New Star Trek series - 2017
- Thread starter Spit
- Start date
In what way do you mean?
I just feel that Picard was, well when you look at the high points in TNG, I just think Picard was a lot of nostalgia and didn't really live up to the hype, or the character, and the whole Data/Picard/Android body thing was well, felt like it cheapened Picard imho..
I agree that the nostalgia elements wrote cheques that other elements of the series couldn't cash - weakly conceived and written bad guys, occasional pacing issues, irritating habit of killing characters for 'drama', under-use of a main character (Elnor) approaching the level of Travis Mayweather (helmsman in Star Trek: Enterprise). But the people who claim that it's worse than Discovery really need professional help IMO
It has had way more things to redeem it in ten episodes than STD has had in two seasons, and by far and away fewer things to make your teeth itch.Again, for @james.miller - solely my opinion, YMMV, and all that good stuff
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,084
But the people who claim that it's worse than Discovery really need professional help IMO
I think people just need something to hate, or it doesn't live up to the comparisons with his original character in TNG, or something. There are people who can't see anything in B5 and when you question them they've never gotten past the first series or even the pilot episode, I just have to pity them honestly because they're blind.
Long since too late by the time the lawsuits started. As I've said before, the Super Secret Spore Drive™ might vaguely work as a plot device in a post-TNG timeline. It didn't work pre-TOS, because we knew it couldn't survive long-term due to it not being around on Kirk's Enterprise. It was always going to have to be written out of that timeframe. That they chose the cheapest, lousiest cop-out to write it out makes it even more unforgivable.
Anyway, on a less 'this all sucks' note - happy birthday to the Great Bird of the Galaxy
Gene Roddenberry would've been 99 today.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,728
There's rumuors going around about Emma Watts putting huge pressure on star trek
I'd never heard of her, but she's someone high up at Paramount
https://www.indiewire.com/2020/07/emma-watts-paramount-executive-1234570962/
I'd never heard of her, but she's someone high up at Paramount
https://www.indiewire.com/2020/07/emma-watts-paramount-executive-1234570962/
IIRC, she made a statement on the day that Lower Decks came out and started this "40 weeks of Trek". It was basically how her top priority was to figure out how to reboot Trek and bring it back to it's core or somesuch. This is pretty much a slap in the face for Alex Kurtzman, and being interpreted as she's pushing to have a big reorganisation of Trek given that Kurtzman is three-for-three for dud Trek shows that have lost a lot of audience very quickly, and isn't helping CBS streaming service.
She basically sounds like she wants to figure out how to make Trek shows that are entertaining Trek, rather than (to quote Kurtzman) a "platform" for their agenda of the day. I believe the full Kurtzman quote from that recent online-Comicon panel was "The goal is not to promote Star Trek but to use our platform to promote BLM and NAACP".
So, in fact, not quite what you quoted
Nor you, hence my direct quote from the Comic-Con panel.
Though, you're absolutely right to be up in arms. How very dare they use a platform seen worldwide to bring awareness to important issues? That's not what art and media are for at all.
I didn't say I was up in arms, I related what was said and how Emma Watts was publicly making statements about resetting Trek. I really don't care what they do with Trek, as long as it's good, and we've yet to see that from Kurtzman.
What happened to good entertainment, without the patronizing lectures? Good dialogue and characters, without divisive identity politics being shoe-horned in at the expense of story? Given the severe tanking of viewing figures of all three Kurtzman Trek projects, it seems a lot of people feel that way. Now we've got studio executives talking about resetting Trek right when the newest project launches. That timing is significant.
There's only so many chances Kurtzman gets to fail before he's replaced.
To be honest, I Googled 'kurtzman naacp blm' and that tweet was what came up.
Oh, Lord forbid that I use a little hyperbole to hang lampshades
Is that what Emma Watts has said though? From what I've read, she was talking about the movie side of things more than the TV side. I'll defer to anyone with greater knowledge.
The talent pool of exceptional sci-fi writers willing to work on TV diminished. When you used to have people like Sam Peeples, Robert Bloch, DC Fontana, John Meredyth Lucas, Norman Spinrad, David Gerrold, Harlan ******* Ellison...
Honestly, CBS should pay some of the better Trek novelists to come in and save them. People like Christopher L Bennett, Stephani Perry, the Dianes (Duane and Carey), Peter David, Judy & Gar Reeves-Steves, John Vornholt, Michael Jan Friedman. People who can actually write Star Trek.
Yeah, I'm really not about to defend Kurtzman at all. I'm not a fan of a lot of the decisions made in the new Trek movies (I outright despise Into Darkness), I think STD has had only one truly good episode in two seasons so far (ironically one which a lot of current Trek fandom doesn't like, go figure!) and think the Picard series could have been better. But I do think that a good portion of Trek fandom makes way too much of the "divisive identity politics being shoe-horned in" deal.
Take STD. What was a major gripe for a lot of people¹, was it the hamfisted telegraphing of plot twists? The lousy acting? The continuity issues, both with itself and with the rest of Trek? The deeply uninteresting characters who were being crowded out of the screen by the focus on Bonehead?
Nope. "Gay characters in a visible relationship, ugh, that's tokenism!!!111oneonetwo"
And I wouldn't mind (NARRATOR: yes, he would) but that relationship between Culber and Stamets was easily more believable and better realised on-screen than the one between TylerVoq and Bonehead
¹ - not necessarily talking about anyone on here with that, but it's certainly been a thing in many corners of fandom this last few years. They'll skip right on by serious structural issues with the show to focus on what they perceive to be pushing The Gay Agenda™ (dun dun DUUUNNNN!!!).
^^^This
I get the whole, "Star Trek has always been a platform for the times" stuff, but it has to flow, you can't have every single show, or episode making things about race or sexuality and shoehorn "matters" it in like it actually matters, these people are meant to be smart AF and capable of being where they are at the ranks that they are, not just there because they're gay or black or whatever and theres a "box" that needs ticking..
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Culber and Stamets' relationship was easily one of the most well written aspects of STD.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,728
at this point, I'd have Rick Berman back
This is star trek, anythings possible
Just have Picard coming out of the Nexus and pretend the last year never happened. You could even have Shatner walk out as well and pretend Discovery never happened
Fresh start!
:edit: actually, that's a brilliant idea as you could wipe out the last TNG movies as well
This is star trek, anythings possible
Just have Picard coming out of the Nexus and pretend the last year never happened. You could even have Shatner walk out as well and pretend Discovery never happened
Fresh start!
:edit: actually, that's a brilliant idea as you could wipe out the last TNG movies as well