Star Trek: Picard - Amazon Prime [** POSSIBLE SPOILERS **]

BornIn84

Burty330 wrote: »

Quality of this standard just can't be re-produced. The writing , the acting , the philosophy.. Superb!

exactly. new trek (discovery) is bland action with no heart or doesnt explore any themes..
TNG was ahead of its time in that way

nyarlothothep

BornIn84 wrote: »

if it's anything like Discovery, which is not a star trek show at all, I won't be watching.

STD is an abomination of a show, it has everything that puts me off modern movies, all spectacle, crap character development, characters I don't care about, laboured and obvious exposition of the main themes, it's just utterly awful and I will never watch another episode of that abomination again, even Voyager is better than STD and that's really saying something. It's terrible that TV is being infiltrated by the same type of garbage that dominates cinemas.

pixelburp

I like Discovery, and I like TNG, both for different and often non-overlapping reasons. The former show has its problems, mostly manifest in an absolute disaster zone of a production history during the first two seasons (sound familiar?), but I've enjoyed it on its own terms. TNG was OK, but its worst episodes are arguably some of the worst of Trek period, so it was as variable to watch as the newest show. No question it was great at its height, but those Sub Rosa lows were pretty deep!

DS9 is my jam; not immune to bad episodes either, but Trek at its most confident, mature and consistently intriguing and brilliant. I read in passing that Picard is more a sequel to DS9 in tone than TNG, and that's absolutely fine with me.

Stark

Burty330 wrote: »

Will not watch.

Neither will I. 18 minutes of drivel from a guy in a crappy mask? ****ing hell.

Though I did fast forward to a couple of bits out of curiosity. Has he even seen STP yet? Doesn't sound like he has. He sounds like another internet virgin having a go at a show because it has an ethnic character or passes the Bechdel test or whatever.

pixelburp

YouTube is flooded with anaemic Hot Take artists, who rant & rave in front of a camera based on the slimmest of rumours (and when they don't have rumours, they'll often just invent "sources"), taking advantage of the premise that negatively skewed content seems to attract more viewers than positive content - which in of itself is a depressing thought.

Betteridge's law of headlines still applies even in the YouTube era, maybe adding that caveat that if it also includes an exclamation mark in its headline, it's probably bullshít too.

Burty330

Stark wrote: »

Neither will I. 18 minutes of drivel from a guy in a crappy mask? ****ing hell.

Though I did fast forward to a couple of bits out of curiosity. Has he even seen STP yet? Doesn't sound like he has. He sounds like another internet virgin having a go at a show because it has an ethnic character or passes the Bechdel test or whatever.

oh look ^ the i don't agree with somebody so he must be a virgin or a racist argument...fkn pathetic.

pixelburp

Watched a little of the video for fairness to the poster, and yeah, it's drivel. Huge cognitive leaps and rants from someone who - like the rest of us - HASN'T SEEN A SINGLE EPISODE. Not that it has stopped 18 minutes of puffery and blatant hurling from the ditch.

"I know for a fact that Star Trek Picard, or STP as I like to call it, is DOA (Dead on Arrival)"

Haha. Quick, close the thread, "Overlord DVD" has facts on his side.

Goodshape

Ah, good, we've started into the bitter arguments about whether the show is good or not before anyone has seen the show! Par for the course these days I suppose.

Going to unsubscribe from this thread now until it's actually released anyway.

Really enjoyed that new Short Trek though!

silverharp

Is it going to come down to if you like STD you will like this show, if you think STD is trash , this show will be similar?

Stark

No-one has seen it yet so no-one can answer.

pixelburp

silverharp wrote: »

Is it going to come down to if you like STD you will like this show, if you think STD is trash , this show will be similar?

Only for those approaching the show with preconceptions or minds already made up. Not a single episode has been aired so any strong opinions at this stage border on arrogance TBH.

Picard has an entirely different production team, writers, producers etc. so to compare it & Discovery is pure folly. There will always be the purists who'll hate on anything that tries to innovate or tell new stories and yeah, some will decide this is TV cancer because it's not simply more TNG stories.

BornIn84

i'm a bit worried it wont be true Trek and will be all spectacle and hollow like STD

An Ri rua

Goodshape wrote: »

Ah, good, we've started into the bitter arguments about whether the show is good or not before anyone has seen the show! Par for the course these days I suppose.

Going to unsubscribe from this thread now until it's actually released anyway.

Really enjoyed that new Short Trek though!

