Spoilers John de Lancie confirms that shooting for seasons two *and* three is underway

[fireproof78]

The Federation of Picard is insular and reactive, and it's just hard for me to swallow. And Admiral Picard is almost unrecognizable, at least until the last 2 or 3 episodes.

Star Trek: Picard just felt off to me. I don't mind shaking things up, but there are certain characteristics I see, personality traits in Picard that just don't match up with Admiral Picard. I guess another thing is I look to Star Trek for a positive view of the future. Between Picard, and what happens to the Federation centuries later according to Discovery, things look bleak.

This is where I will differ probably a bit strongly. The biggest thing that I do not do and sometimes struggle to understand is look to Trek for, well, anything. Be it a positive future, or inspiration, or hope. Largely because Trek is so roundly inconsistent in its presentation of humanity that such things are not always very well relatable. This isn't to criticize those who do; just an acknowledgement that the following discussion comes from a different place.

Yes, Picard feels very different as does the Federation. But, it is a difference that I see as completely possible given past history. For me, one of the more unbelievable aspects of TNG's future is this idea of a Federation that is constantly giving out even when hurt and wounded multiple times over. Some see that as positive; I see that as extremely unrealistic.

Same thing with Picard. He is wounded and his actions reflect that. Are they inconsistent with his core beliefs? Yes, and it creates a dissonance for him that he has to go resolve. It's a conflict that he himself was never comfortable but didn't know what else to after Starfleet basically called his bluff. It shook him, to the point that his whole career was looked back upon with a sense of despair rather than integrity. And he had to work through that.

And, for me, that working through it is an essential part of positivity. In TNG there occasional ideas of challenging these characters at their core beliefs but it was always neat and tidy and wrapped up by the end. And, for many, that's sufficient. For me, it makes for a very entertaining moment with little meat behind it. Picard is unfamiliar because he is meant to be. He is unfamiliar to himself and has to find himself again. That's a journey I find a lot of value in.

Mileage will vary.

 

[Charles Phipps]

But as with anything, to each his own. I just prefer that timeline over where Picard is.

I love all the timelines but I think the Relaunch novels have a much more pessimistic view of the Federation with Andorian Brexit and Borg genocide than Picard where the Federation ONLY built a massive evacuation fleet for their worst enemies but decided not to do it again after said fleet was blown up.

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

I love all the timelines but I think the Relaunch novels have a much more pessimistic view of the Federation with Andorian Brexit and Borg genocide than Picard where the Federation ONLY built a massive evacuation fleet for their worst enemies but decided not to do it again after said fleet was blown up.

Agreed, lol. The kill-count Treklit has built up is in the order of, not just billions, but dozens of billions. And that's not even counting the infinite Janeways!

 

[Damian]

This is where I will differ probably a bit strongly. The biggest thing that I do not do and sometimes struggle to understand is look to Trek for, well, anything. Be it a positive future, or inspiration, or hope. Largely because Trek is so roundly inconsistent in its presentation of humanity that such things are not always very well relatable. This isn't to criticize those who do; just an acknowledgement that the following discussion comes from a different place.

I guess part of the reason I like Star Trek so much is the positive future it portrays, which is the antithesis of our divided world today. There's plenty of shows and movies on TV that are reflective of today's society. Star Trek usually is the opposite of that. A future where we overcame much of that. The Federation of Star Trek is usually an idyllic society....but not a perfect one, which is an important distinction. We've seen Deep Space Nine, for instance, when the Federation and/or Starfleet might have taken a step back. But usually for every Admiral Leyton there was a Captain Sisko to keep the Federation on the right path.

I became a Star Trek fan partly because it didn't reflect real life as we see it today, but more the potential we have if we become our better selves. Picard just misses the mark for me on that front. Like I said, there are other things I like about it. But the Federation and Starfleet we see in Picard has lost it's way, and I just don't care for that.

I love all the timelines but I think the Relaunch novels have a much more pessimistic view of the Federation with Andorian Brexit and Borg genocide than Picard where the Federation ONLY built a massive evacuation fleet for their worst enemies but decided not to do it again after said fleet was blown up.

