Star Trek: Picard

Voyager has interesting characters and a variety of great stories.
It's still remembered very fondly today during its 25th Anniversary year where current Trek was deliberately written to be antagonistic and divisive. Not to mention New Trek is filled with bleak, nihilistic characters that I find it hard to believe will be as fondly remembered if remembered at all in 25 years time.
 
Ira had to be reigned in some of his ideas were WAY to much.....
Oh, quite. But I would rather a showrunner dare too much and have to get reeled in by complementary production forces than just dribble out unimaginative pablum that is in lockstep with the current trends and doesn't challenge anything except its own lore and established audeince.
 
New Trek is just really poorly written. The characters are all very 2-dimensional. I like that Ira Behr described the new Trek writers as seeming to have a 'different ambition'. I think that's a totally truthful and accurate observation. Having watched all of STD and STD I cannot imagine believing any of the producers of those shows who would say something like 'it was made out of love'. I also cannot imagine that there was really any cohesive story line that didn't rely on 'single-episode-appearance-CGI sequences' that never return again later in the series and are never even referred to again through character dialog. Maybe the 'ambition' was to depict a more edgy, gritty, cutting-edge sci-fi show. And maybe they were very successful? When I think about STD and STP I think both shows turned out to focus mostly on antagonistic, irrational and hypocritical behaviours by the main characters which lent no help in establishing the story line. Is it correct that there were 21 producers on STD and about 18 for STP? Some proverbs still ring true, like 'Too many cooks spoil the broth.' Maybe? Maybe not? Maybe I dunno anymore.
 
Last edited:
STD and STP must be made out of hate then. Either for the franchise or the fan base.
It's worse than that, I think. It's that toxic, abusive, dysfunctional mix of people working on the shows who love Star Trek, higher-ups who don't, or don't get it, or both, and a bunch of regular folks just happy to have work stuck in between and bewildered at the reaction the show that they think is just fine is getting.
 
It's worse than that, I think. It's that toxic, abusive, dysfunctional mix of people working on the shows who love Star Trek, higher-ups who don't, or don't get it, or both, and a bunch of regular folks just happy to have work stuck in between and bewildered at the reaction the show that they think is just fine is getting.

I think there's two key problems.

PROBLEM ONE, there is a cyclical issues that has more to do with what studios think fans want based upon misinformed market testing, and looking at the ratings/box office numbers of similar properties. I don't think there's any agendas. I think there is an incorrect notion of what people want to see.

I remember the last days of Prime Trek. Enterprise was lackluster, and Nemesis felt like a misfiring collage of great Trek moments we'd already seen trying to recapture some glory. We look back at the Prime-verse as one thing. But the Trek of the early 2000s was a lot more tired from Trek of the early 90s... or Trek of the late 80s for that matter. Even as a huge fan, I was getting bored.

Then Battlestar Galactica comes out and more or less breaks the space opera genre by being grounded, frim and dark. It was Ron Moore doing everything he was told not to do on DS9. I personally loved BSG, and it gelt more socially relevant and poignant. Trek had forgotten how to be relevant by then. BSG kinda killed it.

The response for Trek was then, was to go dark for seven years then come back with a reboot. They recognized how Trek had gotten stale, so theyt decided to lean in hard on the swashbuckling adventure aspect of TOS, forgetting social relevance part. It did well, I enjoyed it-- but then they made horrible sequels and drove any good intentions they had away. In the mean time, Star Wars came back for the space adventure.

Meanwhile, all other scifi on TV and in movies had spent the last decade being influenced by BSG. You can't look at The Expanse and not see the influence of BSG. Dark Matter was.. dark. Stargate got grittier. Dr. Who came along, and despite doing its own thing can still go dark. Westworld, The 100, Lost In Space... all of them on the dark side, or at the very least, presenting space as a dark and dangerous place.

Then, when Bryan Fuller comes along and pitches a Trek prequel, he wants to keep it true to Prime/TOS. Everything we see them going toward now with Pike's Enterprise-- Fuller wanted thsat from the start. And the studio looked at the landscape of all other scifi out there and thought-- "No way. This isn't what people want." And they base that purely on what is being made. The IP had floundered on the big screen with JJs last entry, they plain and simple didn't want to take a risk. They wanted to play it safe. And safe meant doing a dark and gritty space show.

