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

Justin Credible Darts

AMKC wrote: »

Don't forget that it took TNG, DS9 and Enterprise 3 seasons before thy finally got good. Maybe this will be that turning point for Discovery.

Really, it took 3 seasons for DS9 to get good ?

Thats not fact but opinion, one you are obviously entitled to, however the first 2 season of ds9 saw episodes that are considered among the best episodes of ds9, and episodes like Duet, considered among the best in all of trek.
As mentioned by others, character development was widespread in ds9.


Meanwhile in Discovery the best characters were Pike , Lorca, and cirnwell....all now either dead or gone from the show.
Other than burnham, character development has been slow at best.


The argument made by many across forums that discovery was limited in what it could cover is nonsense in my opinion as there was plenty of material to work with.


As weak as enterprise, and voyager were, their first 2 season was superior to what discovery did, all that has helped Discovery was its HD, great cgi, and other effects.

Stark

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Really, it took 3 seasons for DS9 to get good ?

Thats not fact but opinion, one you are obviously entitled to, however the first 2 season of ds9 saw episodes that are considered among the best episodes of ds9, and episodes like Duet, considered among the best in all of trek.
As mentioned by others, character development was widespread in ds9.

3 is an approximation but DS9 was crap up until the Maquis entered the picture in late season 2 IMO. One good episode does not make a good season.

TNG had a handful of excellent episodes in Seasons 1 and 2 but overall the quality was poor compared to later seasons.

Justin Credible Darts

they were still better than discovery.

Take away the effects, cgi, hi def, what did it have ?
A show almost entirely based on one character, that is not going to work.

Enterprise and voyager were widely slated, and had more than their share of dud episodes, but they had more decent ones in the first 2 season than discovery in my opinion.

H3llR4iser

First of all, let me start with the fact that the problem of exaggerated criticism of new interpretations of old franchises is real: people made their own version of them in their minds and are upset when the real thing doesn't mirror that. Happens with everything - look at the recent Streets Of Rage game release, with a lot of people dissing it because the art style and the music are, essentially, not the same as 30 years go.

Picard - I enjoyed it and shock, horror, I'm a long term Trekkie who watched every single episode, movie, animated series and whatnot. It DOES have pitfalls - the story is a rehashed "been there done that" and the Romulans being characterized as, basically, space elves is as dumb as it gets; Plus, an entire season without seeing neither a Romulan nor a Federation ship and their interior is weird - the ships and their "look & feel" onboard have been the hearth & soul of Star Trek, what makes it so that 0.3 seconds after seeing a single frame, everyone would immediately go "It's from Star Trek" (and one of the main reasons why the Orville is so loved by long time Trekkies). The preachyness...well, it's Picard, isn't he? He IS supposed to be the best diplomat the Federation ever saw...

And this leads to the main issue - "old" Trek tried to make the audience think and reflect (with the odd weird/silly/hamfisted episode); New Trek tells its audience what to think, with a "like this or else..." tone.

When it comes to Discovery...there's a huge, gigantic elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about, because it's not politically correct...but screw it, I'm doing this.

The big problem is that Burnham behaves, talks, looks and feels like the grandmother of all tryhard token characters. Every single one of her defining characteristics has been crafted specifically to reinforce that...almost as if the writers and producers were more interested in making a show about their "strong, unconventional black woman main character who has a male name just so we tick all the boxes!" than making a good show, nor a Star Trek show for what matters. And if you don't like her, nor the idea, or dare criticizing the character - you're a racist misogynist.

Fact is, I don't care if a character is a slimy Tentaculoid from the outer moon of Exor II-C communicating via explosive sperm emissions. I don't identify with characters, never have; The fact that Sisko was a black dude, Janeway a woman and Kira an ALIEN woman never even registered with me - they're respectively the most badass Captain ever seen on Star Trek (the one you REALLY don't want to p1ss off), the Captain who managed to keep her crew and ship together faced with the most desperate situation and the most annoyingly stubborn but well-meaning First Officer seen on screen.

Once you have a character like Burhnam being the reason for your show to exist, you're doomed, essentially - there isn't anything you can do to save the story from becoming just a scenario to show off the character, unless you completely abandon the initial premise and start afresh. Which might happen in season 3, but I wouldn't put my money on it.

