Something I kind of hate about Picard is that The Federation - literally hundreds of worlds - seems to have exactly one political faction, in a Democracy
Not a single Admiral that's in the pro-Picard camp other than people he's personally served with
that and the entire thing about the AI plot, the entire thing about Romulan senators living on post apocalyptic cowboy worlds when they have dozens (hundreds?) of habitable worlds and a fleet of thousands of ships, it's like New York being blown up and all the evacuees are forced to resettle in the wastelands of Newfoundland for some reason because Germany didn't want to help out, and THE END OF THE GALAXY LOOMS NIGH (please stooooop this)
How old is the average Disco watcher any way? Like 30 to 50?
I don't think they'll be forming nostalgia for it.
Apparently 63% of CBSAll Access viewers are 18-49. That’s all I can find on a quick Google, except that their churn rate is very low. Presumably that maps to Disco, though I couldn’t quickly find anything more specific that was recent.
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
It's wild to me that people here think Disco will be generally liked and well regarded in 10 to 15 years by the wider audience
1) the wider audience isn't watching disco to begin with
2) bad writing never magically gets better
TNG is amazing and people love it! and every single person always says the first 2 seasons are bad. TNG is great in spite of that because it grew and got good writing! Disco so far has not had that happen. If season 4 magically becomes goo and than there are 5 more seasons of good Disco than sure, but right now we are nowhere close to that.
I mean there's plenty people on here watching TNG for the first time without the nostalgia goggles. What did you guys get out of Season 1?
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
edited April 2021
TNG won Emmys during its run, didn't it? IIRC it was actually nominated for the more mainstream, popular awards like Best Drama or whatever. It wasn't relegated to just the special-effects corner. It has also had literally decades of syndication runs that began while new episodes were coming out. It's still one of the more popular shows being actively rewatched on streaming services.
The comparison between how TNG was received during its time and how Discovery has been perceived now is not fair to the latter, unfortunately. The media landscape has changed dramatically, and people no longer have ready access to the new shows because they're all gated behind a paywall. This will, I believe, have a dramatic impact on the long-term legacy of these new shows by virtue of them starting with a far smaller initial audience and an inability to organically grow a new one over time. It was those very same early syndication runs for TNG which helped to propel it forward in the popular consciousness, as it gave new viewers a chance to get to know the show who otherwise would not have seen it, and it gave returning viewers a chance to catch back up after perhaps dismissing those early rough seasons.
There are a lot of shows I'd watch if not for the balkanization of the streaming landscape. I have too many shows I could watch now anyhow, even if I might like some on some other services marginally better.
+2
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
The only Primetime Emmy award nomination TNG ever got was for best drama in its 7th season. It did not win. The rest were all Creative Arts Emmy nominations, which is indeed being relegated off to the side table.
Something I kind of hate about Picard is that The Federation - literally hundreds of worlds - seems to have exactly one political faction, in a Democracy
Not a single Admiral that's in the pro-Picard camp other than people he's personally served with
that and the entire thing about the AI plot, the entire thing about Romulan senators living on post apocalyptic cowboy worlds when they have dozens (hundreds?) of habitable worlds and a fleet of thousands of ships, it's like New York being blown up and all the evacuees are forced to resettle in the wastelands of Newfoundland for some reason because Germany didn't want to help out, and THE END OF THE GALAXY LOOMS NIGH (please stooooop this)
Yeah, that's one of the big things I disliked about Picard even before the silly "All Life Is At Stake For Some Reason" ending. There's this real feeling of needless grimdark hits to character and setting in order to try and make the story they really want to tell work. I think a ton of it just comes back to the show wanting to be about Picard being the one and only shinning light in a dark galaxy.
+4
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
The only Primetime Emmy award nomination TNG ever got was for best drama in its 7th season. It did not win. The rest were all Creative Arts Emmy nominations, which is indeed being relegated off to the side table.
TNG won Emmys during it's run, didn't it? IIRC it was actually nominated for the more mainstream, popular awards like Best Drama or whatever. It wasn't relegated to just the special-effects corner. It has also had literally decades of syndication runs that began while new episodes were coming out. It's still one of the more popular shows being actively rewatched on streaming services.
The comparison between how TNG was received during its time and how Discovery has been perceived now is not fair to the latter, unfortunately. The media landscape has changed dramatically, and people no longer have ready access to the new shows because they're all gated behind a paywall. This will, I believe, have a dramatic impact on the long-term legacy of these new shows by virtue of them starting with a far smaller initial audience and an inability to organically grow a new one over time. It was those very same early syndication runs for TNG which helped to propel it forward in the popular consciousness, as it gave new viewers a chance to get to know the show who otherwise would not have seen it, and it gave returning viewers a chance to catch back up after perhaps dismissing those early rough seasons.
