is that really what they did? the whole "federation is the benevolent borg" thing that was the undertone of a lot of tng/voy and even bits of ds9, is solved by ... making the borg the same as the federation??
Television Star Trek
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Probably because one of its main writers was also one of TNG’s main writers.
Rubbish. Wasting my time watching this car crash!
I'm tempted to ignore the final episodes this season. Maybe next year will be better given the old cast members returning, although nothing is guaranteed with this level of amateur hour writing.
Not that this was the biggest problem with season 2 but I don't think TNG's tone lends itself particularly well to this modern, Marvel-inspired thing of squeezing existing properties into big budget TV show adaptions with a very particular style (continuous fast paced plots, Whedon-y dialogue/'banter', big action set pieces, dramatic dialogue, tearjerky moments).
I thought the first season had enough about it with the plot, the cameos and Picard's arc to overcome the weird stylistic clash. The second series though seemed to dial that style up a few notches whilst chucking in some really ill-considered plot elements, some of which really undermined established lore. I don't think the idea was bad necessarily, "Q transports Picard into an alternative dimension where he's evil" and "<Protagonist> must go back in time to protect the timeline" are both valid and well-trodden Star Trek plots, but the delivery beyond the first couple of episodes was truly awful.
Obviously there was absolutely tonnes of garbage in TNG, but you can forgive that in a series where writers are tasked with producing 24 hours of telly a year on a limited budget. In that environment, whether it's TNG, X Files, Buffy or whatever, it's never all going to be gold, but TNG got a lot right and you're guaranteed a lot of good episodes and a decent number of classic episodes every season. I think a key part of the problem here is that a big aspect of TNG's appeal was it's variety - over a season you could have a 2 parter covering a contained story and you could also have, say, an episode where Data learns how to take care of a cat or acts out a Sherlock Holmes plot. A big issue these modern Star Trek series have is that they don't want to create the space for those slower episodes which in TNG especially got you invested in the characters and allowed them to raise the ethical questions in an interesting way, so they end up creating these addled messes where they whip from action to comedy to tearjerker in the space of 10 minutes.
I thought the first season had enough about it with the plot, the cameos and Picard's arc to overcome the weird stylistic clash. The second series though seemed to dial that style up a few notches whilst chucking in some really ill-considered plot elements, some of which really undermined established lore. I don't think the idea was bad necessarily, "Q transports Picard into an alternative dimension where he's evil" and "<Protagonist> must go back in time to protect the timeline" are both valid and well-trodden Star Trek plots, but the delivery beyond the first couple of episodes was truly awful.
Obviously there was absolutely tonnes of garbage in TNG, but you can forgive that in a series where writers are tasked with producing 24 hours of telly a year on a limited budget. In that environment, whether it's TNG, X Files, Buffy or whatever, it's never all going to be gold, but TNG got a lot right and you're guaranteed a lot of good episodes and a decent number of classic episodes every season. I think a key part of the problem here is that a big aspect of TNG's appeal was it's variety - over a season you could have a 2 parter covering a contained story and you could also have, say, an episode where Data learns how to take care of a cat or acts out a Sherlock Holmes plot. A big issue these modern Star Trek series have is that they don't want to create the space for those slower episodes which in TNG especially got you invested in the characters and allowed them to raise the ethical questions in an interesting way, so they end up creating these addled messes where they whip from action to comedy to tearjerker in the space of 10 minutes.
Last edited:
I dont think its getting better next season either
That episode was more schizo than Picards Mum.
How hard is it to actually take something that has worked since the 1960s and just give the fans what they enjoy and want, instead of trying to be clever or trying to copy from other fims or show's where it worked once.
It's like Disney are writing this show at times, and we all saw what they did with Star Wars and fkd up that so easily, when all they had to do was give the fans what they wanted and build from that, instead of killing off everyone with no plot, poor writing and trying to be clever.
