Star Trek: Picard

spronk

spronk

FPS noob
22,597
25,649
I really enjoyed this weeks episode, shitRaffi is finally tolerable when paired with Worf.

It was weird to get holos of Deanna Troi and no LaForge yet, you just know the nebula shit is gonna have something wild in it. Love the DS9 fold-in with changelings, thats pretty awesome

no real complaints about s3 so far other than Raffi, if you enjoyed TNG you might like this show. Its only 3 episodes of 10 so maybe the season turns to shit, who knows. So far I'd rate it a solid 8/10 though. By comparison s1 was a 2/10 and s2 was a 1/10, both basically technically competent but absolute shit in story, acting, everything.

Picard though is a dazed, confused old man so that is a bummer but everyone else, especially Riker, 7 of 9, and Worf, are doing fine carrying the show.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
jayrebb

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
13,921
13,776
spronk said:
no real complaints about s3 so far other than Raffi, if you enjoyed TNG you might like this show. Its only 3 episodes of 10 so maybe the season turns to shit, who knows.
Click to expand...

Not if you're a diehard. If you didn't like the direction of the TNG movies, then you won't like anything about S3 since it's just TNG movies done right on steroids.
 
jayrebb

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
13,921
13,776
Swearing, graphic depictions of violence (although varies between seasons in Picard), dystopian, Action Hero Picard, more violence, and so on.

Picard will never be TNG nor should it be compared to TNG in any way.

S3 Picard is good "Movies TNG" and more along the lines of Modern Trek. If you are against the movies, do not watch Picard at all.

When Patrick Stewart signed on for the movies, he exerted his influence to create the current Picard character in the Picard show. He wanted Picard to be more action oriented, surrounded by violence and really kicking ass with his pals. The movies Picard is the series Picard.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 1Rustled
Reactions: 2 users
Cybsled

Cybsled

Avatar of War Slayer
16,449
12,096
I do agree that s3 does have a similar vibe to the TNG movies, but I think that has more to do with the fact they are going for a much more serialized story. SNW is really the only modern live action Trek still in the same vein as the pre-2000s era where you have adventures of the week with some underlying character plots or background storylines that get occasionally explored
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
T

Torrid

Molten Core Raider
926
611
Watched first 3 eps because youtubers said it was good, and now I have less respect for said youtubers.

It's retarded to deviate from the 90s formula that propelled the series to legendary status, but that's what they keep doing. In the movies as jayrebb says but in nuTrek it's worse. Nobody seems to have a goddamn clue as to what made TNG so great, and instead showrunners make generic pewpew sci fi with terrible plots that make no sense. Violence in Star Trek should be uncommon and important to the plot if there at all. TNG was notable for its LACK of violence; that's why it was good. It was cerebral, sophisticated, optimistic and portrayed respect for well-functioning institutions. Roddenberry put restrictions on his writers that forced them to think up ways around them. Even when TNG faced the Borg which required shooting, the script had them outthink their adversaries such as them coming up with a novel deflector dish attack.

The singular thing(s) going for this season (admittedly is better than S1&2 which were the worst TV I've ever seen) is Worf and Riker, who are super likeable characters/actors. The plot is nonsensical and every five minutes makes me laugh at why they didn't just do X. (medical tricorders exist in this universe guys) The non-stop shaky cam is obnoxious; the one-liner jokes are inappropriate for TNG; the technobabble is cringey; secret uber weapon labs when Starfleet is supposed to not even have warships is bad fan-fic; we have to risk the ship because every life is sacred one moment but the next we're beheading people for lulz even though Trek is known for stun weapons and Worf is a 'pacifist'; Raffi weeping hysterically because a building collapsed when Roddenberry was big on stoicism. Meh. To be fair they were rather boxed in by seasons 1 and 2 so if the tone changed too much it would look silly.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 3 users
jayrebb

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
13,921
13,776
Torrid said:
Watched first 3 eps because youtubers said it was good, and now I have less respect for said youtubers.