Stark

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

they were still better than discovery.

Take away the effects, cgi, hi def, what did it have ?
A show almost entirely based on one character, that is not going to work.

Enterprise and voyager were widely slated, and had more than their share of dud episodes, but they had more decent ones in the first 2 season than discovery in my opinion.

No they weren't. I really struggled through early episodes of DS9, only kept going by the promise of it getting better. Loads of guides on the Internet on how to get through the first two seasons as fast as possible without missing the important bits for later seasons.

Similar with Enterprise's first two seasons, like watching paint dry. Voyager did have quite a lot of very enjoyable episodes in its first two seasons in fairness.

I was genuinely excited for every new episode of Discovery during its first season run. Plenty to criticise but it was never dull.

Justin Credible Darts

Stark wrote: »

No they weren't. I really struggled through early episodes of DS9, only kept going by the promise of it getting better. Loads of guides on the Internet on how to get through the first two seasons as fast as possible without missing the important bits for later seasons.

Similar with Enterprise's first two seasons, like watching paint dry. Voyager did have quite a lot of very enjoyable episodes in its first two seasons in fairness.

I was genuinely excited for every new episode of Discovery during its first season run. Plenty to criticise but it was never dull.

I finished my post you quoted with the 3 words "in my opinion".


You obviously share a different opinion, and thats fine but it does not make it fact.


I never saw enterprise when it aired, it was years later I got around to watching it, maybe because of the slating it got I was not expecting much, so was pleasantly surprised when I found it to be better than I thought it would be, maybe i set the bar low or stupidly allowed myself to believe nobodies on the net giving their reviews.



My point is screw internet guides, reviews from other people, I will make my own decision and whilst it may or may not be popular, I consider enterprise and voyager, better than discovery by a country mile.

Inviere

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

My point is screw internet guides, reviews from other people, I will make my own decision...

Amen to that.

...and whilst it may or may not be popular, I consider enterprise and voyager, better than discovery by a country mile.

Agreed (so far anyway). While ultimately until Discovery finishes as a show, we won't be able to really soak it in, it hasn't covered itself in glory, despite having the benefit of decades worth of Trek mistakes to avoid.

Rawr

H3llR4iser wrote: »

When it comes to Discovery...there's a huge, gigantic elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about, because it's not politically correct...but screw it, I'm doing this.

The big problem is that Burnham behaves, talks, looks and feels like the grandmother of all tryhard token characters. Every single one of her defining characteristics has been crafted specifically to reinforce that...almost as if the writers and producers were more interested in making a show about their "strong, unconventional black woman main character who has a male name just so we tick all the boxes!" than making a good show, nor a Star Trek show for what matters. And if you don't like her, nor the idea, or dare criticizing the character - you're a racist misogynist.

Nicely summed up post
I'm going to try to avoid going off onto a Michael rant because I guess I should save that for a Discovery thread. But what you mention is something I have felt as well, this rather blatant need of some shows to flash a sort of "Social Responsibility" score card in order to telegraph to the world how they managed to one-up other shows with their ability to score more "points".

Many have said that Trek has always been a progressive show, and it has been. But these steps at progression often felt to be beside the point, since the characters themselves were front and center. Although the Kirk / Uhura kiss elevated as this world-blowing first on-air interracial kiss...most followers of Trek would probably be more concerned with why the characters of Kirk and Uhura would even be kissing, due to the nature of how they relate to each other. It was the characters, not the race they happened to be which I feel mattered.

I remember some amount of a deal being made about Cisco when DS9 started. Again, was he a token black Captain? Or was he a man who was haunted by Wolf 359, trying his best to raise his son alone while rebuilding a space station and later becoming this awesome hard-as-nails war-captain who could design & build warships...all the while still being able go and hang out with his staff at Quarks?

Janeway's gender was a big deal for a short while too. We often debate wither or not she was a good captain, but I don't remember any debate about her gender being an issue. She was the Captain of Voyager and that felt perfectly natural. As with anyone else, it was her character we related to.

