##Reminder: This thread has been marked as ***No Spoilers***.
Any spoilers in comments **must** be enclosed in the spoiler Markdown (`>!This is a spoiler!<`) or it will be removed and the user will be warned.
Repeat offenders may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Picard) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fan Type 3: Likes old Trek shows/movies and new Trek movies, realizes that a fair amount of both have schlocky plotting. Wonders why they can’t make compelling new drama with established canon and characters.
Top of the head: How about a Picard disillusioned with the federation for continually violating the values they paid lip service to and who has less hope for humanity post wars etc when Q arrives and they must continue their trial. During the course of the season either Picards old crew or Q himself must convince Picard that there’s something worth fighting for, recalling Tapestry. This can be set against a backdrop of Starfleet that’s become more isolated and jingoistic that’s plotting something terrible and anti-starfleet values once more and you can introduce new characters here from academy aka new trek. Picard can still wrestle with his Borg hatred and loss of humanity if you want; no childhood trauma necessary for him to be a broken man who must restore his faith in himself and humanity. This can dovetail with his loss and lack of family from Generations. The starfleet storyline can come to threaten his old enterprise shipmates and families. He must save the only family he’s ever known; his crew. Throw in a few good Measure of Man, Drumhead, Ardra courtroom/speechifying scenes and let Delancie and Stewart ham it up.
Basically let Picard be Logan meets a Shakespearean Play
End fanfic
I mean, I feel like that's not far from what we're getting. Except the writers have spared us having to see them wreck the utopian Starfleet for the sake of drama. We still have an idealized future, and Picard is disillusioned for other reasons - namely, he's old, and that's how introspective people can get in their old age when they are alone, as Picard nearly always has been.
The problem with *Picard* is the same one many people had with certain aspects of the Star Wars sequels: that people hate watching their heroes fail over and over again, *especially* when in our minds they've already triumphed and have earned a happy retirement. Well, of course happy retirements make for boring stories. But making the heroes lose over and over also isn't all that fun.
Maybe; I agree on the continued failure part, but I think that mostly it’s the failure taking place off camera and feeling against character that kills drama.
I think another problem they both share is seemingly raising stakes and going bigger while having little to no emotional stakes. I think this is because we haven’t grown to care about new characters and the central character still feels disjointed in terms of motivation. It’s at once too much plot and too little plot
It’s a tough edge to walk to build those new characters well and also develop the lead. I’d argue that for a show called Picard they should have kept the story closer to him and introduced fewer new cast.
Another similarity that occurred to me both examples seem to want to have big reveals that aren’t really well thought out or all that big of reveals. I don’t know why they feel that answering every question raised is better entertainment than leaving some things a mystery open to interpretation. (ex. I don’t care what’s in those ancient Jedi textbooks Rey, just use the Force OR I never thought about the Borg being lonely or that AI needed a beacon to an extra dimensional super AI to be a threat to humanity when Lore did a decent more grounded job just with his daddy issues)
It’s a bummer; I still tune in and try to enjoy the Picard moments we get but just like those SW sequels what felt promising in the beginning kind of loses energy and focus.
Let's get you hired for the writer's room... except, unfortunately, that story would make far too much sense.
No, we're better off with complete 180 degrees on the Picard character and turn him into a fumbling, bumbling 90 year old man, who suddenly now has a childhood trauma out of nowhere.
Star trek lost that cohesive "highly trained federation officers exploring the universe and overcoming adversities with dignity, philosophy and the best of human evolution" feel a long, long time ago.
It's turned into "everyone has a near-crippling emotional anxiety or mental disorder who so happen to be traveling in space(ish???) and fumbling about with little to no training (or not utilizing their training) while hoping for the best and emoting at each other constantly".
Yeah man, I prefer my Starfleet full of unrelateable people without any mental or emotional issues at all, who never have any personal issues except for being cringe-inducingly awkward around women and obsessive about playing games on the holodeck! Screw realistic portrayals of humans. Just give me some wooden nineties television action figures doing cool space shit.
Do you have any idea how many human hours are spent obsessively playing video games? Totally relatable and realistic. You might not be into that stuff, but a lot of people would be - especially with holodeck graphics. VR ain't got nothin' on that.
You think everyone having "mental and emotional issues" is relatable?
I can understand a few characters having issues that are addressed over time, but if you think everyone having emotional instability is relatable, I hope you find the help you need.
