• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Santar

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,997
Norway
I will give season 2 a try even if the first season was so bad I dropped off after the halfway point. Just a bunch of tired generic cliche's both from sci-fi and other tv shows. It also felt like Stewart absolutely didn't want anyhting from TNG in there at all when it came to his character. Which probably helped in making the show feel so completely different.
I also think the thing they did to Picard at the end kinda ruins the old Picard part of the story. I mean he's not really Picard anymore even. Every time his age is referenced in the show is going to feel hollow from now on unless Q immediately retcons Picards change from the end of season 1
 

Schlorgan

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,932
Salt Lake City, Utah
I will give season 2 a try even if the first season was so bad I dropped off after the halfway point. Just a bunch of tired generic cliche's both from sci-fi and other tv shows. It also felt like Stewart absolutely didn't want anyhting from TNG in there at all when it came to his character. Which probably helped in making the show feel so completely different.
I also think the thing they did to Picard at the end kinda ruins the old Picard part of the story. I mean he's not really Picard anymore even. Every time his age is referenced in the show is going to feel hollow from now on unless Q immediately retcons Picards change from the end of season 1
That was so stupid.

Nearly as stupid as an android being able to mind-meld but not quite
 

OneTrueJack

Member
Aug 30, 2020
4,633
I mean, yeah. Every TNG movie is trash, hell RLM got started trashing those. And for TOS, its just The Motion Picture, Wrath of Khan, and Voyage Home. But that's the point, Trek has been on life-support for a while and every new piece since has been either trash or so different it might as well be something else (except for Beyond).



Stewart has long forgotten how to play Picard.
On life support? The franchise is literally having a second renaissance.
 

Lump

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,025
I'm going to say something controversial.

What if Q or "Sci-Fi Trope X" de-ages Picard in Season 2 and replaces Stewart with Tom Hardy to portray a younger Picard, since Hardy has already portrayed Picard's clone.

At least that would be an interesting direction, and it would be fun to watch some of the fanbase burn at seeing it happen.
 

Amnesty

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,684
On life support? The franchise is literally having a second renaissance.
In one sense yes, there's a bunch of series going on these days. But in another sense I don't think so, in that Star Trek isn't very influential anymore and isn't part of much larger discourse about sci-fi in popular media. Star Trek as a brand is going through a second renaissance, but the thoughtfulness or ambitions carried by its past incarnations isn't really.
 

OneTrueJack

Member
Aug 30, 2020
4,633
People really forgetting about the state of the franchise post Nemesis and Enterprise.
I really feel some people really are just biter that the franchise has moved on in many ways. They want it to be how it was when they were kids. But modern Star Trek is, well, modern. It's reinvented itself just like how it did in the late 80s and we're firmly now in a new era. An era that a lot Star Trek fans refuse to engage with in any meaningful way.

It's a very gatekeeping fandom in that sense.
 

OneTrueJack

Member
Aug 30, 2020
4,633
In one sense yes, there's a bunch of series going on these days. But in another sense I don't think so, in that Star Trek isn't very influential anymore and isn't part of much larger discourse about sci-fi in popular media. Star Trek as a brand is going through a second renaissance, but the thoughtfulness or ambitions carried by its past incarnations isn't really.
Star Trek has always been relatively niche. The only parts that have really entered the mainstream are TOS, the Kelvin films, and to a lesser extent TNG. The rest of the films and shows aren't on that level.

So modern Star Trek is doing just fine. It's not conquering the world, but the franchise rarely did that anyway. It's not Star Wars or Marvel.
 

MrChom

Member
Oct 26, 2017
681
Season 1 was utterly dreadful. Season 2 can only be an improvement, hopefully it might pull some of the season one characters who return back from the abyss, who knows?

I have little hope for this... But given how much I enjoy Lower Decks and Discovery surely they can find SOMETHING good....
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
42,986
I really feel some people really are just biter that the franchise has moved on in many ways. They want it to be how it was when they were kids. But modern Star Trek is, well, modern. It's reinvented itself just like how it did in the late 80s and we're firmly now in a new era. An era that a lot Star Trek fans refuse to engage with in any meaningful way.

It's a very gatekeeping fandom in that sense.