It's retarded to deviate from the 90s formula that propelled the series to legendary status, but that's what they keep doing. In the movies as jayrebb says but in nuTrek it's worse. Nobody seems to have a goddamn clue as to what made TNG so great, and instead showrunners make generic pewpew sci fi with terrible plots that make no sense. Violence in Star Trek should be uncommon and important to the plot if there at all. TNG was notable for its LACK of violence; that's why it was good. It was cerebral, sophisticated, optimistic and portrayed respect for well-functioning institutions. Roddenberry put restrictions on his writers that forced them to think up ways around them. Even when TNG faced the Borg which required shooting, the script had them outthink their adversaries such as them coming up with a novel deflector dish attack.

The singular thing(s) going for this season (admittedly is better than S1&2 which were the worst TV I've ever seen) is Worf and Riker, who are super likeable characters/actors. The plot is nonsensical and every five minutes makes me laugh at why they didn't just do X. (medical tricorders exist in this universe guys) The non-stop shaky cam is obnoxious; the one-liner jokes are inappropriate for TNG; the technobabble is cringey; secret uber weapon labs when Starfleet is supposed to not even have warships is bad fan-fic; we have to risk the ship because every life is sacred one moment but the next we're beheading people for lulz even though Trek is known for stun weapons and Worf is a 'pacifist'; Raffi weeping hysterically because a building collapsed when Roddenberry was big on stoicism. Meh. To be fair they were rather boxed in by seasons 1 and 2 so if the tone changed too much it would look silly.
Click to expand...

The best of the worst. It is interesting how Riker and Worf's screen presence and charisma multiplied since TNG.

Riker could have carried his own show, even in Nu Trek format. He would have also helped tamp down on anti-Roddenberry activism a bit I'd think. Ah well, missed opportunities-- but at least he's having a good send off that the character and actor deserves.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Cybsled

Cybsled

Avatar of War Slayer
16,449
12,096
Roddenberry was great and all, but don't forget that in other ways he held back TNG and wasn't really keen on DS9 (which didn't really fully start development until after he had passed away).
 
Gavinmad

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
42,370
50,408
Hindsight shows what a mistake Deep Space Nine was. The creative liberties Berman took with Roddenberry's vision were exploited by a far lesser man to create the abomination of NuTrek, which I would gladly sacrifice Deep Space Nine to be rid of.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1Dislike
Reactions: 4 users
Daezuel

Daezuel

Potato del Grande
22,913
48,442
Imagine suggesting the man that created Trek and whose vision/Bible produced hundreds of episodes of the finest science fiction to exist "held back" Star Trek.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Cybsled

Cybsled

Avatar of War Slayer
16,449
12,096
I'm having trouble finding it, but there were some odd ideas that came towards the end of his life in the late 1980s that I recall reading about that other producers/writers tried to temper

Blaming DS9 is dumb. Roddenberry died in 1991. Even if DS9 never existed and tried to push the envelope, you're naive to think that someone else wouldn't have eventually. And ultimately the failure of some of the Nu-Trek stuff lays at the feet of less skilled writers or productions, not because DS9 opened the door to that.

That is like saying Half Life ruined FPS games and should be deleted from existence because people tried to create more narrative driven FPS games after the success of Half Life and some were shitty
 
Grizzlebeard

Grizzlebeard

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
2,177
2,312
I thought the main reason DS9 was poorly received initially was due to it being set on a static space station as opposed to boldly going (somewhere).
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
27,121
71,819
It's not the fault of DS9. While successful and running seven seasons that show never broke in to pop culture, never went mainstream like TNG or TOS did, never had any of its own films, etc. It's more like if you watch it now you can see how some of the ideas and themes would later get picked up and prostituted by people that had no fucking clue what they were doing. Section 31, the dark mood and serialized storytelling are the most obvious. As far as a specific episode take another look at In the Pale Moonlight. Sisko plots with Garak to trick the Romulans in to entering the war against the Dominion. They hook a dude up with a controlled substance that can be used to make bio weapons, they fabricate evidence, Garak murders a couple of dudes and in the end Sisko decides he's fine with it. That episode is well written, well made and well acted and is coming in at a time when DS9 was darkening Star Trek but the TNG is still fresh. There were Trekkies of the time that bailed on DS9 over it. They called it a betrayal of Roddenberry's vision. There was a rift.