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that although diversity has been a theme in TV/Movie production over the past load of decades, I feel that it had often been done in the context of hiring people into developed roles that could have just as easily been applied to a person with any particular attribute. It was never enough to simply fill out the diversity check-list, you also had to make a decent character.

In the past 10 years, I can't help but wonder if that last point has been lost to the current batch of TV production staffers. I think many of them are filling out their Social Responsibility checklist first and foremost to gain public praise from the industry media, and then phoning in the rest. Then in some cases, like with Burnham alas, they forget that they needed to properly build up their character in order for the viewers to relate to that personality. But it appears they either rushed or poorly developed their ideas for her character and now we're still talking about her being a token diversity point for the show. If they had done a better job, I feel we would now be discussing how she was a good / bad first officer. We might be discussing her relationship with Vulcan society, if they had done a better job there. We might be discussing how she managed to redeem herself after starting a war...if they hadn't just glossed over that.

Another issue I feel worth mentioning is that these days by filling out their Social Responsibility checklist, shows suddenly gain a sort of criticism-armor. You cannot critique a show where lead characters are female, because then you are sexist. Critique of a show like Discovery might imply that you are racist or homophobic etc... I feel that production staff know this, and apply this armor as a way to also gloss over their failings.

The pay off of all of this I fear will be a further decline in the quality of writing and character development. Cast and crew will be wonderfully diverse which would be great, but the quality will likely be lacking over time. I fear a future where sci-fi shows might become increasingly soul-less and devoid of character while the production companies involved slap each other on the back in congratulations of how inclusive and "ground-breaking" they have been in the process.

That all said, I am hopeful that talent still exists and that Picard Season 2 and Discovery Season 3 still have the potential of becoming good Trek. They just need to remember that it was the characters that won us over.

Inviere

^^ Well said. Yes, Trek has always...always been progressive...but it had a point in being so...to break down barriers, and it seriously worked and made many many people the better for it. That's going right from the 60's, all the way up until the golden era of the 90's. No matter the decade, no matter the series of Trek...the progressive nature of the different shows were unified at their core. (Some edge cases aside, like the Africa in space TNG episode)

I feel while Trek is still progressive today, it can be a bit hit & miss in terms of what it's trying to achieve with it, and veers dangerously close to tokenism as Rawr rightly says. TOS, TNG, DS9...hell even Voyager made you stop and think sometimes, because there was always a certain quality and richness of what they were trying to achieve in this context. That can appear lost today, in an almost shallow attempt to tick a social box these days, having no other point.

Star Trek in this sense used to look at what social issues were relevant, and write wonderful ways of exposing things like racism, sexism, class, etc for what they really were. Today, it can feel a bit "virtuous", without actually tackling a social issue. Not always, but yeah. I've certainly had that impression at times in Discovery AND Picard.

pixelburp

H3llR4iser wrote: »

...
The big problem is that Burnham behaves, talks, looks and feels like the grandmother of all tryhard token characters. Every single one of her defining characteristics has been crafted specifically to reinforce that...almost as if the writers and producers were more interested in making a show about their "strong, unconventional black woman main character who has a male name just so we tick all the boxes!" than making a good show, nor a Star Trek show for what matters. And if you don't like her, nor the idea, or dare criticizing the character - you're a racist misogynist.
...

Just on the Burnham's first name as a rod to beat the show with, that's an affectation of original show-runner & writer Bryan Fuller: one of his "things" he has done in the past is giving female characters ostensibly male names (See "Chuck" in Pushing Daisies). AFAIK nothing is meant by it, it's just a little authorial signature.

Not going to get into another debate about the tonal approach of Discoveries philosophies - I fundamentally think people are finding what they want to see but we're not going to agree - but "Michael Burnham" isn't an "diversity yeah!" air-punch, it's just a holdover from the original writer's idiosyncratic way of writing his characters. Aside from anything else, I've never read or seen a single "SJW" seriously try to re-appropriate first names. That sounds like something from The Onion TBH.

Inviere

pixelburp wrote: »

but "Michael Burnham" isn't an "diversity yeah!" air-punch

Who said it was It's a minor minor part of the show's premise, & one I happen to like. It really suits the character imo. If Discovery felt the need to tackle appropriate gender naming, I think the show would have big big issues.

pixelburp

I wasn't replying to you Inviere. Post updated with specific reply.