Its not gatekeeping to expect a franchise built on progressive ideals and exploring moral/philosophical issues to continue to do that over PEW, PEW and E M O T I O N S.

I don't think a lot of fans are opposed to something new, but whatever it is should at lease resemble Trek and also not be shit. With the exception of 09', the majority of "new" takes have just been shit putting aside whether they adhere to the spirit of Trek. Like, take away the Star Trek branding and Picard is still garbage. Meanwhile, I take away the Star Trek branding and 09' Trek is still a good sci-fi action film.
 

Amnesty

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,684
I really feel some people really are just biter that the franchise has moved on in many ways. They want it to be how it was when they were kids. But modern Star Trek is, well, modern. It's reinvented itself just like how it did in the late 80s and we're firmly now in a new era. An era that a lot Star Trek fans refuse to engage with in any meaningful way.

It's a very gatekeeping fandom in that sense.
I don't think it's that From my perspective, I don't want it to be modern even while I don't want it to be stuck in the past. I want it to be ambitious about portraying the future. I think it's too modern in the sense that its appealing to common tropes and aesthetic sensibilities that are prevalent right now (like in some ways they're following suit with the style of superhero movies). In many ways, series like TNG were quite different from other things you could see at the time. I'd like to see more thinking outside of the present, even if we're all ultimately made from that perspective. Instead of all the effort into still trying to deconstruct Utopia, I'd like to see something that actually tries to think through it and build a portrayal of a 'better' world with all the nuance and detail that carries. Instead of trying to tell me how similar humans of the future are to who we are now, show me how different they are.

It doesn't really have anything to do with keeping it in the past or anything like that for me. I want to see an ambitious undertaking that thoughtfully considers a radically different society and expands on the world making that were seen in the past series. Even Discovery is still fairly light on touching on any of that kind of thing.
 
Last edited:

mentok15

Member
Dec 20, 2017
7,305
Australia
I enjoyed some buts on S1, though I think I've forgotten much already which doesn't speak very highly of it.

I'll at least give this a go as Q and I'm a missive ST fan.
 

Amnesty

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,684
Ironically new Trek is way more progressive.

No more of Rick Berman's homophobia or misogyny. They can actually have characters that are openly gay without the guy in charge stopping them.
I think this is another case of 'some ways yes, some ways not so much'. Like sure, diverse representation is a lot better nowadays, which is to be expected and I don't think it should be a simple pat on the back for them for doing so because while contemporary ST series have that, they're missing the exploration of a post capitalist reality (which admittedly past series weren't extremely detailed with), with all the radical changes that would entail. There's a progressiveness lacking in the sense that the current series don't really explore much of how the technology present changes people in radical ways and how that would link up with utopian ideals.
 

Schlorgan

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,932
Salt Lake City, Utah
they're missing the exploration of a post capitalist reality
I don't think any of them have really focused on that since TNG.

Voyager and Enterprise were also way more about melodrama and bombast than doing much exploration into anything meaningful or thoughtful.

These criticisms can't just be applied to the new stuff while holding older stuff with the same issues on a pedestal.
 

OneTrueJack

Member
Aug 30, 2020
4,633
Its not gatekeeping to expect a franchise built on progressive ideals and exploring moral/philosophical issues to continue to do that over PEW, PEW and E M O T I O N S.

I don't think a lot of fans are opposed to something new, but whatever it is should at lease resemble Trek and also not be shit. With the exception of 09', the majority of "new" takes have just been shit putting aside whether they adhere to the spirit of Trek. Like, take away the Star Trek branding and Picard is still garbage. Meanwhile, I take away the Star Trek branding and 09' Trek is still a good sci-fi action film.
It does all of that. Modern Trek is firmly built on the franchise's ideals and is a natural evolution of what came before.

Like I get that some people would prefer their Trek to be episodic and plot-based rather than serialised and character-based (putting aside that some of the best parts of old Trek were serialsed and character based), but the refusal to meet the modern shows on their own terms means it's impossible to have a decent conversation about them.

Discovery is one of the best damn shows on at the moment, and Picard is very uneven but has so much promise. But they're not the specific type of show older fans want and so the conversation just stops dead.

If you got into Star Trek through any of the post 2009 media then the Star Trek fandom is just an extremely toxic place that doesn't want you or the things you love. It sucks.
 

