Spoilers Variety about the future of Star Trek

Alternatively, I would suggest that PIC S3 would probably be far more impressive without the nostalgia.
Personally the first things I'd remove would be a: the conspiracy plot with Raffi, b: the antagonistic relationship between Seven and Shaw, and c: Shaw. So I don't think I'd enjoy your version of the season.

Then again if it means never visiting M'talas Prime maybe there's some merit to the idea.
 
Personally the first things I'd remove would be a: the conspiracy plot with Raffi, b: the antagonistic relationship between Seven and Shaw, and c: Shaw. So I don't think I'd enjoy your version of the season.

Then again if it means never visiting M'talas Prime maybe there's some merit to the idea.
In that scenario, what would be left afterwards? Each to their own, of course, but all I can imagine is a very well organised Frontier Day that goes off without a hitch. :D

But the sooner that particular planet is forgotten, the better.
 
My hottest of hot takes is that one doesn't need to be a fan with encyclopedic knowledge to make a good Trek series. In fact, I'm at the point that is almost prefer someone come in cold turkey and only learn the broad strokes of the franchise because then they'd actually WANT to give us anything new.
Hell, as we've seen with the Trek movies, the one that is always put on a pedestal as the best of the franchise, TWOK, is the one that had people who weren't Trek fans in all the key behind the scenes positions.
Alternatively, I would suggest that PIC S3 would probably be far more impressive without the nostalgia.

At its core, it's a conspiracy thriller. It's Invasion of the Body Snatchers meets Hunt for Red October. That, in itself, is an impressive foundation. You might say its derivative, and I would agree, but where would Star Trek be without Horatio Hornblower?

Let's strip out the TNG cast, Moriarty, Project Phoenix and the Enterprise D. You're left with the USS Titan, fresh out of dock. A disciplined crew, a familiar first officer (we have to keep Seven) and Captain who is plagued by his own past. The antagonistic relationship between Seven and Shaw is what the Discovery writers wish Rayner and Burnham was, and it could've filled a lot more run time than it did. I'm picturing Hackman and Washington when i think of how far it could've gone.

Raffi could've been the main link to the conspiracy plot, captaining the Eleos and enlisting Seven's help without Shaw's permission. Then pretty much everything would play out as it did, including the cat-and-mouse submarine-style action and the paranoia-soaked plotline.

You can even dump the Borg and the Dominion, replacing them with other shape-shifters and a techno-organic main antagonist. Perhaps the extra-dimensional tentacle bots from PIC S1? I don't know, the sky is the limit.

It can work, without the memberberries, absolutely. In fact, I think a lot more people would get behind a 25th century continuation if it had been this way.
Thing is, without the TNG reunion and all its associated nostalgia and memberberries, you get the exact same kind of storyline and structure Picard did in its first two seasons or Disco did in its five seasons.
 
I'm really not understanding the (overall) difference between Picard season 3 and any other Star Trek movie.

Simply put, an adventure that brings the TNG heroes together to overcome.

Are "memberberries" only bad now but were fine when we were younger?
 
Thing is, without the TNG reunion and all its associated nostalgia and memberberries, you get the exact same kind of storyline and structure Picard did in its first two seasons or Disco did in its five seasons.
Is that good or bad? I really can't figure out if that's what the majority likes/wants anymore.
I'm really not understanding the (overall) difference between Picard season 3 and any other Star Trek movie.

Simply put, an adventure that brings the TNG heroes together to overcome.

Are "memberberries" only bad now but were fine when we were younger?
Essentially, memberberries are fine when presented in a specific manner...I think.

That's the gist I'm getting.
 
It was a one-time trick.

Strip away the nostalgia / 'memberberries and I don't see what's left to be so impressed with. Picard ran roughshod over all my favorite antagonists - Q, The Borg, The Dominion / Founders.

The pleasure seems to stem from simply seeing the familiar again, rather than a story featuring the familiar that was actually, erm, good!

I think Trek's all memberberried out.
Curious

Given the intense popularity of the season I imagine that many thought it was good.

can work, without the memberberries, absolutely. In fact, I think a lot more people would get behind a 25th century continuation if it had been this way.
Equally curious. I was under the impression that a 25th century show was the way to.go, and many would prefer it over Academy.
 
Curious

Given the intense popularity of the season I imagine that many thought it was good.


