Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, apparently Spock's new canonical full name is

beast_gts wrote:
So, apparently Spock's new canonical full name is

Spoiler:

S’chn T’Gain Spock

I question why they felt this was nesscarily

BrianDavion wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
So, apparently Spock's new canonical full name is

Spoiler:

S’chn T’Gain Spock

I question why they felt this was nesscarily

Back in the early 2000s Marvel gave Wolverine a full origin story after 27 years of ambiguity because the X-Men movie was successful and they knew that if they didn't give him an official origin the movie studio would.

So they felt it was necessary because movie/tv producers don't have much respect for whatever came before and want to have as much control over a property as possible. They get to say, "We named Spock. No one had given his full name till now. We did that."

Lower Decks returns later this year - https://bit.ly/STLowerDecks

beast_gts wrote:
Lower Decks returns later this year - https://bit.ly/STLowerDecks

Aw heck yeah.

 bbb wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
So, apparently Spock's new canonical full name is

Spoiler:

S’chn T’Gain Spock

I question why they felt this was nesscarily

Back in the early 2000s Marvel gave Wolverine a full origin story after 27 years of ambiguity because the X-Men movie was successful and they knew that if they didn't give him an official origin the movie studio would.

So they felt it was necessary because movie/tv producers don't have much respect for whatever came before and want to have as much control over a property as possible. They get to say, "We named Spock. No one had given his full name till now. We did that."

Frankly its a bit of an anomaly, Vulcans were stated to have family names as early as TOS but the blanket explanation that they're difficult for humans to pronounce has prevented anyone, even other vulcans, from every saying a vulcan's family name on screen in all these decades of TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ92cggLMx8

This fellow sums up perfectly why a lot of these modern shows and movies aren't so great. And the use of Old trek to do it really hammers in how bad a lot of this new stuff has been in comparison to the old.

One thing that struck me was the difference between "running like a drunken puppy" vs. "Running with purpose." I hadn't notice that until he pointed it out.

Sums up a lot of my feelings too. Watching the first of the new Original Series Films I could never work out why this upstart teenager was given command of a starship when he's basically spent most of the film being an upstart teenager, showing no special skills other than being disobedient.
A fact that's clearly so obvious that they have to create a shield character for him who keeps promoting him to captain out of almost pure faith and his apparent high rank in Starfleet enough that he can just veto anyone and give a random teen ship command.

 Overread wrote:
Sums up a lot of my feelings too. Watching the first of the new Original Series Films I could never work out why this upstart teenager was given command of a starship when he's basically spent most of the film being an upstart teenager, showing no special skills other than being disobedient.
A fact that's clearly so obvious that they have to create a shield character for him who keeps promoting him to captain out of almost pure faith and his apparent high rank in Starfleet enough that he can just veto anyone and give a random teen ship command.

I felt the same way. 2009 was a very different time for me. For starters I was 22 years old back then and a wildly different person. But I remember leaving the theater after seeing the film and being sorely disappointed at what's I'd seen. You know, a lot of modern stuff has moved away from the positive and hopeful vibe of Star Trek. I've been rewatching SG-1 lately and even Stargate makes it abundantly clear right off the the bat that Humanity has great potential and that even a race as old and revered as the Asgard are impressed with how far we've come. I haven't felt this vibe from Discovery or Picard. In fact, I've really felt that both of those shows and the newer films have been trying to do everything they can to avoid that.

 Togusa wrote:
This fellow sums up perfectly why a lot of these modern shows and movies aren't so great. And the use of Old trek to do it really hammers in how bad a lot of this new stuff has been in comparison to the old.

I go back to all the Star Trek shows (besides TOS because I can't stand it) and barring stand-out episodes (and DS9 as a series), masterpieces they are not. When a friend decided to get into watching ST this past year they asked if they should watch all of TNG and a fellow Trekkie and I laughed. We told them they should stick to very specific episodes because so much of TNG is not good. JLP does nice speeches and Riker does some funnies but it has nowhere near the consistency of DS9. I would even place Enterprise (apart from the opening theme) above TNG for my favourite Trek shows because of how patchy TNG can be even in its later seasons.