Inviere

pixelburp wrote: »

I wasn't replying to you Inviere. Post updated with specific reply.

Fair enough, though even in terms of the shows fans and its detractors, I think deriding the show because of the name is pretty small fry. It's a non issue imo.

I don't think there's a genuine Trek fan out there who has an issue with the notion of a "strong, unconventional, black woman" as a main character. It's the writing of said character that has polarised people in context of critique. I've said previously, I don't mind Burnham whatsoever...she's one character, she's flawed, interesting, isn't perfect, etc. I can see why though, it'd annoy people, that she has to be front & center of everything important going on. To me though, that's not a character fault....but a glaring writing fault.

odyssey06

Inviere wrote: »

Fair enough, though even in terms of the shows fans and its detractors, I think deriding the show because of the name is pretty small fry. It's a non issue imo.
I don't think there's a genuine Trek fan out there who has an issue with the notion of a "strong, unconventional, black woman" as a main character. It's the writing of said character that has polarised people in context of critique. I've said previously, I don't mind Burnham whatsoever...she's one character, she's flawed, interesting, isn't perfect, etc. I can see why though, it'd annoy people, that she has to be front & center of everything important going on. To me though, that's not a character fault....but a glaring writing fault.

Yep, I like Burnham as a Trek character, but it's too much to rest the series on her.
If we forgot the generational difference, I can imagine her as a character in TNG or DS9 or Voyager, just as a human following logic with a connection to Vulcan (rather than Spock).

And, looking at her IMDB credits I don't think Sonequa Martin-Green has been the lead in any other series or film or major theatrical production. I don't think the character or the actress have 'star vehicle' potential in a way you could do that.

Stark

I could agree with that. Tbh, she's as good as many of the secondary characters on TNG/Voyager/Enterprise so if they removed the focus from her a bit, she'd probably be perfectly likeable. I did hear her referred to as "Commander Burnham" a few times in the season 3 trailer so hopefully that means Suru is captain and gets a bit more focus in season 3.

odyssey06

Stark wrote: »

I could agree with that. Tbh, she's as good as many of the secondary characters on TNG/Voyager/Enterprise so if they removed the focus from her a bit, she'd probably be perfectly likeable. I did hear her referred to as "Commander Burnham" a few times in the season 3 trailer so hopefully that means Suru is captain and gets a bit more focus in season 3.

To continue the theme, I think Ensign Ro is a great character, and I know Trek producers wanted her for the 'Kira' role on DS9.
Now imagine if Michelle Forbes had taken the role, but as the lead rather than one in an ensemble. It would have distorted the whole show and narrowed what stories could be told.

TheIrishGrover

Some interesting posts there and while I don't totally agree, there is some truth to them. I'll start with Discovery but much of this post also applied to Picard.

It's the focus the main character is given. To the detriment of other, potentially more interesting characters.

First off, I like Discovery. I think the characters in general are much more enjoyable and interesting than the last two Trek series:

Doug Jones is the best prosthetic actor in the business and his performance is simply amazing. His character is easily the best non-human character since Garak (Although, since all you had inbetween was Neelix, Kes and Flox, that's not saying much)
I like Stamets and Culber and their relationship. They really had to jump through hoops to get the doc back but I like both actors (And the other doctor who has a couple of zingers. Don't know her name or if she had one)
I LOVE the new engineer. I think she's hilarious. ("I had a dream I played base with Prince. Weird". I almost spit me tea over the tele laughing at that)
I even like Tilly.

And I DO like Burnham. The actor is great and she's put in some very good performances (And, admittedly, some not so good but in general). I have no problem with her gender or the colour of her skin (And I'm not saying anyone in the previous posts has either). But her character is, by far, the blandest of characters on the show. She can do no wrong and the world seems to revolve around her. This is something that was fine in TOS: The world revolved around Kirk in TOS. But he was the captain and it was also a simpler time regarding TV shows. It was throw-away episode of the week stuff. The show was about a bunch of (mostly) Americans going out and sticking their noses in

But Burnham is NOT a captain, she is breathtakingly arrogant, seems to know EVERTHING and the cast seem to revolve around her (At one stage there is literally a scene where she walks onto the bridge in slow motion and everyone stops one by one to watch her pass).

