Hopefully in 24 hours, and especially in 10 weeks, we'll have proof of concept that the essence of pre-2005 Trek is possible in 2023.
Spoilers Star Trek: Picard General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
It's been possible and present since 2009.
Of course it's possible. It's just not the only way. And that's the point. Saying there's only one way, or the fan base has only one opinion, is fallacious, at best.
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times: Star Trek is different things to different people.
The essence has already happened many times since 2017. It can take different forms but come around to the same answers.
Those reviews are aimed at people that gave DISCOVERY or PICARD season 1 a try and bailed. So if the people writing those reviews have the same baseline as their intended audience, that'd be reflected in said reviews. Even Dave Cullen is facing a very skeptical audience in trying to get some of these people to give the season a try.
It's the blind men and the elephant (link to Wikipedia)! We can see this where some people say DISCOVERY is very much their Star Trek, but it also seems to alienate a discernable portion of the fanbase. My guess is that it oversamples certain elements of Star Trek while neglecting others, leading to the splintering.
&
With the exception of a few PICARD season 2 episodes, none of the live action Trek under Kurtzman has gotten the tone plus continuity right compared to what was previously established. So, as someone for whom the tone and continuity are some of the most important aspects to the franchise, and are inextricably linked to the writing and characters, I am very happy to see reviews reflecting this in the upcoming season. And I hope the season, despite the obstacles it has to overcome from season 1, is very successful creatively and in the ratings.
Whoopi Goldberg was dressed as Guinan for the segment.
DS9, Voyager and Enterprise alienated discernible parts of the fanbase. Their viewer numbers dropped significantly, and they were loudly criticised by many. TNG, of course, copped plenty of (deserved) criticism early on and still never won over many original TOS fans.
The tone of Trek varied significantly through TOS and the Berman era. It ranged from dark and pessimistic to optimistic to absurd comedy. There were also plenty of continuity errors throughout those eras. To suggest that a mere few of a hundred-odd modern episodes have managed to meet this ill-defined standard is absurd.
In both instances, there is a grossly simplistic and artificial divide being presented between Kurtzman-era Trek and previous eras which simply does not exist. A self-described legacy fan ought to be well aware of how divided the fanbase was long before Kurtzman came along.
Define “discernible portion of the fan base.”
Oh, do you mean the majority of the fans who talk about Trek on the internet? Oh. Okay.
Shhh, stop using real life facts. They’re ruining his argument.
All I can tell you is "Good luck." The Trek you want is not what I want.
Yup. TNG was not "real Trek" at the time either. And still hasn't won this TOS fan over.
This is also my feeling. The continuity that is insisted upon simply isn't my experience because I went from TOS, to TAS to TMP to TWOK. Those are hardly contiguous as people like to think. Fans did well to build up this wonderful continuity add on a lot of material but that doesn't make it more accurate to what was presented on screen, or even known by the majority of the viewing audience. This idea that modern Trek has failed somehow is...subjective at best. That the YT intelligencia have deigned to give their blessing gives me more pause than interest.
I mean, sure, there are the die hard TOS is the only Star Trek people. VGR had it's many problems, and this especially came to the fore with Ronald D Moore's brief tenure and resignation. And, true, but did ENT split the fanbase in half? Many people saw it as mediocre, but it didn't receive as much hostility as DISCOVERY has.
But did continuity problems come to the level of wiping knocking out an entire series or more from shared inter-continuity? All the series could at least be aired on US broadcast television. All the films were PG-13 or below. Granted, the Ceti eel and the "Conspiracy" mother parasite probably did go too far, but not enough to get an R rating or an FCC fine. You never had something approach the level of torture porn. And you had much higher levels of verisimilitude and overall professionalism among the crews.
The differences between TNG, DS9, VGR, and ENT are much much less than the Berman-era series combined contrasted with DISCOVERY and early PICARD. Sure, there is a world of difference between say PRODIGY and LOWER DECKS with at least the DISCOVERY of its first two seasons and early STP. But the negative reaction to NuTrek isn't evenly distributed.
