The Roman supernova predates Picard. What's wrong with the rest of those things?
Spoilers The legacy of Star Trek: Picard?
- Thread starter Eddie Roth
- Start date
The Roman supernova predates Picard. What's wrong with the rest of those things?
This was a great comment. I feel that. I was a huge continuity hound back in the old Expanded Universe days of Star Wars. I hated the Clone Wars cartoon because it seemed hell bent on contradicting established continuity. But then I realized it was just trying to tell its own stories and that's okay. It was such a relief to let all that go. I still have all my fond memories, but I don't need to put that weight on the shoulders of other stories.
I'm perfectly happy with most new Trek, thank you. Any problems I may have don't involve continuity at all. If any fan feels threatened by less that complete adherence to established continuity, then it's time to take a walk. You're missing the forest for the trees. I'm happy to deal with criticisms about Disco based on writing and story, but I'm not at all interested in seeing a Disco that replicated the TOS visuals. I don't want that continuity respected. It's silly. It was fun in Trials and Tribble-ations and In a Mirror Darkly. Continuity can be a fun tool to mess around with and pull from. But the moment it becomes a cage to restrict creative storytelling, it's gone too far. Star Trek is not a real world, and it's okay if not every square millimeter of film is "respected" in future productions.
I don’t mean to be rude (and I’m not sure you’ll reply because I’m pretty sure you’ve blocked me for whatever reason) but you keep talking about what this site or this video says. But in a complete vacuum, what do you say? What do you want out of your Star Trek?
What legacy does Picard leave behind?
- Continuing Picard's story.
- Three different takes on how to continue TNG.
- Seven stepping out of Voyager's shadow.
- Gangster Vulcans.
- Bringing back the Enterprise-D.
- Giving bashers something else to trash besides Discovery.
- And, most importantly: lots of F-bombs!
I disliked many of the ways they were handled. In a year or so, I might be down to watch that season for a second time and really examine that season and post about it.
I guess my argument to this is that in a zero sum environment of finite resources, a reboot diverts resources that could have gone to an in continuity continuation. If the Abramsverse had been very very successful, we'd likely have received TV spin offs of that, and nothing like PICARD season 3.
In the past I've tried to explain my thinking in depth, but it wasn't well received. So it's easier just to link to an article or video that overlaps enough with my opinion to save time and get the point across. There are only so many hours in the day.
Are we talking about the same Enterprise that is now praised as being better than current Trek?
It happens. No reason to stop or rely on other people to "express" it. Keep plugging away. I know I do.
To be fair, modern Trek has actual queer characters now so it doesn't need allegory. Although the Seven deadnaming thing was somewhat on the nose.
I mean these are some ideas they could pursue... except they literally skipped a year forward so they're stuck making a prequel to Picard or retconning the 1 year jump by making people assume that no character growth or development happened during that year.
At the end of Picard, we know that all the Changelings have been found, all the Borg stuff has been cured, everyone is over their PTSD, Q is going to have sexy fun times with Jack now (or maybe that's just fan fiction), and Raffi and Seven are back together yet again and maybe Elnor is stuck on the Enterprise-G lower decks with an older Mariner who is still stuck as an Ensign.
Honestly I kind of read the final episode of season 1 as Pike accepting what has to happen to him and that aspect of the story is wrapped up.
One thing I could see is if all of SNW took place after TOS and this was all a fantasy of his after he had reunited with Vina and the Talosians. It could be why he's only able to have fleeting relationships. But there's no reason to have a twist like, in my mind...
They we agree that SNW will have consequences? lol
Oh sure. I know I'm in the minority when I say I'm mostly unsatisfied with Picard's ending, particularly given how all the other modern Star Trek shows have ended their season arcs satisfactorily.
I'm just pointing out that they wrote an interesting premise and then discarded it with a title card and a time skip.
I'm worried about that Pike guy.
Same. My points haven't really changed since joining. I love TOS, I tolerate TNG, I enjoy DS9, and can find something pleasant in parts of VOY and ENT. I rate both the Kelvin movies and TOS movies above the TNG films. I have liked Pike as Captain since the 90s.It happens. No reason to stop or rely on other people to "express" it. Keep plugging away. I know I do.
