Star Trek: Picard - Season 1 |OT| Re-ENGAGE!

UltraMagnus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,666
Well I don't find myself bored during episodes any more so that means they're probably getting better, but I wouldn't necessarily call the show good or great yet.
 

Pluto

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,526
I need to visit it.

I don't participate in the BBS because I would feel like a lone voice. I mean their polls have hardly any negative ratings. It seems unreal.
There are critical voices, the show isn't universally loved but I think most of them are aware that Star Trek was always flawed especially in the first seasons. Compare this to TNG season 1 and it's gold, so many older fans might be more forgiving.
 

Combo

Member
Jan 8, 2019
473
There are critical voices, the show isn't universally loved but I think most of them are aware that Star Trek was always flawed especially in the first seasons. Compare this to TNG season 1 and it's gold, so many older fans might be more forgiving.
But the style is different. Yeah TNG S1 had problems but it was clearly Trek in style. PIC is far above it in production values but it doesn't feel like Trek.
 

Pluto

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,526
But the style is different. Yeah TNG S1 had problems but it was clearly Trek in style. PIC is far above it in production values but it doesn't feel like Trek.
Back then in 1987 many fans despised TNG and thought it didn't feel like Trek at all and all it had going for it where the effects, it took years for TNG to be accepted by the fandom, this criticism isn't new. DS9 was disliked too for being too different.
 

Combo

Member
Jan 8, 2019
473
Back then in 1987 many fans despised TNG and thought it didn't feel like Trek at all and all it had going for it where the effects, it took years for TNG to be accepted by the fandom, this criticism isn't new. DS9 was disliked too for being too different.
I do know about that. But don't we have a much bigger change now?
 

Serebii

Serebii.net Webmaster
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
7,272
Star Trek is fluid. What defines Star Trek for one person is different for another.

I feel this feels like Star Trek. It uses sci-fi to illuminate and explore the human condition and current things. It's just not exploration Star Trek
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,496
England
But the style is different. Yeah TNG S1 had problems but it was clearly Trek in style. PIC is far above it in production values but it doesn't feel like Trek.
Star Trek doesn’t need to be low budget to feel like Star Trek. The only real difference is Star Trek is traditionally episodic in nature, but that format of television hasn’t been popular for a while. We’ve kinda moved from 26 episode seasons. These days seasons are 8-10 episodes long with higher budgets per episode and a more focused, serialised storyline.
 

StallionDan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,163
Back then in 1987 many fans despised TNG and thought it didn't feel like Trek at all and all it had going for it where the effects, it took years for TNG to be accepted by the fandom, this criticism isn't new. DS9 was disliked too for being too different.
There isn't much truth to this and I swear people just hear there used to be criticisms and guess what they were based on how S1/2 was viewed later/today.

S1/2 were highly praised at the time, with nearly all criticism from fans being it wasn't Kirk, Spock etc. Even criticisms of character interactions etc were basically "Well Kirk and Spock had a much better relationship".

STP is not getting the same sort of criticism TNG did, nobody is complaining the TNG crew aren't all back on a ship together.
 
Oct 28, 2017
19,751
Rio's ship looks like it was built as a tv set and not an actual spaceship. There's so much room that doesnt serve any purpose. It does let the camera move around easier but that's it. The actual stations on the bridge are so far apart it screams tv set. And let's not mention the holographic floating consoles. How are rocks supposed to shoot out of those when they are attacked?
 

Combo

Member
Jan 8, 2019
473
Star Trek doesn’t need to be low budget to feel like Star Trek. The only real difference is Star Trek is traditionally episodic in nature, but that format of television hasn’t been popular for a while. We’ve kinda moved from 26 episode seasons. These days seasons are 8-10 episodes long with higher budgets per episode and a more focused, serialised storyline.
When I say feel like Trek, I mean morals, intellectual discussion, dialogue etc. Not the budget or serialization.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,837
The Ocean
When I say feel like Trek, I mean morals, intellectual discussion, dialogue etc. Not the budget or serialization.
There were few morals in TOS worth celebrating. The movies were really the only place those characters shone with stereotypes and sexism rampant in the show.

the crime that TNG portrayed was that the future of Trek was only ever viewed from the comfortable viewpoint of Starfleet. When they’re able to replicate on demand and solve problems assigned to them with ease you start to have this idealistic point of view that’s just a facade. For every Picard speech, there’s an evil Admiral.

now we’re just able to add legitimate approaches to how humans speak. Swearing is a fact of life. People swear. All the damn time for fucks sake. The future isn’t some place where people never swear.

No. That’s network television’s lack of freedom.

lack of morals exist in the future too. we’re just seeing how that’s presented through the eyes of an old old man
 

UltraMagnus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,666
It's starting to become a bit more like "regular Trek" ... it's just not all that great.

The bland TNG movies like Generations and Insurrection and even Nemesis are still better than this.