Amnesty

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,684
I don't think any of them have really focused on that since TNG.
Yes, that's true and what I really wish the focus would go back onto as that was always one of the more fascinating, and for a popular mainstream television series, somewhat revolutionary. It's something that is important to not overstate or understate, but since DS9 it's been mostly either ignoring the world building regarding the 'better' worlds of the future or trying to decontruct them.

It's a really rich foundation and direction to explore that still has potential for highly relevant material now and in the future. It's a more expansive area to follow than what is being portrayed these days.
 

Schlorgan

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,932
Salt Lake City, Utah
Yes, that's true and what I really wish the focus would go back onto as that was always one of the more fascinating, and for a popular mainstream television series, somewhat revolutionary. It's something that is important to not overstate or understate, but since DS9 it's been mostly either ignoring the world building regarding the 'better' worlds of the future or trying to decontruct them.

It's a really rich foundation and direction to explore that still has potential for highly relevant material now and in the future. It's a more expansive area to follow than what is being portrayed these days.
So was TNG the last "real" Star Trek?
 

OneTrueJack

Member
Aug 30, 2020
4,633
I don't think it's that From my perspective, I don't want it to be modern even while I don't want it to be stuck in the past. I want it to be ambitious about portraying the future. I think it's too modern in the sense that its appealing to common tropes and aesthetic sensibilities that are prevalent right now (like in some ways they're following suit with the style of superhero movies). In many ways, series like TNG were quite different from other things you could see at the time. I'd like to see more thinking outside of the present, even if we're all ultimately made from that perspective. Instead of all the effort into still trying to deconstruct Utopia, I'd like to see something that actually tries to think through it and build a portrayal of a 'better' world with all the nuance and detail that carries. Instead of trying to tell me how similar humans of the future are to who we are now, show me how different they are.

It doesn't really have anything to do with keeping it in the past or anything like that for me. I want to see an ambitious undertaking that thoughtfully considers a radically different society and expands on the world making that were seen in the past series. Even Discovery is still fairly light on touching on any of that kind of thing.
Which is fine. But shows like Discovery and Picard are more interested in exploring their themes through character relationships, arcs and dynamics. It's introspective and not extrospective.

It's fine if that's just not someone's cup of tea, but the refusal to accept the approach as valid or engage with the material on its own terms is silly and pointless.
 

Amiablepercy

Banned
Nov 4, 2017
3,587
California
My favorite Trek series has always been Deep Space Nine and I am old enough to remember the OG/TNG fandoms throwing the similair "not my star trek" tantrums when that show was decidedly different. found season 1 to be entertaining enough. Looking forward to season 2.
 

Deleted member 7051

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,254
If you got into Star Trek through any of the post 2009 media then the Star Trek fandom is just an extremely toxic place that doesn't want you or the things you love. It sucks.

All I want is a Star Trek that has women in prominent roles and not wearing spandex bodysuits or other similarly "sexy" outfits like unbearably short dresses. So that kinda counts out the original series, The Next Generation, Voyager and Enterprise.
 

Amnesty

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,684
So was TNG the last "real" Star Trek?
I'm not concerned with what is real or not real Star Trek, I care about what ideas Star Trek brings with it and how it portrays them. Tng was just probably one of the last to be somewhat ambitious with ideas. This isn't even to say that everything since is bad, DS9 was still good for what it was, it's more that it's all been fairly uninteresting in terms of portraying thoughtful depictions of the future.

Which is fine. But shows like Discovery and Picard are more interested in exploring their themes through character relationships, arcs and dynamics. It's introspective and not extrospective.

It's fine if that's just not someone's cup of tea, but the refusal to accept the approach as valid or engage with the material on its own terms is silly and pointless.
I don't see the approach of Picard or Disc as Valid or not, it's more that they, especially Picard do little I find interesting or engaging. There's plenty, at least in Picard (I havens seen all of Discovery) to criticize from the perspective of it being a melodramatic action/adventure series.

My favorite Trek series has always been Deep Space Nine and I am old enough to remember the OG/TNG fandoms throwing the similair "not my star trek" tantrums when that show was decidedly different. found season 1 to be entertaining enough. Looking forward to season 2.
When people bring up toxic fandoms in discussion here, I'm wondering what the intent is. is there no discussion to be had in a critical way of contemporary Star Trek without framing it around toxicity or other such implications? Is the discussion in this thread toxic? It feels like the other side of the coin, like some preemptive shutting down critical discussion by using that framing.