I'd also like to point out that the characters in older Trek fall into the category of never getting told off for stuff. Captains and their crew break the Prime Directive all the time, hell Sisko uses biogenic weapons on a Maquis colony and suffers not a single on-screen consequence.

Trek shows reflect the generation they are made in.

I like DS9 and OS the best - but they are very different shows - I donlt mind Next gen as a whole but dislike characters and epsiodes. Enterprise is pretty meh - except for an awesome Mirror Universe 2 part and Voyager about the same - except for some reason it never had a Mirror Episode - guess that was too much fun.....

Discovery is plain awful and Picard is not too bad.

Plenty of other Sci-fi shows with "hope" watch Lost in Space, The Expanse and Stargate

I could never work out why this upstart teenager was given command of a starship when he's basically spent most of the film being an upstart teenager, showing no special skills other than being disobedient. A fact that's clearly so obvious that they have to create a shield character for him who keeps promoting him to captain out of almost pure faith and his apparent high rank in Starfleet enough that he can just veto anyone and give a random teen ship command.

Bit like giving Raffy command cos Picard is her friend....an unstable, panicky captain....good choice

 Gert wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
This fellow sums up perfectly why a lot of these modern shows and movies aren't so great. And the use of Old trek to do it really hammers in how bad a lot of this new stuff has been in comparison to the old.

I go back to all the Star Trek shows (besides TOS because I can't stand it) and barring stand-out episodes (and DS9 as a series), masterpieces they are not. When a friend decided to get into watching ST this past year they asked if they should watch all of TNG and a fellow Trekkie and I laughed. We told them they should stick to very specific episodes because so much of TNG is not good. JLP does nice speeches and Riker does some funnies but it has nowhere near the consistency of DS9. I would even place Enterprise (apart from the opening theme) above TNG for my favourite Trek shows because of how patchy TNG can be even in its later seasons.

I'd also like to point out that the characters in older Trek fall into the category of never getting told off for stuff. Captains and their crew break the Prime Directive all the time, hell Sisko uses biogenic weapons on a Maquis colony and suffers not a single on-screen consequence.

Perfection doesn't exist. Personally, I re-watch from start to finish TNG, Voyager and DS9 at least once a year and have for over two decades. But! That's just it right? We're all different in what we like so it's not surprising there is a spectrum of opinions on it. Personally I love the first two seasons of DS9, which to my understanding the "community" consensus is that it's awful.

I like the way Fry puts it in the Star Trek episode of Futurama;

"You know. 1966? 79 episodes, about 30 good ones."

I think that's a pretty good spitball honestly, especially for TOS and TNG. Only about half to just under half the episodes are good. Maybe a dozen or so are truly fantastic. DS9 I think generally managed to have more good episodes but still only has maybe a dozen or so fantastic ones. Milage may vary based on how fun/annoying you find the Ferengi episodes.

Then you get to the rest of the franchise VOY and onward, and those numbers drop significantly. I'd dare challenge that Voyager only has a dozen or so good episodes and honestly I can only think of four or five I'd call fantastic. Enterprise is even worse cause I think out of its entire run it never really managed to be good. Only passable at best.

Discovery and Picard couldn't even hold my interest so... yeah...

There has never been a good episode of Picard or Discovery. At least with TNG and the rest, there might be a schlocky episode, but at least you could enjoy it, warts and all.

Whatever this is, this nu-trek, is an abomination worthy of a Sam Neil scream.

 LordofHats wrote:
I like the way Fry puts it in the Star Trek episode of Futurama;

"You know. 1966? 79 episodes, about 30 good ones."

I think that's a pretty good spitball honestly, especially for TOS and TNG. Only about half to just under half the episodes are good. Maybe a dozen or so are truly fantastic. DS9 I think generally managed to have more good episodes but still only has maybe a dozen or so fantastic ones. Milage may vary based on how fun/annoying you find the Ferengi episodes.

Then you get to the rest of the franchise VOY and onward, and those numbers drop significantly. I'd dare challenge that Voyager only has a dozen or so good episodes and honestly I can only think of four or five I'd call fantastic. Enterprise is even worse cause I think out of its entire run it never really managed to be good. Only passable at best.

Discovery and Picard couldn't even hold my interest so... yeah...