Yeah, there's no comparison between 90s cable/network television and today's TV environment. There's just so much more TV being produced, so many fewer people watching any individual program, so little chance given to anything to develop an audience, so few ways for something to really grow into a show everyone watches, so few shows everyone does or even can watch, etc, etc.
+2
Options
MsAnthropyThe Lady of Pain Breaks the Rhythm, Breaks the Rhythm, Breaks the RhythmThe City of FlowersRegistered Userregular
I’m absolutely baffled to be living on a world where there will be, at a minimum, four Star Trek shows in tv at the same time. Four! And maybe even five or six!
It’s very, very strange.
But I loved that Lower Decks trailer. And the Picard one carried their more thoughtful, contemplative tone very well. Discovery brought more bombast than I’d like, but it’s still feeling more like a ship with a crew, more like a Trek show to me, with every episode.
Only one of them is good though, and it's the cartoon
The Picard one jumped me straight past disappointment into anger. Imagine having the sheer fucking hubris to think you can add anything meaningful to that story.
Like fuck me sideways, can we fire Kurtzman and get some people in there that have any idea what makes Star Trek work? Is Ira Behr available?
Not for nothing, but Michael Chabon wrote Picard. He’s a top notch sci-fi writer, a top notch literary writer, and according to some interviews he did a while back, a massive Trek fan. If anyone’s going to add to that story, I think he’s a fine choice.
You can argue that the story didn’t need extending, but I think there’s something to be said for the contemplative, look back from the bottom of the hill of your accomplishments, melancholy style tale they went with.
The last episode or so went a bit “Oh crap we get another season?” though.
But then, I’ve really enjoyed all of the Trek from the last year. Different strokes, I guess. The Mrs can’t be doing with Picard, will fight to the death for Tilly/Georgiou/Stamets but is ambivalent on the shouter bits of Disco, and fell over laughing with Lower Decks.
The point is, I guess everyone’s not going to like everything, but I love the diversity of what we have now. IDIC.
Chabon may be a good literary writer, but his film/television work leaves a lot to be desired. His filmography writing credits prior to Picard were basically screen story for Spider-Man 2 (the Tobey one) and the screenplay for John Carter. (For those who don't know, the "screen story" credit basically means you added some ideas and themes but the final screenplay was actually written and iterated on by others.)
I enjoyed The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Klay (good, if overrated) but if Chabon is writing another film or television show I'm at least waiting for the reviews before dedicating my time to watching the final product. His record speaks for itself.
He was also the show runner, not just the head writer. The show had obvious money management issues given it was obviously not cheap, but for some reason had to copypasta tons of ships and use video cuts from shutterstock in the back half of the season.
I also would have loved a “contemplative, look back from the bottom of the hill of your accomplishments, melancholy style tale.” I thought the first couple of episodes and the one with Riker & Troi pretty good even! But overall, what we got IMO was yet another story all about a massive universe ending threat and a resolution that seemed to think bigger/louder/more explodey was as important (if not more so!) as anything with emotional resonance.
The only Primetime Emmy award nomination TNG ever got was for best drama in its 7th season. It did not win. The rest were all Creative Arts Emmy nominations, which is indeed being relegated off to the side table.
So...I was right then?
Very partially.
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Voyager Season 1 Episode 15 is a great example of the evils of conscription as well as the tactics used to co-opt the conscripted.
Whats surprising is that Voyager actually has much shaper commentary than TNG so long as you understand the writers positions/main protagonist position is almost invariable wrong and the opposite of what you should support. Its actually incredible. Early anithero writing? Or just a complete misread of Start Trek and progressive rights based philosophy?
Discovery, if they could make the overarching season thing more background noise until the last episode or two (see Burn Notice for doing this well) per season, and letting each episode mostly stand as it's own thing, it would be SO MUCH BETTER. S3 kinda started doing this.... kinda., which is why it was so much better.
Now I want a Trek show where the main character has narration.
"When you're dealing with the Talaxians, you need to be careful. Talk too much about how bad Neelix's food was on Voyager, and you'll insult the entire delegation. Ignore the topic altogether, and they'll think you're hiding something." *takes a spoonful of yogurt*
How old is the average Disco watcher any way? Like 30 to 50?
I don't think they'll be forming nostalgia for it.
Every Trek show gets nostalgia, including Voyager. Makes Disco look like Shakespeare. Also every new Trek show gets the worst a some point, its tradition.
