My generation don't fuckup the environment
RMB was more describing the allegory of the previous generation guiding the current flawed generation and saving them. Something to that effect.
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.
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.
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.
My generation don't need your 'guidance'.
Indeed.To quote the greatest Star Wars film ever made, The Last Jedi: "We are what they grow beyond. That is the true burden of all masters."
Quite so. The Academy series will help the franchise expand and grow. Be a tree. Legacy won't be anything more of a self-referential checklist of the franchise's greatest hits. It would turn Star Trek into an ouroboros which would lead to stagnation.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.
Yeah, that's my fear as well. And I know it sounds like I am anti-legacy and that's the furthest thing from my mind. Honestly, TOS is my favorite Trek and if I thought that a 60s style TOS Phase 2 project could gain widespread audience attention I would back it. No, I'm not anti-Legacy, or anti-Berman era or whatever other labels Legacy proponents like to sling. No, I don't think that there is a huge divide between current Trek production and past ones.Quite so. The Academy series will help the franchise expand and grow. Be a tree. Legacy won't be anything more of a self-referential checklist of the franchise's greatest hits. It would turn Star Trek into an ouroboros which would lead to stagnation.
Nostalgia is fine, provided it still brings something new to the table. That's why SNW works, yes, it's based heavily in nostalgia but it's still doing something new with the franchise, something we haven't really seen before. Now compare that to season 3 of Picard, which is just nostalgia and nothing else. Shove the nostalgia aside, and there's an incredibly flimsy storyline which doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. It doesn't even try to make sense because it knows the audience will be distracted by all the fanwank it's loaded with.Yeah, that's my fear as well. And I know it sounds like I am anti-legacy and that's the furthest thing from my mind. Honestly, TOS is my favorite Trek and if I thought that a 60s style TOS Phase 2 project could gain widespread audience attention I would back it. No, I'm not anti-Legacy, or anti-Berman era or whatever other labels Legacy proponents like to sling. No, I don't think that there is a huge divide between current Trek production and past ones.
What I am a proponent of is reducing barriers for casual audiences to join in on the Trek train. To me, starting up a Legacy series doesn't tell casual audience goers they are on the same footing as more seasoned fans; it tells casual audience members that they are behind and need to cram for the test in order to catch up. To me that's a huge barrier that ignores people who genuinely might like Trek if they didn't feel like they had to study first to enjoy it.
It's like the show JAG and NCIS. Now, for those more casual fans they might not realize that NCIS is a spin off of the show JAG, or that the main character on NCIS was more an antagonist towards the mains on JAG. But, NCIS never treated the audience like they needed to watch JAG in order to enjoy NCIS. It set up the stage, explored the premise and became successful in its own right. It assumed that both JAG fans and casual fans were on the same level.
That's all I want from Trek.
Nostalgia is fine, provided it still brings something new to the table. That's why SNW works, yes, it's based heavily in nostalgia but it's still doing something new with the franchise, something we haven't really seen before. Now compare that to season 3 of Picard, which is just nostalgia and nothing else. Shove the nostalgia aside, and there's an incredibly flimsy storyline which doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. It doesn't even try to make sense because it knows the audience will be distracted by all the fanwank it's loaded with.
Except the "Millennials" we meet in PIC S3 aren't people who are any more flawed than the "Boomers" (aka the TNG cast). Jack is an anti-institutionalist who comes around on Starfleet, but that's not a character flaw, and Beverly was right there with him.
Jack and the other borgified crew were under about 25, so equivalent of Zoomers. Youngest millennials are about 27 now, oldest ones in their 40s.
In some cases, it happens on the other end too. Six years ago, I said something about how William Shatner would need to get back into shape if he were to ever play Kirk again, to which someone said I was "obviously under 30." I said I was 38, then he said, "Your actual age doesn't matter! You're a Millennial!" It was then that I realized "Millennial!" is just used as a label. They don't care if it's accurate. In fact, I think they double-down on it because they know it annoys 1) those of us who actually aren't Millennials, and 2) actual Millennials who are no longer "the young generation", a.k.a. "those damn kids!"Yeah, but Boomers still love to call young people who annoy them Millennials even if that's no longer accurate.![]()
In some cases, it happens on the other end too. Six years ago, I said something about how William Shatner would need to get back into shape if he were to ever play Kirk again, to which someone said I was "obviously under 30." I said I was 38, then he said, "You're actual age doesn't matter! You're a Millennial!" It was then that I realized "Millennial!" is just used as a label. They don't care if it's accurate. In fact, I think they double-down on it because they know it annoys 1) those of us who actually aren't Millennials, and 2) actual Millennials who are no longer "the young generation", a.k.a. "those damn kids!"
The essence of Star Trek right there.We can look at things in different ways and are able to come up with new ideas together.
Has anyone pointed out it was Picard's old generation that directly created the problem they had to "guide" the new ones through?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.