Star Trek Picard Season Three

[asalaw]

I’m coming more and more to the conclusion that BETTER CALL SAUL is actually the, well, better of the two shows. Deeper, more methodical, less dependent on crime-genre plots and action, and even more focused on characters and relationships. With a more subtle bag of writing tricks at its disposal, since Vince Gilligan and his crew had been honing their craft for years on the parent show. BB and BCS are a brilliant duology, and an achievement unequalled in the history of television.

There are people out there who have only watched and loved one show or the other (and it’s not strictly necessary to watch both to understand and enjoy both), but each show is one half of a greater whole. I like to think of it as one giant show that switched gears and focus halfway through, jumped back in the timeline, then jumped forward again to provide a brilliant coda and satisfying ending to both halves. Some of the best storytelling I’ve ever seen, and perhaps second only to STAR TREK in regards to my boundless love and admiration.


…and then there’s KurtzmanTREK, largely still drooling at the starting line.



Yeah, I think that meta jokes and references aimed at the audience, like that joke in FIRST CONTACT, should be used very, very sparingly, AND should be earned, AND should make logical sense, in-universe.

And I didn’t forget those early TNG examples. McCoy was never even named in the pilot, remember. And, in-universe, it’s not at all outside the realm of possibility that McCoy requested to tour the new ship bearing the Enterprise name. I think they found just the right tone and balance for that cameo without being gratuitous and distracting. A passing of the torch via a surprise cameo without sailing over the top. Although it’s placement in the episode is a bit odd (a choice no doubt intended to cap off “Part 1” of the pilot with the cameo when the episode was cut in half for syndication).

And, of course, GENERATIONS later had Kirk, Scott, and Chekov aboard the Enterprise-B as a sort of in-universe publicity stunt, so there’s an in-universe precedent.

As for “The Naked Now”, I see it less as fanservice than as a really lazy recycling of an old TOS plot in order to quickly establish the new show’s characters.

I don't think there's any question that Kurtzman is a no-talent hack who's ruined every Trek he's touched. Malalas is doing far better, the self-references in the show notwithstanding.

I'll keep an eye out for Saul, though it may be a while--I'm working on my next fan film, and it may take me a year to finish. So that's sucking up a lot of my free time now.

 

[pengbuzz]

The first question I always ask when watching something is, “Are the writers telling a story about the characters, or are they just using the characters to tell the story they want to tell?”.

That's the crux of the matter right there: does the story serve the characters, or do the characters serve the story? If they try doing it the other way around, then it just makes the hubris of the writer glaringly apparent: it's all about their "wonderful" story, and the characters are just props.

Good writing should be about a part or a time in the character's life, not a character rehearsing a play for the audience at the behest of the writer.

To use one of my favorite examples of the former: James Kirk in THE WRATH OF KHAN. Still the guy we knew from TOS, but now older, more melancholy, and grappling with different problems in a different stage in his life. As opposed to the forced and immature behavior caused by his midlife crisis in THE MOTION PICTURE, I actually believe that the guy in TWOK is still the guy from TOS. Not to knock TMP, but Kirk was not well-served by that film, although I do appreciate what they were going for.

Admittedly, I liked WoK better then TMP, with that being one reason: Kirk was Kirk in that. Of course, TMP did give us this dialogue that showed us McCoy was a professional first and foremost:

Kirk: "Your opinion has been noted; anything further?"

McCoy: "That depends on you."

To use a particularly painful example of the latter…Jake Skywalker. An unrecognizable version of one of cinema’s greatest heroes, bent and twisted by various stupid and illogical plot contrivances and out-of-character behaviors in order to serve the plot function dictated by The King of The Manbabies.

Ugh.... I prefer to think that none of that actually ever happened.

Writing is an amazing thing. You can literally have the same actor portraying the same character as in the source material, and yet they can seem like a completely different character, thanks to bad writing. Jean-Luc Picard is a good example of this.

We've seen that time and again... and its' why Jean-Luc in Picard is such a far cry from Jean-Luc in TNG.

 

[The Terminator]

We've seen that time and again... and its' why Jean-Luc in Picard is such a far cry from Jean-Luc in TNG.

One is from Star Trek, the other from kurtzman trek(into the garbage chute).

 

[asalaw]

Just playing devil’s advocate here, but why should we expect characters to remain unchanged after 30 years? They’re older. Life happens. People change. Kirk and Spock changed, why not Picard and crew? Some of the funniest moments of P3 have been Riker complaining about his age.

I would complain if the characters showed no change at all after all this time—that would be unrealistic.