I've just found this thread and I'm an avid Star Trek fan. But the sudden change of tone is rotten. Cop yourselves on, you navelgazing ****ehawks. Talk about putting a damper on a hugely anticipated thing!

Burty330

pixelburp wrote: »

Watched a little of the video for fairness to the poster, and yeah, it's drivel. Huge cognitive leaps and rants from someone who - like the rest of us - HASN'T SEEN A SINGLE EPISODE. Not that it has stopped 18 minutes of puffery and blatant hurling from the ditch.

"I know for a fact that Star Trek Picard, or STP as I like to call it, is DOA (Dead on Arrival)"

Haha. Quick, close the thread, "Overlord DVD" has facts on his side.

Whats drivel exactly? You posted a quote from the first 2 mins before Overlord DVD began to reference direct quotes from studio heads, and draw upon a great wealth of knowledge of ST in general to support his opinion.

Its not drivel for the show runners to declare that Picard is not a follow-up to TNG and is different to it in every way , is it?

Its not drivel to note that dropping F bomb just to be edgy , is in direct contradiction to the values of original/real ST , is it?
What exactly is drivel about the factual based comments he made in his video?

Also, since Picard is being produced by the same person/team as Discovery , it would be only fair to have serious doubts about its quality , if you were not a fan of Discovery , as most fans are not.

Netfilx ran their analytical data on Discovery and deemed it a failure ratings wise after only two seasons. Hence why it was moved to Amazon where there is an unlimited flow of Bezos money able to keep it going just for the hell of it.

Is STD was successful . i seriously doubt they would have ran back to Partick Stewart in hopes to gain back the fans.

pixelburp

Burty330 wrote: »

[...]
Also, since Picard is being produced by the same person/team as Discovery , it would be only fair to have serious doubts about its quality , if you were not a fan of Discovery , as most fans are not.

Ah don't "One True Scotsman" the conversation and pull this "oh well true fans don't like Discovery".

And the production's showrunner Michael Chabon, whereas Discovery is lead by Michelle Paradise. Yes Alex Kurtzman is in the kingmaker role but the day-to-day running is completely different. The shows are not the same where it counts, and so both should be judged separately.

Once more though: not a SINGLE episode has been aired, so producing 20 minutes videos with an obviously editorialised slant, is .... yes, drivel. Doesn't matter how many quotes the author might selectively pull to push a specific conclusion, they're still ranting about something not one of us in the public has seen.

But then it's clearly obvious some folk are approaching this series with less than an open mind.

Burty330 wrote: »

Netfilx ran their analytical data on Discovery and deemed it a failure ratings wise after only two seasons. Hence why it was moved to Amazon where there is an unlimited flow of Bezos money able to keep it going just for the hell of it.

Considering Netflix keep their ratings completely & famously secret, bar a few communiqués over success stories, I"m absolutely going to ask you to throw forward some actual links talking about this. Netflix don't share their audience data, anyone who says otherwise is lying (unless you know different).

And it's airing on Amazon because AFAIK, CBS wanted to diversify the international rights and not restrict one service to a monopoly. Think what you like about Discovery but there's no way there wasn't a bidding war for a new series about Captain Picard.

Burty330

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah don't "One True Scotsman" the conversation and pull this "oh well true fans don't like Discovery".

And the production's showrunner Michael Chabon, whereas Discovery is lead by Michelle Paradise. Yes Alex Kurtzman is in the kingmaker role but the day-to-day running is completely different. The shows are not the same where it counts, and so both should be judged separately.

Once more though: not a SINGLE episode has been aired, so producing 20 minutes videos with an obviously editorialised slant, is .... yes, drivel. Doesn't matter how many quotes the author might selectively pull to push a specific conclusion, they're still ranting about something not one of us in the public has seen.

But then it's clearly obvious some folk are approaching this series with less than an open mind.


Considering Netflix keep their ratings completely & famously secret, bar a few communiqués over success stories, I"m absolutely going to ask you to throw forward some actual links talking about this. Netflix don't share their audience data, anyone who says otherwise is lying (unless you know different).

And it's airing on Amazon because AFAIK, CBS wanted to diversify the international rights and not restrict one service to a monopoly. Think what you like about Discovery but there's no way there wasn't a bidding war for a new series about Captain Picard.

Considering the unpopularity of Discovery and the massive budget Netflix themselves were funding to make it , it only makes sense that it was no longer financially viable for them to continue to pump money into it.

Shows only gets cancelled for one reason - poor viewership.

No way would Netflix release a property like Star Trek if it was making money.