I think there's some reflexive fanboy hating but you find that over in Lower Decks as well - people who have just decided new Trek is bad because... women or black people or something
but I feel like most of us and most people online who waste energy talking about Star Trek like the lower decks, are lukewarm on Disco and don't really like Picard
gonna also chime in on the 10-15 years thing. literally everyone I knew watched TNG, and our parents, it's not a cult thing like Babylon 5 or Firefly that have gotten really popular with the internet and time. TNG was extremely popular when it was on TV, and not just with nerds, this is some kind of post-internet age retcon that only nerds watched TNG
Discovery, if they could make the overarching season thing more background noise until the last episode or two (see Burn Notice for doing this well) per season, and letting each episode mostly stand as it's own thing, it would be SO MUCH BETTER. S3 kinda started doing this.... kinda., which is why it was so much better.
Now I want a Trek show where the main character has narration.
"When you're dealing with the Talaxians, you need to be careful. Talk too much about how bad Neelix's food was on Voyager, and you'll insult the entire delegation. Ignore the topic altogether, and they'll think you're hiding something." *takes a spoonful of yogurt*
you nailed burn notice...eerily.
i think if you look at the actors for TNG and DS9 you start to see there was something special about a few of them which elevated the rest of the cast. Voyager, Ent, and Disco relegated their real stars to secondary roles. Picard missed the mark on a few things, namely the romulans in the beginning.
Discovery, if they could make the overarching season thing more background noise until the last episode or two (see Burn Notice for doing this well) per season, and letting each episode mostly stand as it's own thing, it would be SO MUCH BETTER. S3 kinda started doing this.... kinda., which is why it was so much better.
Now I want a Trek show where the main character has narration.
"When you're dealing with the Talaxians, you need to be careful. Talk too much about how bad Neelix's food was on Voyager, and you'll insult the entire delegation. Ignore the topic altogether, and they'll think you're hiding something." *takes a spoonful of yogurt*
"You were traveling the Typhon Expanse with your crew the other dayyyy..."
Of all the upcoming Trek seasons, Lower Decks still seems to be the one I'm most looking forward to watching. There's something to be said about just embracing the actual goofiness of the franchise's whole premise instead of trying to reinvent or reinterpret it.
I think there's some reflexive fanboy hating but you find that over in Lower Decks as well - people who have just decided new Trek is bad because... women or black people or something
but I feel like most of us and most people online who waste energy talking about Star Trek like the lower decks, are lukewarm on Disco and don't really like Picard
gonna also chime in on the 10-15 years thing. literally everyone I knew watched TNG, and our parents, it's not a cult thing like Babylon 5 or Firefly that have gotten really popular with the internet and time. TNG was extremely popular when it was on TV, and not just with nerds, this is some kind of post-internet age retcon that only nerds watched TNG
my fucking great grandmother watched TNG
Yeah, watching the TOS movies and TNG was a family thing in my family of very much not nerds. Me, my dad, my grandparents. It was just what you did.
Jacobkosh on
+4
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
If I wanted to take a moment to be fair to Disco: there are many aspects of the show that it does really well, in some cases exceptionally so. The cast of actors are really likeable, there are some stand-out characters that would be great additions to any Trek show (Saru, Culber for instance). Especially in season 3, many of the visual effects are legitimately incredible. I think the fight choreography has been consistently good. It has consistently great production values.
It's just that the thing is that many of the areas where you could argue it really excels are not things that define "Good Star Trek", and the areas where it consistently fails (writing, plotting, pacing) are things that are absolutely necessary for something to be "Good Star Trek".
I think in a decade or so we will probably look back on Discovery the same way we look back on Voyager or Enterprise: It's Star Trek, the series has some legitimate virtues and some good episodes if you dig for them, but it's ultimately flawed and a lot less than it could have been.
I don't think Disco is made for anyone with any conception of what "good trek" is. I'm not saying this to be pretentious or anything, I'm just making the statement of fact that it's a star trek branded show made with total mass market appeal in mind. It's not intended for the fans of the series to be spoonfed fan service and references. They're saying hey, people like star wars and marvel movies right? Let's make that but star trek for people who only know the basics and want to be entertained.
Nah, this talk about "good Trek" is just gatekeeper bullshit.
No, gatekeeping is about people, not things.
"I hate these fucking kids with their Cheesy Gordita Crunches. They're so stupid and they're ruining Taco Bell. Also, some of them are black!" is gatekeeping.
"I wish Taco Bell still sold Spicy Chicken Soft Tacos" is not.
Now, before someone gets notions, I am well aware that gatekeeping is a legitimate problem in many fandoms and Trek is no exception. However, nobody here is unaware that Discovery and Picard have fans or that for some of those fans those might be their favorite shows. Nobody here blames the fans of those shows for liking them, and nobody blames them for the fact that those shows aren't doing it for us.
