“Jean-Luc Picard is back”: will new Picard show eclipse Discovery?

[Nerys Myk]

I hope Worf shows up looking like the new Klingon design, just make it clearly Worf.

Just have someone kick his ass on the bridge.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Just have someone kick his ass on the bridge.

Like that one time Troi did?

 

[Noname Given]

The canon is whatever CBS says is canon. That's why TAS doesn't count, even they keep referencing it.

Um, CBS re-canonized TAS years ago, after Filmation went bankrupt and all the TAS right reverted to them.

 

[DaveyNY]

Um, CBS re-canonized TAS years ago, after Filmation went bankrupt and all the TAS right reverted to them.

And when TAS hit DVD in 2006 it was officially sanctioned as well.

 

[Tuskin38]

Guess I don't need to say anything about TAS, 4 people already have

 

[Discofan]

Like that one time Troi did?

And that time when he tried to attack... the screen!

Not to mention the Ferengi that put him to shame.

 

[BillJ]

I mean, I wouldn’t want it to have a negative impact on DSC - as in I wouldn’t want people to turn away from DSC in favour of the Picard show, but I think that has the potential to happen, given how popular Picard is - and, as you say, if they do a good job of the Picard show we might be looking at TNG lightning in a bottle again...

They really won't be competing against each other. If anything, the Picard show will likely lead to people who otherwise aren't watching Discovery to sample it while they're subscribed.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

And that time when he tried to attack... the screen!

Not to mention the Ferengi that put him to shame.

He was gonna blast Q in the face

They really won't be competing against each other. If anything, the Picard show will likely lead to people who otherwise aren't watching Discovery to sample it while they're subscribed.

Let’s hope so long live Trek!

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Long one incoming...

IIRC, casting information actually refers to Kol as Kor's brother.

Got a source on that? I've tried googling it, and the only results I find are speculation as to their potential relationship here and elsewhere. (I do recall that Shazad Latif was initially reported as playing Kol—but with a character description that sounded more like Voq even then—and Kol was originally named Er'toom according to Kenneth Mitchell.)

Meyer was not an auteur on TWOK. At least one of the producers was annoyed, at the time, at his tendency to talk down the input and influence of the folks really responsible for developing and guiding that project to completion. He worked between some pretty strict guide rails; it wasn't a single unusual act of caprice that Sallin went out and shot a scene to finish the film, without Meyer's input and possibly over the director's objection.

I don't think anyone, least of all I, was suggesting he had free reign to do whatever he wanted, unfettered by any restrictions. My point was he didn't care about living up to the expectations of any particular target audience, least of all the extant fanbase. (To the extent that he did give them consideration, it was with an eye toward thwarting them, for instance by moving Spock's death later in the film and teasing it in the opening sequence as part of the Kobayashi Maru simulation, to offset the fact that word of it had leaked, and some were up in arms about it.) He mostly left such concerns for others to worry about, entirely re-writing (though uncredited) and directing the film to suit his own personal tastes and modes of expression.

I rather get the impression that in spite of any friction there arose in the process, his overseers saw he had a compelling vision for what the film could be—whether despite or because of his espoused "disrespect" for what Star Trek was "supposed" to be, which itself was a bit of an unintended irony, considering that unbeknownst to him he actually shared some inspirations in common with Roddenberry, such as C.S. Forester etc.—and having found this lacking in their own efforts up to that point, let him run with it (to the extent considered practical and feasible, of course). The most significant point he was overruled on was that they insisted upon leaving room for Spock to return in a potential sequel, hence the addition of the mind-meld with McCoy and the final shot of his coffin on Genesis. Compromises always get made, naturally. And no film or series is ever the sole work of one person.

I don’t think it was a joke. I think it was a cock up, or a bad design choice.
Even assuming it was...trolling the audience? Really?