And I am here for dark and gritty space-- I love it... but not with Trek. That's not what Trek is. Fuller bounced because of this. And who replaces him-- Alex Kurtzman.

Kurtzman was quoted saying his problem with Star Trek was that it "never gave him a good Star Wars moment." Whatever the hell that means, it's clearly, and bluntly, obvious that the guy overseeing all thingsd Trek does not get Trek at its core. That's PROBLEM TWO. He's doing tyhe hiring. And even if writers are hired who love Trek, his core edict and direction is what it is, and it trickles down to everyone on staff.

The Picard writer's room, was apparently one of the most contentious, back-stabby, angry rooms in TV history, and guess what-- it shows.

All I can hope is that if they pause and look at the response to STP they'll see that everyone loves thge pilot, coiming back to Picard, and we love it when Seven shows up, or when they visit Will/Deanna... it's clear they just should have done a 24th century revival show. If Picard's crew had been made up of TNG, DS9, and VOY people, and a few new people so it wasn't a cast of OLDS (which studios are also afraid of) people would have been a whole lot happier.
 
Last edited:
I think there's two key problems.

PROBLEM ONE, there is a cyclical issues that has more to do with what studios think fans want based upon misinformed market testing, and looking at the ratings/box office numbers of similar properties. I don't think there's any agendas. I think there is an incorrect notion of what people want to see.

I remember the last days of Prime Trek. Enterprise was lackluster, and Nemesis felt like a misfiring collage of great Trek moments we'd already seen trying to recapture some glory. We look back at the Prime-verse as one thing. But the Trek of the early 2000s was a lot more tired from Trek of the early 90s... or Trek of the late 80s for that matter. Even as a huge fan, I was getting bored.

Then Battlestar Galactica comes out and more or less breaks the space opera genre by being grounded, frim and dark. It was Ron Moore doing everything he was told not to do on DS9. I personally loved BSG, and it gelt more socially relevant and poignant. Trek had forgotten how to be relevant by then. BSG kinda killed it.

The response for Trek was then, was to go dark for seven years then come back with a reboot. They recognized how Trek had gotten stale, so theyt decided to lean in hard on the swashbuckling adventure aspect of TOS, forgetting social relevance part. It did well, I enjoyed it-- but then they made horrible sequels and drove any good intentions they had away. In the mean time, Star Wars came back for the space adventure.

Meanwhile, all other scifi on TV and in movies had spent the last decade being influenced by BSG. You can't look at The Expanse and not see the influence of BSG. Dark Matter was.. dark. Stargate got grittier. Dr. Who came along, and despite doing its own thing can still go dark. Westworld, The 100, Lost In Space... all of them on the dark side, or at the very least, presenting space as a dark and dangerous place.

Then, when Bryan Fuller comes along and pitches a Trek prequel, he wants to keep it true to Prime/TOS. Everything we see them going toward now with Pike's Enterprise-- Fuller wanted thsat from the start. And the studio looked at the landscape of all other scifi out there and thought-- "No way. This isn't what people want." And they base that purely on what is being made. The IP had floundered on the big screen with JJs last entry, they plain and simple didn't want to take a risk. They wanted to play it safe. And safe meant doing a dark and gritty space show.

And I am here for dark and gritty space-- I love it... but not with Trek. That's not what Trek is. Fuller bounced because of this. And who replaces him-- Alex Kurtzman.

Kurtzman was quoted saying his problem with Star Trek was that it "never gave him a good Star Wars moment." Whatever the hell that means, it's clearly, and bluntly, obvious that the guy overseeing all thingsd Trek does not get Trek at its core. That's PROBLEM TWO. He's doing tyhe hiring. And even if writers are hired who love Trek, his core edict and direction is what it is, and it trickles down to everyone on staff.

The Picard writer's room, was apparently one of the most contentious, back-stabby, angry rooms in TV history, and guess what-- it shows.

All I can hope is that if they pause and look at the response to STP they'll see that everyone loves thge pilot, coiming back to Picard, and we love it when Seven shows up, or when they visit Will/Deanna... it's clear they just should have done a 24th century revival show. If Picard's crew had been made up of TNG, DS9, and VOY people, and a few new people so it wasn't a cast of OLDS (which studios are also afraid of) people would have been a whole lot happier.

