CBS Makes Star Trek: Picard Pilot Free On YouTube 'For a Limited Time'

vegeta535 said:
The enjoyed the last episode and the entire season. All the haters can again fuck off. Can't wait for season 2.
Click to expand...
You thought killing Picard and turning him into a flesh android with a downloaded brain was good? Well more power to ya good sir.;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMCB
like this
I really hoped with Picard there were going to tone down the nonsense and tell a human story, but it was quickly clear that wasn't going to happen.

The really need to fire the writers/producers and find someone who can tone down the garbage.

Find some talent that understands that less is more, and have them watch "Inner Light" and tell them that is the tone they are going for.
 
vegeta535 said:
The enjoyed the last episode and the entire season. All the haters can again fuck off. Can't wait for season 2.
Click to expand...

I absolutely loved the last episode.
It told a very very important story about humanity and even puts all this coronavirus tragedy into a completely new perspective. That last episode took the very best of TNG and gave us all something to think about.
 
So I'm glad they gave data a finality and meaningful goodbye although it begs the question of why they couldn't have just put his consciousness in a different synthetic body and still retained the data character--I think that would have been better than outright losing him forever.

Picard is now a synthetic being, I gotta say I didn't see that coming. Hopefully season 2 will be better than this one was.
 
Snowdog said:
Second Harvest... ;)
Click to expand...


Never a fan of these kinds of reviews -- both because they're exaggerated for the sake of views and because they encourage an unhealthy mindset toward... well, criticism of things in general. There's a strong whiff of entitlement combined with a childish inability to accept that people might like something you hate. To borrow from the meme: shh... let people enjoy things.

I do think Picard has some problems with pacing, characters' tendencies to turn on a dime, that sort of thing... but at the same time, I found myself invested in the story and eager to see where it went next. And a lot of the criticism acts as if there's no nuance allowed, that you have to think it's the worst show ever or be excluded from Star Trek fandom.
 
Aurelius said:
Never a fan of these kinds of reviews -- both because they're exaggerated for the sake of views and because they encourage an unhealthy mindset toward... well, criticism of things in general....
Click to expand...
Going to ANGRY Joe for fair and reasoned criticism is probably not going to work out well. Hell to call him a movie critic of any kind is a stretch of the imagination. It's basically "my game reviews take a long time and I need the views" content.
 
Aurelius said:
Never a fan of these kinds of reviews -- both because they're exaggerated for the sake of views and because they encourage an unhealthy mindset toward... well, criticism of things in general. There's a strong whiff of entitlement combined with a childish inability to accept that people might like something you hate. To borrow from the meme: shh... let people enjoy things.

I do think Picard has some problems with pacing, characters' tendencies to turn on a dime, that sort of thing... but at the same time, I found myself invested in the story and eager to see where it went next. And a lot of the criticism acts as if there's no nuance allowed, that you have to think it's the worst show ever or be excluded from Star Trek fandom.
Click to expand...
You're paying the bill, you'e spending your time. It's their devotion that gives the series another run. Fans deserve to be entitled, especially the old one.
 
Jagger100 said:
You're paying the bill, you'e spending your time. It's their devotion that gives the series another run. Fans deserve to be entitled, especially the old one.
Click to expand...

You're only entitled to a good production, though, not the preconceived image of what you were going to get. And "especially the old ones" explains a lot of what's wrong with online movie criticism these days.

I've seen way too many Star Trek and Star Wars fans moan about the new productions not so much because of actual quality issues (though those are present), but because they expected a carbon copy of the old shows and movies. They wanted Picard to be like TNG, just with the storyline moved forward a bit; they wanted Luke in The Last Jedi to fulfill their childhood power fantasies from Return of the Jedi. Good artists should be aware of their fan bases, but they shouldn't be pandering solely to those fan bases; they should be expanding horizons and trying new things. I'm not saying that either of my examples perfectly nailed the landing (they clearly didn't), but when you criticize them primarily because they didn't serve as comfort food for narrow-minded fans? That's pretty disheartening.
 