Yes, really. Because anyone so deeply versed in the minutiae as to be irritated by them calling the "wrong" ship a D-7 should by all rights be aware of that term's origin, too, and feel suitably chastened:

I WENT ON THE STAGE ONE DAY, AND THEY WERE ALL READY AND WAITING FOR ME, BECAUSE THEY KNEW I WAS REALLY EXHAUSTED FROM SOME LONG RE-WRITE SESSIONS. AS SOON AS I WALKED UP TO THE SET, BILL AND LEONARD BLEW A SCENE, BUT THEY DID IT ON PURPOSE AND BEGAN ARGUING VERY VIOLENTLY. BILL WAS SHOUTING AT THE TOP OF HIS VOICE, "LEONARD! WHAT DO YOU MEAN SAYING THIS IS A D-7 KLINGON SHIP! IT'S A D-6!" LEONARD SHOUTED BACK, "NO, YOU IDIOT, THE D-6 HAS FOUR DOORS OVER HERE AND THE D-7 ONLY HAS TWO!" BILL IMMEDIATELY SHOUTED BACK, "NO, NO, NO—IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND. YOU'VE GOT IT ALL WRONG."

WHILE ALL OF THIS IS GOING ON, I'M STANDING THERE, BEGINNING TO GET FRUSTRATED, WATCHING THE MINUTES TICK BY AND MENTALLY COUNTING THE MONEY WE'RE LOSING IN EXPENSIVE CREW TIME, BECAUSE THE CAMERAS AREN'T ROLLING. AND AS THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED, I'M THINKING TO MYSELF, "WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? THEY'VE GONE TOO FAR!" THEN I BEGAN THINKING THAT I SHOULD REMEMBER WHICH IS THE D-6 OR THE D-7. FINALLY I COULDN'T STAND IT ANY MORE, AND SO I WALKED IN BETWEEN THEM AND SAID, "COME ON, FELLOWS, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. LET'S GET ON WITH THE SCENE." THEN THE WHOLE CREW BROKE UP LAUGHING. THIS WAS THEIR WAY OF SAYING TO ME, "HEY, TIME IS NOT THAT SERIOUS. RELAX A LITTLE."​

-Gene Roddenberry, The Making of Star Trek (1968, reprinted 1994), pp. 367-368, caps as in original​

‘Hey hey...lets paint Spock green! That will piss off the fanboys!’

In point of fact, Spock was painted lightly green in TOS. And this fanboy has been rather more bothered (though certainly not much) by Sarek and other Vulcans being too pink on DSC!

‘Um..Glenn, don’t we want fans with us watching this? I mean they will be paying to see it, and we can’t please all of them, but surely we could try not actively alienate them?’

I'd venture to say there would be very little point in doing a prequel if it weren't going to subvert our expectations and alter our view of what it's a prequel to, at least to some significant extent. If we aren't willing to go along with that and find enjoyment in it, we're going to end up alienated...and we deserve to be!

Why are some folks so hung up on the look being okay for revision because it is "art", but not the story?

IDK, you tell me...haven't many of your own criticisms centered around exactly such revisions to the story as initially told in TOS? (Burnham's relationship to Sarek and Spock and the Klingon War are two areas that come to mind, from previous conversations.)

I'm fine with just about any degree of "bending without breaking" personally. Why not straight-up breaking then, you might ask? I suppose because I'm a "box set mentality" viewer at heart. I like everything to provide context for everything else—and within the narrative, not merely on a purely meta-fictional level. I'm fine with any number of adjustments and refinements to continuity, including plenty of unexpected left turns that set what we thought we knew on its head, multiple times over. By all means, slaughter some sacred cows in the name of keeping things lively and unpredictable and up to date. That's all perfectly fair play, in my book. But I don't much care for the approach of "clean slate, start over," i.e. the "hard" reboot. As much as some (such as yourself, I gather) may feel the complete opposite (which is perfectly valid too), I feel that's every bit as much of a crutch when it comes to legacy franchises, and ultimately leads more often (though certainly not without exception) to endless cycles of increasingly less-interesting remakes every few years than it does to truly new and better iterations. But that's me.

The rumour was that they followed older traditions, which was partly true for T’Kuvma’s group.

That wasn't mere rumor. It was stated by Ted Sullivan, but what still hasn't yet become entirely clear is whether this was an element of Bryan Fuller's initial conception that got modified as things went along, or rather part of a subsequently-proposed rationalization for aspects he changed that has since gone on to be further developed behind the scenes for inclusion in Season 2. It seems to me it might likelier be the latter.

I'm more intrigued by the decision making to make this "Prime" to begin with (I have a feeling it has to do with the backlash against the Abrams films by a small but loud crowd) and why fans are so set that it has to be "Prime"?

