I'm open to suggestions for a less wordy thread title that gets the point across.Third Party Sources. I always wanted to see reviews from members of the Libertarian Party or the Green Party.
Spoilers Picard News & Reviews from Outside Sources
- Thread starter The Old Mixer
- Start date
Last edited:
Whatever else happens in regards to Chabon's brief time with Trek, we'll always have Calypso, and I still think it's as close to a perfect Star Trek story as we've had.
So what?
It was a sample from the odd portion of the review. Glad I am retired and don't have to be in the class you describe. :P
This is false. Michael Chabon chose to leave PIC after S1 because he got the opportunity to adapt his Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. He was not fired.
Citation needed.
Yes, sometimes television programs have extended development phases, and sometimes they fall apart during those development phases. This isn't really relevant to PIC though.
Most people liked it.
It was a good creative decision that emphasized how bigotry and oppression always harm the members of the in-group as well as the marginalized out-group.
Why do you assume they didn't do everything they could, up to and including breaking the law, to try to save him?
No. Season One had a fairly solid plot structure that didn't quite stick the landing. S2 had a lot of plot cul-de-sacs that went nowhere and contributed nothing plotwise or thematically to the season as a whole. But I also think we should be generous in how we grade S2, since it was filmed largely before COVID vaccines were available and the writers were trying to keep the train running safely.
I enjoy Matalas's writing, but I enjoyed Chabon's more. Chabon tries to speak to deeper thematic concerns than Matalas -- nothing Matalas has done approaches the thematic depth, pathos, and catharsis of "Et in Arcadia Ego, Parts I & II." Particularly Picard encountering Data in the electronic afterlife a la Orpheus in the Underworld.
Matalas does good work too, but he plays things a little too safe creatively for my tastes. Chabon was willing to write Star Trek from a fundamentally anti-institutionalist point of view; Matalas feels the need to bring the audience back to a place of thinking of Starfleet as a fundamentally benevolent institution, which is basically a regurgitation of the same institutionalist message ST has been spouting for almost sixty years.
Matalas is also I think unintentionally using a lot of the same tropes as S1. A lot of the S3 plot resembles the S1 plot, in fact -- a young scion of a TNG cast member is on the run from mysterious assassins working for a familiar Star Trek alien power, Picard is contacted to help them, Picard sets out to help them without the assistance of Starfleet, along the way he has to reunite with old allies, the scion turns out to have mysterious powers and a more complicated past than they had realized, and also Data turns out to be back from the dead. Again, I'm enjoying S3, but I definitely feel like it's hitting a lot of the same notes S1 hit.
And of course, my biggest problem with Matalas and the biggest reason I wish Chabon had stayed on, is the climatic scene of "Et in Arcadia Ego, Part II" between Soji and Picard was a promissory note to the audience that the Picard/Soji ersatz grandfather/granddaughter relationship would be the foundation of the series going forward... and then Matalas just threw Soji overboard. It's especially frustrating because she would have been perfect in S3. And now I really want to see NuData and Soji meet!
Hot take: Batman & Robin is a good movie because it was a good version of the kind of film it was trying to be, and a lot of negative fandom reaction was more about late 90s homophobia than the quality of the film itself.
Lore is a minor character who appeared in a grand total of four episodes of TNG. It's good to know of him and he adds an interesting dimension to Data, but he's not actually that important a character. He's a trivia point, not a vital piece of the, well, lore. And he was absolutely not important to the story of Jean-Luc Picard, who you will recall was the actual main character of PIC S1.
Lore was particularly unimportant because Data's role in PIC S1 was to be the ersatz son whom Picard is still grieving, and to whom he finally gets to say goodbye in a science-fiction version of the afterlife, a la Orpheus descending into the Underworld. Lore was absolutely irrelevant to Data's role in that story.
So, no, the fact that Chabon could not immediately recall one relatively unimportant character out of literally hundreds of Star Trek characters across (at the time) eight television series and thirteen movies, is not particularly relevant, nor is it an indication of any sort of lack of familiarity with Star Trek canon.
You know, I searched through all those questions, and I think spreading disinformation is a bit mean - almost like lying!
You can of course go through the stories and realise how deep Chabon's knowledge is, and how much he loves Trek.
I don't like the either/or nature of many fans at the moment, but I'd argue S1 and S3 are both seasons I might rewatch, with one being far more experimental and ambitious than the other, and one being far more nostalgic. But that doesn't make one better than the other; other factors do.
okay, proven wrong. i guess i didn't remember correctly. sorry.
