Star Trek: Picard - Amazon Prime [** POSSIBLE SPOILERS **]

pixelburp

seamus wrote: »

I remember sometime late in 2018 Anson Mount posted a twitter picture of himself and one of the other actors noting they were "unemployed". DSC season 2 hadn't even ended that run, but this twitter post and the lack of news about a season 3 was absolute proof for a couple of posters that DSC had been cancelled.

There are some who, for whatever reason, are so desperate to for confirmation that the show they hate is hated by everyone, that they'll jump on anything. "Season 9 will be the last one". "Ha! See? I told you it was crap!"

Given Stewart's advanced age, I expect Picard will probably have a short run. 3, maybe 4 seasons. It will serve as a epilogue to the universe of TNG/DS9/VOY rather than a continuation of the epic.

Of course, he may well surprise us. Plenty of actors have continued acting strongly into their 80s. But I'd say he's particular about the things he does and would hate for it to be unfinished.

As mod of the Dr. Who forum, and a regular users of it since the "new" version came back in 2005, I've watched gleeful pronouncements of the show's death since 2005 + 6 months. Needless to say now that the Doc is a woman, those pronouncements have been more eager and cynical. Even professional outlets get in on this weird deathwatch, tabloids loving a good "ratings have plummeted" headline.

It's some weird switch in pop culture fandom: there's a small percentage of those who take such extreme emotional ownership of a property, it turns into a sort of "well if I can't love it, no one should" mentality, a bitter fanaticism that leaps on anything that looks like it might be the carcass. It's sad really, the inability to just go with the flow.

liamtech

pixelburp wrote: »

As mod of the Dr. Who forum, and a regular users of it since the "new" version came back in 2005, I've watched gleeful pronouncements of the show's death since 2005 + 6 months. Needless to say now that the Doc is a woman, those pronouncements have been more eager and cynical. Even professional outlets get in on this weird deathwatch, tabloids loving a good "ratings have plummeted" headline.

It's some weird switch in pop culture fandom: there's a small percentage of those who take such extreme emotional ownership of a property, it turns into a sort of "well if I can't love it, no one should" mentality, a bitter fanaticism that leaps on anything that looks like it might be the carcass. It's sad really, the inability to just go with the flow.

I couldn't agree with you more. As a Whovian and a Trekkie, i have seen so many cynical attacks on both franchises, by those that refer to themselves as 'Purests'. And in effect, its the proposition that any alteration to canon, or unexpected plot development is unacceptable, and usually followed by 'Im not watching [enter franchise] any more'... and 'this is not MY [enter franchise], so i hope it gets cancelled' ... etc

That said, i do think that the opposite of the 'purest', described above, are the fanatical fans who subscribe to 'Blind Faith'. That is, they function as apologists, so that even when an episode or season is clearly poor, they will defend it, actively searching for reasons why the mainstream are wrong for being critical.

I think i fall somewhere in between;

• I was highly critical of Enterprise, especially mid season 2 early season 3, when for the first time, i was not excited by Trek being on TV. Barely watched it when it first aired, and although i caught up, that period has no rewatch value (IMHO)
• Voyager tended to be weaker than DS9 IMHO, and i think it marked the beginning of an overall slip in the TNG Trek Era, which bled over into enterprise - the Voyager Finale was the weakest IMHO
• I think Discovery Season 2 was shockingly poor. Despite a few high point episodes (the Cage sequel, Saru's Home planet, Leiland being 'Assimilated') the overall plot was not enjoyable, and was FAR too Burnham centric. I think it is unfortunate, but where i have rewatched both parts of season 1 (Klingon War and Mirror-verse), i dont really feel the need to rewatch season 2 in its entirety, beyond the few episodes i mentioned.
• With Regards to Doctor who, and i know this is a Trek Forum but bare with me, there are some episodes and periods i constantly return too. Aside from classic who, i found the Eccleston and Tennant era to be very enjoyable, despite the Ex Deus Machina at the end of each season. Some of Matt Smiths run was excellent, and despite having a lot of poor episodes, Capaldi's run was ok, and ended superbly with the Master/Mistress. That said, im critical of a lot of periods, notably Clara's era with Capaldi, along with much of Whitaker's thus far. Not a criticism of Whitaker, she is fantastic and the S12 opener was a real moment for her run. But that last episode (orphan 55) was the worst in a long while IMHO

In any case, the point im making by highlighting the above, is that a more moderate position on a franchise is the correct position for me. I love Trek and Dr Who (and the expanse, and Star Wars, Stargate, and westworld.. etc) and will continue to follow the series from these franchises. Im eagerly awaiting Picard, and hoping that Disco S3 is an improvement on S2. I will never stop following these franchises. But if they disappoint me il say so, and try to explain why.