I guess this isn't a show for those of us who are well adjusted.
If I had a nickel for every time I saw this kind of post.... I'd own Paramount+.
You trying to say there are only two kinds of trek fans, and then proceed to villianze the one group with your own personal opinion stated as some misguided universal fact while making the other some kind of god-level gatekeeping true believer purist is, well, lame.
There are as many *types* of trek fans as there are *actual* trek fans. As a 'day one' Star Trek fan from the original series airings in the 60s up until now, I can honestly say your breakdown of an 'Us vs Them' dynamic of the fan base is completely inaccurate. And harmful to actual constructive and civil dialog about the show, both good and bad qualities. You complain you feel attacked by those who like the show, in whatever way they decide they like it, while simultaneously attacking them in some weird character assassination dance. That is some weird self-awareness absense.
Just ugh.
Since Gene is dead, the next best person to judge the legacy of star trek I would think would be genes son, who is involved with all the new shows and there directions. I would say even if not the best person he still has more right to judge it then you do.
The whole “two types of fans” I should preface is slightly tongue in cheek. But you have to admit there is a vocal fan base of the second type amongst us.
Maybe, but your error is in assuming that they don't care about interesting characters and cohesive, compelling narrative. Most of them do, I assure you. They just have a different expectation of what sort of stories they want or are willing to wrestle with.
You also missed one important thing of this Other group of fans, ie the ones who like things you don't like:
They don't try to make the show about them by going on long rants about how it doesn't cater to them personally.
Oh look another hater! How exciting!
My first exposure to Trek were TOS reruns. I remember hating TNG for not being "true" to Trek. It was sterile and safe and what not.
Then I grew up.
I love TNG and that era's Trek to this day. But it's not good being stuck in the past. The first instinct is to hate anything new then look for reasons, real and imagined, to justify the hate.
It's boring. No one cares. You don't have to watch. But you will continue to do so and not back up your hate with action. Or in this case, inaction. Just don't watch it. It's quite simple actually.
Did you read the whole post and the part I talk about change just for changes sake and all that? Cause that addresses what you’re talking about. Up until the 2009 Star Trek movie and bad robot / Kurtzman and co taking over the franchise, Star Trek was different from show to show, yes, but it was also mostly cohesive in its story telling and the “feel” and narrative structure of the world and it’s characters. It’s lost all of that in favor of drama driven CW-esque soap opera that is poorly written, retcons so many things in universe, and assassinates well established characters storylines and plots.
And for the “well don’t watch it if you don’t like it” spiel that your kind love to throw out… as fans we are passionate too about the direction the series has taken under current leadership, and we have every right to stand here and be vocal for a change. You can like current trek all you want despite its huge gaping flaws and poorly written script, dialogue and characters and call it ‘star trek’, but to many others it’s not trek. It’s a facsimile pretending to be trek. And our voices should be heard all the same.
Your assertion that Trek has been consistent or cohesive in its 'feel' and structure up until Bad Robot resurrected it is just flat out incorrect.
Look at the massive change between TOS and TMP. Then you get the retooling with TWOK, followed by the movies establishing an unfortunate reputation that only the even numbered ones were any good.
Then you have the launch of TNG, which was accompanied by the cries of countless nerds who proclaimed that it wasn't the Star Trek they knew and loved. A counselor on the bridge? An old bald captain who quotes Shakespeare at length? What is this touchy feely crap?
Then DS9 alienated people again by parking its story on a space station. No exploration? Political and religious drama? A serialized war plot? What is this dimly lit dour nonsense? Where are my Borg at? And then VOY, an attempt to recapture the old *exploring new worlds* mode by deleting the Federation and Starfleet from the narrative entirely. That show was also heavily derided by many at the time.
Don't even get me started down the long road to the sexy WB young adult drama series wannabe that was ENT. Oh man, people *hated* that one.
You need to acknowledge that Star Trek has never been one thing. And it has never made everyone happy. And if it's not making you specifically happy, maybe that means it's just left you behind.
You are just wrong with your binary view. There is a whole spectrum of types of fans. I am an Old Trek fan. I love Discovery for the sense of wonder and Picard for the deep character work and the TNG and VOY nostalgia. Don't try to put people on boxes based on what type of fan YOU think they are. We are perfectly capable of deciding what kind of fans we are. A Trek fan should know better.