And here we are, I pound my hands into the wet sand..........
 
I felt like they wanted to throw Captain Picard into Firefly. You've got the ratty ship with a rag-tag crew of misfits, including the rough-n-ready Captain with a checkered past, the super-intelligent young dark-haired girl with secret ninja skills, the handsome yet aloof doctor, and Gina Torres' non-union equivalent. They're on the run from corrupt governments after they failed in their earlier endeavors. The bad guys have mysterious, faceless assassins that want to get them and steal the girl.
But they shouldn't feel bad. They also tried making a Firefly movie with Han Solo and Woody Harrelson.
 
I felt like they wanted to throw Captain Picard into Firefly. You've got the ratty ship with a rag-tag crew of misfits, including the rough-n-ready Captain with a checkered past, the super-intelligent young dark-haired girl with secret ninja skills, the handsome yet aloof doctor, and Gina Torres' non-union equivalent. They're on the run from corrupt governments after they failed in their earlier endeavors. The bad guys have mysterious, faceless assassins that want to get them and steal the girl.
But they shouldn't feel bad. They also tried making a Firefly movie with Han Solo and Woody Harrelson.

Serenity now, serenity now ;)

download.gif
 
My parents just finished watching all the episodes. They said the stories were too much of a mess and all over the place.
They weren't too pleased with some gay stuff in it apparently. They won't be coming back for the second season.
 
My parents just finished watching all the episodes. They said the stories were too much of a mess and all over the place.
They weren't too pleased with some gay stuff in it apparently. They won't be coming back for the second season.

I know we're not allowed to get political, but I am always surprised when people are shocked to see social liberalism in Star Trek. It's been full of social commentary on every form of bigotry since TOS.
 
I loved how they couched social commentary in sci-fi terms so they could actually get it on TV. The one I remember the most had the characters who faces were half black and half white with some of them switched which sides were which and they were treated as inferiors or second class citizens.
 
I know we're not allowed to get political, but I am always surprised when people are shocked to see social liberalism in Star Trek. It's been full of social commentary on every form of bigotry since TOS.

It's more that "In your face". And in TOS those things really did matter and were unique. In SW and ST today it's like "yeah... the plot doesn't matter so much - put a short scene with a gay couple kissing in". My wife pointed that out to me a couple of month ago and she's right.
 
I used to be cynical about that kind of thing, assuming it was to placate a specific demographic, but then I got to thinking, would I care if they were straight? Straight people be kissing all over the damn place on tv with nary a raised eyebrow. It happens so often it's practically invisible. People are people. People kiss people. ******, in Trek people be kissing all kinds of aliens (ahem, Kirk). The problem with how I saw it was in my head, not on the screen. Trek has always pushed on some of these social boundaries, and nearly 60 years later the boundaries just don't sit in the same place anymore.
 
Let's not get banned-- we can at least all agree that where Trek was once socially relevant, now they are more concerned with hipster Romulans and their copy/paste fleets blowing stuff up, one-liners, and moments that look great in trailers with a bunch of nonsense filler in between.
 
Something NOT AT ALL unique to Trek...in fact Trek is a lesser example of this compared to other venues (Marvel comics for example) is that writers...for lack of a better way to say it: just aren't as good at social commentary anymore.

Xmen and Star Trek from the 60s both took a similar approach. In the X-men, they introduced characters the audience would identify with, then had those characters treated unjustly. This forced the audience to see how unjust the treatment was. In Star Trek, you again, had characters the audience would readily identify with, then look at others who were engaging in unjust action and speak out against it. Very elegant, and it led the audience down the path of seeing that unjust behavior was unjust.

Now, they just show the badly treated strait out. If it were made today, ToS would have the black and white faced aliens as the main characters of the series. Not even with commentary, just a nihilistic view that unjust behavior will always continue into the future without hope.

Then fail to understand why it didn't work, and blame the audience for not lapping it up.

Let's not get banned-- we can at least all agree that where Trek was once socially relevant, now they are more concerned with hipster Romulans and their copy/paste fleets blowing stuff up, one-liners, and moments that look great in trailers with a bunch of nonsense filler in between.

I've reached a point where any time ANYONE involved with a show utters the phrase "like Game of Thrones" I feel safe in assuming that the show is just going to suck and can be safely avoided entirely.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top