After watching the video I shared, I rewatched the SNW trailer and I have a deep fear now that it will have the exact same issues as the other two shows. There was a lot of questionable childish behavior in the trailer.

 Togusa wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ92cggLMx8

This fellow sums up perfectly why a lot of these modern shows and movies aren't so great. And the use of Old trek to do it really hammers in how bad a lot of this new stuff has been in comparison to the old.

One thing that struck me was the difference between "running like a drunken puppy" vs. "Running with purpose." I hadn't notice that until he pointed it out.

I can't stand this guy and had to cut him off after the first minute or so, but I do think there's a certain irony in a guy pretending to be a rambling, incoherent drunk lamenting the level of maturity present in popular fiction.

A random thought: Star Trek often addressed the politics, issues, and morals of its day. For all of us who grew up with TOS, TNG, and/or DS9, are we now so old that we are on the "wrong" side of the politics/morals/issues that today's Star Trek is addressing? And is that why some people don't like modern Star Trek?

Anyway, that aside, I also feel Star Trek is facing the same issues that other fan-favorite properties are facing: The fans who grew up with the property are now old enough to be in control of that property. It's one thing to be a professional writer who has written a sci-fi story that is sold and turned into a Star Trek episode. It's another to be a writer who is writing specifically Star Trek stories because they grew up with Star Trek and are writing the Star Trek stories they always dreamed of.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
A random thought: Star Trek often addressed the politics, issues, and morals of its day. For all of us who grew up with TOS, TNG, and/or DS9, are we now so old that we are on the "wrong" side of the politics/morals/issues that today's Star Trek is addressing? And is that why some people don't like modern Star Trek?

I think it's less the side of politics (though that complaint certainly gets made) and more the tenore of the shows themselves.

The first episode of Picard actually fits perfectly with what I'd complain about. Star Trek already did a 9/11 moment during the lead-up to and during the Dominion War. We already saw the ideals and faith of the Federation get shaken and the whole point, because Star Trek is supposed to be optimistic, was that the Federation endured those challenges even if it wasn't pretty.

Fast forward to the start of Picard, and it's just this bleak tenor to things, with a gak eating reporter, Star Fleet failing to adhere to any of its ideals, and the Federation becoming a parody of itself. The opening of Picard just killed the show for me in more ways than one but this one probably hurt me the most. Picard wasn't some uppity grandpa unwilling to be pragmatic. Picard was the higher voice of reason and idealism. While I'm sure the show ultimately comes back around to Picard doing a Picard speech and saving the day, the overall tone of the world around him just didn't interest me in a Star Trek show. I feel like the show's political tone was explicitly catering itself my way even and I really just don't care because it was as subtle as a sledgehammer on a strawberry.

Star Trek isn't written like this anymore;




It's a small but surprisingly deep moment. The kind that makes you wonder even if you don't agree with the message. It's also a sort of timeless question, not one precipitously mired in the present-day drum and fads of political rhetoric. This episode is from 1991 and speaks more to the struggles of our times than anything in Discovery or Picard.

Modern Star Trek is just bleak and edge lordy. The series' has abandoned soft-spoken moral Aesops and commentary to be a spectacle banazas, and not a particularly well thought out one. There's no exploration of complex problems or ideals to live up to. Picard used to give lessons of the week on TNG every week and he was less mind-numbingly preachy than Discovery or Picard whenever Discovery or Picard check their watch and decide it's time to be inspired instead of just pew pew lazor beams pews.

Anyway, that aside, I also feel Star Trek is facing the same issues that other fan-favorite properties are facing: The fans who grew up with the property are now old enough to be in control of that property.

I keep bringing it up because I can't really not see it anymore.

It honestly feels like the people writing Star Trek now were the people who made Star Trek: Renegades, a very edgy fan film that had; Dilithium becoming a scarce resource precipitating the weakening of the Federation, Khan having a daughter, Romulans being stupidly capable despite their planet being exploded, and the Borg becoming less evil.

It was a god-awful movie. It was cool that fans could put something like it together but it's plot was awful and I'm seeing many of its plot points reappear in newer Trek shows while generally being just as awful as Renegades. Maybe it is a case of inmates taking over the asylum. Maybe there's just no interesting in making a show like classic Trek anymore, which I'd question. I'm really tired of all TV shows being about high stakes secret conspiracies and every character being an unlikable prick with a heart of gold (that is usually just a crock of gak). I'd really like someone to make a TV show with a little less pomp and a little more patient confidence.