TheIrishGrover

seamus wrote: »

I remember sometime late in 2018 Anson Mount posted a twitter picture of himself and one of the other actors noting they were "unemployed". DSC season 2 hadn't even ended that run, but this twitter post and the lack of news about a season 3 was absolute proof for a couple of posters that DSC had been cancelled.

There are some who, for whatever reason, are so desperate to for confirmation that the show they hate is hated by everyone, that they'll jump on anything. "Season 9 will be the last one". "Ha! See? I told you it was crap!"

Given Stewart's advanced age, I expect Picard will probably have a short run. 3, maybe 4 seasons. It will serve as a epilogue to the universe of TNG/DS9/VOY rather than a continuation of the epic.

Of course, he may well surprise us. Plenty of actors have continued acting strongly into their 80s. But I'd say he's particular about the things he does and would hate for it to be unfinished.

Exactly. And they are typically very picky with their "facts": "Anson Mount says show was cancelled!!!!" No. Anson Mount was always meant to be part of the show as a guest star for one season only. Even before Season 1 ended we knew that. Anson Mount was ALWAYS going to go back to The Enterprise. But that's beside the point. He said he was going to be unemployed and that is because Discovery sux (Not opinion - FACT) and the "purists" are right and it got cancelled. Much to EVERYONE's delight (Apart from so-called "Fans" who actually LIKE Discovery)

As for Picard: I would imagine that, as you said, given Stewart's age, we would probably get two seasons and that will be it.

But, obviously instead of it completing its planned story arc it will be CANCELLED 'cos Picard sux. Bringing in his contemporaries for a bit of advice? Talking to friends he worked with for YEARS in extreme circumstances? Oh, desperation.

As others have said: I would have been surprised if they didn't bring in the TNG crew at some stage. I would imagine that TNG crew will be very brief cameos. As a matter of fact, I would imagine that the trailers have pretty much shown most of their scenes. Spiner from TNG and Jeri Ryan may be in it a bit more given their connections to The Borg but that would be it.

Had they simply ignored the TNG cast the "purists" would say: "OMG, they couldn't even get the rest of the cast back. Sad". No, had they not brought in some of the other cast it would have been like that scene from Deadpool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7JYzpBAxiI

pah

liamtech wrote: »

I will never stop following these franchises. But if they disappoint me il say so, and try to explain why.

I've always equated fandom to that of supporting a sports team. There are highs and lows but you will always watch the game and deconstruct it afterwards for better or worse.

FutureGuy

Burty330 wrote: »

The person called FurtueGuy claimed they have a role to play in the story.

Its rumored they only turn up to give Picard some advice on his new adventure.

I looked up the IMDB page and saw Data and 7of9 are only credited for a single episode.
Troi and Riker are credited on 2 episodes.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out their appearances will be brief and play no part to the overall story.

Their role is to get people interested and it works as everybody wants to see Picard reunited with the old guard one more time,
A marketing gimmic if you will.
So i was right and FutureMan was wrong.

It is I. Futureguy/futureman.

It’s been stated that there is a reason for their presence in the series and they further the story. In fact it would be dumb if we didn’t see them or other characters from the time. Who’s Picard going to turn to a ice otter than one of his most trusted friends in Riker. Who’s he going to turn to expect a reclaimed Borg in 7 of 9. Would you rather they be replaced by characters you’ve never heard of before?

I don’t think anyone is under the illusion that they are not anything more than cameo roles. You’d swear it’s never been done before.

We’ve had Sarek, Spock, McCoy and Scotty on TNG.
Bashir on TNG.
Picard and the Enterprise on DS9.
Riker and Troi on Voyager.
Q on DS9 and Voyager.
Quark on Voyager.

That’s a handful of the top of my head.

As for pilots where we would expect seven to turn up.

Encounter at Farpoint had Dr. McCoy.
Emissary had Picard and the Enterprise.
Caretaker had Quark and DS9.

Were you as upset then as you are now?

Stark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_crossovers

Nope, never been done before Discovery/Picard

FutureGuy

Stark wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_crossovers

Nope, never been done before Discovery/Picard

Great list!