But nobody is obligated to support Star Trek™, multimedia octopus, through thick and thin no matter what regardless of whether or not they enjoy it. If people feel like the fundamental identity of a thing has changed beyond their ability to continue enjoying it, it's okay for them to say so. CBS decided to make a Star Wars or MCU-like action show and pasted the Trek logo on it. They could have just made a new sci-fi franchise, but they specifically wanted to hook in existing fans and people who were vaguely familiar with the name, so those existing fans do get to say if they feel like they were bait-and-switched. If they release a new COLUMBO show but instead of a rumpled detective with an impish wit it's actually just a reskin of Baywatch, it's not gatekeeping or rude or unfair for Columbo fans to be like "wtf?"
+12
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
If I wanted to take a moment to be fair to Disco: there are many aspects of the show that it does really well, in some cases exceptionally so. The cast of actors are really likeable, there are some stand-out characters that would be great additions to any Trek show (Saru, Culber for instance). Especially in season 3, many of the visual effects are legitimately incredible. I think the fight choreography has been consistently good. It has consistently great production values.
It's just that the thing is that many of the areas where you could argue it really excels are not things that define "Good Star Trek", and the areas where it consistently fails (writing, plotting, pacing) are things that are absolutely necessary for something to be "Good Star Trek".
I think in a decade or so we will probably look back on Discovery the same way we look back on Voyager or Enterprise: It's Star Trek, the series has some legitimate virtues and some good episodes if you dig for them, but it's ultimately flawed and a lot less than it could have been.
I don't think Disco is made for anyone with any conception of what "good trek" is. I'm not saying this to be pretentious or anything, I'm just making the statement of fact that it's a star trek branded show made with total mass market appeal in mind. It's not intended for the fans of the series to be spoonfed fan service and references. They're saying hey, people like star wars and marvel movies right? Let's make that but star trek for people who only know the basics and want to be entertained.
Nah, this talk about "good Trek" is just gatekeeper bullshit.
No, gatekeeping is about people, not things.
"I hate these fucking kids with their Cheesy Gordita Crunches. They're so stupid and they're ruining Taco Bell. Also, some of them are black!" is gatekeeping.
"I wish Taco Bell still sold Spicy Chicken Soft Tacos" is not.
Now, before someone gets notions, I am well aware that gatekeeping is a legitimate problem in many fandoms and Trek is no exception. However, nobody here is unaware that Discovery and Picard have fans or that for some of those fans those might be their favorite shows. Nobody here blames the fans of those shows for liking them, and nobody blames them for the fact that those shows aren't doing it for us.
But nobody is obligated to support Star Trek™, multimedia octopus, through thick and thin no matter what regardless of whether or not they enjoy it. If people feel like the fundamental identity of a thing has changed beyond their ability to continue enjoying it, it's okay for them to say so. CBS decided to make a Star Wars or MCU-like action show and pasted the Trek logo on it. They could have just made a new sci-fi franchise, but they specifically wanted to hook in existing fans and people who were vaguely familiar with the name, so those existing fans do get to say if they feel like they were bait-and-switched. If they release a new COLUMBO show but instead of a rumpled detective with an impish wit it's actually just a reskin of Baywatch, it's not gatekeeping or rude or unfair for Columbo fans to be like "wtf?"
Of course it's ok for people to not enjoy various flavors of Star Trek, and to comment or complain about the aspects that they dislike. I don't believe anybody has said otherwise.
What's odious is the "what a real fan likes about Star Trek is..." kind of talk. No matter how you try to spin it, that kind of talk is a form of gatekeeping.
But nobody is obligated to support Star Trek™, multimedia octopus, through thick and thin no matter what regardless of whether or not they enjoy it. If people feel like the fundamental identity of a thing has changed beyond their ability to continue enjoying it, it's okay for them to say so. CBS decided to make a Star Wars or MCU-like action show and pasted the Trek logo on it. They could have just made a new sci-fi franchise, but they specifically wanted to hook in existing fans and people who were vaguely familiar with the name, so those existing fans do get to say if they feel like they were bait-and-switched. If they release a new COLUMBO show but instead of a rumpled detective with an impish wit it's actually just a reskin of Baywatch, it's not gatekeeping or rude or unfair for Columbo fans to be like "wtf?"
Agree with this, haters who just hate for the sake of hating aside, there is an essence of Trek (hurtling through space, solving high concept problems and encountering whacky -- if often hilariously one-dimensional -- aliens in a military ship of well-meaning humanitarians and explorers) that ought to be preserved for the majority of fans who got into the franchise for those kinds of tales. I'm sure there are certain baselines people across the fandom can probably agree on. For instance, I've yet to meet anyone who likes those deflector 'grills' on the Starfleet ships we saw in Picard.
i think if you look at the actors for TNG and DS9 you start to see there was something special about a few of them which elevated the rest of the cast. Voyager, Ent, and Disco relegated their real stars to secondary roles. Picard missed the mark on a few things, namely the romulans in the beginning.