Furthermore , Picard and STD are restricted to a single service monopoly outside of the US on Amazon Prime, so there is no diversity of international rights.

Also , you might have forgotten that Picard should have already aired by now. Problems in its production and poor test screenings have pushed it back till Jan 2020.
So people can forge a valid enough opinion about the show given all the info thats out there and post about it without having seeing a single episode.

TheValeyard

If it were a heap of sh1te, I'm not sure Patrick Stewart would have agreed to come back. He does not need the cash, so some part of the premise must have interested him.

Burty330

TheValeyard wrote: »

If it were a heap of sh1te, I'm not sure Patrick Stewart would have agreed to come back. He does not need the cash, so some part of the premise must have interested him.

Patrick Stewart was just in the new Charlies Angles movie.

Stark

Burty330 wrote: »

Considering the unpopularity of Discovery and the massive budget Netflix themselves were funding to make it , it only makes sense that it was no longer financially viable for them to continue to pump money into it.

Shows only gets cancelled for one reason - poor viewership.

No way would Netflix release a property like Star Trek if it was making money.

Furthermore , Picard and STD are restricted to a single service monopoly outside of the US on Amazon Prime, so there is no diversity of international rights.

Also , you might have forgotten that Picard should have already aired by now. Problems in its production and poor test screenings have pushed it back till Jan 2020.
So people can forge a valid enough opinion about the show given all the info thats out there and post about it without having seeing a single episode.

Discovery's been renewed for season 3 on Netflix. This whole post is BS

pixelburp

Burty330 wrote: »

Considering the unpopularity of Discovery and the massive budget Netflix themselves were funding to make it , it only makes sense that it was no longer financially viable for them to continue to pump money into it.

Ah, so you don't actually have any facts to back up the claim you know of Netflix's analytical data. I'm not badgering because if you know of it I'm genuinely interested in reading - as would the rest of the internet 'cos their data is famously secret

Burty330 wrote: »

Shows only gets cancelled for one reason - poor viewership.

No way would Netflix release a property like Star Trek if it was making money.

Netflix didn't make Discovery, CBS did. Netflix purchased international broadcast rights, with the generally held belief that they threw some cash CBS's way so they could call it "NetFlix Original". This is common with a lot of these productions. Picard and Discovery are shows made by, and primarily broadcast on, CBS' own streaming service.

Burty330 wrote: »

Furthermore , Picard and STD are restricted to a single service monopoly outside of the US on Amazon Prime, so there is no diversity of international rights.

That's not what you were talking about. You claimed Picard moved to Amazon, when its reckoned the rights were shopped by CBS who wanted to spread the IP across multiple services.

Burty330 wrote: »

Also , you might have forgotten that Picard should have already aired by now. Problems in its production and poor test screenings have pushed it back till Jan 2020.
So people can forge a valid enough opinion about the show given all the info thats out there and post about it without having seeing a single episode.

No, you really can't. You can guess, make suppositions from promotions or official sources, and your opinion is your own, but ultimately trying to make definitive decisions and pronouncements of final quality is impossible. IT's just spitballing based on tattle.

TBH it reads like you've made up your own mind about Picard before an episode has aired. That's your opinion but it's hugely premature

AMKC

Burty330 wrote: »

Will not watch.

Its not meant to be anything like TNG or a continuation of TNG either. Maybe someone forget to tell this sad idiot that. I would not waste 1 second of precious time watching someone who clearly has no idea what they are talking about and has not seen the show.
It is 20 years later and times change. It is 26 years later for us in the real world and yes times change. I love TNG but I am also looking forward to ''Picard''. Be great to have him back in Star Trek again and see him on screen again. I for one can't wait.

pixelburp

AMKC wrote: »

Its not meant to be anything like TNG or a continuation of TNG either. Maybe someone forget to tell this sad idiot that. I would not waste 1 second of precious time watching someone who clearly has no idea what they are talking about and has not seen the show.
It is 20 years later and times change. It is 26 years later for us in the real world and yes times change. I love TNG but I am also looking forward to ''Picard''. Be great to have him back in Star Trek again and see him on screen again. I for one can't wait.

Precisely.

This is about Picard, in old age, on one last adventure. So long as Jean Luc is written well and in character I don't give a damn if this isn't TNG V2.