Not really. For all that, the Federation in the novel timeline is still a positive force in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants. They've been to hell and back, for sure. At times things looked bleak. But you had people like President Bacco and Admiral Akaar who refused to allow the Federation to retreat into themselves. Despite the massive losses to the Borg, Bacco and Akaar still felt it was important to have some ships continue exploring the galaxy, partly for its own sake, and partly because they felt it was important for the Federation to continue moving outward. By 2387 in the novelverse it appears to have born fruit for the Federation. Andor has returned home, Section 31 was finally brought down and the right people held accountable, and our alliances with the Klingon Empire, Cardassia and the Ferengi Alliance have been strengthened. There was still a lot of work to be done but they were doing it, and at the end of the day in such a way that preserves the Federation's core principles. Which is the kind of Star Trek I love. Not that it's everything is right with the world and nothing bad ever happens. Just that when bad things happen they don't abandon who they are. They use that as a strength.

 

[fireproof78]

I guess part of the reason I like Star Trek so much is the positive future it portrays, which is the antithesis of our divided world today. There's plenty of shows and movies on TV that are reflective of today's society. Star Trek usually is the opposite of that. A future where we overcame much of that. The Federation of Star Trek is usually an idyllic society....but not a perfect one, which is an important distinction. We've seen Deep Space Nine, for instance, when the Federation and/or Starfleet might have taken a step back. But usually for every Admiral Leyton there was a Captain Sisko to keep the Federation on the right path.

I became a Star Trek fan partly because it didn't reflect real life as we see it today, but more the potential we have if we become our better selves. Picard just misses the mark for me on that front. Like I said, there are other things I like about it. But the Federation and Starfleet we see in Picard has lost it's way, and I just don't care for that.

I mean, I can see the point. I just feel like the constant return of the Federation to always be that good, to always be that force to always fight and to never give up sounds incredible-and incredibly unbelievable. I value Star Trek because it gives us an opportunity to explore all facets of humanity and even the parts were it is lower down. Picard illustrates that one can only be wounded for so long before it burns a person out. That's not dark; that's human.

Literally, Picard is about Picard and Clancy setting the Federation back on the right path. They just had to find their own strength again, and find a measure of healing of being a force for good in the galaxy for so long without reprieve. It's not enough to become our better selves but to recognize who and what we need to be that better self. Other wise there is a very great risk of burning out.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I suppose I still view the Federation as a positive force in Picard. Just one compromised by EVIL Romulans.

 

[fireproof78]

I suppose I still view the Federation as a positive force in Picard. Just one compromised by EVIL Romulans.

Also this. It's not like the Federation had the best information or the most accurate. They were being manipulated by a spy among them (worst game of Among Us ever). And it is quite telling that the Federation and Starfleet immediately reacted when they discovered they were being manipulated.

 

[Turtletrekker]

My dream spin-off which features Seven of Nine and the Fenris Rangers establishing their own sovereign state in between the Federation and the Romulans. Suppose, for whatever reason the writers care to contrive, it's more in this nation-state's best interest to ally with the Romulans rather than the Federation?

I love the different perspectives the spin-offs have offered. Discovery from a singular perspective of one character, Lower Decks from the perspective of the Lower Decks, Picard from the perspective of former Starfleet officers for whom which the luster of Starfleet ideals has grown tarnished. What about an outside perspective? Perhaps even an adversarial one?

We have had very few opportunities, mostly on Deep Space Nine, to get the perspective of the Federation from the outside. I think that would be a perspective worth exploring.

For example, imagine a conflict over a disputed world. The Federation wants to keep the world off limits oh, probably because of the prime directive or some such, but the Fenris Nation needs a resource, a hardy grain or medication, from that planet in order to save the lives of their own people. Can you imagine Seven locking phasers on Admiral Janeway or Captain Chakotay? Going off on them about in all the ways the Federation is illogical and inefficient and that she wasn't going to allow her people to die for the Federation's prime directive? That's drama.

 

[Charles Phipps]

My dream spin-off which features Seven of Nine and the Fenris Rangers establishing their own sovereign state in between the Federation and the Romulans. Suppose, for whatever reason the writers care to contrive, it's more in this nation-state's best interest to ally with the Romulans rather than the Federation?

I'm getting the impression the place the Fenris Rangers patrols is a bunch of ex-Romulan states anyway. They're basically doing their peacekeeping work in ex-Soviet State equivalents. If they allied to the Romulans, they'd just go back to the previous status quo.

