I have no problem with the new show presenting a "darker", more isolationist Federation - under three conditions
[removed]
Posted Jan 13, 2020, 1:07 PM UTC · edited
8260
Star Trek needs less war, and more explore. That's all I care about.
28
We won't get that from Secret Hideout.
5
Agreed, the oldschool style is my favorite. Love having more content to enjoy, I just wish it was more philosophically in line with the 60s version. Wishful thinking probably.
4
I think people hear "DS9" and think "Ooh, gritty! Ooh, dark!" but it was so much more than that. It had plenty of lighthearted moments as well. It was a very optimistic show, even though it wasn't presented the same way it was in TNG.
Section 31 worked well because it was used sparingly. Our heroes made mistakes but were ultimately and unquestionably good & decent people. They set out to stop organizations like Section 31 because it was an immoral sect of Starfleet that went against what they believed in. You take an idea of Section 31 and try to turn it into an entire grimdark series spanning multiple seasons and you're probably headed for trouble.
Remember, dark only works when you have enough light to balance it out.
26
Agreed. I remember when I started DS9 this year I was actually surprised by how funny and lighthearted it was at times because everything I had heard about DS9 was "it's darker and grittier."
3
It doesn't help that episodes like In The Pale Moonlight (Sisko plots murder), For the Uniform (Sisko uses a WMD against a Marquis planet) and Siege of AR-558 (Nog loses 50% of his legs) are always mentioned before the more thought-provoking stuff.
It'd be near impossible with this show, but if I had to list a top 10 it'd probably go something like this: Necessary Evil, Children of Time, Visionary, The Visitor, Way of the Warrior, Hippocratic Oath, The Die is Cast, Rocks & Shoals, Sacrifice of Angels, and Whispers.
But again, near-impossible. The bad episodes are easy to quantify and I'd doubt there's even 10 total.
4
Beware DIAA.
1
A Federation that has en-masse rejected its values, an out-right malicious Federation, a Federation Trump? That's too far, and equally importantly boring -
We already saw a glimpse of this Federation. It's called the Terran Empire in Mirror Universe.
15
Ironically the terran empire was less distopian than this nightmare, Spock eventually reformed it (and it got enveloped) but this fascist tyranny streak is looking like it cannot die as easily. Logic is not reaching these people.
4
People are going to be pretty disappointed by Picard, it'll just come down to whether those complaints appear to be a majority opinion (as it does with Discovery) or whether they are dismissed as fringe. I do think they've rushed a Season 2 renewal. This will not be smooth sailing.
7
People are going to be pretty disappointed by Picard
Dude, half of Star Trek fans are going to hate it no matter what, yet they'll be watching every episode more than once and bitching about them online.
ST fans are a reliable audience no matter what. It's everybody else that they need to attract and keep. Without them, there is no Star Trek.
2†
No, we're not. I cancelled CBS AA after a half season of DISCO and I haven't looked back. I'll give it a try again with Picard, but if it sucks I'm gone. I can't imagine that I'm the only one, and that everyone grumbling about DISCO's bullshit is still watching it.
2
Well given that Disco is a huge success - and the fact that CBS is now producing Short Treks, Picard, Lower Decks, St: Nickelodeon, Section 31, and now two new ones prove that it's a success - it sounds like the vast majority of Trek fans are indeed watching, and Disco has clearly brought in a new audience. Plus, there's evidence out there that Disco has already began production on Season 4.
1
Of course it won't be smooth sailing, half the sub is already trying to drum up hate for it, for stupid reasons. The worst thing about Star Trek is the fans.
-1†
half the sub is already trying to drum up hate for it
It sounds like you're reading a different sub than I am. I have seen no pre-emptive hatred for Picard, and the idea that "half the sub" is engaged in that level of negativity is hyperbole--if there is any truth to it at all.
5
You must not visit this sub very often. A good number of people here assumes since THEY didn't like DSC they aren't going to like a Picard either. I visit this sub less and less because of the trolls and purists who think any Trek not made in the 60s or 90s suck. The funniest part is most of their complaints hold no water.
0†
I read this sub everyday, and I haven't seen what you're talkin about. I believe you are lumping all criticism into one group and that your take on the situation holds no water.
5
[deleted]
0
Whatever, kid. Read any thread about Picard. It's all "they better not do this" or "boo hoo discovery look" or some other nonsense. The show's not even out yet and people are already whinging.