Basically, can we have more shows like Peacemaker and Arcane and less garbage like Discovery please?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
A random thought: Star Trek often addressed the politics, issues, and morals of its day. For all of us who grew up with TOS, TNG, and/or DS9, are we now so old that we are on the "wrong" side of the politics/morals/issues that today's Star Trek is addressing? And is that why some people don't like modern Star Trek?

Maybe a bit, but then again maybe not? That's a tricky question to tackle.

On the one hand, I have definitely seen people harp on discovery for its delivery of certain political topics even if they nominally agree with the message they try to make. There's a noticeable difference in the way the show treats Stamets in season 1 of the show compared with season 4, for example; and a lot of that seems to be the difference between the producers wanting to pat themselves on the back for finally including a positive gay character in Star Trek, versus the writers wanting to have a full, robust character.

edit (brain scattered, sorry): On the other hand, it isn't just that you were on the 'right' or 'wrong' side of a political or moral issue when you were younger. What you were though, was more willing to have your viewpoint challenged. I guarantee there were times you went in to a star trek episode thinking one thing about a moral issue, had that idea challenged by the episode dealing with the topic in metaphor, and only really had your actual viewpoint on the issue itself change as your worked out the metaphor on your way out. And even if it ultimately didn't change your mind that time, the writers would take another crack at you next week.

It's been documented that part of getting older is you become more set in your ways, less willing to have the comfortable assumptions you build your life around be rattled by someone on the outside saying something against it. We get comfortable with things being a certain way and when that thing is threatened we dread becoming uncomfortable - having an open mind gets harder as we go, and it becomes something we have to consciously do.

Fair point about the fans and Renegades, I love Axanar (check it out!) but even there you can see there's this little voice in the Trek fandom that craves military sci fi, what with the lasers and the explosions and everybody snapping salutes and making speeches about how great their culture is, etc.

I don't get why people are saying Picard the show lost it's hopefulness.
He outright says things can get better, that while it can be bad now doesn't mean it is going to stay bad.
This story is about them working on making sure hopefulness can stay alive as Picard said, sometimes the bad conditions are a catalyst for the new


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
A random thought: Star Trek often addressed the politics, issues, and morals of its day. For all of us who grew up with TOS, TNG, and/or DS9, are we now so old that we are on the "wrong" side of the politics/morals/issues that today's Star Trek is addressing? And is that why some people don't like modern Star Trek?

There is an decent amount of people who grew up watching shows with these messages, then in adulthood have completely different ideals, but because they didn't realize those messages, are now thinking they shows became political. Like the X-Men fans who are upset it's woke.
It doesn help that these shows are under scrutiny constantly by culture war bs.

The difference with Picard is that the positive events don't appear in force until the end. In contrast even in DS9 most episodes would end on a positive event, with rarer events ending in the negative to then be resolved typically in the very next episode.

Picard just isn't episodic events and storytelling so it can feel like a huge depressing beatdown in the early parts, but then that sets the stage for the glorious events in the latter part.
It also looks at the underbelly of things more closely than other seasons; again even in DS9 some of the negative elements can still have a neutral to upbeat edge to them. Picard very much doens't have that feeling.



I think some of those who dislike it might like it better if seen more like a film in one long session instead of broken up where you have to wait a whole week between episodes and a few months to get the whole story.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't get why people are saying Picard the show lost it's hopefulness.
He outright says things can get better, that while it can be bad now doesn't mean it is going to stay bad.
This story is about them working on making sure hopefulness can stay alive as Picard said, sometimes the bad conditions are a catalyst for the new


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
A random thought: Star Trek often addressed the politics, issues, and morals of its day. For all of us who grew up with TOS, TNG, and/or DS9, are we now so old that we are on the "wrong" side of the politics/morals/issues that today's Star Trek is addressing? And is that why some people don't like modern Star Trek?

There is an decent amount of people who grew up watching shows with these messages, then in adulthood have completely different ideals, but because they didn't realize those messages, are now thinking they shows became political. Like the X-Men fans who are upset it's woke.
It doesn help that these shows are under scrutiny constantly by culture war bs.