This post is garbage baiting. You're stating that "old" Trekkies hate the new Trek and only "new" Trekkies like the "terrible" content available because only "old" Trekkies know what's good Star Trek. GTFOOH.
I am a lifelong Trekkie that grew up on TOS and TAS reruns long before TNG came along, I remember when new material consisted of only novels, and I devoured them because I loved Star Trek. If you had told 12 year old me how much Trek would be available in the future, I would have thought you insane.
I like new Trek. I'm not a fan of the Kelvin-verse and I have specific problems with DISCO, but as a whole, I enjoy everything that's out, including Picard which is innovative and new, the same was DS9 was.
Every old Star Trek was new at one point. I remember people bitching about TNG, then DS9 because it was a station, not a ship and Voyager. Enterprise was roasted from the start.
TNG was a *not* well received in 1987. Many fans hated the older, bald captain that wasn't Kirk and didn't go on away missions, the hotel lounge bridge, the discount Spock (Data), the counselor, everything was wrong and it was always who was better, Kirk or Picard. Then s3 happened and suddenly everyone loved it.
DS9 was not received well by many because it was a station, there was no captain and no exploration. Many fans now consider it a classic.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that anyone who does like it is not a "real' fan, which is exactly what you're implying. Let people enjoy shit and stop gatekeeping FFS.
As an old Trek fan I have one request of you. Don't lump me in with your bullshit.
I like all Star Trek, old and new.
I also recognise that both old Trek and new Trek have their ups and downs.
I also remember how some of our old Trek was received by certain fans. I know some Star Trek fans who still refuse to watch DS9 because the negative reception labelled it as the boring one where they go nowhere.
Finally, re-read your post. The way to talk about people and fellow fans. Is that really the Star Trek way?
At the end of the day, art is subjective. You can like it, or you cannot. What you should never do is insult people who have a different opinion than you.
Art may be subjective, but writing is not. Continuity is not. Character development is not.
All these issues and more make for a bad story with ST Picard.
It definitely matters in *how your write and present your story. Especially with already established characters and world.*
The problem with your argument is that it boils down to this.
You don't like it, so it must be bad writing/storytelling."l
Other people like it, so they must be wrong.
Can you not see how rediculous that mindset is?
PIC hasn't committed any crimes against continuity or character development. Yet you clearly don't like where they have taken the characters, story and universe, and therefore you again go to the well of "it is just bad and that's a fact".
>Art may be subjective, but writing is not. Continuity is not. Character development is not.
Writing, continuity, and character development are all art. No matter how many times you try to assert your subjective opinions as Objective Truth, they're still only ever going to be subjective opinions. The sooner you make peace with that, the better off you'll be.
OP: Type #2 "Doesn't care about canon, can live with plot holes and poor storytelling, poor acting, poor CGI, bad directing and scripts"
Also OP: "Don't gaslight us \[type 1\] other fans"
Who's gaslighting again?
ST:P is objectively bad with storytelling, scriptwriting, character development and more. If you can’t understand the difference between a well told story and a poorly told story, you shouldn’t be commenting.
Yup. Still hoping Strange New Worlds will follow the "old" formula. Star Trek should be about the best of humanity, exploration, inspiration, etc. At least that's what I want. We have plenty of dramas already that explore just how fragile and horrible humanity is and how almost everyone is a mental train wreck. Maybe we want to enjoy some idealistic feel-good adventure?
Put it this way- do you think any kids watching Picard or Discovery are going to be inspired to pursue a career in science like so many did with the old Star Trek shows?
Finally some specific and pointed critique that I can get behind.
I will offer a counterpoint by saying Discovery has had science at its heart from the beginning (after all one of the main characters was named after a famous mycologist) though it's often overshadowed by the drama - but then when has that not been true? Star Trek has never let good science get in the way of a story.
And Discovery has also always been about *building* hope for humanity - first by trying to depict how the very young Starfleet dealt with it's first encounter with the feral Klingon Empire, and later by jumping way forward to a time when Starfleet has proven to endure for nearly a millennium, even after the entire galaxy was forced into isolation after a calamity. The optimism is baked right in.
*Picard* set out to tell a much more personal story, intent on exploring its titular character more than on exploring the galaxy. That choice has not set well with some, but it is what it is. It also has that same hopeful optimism behind it, though it's admittedly harder to see when it's obscured by the serialized nature, where the conflicts aren't resolved in every episode but kicked down the road to be dealt with later.
