Discussion in 'Star Trek: Picard' started by Timofnine, Apr 24, 2023.
Wow, I don't think RMB's argued any of those points.
Not as explicitly as Jesse Gender's rant videos about S3.
RMB was more describing the allegory of the previous generation guiding the current flawed generation and saving them. Something to that effect.
This all seems all great and benign until one actually asks RMB what exactly our current flawed generation (as if the other generations that came before us were all perfect) needs to be saved from by the wise and experienced older generation that has the right answers to every problem imaginable, which is why there are no societal problems in our world anymore.
Also, the first person recorded to say that the generation coming after him was lost, directionless and rotten was Aristotle. Socrates actively believed that the spread of writing will cause the brains of young people to atrophy because they wouldn't have to memorize texts anymore. It is preposterous to insinuate that the current young generation is affected by some kind of unique malaise that makes them more maladapted to survival than any other generation that came before them. For every "this is so deep" cartoon with youngsters buried in their phones and completely oblivious to the outside world, there is another one from a hundred years ago raising the exact same complaint about reading newspapers on the train or the idea that the invention of the telephone will destroy literacy because these youngsters won't write letters anymore.
Indeed. And it's even more frustrating because it feeds in to the myth that this is the worst period of human history, all while ignoring the fact that humanity is filled with examples of fears over new innovations. Young people as mindless zombies is not a new trope.
I'm reminded of an argument I once had with my mother, where she said "there are times I don't think your generation cares about anyone but yourselves." I responded "get off your high horse, it was your generation that raised mine to be a bunch of miserable shits."
We all complain about the younger generation, but really, who do you think they learned their ways from?
The point is there is a lot of blatantly obvious anti-woke and anti-LGBTQ messages in the third season, which makes the fact that RMB and his ilk consider this season to be GOAT Trek very concerning.
This is very much the case. The more I study human psychology and observe it in myself and others, the more I realize that when people talk about the sins of the father being visited upon to the third and fourth generation it's really just a behavioral principal at work that people learn and develop based upon what's modeled to them. If there is a problem with "kids these days" then I would be looking carefully at the parents.
My favorite such complaint about "the young-uns" these days (and it's usually Millennials they complain about despite the average Millennial being someone in their mid-thirties with a day job and a family) is that they're so entitled that they need participation trophies so that they won't feel left out, because they never learned the reality that you can't succeed at everything and sometimes people will just perform better than you.
The same participation trophies the generation that does the complaining insisted about in the first place because how dare those horrible, no-good, idiotic event organizers make my beautiful, perfect little angel cry, and how would I look like in front of the other parents if my child didn't bring home anything! Chances are, that kid was mostly just embarrassed because of the tantrum their parents were throwing, but of course, participation trophies still came to be associated with us forever. By the same people who invented them. And even if it were true that we didn't learn to handle the possibility of failure, shouldn't it have been the responsibility of our parents to teach it to us?
And no, I have never eaten a single slice of avocado toast in my life. Ever.
Hold on there. I haven't seen many people argue PIC S3 has an allegory. Like, I don't think Terry Matalas intentionally wanted to write about the dangers of Chinese social media apps brainwashing Zoomers -- the subtext is there, but I don't think it was intentional and therefore not an allegory. I think he wanted to write a story about the TNG crew dealing with mortality and with the fact that they are no longer the "next" generation yet still coming in to save the day from their greatest enemy (and Picard's greatest trauma), and so constructed a narrative where the next next generation is in danger and the TNG crew save them. The subtext is there, but I think it's the inadvertent consequence of focusing on nostalgia rather than progress.
Are you arguing that this was all intentional allegory?
Also -- listen, there's a regressive subtext to PIC S3, but to argue that it's "anti-woke, anti-feminist, and anti-queer" seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Anti-queer? The Titan/Enterprise-G bridge crew includes a nonbinary person, Kova Esmar. It's fair to argue that S3 should have given more time to the relationship between Seven and Raffi, but they remain canonically queer and heroic, and appear to still be in a relationship. The one intentional allegory I see is the issue of deadnaming trans people; when a character allegorically deadnames Seven, this is depicted as an unambiguously negative thing, and he redeems himself when he finally uses her chosen name. All seems pretty pro-queer to me. Maybe not sufficiently pro-queer, but pro-queer nonetheless.
Anti-feminist? The season begins with Beverly Crusher absolutely kicking ass and ends with a woman in command of the starship Enterprise, with a woman first officer. Empowered women act on both sides of the conflict. There are issues -- one might argue that the death of Ro is another form of "fridging" a woman, and some of the motherhood tropes with Deanna and Beverly are not as progressive as one might prefer. But the show certainly isn't actively or intentionally anti-feminist. It may not be sufficiently feminist, but it's still feminist.
Anti-woke? Well, insofar as "woke" has a definition, it's usually used in right-wing circles as a synonym for diversity or otherwise not centering white people. There should have been more people of color on the show, but POC characters are still framed in PIC S3 as heroic and diversity is still depicted as a good thing. Worf, Raffi, Geordi, Sidney, Alandra, and Mura are all clearly heroic characters who save the day multiple times. At no point is anyone depicted as only being given power because they're not white, and at no point are POC characters depicted as less than competent. And interestingly, when the leaders of power structures are depicted as wrong or incompetent, they're white. So while PIC S3 may not be sufficiently woke, I still think it's trying to be woke.
So the argument that PIC S3 is "anti-woke, anti-feminist, anti-queer" to me just doesn't hold water. I think that a segment of the audience who responded so positively is anti-woke, anti-feminist, and anti-queer, and some folks are conflating that with the show itself. I think that some of the unintentional subtext is regressive, but I don't think the show is intentionally anti-woke, anti-feminist, or anti-queer. And I don't think reading the show as unintentionally anti-woke, anti-feminist, or anti-queer holds up to much scrutiny -- even if you think it is not sufficiently pro-queer, feminist, or woke, it's still clearly trying to be.
