Spoilers Picard News & Reviews from Outside Sources

[Enterprise is Great]

Goldsman wrote Batman and Robin the way Warner Brothers wanted. There was a big backlash after Batman Returns because it was thought to be too gross and dark for kids. McDonald’s was promoting the movie and parent groups were upset that they were promoting something like that to kids. That’s why the Kilmer and Clooney movies became absurd and goofy. Batman and Robin isn’t that good IMO but that’s more on the studio than Goldsman.

The best thing in that movie was Uma Thurman’s campy portrayal of Poison Ivy.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'm grateful that for everything they changed, PIC Season 3 still feels like the same show, just a different take on it.

Whereas with the '90s Batman Films, the first two and the last two don't feel like they belong to the same film series at all.

 

[The Old Mixer]

well once episode 10 airs you could unpin my thread, since it won't be needed.

I've decided to heck with it, let's be That Forum, we've only got two episodes left!

 

[Ovation]

The Variety interview where he specifically says he wants to piss off a portion of the fanbase.

A very small, very specifically described “portion of the fanbase”—one within which, I should think, everyone around here, regardless of their views of specific iterations of Trek expressed here on the BBS, wouldn’t want to be found. It’s hardly “let’s piss off all the traditional fans” that it’s been made out to be. Also, nearly everyone who disagreed with Chabon’s approach seems to be letting Sir Patrick off the hook. He’s the one who said he wasn’t interested in TNG 2.0. Clearly, in the intervening years, he’s changed his mind, but Chabon and company could only work with the directives they received.

Ultimately, @Lord Garth is quite correct. It’s all about expectations. I love it when my expectations are challenged, in film, TV, novels, paintings, music, any art, really. Even if I don’t always like the results, I appreciate the effort. My wife…does not. Her primary desire from entertainment is comfort. Doesn’t mean she doesn’t have eclectic tastes but it does mean she’s disappointed when things don’t go as expected. I’ve witnessed this countless times. I love her anyway. The one thing she NEVER does is take the disappointment personally. She doesn’t feel betrayed or disrespected.

I think half the bickering would disappear among Trek fans if they just accepted that a version of Trek that wasn’t to one’s liking was not a personal attack on their identity. (I’d say more than half about any other fandom, but, well…Star Trek ). I’ve read blistering criticism of Trek (and other art/entertainment) that clearly indicates a dislike of the iteration on hand—all without stating it in a way that suggests those who disagree with the criticism are somehow lesser fans or people for it. It’s possible.

 

[Racefuel]

I think half the bickering would disappear among Trek fans if they just accepted that a version of Trek that wasn’t to one’s liking was not a personal attack on their identity. (I’d say more than half about any other fandom, but, well…Star Trek ).

You're right, but that ship sailed 20 years ago unfortunately when Enterprise first debuted

 

[fireproof78]

think half the bickering would disappear among Trek fans if they just accepted that a version of Trek that wasn’t to one’s liking was not a personal attack on their identity.

Yes, yes it would.

 

[James Cole]

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.

Fair to say it's open to interpretation, especially if you liked season 1. But the "toxic fans" label seems to be used to brush off way too many legitimate complaints. You want attention to detail? Toxic fan. Complain how Icheb and Hugh were handled? Toxic fan. The Discoprise hologram? Toxic fan...

That said, I am open to listening to the podcast Deadline did about season 1 that frequently interviewed Chabon. Sure it's the access media of access media, but considering all the Terry interviews I post, I should know more about the mindset behind Chabon.

I'm grateful that for everything they changed, PIC Season 3 still feels like the same show, just a different take on it.

Season 1 was both very expansive yet claustrophobic in its execution. And season 2 does bridge seasons 1 and 3 in an interesting way, with season 1 carryover characters, but with the production designers and day to day writers of season 3.

 

[Racefuel]

Fair to say it's open to interpretation, especially if you liked season 1. But the "toxic fans" label seems to be used to brush off way too many legitimate complaints. You want attention to detail? Toxic fan. Complain how Icheb and Hugh were handled? Toxic fan. The Discoprise hologram? Toxic fan...

Its the manner in which those issues are raised. You can comment that you would rather have had the OG TOS Enterprise or Enterprise-A instead of the DiscoPrise but present it in a non-toxic way.

The problem is is that for some people the only way they can talk is in a very acidic, harsh, grating way.

 

[Ovation]

But the "toxic fans" label seems to be used to brush off way too many legitimate complaints. You want attention to detail? Toxic fan. Complain how Icheb and Hugh were handled? Toxic fan. The Discoprise hologram? Toxic fan...