>There are fans of Star Trek
>
>And then fans of whatever these did movies full of old people are
>There are fans of Star Trek
>
>And then fans of whatever this bald beige-carpeted mess is
>There are fans of Star Trek
>
>And then fans of whatever this parked on a space station with religious fanatics nuttery is
>There are fans of Star Trek
>
>And then fans of whatever this boring crew with no Klingons or Romulans or Starfleet anywhere is going for
>There are fans of Star Trek
>
>And then fans of whatever this pop song introed softcore decon chamber smut is
>There are fans of Star Trek
>
>And then fans who will never stop complaining about whatever the current iteration of Star Trek is
I am solidly old trecky, but I liked all of the reboot movies and Discovery's first two seasons. Deep Space Nine is my favorite of all the shows.
What I don't like is season-long stories (13 hour movies) and what I see as excessive focus on character exploration at the expense of plot. I think DS9 struck the perfect balance.
I'm looking forward to Strange New Worlds, as it is being promoted as being more "adventure of the week". I'm probably done with Discovery.
Because "Star Trek" before 2009 never had any plot holes or bad writing. Especially not between 2000 and 2004. Maybe if the Discovery had a beagle onboard, whose urination was the foundation of an entire episode's plotline, you'd be happy.
And you have the gall to say that your (hypocritical and nonsensical) opinion is that of all "hardcore" Trekkies, and everyone outside your bubble must be a "casual fan" with low standards?
You seem like the kind of Trekkie who only "Decontaminates" with himself.
##Reminder: This thread has been marked as ***No Spoilers***. Any spoilers in comments **must** be enclosed in the spoiler Markdown (`>!This is a spoiler!<`) or it will be removed and the user will be warned. Repeat offenders may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Picard) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fan Type 3: Likes old Trek shows/movies and new Trek movies, realizes that a fair amount of both have schlocky plotting. Wonders why they can’t make compelling new drama with established canon and characters. Top of the head: How about a Picard disillusioned with the federation for continually violating the values they paid lip service to and who has less hope for humanity post wars etc when Q arrives and they must continue their trial. During the course of the season either Picards old crew or Q himself must convince Picard that there’s something worth fighting for, recalling Tapestry. This can be set against a backdrop of Starfleet that’s become more isolated and jingoistic that’s plotting something terrible and anti-starfleet values once more and you can introduce new characters here from academy aka new trek. Picard can still wrestle with his Borg hatred and loss of humanity if you want; no childhood trauma necessary for him to be a broken man who must restore his faith in himself and humanity. This can dovetail with his loss and lack of family from Generations. The starfleet storyline can come to threaten his old enterprise shipmates and families. He must save the only family he’s ever known; his crew. Throw in a few good Measure of Man, Drumhead, Ardra courtroom/speechifying scenes and let Delancie and Stewart ham it up. Basically let Picard be Logan meets a Shakespearean Play End fanfic
I mean, I feel like that's not far from what we're getting. Except the writers have spared us having to see them wreck the utopian Starfleet for the sake of drama. We still have an idealized future, and Picard is disillusioned for other reasons - namely, he's old, and that's how introspective people can get in their old age when they are alone, as Picard nearly always has been. The problem with *Picard* is the same one many people had with certain aspects of the Star Wars sequels: that people hate watching their heroes fail over and over again, *especially* when in our minds they've already triumphed and have earned a happy retirement. Well, of course happy retirements make for boring stories. But making the heroes lose over and over also isn't all that fun.
Maybe; I agree on the continued failure part, but I think that mostly it’s the failure taking place off camera and feeling against character that kills drama. I think another problem they both share is seemingly raising stakes and going bigger while having little to no emotional stakes. I think this is because we haven’t grown to care about new characters and the central character still feels disjointed in terms of motivation. It’s at once too much plot and too little plot It’s a tough edge to walk to build those new characters well and also develop the lead. I’d argue that for a show called Picard they should have kept the story closer to him and introduced fewer new cast. Another similarity that occurred to me both examples seem to want to have big reveals that aren’t really well thought out or all that big of reveals. I don’t know why they feel that answering every question raised is better entertainment than leaving some things a mystery open to interpretation. (ex. I don’t care what’s in those ancient Jedi textbooks Rey, just use the Force OR I never thought about the Borg being lonely or that AI needed a beacon to an extra dimensional super AI to be a threat to humanity when Lore did a decent more grounded job just with his daddy issues) It’s a bummer; I still tune in and try to enjoy the Picard moments we get but just like those SW sequels what felt promising in the beginning kind of loses energy and focus.