I almost missed this because I read the post before you edited it in.
This will start off-topic, then I'll turn it back around to Picard.
It's like when people were pissed about Alien 3 because what they really wanted was Aliens 2. The reason some people like PIC Season 3 and not the rest of New Trek is because, to them, it finally feels like that continuation of (and conclusion to) second-generation Trek they were looking for.
I think the root of the problem a lot of Trekkies have with New Trek, the third-generation of Trek, is either that it's not a continuation of second-generation Trek or it's not what they would've done for third-generation Trek. I think a lot of it comes down to "That's not what I wanted!" and they can't separate whether or not they wanted it from whether or not it's good. I think SNW is good, but it's not what I wanted. So I'll say I'm not interested in it, but I'll never say I think it's bad, because it's not. And I think a lot of Trekkies can't do this. They're too focused on getting what they want, and "the Hell with everything and everyone else!"
Which brings us back to, "Why can't all of Star Trek be like this?!" Well, with five series, they're never going to get more than 20% of the pie, if they only want things one way. The 20% thing is something they still have to adjust to.
Zeroing in on Picard itself: Chabon wanted to make a series that's more than just a TNG Reunion. So they could've gotten more mileage out of Chabon's version of the series. Matalas did want to have it be a TNG Reunion, and that's the mark of a terminal series. They'll all get back together once, for the third season, but they wouldn't do it season-after-season and it would lead to diminishing returns if they did. So if they didn't want Picard to be a limited series, then Chabon's approach would've been the better one to go with.
Believe it or not, I'll agree with you on this: I think Batman & Robin is very good at being a '90s version of Adam West Batman. It doesn't try to be that. It is that. And that was the real problem. People wanted the Tim Burton version of Batman. They wanted another Batman (1989) and Batman Returns. Ironically, Batman Forever only changed things just to make parents happy, and it worked. My parents didn't like the Tim Burton Batman movies. "That's not the Batman I remember!" "It's somber!" Then along came Batman Forever and they thought, "That's more like it!" Not because the movie was good, but because it was kid-friendly. Then Batman & Robin took it into overdrive. Do I think homophobia had nothing do with why almost everyone else didn't like it? No. I remember someone at the time telling me, exact quote, "As soon the Batman suit had nipples, I was done!" But I do think it was mostly that people really wanted Tim Burton's Batman III and Tim Burton's Batman IV.
It's like when people were pissed about Alien 3 because what they really wanted was Aliens 2. The reason some people like PIC Season 3 and not the rest of New Trek is because, to them, it finally feels like that continuation of (and conclusion to) second-generation Trek they were looking for.
I think the root of the problem a lot of Trekkies have with New Trek, the third-generation of Trek, is either that it's not a continuation of second-generation Trek or it's not what they would've done for third-generation Trek. I think a lot of it comes down to "That's not what I wanted!" and they can't separate whether or not they wanted it from whether or not it's good. I think SNW is good, but it's not what I wanted. So I'll say I'm not interested in it, but I'll never say I think it's bad, because it's not. And I think a lot of Trekkies can't do this. They're too focused on getting what they want, and "the Hell with everything and everyone else!"
Which brings us back to, "Why can't all of Star Trek be like this?!" Well, with five series, they're never going to get more than 20% of the pie, if they only want things one way. The 20% thing is something they still have to adjust to.
Zeroing in on Picard itself: Chabon wanted to make a series that's more than just a TNG Reunion. So they could've gotten more mileage out of Chabon's version of the series. Matalas did want to have it be a TNG Reunion, and that's the mark of a terminal series. They'll all get back together once, for the third season, but they wouldn't do it season-after-season and it would lead to diminishing returns if they did. So if they didn't want Picard to be a limited series, then Chabon's approach would've been the better one to go with.
Last edited:
I've had morning coffee and a string of notifications from a thread I'd never posted in before. Almost want to pull out my pages of notes about PICARD season 1, but I'll give it 20 minutes then move on.
.This thread seems to be all relitigation. TLJ effectively decimated the Star Wars film franchise (for now), and many of the creative choices that went into TLJ also went into PICARD season 1. So it can just serve as a contrasting example.
A lot of the times it's a case of the studio wanting to exploit an already established IP, but then assigning people that want to make that thing too much of their own, while the studio (that may not even understand the franchise to begin with) tells them to target new viewers, assuming the existing fanbase will be along for the ride no matter what.
And, Terry Matalas has specifically said he hoped his season would appeal across the fanbase. So is it the season itself being divisive, or the reception to it?
