Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Werthead

Star Trek Thread: Set Picard to Stun (spoilers)

Recommended Posts

I thought Kelvin movie #4 (which was to involve time travel and Chris Helmsworth coming back as Kirk's dad) was dead and they'd moved on to Noah Hawley's thing with a new cast. 

If they wanted the whole TOS crew could be on the show. at least a few years have passed between The Cage and Discovery season two. Just because we haven't seen ensign Scotty doesn't mean they can't say he was there. Plus as Red Snow said, would they even care? If they wanted Spock's third previously unmentioned sibling could show up as first officer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I thought Kelvin movie #4 (which was to involve time travel and Chris Helmsworth coming back as Kirk's dad) was dead and they'd moved on to Noah Hawley's thing with a new cast. 

If they wanted the whole TOS crew could be on the show. at least a few years have passed between The Cage and Discovery season two. Just because we haven't seen ensign Scotty doesn't mean they can't say he was there. Plus as Red Snow said, would they even care? If they wanted Spock's third previously unmentioned sibling could show up as first officer. 

It's hugely unclear if Kelvin #4 is going to be Noah Hawley's thing or Tarantino's thing, which he has now confirmed would have the Kelvin cast but would be a time travel epic taking in the creation of the Kelvin Timeline itself (sort of like Endgame, with the crew interacting with scenes from the 2009 movie in a new way). There's also some rumours that Tarantino isn't going to direct that any more, but will produce for someone else.

Hawley's thing I think is still going to be the Kelvin Timeline but it's own thing. I don't think there's any plans to reunify the separated TV and film universes at this point.

Edited by Werthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone ever seriously thought "The Final Film by Quentin Tarantino" was gonna be a Star Trek sequel. Though he could have given that up or found another loophole I guess. I was disappointed when we learned his idea was so similar to Endgame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Werthead said:

 

Hawley's thing I think is still going to be the Kelvin Timeline but it's own thing. I don't think there's any plans to reunify the separated TV and film universes at this point.

If I was CBS I'd insulate the TV shows from the films anyhow. Irrespective of quality the TV shows (now a franchise) are doing really well while the films have floundered since Into Darkness in the sense no one seems to have a clue what to do next and it takes years for them to put out a mediocre film (which I guess is faithful to the original films in a sense).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... the show broke Mr. Plinkett so much that he isn't even trying to be an ass anymore. This is just pure OOC disappointment in an odd voice:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Toth said:

So... the show broke Mr. Plinkett so much that he isn't even trying to be an ass anymore. This is just pure OOC disappointment in an odd voice:

 

This video was one of the few, if only good things to come out of Star Trek Picard, IMO. The last 5 minutes do a great job of showing the difference between the hopeful and inspiring nature of 90's Trek vs the dark and nihilist nature of new Trek. It really is quite sad that the writers of this show don't understand Star Trek in any way shape or form

Edited by sifth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sifth said:

This video was one of the few, if only good things to come out of Star Trek Picard, IMO. The last 5 minutes do a great job of showing the difference between the hopeful and inspiring nature of 90's Trek vs the dark and nihilist nature new new Trek. It really is quite sad that the writers of this show don't understand Star Trek in any way shape or form

Their reviews up until this point were absolutely on-point, yes. And those last 5 minutes... yeah, those were brilliant. Reminded me of my favourite tribute videos about what Trek actually is about. I'm pretty sure they got inspired by this video:

Note that the framing device is the exchange of Q and Picard about the trial of humanity. I keep thinking that if Q ever appears on Picard, the real Q from TNG, then he would just drop his interest in mankind in disgust.

Edited by Toth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the remastered version of ToS is on Prime, I've started watching it.  Used to watch it on the weekends as a kid when the reruns were broadcast on the independent stations in my area, so I knew there were at least several that I had missed.

So far, I'm sure I've seen Man Trap before, and I think I'd seen the one where Kirk gets split into halves.  But I have no recollection of the other first three episodes.  No larger point, just wondering if I'll even remember having seen half of the ToS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Since the remastered version of ToS is on Prime, I've started watching it.  Used to watch it on the weekends as a kid when the reruns were broadcast on the independent stations in my area, so I knew there were at least several that I had missed.