Almost every episode revolves around her. I know she's our POV character but come on. Look at how many episodes of TNG focused on Data or Riker or Worf or even WESLEY! with Picard barely appearing. Hell, Lwaxxana Troi got her own episodes and while they were generally painful, they were there.

So it's kind of like Homer on Poochie on The Simpsons: "When Poochie is not on screen Itchy and Scratchy should reference him - 'Where's Poochie? Have you seen Poochie' etc. ". Even episodes that don't revolve around Burnham, they are STILL about her actions.

I am coming across harsh, I really like Discovery I just think they need to back off Burnham by about 20% and give the other characters some space...... Oh, and give us our Goddamn Pike Series! Now! and give "Number 1" more to do, Every one of her (few) lines was great

And....

The same goes for Picard. I know, I know, "The show is called PICARD! Who is is supposed to focus on?" But not to the detriment of all other characters. There was potential in each of the characters but they were smothered by the focus on Picard:

Raffi - Her whole career destroyed by Picard. She has good reason to hate him. And she does. For a whole episode then it's JL JL JL JL JL JL Jay...f*cking...Ell (Take note showrunners. EVERYONE hated it). Whole family she lost contact with? 10 mins. Back to JL JL JL JL

Rios - Initially thought he was going to be a one-note Han Solo wannabe. Then saw his TERRIBLE Oirish accent. Then accpeted that as intentional. Started to look interesting. Then Back to one note Han-Solo for you, baby.

Alison Pil - An actor I like and was expecting good things from. Was so all over the shop that people (Myself included) thought she might be an immature android.

Romulan Ronin - Brief interesting glimpses of more than noble warrior brutally quashed.

Romulan siblings: Were SO OTT that's I'd say half their bugdet went on sets after they ate the scenery. My God. All they were missing were thin mustaches to twirl and go "MWHAHAHAHA"

And the rest.

The only person that stood out was Seven's rage which was fantastic. And Riker's humanity.

Last scene seemed to be Picard and his motley crew go out and find adventure/solve mysteries....

I may be a little harsh on Picard because we are only 10 episodes in but I was SO looking forward to it.

Ballso

Picard doesn't focus on Picard though, he's an afterthought. A doddery aul fella constantly being belittled by poorly written female characters for some bizarre reason. Christ I'm still cringing from the Fox News lady bit. The character is unrecognizable from Picard in TNG.

Rawr

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Romulan siblings: Were SO OTT that's I'd say half their bugdet went on sets after they ate the scenery. My God. All they were missing were thin mustaches to twirl and go "MWHAHAHAHA"

+1
Although....now that I'm imagining it, I might have actually liked them if they leaned into it and just became cartoon villians.

[On the artifact]
Brother: Let us fool that FOOLISH ANDROID GIRL to betray the location of her homeworld! Moo ha ha HA!

Sister: Yes, let us fool her for the sake of EVIL!"

Brother: Yes! FOR EVIIIIIL!!! Mooo HA HA HAH!

[They both bust into evil laughter while Hugh looks on from a nearby platform]
Hugh: .....the hell?

pixelburp

Getting back to updates on the second season, related to the current topic anyway, Patrick Stewart confirmed that Narek wouldn't be returning:

One of the open questions left from the season one finale was the fate of Harry Treadaway’s Romulan operative Narek, last seen being taken into custody by the Synths, although Michael Chabon said there was a deleted scene that showed him being handed over to the Federation. When talking about what it was like working with the rest of the Picard cast, Stewart indicated Treadaway may not be back for season two:

We have a dazzling group of actors. No matter who I find myself playing a scene with, it is interesting, unusual, challenging, and always exciting. And every one of us is back. Well, I think we may have said goodbye to Harry Treadaway, which I am disappointed about because I enjoyed working with him so much.

https://trekmovie.com/2020/05/13/patrick-stewart-talks-startling-events-for-star-trek-picard-season-two-hints-at-more-tng-guest-stars/

Stark

I'm actually sort of disappointed. On his own, he wasn't a bad actor/character. The sister was atrocious though, and dragged him down to her level in any scenes where they were together. Thought the end of season 1 left them with interesting places to go for him.

pixelburp

It did feel like they might have been building towards some kind of redemptive arc all right: Narek seemed to be legitimately conflicted about his feeings for Soji, hinting that he could yet come around. Wonder why he's not coming back - if it's the production team or the actor simply not wanting to return.