 

[seigezunt]

I guess part of the reason I like Star Trek so much is the positive future it portrays, which is the antithesis of our divided world today.

I tend to believe where one stands on "is new Trek too dark" is usually tied to where one stands about what's going on in the world at the moment. I think Trek has kind of been all over the place over the years, especially because simply uncritically portraying utopia probably can't cut it with modern viewers. While I love how aspirational TOS and TNG can be, I think it would come across badly today. We have the aspiration, but Trek also has its morality plays to play out.

But I think Trek always speaks to its time in some way, TOS for the 60s, ENT for the Bush era, PIC for today, etc. We are living through a very divided time, even more so than the 60s, and as much as some people like to say there's division for division's sake, there are actually a number of very important and grim issues that are coming to a head, and Americans are finding the need to part company with some of their fellows because of their values about these issues. So our Trek mythology has some serious stuff playing in the background, and it's going to get dark. But being Trek, I think the hope remains. It just won't get wrapped up easily: hence why I think long-form stories appeal to many viewers.

 

[eschaton]

I tend to believe where one stands on "is new Trek too dark" is usually tied to where one stands about what's going on in the world at the moment. I think Trek has kind of been all over the place over the years, especially because simply uncritically portraying utopia probably can't cut it with modern viewers. While I love how aspirational TOS and TNG can be, I think it would come across badly today. We have the aspiration, but Trek also has its morality plays to play out.

I think displaying "dark" things is essential to Trek. I just don't know why those have to be internal to the Federation itself.

I don't think TOS is anywhere near utopian, though TNG admittedly went there. However, the point of the shows was not to shine a light on the Federation itself. Discounting three time travel scenarios, the Enterprise never returned to Earth during TOS. TNG did go to Earth briefly in Conspiracy, but otherwise we didn't really see it until Season 4. Instead the didactic moral lessons came through aliens, alternate realities, time travel, etc. This allowed us to presume the future for humanity as a whole was bright, while still spending a lot of time examining the darker elements of the human condition.

 

[fireproof78]

I tend to believe where one stands on "is new Trek too dark" is usually tied to where one stands about what's going on in the world at the moment. I think Trek has kind of been all over the place over the years, especially because simply uncritically portraying utopia probably can't cut it with modern viewers. While I love how aspirational TOS and TNG can be, I think it would come across badly today. We have the aspiration, but Trek also has its morality plays to play out.

But I think Trek always speaks to its time in some way, TOS for the 60s, ENT for the Bush era, PIC for today, etc. We are living through a very divided time, even more so than the 60s, and as much as some people like to say there's division for division's sake, there are actually a number of very important and grim issues that are coming to a head, and Americans are finding the need to part company with some of their fellows because of their values about these issues. So our Trek mythology has some serious stuff playing in the background, and it's going to get dark. But being Trek, I think the hope remains. It just won't get wrapped up easily: hence why I think long-form stories appeal to many viewers.

I tend to agree with a bit of a caveat. I think it depends greatly on what people want from t heir entertainment. And more and more I am discovering that a lot of individuals want that escapism and that neat wrap up at the end. That was TOS for the longest time, as well as TNG. I appreciate the aspirational nature of TOS, but there were many Starfleet individuals who struggled or failed and such so I am hard pressed to see a major difference in current Trek besides the lack of tidy wrap up.

I think that the other side is that I truly think that Star Trek portrays humanity's future as extremely bright but not trouble free. I think current Trek is doing something that I often found incredibly lacking in several shows, not just Trek. Consequences. I love bottle style storytelling where nothing essentially matters and I can sit back and enjoy it. But, I got enough of that. The fact that humanity is still going, still surviving, fighting to keep itself moving, to learn from mistakes rather than just ignoring them. Acknowledging that progress is never easy and that humanity will not just evolve to be better overnight.

 

[eschaton]

I tend to agree with a bit of a caveat. I think it depends greatly on what people want from t heir entertainment. And more and more I am discovering that a lot of individuals want that escapism and that neat wrap up at the end. That was TOS for the longest time, as well as TNG. I appreciate the aspirational nature of TOS, but there were many Starfleet individuals who struggled or failed and such so I am hard pressed to see a major difference in current Trek besides the lack of tidy wrap up.