Talking about one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and tempered characters in the history of the franchise beheading Sarak of Vulcan on the steps of the Vulcan Academy of Science is one of the most offensive things you could do to a character. It's just gross.

 Togusa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't get why people are saying Picard the show lost it's hopefulness.
He outright says things can get better, that while it can be bad now doesn't mean it is going to stay bad.
This story is about them working on making sure hopefulness can stay alive as Picard said, sometimes the bad conditions are a catalyst for the new


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
A random thought: Star Trek often addressed the politics, issues, and morals of its day. For all of us who grew up with TOS, TNG, and/or DS9, are we now so old that we are on the "wrong" side of the politics/morals/issues that today's Star Trek is addressing? And is that why some people don't like modern Star Trek?

There is an decent amount of people who grew up watching shows with these messages, then in adulthood have completely different ideals, but because they didn't realize those messages, are now thinking they shows became political. Like the X-Men fans who are upset it's woke.
It doesn help that these shows are under scrutiny constantly by culture war bs.

Talking about one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and tempered characters in the history of the franchise beheading Sarak of Vulcan on the steps of the Vulcan Academy of Science is one of the most offensive things you could do to a character. It's just gross.

Yes that's why its a shock-alternate reality. That's why Picard is fighting so hard (along with the others) to restore the timeline. Because they are in a hellish one otherwise.

Don't forget you're talking about the same character who, if the Borg got their way, would become the de-factor second in command. Who was part of the collective intended to take over and infest the entire Federation. He's already been there, done that and got the implants. Heck the Borg plaguing his mind was a huge part of First Contact.


Heck part of this story line is that something might be wrong with Q as well, we've seen him behaving with a much darker tone than normal.

 Overread wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't get why people are saying Picard the show lost it's hopefulness.
He outright says things can get better, that while it can be bad now doesn't mean it is going to stay bad.
This story is about them working on making sure hopefulness can stay alive as Picard said, sometimes the bad conditions are a catalyst for the new


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
A random thought: Star Trek often addressed the politics, issues, and morals of its day. For all of us who grew up with TOS, TNG, and/or DS9, are we now so old that we are on the "wrong" side of the politics/morals/issues that today's Star Trek is addressing? And is that why some people don't like modern Star Trek?

There is an decent amount of people who grew up watching shows with these messages, then in adulthood have completely different ideals, but because they didn't realize those messages, are now thinking they shows became political. Like the X-Men fans who are upset it's woke.
It doesn help that these shows are under scrutiny constantly by culture war bs.

Talking about one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and tempered characters in the history of the franchise beheading Sarak of Vulcan on the steps of the Vulcan Academy of Science is one of the most offensive things you could do to a character. It's just gross.

Yes that's why its a shock-alternate reality. That's why Picard is fighting so hard (along with the others) to restore the timeline. Because they are in a hellish one otherwise.

Don't forget you're talking about the same character who, if the Borg got their way, would become the de-factor second in command. Who was part of the collective intended to take over and infest the entire Federation. He's already been there, done that and got the implants. Heck the Borg plaguing his mind was a huge part of First Contact.


Heck part of this story line is that something might be wrong with Q as well, we've seen him behaving with a much darker tone than normal.

To me, it just feels like they're attempting to tear down popular characters for "reasons." They did it to Luke. They did it to Sarah Connor. Now it's Picard's turn.
What I would have liked to have seen was a sort of new "The Next Generation." New Ship. New Crew set in the early 25th century. Have maybe a scene with a character helping Admiral Picard to his shuttle with Dr. Crusher al a the way Data was escorting Bones in the first episode of TNG and then moving on. So many properties today seem hellbent on reimaging things we've already done. Paramount had a rich set of lore to draw from after Voyager ended and they used almost none of it. I saw a comment on a post or video somewhere else (can't quite remember) but it basically said that the poster felt as though all of these new shows exist solely for the reason of filling "content" space for Paramount+ and nothing more. That's why they feel so hollow and uninspired.