Sonequa Martin-Green shines brightly in Discovery. She's a real star on that show.
+1
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
i think if you look at the actors for TNG and DS9 you start to see there was something special about a few of them which elevated the rest of the cast. Voyager, Ent, and Disco relegated their real stars to secondary roles. Picard missed the mark on a few things, namely the romulans in the beginning.
Sonequa Martin-Green shines brightly in Discovery. She's a real star on that show.
I think she's a good actor saddled with bad writing and direction.
+7
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
If I wanted to take a moment to be fair to Disco: there are many aspects of the show that it does really well, in some cases exceptionally so. The cast of actors are really likeable, there are some stand-out characters that would be great additions to any Trek show (Saru, Culber for instance). Especially in season 3, many of the visual effects are legitimately incredible. I think the fight choreography has been consistently good. It has consistently great production values.
It's just that the thing is that many of the areas where you could argue it really excels are not things that define "Good Star Trek", and the areas where it consistently fails (writing, plotting, pacing) are things that are absolutely necessary for something to be "Good Star Trek".
I think in a decade or so we will probably look back on Discovery the same way we look back on Voyager or Enterprise: It's Star Trek, the series has some legitimate virtues and some good episodes if you dig for them, but it's ultimately flawed and a lot less than it could have been.
I don't think Disco is made for anyone with any conception of what "good trek" is. I'm not saying this to be pretentious or anything, I'm just making the statement of fact that it's a star trek branded show made with total mass market appeal in mind. It's not intended for the fans of the series to be spoonfed fan service and references. They're saying hey, people like star wars and marvel movies right? Let's make that but star trek for people who only know the basics and want to be entertained.
Nah, this talk about "good Trek" is just gatekeeper bullshit.
No, gatekeeping is about people, not things.
"I hate these fucking kids with their Cheesy Gordita Crunches. They're so stupid and they're ruining Taco Bell. Also, some of them are black!" is gatekeeping.
"I wish Taco Bell still sold Spicy Chicken Soft Tacos" is not.
Now, before someone gets notions, I am well aware that gatekeeping is a legitimate problem in many fandoms and Trek is no exception. However, nobody here is unaware that Discovery and Picard have fans or that for some of those fans those might be their favorite shows. Nobody here blames the fans of those shows for liking them, and nobody blames them for the fact that those shows aren't doing it for us.
But nobody is obligated to support Star Trek™, multimedia octopus, through thick and thin no matter what regardless of whether or not they enjoy it. If people feel like the fundamental identity of a thing has changed beyond their ability to continue enjoying it, it's okay for them to say so. CBS decided to make a Star Wars or MCU-like action show and pasted the Trek logo on it. They could have just made a new sci-fi franchise, but they specifically wanted to hook in existing fans and people who were vaguely familiar with the name, so those existing fans do get to say if they feel like they were bait-and-switched. If they release a new COLUMBO show but instead of a rumpled detective with an impish wit it's actually just a reskin of Baywatch, it's not gatekeeping or rude or unfair for Columbo fans to be like "wtf?"
Of course it's ok for people to not enjoy various flavors of Star Trek, and to comment or complain about the aspects that they dislike. I don't believe anybody has said otherwise.
What's odious is the "what a real fan likes about Star Trek is..." kind of talk. No matter how you try to spin it, that kind of talk is a form of gatekeeping.
That wasn't what was said, though. "Real fans" never came up. Casual can speak for himself if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but I am very very sure that if you re-parse his post, he's saying "Discovery was not made for people who had a preexisting idea of what 'good Star Trek' is," eg, it was made for a new audience of people who had a passing familiarity with/curiosity about the brand.
+6
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
i think if you look at the actors for TNG and DS9 you start to see there was something special about a few of them which elevated the rest of the cast. Voyager, Ent, and Disco relegated their real stars to secondary roles. Picard missed the mark on a few things, namely the romulans in the beginning.
Sonequa Martin-Green shines brightly in Discovery. She's a real star on that show.
I think she's a good actor saddled with bad writing and direction.
Yeah, I like Sonequa Martin-Green a lot and am very excited by the prospect of seeing her in literally anything else.
i think if you look at the actors for TNG and DS9 you start to see there was something special about a few of them which elevated the rest of the cast. Voyager, Ent, and Disco relegated their real stars to secondary roles. Picard missed the mark on a few things, namely the romulans in the beginning.
Sonequa Martin-Green shines brightly in Discovery. She's a real star on that show.
I think she's a good actor saddled with bad writing and direction.