These companies are like the glazers, happy to make money, but leaving millions on the table by poor execution and lack of thinking ahead.
How hard is it to actually take something that has worked since the 1960s and just give the fans what they enjoy and want, instead of trying to be clever or trying to copy from other fims or show's where it worked once.
It's like Disney are writing this show at times, and we all saw what they did with Star Wars and fkd up that so easily, when all they had to do was give the fans what they wanted and build from that, instead of killing off everyone with no plot, poor writing and trying to be clever.
These companies are like the glazers, happy to make money, but leaving millions on the table by poor execution and lack of thinking ahead.
Watch that space, the final frontier.
I completely lost track of the plan with all this random stuff going on with the FBI and kid picard but what was the reason for this in the latest episode?
Why does the Borg queen take the ship and fly off? I thought they needed that to get back to the future. Or will they click their fingers and end up back in their timeline. Also where did the Borg queen go?
I think subverting expectations and coming up with something fresh and new can be a successful plan. However you need to have good writers and modern Trek doesn't, thinks it is doing something new but really what they are doing is just a tired rehash of modern standards, the quippy humour which Whedon introduced with Buffy 25 years ago and Marvel have made their signature., the nihilistic deconstruction of the optimistic view of the future that past treks showed could have been interesting but the writing is just poor, bland characters, shit dialogue.
Interested to see what happens with the reboot of Babylon 5, being on the CW limits my optimism somewhat. Need a worthy successor to The Expanse.
From what I'm reading the new Pike, Spock Enterprise show spinoff is going to be very good.
Fingers cross they don't screw it up.
Fingers cross they don't screw it up.
Very true.
They seriously screwed up Picard and it was probably the show the fans wanted to see and done right, but they tried to be to clever and lost sight of the soul and what made the character and Star Trek a success.
Apart from the previous two episodes before the most recent I’ve enjoyed it tbh
1 week to Strange New Worlds... I have high hopes for this
it’s the hope that kills you…
Just caught up on the last few episodes.
Awe inspiringly appalling. Risible garbage of the highest order. Just stop you bastards.
Awe inspiringly appalling. Risible garbage of the highest order. Just stop you bastards.
At least the girl has nice boobs to pass time with
Been watching a few Next Generation episodes recently when I'm bored, and Iv'e noticed that Chief O'Brien has the shittest job in the history of starfleet. He spends all day stood at the transporter console, just moving his fingers up and down to transport people ALL FECKING DAY.
Worse than that, he doesn't even get paid for it. This was his career choice, fecking stupid Irish bastard.
Worse than that, he doesn't even get paid for it. This was his career choice, fecking stupid Irish bastard.
Considering how that guy was regularly tortured in DS9 he probably ended up missing those days.
He also has to deal with that wife of his aboard the enterprise.
What was his job on DS9? Was it transporters?
Chief of operations. Ie the handy man.
True, I'm surprised he didn't transport himself into empty space!
His main job was suffering, here's an article about it (obviously full of spoilers).
He was always the stereotypical Irish jack of all trades, master of none
Not much need for tarmac in space thoughHe was always the stereotypical Irish jack of all trades, master of none
Big few days coming up.
Picard Finale and Debut of Strange New Worlds
Picard Finale and Debut of Strange New Worlds
I think Akiva and Kurtzman wrote the first episode and Akiva is Directed it.
Cindy Appel, Jane Maggs, and Juliana James - all intimately involved in Picard season 2 (hence emasculated story lines like the Rafi/Seven romance, Borg Queen, and Agnes Jurati being a lead) don't appear to be involved in this one.
What's with the pauses for counseling sessions/day dreams when they're in the heat of battle?
What...the...feck
Yes Jean-luc go on what happened in here?... A few minutes of nonsense...oh they're after us! Let's hurry the queen's on the ship!
What...the...feck
The Strange New Worlds premiere was better than the Picard finale, imo. Though I'm a bit afraid it might turn into another case of fan service because it couldn't really have been any more formulaic. Not terrible, mind you. Just predictable.