 Togusa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't get why people are saying Picard the show lost it's hopefulness.
He outright says things can get better, that while it can be bad now doesn't mean it is going to stay bad.
This story is about them working on making sure hopefulness can stay alive as Picard said, sometimes the bad conditions are a catalyst for the new


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
A random thought: Star Trek often addressed the politics, issues, and morals of its day. For all of us who grew up with TOS, TNG, and/or DS9, are we now so old that we are on the "wrong" side of the politics/morals/issues that today's Star Trek is addressing? And is that why some people don't like modern Star Trek?

There is an decent amount of people who grew up watching shows with these messages, then in adulthood have completely different ideals, but because they didn't realize those messages, are now thinking they shows became political. Like the X-Men fans who are upset it's woke.
It doesn help that these shows are under scrutiny constantly by culture war bs.

Talking about one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and tempered characters in the history of the franchise beheading Sarak of Vulcan on the steps of the Vulcan Academy of Science is one of the most offensive things you could do to a character. It's just gross.

Plenty worse in Mirror Universe - which is why the Confederation is just "shrug" for me.

Although its notable that cutting people's throats is fine by Raffy and even amusing....provoking merely "stop showing off" - but she is awful throughout.

Also sci-fi these days is playing catch up to mainstream drama - Hey look we have a (single and often unique) fat character, a gay character, a bi character - look at us - please!

I think it will turn out Q is dying and pinning after Picard as his true love.....or not....

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't get why people are saying Picard the show lost it's hopefulness.
He outright says things can get better, that while it can be bad now doesn't mean it is going to stay bad.
This story is about them working on making sure hopefulness can stay alive as Picard said, sometimes the bad conditions are a catalyst for the new


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
A random thought: Star Trek often addressed the politics, issues, and morals of its day. For all of us who grew up with TOS, TNG, and/or DS9, are we now so old that we are on the "wrong" side of the politics/morals/issues that today's Star Trek is addressing? And is that why some people don't like modern Star Trek?

There is an decent amount of people who grew up watching shows with these messages, then in adulthood have completely different ideals, but because they didn't realize those messages, are now thinking they shows became political. Like the X-Men fans who are upset it's woke.
It doesn help that these shows are under scrutiny constantly by culture war bs.

Talking about one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and tempered characters in the history of the franchise beheading Sarak of Vulcan on the steps of the Vulcan Academy of Science is one of the most offensive things you could do to a character. It's just gross.

Plenty worse in Mirror Universe - which is why the Confederation is just "shrug" for me.

Although its notable that cutting people's throats is fine by Raffy and even amusing....provoking merely "stop showing off" - but she is awful throughout.

Also sci-fi these days is playing catch up to mainstream drama - Hey look we have a (single and often unique) fat character, a gay character, a bi character - look at us - please!

I think it will turn out Q is dying and pinning after Picard as his true love.....or not....

To me the sad part there is that a lot of the diversity characters we're given aren't good representations of their diversity. A person who acts gakky and has no honor, or skirts responsibility for their actions is a gakky person, no matter if they're straight and White or Black and Trans. It's a disservice to us all, but doubly so to the communities these characters are supposed to represent.

 Togusa wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't get why people are saying Picard the show lost it's hopefulness.
He outright says things can get better, that while it can be bad now doesn't mean it is going to stay bad.
This story is about them working on making sure hopefulness can stay alive as Picard said, sometimes the bad conditions are a catalyst for the new


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
A random thought: Star Trek often addressed the politics, issues, and morals of its day. For all of us who grew up with TOS, TNG, and/or DS9, are we now so old that we are on the "wrong" side of the politics/morals/issues that today's Star Trek is addressing? And is that why some people don't like modern Star Trek?

There is an decent amount of people who grew up watching shows with these messages, then in adulthood have completely different ideals, but because they didn't realize those messages, are now thinking they shows became political. Like the X-Men fans who are upset it's woke.
It doesn help that these shows are under scrutiny constantly by culture war bs.

Talking about one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and tempered characters in the history of the franchise beheading Sarak of Vulcan on the steps of the Vulcan Academy of Science is one of the most offensive things you could do to a character. It's just gross.

Yes that's why its a shock-alternate reality. That's why Picard is fighting so hard (along with the others) to restore the timeline. Because they are in a hellish one otherwise.