-1†
[deleted]
-1
The worst thing about any fandom is the fans. I say that as a member of the Star Trek & Doctor Who fandoms and to a lesser extent, Star Wars. Fans are the worst...
1†
Transformers fans are the same.
1
Oh god, Star Wars and Who fans are by far the worst people alive. For those 2 franchises it's best just to not engage the fandom in any kind of conversation at all. Thanks for the perspective, I suppose.
0
Ohh, I used to watch Dr Who week to week, but lost it few years ago. I've never engaged in the community though like I have with Star Trek and Star Wars. What are their problems?
1
Wanna hear the real torment? The Last Jedi is my favourite Star Wars film. Apparently there's a special place in hell for people like me...
-1†
Exhibit A^
0
I think people need to remember that just because the Federation is flawed doesn't mean it's as bad as the world is today.
Starfleet certainly has done morally ambiguous things. There are corrupt admirals and officers suffering from PTSD. But even at their worst, they're still trying to pursue the interest of the Federation and they're not nearly as corrupt as the people today.
Admiral Pressman didn't secretly build a cloak because he was greedy and getting paid by the military industrial complex. People didn't join the Maquis because they wanted to create political instability in the region so mega-corporations can exploit the resources of those colonies. Starfleet didn't begin blood screenings as an excuse to keep out unwanted immigrants.
The Federation is better, not perfect. The franchise shows how even when things are better, we can't just sit back and rest on our laurels. Humans still have to continue to struggle against their baser nature and there's always room for improvement.
7
I thiught the go happy federation was a perfect allegory to the swinging 90s. I think todays political climate will play a huge role.
5
...which Star Trek has done before. TUC was the end of the Cold War in Trek after all.
4
I have a super upvote for point #3. One of the things that makes Trek refreshing is the way it has portrayed institutions as being a force for the betterment of all mankind, something that has gotten even more refreshing as we sink deeper and deeper into a culture of individualism. The box office is dominated by stories of singular superhumans who generally cast off the restrictions and restraints of society at large and use their abilities to save humanity/the world. The Avengers don't gather the nations of the world together to cast aside their differences and mount a united force to face Loki. A group of like 7 supermen just get together and blow up a whole city and ultimately "win".
This becomes even more pressing when one considers that the challenges we face in the 21st century are not going to be overcome on an individual level. Gene Roddenberry saw this clearly when he created Trek, what with the backstory of humanity uniting after WW3 and First Contact. Global Warming is not going to be solved super by a small cabal of Nietzschean supermen coming up with some miracle technology that saves us at the last minute. It's going to be a long, grueling campaign of society-wide and global coordination of efforts and resources to transition our economy to a less carbon based one, while working to mitigate the carbon that exists. Yes we'll have people like Elon Musk working to put forth incredible individual efforts to help out, much like Trek has characters like Picard and Kirk, truly exception individuals who rise above the average. But Musk is embedded in a world of lithium-ion battery research funded by government grants, interest free government loans paid for by the taxes that you and I pay at our more mundane day jobs, and the 10's of thousands of employees at Tesla who ensure that Model 3 doesn't just remain an idea in one man's head. So too the federation and the thousands of worlds and billions of members that make it up are what allow for the elimination of poverty and want, and grant the ability for individuals to pursue dignity and achievement in their lives without being crushed by the circumstances of their birth or zero-sum economic pressure, culminating in the 1701-D cruising around the Galaxy looking like the comfiest most radical ship ever put on film.
Trek lately has fallen into this trap of making everything about corrupt institutions and singular heroic acts redeeming and solving everything. Trek can be grey, and can even question the institutions themselves, or show people working to make those institutions better, but making Picard about a corrupt federation that will be magically redeemed by just one man is going to fall just as flat as the hopes that if we just elected the right political leader to a single office it would magically solve all our problems.
Institutions, and more broadly collective groups, are how we have constructed this thing we call society. Trek acknowledged this and posited that these groups could be and in fact must be a force for good in our lives and that while we could hold individual freedom sacrosanct, it was collective action that was truly going to get us to the next level. Modern Trek ignores that at it's own peril, and risks become just another superhero drama like all the rest if it chooses to go the other way.
