Clouds of debris from a planet destroyed by a massive supernova shockwave.
Star Trek Picard is not Star Trek
- Thread starter AnotherGalaxys
- Start date
If this board had been around in 1987 you can bet your sweet ass that there would have been a 'TNG isn't star trek' thread. along with 'Picard's baldness ruins gene's vision'
Reminder: female Vulcans go through Pon Farr, too.
From now on, all even-numbered episodes are Real Star Trek and all odd-numbered episodes are Fake Star Trek.
I would say Star Trek Picard is also Scotty.
It's all Star Trek. Just because you don't care for this particular version doesn't make it not.
And if it had been a stand-alone project or at least an actual series of episodes (preferably with at least some thematic overlap with other episodes if nothing else), all that might mean something to me. (Although I still wouldn't have liked the acting.)
But as a one-off with no actual connection to its own series, it still just feels like pointless fanwank to me.
Yes, because a show titled Star Trek: Pussyslayer wouldn't be meant to infer anything whatsoever nor would it warrant legitimate criticism for being misogynistic or sexist.
There's a reason why the title of the show and the ship is called "Discovery" and not "Glenn." If you can't understand why, I can't help you anymore.
The naming of the main ship in relation to the show is usually for one particular reason or another.
"Voyager" for example could be meant to give it some nautical connotations like the other starships, with nautical themes often times being associated with exploration. More importantly I'd guess, is that "voyager" ties in with the concept of a voyage into space, as well as the tagline "these are voyages of the star ship Enterprise."
And notice, that the original Star Trek didn't have the name of the ship in the title, nor did TNG.
"Deep Space Nine" was probably more matter of fact. To give let the public know it's about a space station and NOT a star ship, and simply to differentiate it from ST:TNG which was airing at the same time.
Star Trek: Enterprise on the other hand was probably named that after two less successful Star Trek spin-offs, both Enterprise-less: VOY and DS9. "Enterprise" is part of pop-culture and iconic, so this was a way to advertise through name alone that Star Trek was back to featuring the Enterprise, a return to old form in some respects.
Lol those are all assumptions, you are changing the show meaning based on what you see on the show.
How could someone immediately know that "Discovery" is about discovery and that "Deep space nine" is about a space station? Why can't "Deep Space Nine" be about exploring the deep space sector number nine?
Your argument is just wishful thinking mixed with star trek conservatism.
And no, my USS pussyslayer is not a federation ship. It would be my personal fishing boat, there would be no show about it. Why did you assume I was talking about a spaceship?
Yes, I don't know why anyone would associate the word "discovery" with the action or process of discovering or being discovered.
In reference to DS9, you're right about that. It would more more logical to deduce that it's about the 9th sector of deep space, rather than a space station.
But then again, calling it "deep space_" is still more telling than "Glenn." Star Trek: Deep Space 9 is further underlining where this takes place, and hinting that it's further than we're used to being. In this case, it's next to a worm hole.
So yeah, it's still giving the general public some idea of the premise of the show. It's still hinting at some sense of the unknown aspect of space. But I should assume that Star Trek: Terak Nor would have been just as successful and appropriate a title for that show.
I've heard this term "Star Trek conservatism" before. What is it exactly and how does it apply to what I'm saying? Oh, that's what's meant by it. Yeah, no.
Until we have Star Trek: Glenn or Star Trek: Billy Bob, I'm thinking that the title is supposed to have some added connotations beyond just being the name of the ship.
Now whether or not DISC should be about discover and exploration is something else entirely. But regardless, I think it was a smart name for a new Star Trek series as it plays into what the general public thinks of Star Trek (discovery, voyaging into the unknown, exploration) and more cerebral SF in general.
The "USS Pussyslayer" is the name of a Federation ship in a Star Trek parody short story I had written years back. I never explained the origins of the name within the story but I figured it was either a reference to a 20th century band or out of respect for a former Captain-turned-Admiral.
Anyways, I suggested this name to you in the form of a telepathic whisper, which you just assumed was an idea that you came up with on your own, unaware of its true origin.
Last edited:
I guess that since we have "Star Trek: Picard", a show about a guy named picard
and "Star Trek: The Next Generation" which is the same show of "Star Trek" but with a recast of all main characters including the spaceship...
Star Trek: Glenn is not really needed to prove my point about this.
Psychic powers confirmed: you are in-line with Roddenberry vision!
But anyway,beside TOS any other ST serie suffered from a very weak first and second season so I guess that so far ST Discovery is meeting the real ST expectations here.