Well, surely that has something to do with it, yes. Despite always feeling the resentment toward them was being overblown to ridiculous proportions (no pun intended), having never been fully "won over" by the Abrams films myself (yet always having found something to enjoy in each of them, and having quite liked Beyond overall), I'll fully admit to empathizing with it at least a bit. And I'd further hazard that those who took to responding in kind by scoffing at any expression of hope or desire for a return to Prime with Cumberbatch "nope" memes and such didn't help the situation any!

This schism within the fandom, be it a major or minor one, only deepened as fan films dug in and tried foolishly to portray themselves as the "true heirs" of the "real Trek" that some perceived (inaccurately, but again, understandably) as having been abandoned by its rightful copyright holders, and in such hubris essentially daring them to prove otherwise. Clearly the demand was there, after all. Maybe not enough for the mainstream market, but quite evidently a sizable-enough niche for streaming services. Why not take advantage of it, especially if they were simultaneously looking for a flagship product for their experimental new platform as well, on top of everything else? (And I mean all that in an entirely non-pejorative way, even if you don't.)

I wanted a Prime series. I still do. It’s not entirely beyond belief that with a nip and a tuck, DSC can settle its biggest wrinkles, and be what it’s sold as. It’s got time. I don’t mind little things, like many others...it’s the biggest things that are the most annoying, and at least three of those are visuals. It’s doable. If, by the end, the biggest things aren’t addressed at least a tiny bit here and there (‘damn these experimental pylons, when we get back to Star base I am either getting the new ones back in, or getting those newer engines they are working on....’ ‘new Starfleet directive...no more bridge windows. At least ensign sukdthruwindo didn’t die in vain.’ ‘Damn, thank goodness you accepted our help...that virus was making your empire look like the damned planet of the Disco pineapples. I must say chancellor l’rell You look much better with the hair...reminds me of something from the twentieth century...l’rell Because I’m worth it...’) then it’s gonna be harder to reconcile.

IMO, it's silly to require such things be spelled out so explicitly like that, when they can be left implicit, and to the added effect that those who feel some need to regard it as simply a "visual reboot" or whatever can continue do so just as much as those of us who are content to read between the lines as to how it all might match up to what's been previously depicted (regardless of whether it ever reaches a point where it actually does). For instance, they already deftly lampshaded, with a well-established and time-honored in-universe rationale no less, the changes in the appearance of the Defiant (and foreshadowing those of the Enterprise) in "Despite Yourself" (DSC):

LORCA: The Cooper!? Isn't she supposed to be undergoing a refit?​

Later...

(And such intent has been made even clearer by Ted Sullivan and John Eaves behind the scenes.)

Likewise, I even think the Augment virus itself has already been obliquely alluded to in "The Butcher's Knife Care's Not For The Lamb's Cry" (DSC):

L'RELL: I've stolen a raider and will take you to the home of the Mókai, I will leave you with the matriarchs, who will expose you to things you never knew possible...​

It would make sense to me that they'd start off by dosing Voq with the virus (or some derivative springing out of the same program), and then the surgery we saw would have been to complete the transformation, since the Augments retained Klingon internal features. (And, no doubt, the "consciousness transplant" side of things would have been handled via the "mind-sifter or mind-ripper" device that Kor mentioned in "Errand Of Mercy" [TOS]!) No? Why not?

Note also how T'Kuvma mentioned that Kol had discarded certain members of his house in "Battle At The Binary Stars" (DSC):

T'KUVMA: My house is open to all. Including those discarded by you, Kol. [camera lingers on Voq] But my house is bonded by a single doctrine: Remain Klingon!
​

It seemed implied that Voq was being referred to there, yet why not others as well, perhaps even including Kor himself? Might tie in with Laneth and Antaak's (!) suggestion in ENT that those who suffered from the curse of the Augment virus—who were never implied to have included all Klingons, BTW, but rather only "millions" initially, and eventually their children—would become "outcasts" with "no place in the Empire" due to their "disfigurement." (Of course, he also suggested "cranial restoration" might be a potential solution...) If Kol and others considered the mere fact of Voq's albinism a "mistake" of nature sufficient to warrant his being cast aside, then it surely stands to reason that that even the comparatively more tolerant T'Kuvma, so deeply obsessed with "purity" and the avoidance of "mixing" with alien "filth" (to use his own terms), wouldn't consider those human-polluted Augments "Klingon enough" to have any place with him.