TheIrishGrover

Why do Discovery haters presume to speak for Trek fans? "Most are not fans of Discovery"

I am a fan of Star Trek. I was born in the 70's but was into Trek since BEFORE TNG came out. I have enjoyed all series to varying degrees:

TOS: Cheesy but fun. Generally is not as good as people remember.
TNG: Enjoyable. Especially post season 1. Stories could be quite bland at times but VERY enjoyable characters who you got to see change and evolve over the years. Riker is especially different from the start to the finish.
DS9: My favourite. Easily the most interesting of the series with the most complex characters.
Voyager: Probably the most annoying Trek. Every single character was annoying. They gutted the Borg and every potentially interesting species they came across. About the only redeeming thing from Voyager was Seven of Nine and I am interested to see what they do with her in Picard.
Enterprise: The blandest and most forgettable Trek. I barely remember any of the characters: Quantum Leap guy, Vulcan, Texan, Boring Brit, hot Asian Chick, Token Black Guy, Uninteresting Alien Doc.
Discovery: Really enjoying this. Admitadly Burnham is the least interesting of the characters. But the rest of the characters are interesting. I loved their interpretation of Sarek and Spock and especially Pike. (Give us a spinoff!!!!). And I am interested to seeing where next season goes.


Obviously these are my opinions. But I do not understand this whole "Discovery is not Trek" stuff. What specifically is not Trek about it? The focus on action? The moral complexity of the characters (I was actually disappointed when it was revealed that Lorca was from TMU). The overall look?

Personally I cannot wait for Picard!!! I'm not going to look at a video posted by someone who has not seen the series yet. By someone who has no more information than anyone else. I have read interviews with Stewart stating that it is going to be different from TNG. That the universe is a different place. That TNG was maybe too naive and optimistic. That Picard is being made in a post Brexit Trump world.

He's right. Each series, to some degree, reflects the time period they were made in:

For God's sake, Spock jammed with hippies.

TNG was made in the late 80's-early 90's when there was a sense of optimism in the air. Looking back, it is very upbeat and touchy-feely. This is not a bad thing. Just an observation.

As it was winding down the world was beginning to turn again. People became skeptical of leadership and there always seemed to be some new scandal or reason to mistrust people. There was always some conflict going on somewhere. Plus, people were getting more into stories which were not resolved in 45 mins. So they came out with DS9. However it was not as big a hit in the US as hoped. And, it was decried as "Not being Trek": "They are not Trekking anywhere"

Voyager was a direct result of DS9: They went back to episodic structure where everything is wrapped up nicely and next week is start all over with monster-of-the-week. They did do some over-riding stories but in general these were forgotten about after a week or so. And even then, Voyager was slagged off as "Not being Trek": "Oh, they are heading HOME instead of exploring? That's not very Trek."

Enterprise was another attempt to bring back "Classic Trek" and it was also hated: Oh look at how advanced their tech is compared to TOS. They are not like real Klingons. Klingons would never do that. Oh look at these Andorians? Oh a Time War? Pfffft."


So yeah, the only "Real" Trek should be TOS.


So tldr: "Every version of Trek (Bar possibly TNG) has been derided as "Not being Trek" and each time you have so-called purists saying they want it exactly like the (previously derided) series. If Trek doesn't change with the times it will be outdated, uninteresting, irrelevant and will die. If it changes with the times then its toxic fanbase will ridicule it and hope it will die. What a way to support the franchise you state state you love.

Burty330

Stark wrote: »

Discovery's been renewed for season 3 on Netflix. This whole post is BS

Season 3 was renewed and will be aired by CBS ALL Access.


Netflix will show it in the UK , but it did not have any involvement in its production and it certainly did not renew it for a third season.

Get your facts straight before posting

Effects

TheValeyard wrote: »

If it were a heap of sh1te, I'm not sure Patrick Stewart would have agreed to come back. He does not need the cash, so some part of the premise must have interested him.

He couldn't know if it would turn out shīt or not when he signed up.
As for not needing the cash. Why wouldn't he work on something he enjoys, that would pay him decent money?
He could always do with another holiday home or something.

Burty330

pixelburp wrote: »

Netflix didn't make Discovery, CBS did. Netflix purchased international broadcast rights, with the generally held belief that they threw some cash CBS's way so they could call it "NetFlix Original". This is common with a lot of these productions. Picard and Discovery are shows made by, and primarily broadcast on, CBS' own streaming service.

No , they didn't just throw some cash their way, Netflix funded the entire budget. Every dime of production cost was paid for by Netflix so they could acquire international broadcast rights.

After two seasons of middling results and poor fan reception , they decided to pull the plug. You can't ague with that cos its a fact. You can however spin it according to whatever narrative you want to present in order to defend Discoverys lack of quality.

pixelburp

Burty330 wrote: »

No , they didn't just throw some cash their way, Netflix funded the entire budget. Every dime of production cost was paid for by Netflix so they could acquire international broadcast rights.