 

[jts1031]

Spoiler: Episode 6 Spoilers

It made sense to see the Genesis device in Daystrom, but then I saw the screen that said James Kirk, and I thought there is no way they are storing the body of Kirk. That'd be weird. And then we find out the Changelings stole the body of Picard. So if they would keep Picard's body, why not Kirk's. Not a complaint, I just find it creepy.

 

[Lightning]

Spoiler: Episode 6 Spoilers

It made sense to see the Genesis device in Daystrom, but then I saw the screen that said James Kirk, and I thought there is no way they are storing the body of Kirk. That'd be weird. And then we find out the Changelings stole the body of Picard. So if they would keep Picard's body, why not Kirk's. Not a complaint, I just find it creepy.

Totally in character for Section 31.

 

[Gregatron]

Just playing devil’s advocate here, but why should we expect characters to remain unchanged after 30 years? They’re older. Life happens. People change. Kirk and Spock changed, why not Picard and crew? Some of the funniest moments of P3 have been Riker complaining about his age.

I would complain if the characters showed no change at all after all this time—that would be unrealistic.

I think it comes down to whether the changes are logical or not. As noted, I feel like the Kirk of TWOK is a logical outgrowth of the guy from TOS, moreso than his rather petty and immature behavior in TMP.

Sure, writers can contrive circumstances and traumas and whatnot in order to justify changes to a character, but they need to make sense.

As always, the eternal struggle with any follow-up is that the audience wants change without anything actually changing. The illusion of change, as Stan Lee called it. Tell a compelling story, but leave the toys intact in the sandbox for the next time.

As opposed to a long-form narrative like BREAKING BAD, which hinges upon change, STAR TREK has traditionally been episodic. The characters serve as the audience’s anchors and guides for navigating each week’s episode. Straying too far from who they’ve been established as risks alienation.

The TOS movies are a different ballgame, since film is a different medium, and it became more about an every-few-years reunion with our old (and older) friends from the TV show as they dealt with different circumstances and problems.

In theory, a singular movie is supposed to show the most important events of a character’s life, and tells a complete and satisfying story with an arc involving growth and change. That’s why we’re watching it. Whereas an ongoing, episodic TV series is beginning and then all middle, usually without that growth and change, at least until TV began transitioning into long-form narratives.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Spoiler: Episode 6 Spoilers

It made sense to see the Genesis device in Daystrom, but then I saw the screen that said James Kirk, and I thought there is no way they are storing the body of Kirk. That'd be weird. And then we find out the Changelings stole the body of Picard. So if they would keep Picard's body, why not Kirk's. Not a complaint, I just find it creepy.

Yeah…Section 31 and Jeff Dahmer would seem to have the same “thing” for keeping dead bodies around.

Gross

I do think that this last episode (episode 6) takes the prize for the most Easter Eggs and Fan Service items crammed into one episode of any franchise series—and I am 100% OK with that.

 

[Picard102]

Spoiler: Episode 6 Spoilers

It made sense to see the Genesis device in Daystrom, but then I saw the screen that said James Kirk, and I thought there is no way they are storing the body of Kirk. That'd be weird. And then we find out the Changelings stole the body of Picard. So if they would keep Picard's body, why not Kirk's. Not a complaint, I just find it creepy.

How did Daystrom even get the latters. Would have thought the previous owner would have done something with it.

 

[asalaw]

I think it comes down to whether the changes are logical or not. As noted, I feel like the Kirk of TWOK is a logical outgrowth of the guy from TOS, moreso than his rather petty and immature behavior in TMP.

Sure, writers can contrive circumstances and traumas and whatnot in order to justify changes to a character, but they need to make sense.

As always, the external with any follow-up is that the audience wants change without anything actually changing. The illusion of change, as Stan Lee called it. Tell a compelling story, but leave the toys intact in the sandbox for the next time.

As opposed to a long-form narrative like BREAKING BAD, which hinges upon change, STAR TREK has traditionally been episodic. The characters serve as the audience’s anchors and guides for navigating each week’s episode. Straying too far from who they’ve been established as risks alienation.

The TOS movies are a different ballgame, since film is a different medium, and it became more about an every-few-years reunion with our old (and older) friends from the TV show as they dealt with different circumstances and problems.

In theory, a singular movie is supposed to show the most important events of a character’s life, and tells a complete and satisfying story with an arc involving growth and change. That’s why we’re watching it. Whereas an ongoing, episodic TV series is beginning and then all middle, usually without that growth and change, at least until TV began transitioning into long-form narratives.

