Star Trek: Picard - Amazon Prime [ POSSIBLE SPOILERS ]

H3llR4iser · 14-05-2020 06:36PM

First of all, let me start with the fact that the problem of exaggerated criticism of new interpretations of old franchises is real: people made their own version of them in their minds and are upset when the real thing doesn't mirror that. Happens with everything - look at the recent Streets Of Rage game release, with a lot of people dissing it because the art style and the music are, essentially, not the same as 30 years go.

Picard - I enjoyed it and shock, horror, I'm a long term Trekkie who watched every single episode, movie, animated series and whatnot. It DOES have pitfalls - the story is a rehashed "been there done that" and the Romulans being characterized as, basically, space elves is as dumb as it gets; Plus, an entire season without seeing neither a Romulan nor a Federation ship and their interior is weird - the ships and their "look & feel" onboard have been the hearth & soul of Star Trek, what makes it so that 0.3 seconds after seeing a single frame, everyone would immediately go "It's from Star Trek" (and one of the main reasons why the Orville is so loved by long time Trekkies). The preachyness...well, it's Picard, isn't he? He IS supposed to be the best diplomat the Federation ever saw...

And this leads to the main issue - "old" Trek tried to make the audience think and reflect (with the odd weird/silly/hamfisted episode); New Trek tells its audience what to think, with a "like this or else..." tone.

When it comes to Discovery...there's a huge, gigantic elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about, because it's not politically correct...but screw it, I'm doing this.

The big problem is that Burnham behaves, talks, looks and feels like the grandmother of all tryhard token characters. Every single one of her defining characteristics has been crafted specifically to reinforce that...almost as if the writers and producers were more interested in making a show about their "strong, unconventional black woman main character who has a male name just so we tick all the boxes!" than making a good show, nor a Star Trek show for what matters. And if you don't like her, nor the idea, or dare criticizing the character - you're a racist misogynist.

Fact is, I don't care if a character is a slimy Tentaculoid from the outer moon of Exor II-C communicating via explosive sperm emissions. I don't identify with characters, never have; The fact that Sisko was a black dude, Janeway a woman and Kira an ALIEN woman never even registered with me - they're respectively the most badass Captain ever seen on Star Trek (the one you REALLY don't want to p1ss off), the Captain who managed to keep her crew and ship together faced with the most desperate situation and the most annoyingly stubborn but well-meaning First Officer seen on screen.

Once you have a character like Burhnam being the reason for your show to exist, you're doomed, essentially - there isn't anything you can do to save the story from becoming just a scenario to show off the character, unless you completely abandon the initial premise and start afresh. Which might happen in season 3, but I wouldn't put my money on it.

Stark · 14-05-2020 06:39PM

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

they were still better than discovery.

Take away the effects, cgi, hi def, what did it have ?
A show almost entirely based on one character, that is not going to work.

Enterprise and voyager were widely slated, and had more than their share of dud episodes, but they had more decent ones in the first 2 season than discovery in my opinion.

No they weren't. I really struggled through early episodes of DS9, only kept going by the promise of it getting better. Loads of guides on the Internet on how to get through the first two seasons as fast as possible without missing the important bits for later seasons.

Similar with Enterprise's first two seasons, like watching paint dry. Voyager did have quite a lot of very enjoyable episodes in its first two seasons in fairness.

I was genuinely excited for every new episode of Discovery during its first season run. Plenty to criticise but it was never dull.

Justin Credible Darts · 14-05-2020 09:05PM

Stark wrote: »

No they weren't. I really struggled through early episodes of DS9, only kept going by the promise of it getting better. Loads of guides on the Internet on how to get through the first two seasons as fast as possible without missing the important bits for later seasons.

Similar with Enterprise's first two seasons, like watching paint dry. Voyager did have quite a lot of very enjoyable episodes in its first two seasons in fairness.

I was genuinely excited for every new episode of Discovery during its first season run. Plenty to criticise but it was never dull.