Don't forget you're talking about the same character who, if the Borg got their way, would become the de-factor second in command. Who was part of the collective intended to take over and infest the entire Federation. He's already been there, done that and got the implants. Heck the Borg plaguing his mind was a huge part of First Contact.


Heck part of this story line is that something might be wrong with Q as well, we've seen him behaving with a much darker tone than normal.

To me, it just feels like they're attempting to tear down popular characters for "reasons." They did it to Luke. They did it to Sarah Connor. Now it's Picard's turn.
What I would have liked to have seen was a sort of new "The Next Generation." New Ship. New Crew set in the early 25th century. Have maybe a scene with a character helping Admiral Picard to his shuttle with Dr. Crusher al a the way Data was escorting Bones in the first episode of TNG and then moving on. So many properties today seem hellbent on reimaging things we've already done. Paramount had a rich set of lore to draw from after Voyager ended and they used almost none of it. I saw a comment on a post or video somewhere else (can't quite remember) but it basically said that the poster felt as though all of these new shows exist solely for the reason of filling "content" space for Paramount+ and nothing more. That's why they feel so hollow and uninspired.

They aren't tearing down Picard. We've not even met the alternate timeline Picard, we only have his action as historical reference from one episode. Picard in ALL the episodes is the man we know from TNG. He hasn't committed genocide or anything else, he's played the part of a bloodthirsty general for a few moments of deception to steal the queen and then jump back in time.

This is totally different to where Luke Skywalker fell from being a hero which was an actual change to his character. One I'd argue was not a bad thing, save that it was done fully off-screen. Ideally they should have made the first new film all about that event and how it affected him so that we could go along with the journey instead of seeing him broken at the end, which was a huge flaw, but then the story telling in the last 3 films was not its strong point (hampered heavily by them not even having a unified script or story for all 3 films)



And what you are after isn't the Picard series, but TNG 2. Which I get, I'd love to see TNG done now with the original cast stepping aside for new blood and new adventures in that style. However Picard seasons 1 and 2 never set themselves up to be that kind of story. Perhaps end of Season 3 (which is set to be the end) we might see something like that; or at least see the groundwork setout

 Overread wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't get why people are saying Picard the show lost it's hopefulness.
He outright says things can get better, that while it can be bad now doesn't mean it is going to stay bad.
This story is about them working on making sure hopefulness can stay alive as Picard said, sometimes the bad conditions are a catalyst for the new


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
A random thought: Star Trek often addressed the politics, issues, and morals of its day. For all of us who grew up with TOS, TNG, and/or DS9, are we now so old that we are on the "wrong" side of the politics/morals/issues that today's Star Trek is addressing? And is that why some people don't like modern Star Trek?

There is an decent amount of people who grew up watching shows with these messages, then in adulthood have completely different ideals, but because they didn't realize those messages, are now thinking they shows became political. Like the X-Men fans who are upset it's woke.
It doesn help that these shows are under scrutiny constantly by culture war bs.

Talking about one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and tempered characters in the history of the franchise beheading Sarak of Vulcan on the steps of the Vulcan Academy of Science is one of the most offensive things you could do to a character. It's just gross.

Yes that's why its a shock-alternate reality. That's why Picard is fighting so hard (along with the others) to restore the timeline. Because they are in a hellish one otherwise.

Don't forget you're talking about the same character who, if the Borg got their way, would become the de-factor second in command. Who was part of the collective intended to take over and infest the entire Federation. He's already been there, done that and got the implants. Heck the Borg plaguing his mind was a huge part of First Contact.


Heck part of this story line is that something might be wrong with Q as well, we've seen him behaving with a much darker tone than normal.

To me, it just feels like they're attempting to tear down popular characters for "reasons." They did it to Luke. They did it to Sarah Connor. Now it's Picard's turn.
What I would have liked to have seen was a sort of new "The Next Generation." New Ship. New Crew set in the early 25th century. Have maybe a scene with a character helping Admiral Picard to his shuttle with Dr. Crusher al a the way Data was escorting Bones in the first episode of TNG and then moving on. So many properties today seem hellbent on reimaging things we've already done. Paramount had a rich set of lore to draw from after Voyager ended and they used almost none of it. I saw a comment on a post or video somewhere else (can't quite remember) but it basically said that the poster felt as though all of these new shows exist solely for the reason of filling "content" space for Paramount+ and nothing more. That's why they feel so hollow and uninspired.

