Thanks to the new picture, everything you say is in that campy French accent.
Star Trek Picard is not Star Trek
- Thread starter AnotherGalaxys
- Start date
I believe he prefers the term "Antique Blender Guy." You know, for style points.Yeah, that Ancient Blender Guy must be loosing sleep over it.
nod, nod, ... hey!
Search your feelings. You know it's true!
Unlike seemingly many, many fans who don't know how to otherwise make a point or draw certain distinctions, I would never claim that something in the franchise was NOT Trek.
While others are caught up in concepts like "Utopia" and "Gene's Vision" and other such B.S., my love for Trek has always been based largely in the fact that it is such a flexible and diverse franchise that it is capable of exploring almost any theme in any way.
To me, the minute people start trying to put Trek in a box that defines what it is and is not...THAT's when you take away what is special about it. And that's what is so irritating about all the gatekeeping and True Fan crap floating around these days.
Trek is absolutely not "generic sci if"...it's a wonderfully flexible and unique universe and storytelling platform that can explore nearly infinite concepts and ideas. The whole "Gene would have wanted it like this" or "It's too different from TNG" crowd are missing the entire point.
All in my humble opinion, of course.
Even if it's Gene's Box?
Gene had a Box and it was clearly for sale as soon as he had it. 
That was the original appeal was that highly flexible storytelling platform.
I'm starting to agree with someone else here that noted that TMP and TNG are the outliers in the overall franchise.
Yes and no for me. Yes, that putting it in a box limits so much potential. But on the other hand, a property that chases trends just to appeal to the masses risks losing it's identity. I'm not saying that that's the case with current Star Trek. I'm not familiar enough with it to say something like that.
It kind of reminds me of Marvel and DC Comics in the 90s when everything went grimdark to keep up with the ultra violence that companies like Image Comics were doing, as well as imitating the Death of Superman storyline just to fuel the spectator market. And it resulted in a lot of poor stories.
When did this gatekeeping and True Fan generalizations begin? Since the beginning of what we consider "fandom" or did it start when everyone had a voice to monetize thanks to YouTube? I realize that there is a segment of fandom that will pull the "if you were a true fan..." card. But sometimes people just voice their genuine criticisms and they get lumped in with as haters or "True Fan Gatekeepers."
I think sometimes these so-called gatekeepers get it right, sometimes they don't. In the case of a property like Star Wars, they're right when they note something's off with much of the prequels and the special editions. But sometimes they're wrong, like when they argue that the story should indulge in what I would consider fan service at the expense of good story telling (The Last Jedi for example). *
I personally don't get irritated by passionate fans who are critical of a direction a property is taking. I am bothered when they have ulterior motives or use it as an excuse to harass and attack others.
I think a lot of the criticisms for first few episodes of PIC are totally legitimate. Saying that 20 years later Picard wouldn't bond with a young Elnor because he hates kids and that's his thing, while saying that the current writers didn't watch TNG is pretty stupid and just hate watching for views. As someone pointed out in the comments, he lived an entire life time raising kids and grandchildren before being whisked away back to his own time and reality. I'm sure that changed his attitude towards kids. It for sure had a profound effect on him, because he's still sentimental over that flute and plays it from time to time. Not to mention "Suddenly Human" when he had to be a father figure to that brainwashed warrior kid. And plus it's 20 years later so maybe he's gotten a little softer during that time.
But that just dismisses any criticism altogether. Maybe Star Trek does come across as generic sci-fi sometimes, or has aspects that are generic. It's all subjective.
*all my opinion of course.
Yes and no for me on this point. Trek has very much emulated storytelling styles of the age it is produced, largely because it is working to be relevant in its commentary. For commentary to be effective it does need to be accessible to the general audience.
And, I think that's why I push back against the whole "generic" label because even more action focused Trek outings have that optimistic lens and commentary as part of it.
I'm not saying that Trek's flexibility somehow releases it from all criticism. That's preposterous and somehow assumes that criticism would be limited to our estimation of whether or not the show or movie in question contains the "right" ingredients.**
(**All within reason, of course. A 1980's family sitcom taking place on Earth with no sci fi elements is obviously not Star Trek)
Criticisms based on story structure, dialogue, production design, pacing, characterization etc are all completely up for grabs.
...Just not in relation to "It's not Star Trek"
Someone can think a Trek production sucks all they want. That's perfectly reasonable. There's plenty of Trek I am not fond of. But dismissing its validity as true Star Trek is just the tool of the weak.
It not appealing to someone doesn't mean it is invalid. I can't stand Rogue One. It has virtually no redeeming qualities whatsoever by my tastes (aside from the fact that it looks amazing). But it is undeniably Star Wars. It just isn't Star Wars that I like or care about.
I should've saved some old discussions from the '90s and '00s, to safeguard against the revisionist history we're seeing now. The image gatekeepers are trying to paint of Post-TNG/Pre-2009 Star Trek, and the reaction to it, is so not what they'd have you believe.
Discovery and Picard are both being singled out. Unjustifiably so.
Discovery and Picard are both being singled out. Unjustifiably so.
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised if people were critical of DS9 when it first aired, and then turned into fans in hindsight. But weren't people pretty critical of Star Trek: Enterprise when it came out?
Fans have been critical of every new Star Trek series when it starts out, and that trend goes all the way back to the animated series in 1973.
Last edited:
Imagine the fans in 1973 who said something like: "Wait. When did the Enterprise bridge have two turbolifts?!?!?"
Forum Angst from TrekBBS around the year 3 Million BC. Thank God for some threads that weren't pruned.
The ENT Forum in 2003:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Good stuff. Nothing from the VOY Forum in 1999-2001 (the first two years of TrekBBS), but it was even worse.
And you know what you don't see in those links? Me in there. Because I don't watch or hang around talking about shows I don't like.
The ENT Forum in 2003:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Good stuff. Nothing from the VOY Forum in 1999-2001 (the first two years of TrekBBS), but it was even worse.
And you know what you don't see in those links? Me in there. Because I don't watch or hang around talking about shows I don't like.
Last edited:
I just skimmed the first ten or so posts.
Link 1: WTF? The premise sounds like a bad idea but were they being being self-deprecating and ironic about how crazed fans are supposed to act or were they really so upset they really were thinking about picketing the studio?
Link 2: It got toxic and moderators had to step in. Personal insults? Wow, I never would have thought that would occur on a Star Trek forum. I thought it was a place for fellow nerds to discuss Star Trek and sci-fi related stuff, good and bad.
Link 3: Didn't have a problem with it. Hate is a strong word but Enterprise isn't well-thought of, right? I think DS9 was the last one that's still praised.
They were critical of *every* series - in ten years, people who are currently saying Discovery is trash will say it is true Trek and that whatever the series of 2030 is that it is not 'true Trek'.
Similar threads