If all criticism is just 'out of touch toxic fans that don't like new stuff', then what kind of discussion is there to be had outside of praise?
 
Last edited:

The40Watt

Member
Oct 29, 2017
963
Season 1 was great so I'm down for another season and hopefully more. Q looks great too, as others have said.
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
42,986
It does all of that. Modern Trek is firmly built on the franchise's ideals and is a natural evolution of what came before.

Like I get that some people would prefer their Trek to be episodic and plot-based rather than serialised and character-based (putting aside that some of the best parts of old Trek were serialsed and character based), but the refusal to meet the modern shows on their own terms means it's impossible to have a decent conversation about them.

Discovery is one of the best damn shows on at the moment, and Picard is very uneven but has so much promise. But they're not the specific type of show older fans want and so the conversation just stops dead.

If you got into Star Trek through any of the post 2009 media then the Star Trek fandom is just an extremely toxic place that doesn't want you or the things you love. It sucks.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree here.

There was nothing redeemable about Picard to me. And Discovery was just a hot mess, I didn't even watch Season 3. I love a serialized format, but Discovery managed to take this format and do nothing with it. Tell me what was so great about the Mirror Universe shenanigans of the first season or the Time Travel shenanigans of the second season? It was all just explosions and crap to me, nothing that appeals me to Trek.

I don't know what universe where Discovery is "one of the best damn shows on at the moment" when shit like The Crown or Better Call Saul or BoJack or The Expanse or hell even The Mandalorian exists. And that's leaving off one shot or finished shows like Chernobyl, The Good Lord Bird, The Queen's Gambit, The Good Place, etc.
 
Last edited:
Nov 27, 2020
4,257
All I want is a Star Trek that has women in prominent roles and not wearing spandex bodysuits or other similarly "sexy" outfits like unbearably short dresses. So that kinda counts out the original series, The Next Generation, Voyager and Enterprise.
You'd have to add DS9 in there as well, I'd that's your criteria. Kira, both in the regular and mirror universe wore extremely tight bodysuits through most of the run of the show.
 

Wigdogger

Member
Oct 27, 2017
513
Which is fine. But shows like Discovery and Picard are more interested in exploring their themes through character relationships, arcs and dynamics. It's introspective and not extrospective.

It's fine if that's just not someone's cup of tea, but the refusal to accept the approach as valid or engage with the material on its own terms is silly and pointless.

I guess I'd ask what "its own terms" are. It's a show that's incredibly lazy considering the talent involved. It has little wonder or curiosity about the massive space canvas it exists in. Its visual identity is mostly tight coverage and lens flare, borrowed from most modern Superhero or Abrams style.

If it dared to do something new or have an actual underpinning to its story, more people would give it the time of day. In my opinion (and that's all it is), people generally want sci-fi that has something new to say or to truly explore some interesting themes, and yet these characters are bland and flavorless, existing merely to act in the moment with little introspection about what it's like to live in this new world. They all have their basic sketch, but that's about the depth. And those sketches are boring.

For Soji, how must it be to not truly know yourself? And yet this is all just terribly handled, with her seriously considering wiping out organic life on the flip of a switch. Do what Firefly did -- give me others who interrogate her journey, drawing us in. We don't get that here. We have an actress trying to do this all herself while supported by a terrible script.

We see gestures towards something more, but yet here we are having Q show up, still relying on the Borg, Data, Picard, 7 of 9 and everything else they can think up to lean on what came before. And of course, we also have the old chestnuts of the "rotten from within" federation -- which is the most tired trope in all of storytelling -- and this ancient alien also-ran plot.

If this show is so daring, what is it adding to the conversation? What do I know about that society that I didn't before? The show has 21 or so producers, and it's clearly just a mess creatively. Stewart was heavily involved in the writers room, and it shows -- poorly, I would opine.

I can accept that the show is more about characters than larger considerations of the verse and the federation and all of that. Okay. Fine. A different show than what I'd want, but hey, I love character stuff. What I got didn't have one interesting character in the bunch, including Picard.