But that’s just it—TV is a whole new medium now. It’s most similar to the old miniseries format, basically a long-form movie in chapters. I don’t think episodic works today, because it’s inherently unsophisticated. The need for slavish consistency and weekly resolution hobbles the writing team, IMO.

I like that Picard is old and full of regret—it gives him something to grow out of in this arc (and if he doesn’t, that’s a problem). I like that Riker and LaForge are parents, and I found Geordi’s refusal to help Picard perfectly logical—for a parent. The one who’s changed the least is Crusher, and even that is logical—she’s always been a nurturer.

As for the chicken-egg issue of whether these changes were contrived to justify the plot, I don’t see it that way. I think it’s very logical that these characters have all moved on from the old days, and that their new lives cause conflict when their old one comes knocking. Riker is the notable exception, and even that is a result of change; his family life has deteriorated, and he’s anxious to get away. His new experience changes him again, and just when he’s ready to reconcile, bam—his family is in peril. Conflict. Drama. I like it.

 

[Demetrios2177]

They’re older. Life happens. People change. Kirk and Spock changed, why not Picard and crew?

That's exactly what I have grown to appreciate about TMP as I grew older. I love that Kirk, McCoy and Spock had to struggle to rediscover why they had mattered to each other.

 

[AnubisGuard]

because it’s inherently unsophisticated.

Eeeeeeh. Serialization on TV got its start in soaps, about the most unsophisticated genre there is, as anthology TV used to be the "prestige" format. Serialization also has a potential writing crutch of allowing one or two ideas to stretch across a run of episodes. Episodic requires the creative team to come up with, and the audience to absorb, more new stories and themes than serialization might, which I would argue is a form of sophistication.

Both formats can be used well or used poorly. The prestige gloss serialized TV has right now is just fashion.

 

[Gregatron]

Eeeeeeh. Serialization on TV got its start in soaps, about the most unsophisticated genre there is, as anthology TV used to be the "prestige" format. Serialization also has a potential writing crutch of allowing one or two ideas to stretch across a run of episodes. Episodic requires the creative team to come up with, and the audience to absorb, more new stories and themes than serialization might, which I would argue is a form of sophistication.

Both formats can be used well or used poorly. The prestige gloss serialized TV has right now is just fashion.

I would argue that STAR TREK absolutely works best in the episodic, anthology-ish format it was designed to be. Every episode is about something different, allowing for an expansive range of ideas to be explored, rather than an extended "villain of the season" plot.

With the former, you get a wide variety of ideas, some likely to be more successful than others. With the latter, if the season-arc idea is bad, then you're stuck with it for the whole season.

Variety is the spice of life, as they say.

 

[Gregatron]

...just imagine "Spock's Brain" or "Masks" spread out over an entire season, complete with mystery boxes and end-of-episode cliffhangers. Yikes.

 

[AnubisGuard]

With the former, you get a wide variety of ideas, some likely to be more successful than others. With the latter, if the season-arc idea is bad, then you're stuck with it for the whole season.

That, and they can experiment with tone and style. I've yet to see one serialized "prestige" drama be as varied and experimental as, say, the X-FIles, which gave us horror, comedy, horror-comedy, romance, aliens, monsters from folklore as well as new monsters made up just for the show; black-and-white episodes, Rashomon-style episodes, and on and on. Serialization, of the kind that's as heavy as has become popular at least, doesn't take full advantage of what the medium has to offer.

 

[asalaw]

...just imagine "Spock's Brain" or "Masks" spread out over an entire season, complete with mystery boxes and end-of-episode cliffhangers. Yikes.

Or City on the Edge of Forever…

 

[Captain Dunsel]

I could get behind this…

Almost Everyone on Star Trek: Picard Wants a Spinoff to Happen

 

[BlandoCalrssian]

I love the idea of using the old Spacedock as the Fleet Museum, even though I find it implausible that you could move a 3 mile high structure like that to another star system. Would have made more sense to keep the museum in orbit around Earth, but then it makes a lousy hiding spot from a compromised Starfleet for an episode.

 

[pengbuzz]

I love the idea of using the old Spacedock as the Fleet Museum, even though I find it implausible that you could move a 3 mile high structure like that to another star system. Would have made more sense to keep the museum in orbit around Earth, but then it makes a lousy hiding spot from a compromised Starfleet for an episode.

It could have a warp drive of its' own.

 

[renaissance_man]

Do Tricorders still exist or is Star Trek just all pew pew, blaster style gun fights now?