Evade

Redeeming Narek might be too close to retreading Tyler's arc on STD.

TheIrishGrover

Evade wrote: »

Redeeming Narek might be too close to retreading Tyler's arc on STD.

That's a VERY good point

Plus, I would imagine that they'll only do one more season. Stewart is no spring chicken.

Actually..... On that... They say they had (Pre-Covid) two live action series in early planning NOT counting Section 31 (Speaking of scenery-chewing. While I like the idea of a Section 31 series they REALLY gotta dial them ALL back from 11).

Now obviously things may have changed. Assuming that a Pike series is/was planned (I will eat my hat if it wasn't), I wonder if they were planning on something with Rios/Seven.

As I said, once given a little room, he became interesting and they seemed to spend a lot of time building up Seven's association with this Rangers group.

Meh, just a thought.

odyssey06

pixelburp wrote: »

Wonder why he's not coming back - if it's the production team or the actor simply not wanting to return.

If it's the actor they could hire his twin brother Harry (from Penny Dreadful)

Stark

Narek is already played by Harry. You must be thinking of Luke.

odyssey06

Stark wrote: »

Narek is already played by Harry. You must be thinking of Luke.

Doh... on the other hand, that indirectly proves my point!

So Luke was in Fortitude and upcoming Singapore Grip.
Harry has a much longer credits list... Penny Dreadful, Mr Mercedes, the Crown and ST Picard.

Evade

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

While I like the idea of a Section 31 series they REALLY gotta dial them ALL back from 11.

More of the Sloane/Bashir dynamic and less of the mustache twirling would be nice.

riggerman

Spock, Captain Pike and Number One are returning for new series Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

Stark

Honestly, I liked a lot of things about Discovery but the hatchet job they did of section 31 was not one of them. Have zero interest in watching that show. The section 31 series and Pike series should be called "Discovery: the bad parts" and "Discovery: the good parts" respectively.

pah

I liked pike and No1. Spock was ok, Peck did a good job but I really dislike the whole Burnham is the centre of spocks universe.

Hopefully it can be it's own thing. Possibly a way to get a shatner cameo if done well??

Rawr

Stark wrote: »

Honestly, I liked a lot of things about Discovery but the hatchet job they did of section 31 was not one of them. Have zero interest in watching that show. The section 31 series and Pike series should be called "Discovery: the bad parts" and "Discovery: the good parts" respectively.

I sort of hope that Section 31 goes away and they focus on this Pike show instead. Fans appeared to actually *want* this show compared to what I can only assume is indifference to a show about the cartoonish League of Galactic EEEEVIL that is their Section 31. They might be able to make something good from it, but personally I couldn't care less about this show at the moment.

But new Pike show? Could be loads of fun. Part of me hopes that they play with the fact that we never learned Number 1's name. Could they tease us with this for a whole show's runtime and never tell us as a sort of running joke? Might be fun :P

pixelburp

The complete absence of any news or traction (AFAIK), makes me wonder if the Section 31 show has been quietly shelved in favour of the Pike one.

Evade

Rawr wrote: »

the fact that we never learned Number 1's name.

It's

Una

AMKC

pixelburp wrote: »

The complete absence of any news or traction (AFAIK), makes me wonder if the Section 31 show has been quietly shelved in favour of the Pike one.

Maybe it has. Be no harm as I don't think anyone wanted it and it would be s huge flop. He would be a smart move if thay have dropped it and decided on the StarTrek:Stange New Worlds instead

Inviere

pixelburp wrote: »

The complete absence of any news or traction (AFAIK), makes me wonder if the Section 31 show has been quietly shelved in favour of the Pike one.

Fingers crossed anyway.