H3llR4iser

pixelburp wrote: »

As mod of the Dr. Who forum, and a regular users of it since the "new" version came back in 2005, I've watched gleeful pronouncements of the show's death since 2005 + 6 months. Needless to say now that the Doc is a woman, those pronouncements have been more eager and cynical. Even professional outlets get in on this weird deathwatch, tabloids loving a good "ratings have plummeted" headline.

It's some weird switch in pop culture fandom: there's a small percentage of those who take such extreme emotional ownership of a property, it turns into a sort of "well if I can't love it, no one should" mentality, a bitter fanaticism that leaps on anything that looks like it might be the carcass. It's sad really, the inability to just go with the flow.

With Star Trek, it's a classic - every new series "sucks" until it doesn't anymore. People complained when DS9 started ("to boldly sit exactly where we are!" was a common trope, seeing it was about a space station), complained infinitely about Voyager, Enterprise was blasted into oblivion; While each one of these shows had their own merits; DS9 especially, watched a few years (ehrm...decades....) later, had some great episodes and story arcs.

Discovery...it's complicated; It's got some decent moments and interesting characters (Saru especially, but also Stamets and mirror-Georgiou); Yet, nothing I have ever watched has caused me extreme "eyeroll" moments as much as it does. Writing is...banal, for lack of a better definition. You can tell what a specific character is gonna say, what's gonna happen next and that Burnham is gonna save the day. It's too focused around one single character, which also happens to be bland and stupidly stereotypical; The desperate attempts the writers made to give her some "emotional depth" pushed her even further into pure Mary Sue territory - Wesley 2.0 for all intents and purposes .

Evade

H3llR4iser wrote: »

With Star Trek, it's a classic - every new series "sucks" until it doesn't anymore.

The funny thing about that is it's true. The first two seasons of every post TOS series are the worst.

Brian?

Evade wrote: »

The funny thing about that is it's true. The first two seasons of every post TOS series are the worst.

The first 2 series of TNG were great. Every series was IMO. But I watched them all on Network 2 every Saturday night. It’s a huge difference when you have to wait each week for an episode.

Slydice

Brian? wrote: »

The first 2 series of TNG were great. Every series was IMO. But I watched them all on Network 2 every Saturday night. It’s a huge difference when you have to wait each week for an episode.

and if you missed one .. OMFG!

Evade

Brian? wrote: »

The first 2 series of TNG were great. Every series was IMO. But I watched them all on Network 2 every Saturday night. It’s a huge difference when you have to wait each week for an episode.

I like them, I think people should watch them, but great? I can't agree. There are a couple of really good episodes but there are a lot of dire ones too.

BrookieD

TNG Series 1 on SYFY channel at the mo. some dodgy stuff there but some gems also. given the time though and issues they did ok to get to Series 3 when it took off with BOBW - classics

Rawr

I'm kind of looking forward to Picard in with a sense of very cautious optimism.

I'm optimistic because this finally looks like a continuation from the TNG era. After over a decade messing about with the past in various forms, we are finally moving past Nemsis to something new, and I like that.

However, I've been disappointed recently before with the current producers of Star Trek and if they haven't learned from their mistakes in Discovery (or don't see them as mistakes) I fear that these folk might manage to seize failure from the jaws of success.

On paper this should should be really good. We get Picard, we get clear links with the TNG world. We even get Picard as some sort of riotous 'Renegade' against a corrupt Federation. Some critics decry that change in tone, but frankly this is what I thought Star Trek: Insurrection was going to be, and was very disappointed with the silly TNG 2-parter we got instead. This should all work IF they don't somehow mess it all up.

So I'm optimistic, but also preparing myself for a disappointment...because if feels foolish not to.

Burty330

Its a continuation from the 2009 movie staring Chris Pike , not a continuation form TNG.

This is alternate licencee / alternate time line Trek that just happens to feature Picard.


There's Info readily available with a simple google search that tells you it will be radically different from the TNG.

This will be mickey mouse level Trek as long as Clutzman is steering the ship.

It will become apparent when the Fedaration turns bad to reflect on Clutzmans view of the current US government.

The Federation who initiated the Prime Directive were the baddies all along cos Clutzman wants to make a political statement.

Sci-Fi is beyond the pushing of ones personal political beliefs.

Gene Rodenbury vision of the future wasn't doom& gloom like it is on Discracery Era Trek.

pixelburp

Burty330 wrote: »

Its a continuation from the 2009 movie staring Chris Pike , not a continuation form TNG.