I 1000% agree with this. She's had some great moments but I feel like, while she's good she's been put in some terribly inconsitent scenes. Meanwhile, some of the other actors have killed it with equally terrible dialogue or situations. Saru seems far and away the best alien they've had on the show in a long time. Tilly evolved from a ridiculously tropey character to someone that felt real. Stamets went from being the guy that everyone should punch to maybe slightly less punchable! Also, give me more Owosekun and Reno! Now that i write this out, maybe the problem is there are too many secondary characters with not enough less-serious episodes for the characters to come alive.
Something I kind of hate about Picard is that The Federation - literally hundreds of worlds - seems to have exactly one political faction, in a Democracy
Not a single Admiral that's in the pro-Picard camp other than people he's personally served with
that and the entire thing about the AI plot, the entire thing about Romulan senators living on post apocalyptic cowboy worlds when they have dozens (hundreds?) of habitable worlds and a fleet of thousands of ships, it's like New York being blown up and all the evacuees are forced to resettle in the wastelands of Newfoundland for some reason because Germany didn't want to help out, and THE END OF THE GALAXY LOOMS NIGH (please stooooop this)
That actually makes more sense then one would think. A star going supernova tends to lower the property value in the neighbor hood. The radiation and blast will render everything within a dozen light years uninhabitable. All those Hundreds of worlds, a fair few of them would be withing the destructive radius. According to wikipedia, a supernova withing 26 light years would blast away half of the Earth's Ozon layer.and expose a lot of the earth to cosmic radiation. Killing most of us in a short while. The closest candidate is 150 ly away and will be bright enough that it will equal the sun in daytime. Sure, it wouldn't be instantaneous in the romulan case, but it would add to the burden of moving people.
In fact the Star Trek Picard prequel comic has Picard discover a colony planet filled with native sentient life controlled by the Romulans. Its close enough that it will be destroyed shortly after the Supernova and has millions of Romulans on it. The Romulans want help to evacuate themselves, but don't mind leaving the Natives to die. Picard meets his housekeepers there as they where Tal Shiar agents assigned to watch over the planet and went rogue to get help for the natives. Which is probably why Picard trust them so much and why they live with him instead of in a Romulan shithole evac colony. It might also be a reason why the Federation lost a lot of desire to help the Romulans. Asking for help while leaving literal slaves to die? Not something that drums up enthusiasm.
Which is why that plot point should have been part of S1 Picard and not left for a prequel comic nobody read.(I only managed to read the first issue). Like an extra episode to the fill out the backstory like this would have been so great. Instead of a few short scenes here and there.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
The entire "blow up Romulus" plot is stupid to begin with. But I don't blame Picard for that. The JJ films are responsible for that crap. Though they should have just ignored it.
I mean, if we start a list of "should have" for Picard Season 1, we won't be done by the end of Season 2.
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Funny. ST:VI had a similar premise, where a disaster causes the capital of the Klingon empire to become uninhabitable (or something like that, didn't seem that bad when they went there in TNG), but the movie used that to explore two enemies having to make peace. Picard (or JJ Abrams, I'm always glad to point fingers at him) blew up Romulus and... AI-Cthulhu space flowers robutts?
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Funny. ST:VI had a similar premise, where a disaster causes the capital of the Klingon empire to become uninhabitable (or something like that, didn't seem that bad when they went there in TNG), but the movie used that to explore two enemies having to make peace. Picard (or JJ Abrams, I'm always glad to point fingers at him) blew up Romulus and... AI-Cthulhu space flowers robutts?
It was basically space Chernobyl, and the Klingon government had to change to divert resources from war to cleanup.
The entire "blow up Romulus" plot is stupid to begin with. But I don't blame Picard for that. The JJ films are responsible for that crap. Though they should have just ignored it.
The show wanted a metaphor for Brexit, that was chosen.
Funny. ST:VI had a similar premise, where a disaster causes the capital of the Klingon empire to become uninhabitable (or something like that, didn't seem that bad when they went there in TNG), but the movie used that to explore two enemies having to make peace. Picard (or JJ Abrams, I'm always glad to point fingers at him) blew up Romulus and... AI-Cthulhu space flowers robutts?
Actually the Praxis explosion caused environmental damage that would cause Ko'nos to become uninhabitable in a few decades unless massive resources were poured into environmental restoration. The fact Ko'nos is fine in the TNG era is because the restoration, following the peace treaty of STVI, worked.
Posts
at this point I will be shocked if this exact joke is not made at some part of the run
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
Not a single Admiral that's in the pro-Picard camp other than people he's personally served with
that and the entire thing about the AI plot, the entire thing about Romulan senators living on post apocalyptic cowboy worlds when they have dozens (hundreds?) of habitable worlds and a fleet of thousands of ships, it's like New York being blown up and all the evacuees are forced to resettle in the wastelands of Newfoundland for some reason because Germany didn't want to help out, and THE END OF THE GALAXY LOOMS NIGH (please stooooop this)
I don't think they'll be forming nostalgia for it.