Brian?

Ballso wrote: »

The Mandalorian gave us some episodic style eps, alongside a series long story arc, similar enough to how DS9 did it. Mandalorian was MILES better than either of the recent Trek shows

I don’t even like Star Wars much and loved the Mandalorian.

I’m a huge fan of Samurai films and it has the same feel as early Kurosawa, which I’m sure was ok purpose.

Brian?

Stark wrote: »

Honestly, I liked a lot of things about Discovery but the hatchet job they did of section 31 was not one of them. Have zero interest in watching that show. The section 31 series and Pike series should be called "Discovery: the bad parts" and "Discovery: the good parts" respectively.

Section 31 are sceptically bad outside of DS9. I want them killed with fire.

AMKC

Brian? wrote: »

Section 31 are sceptically bad outside of DS9. I want them killed with fire.

They were done well in Enterprise as well but that's it.

Goodshape

Mr. Plinkett's (long) review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwF1iri1GjQ

Fairly spot-on as usual. You might call it cynical if it wasn't so well argued and backed up.

silverharp

Picard was made by hacks who hate Star Trek ….Change my mind

Nody

silverharp wrote: »

Picard was made by hacks who hate Star Trek ….Change my mind

Don't proscribe malice what simple incompetence can explain. They don't hate Star Trek but they simply did not give a damn if it was Star Trek, Star Wars or Barbie the magical kingdom; all they wanted was to show how woke they can be with female empowerment and males are stupid. It's an exact continuation on the likes of Harley Quinn whatever it's called these days, remade Ghost buster movie etc. and it's built on the same exact false premise; take a big name, make it all women and show how equal you are as a director/writer. The problem is it does not matter if the cast is male or female if the writing is **** and all it does it alienate the potential audience who'd see it and cast a general bad name on the series, the ideals and the director in general.

Then we get the bitch party afterwards about how more people should have seen it but males hated it (even in cases such as Quinn it turned out more male than female saw it at the cinema) and everyone who disagrees are misogynist pigs etc. The simple fact is if it's a ****ty movie/series it's a ****ty movie/series; the fact they made it all about female empowerment in a way a 5 year old would does not change the basic movie in and of itself and suddenly make it good. You can tell a good story with female empowerment, black empowerment or any empowerment story you wish to tell; but if you can't tell a story in the universe and lore that exist/you created in the first place no matter what message and empowerment you wish to provide it will fall flat. And that's the part that's been flying over the makers and their ilks heads for years now and create the classic go woke, go broke meme. Tell a good story first; worry about the cast gender or sexual orientation later but they reversed that and said if we get females it will be female empowerment and show the world without thinking on "Well who are we actually making this show for? Who's going to see it and are we telling a good consistent story here?". Hence back to the original answer; incompetence rather than hate for the franchise.

Stark

Jesus, who even gives a **** what gender the characters are. Really. Grow up.

Series fell flat in the end for sure but it wasn't because "too many wimmin".

Nody

Stark wrote: »

Jesus, who even gives a **** what gender the characters are. Really. Grow up.

Series fell flat in the end for sure but it wasn't because "too many wimmin".

I'm guessing you're responding to me and I'd suggest you re-read my post because that's exactly the point. A ****ty show is a ****ty show; the cast's gender does not change that. However that was the premise for a lot of shows/movies which was it's about the gender and not the quality of the writing instead which goes back to the question I responded to. Did the writers/directors hate Star Trek? No; they simply thought if they go female cast that will somehow magically solve that they wrote a ****ty show without taking into account the existing lore, characters and pretty much anything else. Solve the writing and the rest flows into place but that's not the approach taken. It would not fix anything if they had switched every gender in the series and filmed it with the same script or made them gender neutral jelly blobs; the problem is the writing yet their approach to fix it was to tinker with the genders.

pixelburp

As someone who writes a little in his spare time, I always find this "just write the story, forget the politics" argument a bit funny. It's all fiction, it's all contrived and this idea of writers as objective plot machines is false. Every author has bias, an angle of human experience to plough. Balance is rare, and often dramatically inert. Good writers just hide their biases better. Or don't: no writer went hungry penning books amounting to "I hated my parents".