I finished my post you quoted with the 3 words "in my opinion".

You obviously share a different opinion, and thats fine but it does not make it fact.

I never saw enterprise when it aired, it was years later I got around to watching it, maybe because of the slating it got I was not expecting much, so was pleasantly surprised when I found it to be better than I thought it would be, maybe i set the bar low or stupidly allowed myself to believe nobodies on the net giving their reviews.

My point is screw internet guides, reviews from other people, I will make my own decision and whilst it may or may not be popular, I consider enterprise and voyager, better than discovery by a country mile.

Inviere · 15-05-2020 07:37AM

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

My point is screw internet guides, reviews from other people, I will make my own decision...

Amen to that.

...and whilst it may or may not be popular, I consider enterprise and voyager, better than discovery by a country mile.

Agreed (so far anyway). While ultimately until Discovery finishes as a show, we won't be able to really soak it in, it hasn't covered itself in glory, despite having the benefit of decades worth of Trek mistakes to avoid.

Rawr · 15-05-2020 09:22AM

H3llR4iser wrote: »

When it comes to Discovery...there's a huge, gigantic elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about, because it's not politically correct...but screw it, I'm doing this.

The big problem is that Burnham behaves, talks, looks and feels like the grandmother of all tryhard token characters. Every single one of her defining characteristics has been crafted specifically to reinforce that...almost as if the writers and producers were more interested in making a show about their "strong, unconventional black woman main character who has a male name just so we tick all the boxes!" than making a good show, nor a Star Trek show for what matters. And if you don't like her, nor the idea, or dare criticizing the character - you're a racist misogynist.

Nicely summed up post

I'm going to try to avoid going off onto a Michael rant because I guess I should save that for a Discovery thread. But what you mention is something I have felt as well, this rather blatant need of some shows to flash a sort of "Social Responsibility" score card in order to telegraph to the world how they managed to one-up other shows with their ability to score more "points".

Many have said that Trek has always been a progressive show, and it has been. But these steps at progression often felt to be beside the point, since the characters themselves were front and center. Although the Kirk / Uhura kiss elevated as this world-blowing first on-air interracial kiss...most followers of Trek would probably be more concerned with why the characters of Kirk and Uhura would even be kissing, due to the nature of how they relate to each other. It was the characters, not the race they happened to be which I feel mattered.

I remember some amount of a deal being made about Cisco when DS9 started. Again, was he a token black Captain? Or was he a man who was haunted by Wolf 359, trying his best to raise his son alone while rebuilding a space station and later becoming this awesome hard-as-nails war-captain who could design & build warships...all the while still being able go and hang out with his staff at Quarks?

Janeway's gender was a big deal for a short while too. We often debate wither or not she was a good captain, but I don't remember any debate about her gender being an issue. She was the Captain of Voyager and that felt perfectly natural. As with anyone else, it was her character we related to.

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that although diversity has been a theme in TV/Movie production over the past load of decades, I feel that it had often been done in the context of hiring people into developed roles that could have just as easily been applied to a person with any particular attribute. It was never enough to simply fill out the diversity check-list, you also had to make a decent character.

In the past 10 years, I can't help but wonder if that last point has been lost to the current batch of TV production staffers. I think many of them are filling out their Social Responsibility checklist first and foremost to gain public praise from the industry media, and then phoning in the rest. Then in some cases, like with Burnham alas, they forget that they needed to properly build up their character in order for the viewers to relate to that personality. But it appears they either rushed or poorly developed their ideas for her character and now we're still talking about her being a token diversity point for the show. If they had done a better job, I feel we would now be discussing how she was a good / bad first officer. We might be discussing her relationship with Vulcan society, if they had done a better job there. We might be discussing how she managed to redeem herself after starting a war...if they hadn't just glossed over that.

Another issue I feel worth mentioning is that these days by filling out their Social Responsibility checklist, shows suddenly gain a sort of criticism-armor. You cannot critique a show where lead characters are female, because then you are sexist. Critique of a show like Discovery might imply that you are racist or homophobic etc... I feel that production staff know this, and apply this armor as a way to also gloss over their failings.