(Oh, and Section 31 was playing a role in orchestrating and manipulating the Klingons' handling of the Augment affair to some extent in the ENT story as well...and guess who showed up on Qo'noS in that DSC bonus scene, with a role to continue in the new season? Do people honestly think this is all mere coincidence, and they're not going somewhere with it? I don't believe that for a moment!)

Those two things are about the show though. It’s look and feel. To not expect fans to discuss the continuity and design of a Trek show is...unrealistic.

I am discussing those aspects, from (what seems to me) the very sensible perspective that we as the audience are meant to adapt and adjust our views of what we've seen before to fit with what's being shown now, not to decry the latter because it doesn't match up to our preconceptions and assumptions based on the former.

We never saw much of anything in the way of direct indication, or even from which we could draw reliable inferences, as to what things were "supposed" to be and/or look like in this particular period, despite people understandably taking what meager tidbits we did have and attempting to extrapolate and interpolate what "logically" "should" fall in between. And DSC's portrayal doesn't even necessarily contradict all of what we did see. Little to no more than ENT or ST'09 already did, I'd say. This whole "it's a (visual) reboot" kerfuffle is a tempest in a teapot, if you ask me...just as it was in those previous cases as well. It's all a bit of a Rorschach test, from what I see (here again, pun not intended). @Arpy seems to feel it can't or won't be explained, whereas I (almost) feel it's (nearly) already been explained by what we've seen thus far!

And is the world so polarised That having a negative view of these things is now hate? Hate and violence?
Hyperbole.

By simply referring to fans they disagree with as "haters" they then don't have to address real fans concerns, and argue on the merits. A common tactic it seems now to be.

Sadly the word “hate” seems to have become so diluted now that it has semantically expanded to include ‘a comment that is negative in any way or that contradicts the popular and/or prevailing opinion in any given situation’.

To be clear, I certainly wouldn't define "haters" as anyone with a negative view or anyone who doesn't agree with mine. I can't speak for anyone else, but by the term I basically mean those who seem perversely to derive a greater pleasure from mocking and ridiculing what they don't like, and those who do like it, than in finding anything in it to be positive about and praise, or indeed seeking out something "better" to be supportive of. Such people won't ever be satisfied, no matter what is or isn't portrayed—they will never fail to find some reason why it isn't good enough—because they simply enjoy being negative and spreading negativity. If you aren't such a person, then I don't mean to refer to you.

Moreover, please allow me to sincerely apologize to any and all I've unfairly or unintentionally lumped in with them, here or elsewhere. I'm sure it has happened, now and then, out of misunderstanding. Having just reached "Hero Worship" in my TNG re-watch last night, I'll try to keep in mind this exchange going forward...

TIMOTHY: Isn't it great? See, there's the big hallway the teacher told us about, and that's where everybody came in. That's where they stood, and that's where the altar was. What do you think?
DATA: Do you wish a frank evaluation? It lacks the harmony that characterized this particular temple and the Dokkaran culture in general.
TIMOTHY: [sulks] You hate it!
DATA: No, I am not capable of hatred.
TIMOTHY: I can't do anything right!
DATA: You are making an unwarranted extrapolation. I was merely offering an aesthetic analysis of this particular model...​

-MMoM

 

[fireproof78]

Just have someone kick his ass on the bridge.

Or by a falling container. Either one.

 

[Tuskin38]

For instance, they already deftly lampshaded, with a well-established and time-honored in-universe rationale no less, the changes in the appearance of the Defiant (and foreshadowing those of the Enterprise) in "Despite Yourself" (DSC):

I'm still saying you're looking too far into that.

Season 1 didn't do anything subtle.

Likewise, I even think the Augment virus itself has already been obliquely alluded to in "The Butcher's Knife Care's Not For The Lamb's Cry" (DSC):

L'RELL: I've stolen a raider and will take you to the home of the Mókai, I will leave you with the matriarchs, who will expose you to things you never knew possible...

Same with this. There is nothing there implying/alluding to the augment virus at all..

The show puts references in your face, if they were going to mention the augment virus they'd mention it.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

To be clear, I certainly wouldn't define "haters" as anyone with a negative view or anyone who doesn't agree with mine. I can't speak for anyone else, but by the term I basically mean those who seem perversely to derive a greater pleasure from mocking and ridiculing what they don't like, and those who do like it, than in finding anything in it to be positive about and praise, or indeed seeking out something "better" to be supportive of. Such people won't ever be satisfied, no matter what is or isn't portrayed—they will never fail to find some reason why it isn't good enough—because they simply enjoy being negative and spreading negativity. If you aren't such a person, then I don't mean to refer to you.