Conman said:
Going to ANGRY Joe for fair and reasoned criticism is probably not going to work out well. Hell to call him a movie critic of any kind is a stretch of the imagination. It's basically "my game reviews take a long time and I need the views" content.
Click to expand...

True, but I'd say it also reflects a problem with movie review videos as a whole. Look for reviews and those are the ones that tend to pop up; YouTubers (and other online critics, for that matter) throw out any semblance of nuance because they're more likely to get clicks for "best/worst movie ever" than an intelligent, balanced view. For example, Vito's The Last Jedi review calling the movie a "complete cinematic failure..." er, no. That's not just overly simplistic, that's a lie. Even if you don't like the movie, there are many, many productions worse than TLJ in terms of plot, acting, themes and cinematography. But it's a lot easier to push that falsehood than admit the movie was mediocre at worst, and genuinely enjoyable for many at best.
 
Aurelius said:
You're only entitled to a good production, though, not the preconceived image of what you were going to get. And "especially the old ones" explains a lot of what's wrong with online movie criticism these days.

I've seen way too many Star Trek and Star Wars fans moan about the new productions not so much because of actual quality issues (though those are present), but because they expected a carbon copy of the old shows and movies. They wanted Picard to be like TNG, just with the storyline moved forward a bit; they wanted Luke in The Last Jedi to fulfill their childhood power fantasies from Return of the Jedi. Good artists should be aware of their fan bases, but they shouldn't be pandering solely to those fan bases; they should be expanding horizons and trying new things. I'm not saying that either of my examples perfectly nailed the landing (they clearly didn't), but when you criticize them primarily because they didn't serve as comfort food for narrow-minded fans? That's pretty disheartening.
Click to expand...
You would, barely, have half a point if there were any new fans to speak of.
 
Meeho said:
You would, barely, have half a point if there were any new fans to speak of.
Click to expand...

But then the issue is the lack of accessibility and appeal for newcomers, not that they didn't pander enough to their existing bases.
 
Aurelius said:
But then the issue is the lack of accessibility and appeal for newcomers, not that they didn't pander enough to their existing bases.
Click to expand...

It's not about pandering to an existing base. Unless you think pandering is continuing the story set forth previously without completely changing characters so they're completely worthless and the opposite of what they used to be as well as ignoring anything that happened before so a new, edgy, darker, younger story which has no coherence at all can be told.

Picard sucks because he's not Picard and what we've seen is not the Federation. It's not because of old fans complaining. It's because whoever wrote the abortion of a show is an idiot. The exact same thing happened to Star Wars with the newest movies.

Your attempts to blame the very people who have been fans for years and decades for the shit writing and direction of the people behind the latest shows and movies is pathetic.
 
SmokeRngs said:
It's not about pandering to an existing base. Unless you think pandering is continuing the story set forth previously without completely changing characters so they're completely worthless and the opposite of what they used to be as well as ignoring anything that happened before so a new, edgy, darker, younger story which has no coherence at all can be told.

Picard sucks because he's not Picard and what we've seen is not the Federation. It's not because of old fans complaining. It's because whoever wrote the abortion of a show is an idiot. The exact same thing happened to Star Wars with the newest movies.

Your attempts to blame the very people who have been fans for years and decades for the shit writing and direction of the people behind the latest shows and movies is pathetic.
Click to expand...

You... largely proved my point.

There is a balance to be struck between a complete break and sticking with the familiar, but it sounds like you're only really interested in the latter. It's classic gatekeeping: you contend that only 'true' fans know what Picard and the Federation are like, and those elements are never allowed to evolve or fracture. I'm not even arguing that Picard did a great job of those changes; my objection is to those who believe the characters should effectively remain set in stone.