The pay off of all of this I fear will be a further decline in the quality of writing and character development. Cast and crew will be wonderfully diverse which would be great, but the quality will likely be lacking over time. I fear a future where sci-fi shows might become increasingly soul-less and devoid of character while the production companies involved slap each other on the back in congratulations of how inclusive and "ground-breaking" they have been in the process.

That all said, I am hopeful that talent still exists and that Picard Season 2 and Discovery Season 3 still have the potential of becoming good Trek. They just need to remember that it was the characters that won us over.

Inviere · 15-05-2020 09:32AM

^^ Well said. Yes, Trek has always...always been progressive...but it had a point in being so...to break down barriers, and it seriously worked and made many many people the better for it. That's going right from the 60's, all the way up until the golden era of the 90's. No matter the decade, no matter the series of Trek...the progressive nature of the different shows were unified at their core. (Some edge cases aside, like the Africa in space TNG episode)

I feel while Trek is still progressive today, it can be a bit hit & miss in terms of what it's trying to achieve with it, and veers dangerously close to tokenism as Rawr rightly says. TOS, TNG, DS9...hell even Voyager made you stop and think sometimes, because there was always a certain quality and richness of what they were trying to achieve in this context. That can appear lost today, in an almost shallow attempt to tick a social box these days, having no other point.

Star Trek in this sense used to look at what social issues were relevant, and write wonderful ways of exposing things like racism, sexism, class, etc for what they really were. Today, it can feel a bit "virtuous", without actually tackling a social issue. Not always, but yeah. I've certainly had that impression at times in Discovery AND Picard.

pixelburp · 15-05-2020 09:35AM

H3llR4iser wrote: »

...
The big problem is that Burnham behaves, talks, looks and feels like the grandmother of all tryhard token characters. Every single one of her defining characteristics has been crafted specifically to reinforce that...almost as if the writers and producers were more interested in making a show about their "strong, unconventional black woman main character who has a male name just so we tick all the boxes!" than making a good show, nor a Star Trek show for what matters. And if you don't like her, nor the idea, or dare criticizing the character - you're a racist misogynist.
...

Just on the Burnham's first name as a rod to beat the show with, that's an affectation of original show-runner & writer Bryan Fuller: one of his "things" he has done in the past is giving female characters ostensibly male names (See "Chuck" in Pushing Daisies). AFAIK nothing is meant by it, it's just a little authorial signature.

Not going to get into another debate about the tonal approach of Discoveries philosophies - I fundamentally think people are finding what they want to see but we're not going to agree - but "Michael Burnham" isn't an "diversity yeah!" air-punch, it's just a holdover from the original writer's idiosyncratic way of writing his characters. Aside from anything else, I've never read or seen a single "SJW" seriously try to re-appropriate first names. That sounds like something from The Onion TBH.

Inviere · 15-05-2020 09:37AM

pixelburp wrote: »

but "Michael Burnham" isn't an "diversity yeah!" air-punch

Who said it was

It's a minor minor part of the show's premise, & one I happen to like. It really suits the character imo. If Discovery felt the need to tackle appropriate gender naming, I think the show would have big big issues.

pixelburp · 15-05-2020 09:42AM

I wasn't replying to you Inviere. Post updated with specific reply.

Inviere · 15-05-2020 09:48AM

pixelburp wrote: »

I wasn't replying to you Inviere. Post updated with specific reply.

Fair enough, though even in terms of the shows fans and its detractors, I think deriding the show because of the name is pretty small fry. It's a non issue imo.

