IDIC has rarely applied in Star Trek circles. Try thinking that TWOK is not the greatest film of all time or that TNG is only just OK.
Does it get better?
- Thread starter gakelly
- Start date
Its only the greatest TOS film. First Contact is the greatest film of all time
Oh, of course. How silly of me.
It's actually quite funny that a lot of the people who say that Disco and Picard don't stay true to etablished Trek canon find that FC is the best Star Trek movie.
The movie that completely gave a fuck about what we learnt in TNG about the Borg and gave them a massive overhaul
Edit: Not to talk about the issue that Zephram Cochrane was a entirely different character compared to how he looked like and behaved in TOS
Last edited:
It's actually quite funny that a lot of the people who say that Disco and Picard don't stay true to etablished Trek canon find that FC is the best Star Trek movie.
The movie that completely gave a fuck about what we learnt in TNG about the Borg and gave them a massive overhaul
Edit: Not to talk about the issue that Zephram Cochrane was a entirely different character compared to how he looked like and behaved in TOS
Agree with you about Cochrane, though when it comes to the Borg, while yes it is a massive overhaul, I can see it as more that the crew (and the audience) were just learning more about the Borg and it wasn't necessarily overturning something that had been established, no more so than had already happened with the Borg within TNG, where they went from assimilating technology ('Q Who?') to assimilating organic beings ('The Best of Both Worlds,'). Certainly the Queen being shoehorned into what happened in BOBW felt like a retcon, but at the same time, it didn't really contradict what we saw on screen in either part of BOBW.
When it comes to ST: Picard my issue isn't so much it not staying true to canon. I can't think of any times it really went against canon, but more so it not staying true to character, especially with Picard and Seven, but a lesser extent Riker and even Troi. I still see ST: Picard as existing more easily alongside the TNG films, especially Nemesis, than TNG the series. The changes, tweaks, or what have you with the characters, most notably Picard began in the movies, when he became Jean Luc McClane after Generations and his Picard in Nemesis felt more like Sir Patrick than the Jean Luc of the series. On ST: Picard, I felt we got more Sir Patrick,
but also more Frakes and Sirtis than the characters they played on the series. While this made for a certain kind of looseness during their interactions, it also didn't feel right to me. As for Seven, I felt they just wanted to have a badass Furiosa-like character, and turned Seven into that, ignoring that she's got to be the smartest living human in the galaxy due to how much Borg knowledge she has and could perhaps use that knowledge in more logical ways than kicking ass across quadrants. It made more sense for Seven to working at the Daystrom Institute or with the xBs. Fenris Seven felt like that should've been a role for Ro, B'Elanna, or Kira. It does appear that Jeri Ryan, as well as Stewart, Frakes, and Sirtis, are enjoying themselves, and that's fine and good for them, but as a longtime TNG fan it doesn't quite jibe for me.
Canon issues does factor more into DISCO, though it hasn't made the series unwatchable to me. I don't like the 'visual reboot' for the Klingons and starships which felt too drastically different, or the change to Section 31, which is hard to reconcile with DS9 and ENT. I also didn't care for DISCO saying the Klingons had mostly been off the scene for a 100 years, which does contradict what Spock says in The Undiscovered Country, and there was no need to even have that line in the script at all. Michael being Spock's sister, while I didn't care for that or think it was necessary to quickly establish the character and her importance in the Trek galaxy, there was enough room there for Spock to have a sister that he just never talked about.
Last edited:
Would that not make sense in terms of character progression? We have Riker constantly turning down promotion to captain throughout TNG and finally taking it at the end of the films. He has finally made the choice to go forward with his dream as highlighted in "Haven" according to Troi. In the films we see Picard suffer a number of losses and revisiting one of the most traumatizing events of his career in the Borg. Data dies saving Picard. Would not all of that impact the character from TNG onward? Or are the films out of step with these characters too?
As for Seven, I have less familiarity with her character, largely because she did not interest me and I gave up on Voyager. What struck me in Picard was that Seven had a life all on her own, apparently not feeling like she fit in with the Federation. So, would it help if we saw that progression?
There is an issue of tone to consider, between TNG or even the TNG films and Picard, which is much more dystopian in its worldview than TNG or the films were. But when it comes to characters, the ones that stick out to me as feeling the most inorganic are Picard and Seven when it comes to character progression.