I'm not blaming longtime fans for the direction or quality of the show, either. Rather, it's how some of those fans critique the show. Instead of analyzing the execution of the story, they're obsessed with the very premise of the story, with how it doesn't conform to their preconceived expectations. The ones whose views can be summarized as "I want my youth back."
 
Aurelius said:
You... largely proved my point.

There is a balance to be struck between a complete break and sticking with the familiar, but it sounds like you're only really interested in the latter. It's classic gatekeeping: you contend that only 'true' fans know what Picard and the Federation are like, and those elements are never allowed to evolve or fracture. I'm not even arguing that Picard did a great job of those changes; my objection is to those who believe the characters should effectively remain set in stone.

I'm not blaming longtime fans for the direction or quality of the show, either. Rather, it's how some of those fans critique the show. Instead of analyzing the execution of the story, they're obsessed with the very premise of the story, with how it doesn't conform to their preconceived expectations. The ones whose views can be summarized as "I want my youth back."
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about "true fans". That's just you spouting bullshit because you can't come up with any logical or coherent argument for how horrible the new shows and movies are. If you want some sort of example of gatekeeping you should look at yourself. Your very argument is completely dismissive of anyone not agreeing with your point of view that the new shows and movies are wonderful.

Here are some facts. Star Trek has been around for decades. Star Trek has specific rules and world building which have been adhered to and built upon for those decades. The current crop of shows has thrown all of that out. The Federation is literally the exact opposite of what it has always been. You're defending this. You're saying this is somehow okay and that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. The show Picard doesn't have a Federation which is recognizable anymore. Why the hell should anyone be happy about that? Why shouldn't people who have been watching decades of Star Trek dislike that?

We have multiple seasons of shows called Star Trek The Next Generation as well as multiple movies, all starring Jean Luc Picard. We know who Picard is. The character has been fleshed out quite substantially over this amount of time. What we get in this show is not Picard. The character in this show is nothing like the character in The Next Generation or any of the TNG movies. Why should we be happy about this and why should we accept this as "okay"?

You demand we accept the pile of shit which has been foisted upon us as great. Well, we're telling you we're not doing so. We want Star Trek, not a mirror universe cheap knockoff at best. You damn well better believe that a continuation of Star Trek is supposed to resemble Star Trek from the past. It doesn't make any sense for it to be otherwise. We did not get that with Picard. The title character doesn't even remotely resemble the person we know. That's a mistake. A huge mistake. That mistake is not our fault but those in charge of the show and the writers. We're not going to bow down to the likes of them for making such a shit sandwich or you as someone who supports the shit sandwich just because you don't like what we have to say.
 
SmokeRngs said:
The title character doesn't even remotely resemble the person we know.
Click to expand...

Ah, the "I am old and bitter" rant

Care to point the main differences between Jean-Luc Picard and JL?

I think the show is stupid but still better than TNG - an unwatchable TV series starring uptight piles of molecules called people. Negotiating space treaties has never been more fun!
 
If I go to a restaurant because I like a particular dish and they change it and I stop going because they changed the way their food tastes - is it my fault or is it their fault?

If a band I like that plays heavy metal and they suddenly become an Enya tribute band, and I stop being a fan, is it my fault or theirs?

It's their right to change whatever they want (<- no one disputes this), but at the same time, it's the fans right to complain and stop supporting (via $$$$) those same restaurants / bands / movies / tv shows. <- That's not being old and bitter. That's writing a Yelp review.

Now if the same fans who disliked the new stuff, suddenly went back and said they now didn't like the old stuff either - which they used to say they liked - well they're being dicks. But don't blame the fans for simply not liking the new crap / what's been changed.

Also keep in mind, alot of fans were put off from the start since CBS decided to put this show (and others) behind a paywall, just to launch their new paid service ... that's never going to make people like you.
 