There's still promise with the cast and premise and I do think the show is improving in its back half, so it has that going for it. Hopefully season 2 can get it going.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,612
Star Trek doesn’t need to be low budget to feel like Star Trek. The only real difference is Star Trek is traditionally episodic in nature, but that format of television hasn’t been popular for a while. We’ve kinda moved from 26 episode seasons. These days seasons are 8-10 episodes long with higher budgets per episode and a more focused, serialised storyline.
No, episodic television is still popular as evidenced by all the shows that run for 10+ seasons on CBS and the fifty Dick Wolf shows on NBC. They're aiming for the prestige TV market, which is fine, but I think that means you have to compare your shows against those shows them.

Hell, Kurtzmann is an EP on Hawaii 5-0, so it's not like episodic mainstream television is beyond him.
 

Big-E

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,087
Star Trek is fluid. What defines Star Trek for one person is different for another.

I feel this feels like Star Trek. It uses sci-fi to illuminate and explore the human condition and current things. It's just not exploration Star Trek
I think Picard doesn't really explore any human condition. The primary plot throughout the season has been focused on synthetic life. I feel that there has been more said about synthetics and humanity in two episodes of TNG than in an entire season so far. More was explored in the Measure of a Man episode and the one with Lal. I feel they explored more in those 2 hours than the 9 hours so far in Picard.
 

Combo

Member
Jan 8, 2019
473
There were few morals in TOS worth celebrating. The movies were really the only place those characters shone with stereotypes and sexism rampant in the show.

the crime that TNG portrayed was that the future of Trek was only ever viewed from the comfortable viewpoint of Starfleet. When they’re able to replicate on demand and solve problems assigned to them with ease you start to have this idealistic point of view that’s just a facade. For every Picard speech, there’s an evil Admiral.

now we’re just able to add legitimate approaches to how humans speak. Swearing is a fact of life. People swear. All the damn time for fucks sake. The future isn’t some place where people never swear.

No. That’s network television’s lack of freedom.

lack of morals exist in the future too. we’re just seeing how that’s presented through the eyes of an old old man
You are right. The 24th century probably wont be like TNG. But a lot of us watched ST mainly for that because no other show did it. Now even ST doesn't do it.

BTW I haven't said a swear word for 20 years. And I am not that old.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,612
PSA: The DS9 Documentary is up for free on Tubi. Link here https://tubitv.com/movies/513071/what_we_left_behind_looking_back_at_star_trek_deep_space_nine

I like their premise of a Season 8 with Kira and Bajor being antagonists.
Actually, it's Section 31 all over again... with Bashir ordering the death of Nog. lol

It's funny, Section 31 was "just a movie thing" when they filmed the documentary. Now it's so over-saturated that it seems like the laziest plot device they could use now.
 
Oct 28, 2017
19,751
I am watching Generations and when Worf is climbing up out of the water his knee is all red like it was bleeding. I guess he fought some sea monster while he was down there.
 

deimosmasque

Member
Apr 22, 2018
2,538
Tampa, Fl
The TNG movies were all shit. First Contact was liked because action and Borg. Insurrection was liked because it was just a long episode of TNG.

BUT PIC is a better form of media, not perfect at all, but to say it's worst than the TNG movies... Seriously? Those movies would be rejected episodes of the old days. Except maybe First Contact.
 

Amnesty

Member
Nov 7, 2017
1,163
the crime that TNG portrayed was that the future of Trek was only ever viewed from the comfortable viewpoint of Starfleet. When they’re able to replicate on demand and solve problems assigned to them with ease you start to have this idealistic point of view that’s just a facade. For every Picard speech, there’s an evil Admiral.
The evil admiral thing is simply untrue. I've been watching TNG again recently and the Admirals are all portrayed quite differently and some have a surprising depth to them. Take Admiral Haftel, from the episode 'The Offspring' where Data creates Lal. He comes in to take her away as he thinks a starbase would be the best environment to raise her. He seems like a jerk because he wants to take Data's kid away. Then, when she is dying he works tirelessly with Data to save her and as Data is still working he goes into the hall where Deanna, Wesley and Geordi are waiting. He's visibly shaken and grieved and laments that he couldn't do anything to help save her and that despite Data's superhuman abilities, Lal is doomed. It's a very powerful and nuanced performance where he's revealed to not be a simple antagonist. It makes one wonder whether if Lal did pull through, the admiral may have changed his stance. It's really good writing.

There are others, like Jellico who was a pragmatist but not evil. Nechayev was similar.

The future of TNG was not only portrayed from Starfleet's perspective. In fact, I think the series often made specific effort not to do this. In 'Ensigns of Command' we see Data, an outsider himself, visit an isolated human colony. The colony has been developed outside of the federation for almost a century because they didn't even know it existed. It was built up by these humans for generations and now they have to leave because an alien species is due the planet because of a treaty and they'll kill the colonists to reclaim it. They have to leave without knowing if their community will remain intact or where they'll even go. Data doesn't even use 'starfleet morals' to convince them to leave. He just blasts their aqueducts and tells them they're fucked if they try and fight it.
 