I don't think there's a genuine Trek fan out there who has an issue with the notion of a "strong, unconventional, black woman" as a main character. It's the writing of said character that has polarised people in context of critique. I've said previously, I don't mind Burnham whatsoever...she's one character, she's flawed, interesting, isn't perfect, etc. I can see why though, it'd annoy people, that she has to be front & center of everything important going on. To me though, that's not a character fault....but a glaring writing fault.

odyssey06 · 15-05-2020 10:00AM

Inviere wrote: »

Fair enough, though even in terms of the shows fans and its detractors, I think deriding the show because of the name is pretty small fry. It's a non issue imo.
I don't think there's a genuine Trek fan out there who has an issue with the notion of a "strong, unconventional, black woman" as a main character. It's the writing of said character that has polarised people in context of critique. I've said previously, I don't mind Burnham whatsoever...she's one character, she's flawed, interesting, isn't perfect, etc. I can see why though, it'd annoy people, that she has to be front & center of everything important going on. To me though, that's not a character fault....but a glaring writing fault.

Yep, I like Burnham as a Trek character, but it's too much to rest the series on her.
If we forgot the generational difference, I can imagine her as a character in TNG or DS9 or Voyager, just as a human following logic with a connection to Vulcan (rather than Spock).

And, looking at her IMDB credits I don't think Sonequa Martin-Green has been the lead in any other series or film or major theatrical production. I don't think the character or the actress have 'star vehicle' potential in a way you could do that.

Stark · 15-05-2020 10:10AM

I could agree with that. Tbh, she's as good as many of the secondary characters on TNG/Voyager/Enterprise so if they removed the focus from her a bit, she'd probably be perfectly likeable. I did hear her referred to as "Commander Burnham" a few times in the season 3 trailer so hopefully that means Suru is captain and gets a bit more focus in season 3.

odyssey06 · 15-05-2020 10:32AM

Stark wrote: »

I could agree with that. Tbh, she's as good as many of the secondary characters on TNG/Voyager/Enterprise so if they removed the focus from her a bit, she'd probably be perfectly likeable. I did hear her referred to as "Commander Burnham" a few times in the season 3 trailer so hopefully that means Suru is captain and gets a bit more focus in season 3.

To continue the theme, I think Ensign Ro is a great character, and I know Trek producers wanted her for the 'Kira' role on DS9.
Now imagine if Michelle Forbes had taken the role, but as the lead rather than one in an ensemble. It would have distorted the whole show and narrowed what stories could be told.

TheIrishGrover · 15-05-2020 10:36AM

Some interesting posts there and while I don't totally agree, there is some truth to them. I'll start with Discovery but much of this post also applied to Picard.

It's the focus the main character is given. To the detriment of other, potentially more interesting characters.

First off, I like Discovery. I think the characters in general are much more enjoyable and interesting than the last two Trek series:

Doug Jones is the best prosthetic actor in the business and his performance is simply amazing. His character is easily the best non-human character since Garak (Although, since all you had inbetween was Neelix, Kes and Flox, that's not saying much)
I like Stamets and Culber and their relationship. They really had to jump through hoops to get the doc back but I like both actors (And the other doctor who has a couple of zingers. Don't know her name or if she had one)
I LOVE the new engineer. I think she's hilarious. ("I had a dream I played base with Prince. Weird". I almost spit me tea over the tele laughing at that)
I even like Tilly.

And I DO like Burnham. The actor is great and she's put in some very good performances (And, admittedly, some not so good but in general). I have no problem with her gender or the colour of her skin (And I'm not saying anyone in the previous posts has either). But her character is, by far, the blandest of characters on the show. She can do no wrong and the world seems to revolve around her. This is something that was fine in TOS: The world revolved around Kirk in TOS. But he was the captain and it was also a simpler time regarding TV shows. It was throw-away episode of the week stuff. The show was about a bunch of (mostly) Americans going out and sticking their noses in

But Burnham is NOT a captain, she is breathtakingly arrogant, seems to know EVERTHING and the cast seem to revolve around her (At one stage there is literally a scene where she walks onto the bridge in slow motion and everyone stops one by one to watch her pass).