So far, I'm sure I've seen Man Trap before, and I think I'd seen the one where Kirk gets split into halves.  But I have no recollection of the other first three episodes.  No larger point, just wondering if I'll even remember having seen half of the ToS.

I'm pretty sure they re-arranged the order of the first season several times, so I understand your slight confusion. I remember as a teen when I watched Star Trek episodes on Youtube (before they were taken down, of course^^) I had a similar issue where the episode numbers on Youtube and those on Memory Alpha were constantly conflicting for TOS.

Edited by Toth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Toth said:

Their reviews up until this point were absolutely on-point, yes. And those last 5 minutes... yeah, those were brilliant. Reminded me of my favourite tribute videos about what Trek actually is about. I'm pretty sure they got inspired by this video:

Note that the framing device is the exchange of Q and Picard about the trial of humanity. I keep thinking that if Q ever appears on Picard, the real Q from TNG, then he would just drop his interest in mankind in disgust.

You know, I think my biggest issue with Discovery and Picard is they just seem to go out of their way to not be as fun as 90's Trek. DS9 was considered the darkest Trek series before Discovery came around, but even so, many of it's episodes still make me laugh and smile, like the one where Odo and Vic become friends and when Quark inherits a fortune from Morn and so on. I get that modern Trek likes to treat each episode as if it's part of a season long movie, but I honestly don't think this is the right way to treat a tv show. Even The Good Place, one of my favorite series, that uses a similar style as new Trek to tell it's story, still manages to find ways to have each episode stand on it's own, while continuing it's story arc, and creating some very fun episodes in the process. 

Edited by sifth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sifth said:

You know, I think my biggest issue with Discovery and Picard is they just seem to go out of their way to not be as fun as 90's Trek. DS9 was considered the darkest Trek series before Discovery came around, but even so, many of it's episodes still make me laugh and smile, like the one where Odo and Vic become friends and when Quark inherits a fortune from Morn and so on. I get that modern Trek likes to treat each episode as if it's part of a season long movie, but I honestly don't think this is the right way to treat a tv show. Even The Good Place, one of my favorite series, that uses a similar style as new Trek to tell it's story, still manages to find ways to have each episode stand on it's own, while continuing a it's story arc, and creating some very fun episodes in the process. 

It did have a nice balance, even if some of the lighthearted episodes were bad Ferengi ones. 

Personally I skipped most of the Vic Fontaine episodes in my recent DS9 re-watch. I adore the James Bond holodeck spoof with Sisko as the villain, but for some reason just can't bring myself to care about the crew's efforts to save Vic's fictional club from fictional gangsters.  

Making Mirror-Vic not a hologram is still one of the weirdest things the franchise has done. 

Also I just started watching The Good place. Like it a lot so far. 

As for future movie plans, I really wish they'd focus on the prime timeline. They only have a limited period of time where they can bring back various TNG/DS9/VOY characters and do a film, some of the actors have already sadly died. Get Fuller or whoever to write something good with at least small parts for these characters and I think all of us would go see it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RumHam said:

It did have a nice balance, even if some of the lighthearted episodes were bad Ferengi ones. 

Personally I skipped most of the Vic Fontaine episodes in my recent DS9 re-watch. I adore the James Bond holodeck spoof with Sisko as the villain, but for some reason just can't bring myself to care about the crew's efforts to save Vic's fictional club from fictional gangsters.  

Making Mirror-Vic not a hologram is still one of the weirdest things the franchise has done. 

Also I just started watching The Good place. Like it a lot so far. 

As for future movie plans, I really wish they'd focus on the prime timeline. They only have a limited period of time where they can bring back various TNG/DS9/VOY characters and do a film, some of the actors have already sadly died. Get Fuller or whoever to write something good with at least small parts for these characters and I think all of us would go see it. 