Apparently 63% of CBSAll Access viewers are 18-49. That’s all I can find on a quick Google, except that their churn rate is very low. Presumably that maps to Disco, though I couldn’t quickly find anything more specific that was recent.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
1) the wider audience isn't watching disco to begin with
2) bad writing never magically gets better
TNG is amazing and people love it! and every single person always says the first 2 seasons are bad. TNG is great in spite of that because it grew and got good writing! Disco so far has not had that happen. If season 4 magically becomes goo and than there are 5 more seasons of good Disco than sure, but right now we are nowhere close to that.
"Jean Luc! Mon capitaine, how wonderful it is to..."
*stops and stares up and down at Picard*
"What did you do?!"
The comparison between how TNG was received during its time and how Discovery has been perceived now is not fair to the latter, unfortunately. The media landscape has changed dramatically, and people no longer have ready access to the new shows because they're all gated behind a paywall. This will, I believe, have a dramatic impact on the long-term legacy of these new shows by virtue of them starting with a far smaller initial audience and an inability to organically grow a new one over time. It was those very same early syndication runs for TNG which helped to propel it forward in the popular consciousness, as it gave new viewers a chance to get to know the show who otherwise would not have seen it, and it gave returning viewers a chance to catch back up after perhaps dismissing those early rough seasons.
Yeah, that's one of the big things I disliked about Picard even before the silly "All Life Is At Stake For Some Reason" ending. There's this real feeling of needless grimdark hits to character and setting in order to try and make the story they really want to tell work. I think a ton of it just comes back to the show wanting to be about Picard being the one and only shinning light in a dark galaxy.
So...I was right then?
Yeah, there's no comparison between 90s cable/network television and today's TV environment. There's just so much more TV being produced, so many fewer people watching any individual program, so little chance given to anything to develop an audience, so few ways for something to really grow into a show everyone watches, so few shows everyone does or even can watch, etc, etc.
He was also the show runner, not just the head writer. The show had obvious money management issues given it was obviously not cheap, but for some reason had to copypasta tons of ships and use video cuts from shutterstock in the back half of the season.
I also would have loved a “contemplative, look back from the bottom of the hill of your accomplishments, melancholy style tale.” I thought the first couple of episodes and the one with Riker & Troi pretty good even! But overall, what we got IMO was yet another story all about a massive universe ending threat and a resolution that seemed to think bigger/louder/more explodey was as important (if not more so!) as anything with emotional resonance.
"The only real politics I knew was that if a guy liked Hitler, I’d beat the stuffing out of him and that would be it." -- Jack Kirby
Very partially.
Whats surprising is that Voyager actually has much shaper commentary than TNG so long as you understand the writers positions/main protagonist position is almost invariable wrong and the opposite of what you should support. Its actually incredible. Early anithero writing? Or just a complete misread of Start Trek and progressive rights based philosophy?
Now I want a Trek show where the main character has narration.
"When you're dealing with the Talaxians, you need to be careful. Talk too much about how bad Neelix's food was on Voyager, and you'll insult the entire delegation. Ignore the topic altogether, and they'll think you're hiding something." *takes a spoonful of yogurt*
Every Trek show gets nostalgia, including Voyager. Makes Disco look like Shakespeare. Also every new Trek show gets the worst a some point, its tradition.
but I feel like most of us and most people online who waste energy talking about Star Trek like the lower decks, are lukewarm on Disco and don't really like Picard
gonna also chime in on the 10-15 years thing. literally everyone I knew watched TNG, and our parents, it's not a cult thing like Babylon 5 or Firefly that have gotten really popular with the internet and time. TNG was extremely popular when it was on TV, and not just with nerds, this is some kind of post-internet age retcon that only nerds watched TNG
my fucking great grandmother watched TNG
you nailed burn notice...eerily.
i think if you look at the actors for TNG and DS9 you start to see there was something special about a few of them which elevated the rest of the cast. Voyager, Ent, and Disco relegated their real stars to secondary roles. Picard missed the mark on a few things, namely the romulans in the beginning.
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
"You were traveling the Typhon Expanse with your crew the other dayyyy..."
Yeah, watching the TOS movies and TNG was a family thing in my family of very much not nerds. Me, my dad, my grandparents. It was just what you did.
No, gatekeeping is about people, not things.
"I hate these fucking kids with their Cheesy Gordita Crunches. They're so stupid and they're ruining Taco Bell. Also, some of them are black!" is gatekeeping.
"I wish Taco Bell still sold Spicy Chicken Soft Tacos" is not.