The show's action leaning and reliance on cheap nostalgia are going to be subjective; some will like all that. Personally, I don't. But this show definitely doesn't have good "craft" -- shot composition, editing, score, writing. And the characters have already exposited their basic sketch. There's nothing I'm curious to learn about these people as lensed through the world they live in. And the lead in the show is literally a passenger in it, someone who is now just living in a robot body as the show shambles towards some clumsy take on blurring organic and AI. And I suspect it's all just a limp attempt to jam Q back in and have some shoot-bang while trying to establish this weak new character set.

But to your point, if the show actually has a following, it will carry on. I'd be surprised if it does, but fair play to those who want more of that. But I'm just here to provide a counterpoint, as I feel a lot of the clap-back against criticism of the show is that it's just people going: "Durr. This isn't muh TNG."

I guess I'd say that science fiction caters to a wide audience, and I would've hoped for a show that would demonstrate more ambition, more vision than this does. It's not a future I'm fascinated to think about. The characters don't spark my curiosity to learn about them. And to be blunt, the show can't even sniff anything resembling "prestige TV." It's barely even functional cable TV.
 

OneTrueJack

Member
Aug 30, 2020
4,633
I'm not concerned with what is real or not real Star Trek, I care about what ideas Star Trek brings with it and how it portrays them. Tng was just probably one of the last to be somewhat ambitious with ideas. This isn't even to say that everything since is bad, DS9 was still good for what it was, it's more that it's all been fairly uninteresting in terms of portraying thoughtful depictions of the future.


I don't see the approach of Picard or Disc as Valid or not, it's more that they, especially Picard do little I find interesting or engaging. There's plenty, at least in Picard (I havens seen all of Discovery) to criticize from the perspective of it being a melodramatic action/adventure series.


When people bring up toxic fandoms in discussion here, I'm wondering what the intent is. is there no discussion to be had in a critical way of contemporary Star Trek without framing it around toxicity or other such implications? Is the discussion in this thread toxic? It feels like the other side of the coin, like some preemptive shutting down critical discussion by using that framing.

If all criticism is just 'out of touch toxic fans that don't like new stuff', then what kind of discussion is there to be had outside of praise?
But that's the point isn't it? If you're a fan of something then of course most of the conversations around it will be positive or involve praise. You're a fan of something because you like it. I've engaged with plenty of Star Trek fans who have had fair and robust criticisms of Discovery or Picard, such as Jessie Gender on Youtube. The difference is those people actually like the shows, so their criticisms are coming from a place of love.

But if someone doesn't love the thing, then their criticism doesn't really matter. It's not coming from a positive space and so there's no real point in engaging with it.

Imagine it. You find these cool new shows called Star Trek. You fall in love with the characters and world, so you hope online and soon find a whole community and are eager to share your experience...but they hate it. They call themselves Star Trek fans but they seem to hate the thing, or at the very least don't have a very high opinion of it. It's a demoralising experience that can leave one feeling dejected or unwelcomed.

The implication of your post seems to be that fans should approach a piece of media with neutrality until being won over, but disagree. The default should be positive. That's what being a fan is. You're a fan because you like the thing, so you seek out other people who like it.
 

Amnesty

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,684
But that's the point isn't it? If you're a fan of something then of course most of the conversations around it will be positive or involve praise. You're a fan of something because you like it. I've engaged with plenty of Star Trek fans who have had fair and robust criticisms of Discovery or Picard, such as Jessie Gender on Youtube. The difference is those people actually like the shows, so their criticisms are coming from a place of love.

But if someone doesn't love the thing, then their criticism doesn't really matter. It's not coming from a positive space and so there's no real point in engaging with it.

Imagine it. You find these cool new shows called Star Trek. You fall in love with the characters and world, so you hope online and soon find a whole community and are eager to share your experience...but they hate it. They call themselves Star Trek fans but they seem to hate the thing, or at the very least don't have a very high opinion of it. It's a demoralising experience that can leave one feeling dejected or unwelcomed.

