Star Trek Picard is not Star Trek

[fireproof78]

I imagine that makes you a rare breed, my friend.

Probably. But, as I stated when DSC was first announced CBS programming is something I already enjoy with NCIS, Blue Bloods and a back catalog of material I like. So, having a science fiction show available would be a bonus.

I mean, I had the Sci-Fi channel back when it was trying a lot of new programs (Invisible Man, Lexx, Farscape) and I was willing to try all of those. I don't see how this is different...

 

[yotsuya]

I guess some are really pissed about a secondary character's death. Hm... That hasn't ever happened on Star Trek before... or has it? Picard's brother and nephew. Pretty much if their name isn't in the opening credits, they are expendable. Some have risen to higher importance, like the O'Brien family, but a great many have died. Star Trek and Doctor Who share that. Let's have you like this guest character and then let's kill them. I really don't see the problem here. Hey, at least Kirk's nephew got to live.

For me for a series to be included in what I consider real Star Trek it must do two things. It must honor Gene's vision of the Federation (a slightly utopian society where the human race has grown up quite a bit and shed the bigotry and divisiveness that is so common today) and honor the past canon (and yes, that means TOS down to the uniforms and sets like TNG, DS9, and ENT did). Does it mean getting everything right? No. But putting in a good effort. Abrams didn't even want to try so he created an alternate timeline to reboot the series and his vision was very much what NBC wanted in the 60's. A flashy action adventure set in space. I think Discovery was designed to be more like the movies and they failed to honor the past canon. While fine for a reboot, I can't consider it part of the same timeline as the rest. But Picard has hit all the marks. These are the same characters and world. This is where Spock and Nero came from (I think they not only went back in time but into a parallel dimension which is why Spock didn't try to fix anything). The same untopian world exists and they are honoring the canon. It opened with a familiar ship and familiar uniforms. So for me, Picard is as Star Trek as you can get, even if it is a bit dark. This isn't Starfleet and this isn't the main Federation culture where Gene wanted his slightly utopian future. So straying from the standard Star Trek format is perfectly natural. Picard is that beacon of Trek in the series and if he stays true to character, which I'm sure he will, he will embody what Gene wanted in a good Star Trek story.

 

[Damian]

I have to admit I like the irony of this thread. The original poster indicated he/she didn't want to really start a discussion on this. And two days later we are already on 22 pages.

I have some, um, concerns about where Picard starts off at. There's enough doom and gloom in the world and I'd kind of prefer my Star Trek not be doom and gloom.

But that's a far cry from saying what is Star Trek and what's not. Frankly, Star Trek is whatever CBS wants it to be.

Now if someone doesn't like some iteration of it, that's their right and they don't have to watch it. That's perfectly fine. If I find I really don't like some future Star Trek show then I'll probably just not watch it. I'll be sad about it but hey, up to now I've liked Star Trek and I have tons and tons to watch and read that'll keep me busy.

But it's not up to me to say whether it's Star Trek or not for other people.

 

[Armus]

I have some, um, concerns about where Picard starts off at. There's enough doom and gloom in the world and I'd kind of prefer my Star Trek not be doom and gloom.

But that's a far cry from saying what is Star Trek and what's not. Frankly, Star Trek is whatever CBS wants it to be.

My sentiments exactly. I haven't seen it. Some of the same complaints that I heard sound like concerns that I may have when or if I ever see it. There's a forum to express dissatisfaction but to say "what is and what isn't Star Trek" only infuriates those fans who actually like it and ends constructive discussion.

I remember a user on this site, TheGodThing, used to say that the third season of TOS wasn't really "Star Trek".

 

[John Clark]

Now if someone doesn't like some iteration of it, that's their right and they don't have to watch it. That's perfectly fine. If I find I really don't like some future Star Trek show then I'll probably just not watch it. I'll be sad about it but hey, up to now I've liked Star Trek and I have tons and tons to watch and read that'll keep me busy.

But it's not up to me to say whether it's Star Trek or not for other people.

Indeed. For me, if there is some iteration of Trek I don't like, I won't watch either (Though will still probably check out the one after that if there is one as I'll just take it on a case by case basis)

 

[Danja]

Let's have a 24th century crime noir series, a 24th century Jason bourneesque spy thriller or a 23rd century political drama focusing on events after TUC.

I think we got Jason Bourne in the first ep with Dahj (and we may well be getting it again with Soji).

 

[Damian]

Indeed. For me, if there is some iteration of Trek I don't like, I won't watch either (Though will still probably check out the one after that if there is one as I'll just take it on a case by case basis)

Always a wise course. There was a poster a few pages ago (I forget who and now I can't find it of course) who said they didn't like Discovery but loves Picard. So if that person had totally given up they would have missed out on a show they love.

I'm like @Armus, I haven't seen Picard yet. I don't stream (I still have....gasp....cable and refuse to pay even more for CBS) so I'll have to wait until the Blu-Ray release about a year from now. Though unlike with Discovery I haven't avoided all the spoilers for Picard (just major spoilers). And I just finished reading "The Last Best Hope" so I know the set up for the show. But I'll still check it out. My hope with the show is as some have speculated, that through the life of the show it gets us back closer to the world of TNG, where the Federation becomes a positive force again for the galaxy. And that Picard gets back to a good place.

I've had some issues with Discovery but overall I've liked the show. The same might be true of Picard in my case. Maybe there might be things I don't like, but overall I might like it.

Hell, even Voyager was like that. I think there was some missed potential with Voyager but I liked more than I disliked about it--it won me over. And...I'm one of the 10 people that liked Nemesis, right...so anything's possible. The only one I came closest to hating was ENT: "These Are the Voyages"--that episode alone could probably add about 50 pages to this thread (I think there are about 137 "I hate TATV threads" in the Enterprise forum in fact ).