Now, before someone gets notions, I am well aware that gatekeeping is a legitimate problem in many fandoms and Trek is no exception. However, nobody here is unaware that Discovery and Picard have fans or that for some of those fans those might be their favorite shows. Nobody here blames the fans of those shows for liking them, and nobody blames them for the fact that those shows aren't doing it for us.
But nobody is obligated to support Star Trek™, multimedia octopus, through thick and thin no matter what regardless of whether or not they enjoy it. If people feel like the fundamental identity of a thing has changed beyond their ability to continue enjoying it, it's okay for them to say so. CBS decided to make a Star Wars or MCU-like action show and pasted the Trek logo on it. They could have just made a new sci-fi franchise, but they specifically wanted to hook in existing fans and people who were vaguely familiar with the name, so those existing fans do get to say if they feel like they were bait-and-switched. If they release a new COLUMBO show but instead of a rumpled detective with an impish wit it's actually just a reskin of Baywatch, it's not gatekeeping or rude or unfair for Columbo fans to be like "wtf?"
Of course it's ok for people to not enjoy various flavors of Star Trek, and to comment or complain about the aspects that they dislike. I don't believe anybody has said otherwise.
What's odious is the "what a real fan likes about Star Trek is..." kind of talk. No matter how you try to spin it, that kind of talk is a form of gatekeeping.
Agree with this, haters who just hate for the sake of hating aside, there is an essence of Trek (hurtling through space, solving high concept problems and encountering whacky -- if often hilariously one-dimensional -- aliens in a military ship of well-meaning humanitarians and explorers) that ought to be preserved for the majority of fans who got into the franchise for those kinds of tales. I'm sure there are certain baselines people across the fandom can probably agree on. For instance, I've yet to meet anyone who likes those deflector 'grills' on the Starfleet ships we saw in Picard.
Seriously, what the hell is this?
Sonequa Martin-Green shines brightly in Discovery. She's a real star on that show.
I think she's a good actor saddled with bad writing and direction.
That wasn't what was said, though. "Real fans" never came up. Casual can speak for himself if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but I am very very sure that if you re-parse his post, he's saying "Discovery was not made for people who had a preexisting idea of what 'good Star Trek' is," eg, it was made for a new audience of people who had a passing familiarity with/curiosity about the brand.
Yeah, I like Sonequa Martin-Green a lot and am very excited by the prospect of seeing her in literally anything else.
I 1000% agree with this. She's had some great moments but I feel like, while she's good she's been put in some terribly inconsitent scenes. Meanwhile, some of the other actors have killed it with equally terrible dialogue or situations. Saru seems far and away the best alien they've had on the show in a long time. Tilly evolved from a ridiculously tropey character to someone that felt real. Stamets went from being the guy that everyone should punch to maybe slightly less punchable! Also, give me more Owosekun and Reno! Now that i write this out, maybe the problem is there are too many secondary characters with not enough less-serious episodes for the characters to come alive.
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
That actually makes more sense then one would think. A star going supernova tends to lower the property value in the neighbor hood. The radiation and blast will render everything within a dozen light years uninhabitable. All those Hundreds of worlds, a fair few of them would be withing the destructive radius. According to wikipedia, a supernova withing 26 light years would blast away half of the Earth's Ozon layer.and expose a lot of the earth to cosmic radiation. Killing most of us in a short while. The closest candidate is 150 ly away and will be bright enough that it will equal the sun in daytime. Sure, it wouldn't be instantaneous in the romulan case, but it would add to the burden of moving people.
In fact the Star Trek Picard prequel comic has Picard discover a colony planet filled with native sentient life controlled by the Romulans. Its close enough that it will be destroyed shortly after the Supernova and has millions of Romulans on it. The Romulans want help to evacuate themselves, but don't mind leaving the Natives to die. Picard meets his housekeepers there as they where Tal Shiar agents assigned to watch over the planet and went rogue to get help for the natives. Which is probably why Picard trust them so much and why they live with him instead of in a Romulan shithole evac colony. It might also be a reason why the Federation lost a lot of desire to help the Romulans. Asking for help while leaving literal slaves to die? Not something that drums up enthusiasm.
Which is why that plot point should have been part of S1 Picard and not left for a prequel comic nobody read.(I only managed to read the first issue). Like an extra episode to the fill out the backstory like this would have been so great. Instead of a few short scenes here and there.
It was basically space Chernobyl, and the Klingon government had to change to divert resources from war to cleanup.
The show wanted a metaphor for Brexit, that was chosen.
Actually the Praxis explosion caused environmental damage that would cause Ko'nos to become uninhabitable in a few decades unless massive resources were poured into environmental restoration. The fact Ko'nos is fine in the TNG era is because the restoration, following the peace treaty of STVI, worked.