I deleted Star Trek Picard after finishing the season because it was awful. Firstly, the show doesn't honor the source material very well. I'm still upset about the idea of Star Trek having poverty and money when clearly that wasn't a thing since 1966. Secondly, I don't care for any of the characters. They aren't interesting or well fleshed out, including Picard himself. Star Trek Next Gen would spend an entire episode so we get to know a character while with Picard we don't get much. The Premise of the show isn't bad, but the execution of the story wasn't well done. Especially near the end of the season where Picard is dead or dying and they give this speech about dying gives meaning to life, and then Picard is basically reborn. WTF writers, can't you guys keep some consistency with your plot?

Anyway, the show is bad and I wouldn't recommend anyone to spend the time to torrent it.
 
DukenukemX said:
I'm still upset about the idea of Star Trek having poverty and money when clearly that wasn't a thing since 1966.
Click to expand...
that part i can "forgive", as far as i remember only the ferderation had moved past it and it was still used in some situations. otherwise, why would there be latinum in the series?
 
M76 said:
I mean for one he has indebted servants, if that's not a hint then I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

So, not exactly Gandalf? Or does that make him more like Gandalf. Despite watching the movies, I know nothing of LotR
 
SmokeRngs said:
I didn't say anything about "true fans". That's just you spouting bullshit because you can't come up with any logical or coherent argument for how horrible the new shows and movies are. If you want some sort of example of gatekeeping you should look at yourself. Your very argument is completely dismissive of anyone not agreeing with your point of view that the new shows and movies are wonderful.

Here are some facts. Star Trek has been around for decades. Star Trek has specific rules and world building which have been adhered to and built upon for those decades. The current crop of shows has thrown all of that out. The Federation is literally the exact opposite of what it has always been. You're defending this. You're saying this is somehow okay and that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. The show Picard doesn't have a Federation which is recognizable anymore. Why the hell should anyone be happy about that? Why shouldn't people who have been watching decades of Star Trek dislike that?

We have multiple seasons of shows called Star Trek The Next Generation as well as multiple movies, all starring Jean Luc Picard. We know who Picard is. The character has been fleshed out quite substantially over this amount of time. What we get in this show is not Picard. The character in this show is nothing like the character in The Next Generation or any of the TNG movies. Why should we be happy about this and why should we accept this as "okay"?

You demand we accept the pile of shit which has been foisted upon us as great. Well, we're telling you we're not doing so. We want Star Trek, not a mirror universe cheap knockoff at best. You damn well better believe that a continuation of Star Trek is supposed to resemble Star Trek from the past. It doesn't make any sense for it to be otherwise. We did not get that with Picard. The title character doesn't even remotely resemble the person we know. That's a mistake. A huge mistake. That mistake is not our fault but those in charge of the show and the writers. We're not going to bow down to the likes of them for making such a shit sandwich or you as someone who supports the shit sandwich just because you don't like what we have to say.
Click to expand...

Proving my point again.

It's funny, actually -- you say it's not about "true fans," but promptly rail about how Star Trek is not allowed to deviate one iota from its "rules and world building." In other words, any attempts to significantly expand upon or challenge the existing formula are heresy in the eyes of you, the "true fan." Never mind that part of the point of Picard is to show a Federation falling short of its ideal and Picard trying to bring that back, or that Picard is considerably older and understandably scarred by his past... nope, everything must remain static forever.

I am not asking you to treat Picard as great. It has significant flaws. What I am asking is to resist blasting it simply because it dares step outside your comfort zone. I like that the Federation isn't the squeaky clean entity it was before, because it's a reminder that maintaining an ideal requires constant effort and vigilance. I like that Picard is not some flawless, unchangeable statue of a character. Art is more interesting when it evolves, when it asks you to rethink your expectations; maybe you just want Star Trek to be overly safe pablum, but I don't. Picard's problems rest in its execution, not necessarily its basic premise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
I found this show to be janky as heck, like it's written by a little kid who doesn't have a cohesive narrative but a bunch of segmented ideas they think seem like cool moments, and just strings them one from the next ignoring the irreconcilable context between those moments. There is no sufficient established reason for why characters are acting one way versus how they are in the next, many of their mood and behavioural changes are melodramatic, logic-defying and disjointed, or lacking adequate reason. I find it isn't palatable.
 