To be fair that’s an interesting definition of “hater”. As an aside, Google’s Ngram viewer shows a steady increase in the use of the word “hate” in their internet corpus of textual data (digitised texts and such I believe) from 1820 to now. Add that to the apparent (as I have no primary data to support this hypothesis) semantic extension of “hate” to seemingly include disagreements and folks who enjoy being negative about things other people like, we can theorise that the increased use of “hate” in textual data may be reflected in some of the usage we see here.

Now, by the 23rd century, “hate” might mean something different entirely.

Just so long as the Picard show doesn’t make people hate on DSC (desperately trying not to stray too far from the thread topic...!) then I’m happy.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I'm still saying you're looking too far into that.

Season 1 didn't do anything subtle.


Same with this. There is nothing there implying/alluding to the augment virus at all..

The show puts references in your face, if they were going to mention the augment virus they'd mention it.

HATER!!!! (Kidding there, just in case a smiley is too subtle.)

In all seriousness, given that everything about DSC indicates to me that a significant part of the overall purpose and design of its existence is ultimately to tie in with all the rest of the Trek shows being made available for streaming right alongside it, it does not make much sense to me to believe they haven't given careful consideration to this end on all levels. I think it far likelier than not that they both have alluded to it and will be following up on it further. Guess we'll just both have to keep watching and wait to see who turns out to be more right in the end...

Likewise, I'd say it's damn near a sure bet that whatever they end up doing with Picard will tie in with DSC, whether directly or peripherally. It seems to me their goal is probably more or less to have with Trek what Netflix has with the Marvel shows, with each mostly doing its own thing, but acknowledging one another and perhaps even on occasion crossing over. And while I'd venture no one can really predict at this point which might or might not end up becoming more popular in the end, I'm not really too worried about one overshadowing another.

(It of course goes without saying that it could well be my expectations they're setting up to be subverted here!)

-MMoM

 

[seigezunt]

Hey, I want a separate forum for the Picard Show already.

 

[Tuskin38]

Hey, I want a separate forum for the Picard Show already.

Probably won't get that until there is more information.

Right now most of the discussion is in the 'Future of Trek' Subforum.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

All I know, is that if these had been the Abrams Klingons, people would've been out with pitchforks and torches!

Well, it certainly stands to reason that anyone up in arms about the DSC ones would be, since the only one whose face we actually got to see shared 90% of the same features, including a big hairless head, deformed ears, and double nostrils...

But personally, I thought it was absolutely brilliant the way the Abrams films hid all the rest of them behind those helmets that left us unable to tell which ones were ridged and which ones were smooth—or which ones hairy and which ones bald, for that matter!

-MMoM

 

[thribs]

JJVerse is a different universe so he can whatever he wants. That’s why people didn’t get as upset about them.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

JJVerse is a different universe so he can whatever he wants. That’s why people didn’t get as upset about them.

That was no more intended at the time of Into Darkness than the Augment virus was at the time of The Motion Picture. If one is willing to accept that each of them made their desired changes first and only offered explanations later (and rather thin ones at that), then DSC should by all rights get the very same leeway, yes?

(Also, I'm pretty sure some people did get upset. Not that it was any more warranted then than it is now.)

-MMoM

 

[thribs]

Yes but the DSC ones have the issue of looking sh1t.
It’s a shame they don’t feel the need to follow continuity. Might have made the show at least watchable.

 

[Rahul]

Well, it certainly stands to reason that anyone up in arms about the DSC ones would be, since the only one whose face we actually got to see shared 90% of the same features, including a big hairless head, deformed ears, and double nostrils...

But personally, I thought it was absolutely brilliant the way the Abrams films hid all the rest of them behind those helmets that left us unable to tell which ones were ridged and which ones were smooth—or which ones hairy and which ones bald, for that matter!

-MMoM

To be absolutely, super honest: I don't like the back of the head of the "Into Darkness"-klingons. It's a thousand times better than on DIS, and how they were put on screen, the front of the head, looks perfectly klingon at their best (hair would have been nice - but other background klingons had it, so he was just an individual without hair, which makes it even better).

But good damn does that whirl at the back of his head look like Alan Rickmans' Dr. Lazarus from Galaxy Quest!