Almost every episode revolves around her. I know she's our POV character but come on. Look at how many episodes of TNG focused on Data or Riker or Worf or even WESLEY! with Picard barely appearing. Hell, Lwaxxana Troi got her own episodes and while they were generally painful, they were there.

So it's kind of like Homer on Poochie on The Simpsons: "When Poochie is not on screen Itchy and Scratchy should reference him - 'Where's Poochie? Have you seen Poochie' etc. ". Even episodes that don't revolve around Burnham, they are STILL about her actions.

I am coming across harsh, I really like Discovery I just think they need to back off Burnham by about 20% and give the other characters some space...... Oh, and give us our Goddamn Pike Series! Now! and give "Number 1" more to do, Every one of her (few) lines was great

And....

The same goes for Picard. I know, I know, "The show is called PICARD! Who is is supposed to focus on?" But not to the detriment of all other characters. There was potential in each of the characters but they were smothered by the focus on Picard:

Raffi - Her whole career destroyed by Picard. She has good reason to hate him. And she does. For a whole episode then it's JL JL JL JL JL JL Jay...f*cking...Ell (Take note showrunners. EVERYONE hated it). Whole family she lost contact with? 10 mins. Back to JL JL JL JL

Rios - Initially thought he was going to be a one-note Han Solo wannabe. Then saw his TERRIBLE Oirish accent. Then accpeted that as intentional. Started to look interesting. Then Back to one note Han-Solo for you, baby.

Alison Pil - An actor I like and was expecting good things from. Was so all over the shop that people (Myself included) thought she might be an immature android.

Romulan Ronin - Brief interesting glimpses of more than noble warrior brutally quashed.

Romulan siblings: Were SO OTT that's I'd say half their bugdet went on sets after they ate the scenery. My God. All they were missing were thin mustaches to twirl and go "MWHAHAHAHA"

And the rest.

The only person that stood out was Seven's rage which was fantastic. And Riker's humanity.

Last scene seemed to be Picard and his motley crew go out and find adventure/solve mysteries....

I may be a little harsh on Picard because we are only 10 episodes in but I was SO looking forward to it.

Ballso · 15-05-2020 11:30AM

Picard doesn't focus on Picard though, he's an afterthought. A doddery aul fella constantly being belittled by poorly written female characters for some bizarre reason. Christ I'm still cringing from the Fox News lady bit. The character is unrecognizable from Picard in TNG.

Rawr · 15-05-2020 11:56AM

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Romulan siblings: Were SO OTT that's I'd say half their bugdet went on sets after they ate the scenery. My God. All they were missing were thin mustaches to twirl and go "MWHAHAHAHA"

+1
Although....now that I'm imagining it, I might have actually liked them if they leaned into it and just became cartoon villians.

[On the artifact]
Brother: Let us fool that FOOLISH ANDROID GIRL to betray the location of her homeworld! Moo ha ha HA!

Sister: Yes, let us fool her for the sake of EVIL!"

Brother: Yes! FOR EVIIIIIL!!! Mooo HA HA HAH!

[They both bust into evil laughter while Hugh looks on from a nearby platform]
Hugh: .....the hell?

pixelburp · 15-05-2020 12:06PM

Getting back to updates on the second season, related to the current topic anyway, Patrick Stewart confirmed that Narek wouldn't be returning:

One of the open questions left from the season one finale was the fate of Harry Treadaway’s Romulan operative Narek, last seen being taken into custody by the Synths, although Michael Chabon said there was a deleted scene that showed him being handed over to the Federation. When talking about what it was like working with the rest of the Picard cast, Stewart indicated Treadaway may not be back for season two:

We have a dazzling group of actors. No matter who I find myself playing a scene with, it is interesting, unusual, challenging, and always exciting. And every one of us is back. Well, I think we may have said goodbye to Harry Treadaway, which I am disappointed about because I enjoyed working with him so much.

https://trekmovie.com/2020/05/13/patrick-stewart-talks-startling-events-for-star-trek-picard-season-two-hints-at-more-tng-guest-stars/

Stark · 15-05-2020 12:15PM

I'm actually sort of disappointed. On his own, he wasn't a bad actor/character. The sister was atrocious though, and dragged him down to her level in any scenes where they were together. Thought the end of season 1 left them with interesting places to go for him.

pixelburp · 15-05-2020 12:21PM

It did feel like they might have been building towards some kind of redemptive arc all right: Narek seemed to be legitimately conflicted about his feeings for Soji, hinting that he could yet come around. Wonder why he's not coming back - if it's the production team or the actor simply not wanting to return.