Would someone that really disliked VGR or ENT be dreading a TNG reunion? Granted, NEM wasn't great but it didn't exactly have the negative ripples that STP S1 did, even though it left Data dead but not dead-with-no-signpost-to-how-he's-coming-back.
And, yes, to be fair, this is the internet. An in depth market research study into the Star Trek fanbase identifying discernable elements like a political spectrum or the Myers Briggs personality typology would help us all much further develop this. But we don't have the time and resources, so there will have to be some simplification.
But, yeah, Bill Hunt liked the first six episodes. I'm hoping I do too. Just a few hours to go...
Last edited:
In my experience that was TNG. Do you like Kirk or Picard? How dare you not like Picard!
Songs of my childhood.
There are people that only feel the first two season of TOS are real, the rest is garbage (for the most part of TOS). There are people who think seasons 1 and 2 of TNG are the literal worst the franchise has ever been (I am one), and that the TNG only consistently got to be watchable season 3 forward.. And you can use this to break down any series that has aired to date with many seasons.
And let's be fair using broadcast standards is hardly a valid choice. TNG wouldn't have been able to pass network standards with Conspiracy. Then you have things like Undiscovered Country that minus the color blood would have got a R rating. And that blood change is completely against the look of Klingon blood from things like the other films predating it, or TOS . It was solely changed to get a softer rating. So just a shade of red...
Or how Picard can utter merde, and get broadcast, but saying the English translation wouldn't. When a lot of people know exactly what it means. And how initially there were cuts in Trek films to get them broadcast when they were first getting a tv broadcast. Or how a G rated film has what is possibly still the most horrific screams used in Trek.
And just to be clear, there is nothing that modern Trek has shown that couldn't be shown on broadcast TV. Networks have the right to show more graphic material as long as they put warning restrictions on it (now they are advertiser who won't use use that show). Schindler's List is almost completely unedited (one cut for language, but nothing for violence or nudity). And they used the M rating. Networks aren't required to not show nudity violence, or gore. They choose for the most part not to show those things but they actually can. The fear of losing audience, and more importantly losing sponsors is the primary reason they self edit themselves, but they aren't required to. Really the only thing that will get them in trouble (and it's a fine) is the F word. But they could do it.
And lets not even talk about PBS, a broadcaster that even gets 15% of its operating costs covered by the government they have had nudity since the 70's, they have aired programs that cuss, and have shown programming with gore.
So don't kid yourself that Trek couldn't air on a network broadcast fully if they so wished.
And let's be fair using broadcast standards is hardly a valid choice. TNG wouldn't have been able to pass network standards with Conspiracy. Then you have things like Undiscovered Country that minus the color blood would have got a R rating. And that blood change is completely against the look of Klingon blood from things like the other films predating it, or TOS . It was solely changed to get a softer rating. So just a shade of red...
Or how Picard can utter merde, and get broadcast, but saying the English translation wouldn't. When a lot of people know exactly what it means. And how initially there were cuts in Trek films to get them broadcast when they were first getting a tv broadcast. Or how a G rated film has what is possibly still the most horrific screams used in Trek.
And just to be clear, there is nothing that modern Trek has shown that couldn't be shown on broadcast TV. Networks have the right to show more graphic material as long as they put warning restrictions on it (now they are advertiser who won't use use that show). Schindler's List is almost completely unedited (one cut for language, but nothing for violence or nudity). And they used the M rating. Networks aren't required to not show nudity violence, or gore. They choose for the most part not to show those things but they actually can. The fear of losing audience, and more importantly losing sponsors is the primary reason they self edit themselves, but they aren't required to. Really the only thing that will get them in trouble (and it's a fine) is the F word. But they could do it.
And lets not even talk about PBS, a broadcaster that even gets 15% of its operating costs covered by the government they have had nudity since the 70's, they have aired programs that cuss, and have shown programming with gore.
So don't kid yourself that Trek couldn't air on a network broadcast fully if they so wished.
Last edited:
I mean, there’s always been “This isn’t Star Trek!” from TOS season 3 on. Splintering has happened for years. And if you don’t believe there weren’t fans of previous incarnations who threatened to burn the whole thing down when the latest series came out? Well, you weren’t around. And you don’t know your Trek fandom. In about 10-15 years? The same fans who hate this latest incarnation will say, “Huh. This wasn’t so bad.”