Yes, Picard did suffer, in the series and on the movies, especially when it came to Generations, but by First Contact, he had largely bounced back from a horrific loss, and even confronting the Borg again brought out rage than the kind of paralyzing fear and anxiety we saw in ST: Picard. Red Letter Media does a much better job than I can at breaking down on Picard didn't seem that shaken with his encounters with the Borg after BOBW as he was in ST: Picard. One can chalk it up to his age and his failing health, but still it does stick out once you see the differences back to back. The Picard we see in ST: Picard does feel like a Last Jedi-style subversion of the character. He was too beaten down and that didn't fit with the resilient person from TNG, or even the TNG films. I can't see him not keeping his promise to Elnor, and I felt that was just one more thing done to give the character feet of clay, to deconstruct him because deconstruction is in right now.
Further, the looser Picard, or "JL" didn't jibe with the Picard on the series. "JL" grated even when I first encountered it in the prequel comic. And we never saw Picard have the kind of loose working relationship with any of the Enterprise-D or E crews, even after 20 years. It just felt more like Stewart wanting to play more of himself, as I felt he did in Nemesis, where Picard was cracking jokes on the bridge, driving a dune buggy, etc. I do feel that Stewart felt he took a backseat to Shatner in Generations and made sure that for every other film he would be the hero who saved the day, whether that made sense or not. I mean, why the heck didn't he send Data or Worf to Shinzon's vessel? It wasn't logical and got away from the TNG precept of the captain staying onboard for away missions and a junior officer taking the lead.
When it comes to Riker, I thought he was in character for the most part, except the line he gave Jean Luc that made it seem like Picard was an incorrigible Kirk figure and he wasn't. 'Tapestry' brilliantly showed how Picard grew out of that part of his life and became a more sober, stolid officer. As for Troi, I just didn't like that she punched or pushed a almost 100-year-old Picard over something he said to Data's daughter. Just didn't feel like Troi would do something like that, that she would be so familiar with Picard on that level where she could give him a love tap. I would think she would take more care with a frail old man.
With Seven, I wasn't a diehard VOY fan by any stretch, but that series did set her on the path to embracing her humanity, which by the time of ST: Picard we see that she didn't fully make it. And it's okay for her not to make it, but having her be in that Fenris group just feels like a waste of all the character can do (I mean her Borg nanoprobes were saving Voyager just about every episode). I would like to know why things didn't work out for Seven, and hopefully the second season or novels or comics will give us that information.
With Seven, I wasn't a diehard VOY fan by any stretch, but that series did set her on the path to embracing her humanity, which by the time of ST: Picard we see that she didn't fully make it. And it's okay for her not to make it, but having her be in that Fenris group just feels like a waste of all the character can do (I mean her Borg nanoprobes were saving Voyager just about every episode). I would like to know why things didn't work out for Seven, and hopefully the second season or novels or comics will give us that information.
Some of my consternation with ST: Picard stems from the lack of worldbuilding. Despite however much thought Chabon, etc. put into the series, we rarely got to see it on screen. I wanted to know what happened when it comes to galactic politics when the Romulans are no longer a power. Lots of interesting things to play with there that were ignored, lots of ways to make better use of Picard's command and diplomatic skills than the adventure that we got in the first season.
I think Kurtzman, Chabon, and Stewart were all so intent on making something 'cool' and socially 'relevant' that they ultimately shortchanged both new and old characters, while setting the series on a rickety foundation.
Jurati was mostly useless and poorly developed, Raffi had the most interesting relationship to Picard but that was forgotten for large swaths of the season, and poor Rios, they just did a big info dump instead of a neat flashback to explore his pain Sybok-style. Hugh turned out to be nothing more than a glorified cameo and he died, why exactly? Just so Seven could have a badass moment with Narissa? It would've worked better emotionally if maybe they had had Seven working on the Borg cube with Hugh and we saw them interact more. Brent Spiner was also wasted. His new Soong character could've been threaded through the series, giving fans something to speculate about who he was exactly, instead of just dumped on the audience at the end of the season.
ST: Picard overall had a good cast, but just poorly written and developed characters and lackluster worldbuilding.
I guess I just don't see it but I don't have a vested interest in TNG either. I think there is a natural progression in tone from early TNG to BOBW to the films, which largely explored different themes. And, of course, DS9 expanded upon that idea. So, it is hard for me to say this is dystopian when, even in Picard, the Federation is not a scary or horrible place.