4
For the most part I agree, but honestly, I think we have nothing to worry about in terms of the Federation becoming an evil organization. S3 of Disco has already showed us UFP still existing in the far future, albeit in a diminished state, and I seriously doubt they'll go with the cliched "good guys were the bad guys all along" twist angle. There are enough people working on Star Trek now that know what fans want to see and what makes Trek unique, and that's a hopeful, democratic UFP (even as it's commitment to it's ideals are challenged from without and within). Star Trek Universe now is not the cyncial take Bryan Fuller started with.
I am a little curious what you mean by a "cheap allegory" of today's society and events? Many of Trek's greatest episodes and movies have featured barely disguised commentaries on a current issue. What would you consider cheap allegory vs not?
You mentioned 9/11 as something to stay away from for storylines, so it's important to point out the whole Xindi storyline in ENT was a direct response to 9/11. I think they're clearly setting up the Mars attack as the modern Trek 9/11 proxy, but with Picard being set 15 years after the attack, I think it's clear the focus of the show isn't the attack itself but rather the sociopolitical effects in the Federation after. Were all Synths imprisoned in the name of "security?". Did the Federation close its borders to Romulan refugees because they had something to do with the attack?
These are interesting narratives to explore, to me.
3
The more I read about Picard, the more worried I am. At this point I'm just hoping they don't screw it up so much I can't even enjoy it.
2†
The core of Trek's optimism to me is the idea that humans as a whole (speaking thematically, of course the Fed is more than just humans - and I also hope the show remembers that!), as a society, as institutions, are capable of making the right choices, and will make them (most of the time and in the end) in the future. And the show should show that.
Hear, hear!
2
Here's an argument that is completely independent of nineties politics or today's political climate:
ALL cultures go through the same phases: archaic phase, cultural peaking, and decline/decadence - this is true of large-scale examples such as ancient empires, and small-scale examples such as Goth subculture of the 80s.
The Federation wouldn't be any different. It would absolutely fall to the power-hungry, morally corrupt, or sell-outs - the question is just when. "Picard" could have been set during Federation peak time, except that we already saw plenty of examples of Federation culture crumbling during TNG and especially DS9.
As well, cultural growth and decline have sped up significantly (in tandem with technological advances) - our societies are evolving faster than ever before. So if a lot of things appear to have changed for US in the last 30 years, several hundred years in the future, these changes would be even faster, and a 30 years time frame would be even "longer".
TL;DR: I don't like it either, I loved my Federation wholesome, but by all scientific standards, it makes no sense to still be that by the time of the events in "Picard". My heart wants TNG-era, but my brain would revolt.
2
I agree with much of this but, given season 1 is done, this seems a tad late to the parade.
1
Sure, I'm not trying to convince the people making the show (if they even read this sub), just voicing my thoughts in response to recent news.
3
These are the only conditions under which I will like the show.
My god. We are the worst fandom.
1†
I see absolutely 0 chance of #2 happening in Picard
1
I just sort of hope the darker tone follow the dark themes that VOY dealt with. That would be interesting.
1
Excellent points. But based on the creative team and the dumpster fire that is Discovery...my hopes aren't high.
1
This is kind of weird, but I'm slightly heartened by the fact that people have been describing the Picard-era Federation as "isolationist". I feel like isolationism is a failing that could crop up naturally out of taking bedrock Federation values too far. The Federation doesn't want to be an empire. They don't want to impose their values on others. I could see those propensities getting twisted into just plain not caring what happens outside Federation borders.
"Sure, according to our values, these Romulan refugees are suffering and deserve aid, but according to Romulan culture the state has the right to decide when and where it's citizens travel so by accepting these refugees without the permission of The Romulan State, we'd be forcing our individualistic principles on a society that does not share them."
1
Thank you!
Get an upvote!
0
Yeah, it's gonna be a dumpster fire.
-1
I pretty much agreed with everything you said save the last few lines.
With only 2 seasons to judge, I get the criticism of Burnham, but I remember Picard giving a lot of speeches to get things done also.
Truth is that moments like that land or don't land purely on the strength of the writing & acting. Drumhead would probably be a dud if Patrick Stewart weren't there to offer his particular brand of righteous indignation. I believe Martin-Green has the chops to carry it out too, but I haven't yet been really impressed by the writing.
