and not antagonistic that those among you who are invested in this kind of childish provocation successfully derailed this topic. Bye.
@joe40001 , one of the most basic reasons people are reacting badly to your posts is that instead of just saying, "It doesn't work for me" or even just "I think this is bad writing," you actively attack the writers on a personal level. There's a big difference between saying, "I think this is bad writing" and saying "These guys are hacks/lazy/don't care." One is fine; the other is a personal attack because you don't enjoy their writing. It's gross.
Perhaps one day you'll look back and realise the hypocrisy. You came looking for an echo chamber for your views, and shut out and misrepresented any opinion to the contrary, taking it as a personal attack. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt, suggesting that the darker corners of internet hate would not be suited to you. Instead, you delivered a rant which may as well have come from there. As I said, the true colours shone through.
Just as the people who want to complain about the show are allowed in the other topics, people who want to defend the show are allowed in here. You can expect criticism to be met with counter-arguments.
Good lord. I just picked the names of two artists off the top of my head. My point wasn't to compare the writers to them, but to point out the absurdity of you whipping out your "credentials" like it means something. But since you brought it up, Van Gogh was not a critical, commercial or artistic success in his life time. Will Picard be re-evaluated and elevated in the same way someday? Probably not. Nah, it's not above criticism. There have been many legit critiques. Many by some of the people in this very thread, who have found fault with your raison d'etre for this thread.
In your OPINION. You say this like its inarguable fact. You're talking as if you're some kind of authority on what's good and what's bad and that's what makes people not take you seriously. I'll never ever understand why rather than just move in and ignore something they don't like some people feel the need to "inform" others why they shouldn't be enjoying something.
TNG/DS9 Klingons looks dreadful. They had like 5 outfits, mostly reused from 1979, about 3 identical perm wigs and a variety of silly lumpy heads. To make matters worse, the women all had their tits out completely invalidating the point of wearing armour I get fearing change, but holding up those Klingons as the definitive edition is painful.
This is an article from the National Enquirer, a tabloid. Is there any other article besides an article from a tabloid about the backlash against TNG? For some reason this is the only article NuTrek apologists bring up to show that TNG was supposedly rejected by (a large group) of Star Trek fans. This is what amplifying singular/outsider voices completely out of proportion looks like. This was written before the first episode aired, people who prejudged TGN didn't know what they were talking about. NuTrek is in its fifth year and the backlash not only continues, the rejection increases. The article states, that the write-in campaign is spearheaded by a woman. People who reject NuTrek are sometimes called "toxic". Would you call this woman a "toxic Star Trek fan"?
https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/a776td/not_bad_but_it_isnt_star_trek_the_internet/ In this Reddit thread are links to TNG reviews from 1987.