After two seasons of middling results and poor fan reception , they decided to pull the plug. You can't ague with that cos its a fact. You can however spin it according to whatever narrative you want to in order to defend Discoverys lack of quality.

Source then please if it's fact?

Still waiting on the sources of your Netflix analytical data too if that's ok?

And I'm not defending Discovery, just trying to clarify false assertions about its production or relationship to Picard. Simple enough really. You're the one making these big claims and posting kneejerk videos, burden of proof is on you

Stark

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

So tldr: "Every version of Trek (Bar possibly TNG) has been derided as "Not being Trek" and each time you have so-called purists saying they want it exactly like the (previously derided) series. If Trek doesn't change with the times it will be outdated, uninteresting, irrelevant and will die. If it changes with the times then its toxic fanbase will ridicule it and hope it will die. What a way to support the franchise you state state you love.

TNG was derided up until "Best of both worlds" when it proved it could stand out on its own.

Picard/Stewart wasn't well received at the beginning either. Critics called him too cold and clinical compared to Kirk.

STD has been renewed for a fourth season some clearly someone somewhere things its doing OK.

I quite like it but it suffers from JJ Abrahms input, so you have to completely turn off your brain when watching and not over think it. I think thats the main reason diehard Trekkies don't like it because they love to analyze.

TheIrishGrover

I have sources that say that Discovery has been renewed for 5 seasons and a movie.

They will also be renewing Picard for 3 seasons and will eventually have crossovers between them.

I have this information from inside sources who are in the know. This. is. FACT.

TheIrishGrover

Of course that is total BS but see how easy it is to say?

Stark

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Of course that is total BS but see how easy it is to say?

How can I click subscribe?

pixelburp

Smash that bell icon!!!

Kiith

Given how much of a mess TNG was for the first two seasons, i'd love to see the reaction from people on here. It would be written off before it ever got a chance to be good.

odyssey06

Kiith wrote: »

Given how much of a mess TNG was for the first two seasons, i'd love to see the reaction from people on here. It would be written off before it ever got a chance to be good.

Interesting angle.

TNG was putting out 22-26 episodes a season, season starting in September and running to May.
Discovery have 15 episodes aired over a shorter spain.

That accounted for some godawful episodes... "Up The Long Ladder", "Manhunt", "Code of Honor", but maybe also gave the writers time to do stories to make use of the full cast and let the characters develop and breathe. Plus the extra length \ time meant that series were seen as a work in progress and certain tinkering was expected.

I think it's fair to criticise Discovery in the same way as we hold Premier League teams to a different standard of prepared than a First Division one - or even an early Premier League team like Man Utd who could sign Eric Cantona in November.
And fair to criticise some of those godwaful TNG episodes.

TheIrishGrover

God, I just had a look at Season 1 and 2 of TNG and there are about 4 genuinely good episodes there. Episodes you would watch and enjoy again..... Out of 47.

Even Season 3 which had some seriously good episodes like Sarek, Best of Both Worlds, Yesterday's Enterprise, Captain's Holiday (I liked Vash and their relationship. Was good to see a different side to Picard and the start of his warming up), there was still some serious tosh there so, yeah, as others have said, can you imagine if it were released today? Each week a 3.5 hour long breakdown on why each episode is crap and "Not Trek"

Spear

Actually I stand corrected on the Short Treks episode. There is an important, tiny detail in there:

the Mars attack is done by "rogue synths"

.

TheIrishGrover

Is there a legitimate place to view the new shorts? (I know the first batch are on Netflix)

Evade

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

as others have said, can you imagine if it were released today? Each week a 3.5 hour long breakdown on why each episode is crap and "Not Trek"

There's plenty of similar criticisms of older Trek out there too. They're just not topical and don't wind up the Nerd Crew types as much.

pixelburp

Plus, there WAS criticism at the time, the difference back then is that all the trolls and rageholics were writing into fanzines and publications; there was a natural curation of the conversation by those publications' editors, so that fandom at least presented as vaguely coherent and reasoned. IIRC there was a significant backlash against TNG at its inception - quality of the episodes notwithstanding.

With the invention and "democratisation" of the internet, anyone and everyone can pour out their considered opinions and there's almost zero filters. Even the so-called "echo chambers" mean that if you're rage against Discovery gets banned on one site, you go to another. Or indeed, build a YouTube channel so you can rant to your hearts delight.