I enjoyed ST: Picard. I guess from reading this depressing thread that makes me a clueless butthole, right?
 
I enjoyed ST Picard for the most part. I just realize I have to turn off my critical thinking sometimes to enjoy media now adays. Some things still break through my attempts to ignore annoyance ...like when it turned into Star Trek Mass Effect. ....and Raffi saying JL every 2 seconds.
 
Aurelius said:
Proving my point again.

It's funny, actually -- you say it's not about "true fans," but promptly rail about how Star Trek is not allowed to deviate one iota from its "rules and world building." In other words, any attempts to significantly expand upon or challenge the existing formula are heresy in the eyes of you, the "true fan." Never mind that part of the point of Picard is to show a Federation falling short of its ideal and Picard trying to bring that back, or that Picard is considerably older and understandably scarred by his past... nope, everything must remain static forever.

I am not asking you to treat Picard as great. It has significant flaws. What I am asking is to resist blasting it simply because it dares step outside your comfort zone. I like that the Federation isn't the squeaky clean entity it was before, because it's a reminder that maintaining an ideal requires constant effort and vigilance. I like that Picard is not some flawless, unchangeable statue of a character. Art is more interesting when it evolves, when it asks you to rethink your expectations; maybe you just want Star Trek to be overly safe pablum, but I don't. Picard's problems rest in its execution, not necessarily its basic premise.
Click to expand...

Even when things a radically different something that is promising to be a continuation of something else still needs to retain the same "feel" of what came before. The huge changes ST: P makes to the Federation, to Starfleet, and even to Picard could work within the already established tone and feel of Star Trek. Early Enterprise, Voyager, Insurrection, Nemesis, all of those are fairly bad Trek entries but they all still feel like Star Trek. DS9 made Starfleet go through a complete upheaval due to the Dominion War, but it still felt like Starfleet. DS9 was still a Star Trek series. ST: P does not "Feel" like Star Trek. The entire premise of the show is flawed because it's clear no one actually cared about making a Star Trek series. They just wanted to follow modern sci-fi trends and make something fairly brainless that doesn't ask the audience to think, something that is at odds with Trek. There are some good ideas buried in Picard, but it's clear no one wanted to actually think about why those ideas exist and how they fit into Star Trek.

A great counter to modern Trek is the Doctor Who revival. When Doctor Who was brought back they had to update elements for modern times. They altered some of the tone of show, they had a Doctor that was radically different from prior incarnations, they stripped a lot of the elements of classic Who, they made sweeping changes to the universe, and altered the Doctor-Companion dynamic. However, even with all of those changes the show still felt like Doctor Who. It still honored what came before and the creative team took great pains to explain the changes and make sure they worked.
 
Aurelius said:
Never a fan of these kinds of reviews -- both because they're exaggerated for the sake of views and because they encourage an unhealthy mindset toward... well, criticism of things in general. There's a strong whiff of entitlement combined with a childish inability to accept that people might like something you hate. To borrow from the meme: shh... let people enjoy things.
Click to expand...
As opposed to unable to being able to accept that someone is critical about something you like. A criticism about the show is not a personal attack on you, yet you act as if you are being personally offended by it.

And a lot of the criticism acts as if there's no nuance allowed, that you have to think it's the worst show ever or be excluded from Star Trek fandom.
Click to expand...
But It is the worst Star Trek show ever. I already excluded it from my viewing. What is the Star trek fandom anyway? People who unconditionally loves all star trek? If that is the case then I'm not a star trek fan.
I don't care if hating picard makes me a non-fan, all I care about is watching good shows. And this does not qualify.
 
you know, Jerry Springer was on the air for like 15 years. It was hot garbage, but enough people liked it enough to keep it on the air.

