• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Was Picard Season 3 an Allegory for anything?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, it was people from Picard's and Riker's generations who committed the war crimes that motivated Vadic and her crew to help the Borg. But it was the Borg Queen who was responsible for her choices, no one else.

But, yes, clearly the Space Millennials weren't responsible for events that happened in the 2370s.
Janeway poisoning the Borg, Picard agitating them over and over... as an allegory, it holds up perfectly for older people saying the youth of today are terrible because they struggle with the problems they themselves created.
 
I don't know about allegory, but yeah, it's about the importance of past and legacy. From what Varis says in the beginning to what Picard says on the museum bridge at the end.
 
I think the shows orient towards who's in them. PIC S3 is today's version of a late TOS Movie, so the old people save the day. PRO is about kids, so it's the kids who save the day. The Kelvin Films had the 20-somethings save the day. DSC, LD, and SNW have the more traditional ages, so not too old, not too young.
 
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, "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!"
I've been getting the impression from what I constantly see online about Boomers this and Boomers that, that there's generational mislabeling going in the opposite direction as well. I think that Millennials and Gen Z have been labeling anyone of older generations as Boomers...I don't think a lot of them differentiate Boomers from Gen X or Silent Generation.
 
I've been getting the impression from what I constantly see online about Boomers this and Boomers that, that there's generational mislabeling going in the opposite direction as well. I think that Millennials and Gen Z have been labeling anyone of older generations as Boomers...I don't think a lot of them differentiate Boomers from Gen X or Silent Generation.
They're equally as lazy with the Boomer label. In fact, I think it's silly that someone born in 1946 and graduated from high school in 1964 is considered to be part of the same generation as someone who was born in 1964 and graduated from high school in 1982. If anything, I think a younger Boomer would have more in common with an older Gen Xer.

When people look at "generations", especially something like Generation X, I think they underestimate how truly sharp the divide between the '80s and '90s really was. Or the '60s/'70s and '70s/'80s divides, for that matter. We haven't had anything like that in the 21st Century, where change is so much more gradual and incremental.

But, while we're at it: Gene Roddenberry (born in 1921) is credited with creating TNG (and thus Picard and Q), Maurice Hurley (born in 1939) wrote "Q Who", and Patrick Stewart was born in 1940. John DeLancie (born in 1948) is the only Boomer part of the fateful little exchange in that episode, which led to Picard encountering the Borg for the first time. So, really, it's the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation who conceived of the ideas and wrote the scenario... and then a Boomer really only just happened to be the catalyst who brought it all to life. ;)
 
Last edited:
They're equally as lazy with the Boomer label. In fact, I think it's silly that someone born in 1946 and graduated from high school in 1964 is considered to be part of the same generation as someone who was born in 1964 and graduated from high school in 1982. If anything, I think a younger Boomer would have more in common with an older Gen Xer.
Oh yeah, they're just arbitrary labels for arbitrary dividing lines that aren't going to agree with ones own experience, where the same generation of a family might cross over the societal generation lines. A couple of examples that often knock around in my head: When the mantra was "Don't trust anyone over 30" in the late '60s, the under-30s consisted of a mix of Boomers and younger Silent Generation. Also, if you pop quizzed a Millennial or Zoomer, I'm sure they'd identify the Beatles as Boomers, but they were actually Silent Generation.

I also think that during all the Y2K fever, when everything was millennium this and millennium that, somebody jumped the gun on assigning the label to a generation. "Millennial" really should have gone to what we're calling Gen Z, the first generation born in the millennium.
 
Some of the factions that post about Star Trek on Twitter.

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.
&
With five Star Trek series on at the same time, I don't think every single one of them needs to be written as if it's someone's first. If there was only one Star Trek series at a time, I'd feel differently about it, but that's not the case here.
I guess my ideal model here would be how the Stargate franchise handled continuity. Each season had a loose serialized arc, there would be stand alone episodes, and a random episode from season 2 might have a follow up in season 8. And they were comfortable about using the "previously on____" to refresh old plot points, even if it might spoil something in the upcoming episode.

Let's say Legacy goes with semi-serialization. They could avoid the exposition heavy as you know, the Changelings are shape shifters from the Gamma Quadrant that fought a war you should be well aware of by just doing a "previously on____" from TNG/DS9/VGR. Plus this would encourage them to spend the money to remaster DS9 and VGR. Each series could be done for the price of three NuTrek episodes.

Even with PIC Season 3, we had people who'd go on and on, non-stop about the lighting, and wouldn't shut up about it. How much these people complained about the lighting became really annoying after a certain point. "Yes, yes, yes, we heard you the first 100,000 times!", is what I thought to myself. And we still have pearl-clutchers who can't handle hearing a word like "fuck" on Star Trek. In fact, Terry Matalas even said, exact quote, "This isn't 1992 Star Trek: The Next Generation."
To be fair, the lighting was a Paramount+ app problem. When I rewatched the entire season just before my P+ sub ran out, the early episodes did look surprisingly brighter. And, I wouldn't be surprised in the final BD release has some revised color timing.

On the fuck... I think people object for two reasons. The first, they might have gotten into Star Trek as kids, and don't like the idea of a TNG follow up that isn't say PG-13 that they themselves couldn't show their kids. The second, a more Watsonian one, that Star Trek never used fuck before, that in TVH Kirk and co weren't familiar with that type of cursing, and that it thus knocks people out of the narrative.