Burty330

People don't get it and the attempt to equate Discovery to the creative shortcomings season of TNG season 1&2 is proof of it.

Yeah , it wasn't great , but it wasn't that bad either. Being a sequel it had to find its feet and done so after Roddenberry let go of the reigns. It had loads of room to improve being set after the adventures of Kirk.

Discovery is a prequel and thats the problem. It interferes with continuity and Time-line. It completely alters the perception of Spocks character , implying that Mick Burnham molded him into the man he would become on the Enterprise.
Mick Burnham herself being an unlikable bossy boots means its going to rub a lot of fans the wrong way.

Early seasons of TNG was responsible for its own faults. The original series wasn't effected in any way.

Trekkies have completely rejected STD because of the damage it does to canon. They reject it for crow-barring in modern left wing politics like "mansplaining".
Its rejected for presenting an uninspiring tone.

The big budget of Netflix at least made it impressive to look at , but with a scaled down production cost of S3 , ill be interested to see how bad its gotten.
It can only get worse from here.

Burty330

TheValeyard

The main problem people had with Discovery was not the left leaning stuff or anything like that, it's a couple of simple things

1) It's the Michael Burnham show, people want to learn and know more about the other characters

2) the needless redesign of the Klingons (which by season two is linking up with canon.

Oafley Jones

odyssey06 wrote: »

Interesting angle.

TNG was putting out 22-26 episodes a season, season starting in September and running to May.
Discovery have 15 episodes aired over a shorter spain.

That accounted for some godawful episodes... "Up The Long Ladder", "Manhunt", "Code of Honor", but maybe also gave the writers time to do stories to make use of the full cast and let the characters develop and breathe. Plus the extra length \ time meant that series were seen as a work in progress and certain tinkering was expected.

I think it's fair to criticise Discovery in the same way as we hold Premier League teams to a different standard of prepared than a First Division one - or even an early Premier League team like Man Utd who could sign Eric Cantona in November.
And fair to criticise some of those godwaful TNG episodes.

Don’t forget the writers strike severely disrupted season 2. They were just reworking old rejected scripts. Doesn’t excuse season one though.

pixelburp

Funny thing about the moaning about Picard not being TNG 2, from the trailers released, I've had my own resting worry that while not a direct sequel, the show might drown under fan service. please clap for Riker; please clap for 7of9; etc.

As said already as long as Jean Luc is himself (and not movie Jean Luc), and the plot is interesting itself I won't care that it's not the continued adventures of the Enterprise.

But of course this is 201...2020, and it feels like those in the social media bubble live to hate what they claim to love. Feels like every explosion and set piece will have some grinding their teeth 'cos it's not The Drumhead version 2.

SwordsRunner

nyarlothothep wrote: »

STD is an abomination of a show, it has everything that puts me off modern movies, all spectacle, crap character development, characters I don't care about, laboured and obvious exposition of the main themes, it's just utterly awful and I will never watch another episode of that abomination again, even Voyager is better than STD and that's really saying something. It's terrible that TV is being infiltrated by the same type of garbage that dominates cinemas.

Enterprise is better than Discovery. But then I loved Enterprise.

odyssey06

SwordsRunner wrote: »

Enterprise is better than Discovery. But then I loved Enterprise.

Enterprise Season 4 changed my mind about that show. Was disappointed it didnt get another season.
There are flashes in Discovery of potential along with the howlers, thats what makes it frustrating for me.

nyarlothothep

SwordsRunner wrote: »

Enterprise is better than Discovery. But then I loved Enterprise.

Absolutely and I'm not even a big fan of ENT although it was alright and unfairly lambasted. Even the howlers of episodes at least had some soul. Sub Rosa for example is so awful, cringe and amateur hour it's fascinating, it's like watching a TV/script car crash, it's at least interesting! Better that then the corporate, professional polished, almost algorithm-predictable sheen of tedium that informs STD.

BornIn84

Alex Kurtzman is involved with the new Picard show. That should be enough to turn away.....
I'm not gonna say it's gonna be ****, but ...it's gonna be ****.

pah

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Absolutely and I'm not even a big fan of ENT although it was alright and unfairly lambasted. Even the howlers of episodes at least had some soul. Sub Rosa for example is so awful, cringe and amateur hour it's fascinating, it's like watching a TV/script car crash, it's at least interesting! Better that then the corporate, professional polished, almost algorithm-predictable sheen of tedium that informs STD.

Agreed, Sub Rosa was a TNG episode however.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Zc8Co2H3w