The implication of your post seems to be that fans should approach a piece of media with neutrality until being won over, but disagree. The default should be positive. That's what being a fan is. You're a fan because you like the thing, so you seek out other people who like it.
That isn't the point of it to me. I don't care about being a fan myself. I am interested in thinking about the things I watch or read. Or, does it have ideas that can be engaged with both in and beyond what is being immediately seen. I am not so much concerned with liking or disliking it. When I'm considering what I view, I am most interested in trying to find the language to describe what has made said thing engaging and how it did so or to unpack the ideas it brings along with it and further extrapolate those, whether in the various contexts seen within the show or outside of it. When something relies heavily on cliches or standard aesthetics or whatever, I don't think it is performing very well in attempting to push one to consider things further than what is depicted. When it's light on ideas and heavy on action and melodrama, there isn't as much room to grow a more thoughtful perspective. When I see it as a negative experience, it's only because it's from the lack of providing insightful material to consider and less so because I'm like 'I hate this'.This isn't to say Star Trek has ever perfectly captured this perspective, but for what has been popular media, it has in the past broached the borders of thinking that most popular media doesn't aspire to.


For instance, I think this is part of why things like the Prime Directive as an idea or thought experiment has been both engaging and uncomfortable for people in discussion (still!), in that it's designed to get the viewer to think and consider and not designed to align with making characters likeable or not or to present it as a righteous unquestionable ideal. I'd like to see more thought experiments with more thorough depictions than say the stuff with Picard's new body or the unintentional, not really thought out - thought experiment of Data's ultimate fate.

So I want the cerebral perspective more than the emotional one.
 

Inugami

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,995
My wife and I both grew up on trek, and we liked Picard enough. It's not the greatest Trek series, but i don't get the visceral hatred so many people have for it.

Looking forward to season 2 since Q has always been a favorite.
 

OneTrueJack

Member
Aug 30, 2020
4,633
We're gonna have to agree to disagree here.

There was nothing redeemable about Picard to me. And Discovery was just a hot mess, I didn't even watch Season 3. I love a serialized format, but Discovery managed to take this format and do nothing with it. Tell me what was so great about the Mirror Universe shenanigans of the first season or the Time Travel shenanigans of the second season? It was all just explosions and crap to me, nothing that appeals me to Trek.

I don't know what universe where Discovery is "one of the best damn shows on at the moment" when shit like The Crown or Better Call Saul or BoJack or The Expanse or hell even The Mandalorian exists. And that's leaving off one shot or finished shows like Chernobyl, The Good Lord Bird, The Queen's Gambit, The Good Place, etc.
Picard has good characters, good performances and a good set-up. Strong contemporary allegorical set-up while also acting as a continuation/reflection upon the TNG-VOY era? Good stuff, lotta mileage there. Like I said it's uneven but all the pieces are there for something great.

As for Discovery, damn I don't know where to even start. The amazing characters brought to life by amazing actors? The compelling themes of identity and how we are shaped by our relationships to others? Idealism versus pragmatism? Finding your place in the world? Season 2's tale of a broken family coming back together? The overarching theme of people coming together, reaching out to one another to try and understand? War, love, romance? The visuals? The directing? The effects?

Like I'm 2/3 of the way through a rewatch and there's just. so. much. I could spend hours talking about the depths of Discovery. Beautiful show. Just beautiful. It sits comfortably alongside all the shows you've listed.

Except for The Mandalorian. I mean it's okay but let's not kid ourselves.
 

Keldroc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,987
Eh, Discovery has plenty of reasons to hate. My issue with them is everything else.

There's a way to present that without coming off as a weird meta-purist, and they fail at that every time. It's not like they don't acknowledge TNG was a shitshow at times, too, but they're so locked into "what Star Trek is" that they won't let it evolve at all. Which is doubly ridiculous considering that TNG was seen as violating Roddenberry's vision of "what Star Trek is" at the time, too. Discovery ain't perfect but it's done in the spirit that has resulted in some really solid Trek in the past, at the very least. Picard's real sin is being boring, in comparison.
 