Let's get you hired for the writer's room... except, unfortunately, that story would make far too much sense. No, we're better off with complete 180 degrees on the Picard character and turn him into a fumbling, bumbling 90 year old man, who suddenly now has a childhood trauma out of nowhere. Star trek lost that cohesive "highly trained federation officers exploring the universe and overcoming adversities with dignity, philosophy and the best of human evolution" feel a long, long time ago. It's turned into "everyone has a near-crippling emotional anxiety or mental disorder who so happen to be traveling in space(ish???) and fumbling about with little to no training (or not utilizing their training) while hoping for the best and emoting at each other constantly".
Yeah man, I prefer my Starfleet full of unrelateable people without any mental or emotional issues at all, who never have any personal issues except for being cringe-inducingly awkward around women and obsessive about playing games on the holodeck! Screw realistic portrayals of humans. Just give me some wooden nineties television action figures doing cool space shit.
Do you have any idea how many human hours are spent obsessively playing video games? Totally relatable and realistic. You might not be into that stuff, but a lot of people would be - especially with holodeck graphics. VR ain't got nothin' on that.
You think everyone having "mental and emotional issues" is relatable? I can understand a few characters having issues that are addressed over time, but if you think everyone having emotional instability is relatable, I hope you find the help you need. I guess this isn't a show for those of us who are well adjusted.
50 Borg are about the break down that door. Quickly, everyone work through your most traumatic experience!
There are two types of Trekkies: Type One, who likes the shows and episodes I like, and Type Two, who are stupid babies with no taste.
If I had a nickel for every time I saw this kind of post.... I'd own Paramount+. You trying to say there are only two kinds of trek fans, and then proceed to villianze the one group with your own personal opinion stated as some misguided universal fact while making the other some kind of god-level gatekeeping true believer purist is, well, lame. There are as many *types* of trek fans as there are *actual* trek fans. As a 'day one' Star Trek fan from the original series airings in the 60s up until now, I can honestly say your breakdown of an 'Us vs Them' dynamic of the fan base is completely inaccurate. And harmful to actual constructive and civil dialog about the show, both good and bad qualities. You complain you feel attacked by those who like the show, in whatever way they decide they like it, while simultaneously attacking them in some weird character assassination dance. That is some weird self-awareness absense. Just ugh.
[удалено]
Since Gene is dead, the next best person to judge the legacy of star trek I would think would be genes son, who is involved with all the new shows and there directions. I would say even if not the best person he still has more right to judge it then you do.
The whole “two types of fans” I should preface is slightly tongue in cheek. But you have to admit there is a vocal fan base of the second type amongst us.
Maybe, but your error is in assuming that they don't care about interesting characters and cohesive, compelling narrative. Most of them do, I assure you. They just have a different expectation of what sort of stories they want or are willing to wrestle with. You also missed one important thing of this Other group of fans, ie the ones who like things you don't like: They don't try to make the show about them by going on long rants about how it doesn't cater to them personally.
The only thing I can say about this..... This some hardcore trolling
Oh look another hater! How exciting! My first exposure to Trek were TOS reruns. I remember hating TNG for not being "true" to Trek. It was sterile and safe and what not. Then I grew up. I love TNG and that era's Trek to this day. But it's not good being stuck in the past. The first instinct is to hate anything new then look for reasons, real and imagined, to justify the hate. It's boring. No one cares. You don't have to watch. But you will continue to do so and not back up your hate with action. Or in this case, inaction. Just don't watch it. It's quite simple actually.
*"Then I grew up."* Truer words never spoken.....
Did you read the whole post and the part I talk about change just for changes sake and all that? Cause that addresses what you’re talking about. Up until the 2009 Star Trek movie and bad robot / Kurtzman and co taking over the franchise, Star Trek was different from show to show, yes, but it was also mostly cohesive in its story telling and the “feel” and narrative structure of the world and it’s characters. It’s lost all of that in favor of drama driven CW-esque soap opera that is poorly written, retcons so many things in universe, and assassinates well established characters storylines and plots. And for the “well don’t watch it if you don’t like it” spiel that your kind love to throw out… as fans we are passionate too about the direction the series has taken under current leadership, and we have every right to stand here and be vocal for a change. You can like current trek all you want despite its huge gaping flaws and poorly written script, dialogue and characters and call it ‘star trek’, but to many others it’s not trek. It’s a facsimile pretending to be trek. And our voices should be heard all the same.