Ironically enough, that James Bond episode is the very first episode of DS9 I saw. As a kid I would catch bits and pieces of earlier episodes like "House of Quark", but "Our Man Bashir" was the first episode of DS9 I saw from start to finish; I fell in love with Garak right off the bat and really wanted to see more of the character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2020 at 4:51 PM, sifth said:

This video was one of the few, if only good things to come out of Star Trek Picard, IMO. The last 5 minutes do a great job of showing the difference between the hopeful and inspiring nature of 90's Trek vs the dark and nihilist nature of new Trek. It really is quite sad that the writers of this show don't understand Star Trek in any way shape or form

Couldn't agree more.

The old Trek shows really gave me hope for the future. There was this idea that whatever we might be now, humanity would turn out better eventually.

And without that I don't see what Trek has to offer that other sci-fi shows won't have already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Couldn't agree more.

The old Trek shows really gave me hope for the future. There was this idea that whatever we might be now, humanity would turn out better eventually.

And without that I don't see what Trek has to offer that other sci-fi shows won't have already.

I just take such a fundamentally different message away from the new shows. It's not saying we can't be better, it's saying that in order to be better we always need to be fighting as individuals to keep our society better. That collectively being individuals is the only way we get that better society.

I guess if that "better society" you're seeing is one where we've won the fight permanently and don't need to fight for it as individuals anymore then I'm not seeing something different to you, I just like it and you don't. I see something in the Trek we're currently getting that I'm not seeing in other properties, so I guess that just makes me the audience for the new Trek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2020 at 2:38 PM, Toth said:

So... the show broke Mr. Plinkett so much that he isn't even trying to be an ass anymore. This is just pure OOC disappointment in an odd voice:

 

Honestly can’t grasp how anyone sat through 90 minutes of that voice. Am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

Honestly can’t grasp how anyone sat through 90 minutes of that voice. Am I missing something?

I would have preferred a normal review as well, but it doesn't change how the arguments ring very true.

On 5/21/2020 at 4:03 AM, karaddin said:

I just take such a fundamentally different message away from the new shows. It's not saying we can't be better, it's saying that in order to be better we always need to be fighting as individuals to keep our society better. That collectively being individuals is the only way we get that better society.

I guess if that "better society" you're seeing is one where we've won the fight permanently and don't need to fight for it as individuals anymore then I'm not seeing something different to you, I just like it and you don't. I see something in the Trek we're currently getting that I'm not seeing in other properties, so I guess that just makes me the audience for the new Trek.

This is just weird. Even those who like this new drivel usually admit that the nihilistic tone is there, they just like the cheap emotional manipulation anyway and don't care about the ridiculously bad scripts.

Star Trek has always portrayed that you have to fight to keep the advances of society. I remember vividly McCoys "Evil usually triumphs unless good is very, very careful" quote and every single evil admiral ever was shown as a threat to the moral integrity of the Federation. That however doesn't mean you have to portray the society 300 years in the future as having never made any advances whatsoever. So far only DS9 went into the darker direction by saying "Utopia is not as perfect as you think it was", but it was still an utopia (and yes, I have a severe dislike for some of the directions DS9 took). Picard however is saying "the fight is already lost, everything is miserable and you have to live with that". But to be honest that is only when you try to read something into it. I think this new 'Star Trek' is just a whole lot of nothing with no deeper meaning than a shallow attempt to be somewhat topical. Today's politics suck, so the Star Trek universe has to suck as well, that's where their line of thinking ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except both Picard and both seasons of Discovery have depicted those fighting for our better nature winning? Not without cost sure, but they won.

Anyway I think its pretty clear we're never going to even see face to face, let alone eye to eye on this, and I get pretty frustrated by what (to me) seems unrelenting negativity and refusal to give it even the tiniest of chances. So lets just agree to ignore each others opinions on this one. You don't like it, I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Except both Picard and both seasons of Discovery have depicted those fighting for our better nature winning? Not without cost sure, but they won.

