Star Trek Picard is not Star Trek

[BillJ]

No, he's been in bright environments on this show.

Kirk and the Landing Party didn’t seem to have any issues in our universe.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I agree with the OP, like 99%.

See? You've found a kindred spirit here.

And for the love of god, some paragraph breaks, please!

You know what was on my mind after the episode? Not Icheb's eyeball getting scooped out. But, why, as a science officer, was he wearing red?

I think there's a Trekkie Merit Badge for that.

So there's a very good chance you discovered all the Star Trek you like after the fact. It had a beginning, middle, and end. It was a finished story.

Like the Beatles.

If "Star Trek" wanted to do an income inequality story, they'd have a ship go to a planet.

And I for one am so glad that they're mixing up that stale old formula.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Or Picard has a paranoid streak? Or, better yet, he’s from the Mirror Universe?!

Captain Lorca would like a word with you.

 

[fireproof78]

I know. The joke hasn't worked very well since the Intendant.

SF Debris does a great job with Mirror Janeway.

 

[DaveyNY]

I'm not convinced they knew there were multiple guns hidden under the antique furniture. It's not established that they knew about this, and what do the Tal Shiar reach for when the lights go out and they're shot at? A knife and a bottle of wine even though there are multiple guns in the room. Picard eventually grabs the first gun and he doesn't even look for it, he just grabs it. The Tal Shiar lady looks under another table and gets that gun. So who hid the convenient guns?

Which leads me now to wonder if Picard had a phaser under his ready room table the entire time on TNG. That doesn't sound like something he'd do. Maybe this new show isn't "Star Trek". <----getting thread back on topic

Picard's phaser was in a holster slung over a chair.
The rest were hidden.
Some must have been Romulan just because we saw different colored beams.
(Jean-Luc's was Star Fleet Blue)

 

[Jinn]

A true fan wouldn't even say that. They'd say "Star Trek: RIP." Obviously.

But Trek lives on and thrives, despite the detractors.

So, in the spirit of the DSC vs. STD type discussions, do we call this RIP or STRIP?

 

[XCV330]

Neither did Lorca.

There was a radical change in the Mirror universe that made it darker at some point, while removing Van Dyke beards. Was it part of a failed experiment? No one knows.

 

[Indysolo]

And I for one am so glad that they're mixing up that stale old formula.

Then why even bother watching "Star Trek"? The very title suggests that's what it is. Perhaps "Picard" isn't "Star Trek".

 

[The Old Mixer]

Then why even bother watching "Star Trek"? The very title suggests that's what it is.

But it isn't now, is it?

 

[Campe]

Then why even bother watching "Star Trek"? The very title suggests that's what it is.

And who gets to decide what Star Trek is?

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Then why even bother watching "Star Trek"? The very title suggests that's what it is.

For most of us, the title is a very small part of whatever we consume.

 

[Takeru]

Star Trek 2009 is not Star Trek.
Star Trek Into Darkness is not Star Trek
Star Trek Beyond is not Star Trek
Star Trek Discovery is not Star Trek
Star Trek Picard is not Star Trek

This is just my personal opinion, i dont want to start any discussion or ofend anyone.

If you don't want to start a discussion, why did you start a thread?

But your opinion is wrong, everything you listed is Star Trek. It just happens to be Star Trek that doesn't appeal to you.

And who gets to decide what Star Trek is?

ViacomCBS

 

[BillJ]

Then why even bother watching "Star Trek"? The very title suggests that's what it is. Perhaps "Picard" isn't "Star Trek".

I’m honestly torn on the issue, and I guess everyone has a different limit on how much change is too much. But I do think current Trek runs the risk of losing what I found special about the franchise. Becoming more disposable sci-fi shows.

 

[Campe]

ViacomCBS

Exactly.

 

[Lord Garth]

It occurs to me that Forever94 didn't list Short Treks in his "You, you, you, you, and YOU!" line-up.

An oversight? Or a secret fan of "Calypso"?

 

[Agony_Boothb]

It doesn't feel like "Star Trek" because fundamentally it feels flawed to me. Has Star Trek always dealt with social issues? Yes, of course. Does "Picard?" Yes, however here's where it stumbles. For instance, the income inequality with Rafi was handled in a way "Star Trek" would not handle it. If "Star Trek" wanted to do an income inequality story, they'd have a ship go to a planet. "Star Trek" was never about Earth, and by all accounts, mankind by the 24th century had solved this issue. They're calling it "Star Trek" they've got to play by the established rules and "First Contact" established this.

PICARD: The economics of the future are somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the twenty-fourth century.
LILY: No money! That means you don't get paid.
PICARD: The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.

But suddenly here's Rafi complaining about living in a small home while Picard has his huge vineyard (complete with phasers hidden under the furniture). I get you want to talk about a social issue, but that's not how it's done on "Star Trek."

Raffi commenting on Picards antique furniture and the like was less about money and more about how he absconded and hid away in his comfy mansion and ignored her and the people he had sworn to save for 14 years. It's a comment on his inability to face his failures and the people he failed.

 

[BillJ]

For most of us, the title is a very small part of whatever we consume.

But how many of us would be paying CBS for these shows if they weren’t connected to Star Trek?

 

[SJGardner]

Then why even bother watching "Star Trek"? The very title suggests that's what it is. Perhaps "Picard" isn't "Star Trek".

Just like I said a few pages back, I have to restate things I've already said in different threads about the exact same thing:

The fact that Berman & Co. kept playing it safe and gave us increasingly more watered down, stale and hollow versions of TNG for 11 more seasons after All Good Things wrapped doesn't mean that Star Trek is an obligatory formula or a rigid storytelling framework. It's a franchise that tells stories that take place in a specific setting. If they wanted to make a noir crime drama about a jaded Andorian cop chasing a Betazoid serial killer on 24th century Earth, it would still be Star Trek.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

But how many of us would be paying CBS for these shows if they weren’t connected to Star Trek?

No doubt the millions of copies of Dark Side of the Moon sold have everything to do with Pink Floyd and nothing about its astronomical insights.

 

[Campe]

Just like I said a few pages back, I have to restate things I've already said in different threads about the exact same thing:

The fact that Berman & Co. kept playing it safe and gave us increasingly more watered down, stale and hollow versions of TNG for 11 more seasons after All Good Things wrapped doesn't mean that Star Trek is an obligatory formula or a rigid storytelling framework. It's a franchise that tells stories that take place in a specific setting. If they wanted to make a noir crime drama about a jaded Andorian cop chasing a Betazoid serial killer on 24th century Earth, it would still be Star Trek.

And honestly, that Star Trek would not interest me as I really don't like procedurals. But I would not claim that Star Trek was dead. Nor would I disparage those who enjoy it.