They aren't tearing down Picard. We've not even met the alternate timeline Picard, we only have his action as historical reference from one episode. Picard in ALL the episodes is the man we know from TNG. He hasn't committed genocide or anything else, he's played the part of a bloodthirsty general for a few moments of deception to steal the queen and then jump back in time.

This is totally different to where Luke Skywalker fell from being a hero which was an actual change to his character. One I'd argue was not a bad thing, save that it was done fully off-screen. Ideally they should have made the first new film all about that event and how it affected him so that we could go along with the journey instead of seeing him broken at the end, which was a huge flaw, but then the story telling in the last 3 films was not its strong point (hampered heavily by them not even having a unified script or story for all 3 films)



And what you are after isn't the Picard series, but TNG 2. Which I get, I'd love to see TNG done now with the original cast stepping aside for new blood and new adventures in that style. However Picard seasons 1 and 2 never set themselves up to be that kind of story. Perhaps end of Season 3 (which is set to be the end) we might see something like that; or at least see the groundwork setout

As long as Kurtzman has anything to do with it, I doubt we will get anything of value. S3 is the biggest bunch of memberberries I've ever seen. To announce it when the current season isn't even finished is very telling of the fact that the show isn't doing as well as they'd hoped and they're trying to build hype to get viewership to the level they want it to be at. I don't really want TNG 2. It's more the concept I'm interested in, the way that TNG moved on from TOS without striking it from the history, doing it's own thing in a new century, with a new cast and crew. That's TNG-like. But I want it to do it's own thing and continue the journey in new and exciting ways.

At the moment, the only way I'm getting this is with my weekly running of my STA RPG group. Which is fine I guess.

 Togusa wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I don't get why people are saying Picard the show lost it's hopefulness.
He outright says things can get better, that while it can be bad now doesn't mean it is going to stay bad.
This story is about them working on making sure hopefulness can stay alive as Picard said, sometimes the bad conditions are a catalyst for the new


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
A random thought: Star Trek often addressed the politics, issues, and morals of its day. For all of us who grew up with TOS, TNG, and/or DS9, are we now so old that we are on the "wrong" side of the politics/morals/issues that today's Star Trek is addressing? And is that why some people don't like modern Star Trek?

There is an decent amount of people who grew up watching shows with these messages, then in adulthood have completely different ideals, but because they didn't realize those messages, are now thinking they shows became political. Like the X-Men fans who are upset it's woke.
It doesn help that these shows are under scrutiny constantly by culture war bs.

Talking about one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and tempered characters in the history of the franchise beheading Sarak of Vulcan on the steps of the Vulcan Academy of Science is one of the most offensive things you could do to a character. It's just gross.

Plenty worse in Mirror Universe - which is why the Confederation is just "shrug" for me.

Although its notable that cutting people's throats is fine by Raffy and even amusing....provoking merely "stop showing off" - but she is awful throughout.

Also sci-fi these days is playing catch up to mainstream drama - Hey look we have a (single and often unique) fat character, a gay character, a bi character - look at us - please!

I think it will turn out Q is dying and pinning after Picard as his true love.....or not....

To me the sad part there is that a lot of the diversity characters we're given aren't good representations of their diversity. A person who acts gakky and has no honor, or skirts responsibility for their actions is a gakky person, no matter if they're straight and White or Black and Trans. It's a disservice to us all, but doubly so to the communities these characters are supposed to represent.

Yeah there should be evil "diverse" characters as well as good and in between - but you do get idiots who whine if someone from a group is depcited in a nagative way - usually they are doing it "on behalf of a group" which is in itself often insulting - again Trek is behind mainstream drama and (comedy) in this.

 Togusa wrote:
Talking about one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and tempered characters in the history of the franchise beheading Sarak of Vulcan on the steps of the Vulcan Academy of Science is one of the most offensive things you could do to a character. It's just gross.

That's the point though? The whole point of this alternate timeline is to show how bad it is so you take the best people and turn them into monsters. Did you just not watch any of the Mirror Universe stuff or see any alternate timeline episodes of any TV show ever?