Equally curious. I was under the impression that a 25th century show was the way to.go, and many would prefer it over Academy.
It's definitely fun to be curious. :hugegrin:

We really have to do a survey to know what people want, because I am LOST.
 
Mi6UqYS.jpeg

Looks like we'll get some info later this month. I'm guessing we'll get SNW, LD, and S31 trailers, plus maybe some concept art of Academy. Plus, the expected panels with cast and crew. Finally, something to make me care about comic-con.
 
Unless you had the misfortune of attending conventions or similar Trekkie get togethers, we never had to listen to anyone else's silly bloody opinions back then.:lol:
I'll just chalk it up to changes in our culture I guess.

No review of "American Graffiti", for example, came up with "Ugh, this is just a movie about 60's memberberries. We get it, Lucas. Why can't they come up with anything new?"
 
I'll just chalk it up to changes in our culture I guess.

No review of "American Graffiti", for example, came up with "Ugh, this is just a movie about 60's memberberries. We get it, Lucas. Why can't they come up with anything new?"
Perhaps the difference is the expectation of this nostalgic romp, as Ebert notes, and capturing an era, rather than the show about humanity's future recreating that franchise's past?
 
Perhaps the difference is the expectation of this nostalgic romp, as Ebert notes, and capturing an era, rather than the show about humanity's future recreating that franchise's past?

That's actually interesting and giving me a different perspective. At what point is it more about the characters than the setting. Do some people like Kirk and Spock more than the ideas of humanity's future? Or Picard and Worf, etc. And just want to hang with them, so to speak? Where's it's not exactly nostalgia. But fondness for and feeling connected to the characters?
 
That's actually interesting and giving me a different perspective. At what point is it more about the characters than the setting. Do some people like Kirk and Spock more than the ideas of humanity's future? Or Picard and Worf, etc. And just want to hang with them, so to speak? Where's it's not exactly nostalgia. But fondness for and feeling connected to the characters?
As with most things I think there is a balance to be struck. Taking American Graffiti as an example (not a film I've watched but an era I'm familiar with) and Ebert's point in that it captures that era. It is that fondness for an era and culture.

I think Star Trek has moved in that direction of characters to a degree, but I think fondness becomes the greater goal, not just of characters but of setting. That the era of the show, the trappings, matter far more than the characters because of that fondness, and a possible nostalgia because it reminds them of their past (watching Trek on TV, or such examples).

I think their is a fondness, which is why Picard or TMP or TWOK rub wrong in some ways. They are not the same as the characters were perhaps when I was first seeing them. I think the fondness can easily move towards nostalgia and a desire to keep things in a solid state, rather than characters moving, or changing.
 
I'll just chalk it up to changes in our culture I guess.

No review of "American Graffiti", for example, came up with "Ugh, this is just a movie about 60's memberberries. We get it, Lucas. Why can't they come up with anything new?"
Why would they? It was his second film. And very different from the first. Plus it plays on historical nostalgia. A period piece. A Hollywood staple.
And while set in '62 it played on 50s nostalgia. Heck the characters in the film are nostalgic for the the 50s.
Carol : [John turns off the radio] Why did you do that?

John Milner : I don't like that surfin' shit. Rock and roll's been going down hill ever since Buddy Holly died.

Carol : Don't you think the Beach Boys are boss?

John Milner : You would, you grungy little twirp.
 
Why would they? It was his second film. And very different from the first. Plus it plays on historical nostalgia.

Oh, this wasn't about Lucas at all, forgive my confusing way of addressing this, this was strictly about the nostalgia aspect. I was just trying to parody what's said today. Just replace Lucas with Matalas and 60's with TNG.
 
I struggle with this because I have nostalgia more for real experiences, so 90s culture or films, than TNG. So, the connection is something I can cognitively grasp but lack that emotional connection of wanting TNG vs. a real historical period.
 
No, they were bad back then, too.
See also: "These Are the Voyages." Or better yet.... don't.

That's probably the clearest example of bad fan service in all of fandom--a "valentine" that insulted the intelligence of the TNG fans and ignored the fact that not all ENT fans were TNG ones (in fact, many of the ones that were at all active with the fandom by then were largely new to Trek).

What could've been a nod to all of Trek to that point, or even a damn new story with the Titan--you know, the thing people wanted after NEM--was a bitter mess that left a lot of people disillusioned with the franchise and just that much more certain that Berman and Braga needed to get the boot.
 
Back
Top