As for the characters, again, I disagree. Maybe it is different because what is expected of fictional characters is a clear line from point A to point B. In other words, we need to see what happens before we can accept it has happening to the character. For me, that is less important but I owe that to having spent several years studying psychology. Seeing a character at a different stage in life automatically allows me to recognize they probably are not going to be the same as what I saw before. I get that desconstructing a character is far more in style nowadays and the term gets used a lot but I don't fully agree with how it gets used. I think that Picard was at a different stage of life than before, and the assumption that people can't still struggle or struggle in a different way with past difficulties is one I find strange. I think, knowing that Picard had just been hit with a rather large failure with the Romulan evacuation would bring to mind a lot of past struggles and this time he didn't have a good answer. He didn't succeed.
Not sure about "cool" but then I never know the definition of the world. But, I do think they had a ton of ideas they really wanted to explore and all of them got pushed in to the first season, not really allowing each idea to be unpacked in a satisfactory way. It's probably my biggest frustration with Season 1 is that it largely ignores the inciting event with the Romulans. There is so much there to unpack and it gets left behind.
I don't know if it is a rickety foundation (sorry this post is sounding more grammatically corrective than I meaning). I think it just left ideas underdeveloped that could have made a fantastic season. And, honestly, I don't know if it will get better because of the desire to see more old characters we will likely see less of the new characters.
There's that word again,
I do consider PIC and particularly season 1 of DISCO more dystopian relative to the other Trek series. DS9 might have been a darker series than its predecessors or immediate successors (with the exception of ENT Season 3), but its darkness was juxtaposed against the light from TNG and the series ran concurrently with TNG and VOY so you always had a different Trek series, with a more 'traditional' or Bermanesque take to compare it to. DS9 made note of the limits of the Federation's paradise but also upheld Federation values and Trekkian optimism much better than PIC or DISCO has (especially DISCO Season 1) where both that season and PIC sought a quick season finale swing to the light with rousing speeches proclaiming Federation values that we saw little evidence of the rest of the season (definitely PIC).
I can understand the need to get with the times and being edgy and dark are supposedly in, and I'm not even opposed to those things just because. I like horror, I like dark, edgy, and violent science fiction too. But with Trek I am more okay with it if there's a good reason for it. DISCO had a good reason with the Klingon War, though the execution needed work.
CBS went overboard trying to make PIC appeal to today's audience, perhaps without really seeing what today's audience wants when it comes to Trek.
Though they did tell us ahead of time, it does feel a bit underhanded to sell the nostalgia of Jean-Luc Picard but then present us with an almost unrecognizable take on the character, Seven of Nine, and the 24th century that brought in a new generation or two of fans. Why is it so hard to pay respect for what came before while also forging something new? I think DISCO has done that better than PIC or the Star Wars prequels. But even DISCO doesn't hit the spot that The Mandalorian does in terms of being pretty seamless within the canon while also giving you new characters and stories.
When it came to PIC we saw little of Starfleet outside of a cursing admiral and a traitorous commodore, and further, we saw people like Picard, Raffi, and Rios who were fed up with Starfleet, and we learned of a Starfleet captain, who would kill without question. To be fair, there was Captain Riker with the quick save at the end, and also the captain who was friends with Raffi, but they were too far and in between. Here, Starfleet and the Federation were depicted as not just unable, but unwilling, to keep helping the Romulans, and that's something we hadn't seen much of before. There have always been mad or rogue officers, and Section 31 has been lurking around for centuries, but those were people on the fringe and their viewpoints were refuted by the main characters.
I wanted more explanation for how the Federation got here in PIC. Why did the same Federation/Starfleet that made peace with the Klingons, was always willing to make overtures to the Romulans, stopped the Section 31 virus that could've wiped out the Founders ultimately turn its back on the Romulans? Taking out Utopia Planitia was all it took to do that? In the vast Federation, that was the only place they could have been building that fleet, and they couldn't do have started again, elsewhere? I mean they have replicators that can create something out of nothing, and they even had holographic beings (why they weren't used instead of androids makes little sense to me; they could be faster to create; but that wouldn't have worked for the story they wanted to tell).