Fast forward twenty-five fucking years and all that shit is just all over fiction. Dark, gritty anti-heroes and morally grey situations with serialized storytelling etc etc etc. DS9 didn't cause it. It was just a link in that chain.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users
Deathwing

Deathwing

<Bronze Donator>
16,386
7,389
In the Pale Moonlight reinforced Roddenberry's message. It helped humanize that idealistic utopia and make it more relatable. Same goes for Siege of AR-558. War sucks, look what it makes your beloved characters do. You'd do it too.

Dark and gritty or overly optimistic, I don't give a fuck. Give me well written and acted sci fi. Dark and gritty is being used as a crutch for bad writing.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users
j00t

j00t

Silver Baronet of the Realm
7,380
7,472
Grizzlebeard said:
I thought the main reason DS9 was poorly received initially was due to it being set on a static space station as opposed to boldly going (somewhere).
Click to expand...
there was a lot of reasons. the differences in viewpoints between roddenbery and the show runners was definitely a part of it. purists had issues with it that have been covered already. but i think ultimately the main issue was that the first season of ds9 was SLLLLLLOOOOOWWWWW. it took the first season to set up all the pieces for the rest of the show. the payoff was amazing, but it's a show that's exceedingly hard to get into
 
Gavinmad

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
42,370
50,408
Deathwing said:
In the Pale Moonlight reinforced Roddenberry's message.
Click to expand...
No it didn't. DS9 is pretty much directly antithetical to Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek. They destroyed the idea of the Federation being a Utopia, Starfleet was reduced to an almost purely military organization, hell he probably would have fired you on the spot if you came up to him and pitched Inquisition to him. They got away with it because it was a fantastic show.

If the retards at Paramount hadn't tried to milk Star Trek so fucking hard and then hung their failure around Berman's neck, the IP might still be in a good place. But instead it ended up in the hands of Kurtzman who has utterly defiled it beyond recognition.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
27,121
71,819
Deathwing said:
In the Pale Moonlight reinforced Roddenberry's message.
Click to expand...

Homeboy you crazy. Paramount had to kick him upstairs because the stories the writers and producers were trying to tell in TNG clashed with his vision of the future. That's a future where things like interpersonal conflict doesn't exist and everyone accepts death like a Hindu Swami.

Also Ferengi need to be hung like horses.
 
Deathwing

Deathwing

<Bronze Donator>
16,386
7,389
Perhaps describing it as "Roddenberry's message" was too narrow? I'll admit I don't know much behind the scenes wrt how Roddenberry was trying to steer later TNG and the sequels. But, by "Roddenberry's message", I generally mean anti war, anti conflict. Perhaps I am misguided here.

Rather than saying DS9 is antithetical, I'd say it contrasts well. If utopia is an ideal worth striving for, worth progressing towards, then it's also an ideal worth fighting and struggling for. DS9 was fantastic partly because of the context of TOS and TNG. You can show the darker side of a utopia while overall idealizing said utopia.
 
Cybsled

Cybsled

Avatar of War Slayer
16,449
12,096
lol I forgot about that. Originally he wanted giant cod pieces for the Ferrengi

No it didn't. DS9 is pretty much directly antithetical to Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek. They destroyed the idea of the Federation being a Utopia, Starfleet was reduced to an almost purely military organization, hell he probably would have fired you on the spot if you came up to him and pitched Inquisition to him. They got away with it because it was a fantastic show.
Click to expand...

I think the show ultimately wanted to show that humans were still...human. As a society, we could evolve. DS9 never tries to shy away from that and there are countless examples where even alien species make observations on it. But it also tries to show that we are still the product of millions of years of evolution and a couple centuries of utopia doesn't completely wash away that from our species. The show tried to deal with it in an honest and introspective way.

 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.