This is alternate licencee / alternate time line Trek that just happens to feature Picard.


There's Info readily available with a simple google search that tells you it will be radically different from the TNG.

This will be mickey mouse level Trek as long as Clutzman is steering the ship.

It will become apparent when the Fedaration turns bad to reflect on Clutzmans view of the current US government.

The Federation who initiated the Prime Directive were the baddies all along cos Clutzman wants to make a political statement.

Sci-Fi is beyond the pushing of ones personal political beliefs.

Gene Rodenbury vision of the future wasn't doom& gloom like it is on Discracery Era Trek.

If you mean it's set in the world post Romulus' destruction, then that's the main TNG timeline, the Prime timeline.

The rest is just weird. Star Trek has ALWAYS been political - claiming otherwise is just nonsense. The only difference is time but TOS' views were most certainly political in the 1960s.

seamus

pixelburp wrote: »

If you mean it's set in the world post Romulus' destruction, then that's the main TNG timeline, the Prime timeline.

The rest is just weird. Star Trek has ALWAYS been political - claiming otherwise is just nonsense. The only difference is time.

Seriously. Getting really desperate now to justify hating a TV series that nobody has seen yet.

Burty, maybe you could just...not watch it?

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

The rest is just weird. Star Trek has ALWAYS been political - claiming otherwise is just nonsense. The only difference is time but TOS' views were most certainly political in the 1960s.

I think it's a little more hamfisted these days and often over far less important topics. I can only hope Stewarts "Picard is my response to Trump and Brexit" is completely out of context otherwise I can see an orange alien villain breathlessly shouting "Make X great again."

pixelburp

Evade wrote: »

I think it's a little more hamfisted these days and often over far less important topics. I can only hope Stewarts "Picard is my response to Trump and Brexit" is completely out of context otherwise I can see an orange alien villain breathlessly shouting "Make X great again."

TOS had a race of aliens who were half white and half black. Don't buy that argument for a second. Trek was never nuanced or subtle as we think - the only difference is that most of us weren't watching it live in the 1960s when issues of race, or nuclear war were real and present issues in politics. I'm sure plenty of folk were shouting at their tellies about the PC correctness shoving black and asian people in their faces.

Burty330

pixelburp wrote: »

If you mean it's set in the world post Romulus' destruction, then that's the main TNG timeline, the Prime timeline.

The rest is just weird. Star Trek has ALWAYS been political - claiming otherwise is just nonsense. The only difference is time but TOS' views were most certainly political in the 1960s.

Of course its always been political and very progressive. Never said it wasn't.

Im not on-board with perspectives from either side of the fence being portrayed to make a statement on the current political divide.
Thats the difference. Picard will be full of it from what ive being reading. I don't base my opinions on nothing like FartyMan.

Me saying it will be bad is just as valid as the people saying it will be good.

pixelburp

Burty330 wrote: »

Of course its always been political and very progressive. Never said it wasn't.

Im not on-board with perspectives from either side of the fence being portrayed to make a statement on the current political divide.
Thats the difference. Picard will be full of it from what ive being reading. I don't base my opinions on nothing like FartyMan.

Me saying it will be bad is just as valid as the people saying it will be good.

Debatable. Nobody's saying it'll be good, everyone here has been saying, repeatedly, "wait and see" cos you can't judge a show you haven't seen. Nobody has seen this show yet - there haven't even been any screener reviews yet. But you've clearly made up your mind and just trying to find outlets for some confirmation bias.

Especially in making stuff up about Netflix data, or where the show is set.

pixelburp

Just to put a lid on the stuff about it being in the Kelvin-verse:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/star-trek-picard-boss-clears-up-timeline-confusion/1100-6472693/

...executive producer Alex Kurtzman cleared up any confusion at the TCA winter press tour panel for the show. "We're in the prime timeline," he explained. "Events from the Kelvin timeline impacted Picard, but if you look at that movie, the destruction of Romulus was in the Prime timeline. It is what enabled the Kelvin timeline jump to happen. So that is very consistent with canon."

Stark

Fecking hell. You have to wonder are these people Trek fans at all. TOS was basically a show about post-capitalist era humanists stuffed full of cold war era analogies and a bridge crew that was as lefty virtue signalling diverse as you could get away with at the time. TNG more or less a continuation on the theme. DS9 was the first to shake it up a bit with more complex villain races and a move on from the cold war era analogies.

It's always been political and always left leaning.