And when it comes to Picard as a character, we have him seen him rebel before ("Insurrection") and he has made principled stands and speeches throughout TNG's run, but what we are given in PIC is an arrogant man who leverages his notoriety in a political gamble and loses. Now that is interesting, to see Picard's bluff get called and he has nothing. But instead of coming up with some other solution, he quits, and goes to sulk? He doesn't rally any of his other influential friends in the Federation and perhaps beyond (granted I can see the Klingons not wanting to help out)? He just runs away to his vineyard and doesn't even keep his word to Elnor? Yes, people do change, but this isn't the real world, this is fiction, and it has to make more sense in fiction based on what was established before. We've seen Picard be hit with all kind of setbacks and find a way to solve them. Being hit with one where he has no answer (s) is once again, an interesting idea, but I felt this didn't really feel like it was one where he would just slink away, that he would either figure something out or find a way to be of some use, even if he couldn't save as many people as he did before. Not being in Starfleet anymore didn't mean he still couldn't have been of help. Heck, he could've gotten private citizens together or ran for office or something (a la Dunkirk).
This Picard comes off as a callous egotist that has to be reamed by all the people he supposedly let down or failed. Even after BOBW Picard was back at work in basically no time and wasn't weighed down by playing a role in killing 10,000 people, though to the credit of TNG's writing staff, they didn't have him act as blithely about being assimilated as VOY's writers did when it came to Janeway, Tuvok, (and I think Torres got assimilated as well in "Unimatrix Zero"). How one deals with failure is an important story, but was it the right story for Picard? Chabon, etc. thought so, but they needed to find a way to break the character and concocted Starfleet turning their back on the Romulans. But even there, how is that a personal failure of Picard's? He argued to keep helping them? And even put his career on the line to do that? He failed in the sense that Starfleet wouldn't budge, but even in Last Jedi they had Luke taking a personal action that could account for him feeling like he failed Ben (as much as I disagreed with that action). So, I guess they decided to muddy Picard by having him fail Elnor and Raffi, and both times those things were out of character based on the character we had seen on TNG or even the TNG movies. If Picard had attempted to reach out either Raffi or Elnor and been rebuffed, that's one thing, but I take it he never reached out to them at all and that made little sense to me. Picard was never the warmest guy but he had enough human empathy and compassion to not just leave people in the lurch like that, no whatever his personal turmoil was.
And when it comes to Raffi, if I recall, they kicked her out after Picard left, and that doesn't make sense. That is depicting Starfleet as a vindictive organization, and that is more dystopic than we've generally seen for the organization as a whole. Even Raffi's downward spiral makes little sense. She couldn't have found another job, in all that time? Yes, people have mental and emotional breaks, even in fiction and in Trek, but once again, this felt more plot-dictated than something we've seen before in Trek. And perhaps that is a wrong assumption or expectation on my part after seeing all manner of hardship overcome in just an hour on too many Trek episodes to not quite buy into Raffi's complete collapse and definitely in Picard's.
I wanted more explanation for how the Federation got here in PIC. Why did the same Federation/Starfleet that made peace with the Klingons, was always willing to make overtures to the Romulans, stopped the Section 31 virus that could've wiped out the Founders ultimately turn its back on the Romulans? Taking out Utopia Planitia was all it took to do that? In the vast Federation, that was the only place they could have been building that fleet, and they couldn't do have started again, elsewhere? I mean they have replicators that can create something out of nothing, and they even had holographic beings (why they weren't used instead of androids makes little sense to me; they could be faster to create; but that wouldn't have worked for the story they wanted to tell).
And when it comes to Picard as a character, we have him seen him rebel before ("Insurrection") and he has made principled stands and speeches throughout TNG's run, but what we are given in PIC is an arrogant man who leverages his notoriety in a political gamble and loses. Now that is interesting, to see Picard's bluff get called and he has nothing. But instead of coming up with some other solution, he quits, and goes to sulk? He doesn't rally any of his other influential friends in the Federation and perhaps beyond (granted I can see the Klingons not wanting to help out)? He just runs away to his vineyard and doesn't even keep his word to Elnor? Yes, people do change, but this isn't the real world, this is fiction, and it has to make more sense in fiction based on what was established before. We've seen Picard be hit with all kind of setbacks and find a way to solve them. Being hit with one where he has no answer (s) is once again, an interesting idea, but I felt this didn't really feel like it was one where he would just slink away, that he would either figure something out or find a way to be of some use, even if he couldn't save as many people as he did before. Not being in Starfleet anymore didn't mean he still couldn't have been of help. Heck, he could've gotten private citizens together or ran for office or something (a la Dunkirk).