I'd say split the difference, and if you really want an F-bomb, have two audio tracks with and without it.

PIC Season 3, I'll insist until I die, is closer to '80s Trek than '90s Trek. Nevertheless, it's the outlier with the full-on TNG Reunion. Legacy wouldn't be like that.
It does have the more Nick Meyer / Harve Bennett elements that Gene Roddenberry and Rick Berman would have both vetoed out of the gate.

It's all academic anyway. If you're some total noob, you're not subscribing to Paramount+ to watch Star Trek. But, for the sake of argument, if I'm not a Trekkie, I have Paramount+, I'm someone who likes Patrick Stewart because of X-Men and I see a list which includes the two Star Trek series he stars in, I'd look at them and then go with the first one he was in! I'd watch TNG first instead of Picard. Why? Because I wouldn't be fucking stupid. I'd know that if I started with the second show he was in, there's stuff I probably wouldn't get and I'd feel like I was thrown in.
If anything, P+ should have curated themed Star Trek playlists a la those Blu-ray sets that only had the Q episodes, the Borg episodes, the Klingon episodes etc.

They're equally as lazy with the Boomer label. In fact, I think it's silly that someone born in 1946 and graduated from high school in 1964 is considered to be part of the same generation as someone who was born in 1964 and graduated from high school in 1982. If anything, I think a younger Boomer would have more in common with an older Gen Xer.
If I remember correctly (this is a BBS, not a submitted paper...) Boomers were originally attached to the 1946 to 1964 dates based on the post WW2 surge in birthrates, that only returned to normal baseline in 1964. One reason the 1960s was so disruptive is there were just a lot more young adults about, and able to win arguments just based on their generational size.

And yes, culturally there is no easy beginning or end point with Gen X. On my side of it, older millennials have the Xennial or Oregon Trail labels. And all Millennials come up against elite overproduction and the lack of jobs we'd be fully qualified to fill.

When people look at "generations", especially something like Generation X, I think they underestimate how truly sharp the divide between the '80s and '90s really was. Or the '60s/'70s and '70s/'80s divides, for that matter. We haven't had anything like that in the 21st Century, where change is so much more gradual and incremental.
Haha, I remember the first time a Gen Zer told me about our respective different generations. Was a shock.

The major pivot point for the transition from Millennials to Gen Z (at least in the US) was access to a smartphone. There was a major spike in mental health problems in 2014, which has been tied to social networking apps, increased bullying, and feelings of alienation / inadequacy.

This hit at different times in different countries.

And, to bring the post full circle... Season 3 has a very Gen X mentality -- NCC-1975 anyone? Whereas Akiva Goldsman and Michael Chabon were born respectively in 1962 and 1963.
 
Let's say Legacy goes with semi-serialization. They could avoid the exposition heavy as you know, the Changelings are shape shifters from the Gamma Quadrant that fought a war you should be well aware of by just doing a "previously on____" from TNG/DS9/VGR. Plus this would encourage them to spend the money to remaster DS9 and VGR. Each series could be done for the price of three NuTrek episodes.
Could work. That was nowhere near my point but I do like this idea.

Season 3 has a very Gen X mentality
The hell does this even mean?
 
Terry Matalas, born in 1975, created PIC Season 3. Lord Garth, born in 1979, loves PIC Season 3.

It computes. ;)

If anything, P+ should have curated themed Star Trek playlists a la those Blu-ray sets that only had the Q episodes, the Borg episodes, the Klingon episodes etc.
I didn't think about this before now. They really should've. This seems like it would've been an easy thing for Paramount+ to do, if they'd have been inclined.
 
Some of the factions that post about Star Trek on Twitter.

Do you realize that the idea of there being factions in Trek fandom literally goes against one of the biggest core tenets of the entire franchise?
 
Do you realize that the idea of there being factions in Trek fandom literally goes against one of the biggest core tenets of the entire franchise?
Yes, which is why Legacy is the most logical choice. It satisfies the needs of the many, while marginalizing the less popular opinions by showing them to be less popular, and therefore less acceptable. :vulcan:
 
There's also the allegory of this season representing the Star Trek franchise as a whole.

Matalas' perspective (shared by many) that the best of Star Trek is the 90s era. The quality peak of the franchise is the Last Generation (the 90s). The Berman era.

Therefore the modern era looking back to the past for direction and salvation. Ignoring Discovery, LD, SNW, Pro, and to an extent the earlier seasons of Picard.
 
There's also the allegory of this season representing the Star Trek franchise as a whole.

Matalas' perspective (shared by many) that the best of Star Trek is the 90s era. The quality peak of the franchise is the Last Generation (the 90s). The Berman era.

Therefore the modern era looking back to the past for direction and salvation. Ignoring Discovery, LD, SNW, Pro, and to an extent the earlier seasons of Picard.

Wouldn't that make Lord Terry a somewhat... hubristic person? He's assured in his knowledge that 90's Trek is best Trek, so to hell with everything else?
 
You could apply a similar hubris (or 'sheer f*cking hubris') to the other producers of Nu Trek as well, based on many of the controversial and divisive choices made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top