Evade · 15-05-2020 12:59PM

Redeeming Narek might be too close to retreading Tyler's arc on STD.

TheIrishGrover · 15-05-2020 01:38PM

Evade wrote: »

Redeeming Narek might be too close to retreading Tyler's arc on STD.

That's a VERY good point

Plus, I would imagine that they'll only do one more season. Stewart is no spring chicken.

Actually..... On that... They say they had (Pre-Covid) two live action series in early planning NOT counting Section 31 (Speaking of scenery-chewing. While I like the idea of a Section 31 series they REALLY gotta dial them ALL back from 11).

Now obviously things may have changed. Assuming that a Pike series is/was planned (I will eat my hat if it wasn't), I wonder if they were planning on something with Rios/Seven.

As I said, once given a little room, he became interesting and they seemed to spend a lot of time building up Seven's association with this Rangers group.

Meh, just a thought.

odyssey06 · 15-05-2020 01:46PM

pixelburp wrote: »

Wonder why he's not coming back - if it's the production team or the actor simply not wanting to return.

If it's the actor they could hire his twin brother Harry (from Penny Dreadful)

Stark · 15-05-2020 02:01PM

Narek is already played by Harry. You must be thinking of Luke.

odyssey06 · 15-05-2020 02:16PM

Stark wrote: »

Narek is already played by Harry. You must be thinking of Luke.

Doh... on the other hand, that indirectly proves my point!

So Luke was in Fortitude and upcoming Singapore Grip.
Harry has a much longer credits list... Penny Dreadful, Mr Mercedes, the Crown and ST Picard.

Evade · 15-05-2020 02:32PM

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

While I like the idea of a Section 31 series they REALLY gotta dial them ALL back from 11.

More of the Sloane/Bashir dynamic and less of the mustache twirling would be nice.

riggerman · 15-05-2020 05:02PM

Spock, Captain Pike and Number One are returning for new series Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

Stark · 15-05-2020 05:14PM

Honestly, I liked a lot of things about Discovery but the hatchet job they did of section 31 was not one of them. Have zero interest in watching that show. The section 31 series and Pike series should be called "Discovery: the bad parts" and "Discovery: the good parts" respectively.

Rawr · 17-05-2020 08:10PM

Stark wrote: »

Honestly, I liked a lot of things about Discovery but the hatchet job they did of section 31 was not one of them. Have zero interest in watching that show. The section 31 series and Pike series should be called "Discovery: the bad parts" and "Discovery: the good parts" respectively.

I sort of hope that Section 31 goes away and they focus on this Pike show instead. Fans appeared to actually *want* this show compared to what I can only assume is indifference to a show about the cartoonish League of Galactic EEEEVIL that is their Section 31. They might be able to make something good from it, but personally I couldn't care less about this show at the moment.

But new Pike show? Could be loads of fun. Part of me hopes that they play with the fact that we never learned Number 1's name. Could they tease us with this for a whole show's runtime and never tell us as a sort of running joke? Might be fun :P

pixelburp · 17-05-2020 08:13PM

The complete absence of any news or traction (AFAIK), makes me wonder if the Section 31 show has been quietly shelved in favour of the Pike one.

Evade · 17-05-2020 08:24PM

Rawr wrote: »

the fact that we never learned Number 1's name.

It's

Una

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

Comments

Star Trek: Picard - Amazon Prime [ POSSIBLE SPOILERS ]