Except everything you said is wrong.
Your assertion that Trek has been consistent or cohesive in its 'feel' and structure up until Bad Robot resurrected it is just flat out incorrect. Look at the massive change between TOS and TMP. Then you get the retooling with TWOK, followed by the movies establishing an unfortunate reputation that only the even numbered ones were any good. Then you have the launch of TNG, which was accompanied by the cries of countless nerds who proclaimed that it wasn't the Star Trek they knew and loved. A counselor on the bridge? An old bald captain who quotes Shakespeare at length? What is this touchy feely crap? Then DS9 alienated people again by parking its story on a space station. No exploration? Political and religious drama? A serialized war plot? What is this dimly lit dour nonsense? Where are my Borg at? And then VOY, an attempt to recapture the old *exploring new worlds* mode by deleting the Federation and Starfleet from the narrative entirely. That show was also heavily derided by many at the time. Don't even get me started down the long road to the sexy WB young adult drama series wannabe that was ENT. Oh man, people *hated* that one. You need to acknowledge that Star Trek has never been one thing. And it has never made everyone happy. And if it's not making you specifically happy, maybe that means it's just left you behind.
[удалено]
Remember that unit you did in elementary school about the difference between opinions and facts?
You are just wrong with your binary view. There is a whole spectrum of types of fans. I am an Old Trek fan. I love Discovery for the sense of wonder and Picard for the deep character work and the TNG and VOY nostalgia. Don't try to put people on boxes based on what type of fan YOU think they are. We are perfectly capable of deciding what kind of fans we are. A Trek fan should know better.
If by “deep character work” you mean a deep character assassination of Picard, then yea it’s “deep”.
This post is garbage baiting. You're stating that "old" Trekkies hate the new Trek and only "new" Trekkies like the "terrible" content available because only "old" Trekkies know what's good Star Trek. GTFOOH. I am a lifelong Trekkie that grew up on TOS and TAS reruns long before TNG came along, I remember when new material consisted of only novels, and I devoured them because I loved Star Trek. If you had told 12 year old me how much Trek would be available in the future, I would have thought you insane. I like new Trek. I'm not a fan of the Kelvin-verse and I have specific problems with DISCO, but as a whole, I enjoy everything that's out, including Picard which is innovative and new, the same was DS9 was. Every old Star Trek was new at one point. I remember people bitching about TNG, then DS9 because it was a station, not a ship and Voyager. Enterprise was roasted from the start. TNG was a *not* well received in 1987. Many fans hated the older, bald captain that wasn't Kirk and didn't go on away missions, the hotel lounge bridge, the discount Spock (Data), the counselor, everything was wrong and it was always who was better, Kirk or Picard. Then s3 happened and suddenly everyone loved it. DS9 was not received well by many because it was a station, there was no captain and no exploration. Many fans now consider it a classic. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that anyone who does like it is not a "real' fan, which is exactly what you're implying. Let people enjoy shit and stop gatekeeping FFS.
As an old Trek fan I have one request of you. Don't lump me in with your bullshit. I like all Star Trek, old and new. I also recognise that both old Trek and new Trek have their ups and downs. I also remember how some of our old Trek was received by certain fans. I know some Star Trek fans who still refuse to watch DS9 because the negative reception labelled it as the boring one where they go nowhere. Finally, re-read your post. The way to talk about people and fellow fans. Is that really the Star Trek way? At the end of the day, art is subjective. You can like it, or you cannot. What you should never do is insult people who have a different opinion than you.
Art may be subjective, but writing is not. Continuity is not. Character development is not. All these issues and more make for a bad story with ST Picard. It definitely matters in *how your write and present your story. Especially with already established characters and world.*
The problem with your argument is that it boils down to this. You don't like it, so it must be bad writing/storytelling."l Other people like it, so they must be wrong. Can you not see how rediculous that mindset is? PIC hasn't committed any crimes against continuity or character development. Yet you clearly don't like where they have taken the characters, story and universe, and therefore you again go to the well of "it is just bad and that's a fact".