To say I'm unusual is being polite.
We don't know. Nothing funny about it.
If you really want, once ST:Legacy gets approved, we can go back to revisit the trauma of being "Assimilated" by the young-uns.
Until that happens, the whole point of ST:PIC S3 was to give the TNG cast/crew a send-off.
That leaves a nice dangling thread for ST:Legacy to follow, isn't that a good thing?
We also saw the TOS bridge in "Relics" and the 23rd Century Defiant in ENT. Sure, the Berman era may have faithfully recreated the visual aesthetic on four occasions, but they overwrote huge amounts of TOS world building and continuity in favor of their own.
Anymore, I consider the "Prime Universe" as ENT-DIS-SNW-TNG-DS9-VOY-PIC, as those shows have made the attempt to be an interconnected universe. TOS/TAS kind of sits alone as it's own thing.
And I remember some people trashing Relics because the Jenolan used the TOS TV series transporter effect as opposed to one of the transporter effects from the movies, as it should being from post-TUC.
And that's before we get into Generations ignoring Relics by having Scotty witnessing Kirk's presume death on the Enterprise B, but in Relics he believed it was Kirk who came to his rescue. A continuity error so infamous, Family Guy even did a joke about it.
And that's before we get into Generations ignoring Relics by having Scotty witnessing Kirk's presume death on the Enterprise B, but in Relics he believed it was Kirk who came to his rescue. A continuity error so infamous, Family Guy even did a joke about it.
Either I missed that or I’ve forgotten. The thing about this place to remember is at the end of the day we’re all fans of Star Trek. We’re also passionate fans of Star Trek. Sometimes debates get a little heated. But don’t think that all opinions aren’t allowed.
Mine have. I was far more in the populist group: TNG? Fuck yeah! TWOK? Best ever! As I’ve gotten older, my opinions have changed. I appreciate all of the Treks but I also am able to see the soaring highs and the abysmal lows present. That being said, I too have always been fascinated by Captain Pike. And while it’s not quite what I would have expected based on Jeffrey Hunter’s portrayal, I enjoy Anson Mount’s take on the character.
I've seen the entire Fandom In General change around me.
For 26 out of my 32 years as a fan, I felt like I was on the same page with the majority. Then Disco came and BAM! I was on the same page with people about Old Trek but not New Trek. Then ENT magically became beloved (kind of like Icheb!) and now I'm not on the same page with people about Old Trek or New Trek. Making it worse: People used to claim Gene's Star Trek ended in 1991, which I agreed with. Now it's claimed that Gene's Star Trek ended in 2005, which I don't agree with.
I didn't leave the Majority Opinion, the Majority Opinion left me.
For 26 out of my 32 years as a fan, I felt like I was on the same page with the majority. Then Disco came and BAM! I was on the same page with people about Old Trek but not New Trek. Then ENT magically became beloved (kind of like Icheb!) and now I'm not on the same page with people about Old Trek or New Trek. Making it worse: People used to claim Gene's Star Trek ended in 1991, which I agreed with. Now it's claimed that Gene's Star Trek ended in 2005, which I don't agree with.
I didn't leave the Majority Opinion, the Majority Opinion left me.
Perhaps the series most examined in depth by Red Letter Media
I think you're right! It's the first Star Trek series that's come out in the Web 2.0 Era that would be up their alley. So it makes sense.
They gave MANDALORIAN 1 video, OBI-WAN KANOBI 2 videos, even the TWIN PEAKS revival 2 videos. But PICARD? 10+
That's because Mike and Rich are hardcore TNG fans. It's a running joke, but even on the videos that aren't about Star Trek, Mike finds a way to make them about Star Trek. Even before Picard came out, they put out a video for what they thought it should be about (i.e., Starfleet sending Picard on a mission to find the USS Galaxy).
Also, unlike something like Major Grin, where I think his videos are pedantic and a lot of times has to reach to find a point, a lot of the Red Letter Media stuff has a legit argument. You can agree or disagree with it, but they lay out a coherent line of thought for why they think something was dumb or stupid.