All this has happened before…
All this has happened before…
Even putting New Trek to the side, people are forgetting what they thought of Old Trek where it left off. Where did TNG leave off? Nemesis. We had a forum devoted to Nemesis when it came out. The people in that forum were savage. NEM was ripped to shreds.
PIC Season 3 is a last "TNG Movie" but fans in general did not like TNG Movies. They didn't go over well, especially INS and NEM. That's why we got the reboot later on. That's probably part of why they're making the last "TNG Movie" more like a TOS Movie.
When people think of TNG, they think of the TV Series. It's not the same as TOS which found success both as a TV Series (in syndication during the '70s) and as a Movie Series. For anyone who's in the camp of "PIC Season 3 rules, all other Star Trek since 2009 drools!", you don't get it that the people you're trying to sway don't want a TNG Movie. They want TNG. 1987 to 1994. More specifically, the sweet spot of 1989 to 1992. PIC Season 3, as good as it might be, is NOT going to be that. So you're not going to get all the people you're hoping to get. Not by a long shot. You might get some people, but not as many as you like.
And what you're going to find out is that relying on nothing but trashing something else to build up your thing isn't going to work. Look at politics. When you have candidates running and they want people to vote for them, constantly saying, "I'm not the other guy!" is only going to get you so far. Eventually you have to stop talking about them and show what you'll bring to the table.
PIC Season 3 is a last "TNG Movie" but fans in general did not like TNG Movies. They didn't go over well, especially INS and NEM. That's why we got the reboot later on. That's probably part of why they're making the last "TNG Movie" more like a TOS Movie.
When people think of TNG, they think of the TV Series. It's not the same as TOS which found success both as a TV Series (in syndication during the '70s) and as a Movie Series. For anyone who's in the camp of "PIC Season 3 rules, all other Star Trek since 2009 drools!", you don't get it that the people you're trying to sway don't want a TNG Movie. They want TNG. 1987 to 1994. More specifically, the sweet spot of 1989 to 1992. PIC Season 3, as good as it might be, is NOT going to be that. So you're not going to get all the people you're hoping to get. Not by a long shot. You might get some people, but not as many as you like.
And what you're going to find out is that relying on nothing but trashing something else to build up your thing isn't going to work. Look at politics. When you have candidates running and they want people to vote for them, constantly saying, "I'm not the other guy!" is only going to get you so far. Eventually you have to stop talking about them and show what you'll bring to the table.
There have only been four instances in which I was disappointed with a Trek story.
When they blew up the Enterprise in TSFS.
The way They killed Captain Kirk in Generations.
The endings of Nemesis & TATV.
(I don't count Spock's death, because TWoK left us with hope for his return)
Other than that, I've enjoyed every single episode since Sept of '66 when I first got hooked.
Of course there have been episodes that I liked more than others, but I've never condemned any of the series or movies to the point where I wouldn't watch them again.
I'm pretty sure though that I'm in a minority.
When they blew up the Enterprise in TSFS.
The way They killed Captain Kirk in Generations.
The endings of Nemesis & TATV.
(I don't count Spock's death, because TWoK left us with hope for his return)
Other than that, I've enjoyed every single episode since Sept of '66 when I first got hooked.
Of course there have been episodes that I liked more than others, but I've never condemned any of the series or movies to the point where I wouldn't watch them again.
I'm pretty sure though that I'm in a minority.
Last edited:
There’s a lot of Trek I’m disappointed in. That doesn’t matter if it’s Trek run by Roddenberry, Bennett, Berman, Abrams or Kurtzman. But I pay about $100 a year for my annual P+ ad free subscription. I make, well, a lot more than $100 a year. I’ve gotten a lot of entertainment out of that $100, whether it be Trek or something else distributed by P+. At the end of the day, even if it’s not great, I find some enjoyment out of it. That’s a win in my books.
This. 1000% this. Why qualify enjoyment?
Similar threads
- Poll