Is Chabon doing that? Not in the interview. Maybe elsewhere? And if not, then holding him accountable for the actions of others is…illogical.

 

[Lord Garth]

If I were to ever use the phrase "toxic fans", the only place I'd apply it would be to bigoted fans. Everyone else is just someone I disagree with.

 

[Racefuel]

If you want an example of toxic fans..a good one is the type who gets drunk, starts up a livestream and wishes Kurtzman death because he moved their cheese

 

[fireproof78]

If I were to ever use the phrase "toxic fans", the only place I'd apply it would be to bigoted fans. Everyone else is just someone I disagree with.

Yeah. Liking or disliking a particular flavor of Trek does not make someone toxic.

 

[James Cole]

Whereas with the '90s Batman Films, the first two and the last two don't feel like they belong to the same film series at all.

Considering this thread's ancestor started with RLM reviews for season 1... A RLM fan has synced highlights of their audio commentary on BATMAN & ROBIN with footage from the film on YouTube. Haven't seen the film since it came out, but if anyone is feeling nostalgic, RLM do more than Star Trek...

Its the manner in which those issues are raised. You can comment that you would rather have had the OG TOS Enterprise or Enterprise-A instead of the DiscoPrise but present it in a non-toxic way.

FWIW, I'm out of the TOS vs Discoprise debate now. Out. The Fleet Museum thread the week "The Bounty" dropped went off the rails. Doug Drexler, TrekYards, and EAS are good enough for me.

 

[Ronin'sCreamyCandle]

Wow I earned a sticky thread.

 

[JamesRye]

It's gratifying to see so many 'outside sources' are loving Star Trek Picard. Red Letter Media, Dave Cullen, Trekyards, even Robert Meyer Burnett and The Inglorious Treksperts. That Doomcock pillock still hates everything though, lol.

I always like the RLM reviews. I'd prefer it if it were just Mike being serious all the time though. Their top 10 TNG episodes really were quite insightful.

I'd love to know if all the positive feedback will influence Paramount going forward. Will we get Star Trek Legacy? How is the show tracking compared to SNW and DSC? One assumes DSC and SNW got huge ratings.

For me, the biggest revelation has been how good the TNG casr are. Frakes in particular. I wonder if any of these guys will get more acting gigs of the back of this.

 

[James Cole]

It's gratifying to see so many 'outside sources' are loving Star Trek Picard. Red Letter Media, Dave Cullen, Trekyards, even Robert Meyer Burnett and The Inglorious Treksperts. That Doomcock pillock still hates everything though, lol.

Swoops in to say something nice before others try to rip apart your positivity...

Yes, it's really cool. A sign that "YouTubers" aren't just clickbait haters... that legacy Star Trek fans that hated earlier NuTrek aren't going to hate everything just because it wasn't made in the 1990's... and that Berman-era Trek was evolving (especially the final seasons of DS9 and ENT) before that process was interrupted. I see PICARD season 3 as very much the natural evolution that we missed out on from Star Trek being off TV during the Peak TV era (2006-2017).

 

[Campe]

If you love it, love it. But at the end of the day, those who post on YouTube are individuals with opinions. They can have theirs. You can have yours. I can have mine. For me, this season has been fairly good. Not perfect. But fairly good. Its speaking to those who haven't liked other aspects of Trek. That's great for them. There's enough room for this as much as there is for Discovery, as much as there is for SNW, for Lower Decks, for Prodigy, for Starfleet Academy.

I don't like YT pundits. I think there are those who put way too much stock into their opinions. But that doesn't mean they don't have the right to said opinions.

 

[fireproof78]

It's gratifying to see so many 'outside sources' are loving Star Trek Picard. Red Letter Media, Dave Cullen, Trekyards, even Robert Meyer Burnett and The Inglorious Treksperts.

It's nice that fans are enjoying Trek, yes.

I don't like YT pundits. I think there are those who put way too much stock into their opinions. But that doesn't mean they don't have the right to said opinions.

Indeed and agreed. I don't support YT Trek channels for personal reasons but that doesn't change the fact that they are Trek fans and are welcome to their opinions. Their opinions just have no greater (nor lesser) meaning than those here.

 

[Lord Garth]

I don't trust pundits. I'll tell you why: they're dependent on promoting a particular POV and their audience relies on them having that POV. If something happens that proves them wrong, they have to find a way to spin it in order keep having that POV. Which means distortion at best and bald-faced lies at worst.

If you make a career off of being a pundit, I do not trust you. The End.

 

[Ovation]

If you make a career off of being a pundit, I do not trust you.

And just when I was looking for a post-retirement activity. Ah well.