Calhoun

Stark wrote: »

Fecking hell. You have to wonder are these people Trek fans at all. TOS was basically a show about post-capitalist era humanists stuffed full of cold war era analogies and a bridge crew that was as lefty virtue signalling diverse as you could get away with at the time. TNG more or less a continuation on the theme. DS9 was the first to shake it up a bit with more complex villain races and a move on from the cold war era analogies.

It's always been political and always left leaning.

Its just the way things are at the moment in 2020, people are vocal on everything because information and interviews are so readily available with stars.

Like if you look at the recent starwars film and the whole Reylo crap you have to wonder if people aren't loosing their minds a bit.

Fandom's are great and its good to be passionate but when you let your expectations ect spoil it you need to take a step back. Do i believe that political messaging should be ham fisted and pushed down your neck? no of course not and the thing with Trek has always been political but it has been nuanced in how it delivered its message.

Without actually seeing the series no one can really complain about it. I would point to the witcher on the netflix as an example of why you should never assume. When the citizens of the internet saw the writing staff they assumed it would be crap but its doing very well and people were wrong about it.

AtomicHorror

Someone's been watching Nerdrotic and Midnight's Edge. Spoofers.

How many times have they rumoured Discovery cancelled? Now Picard is renewed for Season 2 on the strength of internal viewings alone and they're falling over themselves to shout why it's going to be a terrible betrayal of Trek anyway.

If you're not a fan of Trek anymore, just be at peace with that. Just draw a line at whatever point it stopped being "real" Trek for you and stick to the stuff before that. It still exists. They didn't delete it all. If you want new material, write some fanfic. Please don't share it.

BrookieD

Burty330 wrote: »

Its a continuation from the 2009 movie staring Chris Pike , not a continuation form TNG.

This is alternate licencee / alternate time line Trek that just happens to feature Picard.


There's Info readily available with a simple google search that tells you it will be radically different from the TNG.

This will be mickey mouse level Trek as long as Clutzman is steering the ship.

It will become apparent when the Fedaration turns bad to reflect on Clutzmans view of the current US government.

The Federation who initiated the Prime Directive were the baddies all along cos Clutzman wants to make a political statement.

Sci-Fi is beyond the pushing of ones personal political beliefs.

Gene Rodenbury vision of the future wasn't doom& gloom like it is on Discracery Era Trek.

ok to be honest you just seem to be on the troll bus, so well done and run along home to your basement and play the keyboard warrior game elsewhere.:rolleyes:

Slydice

Stark wrote: »

It's always been political and always left leaning.

Picard lays out the the Federation pretty well here...

marcbrophy

In actual STP news, a quick snippet from IGN here!
Of course it being IGN, the title isn't actually answered at all really!
Interesting points brought up, might stray into spoiler territory for some, but fairly mild

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_8t8lEwhtg

ilovesmybrick

Eh, I think that most people are on the wait and see perspective, though obviously we're hoping for something great.

However, this nonsense about it going away from "true" trek should be ignored. I grew up on TNG and love it, and it's my de-facto trek to have on in the background. DS9 is the trek I love. I've grown to appreciate VOY and ENT for what they are over the years. Do I want new Trek to be any of these shows? Damn no! TNG, DS9 & VOY are all over 25 years old. They were great for their time, but I like seeing the franchise evolve. Do aspects of the JJ films drive me nuts, sure, but so do at least half of the TOS films. Hell, at least half of the TNG films were...not great. Doesn't matter, the franchise evolves, and has to evolve. I want new trek, I don't want the trek I saw thirty years ago.

And this idea that new trek is too liberal or political, go back and watch Star Trek IV (one that I'm not a huge fan of, but that's aside the point!) and tell me that they weren't pushing a perspective. Also in terms of Roddenbury's vision, the studio had begun to sideline Roddenberry back during the Wrath of Khan filming, well prior to TNG, allowing them to follow more nuanced concepts for the time. If we followed his vision of the future, we would have never gotten an episode like In the Pale Moonlight.


If it comes out and its bilge, that's fine, but stop projecting what you think it will be, and what you think Trek is, onto something no one has seen yet. You don't know, and neither does anyone on youtube. It deserves to be given a chance, or else we don't get to see the franchise evolve and we stay watching stories relevant to the 60's, 80's and 90's, and see nothing that grows the IP into something new.

AMKC

So I see this has had it premiere in Los Angelos yesterday and then London today. The first three episode were shown at the on in LA no idea about what they seen in London. I would expect there will be reviews up in the next week sometime.