Production Quality Of Picard

[TRON JA307020]

Which is my point. The crew of the Enterprise knew better than most how dangerous the Borg are. Picard himself was obviously acutely aware of it. They had a chance to deal their most threatening enemy a deadly blow, and didn't take it, in favour of a far more hopeful plan.

Right a far more hopeful plan because they preferred not to kill an entire species even though the borg were automatons. The good that did come out was Hugh and a few individual borg but as we saw the computer virus failed to change the borg throughout. By stfc it's back to battling the borg. By that movie the federation is still not having much success until Picard's memories help out.

 

[DarthTimon]

Right a far more hopeful plan because they preferred not to kill an entire species even though the borg were automatons. The good that did come out was Hugh and a few individual borg but as we saw the computer virus failed to change the borg throughout. By stfc it's back to battling the borg. By that movie the federation is still not having much success until Picard's memories help out.

Earlier you were suggesting the Federation had every right to try and wipe out the Borg. You even asserted this as the moral choice.

 

[fireproof78]

Earlier you were suggesting the Federation had every right to try and wipe out the Borg. You even asserted this as the moral choice.

Because it was OK then, but now PIC is totally dystopic in its attitude.

At this point in time I don't even think the arguments make sense any more. It's just arguing for the sake of it. Picard is fine, Star Trek is fine, but fans gotta argue.

 

[Vger23]

If I wanted to watch a show with flawed early 21st century humans I would watch something else not star trek. The characters on Picard come off as not enlightened at all. You obviously missed the point of Trek.

No, the point of Star Trek, at least the Star Trek that I know and love, is that individual people still suck and have flaws, but they can put aside their differences and flaws and still achieve something great as a species.

Picard, as a character in TNG, was really the only one who clammored on about enlightenment and human evolution and all that bullshit. And this series basically calls all that out as ...well...bullshit. And he has to face that and, in a way, redeem himself.

I'm not sure I want to watch a show about a bunch of enlightened people. Why would anyone give a shit? I'd rather see flawed people trying to do better and live up to the lofty ideals their society aspires to. To me, that's inspirational. Having abunch of already-perfect people handed to me on a silver platter is completely and cripplingly uninteresting.

It's one of the reasons I never like Picard much as a character

Until now.

 

[fireproof78]

No, the point of Star Trek, at least the Star Trek that I know and love, is that individual people still suck and have flaws, but they can put aside their differences and flaws and still achieve something great as a species.

Picard, as a character in TNG, was really the only one who clammored on about enlightenment and human evolution and all that bullshit. And this series basically calls all that out as ...well...bullshit. And he has to face that and, in a way, redeem himself.

I'm not sure I want to watch a show about a bunch of enlightened people. Why would anyone give a shit? I'd rather see flawed people trying to do better and live up to the lofty ideals their society aspires to. To me, that's inspirational. Having abunch of already-perfect people handed to me on a silver platter is completely and cripplingly uninteresting.

It's one of the reasons I never like Picard much as a character

Until now.

Exactly this.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Earlier you were suggesting the Federation had every right to try and wipe out the Borg. You even asserted this as the moral choice.

they did if that was the only choice. They came up with another one. If not yes destruction of the borg might have been the only way to save trillions of lives.

 

[NCC-73515]

Lack of utopia =/= dystopia.

less utopia = more dystopia =/= total dystopia.

 

[Gonzo]

I think Picard expected Starfleet to do the right thing even when faced with truly difficult circumstances as he believed in the Federation and its ideals.

When they turned him down flat for what was ultimately political reasons I think his faith and trust was shaken to the core and he realised that the Federations promises were only valid while the sun was shining.

I am not surprised that he walked away, how can he be a part of it if he no longer believes in it, Starfleet and the Federation were everything to him, he had given his entire life to Starfleet and perhaps he realised that he didn't have anything to show for it.

I understand why Starfleet turned him down but it broke his heart as a consequence.

 

[JamesRye]

Roddenberry introduced a 'no conflict' rule for TNG that all the writers chafed against - one cannot help but see the re-imagined BSG as a reaction against those restrictions - certainly DS9 could never bush the boundaries in quite the same way. Conflict between the crew always had to come from an external source - at least in TNG (data is possessed or the crew are infected with something). To be fair, this edict may be why Voyager never lived up to it's potential with the Maquis, who just integrated immediately into the crew (for the most part)

To Quote one of the key creators of the Star Trek Universe:

"I’ve always felt that Star Trek’s greatest secret is its optimism. People watch Star Trek because it makes them feel hope for the future. Whoopi Goldberg who played Guinan on the TV series described it better than anyone else I know. She recalled what it meant to her as a child to see a black female officer on the bridge of the original Enterprise. 'It meant there was a place in the future for me,' she said."