It also comes down to not being in the intended audience for a message. One reason the YouTubers promoting season 3 are throwing shade on past seasons of NuTrek is that their audiences didn't like those seasons, and to promote a new season that they find actually good, they need to established reliability and a baseline with their audience to get them to consider watching said season. Some of these streams have had season 3 spoilers or news, which then gets shared here.
Michael Chabon: 0
Terry Matalas: 4
TIME, have a good Saturday or Sunday guys.
Based on all the traction the Terry Trek petition has gained, maybe the Michael Chabon fans can get a petition going for him to come back and do a season 1 follow up project?
&
&
The Variety interview where he specifically says he wants to piss off a portion of the fanbase. It's hot button political, so if someone wants to dig that up in TNZ...
&
Fair point, TLJ is a
.This thread seems to be all relitigation. TLJ effectively decimated the Star Wars film franchise (for now), and many of the creative choices that went into TLJ also went into PICARD season 1. So it can just serve as a contrasting example.A lot of the times it's a case of the studio wanting to exploit an already established IP, but then assigning people that want to make that thing too much of their own, while the studio (that may not even understand the franchise to begin with) tells them to target new viewers, assuming the existing fanbase will be along for the ride no matter what.
I think PICARD season 3 manages to be an evolution of the Berman-era storytelling from DS9 and late ENT, while PICARD season 1 was more of a rupture. It just feels too divorced from what came before, and needed much more grounding.
Check out his YT interviews with the Popcast guys and Robert Meyer Burnett...
I think many of the people who hated PICARD season 1 would have liked PICARD season 3 even if not all of the TNG cast came back. Season 3 has great new characters. A few of the advance reviewers for season 3 even posted that others that watched the screeners with them enjoyed what they saw, even with no prior Star Trek experience. And what some might call nostalgia is just following up with past events in continuity in a fictional universe with almost 60 years of history.
There are many people with Star Trek franchise history that have condemned most of NuTrek, but like season 3. A lot of times, especially on the internet, nuance is a tax on time. If you can get 90% of your point across in a minute, but it takes an hour to get to 99%, you can only do some much.
And, Terry Matalas has specifically said he hoped his season would appeal across the fanbase. So is it the season itself being divisive, or the reception to it?
It also comes down to not being in the intended audience for a message. One reason the YouTubers promoting season 3 are throwing shade on past seasons of NuTrek is that their audiences didn't like those seasons, and to promote a new season that they find actually good, they need to established reliability and a baseline with their audience to get them to consider watching said season. Some of these streams have had season 3 spoilers or news, which then gets shared here.
Why not both?
I didn't say he was fired. But if CBS was so happy with PICARD season 1, they would have tried to get him to stay on for another season, or at least continue his story arcs.
John Carter... That Spiderman draft...
Sticking the landing on a highly serialized season of genre television where everything fit together:
Michael Chabon: 0
Terry Matalas: 4
The episode needed to show that, otherwise it borders on character assassination of Riker and Troi. It's just not believable with the characters.
Fair point. But season 3 is doing a much better job in doing so. It's grounded in the universe, not a Firefly/Alien/Mass Effect/CW mashup.
TIME, have a good Saturday or Sunday guys.
Based on all the traction the Terry Trek petition has gained, maybe the Michael Chabon fans can get a petition going for him to come back and do a season 1 follow up project?
Last edited:
I went with Garth's suggestion, as that was the sort of conciseness that I was going for.
I'm tempted to pin the thread so it doesn't get lost in limbo again, though I think we're already on the borderline of becoming the forum with too many pinned threads.
I'm tempted to pin the thread so it doesn't get lost in limbo again, though I think we're already on the borderline of becoming the forum with too many pinned threads.
well once episode 10 airs you could unpin my thread, since it won't be needed.
I assume you mean this interview-
https://variety.com/2020/tv/features/michael-chabon-star-trek-picard-1203544717/
Naturally, he does not say that all, at least in the way you framed it. He says that going into the season they knew a small subgroup of fans (i.e. the toxic fandom in his words) would be tested by the boundaries but that was okay with them. He also says sometimes they were motivated to included small things that might piss those people off because they're missing the point of the story they been trying to tell. In the context of the conversation and article, it all makes perfect sense and doesn't come off poorly at all.
Including things that push boundaries and that might make some fans uncomfortable isn't the same as setting out to make a purposely divisive season. It's called including things that you know might make some fans annoyed but still telling the story you want to tell anyway because you think it's a good story. There's nothing wrong with that.
Similar threads