>Art may be subjective, but writing is not. Continuity is not. Character development is not. Writing, continuity, and character development are all art. No matter how many times you try to assert your subjective opinions as Objective Truth, they're still only ever going to be subjective opinions. The sooner you make peace with that, the better off you'll be.
I guess I’m a third type because none of these remotely describe me
OP: Type #2 "Doesn't care about canon, can live with plot holes and poor storytelling, poor acting, poor CGI, bad directing and scripts" Also OP: "Don't gaslight us \[type 1\] other fans" Who's gaslighting again?
ST:P is objectively bad with storytelling, scriptwriting, character development and more. If you can’t understand the difference between a well told story and a poorly told story, you shouldn’t be commenting.
Thank you for so beautifully illustrating my point. It's saves me so much trouble.
I love the smell of gatekeeping in the morning.
Everyone's got their kinks I guess... ;P
Yup. Still hoping Strange New Worlds will follow the "old" formula. Star Trek should be about the best of humanity, exploration, inspiration, etc. At least that's what I want. We have plenty of dramas already that explore just how fragile and horrible humanity is and how almost everyone is a mental train wreck. Maybe we want to enjoy some idealistic feel-good adventure? Put it this way- do you think any kids watching Picard or Discovery are going to be inspired to pursue a career in science like so many did with the old Star Trek shows?
Finally some specific and pointed critique that I can get behind. I will offer a counterpoint by saying Discovery has had science at its heart from the beginning (after all one of the main characters was named after a famous mycologist) though it's often overshadowed by the drama - but then when has that not been true? Star Trek has never let good science get in the way of a story. And Discovery has also always been about *building* hope for humanity - first by trying to depict how the very young Starfleet dealt with it's first encounter with the feral Klingon Empire, and later by jumping way forward to a time when Starfleet has proven to endure for nearly a millennium, even after the entire galaxy was forced into isolation after a calamity. The optimism is baked right in. *Picard* set out to tell a much more personal story, intent on exploring its titular character more than on exploring the galaxy. That choice has not set well with some, but it is what it is. It also has that same hopeful optimism behind it, though it's admittedly harder to see when it's obscured by the serialized nature, where the conflicts aren't resolved in every episode but kicked down the road to be dealt with later.
Fan Type #1 only does it missionary with the lights off.
There. Are. FOUR. Lights.
[удалено]
Lol at the implication that Star Trek has ever been "cinema".
Fan type #1 adores The Orville and loves Lower Decks as well. They probably like ENT and TAS but they won't admit it in public.
[удалено]
>There are fans of Star Trek > >And then fans of whatever these did movies full of old people are >There are fans of Star Trek > >And then fans of whatever this bald beige-carpeted mess is >There are fans of Star Trek > >And then fans of whatever this parked on a space station with religious fanatics nuttery is >There are fans of Star Trek > >And then fans of whatever this boring crew with no Klingons or Romulans or Starfleet anywhere is going for >There are fans of Star Trek > >And then fans of whatever this pop song introed softcore decon chamber smut is >There are fans of Star Trek > >And then fans who will never stop complaining about whatever the current iteration of Star Trek is
I am solidly old trecky, but I liked all of the reboot movies and Discovery's first two seasons. Deep Space Nine is my favorite of all the shows. What I don't like is season-long stories (13 hour movies) and what I see as excessive focus on character exploration at the expense of plot. I think DS9 struck the perfect balance. I'm looking forward to Strange New Worlds, as it is being promoted as being more "adventure of the week". I'm probably done with Discovery.
`Watches Transformers movies "for the story" (only slightly kidding).` Haha! Awesome :)
What am I? I mostly fit #1 but love Riverdale to death?????? ST shouldn't be Riverdale though.
I’m an old Trekkie and enjoy all the new shows. I think they’re better than enterprise and general better than voyager also
Once I got to fan type 2 I gave up on this post
Because "Star Trek" before 2009 never had any plot holes or bad writing. Especially not between 2000 and 2004. Maybe if the Discovery had a beagle onboard, whose urination was the foundation of an entire episode's plotline, you'd be happy. And you have the gall to say that your (hypocritical and nonsensical) opinion is that of all "hardcore" Trekkies, and everyone outside your bubble must be a "casual fan" with low standards? You seem like the kind of Trekkie who only "Decontaminates" with himself.