This Picard comes off as a callous egotist that has to be reamed by all the people he supposedly let down or failed. Even after BOBW Picard was back at work in basically no time and wasn't weighed down by playing a role in killing 10,000 people, though to the credit of TNG's writing staff, they didn't have him act as blithely about being assimilated as VOY's writers did when it came to Janeway, Tuvok, (and I think Torres got assimilated as well in "Unimatrix Zero"). How one deals with failure is an important story, but was it the right story for Picard? Chabon, etc. thought so, but they needed to find a way to break the character and concocted Starfleet turning their back on the Romulans. But even there, how is that a personal failure of Picard's? He argued to keep helping them? And even put his career on the line to do that? He failed in the sense that Starfleet wouldn't budge, but even in Last Jedi they had Luke taking a personal action that could account for him feeling like he failed Ben (as much as I disagreed with that action). So, I guess they decided to muddy Picard by having him fail Elnor and Raffi, and both times those things were out of character based on the character we had seen on TNG or even the TNG movies. If Picard had attempted to reach out either Raffi or Elnor and been rebuffed, that's one thing, but I take it he never reached out to them at all and that made little sense to me. Picard was never the warmest guy but he had enough human empathy and compassion to not just leave people in the lurch like that, no whatever his personal turmoil was.
And when it comes to Raffi, if I recall, they kicked her out after Picard left, and that doesn't make sense. That is depicting Starfleet as a vindictive organization, and that is more dystopic than we've generally seen for the organization as a whole. Even Raffi's downward spiral makes little sense. She couldn't have found another job, in all that time? Yes, people have mental and emotional breaks, even in fiction and in Trek, but once again, this felt more plot-dictated than something we've seen before in Trek. And perhaps that is a wrong assumption or expectation on my part after seeing all manner of hardship overcome in just an hour on too many Trek episodes to not quite buy into Raffi's complete collapse and definitely in Picard's.
I can understand the need to get with the times and being edgy and dark are supposedly in, and I'm not even opposed to those things just because. I like horror, I like dark, edgy, and violent science fiction too. But with Trek I am more okay with it if there's a good reason for it. DISCO had a good reason with the Klingon War, though the execution needed work.
And the execution, as well as the premise of PIC, needed work to make me buy sad sack Jean-Luc and hard drinking, two-gun toting Seven of Nine.
Though they did tell us ahead of time, it does feel a bit underhanded to sell the nostalgia of Jean-Luc Picard but then present us with an almost unrecognizable take on the character, Seven of Nine, and the 24th century that brought in a new generation or two of fans. Why is it so hard to pay respect for what came before while also forging something new? I think DISCO has done that better than PIC or the Star Wars prequels. But even DISCO doesn't hit the spot that The Mandalorian does in terms of being pretty seamless within the canon while also giving you new characters and stories.
Honestly, that write up sounds very logical. It ignores where these people might be in their emotional state. Depression isn't just being sad. It is an honest to goodness inability to see outside of one's perspective, to ask for help, to think differently. It takes pushing, prodding and even reaming to sometime seek help, at least in my experience.
The past doesn't need respect.
It also does little in terms of expanding the universe or characters. It is the same heart of gold style story as Han Solo.
Not really, it falls flat. I tried to justify the ultimate enemy at the end to be them tying it in with the lifeforms we were introduced to in The Motion Picture, but that's a stretch. Perhaps they will read my comment and tie it in and become legends.
Why? The "ultimate enemy" is nothing like V'Ger or it's creators.
H
How do you know? All we saw were tentacles
V'Ger wasn't very aggressive and out to kill and destroy organic life.
Dude..what do you think the vision was all about and what do you think the enormous thing coming through the portal was going to do?
Exactly what I said it was doing "kill and destroy organic life.". Something that V'Ger wasn't really into.
Except that it was..it was destroying everything standing in its way to complete its mission of finding the creator.
But not out of malice nor was it out to destroy all organic life.
Yeah. That's more Nomad's thing.
Similar threads
- Poll