If the trend continues we will have a quite good season 3 and an excellent season 4. Then we will have a marvellous season 6, an almost perfect season 7 and a very ugly last episode.
If the trend continues we will have a quite good season 3 and an excellent season 4. Then we will have a marvellous season 6, an almost perfect season 7 and a very ugly last episode.
That's a good point though. I personally liked the first two season of TNG but I can definitely understand the strong criticisms for it. Unfortunately people seem to have even shorter attention spans and if they don't connect with it immediately they write it off. When TNG came out it was the only new Trek available on TV, not to mention there wasn't any real competition in the on-going SF series format. So that show as allowed to breathe and find it's footing. Not to mention there was no propaganda media back then to further poop and bash on shows that were interesting but not quite meeting their mark. Now though, you search for Star Trek Discovery on YouTube and you get a lot of negative results 2/3 of the way in. "10 Reasons why Star Trek Discovery is the worst Star Trek spin-off."
"Leonard Nimoy Explains what's wrong with Discovery."
Is it really that bad?
Had TNG been on network television, not syndicated, and YouTube was around back then...I don't know if we'd have get the classic we all now know and love.
You mean this old man??
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wik...ile=Picard_experiencing_temporal_narcosis.jpg
Same thought, even if the first two seasons had that horrible neck on the spandex suit that is an insult to fashion there are some really good episodes.
Personally I loved Conspiracy because I was genuinely scared at some point, if you don't mind the old stop-motion style SFX at the end at least lol
And Measure of a Man, I think that is one of the most interesting episodes still to this day. The plot is nothing special, we have seen some trials already on Star Trek (The Menagerie, Court Martial, The Squire of Ghotos and Wolf in the Fold if you add those, Encounter at Farpoint... ENT Judgement and The Undiscovered Country canonically happens before this event so you could add them as well even if the episodes aired later) but the dicotomy man/machine is still debated in cybernetics, the A.I. situation is almost on that point already.
Are you referring to that gaggle of content makers who did not develop much past object permanence?
Crystal Pepsi is not real Pepsi
The Impossible Whopper is not a Whopper
Flag Football is not real Football
But....Star Trek Picard...
This thread is so silly it almost makes me feel like the whole thing was done as a joke. Honestly, people have been finding reasons to claim "NAWT REALZ STAR TRACK!!!1!1!" since 1979. It's literally the same, endlessly stale arguments for the last 40 frigging years.
You'd think that, at some point, it would get old to some of you.
I honestly thought it was a joke, to be honest. Clickbait title, long rant pushing buttons. I sense some trolling, but I had fun with it.
that was taking place. The location of those discussions was rec.arts.startrek.
I was hoping for an episodic approach .. i feel like it is so slow moving.. I wait all week and it's over before anything happens (that's the feeling i'm left with often). I do love character development and getting to know the details, however I felt like the first 3 (which I heard were really the pilot) would have any non-trek person stop watching. I re-watched all 3 at once, and it was much more interesting to me. I miss the hour of adventure and satisfaction of an ending to the adventure but the story line continues each season.... (and perhaps with a couple of part 2, 3 episodes continuing one adventure) .. like with DS9, the story continues and sometimes they even have adventures in between the 'arc' storyline.
At the same time, I enjoy Picard because I love Star Trek and I'll take the breadcrumbs and gobble them up haha. I sort of trick myself "Wow there's actually something to watch online, it reminds me of Star Trek" .. i could so easily be disappointed at how it's 'not star trek' but life is full of disappointments so, let's just say...................... i'm drinking lots of lemonade these days.
At the same time, I enjoy Picard because I love Star Trek and I'll take the breadcrumbs and gobble them up haha. I sort of trick myself "Wow there's actually something to watch online, it reminds me of Star Trek" .. i could so easily be disappointed at how it's 'not star trek' but life is full of disappointments so, let's just say...................... i'm drinking lots of lemonade these days.
Let's make nice and sure this horse is dead....
"I don't like it" does not equal "It's not Star Trek".
What could be more "Star Trek" than Captain Picard out saving lives and exposing evil?
I don't begrudge anyone their own experience. If you hate it, that's fine.
But any time people attempt to impose some sort of objective standard on art/entertainment, I kind of tune out. It seems that argument is lost as soon as it's made.
"I don't like it" does not equal "It's not Star Trek".
What could be more "Star Trek" than Captain Picard out saving lives and exposing evil?
I don't begrudge anyone their own experience. If you hate it, that's fine.
But any time people attempt to impose some sort of objective standard on art/entertainment, I kind of tune out. It seems that argument is lost as soon as it's made.
Similar threads