But whereas Picard played to the old-timers who grew up watching TNG (the Borg, Soong, Guinan, androids, Troi and Riker, Q, etc), SNW seems to be aiming squarely at the TOS nostalgists instead.
Obviously, Discovery was a departure from both because it went down a more 2020s reboot route (more alien looking Klingons, gender politics, more equal representation between races, rainbow families, updated technology that tries to extrapolate from the present day, etc). So that was always going to upset the traditionalists who forgot that Star Trek is, at its heart, a progressive franchise.
In any case, it's pretty obvious that all three are intended to fill different niches. And all of them are watchable in their own way.
That said, I find it hilarious that people were praising the writing of Picard right up until the RedLetterMedia reviews. The scripts have always been like that. Jay and Mike just pointed it out in youtube format. Even so, it wouldn't have made sense to tell a story about the future from a 1960s or 1990s POV. I don't know why they expected any different. The optimism of the post-WW2 and Post-Berlin Wall eras that led to TOS and TNG were an illusion. We're a messy species and a messy civilisation. If new Trek ignored that reality with the current series, it wouldn't really be sci fi any more.
But whereas Picard played to the old-timers who grew up watching TNG (the Borg, Soong, Guinan, androids, Troi and Riker, Q, etc), SNW seems to be aiming squarely at the TOS nostalgists instead.
Obviously, Discovery was a departure from both because it went down a more 2020s reboot route (more alien looking Klingons, gender politics, more equal representation between races, rainbow families, updated technology that tries to extrapolate from the present day, etc). So that was always going to upset the traditionalists who forgot that Star Trek is, at its heart, a progressive franchise.
In any case, it's pretty obvious that all three are intended to fill different niches. And all of them are watchable in their own way.
That said, I find it hilarious that people were praising the writing of Picard right up until the RedLetterMedia reviews. The scripts have always been like that. Jay and Mike just pointed it out in youtube format. Even so, it wouldn't have made sense to tell a story about the future from a 1960s or 1990s POV. I don't know why they expected any different. The optimism of the post-WW2 and Post-Berlin Wall eras that led to TOS and TNG were an illusion. We're a messy species and a messy civilisation. If new Trek ignored that reality with the current series, it wouldn't really be sci fi any more.
I'm sure strange new world will be decent but I wish they'd move forward in time onto new characters ect... Rather than going back.
The latest season of Discovery was set 900 years after TOS.
Honestly, I think the backlash to the first season of Discovery from the established fanbase scared Paramount off. With Picard and SNW, they're really leaning into the nostalgia.
If it's got the 'Star Trek' name, it has to be fan service-y. Otherwise, you'd might as well start a new franchise and go with something new.
Was looking forward to Strange New Worlds but feck paying for yet another streaming service. It's starting to become less of a service and more a digital store front.
Love STAR TREK but tuned out of DISCOVERY (Michael Burnham was insufferable) and PICARD (PatStew was the ONLY decent thing about it). Hope STRANGE NEW WORLDS is good, but it's going to suffer the same problems as ENTERPRISE. They should have just made a Next Next Generation weekly format exploration show.
I think that's the premise of SNW. Back to planet of the week.
I believe it is, but it will probably suffer the continuity headaches ENTERPRISE had.
I'll honestly be happy if the quality of the show is like Enterprise. That's a step up from Picard/Discovery.
That's true. I'm finishing up the final two seasons of ENTERPRISE on Netflix after bailing end of 2nd season back in the day and enjoying it more this time.
I forgot about Picard (set 2399) tbh. I don't mind the show. It's nor brilliant but it's not terrible. Same with Discovery (set 2255). Before Picard it was Voyager (set 2371-78) and that show has been off air for 21 years! So I guess I wanted a new series with a new ship/crew ect... Without needing to go back to the old characters.
The latest season of Discovery was set in 3188.