EntelechyFuff

Member
Nov 19, 2019
112
I think Picard doesn't really explore any human condition. The primary plot throughout the season has been focused on synthetic life. I feel that there has been more said about synthetics and humanity in two episodes of TNG than in an entire season so far. More was explored in the Measure of a Man episode and the one with Lal. I feel they explored more in those 2 hours than the 9 hours so far in Picard.
I think PIC has been a real mixed bag in terms of quality so far, but I think I see what they're trying to do with it.

There are no clear moral stances or lessons because the universe no longer has a desire for any kind of moral center. One thing this show does well using Picard himself as the repeated punching bag for this: his speeches always fall on deaf ears and he can't even keep his crew together.

What's interesting is that Raffi is sort of taking on the role of the moral pillar: not in that she can animate everyines better angels, but that she knows no such thing can really exist and any sense of order is just a prelude to further degredation. Her suspicion of Soji seems almost prescient now.
 

chrominance

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,002
Maybe this was already covered, but I just thought of something: if you're an advanced synthetic civilization that's seen how organics handle synthetic life and want to prevent it from happening to other civilizations, why would they wait for a signal from one of them to send the cavalry? Shouldn't they be watching all the time, like they say in the admonition? What advantage is there to anyone for them to wait for a signal, assuming they had the firepower to back up their offer of protection?
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,591
Back then in 1987 many fans despised TNG and thought it didn't feel like Trek at all and all it had going for it where the effects, it took years for TNG to be accepted by the fandom, this criticism isn't new. DS9 was disliked too for being too different.
"Star Stop: Deep Sleep 9" was a common insult.
 

rockinreelin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
427
Gotta agree with Combo. This feels less and less like TV Star Trek and more like something else. Can't quite put my finger on it but it just feels dumbed down and aimed at a more at a younger crowd who can't watch a piece of entertainment without on screen explosions, showy special effects and convoluted comic book plots. At times the characterizations make it feel as if I'm watching a CSI'd version of Star Trek. I cringe a lot watching the show. If this were the old ST, Picard would have confined and had Crusher sedate half the characters with her little gadget in the show by now lol.
 

Eoin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,404
Maybe this was already covered, but I just thought of something: if you're an advanced synthetic civilization that's seen how organics handle synthetic life and want to prevent it from happening to other civilizations, why would they wait for a signal from one of them to send the cavalry? Shouldn't they be watching all the time, like they say in the admonition? What advantage is there to anyone for them to wait for a signal, assuming they had the firepower to back up their offer of protection?
The other side of this train of thought it that if they did somehow decide that they needed to be summoned by any future synths having trouble with their organic creators, surely one admonition would not be enough. If, say, a thousand years from now, the Kazon had gotten their act together and built a unified, scientifically advanced star-nation and created synths, those synths would be ~70K light years away from Aia. They're never going to find it or even hear about it.

If these advanced synths have already made the decision that they're going to be available at the whim of any other synths (which, somehow, is the choice they've made), then the most obvious course of action would be to have numerous similar systems scattered across the galaxy with similar admonitions. That in turn raises the risk that large portions of the galaxy (perhaps all of it?) can be wiped clean of organic life just because some synths thousands of light years away had a bad day.
 

Mr. Pointy

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,793
The Robo-Federation would have to place an Admontion every 1,000 light years or so, to effectively cover a decent amount of space. And at that point there would be so many octonary star systems and crazy anti-synthetic life cults, that all organic life would figure out what was going on.
 

SG-17

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,809
I do know about that. But don't we have a much bigger change now?
No. The only difference is that this is a serialized story condensed into 10 episodes rather than spread out over multiple seasons like DS9.

There is no unified Trek style, a portion of the fanbase has hated every show after TOS for some time.
 

Combo

Member
Jan 8, 2019
473
No. The only difference is that this is a serialized story condensed into 10 episodes rather than spread out over multiple seasons like DS9.

There is no unified Trek style, a portion of the fanbase has hated every show after TOS for some time.
Sorry I don't think you are seeing what others see. It seems like denial. There is clearly a difference and it's okay if you love the new shows. I don't look down upon people who didn't like Trek mainly for the reasons I liked them. But to say we dislike new-Trek because it's serialized is not true. We dislike it for reasons that you already know. E.g. the character are now much more flawed. Class it more realistic if you want, but that misses the point.

I want heroes like Worf, Crusher and Tuvak.
 

Combo

Member
Jan 8, 2019
473
He's actually a bad Klingon. For a lot of reasons.

He is an amazing character but what he views as Klingon is a pure form that can't actually exist in the Klingon Empire.
You are right. It's like he has taken certain Klingon principles and tried to perfect them while ignoring much of what makes a Klingon.