OneTrueJack

Member
Aug 30, 2020
4,633
That isn't the point of it to me. I don't care about being a fan myself. I am interested in thinking about the things I watch or read. Or, does it have ideas that can be engaged with both in and beyond what is being immediately seen. I am not so much concerned with liking or disliking it. When I'm considering what I view, I am most interested in trying to find the language to describe what has made said thing engaging and how it did so or to unpack the ideas it brings along with it and further extrapolate those, whether in the various contexts seen within the show or outside of it. When something relies heavily on cliches or standard aesthetics or whatever, I don't think it is performing very well in attempting to push one to consider things further than what is depicted. When it's light on ideas and heavy on action and melodrama, there isn't as much room to grow a more thoughtful perspective. When I see it as a negative experience, it's only because it's from the lack of providing insightful material to consider and less so because I'm like 'I hate this'.This isn't to say Star Trek has ever perfectly captured this perspective, but for what has been popular media, it has in the past broached the borders of thinking that most popular media doesn't aspire to.


For instance, I think this is part of why things like the Prime Directive as an idea or thought experiment has been both engaging and uncomfortable for people in discussion (still!), in that it's designed to get the viewer to think and consider and not designed to align with making characters likeable or not or to present it as a righteous unquestionable ideal. I'd like to see more thought experiments with more thorough depictions than say the stuff with Picard's new body or the unintentional, not really thought out - thought experiment of Data's ultimate fate.

So I want the cerebral perspective more than the emotional one.
In that case, I fundamentally disagree with you on the best way to engage with media, haha. For me, I need that emotional hook in. If the media doesn't grab me with its emotional merits then I'm simply never going to care about its intellectual ones. It could have some of the most fascinating, high-concept sci-fi ideas of all time, but if it can't channel those ideas through characters and themes that move me I'm never going to give them a second thought.

For example - The Good Place. That show has received a lot of praise for tackling philosophical ideas within a sitcom, but the fact is that's not why people like it. They like it because the characters fun and the humour is charming.

Or to use your own example, stuff like the Prime Directive didn't ensure Star Trek's place in culture. Only fans even know what that is. It was enduring characters like Kirk and Spock, and the audience's emotional attachment to those characters, that made Star Trek what it is.

Emotion first, intellect second. Otherwise, you're not telling a story, you're giving a lecture. And lectures can be really fun and interesting, but time and place.

I appreciate your response however. I now understand your point of view much better, even if I disagree with it.
 

Quinton

Specialist at TheGamer / Reviewer at RPG Site
Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,276
Midgar, With Love
The first season's flawed but we loved it here overall. I'm not knocking anybody's opinion, but man, Era seems more down on it than any other site I peruse!

Second season's looking great so far. Here for it.
 

Pizza Dog

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,477
The fact that Picard season 1 was such a whiff of a show and still it's Discovery that gets shit from everyone annoys me to no end. Having said that, I'll happily watch any and all Trek that comes along. Discovery has improved season on season (and I enjoyed it to begin with) so hopefully Picard can do the same. That quote about the showrunner checking out because of notes is a real bummer though. That won't change any time soon.
 

Amnesty

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,684
Or to use your own example, stuff like the Prime Directive didn't ensure Star Trek's place in culture. Only fans even know what that is. It was enduring characters like Kirk and Spock, and the audience's emotional attachment to those characters, that made Star Trek what it is.
But I can use the prime directive as a way to engage someone outside of them knowing Star Trek, as a device to inquire about their way of understanding various things. I've had conversations with people who don't know the series and use it as an idea to branch off into discussions about other things like colonialism and the like. There isn't a lot to discuss with someone about how much I like or dislike Spock or whoever, or how moved I was by such and such depiction. I don't have a problem with people having responses like that, but it's not as rewarding to me. I think it's more important overall what media can do to carry its ideas forth outside of their particular context and into discourse beyond that. This is where a cerebral path is more necessary than an emotional one, as an emotional outlook is ultimately more confining in this sense. Emotions are transient whereas ideas can outlast where they originated from.

Emotion first, intellect second. Otherwise, you're not telling a story, you're giving a lecture. And lectures can be really fun and interesting, but time and place.

I appreciate your response however. I now understand your point of view much better, even if I disagree with it.
I don't agree that it has to be seen as a lecture. There's lots of film, art, novels or whatever that aren't about hinging on emotions first and foremost that are still able to wrangle a perspective and response from a viewer that engages the intellect in ways that aren't limited to a lecture like portrayal. You can tell an intellectual story.
 

Grimsen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,262
Q saying "mon capitaine " instead of "mon capitan" like he did on TNG is already music to my years.
 