Michael Piller writer/co-creator of of many years of episodes of ST:TNG and DS9
Quoted from his book "Fade In"

Now to my mind, DSC and Picard have both chucked out the no-conflict rule. Whether you think that makes for better drama or not is really a personal and subjective thing. Is Picard throwing away the optimistic view of the future? Maybe, but it's only Season 1, perhaps he will rejoin and 'repair' Starfleet in Season 2. Or maybe things will get progressively worse, tying into the future that is suggested by the season 3 trailers for DSC.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Roddenberry introduced a 'no conflict' rule for TNG that all the writers chafed against - one cannot help but see the re-imagined BSG as a reaction against those restrictions - certainly DS9 could never bush the boundaries in quite the same way. Conflict between the crew always had to come from an external source - at least in TNG (data is possessed or the crew are infected with something). To be fair, this edict may be why Voyager never lived up to it's potential with the Maquis, who just integrated immediately into the crew (for the most part)

To Quote one of the key creators of the Star Trek Universe:

"I’ve always felt that Star Trek’s greatest secret is its optimism. People watch Star Trek because it makes them feel hope for the future. Whoopi Goldberg who played Guinan on the TV series described it better than anyone else I know. She recalled what it meant to her as a child to see a black female officer on the bridge of the original Enterprise. 'It meant there was a place in the future for me,' she said."

Michael Piller writer/co-creator of of many years of episodes of ST:TNG and DS9
Quoted from his book "Fade In"

Now to my mind, DSC and Picard have both chucked out the no-conflict rule. Whether you think that makes for better drama or not is really a personal and subjective thing. Is Picard throwing away the optimistic view of the future? Maybe, but it's only Season 1, perhaps he will rejoin and 'repair' Starfleet in Season 2. Or maybe things will get progressively worse, tying into the future that is suggested by the season 3 trailers for DSC.

The no conflict rule is very overplayed as an 'explanation' of 90s trek. Roddenberry pushed that rule *when he was actively part of the production of TNG* and even then TNG didn't stick to it 100%. As soon as Roddenberry himself was gone (very early in the show), TNG used even more personal conflict. And DS9 used even more than that. Voyager started out with even more personal conflict than DS9 had but ultimately dialed it back when they decided they wanted to be more like TNG than DS9.

 

[The Old Mixer]

less utopia = more dystopia =/= total dystopia.

Nope.

 

[JamesRye]

The no conflict rule is very overplayed as an 'explanation' of 90s trek. Roddenberry pushed that rule *when he was actively part of the production of TNG* and even then TNG didn't stick to it 100%. As soon as Roddenberry himself was gone (very early in the show), TNG used even more personal conflict. And DS9 used even more than that. Voyager started out with even more personal conflict than DS9 had but ultimately dialed it back when they decided they wanted to be more like TNG than DS9.

Well, the writers certainly thought about his philosophy back in the day, as this quotation from Berman in 1993 shows:

“Our Starfleet officers are still Starfleets officers in the true Roddenberry spirit,”

“There is no conflict between them. But by twisting the location of the show a little bit to this strange uncomfortable place, by adding a back story where we have alien characters who are not at all that crazy about having our people there, it allows us numerous new vehicles of conflict that make the stories a lot more compelling .”

And more recently in 2006:

"When Gene died, both Michal Piller and I were involved in creating and writing Deep Space Nine, and we never really got a chance to talk to him about it because he was quite ill at that point. But even with Deep Space Nine and later Voyager, and Enterprise I felt it was important that as long as something had the Star Trek name on it that it stayed true to Gene’s belief of what Star Trek was all about."


I wonder if “would Gene have approved “ goes through any of the writers minds nowadays.

 

[fireproof78]

I wonder if “would Gene have approved “ goes through any of the writers minds nowadays.

Even if it doesn't Gene also expected such a change.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Well, the writers certainly thought about his philosophy back in the day, as this quotation from Berman in 1993 shows:

“Our Starfleet officers are still Starfleets officers in the true Roddenberry spirit,”

“There is no conflict between them. But by twisting the location of the show a little bit to this strange uncomfortable place, by adding a back story where we have alien characters who are not at all that crazy about having our people there, it allows us numerous new vehicles of conflict that make the stories a lot more compelling .”