I think that the other side is that I truly think that Star Trek portrays humanity's future as extremely bright but not trouble free. I think current Trek is doing something that I often found incredibly lacking in several shows, not just Trek. Consequences. I love bottle style storytelling where nothing essentially matters and I can sit back and enjoy it. But, I got enough of that. The fact that humanity is still going, still surviving, fighting to keep itself moving, to learn from mistakes rather than just ignoring them. Acknowledging that progress is never easy and that humanity will not just evolve to be better overnight.

The strength of Trek historically has been its versatility - that it can be used to tell almost any type of story well, from didactic morality tale to deep character study to lighthearted comedy.

That said, there are limits to what works in every setting due to both plausibility and tone. I mean, imagine if Amazon decided to make its Middle Earth series grimdark and cynical, where all the characters were various shades of "dark" grey. It might be interesting, but it would absolutely be a subversion - arguably a betrayal - of Tolkien's conception and worldview.

I feel like ultimately when considering story ideas, the writers need to consider whether there is actually any advantage to having the story they have conceived take place within the Trekverse. If you're not actually using the setting to the fullest, then it is easy for outside observers to accuse you of a shallow cash-grab - pasting Trek elements over top of a generic sci-fi story in order to provide an initial hook for viewers to tune in. Note this is not a problem which is in any way limited to Star Trek. The desire of modern media companies to make everything into a "franchise" negatively hurts storytelling in general, as successful series often aren't written with finality in mind, in order that they can keep stringing along viewers indefinitely.

 

[fireproof78]

The strength of Trek historically has been its versatility - that it can be used to tell almost any type of story well, from didactic morality tale to deep character study to lighthearted comedy.

That said, there are limits to what works in every setting due to both plausibility and tone. I mean, imagine if Amazon decided to make its Middle Earth series grimdark and cynical, where all the characters were various shades of "dark" grey. It might be interesting, but it would absolutely be a subversion - arguably a betrayal - of Tolkien's conception and worldview.

I feel like ultimately when considering story ideas, the writers need to consider whether there is actually any advantage to having the story they have conceived take place within the Trekverse. If you're not actually using the setting to the fullest, then it is easy for outside observers to accuse you of a shallow cash-grab - pasting Trek elements over top of a generic sci-fi story in order to provide an initial hook for viewers to tune in. Note this is not a problem which is in any way limited to Star Trek. The desire of modern media companies to make everything into a "franchise" negatively hurts storytelling in general, as successful series often aren't written with finality in mind, in order that they can keep stringing along viewers indefinitely.

I mean,i generally agree. I just don't see anything in current Trek that is outside the box.

 

[KennyB]

With yesterday's announcement of the Borg Queen arrival.....I think she may be in the finally and this pic confirms the production of season 3 with no break.

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

And I continue to hope that Levar and Gates were throwing us off and they are finally and totally in season 3.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I hope we're getting two different stories, rather than one long season story with a break. Fingers crossed for a Young Picard casting announcement soon and some Stargazer flashbacks!

(And a whole spin-off, if he's any good)

 

[eschaton]

I hope we're getting two different stories, rather than one long season story with a break.

I hope the reverse. I'm getting sick to death of the Discovery/Picard format of "episodic seasons." If a show is going to go serialized, I want consequences to last across the entirety of the series, not to have an effective reset button pushed with the beginning of each new season.

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

I hope the reverse. I'm getting sick to death of the Discovery/Picard format of "episodic seasons." If a show is going to go serialized, I want consequences to last across the entirety of the series, not to have an effective reset button pushed with the beginning of each new season.

We finally get serialized stories and still the result is episodic, lol.

 

[eschaton]

We finally get serialized stories and still the result is episodic, lol.

I mean, to some extent this is inevitable when you're writing a "serialized" drama without any sort of source material like a series of books. But Discovery in particular (too early to know for sure with Picard) seems to have said with every season "never mind what we did before, here's something entirely new!"

As many flaws as the first season of Discovery had, I would have preferred a continuation of Season 1's plots and themes. Not ending the Klingon War abruptly at the end of the season and letting it drag into the next would make the arc have a much better conclusion for example.