 

[Noname Given]

I remember a user on this site, TheGodThing, used to say that the third season of TOS wasn't really "Star Trek".

As an old original Star Trek (TOS) fan - It's know as the "Turd Season" - thank you.

And yes, back in the day before the feature films and TNG hit; many fans DID consider TOS Season 3 (with a few exceptions, like "The Enterprise Incident", "Day of the Dove", "The Tholian Web" and "Elaan of Troyius") - many of us considered it overall "Not STAR TREK™"

(Of course this all changed when TNG hit - now EVERYTHING TOS is the ORIGINAL Star Trek™ - Dammit! And NEVER dis it. )

 

[Gilora]

Forensics. I'll re-examine the scene when I get the chance. But they certainly weren't surprised that the guns were there. I think they supplied them. As far as grabbing, it depends on how fast you can get to where something is hidden. When there's no time to react, there's no time to head over to grab. If there are three people, at least one has a chance of getting to the weapons in time.

I'm of the belief that the Romulans supplied the weapons through connections they have that Picard wouldn't.

Picard's weapon shot blue and, therefore, wasn't a disruptor; remember that Laris said that disruptors have no stun setting. And there was at least one living commando -- unless he got knocked out by a wine bottle or whatever blunt instrument the housekeepers were using at the beginning of the attack.

 

[Armus]

The good old times of stellar wwriting. THAT was Trek!
http://superanemic.com/2017/09/06/code-of-honor/

 

[Hythlodeus]

What they did with Icheb is an insult for a lot of people that wanted him back.

All three of them, including Manu "Hey, fucking Minors as an adult is no big deal" Intiraymi?

 

[The Wormhole]

The crappy Berman/Braga era 1987-2005 was where it went to 'not Star Trek'

Really? You're going to call that entire era the "Berman/Braga era"? Braga didn't even start working on Star Trek until 1991, and didn't have a position of authority until 1998, but he's somehow responsible for what went on in the 1980s? And even when he did get a position of authority, there was still plenty of Star Trek in that era (DS9, Insurrection, Nemesis) that he had no involvement with at all.

 

[AlanC9]

I don't stream (I still have....gasp....cable and refuse to pay even more for CBS) so I'll have to wait until the Blu-Ray release about a year from now.

I think there's still a free trial month promo code kicking around, so you could wait a few days, sign up, and watch intil the season finale for free.

 

[Demosthenes]

OP, sorry you don't like it but you don't get to say what is and isn't Star Trek. You also need to take off your rose tinted and extremely distorted sunglasses. I am getting sick to death of people misrepresenting and selectively recalling what has come before in criticising these FIVE EPISODES of television we have so far seen. Get over yourselves, honestly and get some perspective of reality instead of living in this world where you've convinced yourselves that all Star Trek before 2009 portrayed this perfect utopian humanity that could do no wrong and consisted of hundreds of episodes of perfection. The world has changed. Television has changed. Audience expectations and desires have changed. Change happens. In all aspects of life and culture, past, present and future. Deal with it!

 

[Soong-type Android]

After the huge disappointment that was Star Trek: Discovery and the Kelvin movies, I'm willing to overlook any flaws Star Trek: Picard may have. It certainly feels more like Star Trek than Discovery ever did and feels like a continuation of the story last seen in Nemesis.

Personally I'm enjoying the series so far.

 

[The Old Mixer]

This forum has without a doubt the best Trek lit community on the web.

That's because we have 25% more Brophy!

 

[AnotherGalaxys]

You got the years wrong:

Star Trek was 1966-1969, 1973-1975, and 1979-1991

The crappy Berman/Braga era 1987-2005 was where it went to 'not Star Trek'

The crappy years? The BEST years where there are most of the greatest episodes and movies. TNG is clearly the best series and Undiscovered Country or First Contact are two of the top Star Trek movies. Brannon Braga and Rick Berman managed to continue Star Trek under Gene's vision, they didnt need pathetic CGI, climax every 5 minutes, graphic violence scenes every episode, they knew what Star Trek meant and did an amazing job. There are scenes in Insurrection for example that have more meaning, magic and complexity than all Trek post 2005.

 

[DaveyNY]

The crappy years? The BEST years where there are most of the greatest episodes and movies. TNG is clearly the best series and Undiscovered Country or First Contact are two of the top Star Trek movies. Brannon Braga and Rick Berman managed to continue Star Trek under Gene's vision, they didnt need pathetic CGI, climax every 5 minutes, graphic violence scenes every episode, they knew what Star Trek meant and did an amazing job. There are scenes in Insurrection for example that have more meaning, magic and complexity than all Trek post 2005.

You do remember that Johnathan Frakes directed that movie, right?

The same guy who Directed that last two PICARD Episodes.

 

[AnotherGalaxys]

That fans who say Star Trek always evolved and changed , being critizied when DS9 came in, when TNG came... And that's the same case with the new movies/series are totally wrong.
Because until Enterprise It was the same.

It was about how the human race advances make possible to outcome all kind of challenges.

This guys that are now in charge of Star Trek have 0 idea of what It means. They focus on making the new movies similar to videogames to make them more appealing to CGI era young people. Fast scenes, a lot of silly humour, empty dialogues, always covered by the obvious forced nostalgic referencea to keep the old fans watching them.

I know we are no longer in the 90s and things are different. But dont try to convince me that this new series and movies are Star Trek because everyone with enough money can make a movie putting Star Trek in the tittle and call It Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

This guys that are now in charge of Star Trek have 0 idea of what It means

Because Star Trek doesn't mean the same thing to every one. Guess what-Gene pitched as an action/adventure series. I see plenty of that.

I'm not convinced that these people in charge don't get Star Trek. I think they see Star Trek differently than fans do. Which makes sense.