And more recently in 2006:

"When Gene died, both Michal Piller and I were involved in creating and writing Deep Space Nine, and we never really got a chance to talk to him about it because he was quite ill at that point. But even with Deep Space Nine and later Voyager, and Enterprise I felt it was important that as long as something had the Star Trek name on it that it stayed true to Gene’s belief of what Star Trek was all about."


I wonder if “would Gene have approved “ goes through any of the writers minds nowadays.

I mean, Berman can make all the vague, non-committal, feel-good quotes about Roddenberry's vision that he wants, but it doesn't change what was actually in the shows. Or the fact that Roddenberry was ultimately forced out of TNG because nobody could work with him.

And really, anyone who seriously thinks Roddenberry as he was towards the end of his life would have ever approved of DS9 is either uninformed or delusional. It's almost from the ground up the antithesis of everything that he said the 24th century was 'supposed' to be. (I say that as a huge fan of DS9, btw.)

 

[Sci]

I honestly do not care if Gene would have approved of PIC or DIS. Gene was a very different person at different points in his life and at different points in the history of Star Trek. I think 1960s Gene would not have minded the fact that PIC and DIS are willing to depict main characters with major flaws and a Federation that's done something seriously immoral and needs to be led back into decency -- but I also think his 1960s self might have objected to fundamental conventions of American dramatic television today, because American television in the 1960s operated on a totally different set of creative conceits (especially with regards to anthology vs. episodic vs. serialized). I think the Gene of the late 1980s, who had begun to drink his own Kool-Aid about the perfectibility of humanity, might not have objected to the contemporary use of serialized structure, but he might have objected to PIC and DIS being less overtly utopian. The Gene of both eras also might have been uncomfortable with casts that had such high percentages of persons of color and of women not depicted in caregiver roles. (And the Gene of both eras would probably have tried to steal credit for other people's work, because that was a consistent habit of his in both TOS and TNG.)

Oh, also there is a strong possibility that Gene Roddenberry raped Grace Lee Whitney, so you tell me if we should care about what he would approve of.

 

[fireproof78]

Gene didn't approve of TWOK either. The days are long past my giving a crap. The more I learn about him the less I care.

 

[Vger23]

I wonder if “would Gene have approved “ goes through any of the writers minds nowadays.

I'm not sure why I should care......let alone why the writers should care.

Gene didn't approve of TWOK either. The days are long past my giving a crap. The more I learn about him the less I care.

Yep

 

[Lord Garth]

Based on how he reacted to the TOS Movies, anyone who thinks Gene would've approved of DS9 is out of their mind.

And based on what I read about his kept-out-of-public misogyny in the second volume of The Fifty-Year Mission (which covered from TNG on), he wouldn't have approved of VOY because he wouldn't have been able to get behind a woman Captain as the series lead. So that would likely extend to DSC as well. Burnham's not the Captain (at least not yet), but she's still the series lead.

PIC is pretty similar to the TOS Movies or, when it's not, it's taking a different track than the TOS Movies did to show how Older Picard is different from Older Kirk. But, like with DS9, if he didn't approve of the TOS Movies, he probably wouldn't have approved of PIC.

Oh, and Gene Roddenberry wouldn't like what they did with the Vulcans in ENT, so that's out too.

Really, all you've got left that he would've approved of would've been the Abrams Films... oh, wait a minute, nooo, Vulcan was destroyed.

Okay, so we're shit out of luck.

PS: We can't go by anything Rick Berman said. That's just PR. What was he supposed to say? In one sense, he probably just thought "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", and he'd say whatever he had to in order to keep the Roddenberry Faithful loyal.

Which is probably why Ira Steven Behr drove him up the wall. Can't spin the Holy Gospel to The Chorus when Ira's got the Dominion War going on and he won't back down.

But now, here we are 25 years later, having to hear The Chorus. The difference is: Rick Berman put more effort into spinning and telling people want they wanted to hear. Alex Kurtzman doesn't.

 

[NCC-73515]

Nope.

Why would more of one thing not mean less of its opposite? It's logical.

 

[Tenacity]

less utopia = more dystopia =/= total dystopia.

Less utopia = moving into the gigantic middle ground that separates utopia from dystopia.