This is the part that's problematic. Generations aren't superior just because they're older. Older generations have wisdom the younger ones lack, but younger generations have vitality the older ones lack. And in any society, cultural values should continue to evolve towards greater emancipation over time. So intentionally depicting an older generation as "better" is inherently a problematic, regressive message to send.
Look it up on Tumblr, they're somewhat less kind there
This show did nothing to unite fans. It brought out the NCC/LCARS crowd who now want all future Trek cancelled to make only more fanwank explosions reminding them of their youth (Legacy) and where the people behind it post long lists of NCC numbers for barely visible background ships. Just look at the comments on the Starfleet Academy thread.
You can always find an angry corner of the Internet somewhere.
Critic ratings, written reviews, IMDb ratings, the petition and Kurtzman's response to it, the Nielsen chart entries...
Whilst there's no such thing as a unanimous viewpoint, it's fair to say that it has received a level of universal acclaim that neither its two preceding seasons, nor indeed any other modern season of Trek save for Strange New Worlds' debut season, have achieved.
The fact that it had plenty of Easter eggs (your NCC numbers reference) to attract the more dedicated fans doesn't detract from or dominate a season whose acting, music, direction, production and storyline have all been the focus of countless critics' praise; none of which would have occurred had it been an impenetrable messy fan service with no substance (I'm looking at you, Episode IX).
But I infer from your post that it wasn't to your personal taste and that is the nature of infinite diversity
This is my frustration. It's one thing to call this season a success and that it's better than the past two. It's a bridge too far to demand SFA be canceled in favor off Matalas and that his vision should reign supreme.
This season also exposes the hypocrisy of the standards applied to newer Trek. It's damn frustrating.
It's very interesting to finally be on the "other side" of something NuTrek. For all the accusations of "gatekeeping" or "True fans"... there are certain elements of the pro-NuTrek camp that are very very gatekeepy (potential projection?), and want Star Trek to continue to specifically appeal to them while alienating people they disagree with. It is openly discussed that Paramount+'s strategy has been to produce shows that appeal to different segments of the fanbase. Why you would spend $8MM an episode on something that's structurally designed to alienate a portion of your core fanbase without evidence that by doing so you'd bring in a new larger audience is its own question. And likely unsustainable post- low interest financial bubble.
PICARD season 3 episodes are packed with attention to detail. Almost everything has an intentionality to it. The season did suffer from having to be written and produced at the last minute with budget constraints, but you can tell the people involved really cared and weren't just collecting a paycheck on their way back to the Star Wars or Marvel franchises.
Let's say we're in a era of shrinking streaming budgets, and zero sum decisions regarding the allocation of resources. Is SFA or Legacy a safer bet? Which would appeal to a broader range of people? Which is more time sensitive? Actors from the 1990's might be available now, but might not be acting in 5-10 years. We can run the IMDBs of several people involved in SFA... the co-showrunner, the writer of the pilot... we can compare that with 12 MONKEYS, PICARD season 3...
My generation don't need your 'guidance'.
I mean, that's fair but it again feels the gatekeeping on both sides continues on. First it's the "not real Trek" arguments that got thrown at Discovery, and Picard, etc. and now it's the "Well, obviously the most popular Trek now must win." And that's beyond frustrating.
From a business, of course I would agree that Legacy is the safer bet. No, I don't think it appeals to the widest swath of people but I think it appeals to enough people who prefer the TNG-Legacy era over others. I don't give a shit about IMDB. But, your point is taken on the popularity.
I just am reluctant to go with the populist argument because I know that this will lead to stagnation. This is short term satiation for long term stagnation.
This BBS is going to greatly oversample hard core Star Trek fans. People like the franchise in general for very different reasons. Those around for ENT likely remember how divisive that was, and this is far beyond that. Almost everyone here with strongly held opinions could be credibly labeled a gatekeeper, so that word is almost as meaningless as woke.
And DISCOVERY chose to mess with far far more established continuity than ENT did, so it does raise legitimate questions about where exactly it fits in Star Trek. PICARD season 1 had its own swing of own goals.
To clarify I meant the credits of the creatives involved, not the rankings of their shows.
That said, not everything on the CW was bad. THE 100, NIKITA, REAPER...
I think a Legacy could be a "why not both", hitting the Goldilocks point of having a just right balance of old and new, continuity and new horizons?
SFA just seems much more narrow. Now, if they can maximize their objectives with a correspondingly narrow budget, I wish them well.
Still don't care.
That does not appear to be its aspirations. I'm open to being wrong, but I won't hold my breath.
Strange. I see SFA as the most broad of them all. It doesn't have to touch coninuity, and can to to new frontiers, and new civilizations and all that bullshit. It can bring in younger actors and characters as viewpoints for casual audience members. It doesn't rely on "Look at this, and here's Alexander, son of Worf. Here's Mirial Paris! Here's Garak (*barf*) etc." It says, the galaxy is a big wide open place and let's move forward.
People insist to me that Trek's greatest draw is continuity. Well, I'll be blunt and say I use to enjoy continuity until it was beaten about my head with Enterprise and then ST 09 on how it "violated the continuity." And I realized that enjoyment is more the goal of entertainment, not box checking. If you want to reference history that's fine. If you want to ignore it too, that's also fine. There are multiple shows that I binge were continuity is flat out ignored. And you know what? I enjoy the characters so I keep watching. If Discovery violated continuity so badly then I would just ignore it. Like I do with TNG and TMP.
Solves that problem.
No, we are not going there. Take it to the Disco forum.
Yeah, every younger generation thinks that.
– Gepard, former young person.
Separate names with a comma.