Can you at least walk me through about how they won in regards to the Federation's isolationism? As far as I can tell those saying you can't trust the Romulans and that we should never have helped them have been proven absolutely right. And even the Cylons have proven that they'd choose to destroy biological life at the slightest provocation either through manipulation or choice. So as far as I can see the only thing they won is that... they didn't die, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Toth said:

This is just weird. Even those who like this new drivel usually admit that the nihilistic tone is there, they just like the cheap emotional manipulation anyway and don't care about the ridiculously bad scripts.

Star Trek has always portrayed that you have to fight to keep the advances of society. I remember vividly McCoys "Evil usually triumphs unless good is very, very careful" quote and every single evil admiral ever was shown as a threat to the moral integrity of the Federation. That however doesn't mean you have to portray the society 300 years in the future as having never made any advances whatsoever. So far only DS9 went into the darker direction by saying "Utopia is not as perfect as you think it was", but it was still an utopia (and yes, I have a severe dislike for some of the directions DS9 took). Picard however is saying "the fight is already lost, everything is miserable and you have to live with that". But to be honest that is only when you try to read something into it. I think this new 'Star Trek' is just a whole lot of nothing with no deeper meaning than a shallow attempt to be somewhat topical. Today's politics suck, so the Star Trek universe has to suck as well, that's where their line of thinking ends.

Picard shows that the utopian viewpoint of Star Trek is not only there, but radically improved upon in the micro sense: there have been dramatic improvements in transporter technology to the point that there are now transporter portals which allow people to teleport around the planet at will (even in DS9 and TNG this is not necessarily the case, with a lot of people still travelling on foot or by shuttle). AI is vastly improved upon and certainly no-one is going hungry. The Earth of Picard is still a utopia and the arguments presented that it isn't are desperately thin, bordering on the non-existent (someone living in a trailer, despite the fact that the trailer is in one of the most prime real estate spots on Earth and they leave whenever they like and travel through space at will).

The Federation of Picard is having a crisis of ideology/optimism and identity following the Dominion War, which is a perfectly viable story development (mirroring the USA's similar crisis after the Cold War) and also highly precedented, reflected in the Federation's previous existential crises after the Borg attack (which led to kangaroo courts and, in the Defiant programme, an almost startlingly swift abandonment of the Federation's commitment to never building warships and instead engaging in a major armament programme) and at the time of the destruction of Praxis. The idea isn't and never was that the Federation is an infallible utopia which will never have problems, but when it does have problems it will eventually overcome them, until the point that it cannot. Some fans seem to forget that in Gene Roddenberry's mind, the Federation will one day fall and be destroyed and a dark and "nihilistic" age will sweep over the galaxy, but it will eventually rise again (this being his plan for a further post-TNG spin-off that was only realised in Andromeda instead, but now appears to be the basis for Season 3 of Discovery).

The writing and plotting in the new Trek series are both highly flawed and there is a disappointing focus on explosions and action over slower-paced character development (Picard actually started much more promisingly in that regard but couldn't reign in the Kurtzman Excess problem in the end). Some of the other criticisms I've seen of the shows are nonsensical, bordering on the hysterical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Toth said:

Can you at least walk me through about how they won in regards to the Federation's isolationism? As far as I can tell those saying you can't trust the Romulans and that we should never have helped them have been proven absolutely right. And even the Cylons have proven that they'd choose to destroy biological life at the slightest provocation either through manipulation or choice. So as far as I can see the only thing they won is that... they didn't die, I guess.

This is sealioning. Stop it.

There has been unrelenting negativity and disdain by two posters in particular towards not only the new Star Trek series in these threads, but the people who have enjoyed them and even people who have been critical of them but "not critical enough." Insulting other posters' intelligence, showing contempt for their views and implying you are a "better Star Trek" fan than them is unacceptable, period.

Posters like Red Snow have done an excellent job of articulating their problems with the series in a polite and constructive way that has resulted in a  better debate. I strongly suggest emulating that type of response in future.

From a moderation point of view, if posters continue to insult and belittle the views of other people, they will start to receive formal warnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...