Discussion in 'Star Trek: Picard' started by Infern0, Jan 8, 2019.
You spelled "TMP" wrong.
I was about to amended it to TWOK but that also works for me
Though, the way people rant and rave about Abrams and Kurtzman the same could be applied to Meyer and Harve Bennett or Berman.
TMP doesn't spell The Animated Series
Any show based upon "Star Trek" that is canonicly consistent with the fictional universe that TOS set up (known as the prime universe, a term that is redundant because there is only one Trek universe, rather than the multiple as asserted by apologists of of the enterprise/discovery/jj-verse, that I only use for clarity) that was expanded upon by its 3 spin offs and 10 movies.
Nope. Try again
Wrong. But thank you for playing.
First of all, Star Trek The Original Series established at least two parallel universes (Lazarus' universe, and the Mirror Universe) so the idea that there is only one Trek universe is false on it's face.
Secondly, the Trek continuity is not as consistent as we would like to believe, even limiting itself to the shows you acknowledge, TMP in particular.
Thirdly, Star Trek has not always been respectful of Gene's Vision TM. TWOK, in particular, was so rejected by Gene that he leaked key plot details to discredit Meyer.
Finally, just because a person doesn't enjoy a particular segment of Star Trek doesn't render it less Star Trek. Otherwise I would have discarded TNG and ignored the Picard show a long time ago.
TOS is far and away my favorite Trek series. But it's possible to pick TOS episodes for which there is a better episode in every other series. I mean, TOS has some stinkers!
I'll give it a chance but God I hope there are no burgundy tunics for him to tug on.
I’m worried that the new Picard show will have that “end of an era” feel that we saw in “Logan”.
I hope the show doesn’t have that whiff of old past glories that those sad post-retirement “get the gang back together “ TOS novels have.
A Trek “over the hill gang” if you will.
A “Logan”-like story is actually what I would prefer.
I’m with you on this point, though.
Okay let me clarify my position for you if I can:
My usage of "universe" is more of an umbrella term describing the entire fictional reality (including trek's own alternate universes), it wasn't meant to be taken literally.
The entire trek universe does have established rules which have been fundamentally broken by the millenial series and films that have the same franchise label.
I will take these points on together since they are somewhat related:
I am not at all impressed or convinced by the idea that a mistake can be justified because others have made them in the past. I wouldn't call millenial treks failings mistakes either, I'd classify it as artistic and literary vandalism.
Except there is clear evidence from previous trek incarnations proving the invalidity of the Enterprise universe (umbrella term, not alternative universe within trek) and its non-canon progeny. But that is a whole can of worms that I will leave up to you.
Since those rules are not being defined in this conversation I will ascribe it to personal preference and a place of agreeing to disagree.
To you. Again, these terms are not being clearly defined for the purpose of this dicussion so I will respect your opinion but fundamentally disagree with it being described as "invalid" (a term I think more apropos for TWOK if such a term were to be ascribed to any Trek material) or "vandalism" (a term implying willful destruction of prior work, rather than artistic imaginings within a franchise).
Overall, I would say this is a highly limited view of what Star Trek is, and basically precludes it from evolving as an art form, something that even GR was against an recognized that Star Trek would be reimagined by future generations. Regardless, I will simply state that expecting Star Trek to remain static is like condemning a friend for daring to grow and change. It makes very little sense to me.
Nope, I just finished S1 of DISCO and interested in seeing more. The critics do have a point. The characters are not likeable/charismatic enough overall, and the season depended too heavily on gimmicky big plot twists, some of which are laughably easy to figure out - I mean Tyler practically had a neon sign over his head saying PASS THE GAGH the whole time.
But what I've gleaned about S2 makes me think the likability factor isn't going to be as much of an issue. They have an inkling of an interesting recurring antagonist in Tyler/Voq (I keep hoping for a return to the glory days of DS9, when a Dukat or Winn episode was something to look forward to) and it sounds like the new Spock and Anson Mount are good additions.
I'll happily check out an Ambassador Picard show too (I figure that's what they're doing, right?) Maybe one day CBSAA will have enough to watch to make it worth my while to subscribe.
Who do people listen to these YouTube assholes and their bullshit?
Oh yeah, about the action element in the franchise that's got some people here pissed off, a reminder:
Star Trek Is....
Because it is an echo chamber reinforcing negative opinions and fears that fans already have of their beloved franchise. YouTube, like other things on the Internet, can become a shortcut for thinking for oneself.
Maybe the problem is not Kurtzman but the brass at CBS. It was them who nixed what Fuller had intended to do and launched what they wanted to invest in. Disco has it's own identity; it's Star Trek in CBS' own hollow image.
Discovery is Star Trek rebooted, inspired by the original and the recent movie series but with "prime" slapped on it because CBS think it'll net them a few more subscribers. You know, the kind of ultra-obsessive fan who keeps paying Alex Peters money even after he's been publicly humiliated and vilified by everyone else involved in the making of Prelude to Axanar and the aborted fanfilm movie.
Fixed that for you.
Even GR recognize that Star Trek would be reimagined in the future.
Are you trying to be reasonable and fair here? Is that even allowed?
Separate names with a comma.