Burnham's monologues are one of the only things that still don't work for me over on Disco.it still comes off too much as tell don't show, and of the writers trying to lay out how she's feeling, rather than trusting Burnham's acting ability to show what's on her mind.
its like George Lucas's tendency to do the "NOOOOOO!" scream instead of letting shock and horror register in his actors' performances.
the speech at the start of Brother was especially weak, because this was mostly things we either should have been able to see just by watching Burnham, or been able to extract info from the dialogue within the episode.
and I know Picard was somewhat guilty of this, it's the whole purpose of a Captain's Log, but with Picard, Sisko, and Janeway, it came off like they were saying things that were actually substantial, relevant, and not just "I felt this emotion today, or this is what I think of this problem".
every time one of them had to do a monologue, it was actually about something narratively.
which I think might be the strength of the acting and writing more than anything else?
That would logically be reserved for the "personal log" entries, though I can't say whether they followed this closely or not.
Ironic because iirc Mark Hamill wanted to drop to his knees when he saw his aunt and uncle dead in ANH, but George Lucas told him it would be too much.
I don't really think the Captain's Log is as guilty of this as you're saying. The log to a large degree, is more like a narrator: it briefly sets the stage for a scene or scenes, or moves the plot along. It just happens that the narrator happens to be a character in the show, rather than an implicitly outsider to the narrative telling the story. There's a reason we only rarely ever saw the Captain actually recording the log.
I find a lot of Burnham's speeches have a bit too much of a grey's anatomy feel to me. Like, semi-philosophical musings that are actually pretty empty of meaning.
you've just pointed out the crucial difference and why the Captain's Logs usually work better, a fair bit better than I did. when you actually use a log entry properly, it's a good way of getting exposition across or feeding us into an episode, as opposed to just being like when Burnham had to explain to the audience that she felt bad about her brother.
as I said, I find that it came across as a lot more substantial and relevant when the older captains got one of those monologues.
I think the problem with these things in Discovery is that SMG is kind of playing a "vulcan", and like a lot of the actors who've played vulcans over the years, post Spock, they've never really captured the idea as well.
The other problem is that the writing kind of feels like it doesn't quite get that it's not enough to just say something, you have to do it too. It's so meaningless to see Burnham and Georgiou rigging corpses with bombs so the klingons, recovering their dead, get blown up-- only to have Burnham take a high moral ground and accuse Lorca of developing biological weapons in violation of the law.
Yeah, I debated whether to put that in, and probably should have clarified more. I'm not against a good stirring speech or two - it'd be a waste of a Picard not to have some - but:
I don't think it's enough. It worked in smaller scale individual episode stories, where the stakes were more individual and the other characters could stand in as the "people of the Federation" audience. But if they are going to build the whole show around such a conflict and on a larger scale, they need to do more. It shoudn't be just one character convincing another or a couple of others, that doesn't tell us much about wider society.
It of course needs to be convincing and earned, which I felt the end of DSC S1 wasn't - partly because SMG simply isn't Patrick Stewart and the direction, but more importantly because it felt disconnected and even at odds with what we actually saw before that.
Burnham is no Picard
Yeah, but Picard speeches are a fucking drinking game. The show was good despite the ridiculous monologues the writers would have Patrick Stewart spit out, not because of them. Speeches to the viewer are bad, lazy writing for three reasons:
For instance, a solid #2 is found in Booby Trap, where at the end of an interesting episode, Picard gives a speech about how humans are better than machines and then pilots the Enterprise out of the Booby Trap when Data said he had a chance of failing. Like... what? How is that the message of that episode? How is Picard the best pilot on the ship? #1 comes up quite a bit, such as the early Ferengi episodes, where all their horrible greed and avarice has to be called out in a long speech, when we've already had an entire episode of them being greedy and avaricious while the Federation was anything but. Quark finally gave a sendup of those in DS9 in Jem'hadar that was long overdue.
Have to disagree here, earlier in the episode it was clearly set up that Picard wondered about the role of machines and their superiority over humans. In addition, whereas Data states Picard might fail, they ran several simulations which did not result in better odds if they had turned over the ship to the Computer.
The episode also heavily commented on the value of human interaction with Geordie requiring to meet the (generated) ship designer in person in order to figure out a solution. And in the end, I thought that the solution chosen was very elegant compared to forcing one's way through with brute computing power and speed.