BossAttack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
42,986
Picard has good characters, good performances and a good set-up. Strong contemporary allegorical set-up while also acting as a continuation/reflection upon the TNG-VOY era? Good stuff, lotta mileage there. Like I said it's uneven but all the pieces are there for something great.

As for Discovery, damn I don't know where to even start. The amazing characters brought to life by amazing actors? The compelling themes of identity and how we are shaped by our relationships to others? Idealism versus pragmatism? Finding your place in the world? Season 2's tale of a broken family coming back together? The overarching theme of people coming together, reaching out to one another to try and understand? War, love, romance? The visuals? The directing? The effects?

Like I'm 2/3 of the way through a rewatch and there's just. so. much. I could spend hours talking about the depths of Discovery. Beautiful show. Just beautiful. It sits comfortably alongside all the shows you've listed.

Except for The Mandalorian. I mean it's okay but let's not kid ourselves.


There's a difference between wanting to convey a theme and executing on said themes. Discovery fails in every way to execute any of its themes. I'm not even going to discuss Picard because I agree with absolutely none of what you listed. Straight trash show.

I don't know how you can look at a show like The Crown and think Discovery sits anywhere NEAR that show.


There's a way to present that without coming off as a weird meta-purist, and they fail at that every time. It's not like they don't acknowledge TNG was a shitshow at times, too, but they're so locked into "what Star Trek is" that they won't let it evolve at all. Which is doubly ridiculous considering that TNG was seen as violating Roddenberry's vision of "what Star Trek is" at the time, too. Discovery ain't perfect but it's done in the spirit that has resulted in some really solid Trek in the past, at the very least. Picard's real sin is being boring, in comparison.

Agreed.
 

B.K.

Member
Oct 31, 2017
17,034
It's going to be a steaming pile of shit like season one, but I'll probably still watch it just for Q.
 

rjinaz

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
28,404
Phoenix
In for Q and Guinan I mean even if the rest of the show is shit, I'd be in for their parts.

I actually liked season 1 though. Just didn't love it.
 

Tavernade

Tavernade
Moderator
Sep 18, 2018
8,630
Hopefully the fact they're (seemingly?) keeping the same crew means we won't lose time gathering everyone up together and then splitting them up anyways. If they can keep the cast together for the show and have them together on the same adventure I have moderate hopes for it.
Loved the first and Riker episodes last season but the subplot on the Borg cube utterly bored me until it was integrated into the main plot, and it kinda dragged down the rest of the show with it for awhile. Like, he's obviously evil and we already know she's an Android, there wasn't much to add there.
 

TortadeJamon

Banned
Dec 23, 2018
908
Also their hatred of Discovery is really, really embarrassing. It's hardly a perfect show but Mike and Rich come off as whiny dipshits every time they talk about it.

They do enjoy bitching about it, but their criticisms are spot on. Discovery is Star Trek made by someone who's never actually seen any Star Trek before, or has no idea what nuance is (compare this to Lower Decks, which after a slow start managed to completely nail the Trek feel by the end of its inaugural season). I strongly suspect that executive meddling is behind it.
 

Cheerilee

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,969
For those who watched Season 1, what made it such a trainwreck. Been meaning to get around to watching it, but the general consensus has had me pause.
Something to note aside from the things others have complained about.

The first three episodes don't have beginnings, middles, or ends. The show's introduction was originally supposed to be two episodes, but then they realized that wasn't working, so they expanded it to three and pushed a later episode out of the series, but they failed to properly convert the three episodes into "episodes", it's just one long 120-minute blob that has been arbitrarily chopped into three 40-minute chunks. The writer of The Inner Light (while trying to be gentle and not slam Picard) said that he would have been laughed out of the TNG writer's room if he had tried to turn in a script with such an obvious massive structural error.

But the Picard show's response was pretty much "Oh, who the fuck cares. We live in the age of streaming and people are going to binge watch this shit anyways, so what does it matter where the episode breaks are?" And the ridiculous thing is, this structural problem could be easily solved by having the show kick off with a 120-minute introductory movie, but someone higher up in the production said "No, not a movie. Episodes. I said episodes. I don't care if they don't have beginnings, middles, or ends. Get to chopping." Oh and then, they decided to drip-feed the episodes out one-per-week, and didn't allow people to binge watch.

That tells you something about the show in general.