This repeated loop always makes me think of Supergirl, possibly the most overt, unapologetic show about female empowerment and sisterhood on TV - but I guess cos the character writing is solid nobody moans about it (mostly, its plotting can be horrendously childish). The bedrock however is about sisterhood, and a fairly liberal point of view. The tone is 100% first and foremost, you'd struggle to miss it. Mad Max Fury Road, a stone cold modern classic, had an incredibly feminist voice in its story but it sat quietly behind the frontage of car carnage. And what characters there were, worked.

TBH I don't agree that Picard has some empowerment angle - its chief villains were an ice Queen bitch, and a scenery chewing bitch respectively - another was a weepy trainwreck hopping from one lover to another. Rafi is a Bad Mother cliché. If you had to fix the story, it wouldn't require grinding axes removed. Its women were terrible people, it's just some were the protagonists so were allowed win (the Barry Allen problem lol)

The writing is poor, but not because of some impulse to have female voices - but because Kurtzman writes Big Cinematic Moments without any emotional groundwork and (presumably) backfills. It's not that he doesn't get Trek - I just don't think he knows how to structure characters, regardless of genders. His colleague Abrams has the same problem, albeit putting his Big Swings at the start and leaving other writers to fill the gaps

TheValeyard

Stark wrote: »

Jesus, who even gives a **** what gender the characters are. Really. Grow up.

Series fell flat in the end for sure but it wasn't because "too many wimmin".

I still feel calling a female character Michael was a bit silly.

Stark

Yes, though that was a particular affectation of the original showrunner (Bryan Fuller). He liked to give his lead female characters male names in everything he did as a "signature" of sorts.

https://www.thewrap.com/star-trek-discovery-female-lead-mans-name/

Justin Credible Darts

TheValeyard wrote: »

I still feel calling a female character Michael was a bit silly.

For me calling her a mans name was not the issue
The character being a woman was not the issue
she being black was not an issue.


The issue was the character sucked because the whole show seemed to evolve around her, and how she appeared better than everyone, and everyone else, ever her superiors seemed to be portrayed as less.
Minimal character development for others. Her mother had to be the red angel, her brother had to be spock, it got ridiculous.



Thankfully Anson mount made his presence felt, and he leaving will be an even bigger void in discovery , a show that already sucked .


Whilst I can see Strange New Worlds being a superior show

Rawr

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

The issue was the character sucked because the whole show seemed to evolve around her, and how she appeared better than everyone, and everyone else, ever her superiors seemed to be portrayed as less.
Minimal character development for others. Her mother had to be the red angel, her brother had to be spock, it got ridiculous.

I still believe that it was possible to do a character-driven show within the Star Trek universe. But for that to work you'd have to structure it as a story where we mostly followed that one character, and for the audience to relate to that character in some way.

But they botched it. They attempted to make it a character driven story, but instead went for a bizarre mix of a standard crew-driven Trek show where the plot would somehow "funnel" towards Michael automatically. Michael herself cam across as cold and unlikeable. Thus it was difficult to want to spend time in her story when you started to be more interested in what Saru or Lorca were up to.

I would have loved Discovery to have been about a down on her luck Lieutenant who has been blamed for starting a horrible war. That she has to slowly regain her identity as a fleet officer while we follow her trying to come to grips with everything. Drop the whole Spock stuff and have her earn her place in the war, eventually proving to everyone (and especially the audience) that through bravery in the heat of war she could show that despite past screw-ups, she was still Starfleet and still deserved to be on a starship.

That might have worked I feel.

Justin Credible Darts

In Ds9 you had the "o brien must suffer" episodes, the shows that focused on worf, the odo kira relationship, etc....and the main actor who was sisko would play minimal parts in these.
He was still the main figure in the series, the captain etc but did not hog the pivotal scenes in every episode, he was more a support character for those episodes, hence why others grew character wise.

In discovery when it was a show about Tilly, who was guiding her...yep burnham
When Saru had problems....yep...,Michael was there again...I got sick of seeing her, she was not only irritating, she reached the point where I could not stand her.
She became like the know all prick in love with themselves you see in some jobs where you just tell them to **** off.