If the show was not going to cater to the previous/older fans, they would not have introduced all those older characters. Why include an episode with Riker? It was to play to nostalgia of the older fans. That was probably the best episode.

If they were going to just cater to young people who knew nothing about previous shows (which I'd say they overwhelmingly tried to do with cursing, and vaping, sunglasses and common-day-lingo/slang of today) they should not have included an episode with Riker, b/c those people would not care, have no idea who Riker was, who his relationship was to Picard etc. Same goes for Data, same goes for 7of 9 etc.

The writing was objectively awful. Whomever wrote the script for these characters didn't know anything about the old characters they were writing lines for. The plot was predictable and boring. They could have called this something else, taken out Picard and it would still be bad. He didn't add very much to the show and seemed like they just used his name to reel in old fans/viewers, but the way it was written was not for TNG fans at all, so very perplexing.

The synth girl doing a mind meld was absurd. And nobody wants to talk about Data's hairpiece looking very strange?

Capture123.jpg
 
M76 said:
As opposed to unable to being able to accept that someone is critical about something you like. A criticism about the show is not a personal attack on you, yet you act as if you are being personally offended by it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm happy for people to be critical of Picard. I'll watch the second season, but I'm not enraptured by it. I just want people to make intelligent criticisms that go beyond a purity test for how closely it hews to past Trek formats.

M76 said:
But It is the worst Star Trek show ever. I already excluded it from my viewing. What is the Star trek fandom anyway? People who unconditionally loves all star trek? If that is the case then I'm not a star trek fan.
I don't care if hating picard makes me a non-fan, all I care about is watching good shows. And this does not qualify.
Click to expand...

Eh, I'm hesitant to rush to call it the worst ever. It might be, but I also can't help but think that Enterprise was 'worse' in that it was ultimately forgettable for many. At least Picard is getting people to sit up and react.

You're certainly 'allowed' to dislike Picard and remain a fan of the overall franchise (not that you need my approval by any means). I'm more concerned about the people who say you can't be a real fan if you enjoy it in any way.
 
Derangel said:
Even when things a radically different something that is promising to be a continuation of something else still needs to retain the same "feel" of what came before. The huge changes ST: P makes to the Federation, to Starfleet, and even to Picard could work within the already established tone and feel of Star Trek. Early Enterprise, Voyager, Insurrection, Nemesis, all of those are fairly bad Trek entries but they all still feel like Star Trek. DS9 made Starfleet go through a complete upheaval due to the Dominion War, but it still felt like Starfleet. DS9 was still a Star Trek series. ST: P does not "Feel" like Star Trek. The entire premise of the show is flawed because it's clear no one actually cared about making a Star Trek series. They just wanted to follow modern sci-fi trends and make something fairly brainless that doesn't ask the audience to think, something that is at odds with Trek. There are some good ideas buried in Picard, but it's clear no one wanted to actually think about why those ideas exist and how they fit into Star Trek.

A great counter to modern Trek is the Doctor Who revival. When Doctor Who was brought back they had to update elements for modern times. They altered some of the tone of show, they had a Doctor that was radically different from prior incarnations, they stripped a lot of the elements of classic Who, they made sweeping changes to the universe, and altered the Doctor-Companion dynamic. However, even with all of those changes the show still felt like Doctor Who. It still honored what came before and the creative team took great pains to explain the changes and make sure they worked.
Click to expand...

Does it need to retain that feel? Picard is set decades after Nemesis, which itself was part of a tonal shift that came with the TNG movies. And let's face it, Picard is airing in an era when even some of the basic idealism that fuelled earlier Trek is under attack. Not to say that Picard has done the greatest job of expressing itself, but I do like the thought of a story where Jean-Luc is trying to restore broken ideals rather than just uphold them, and where he's a complex, flawed character... a person.

You have a good case for Doctor Who. My objection is mainly to people who bristle at the very thought of the premise changing in any significant way from past shows. Those who argue the Federation must always be virtually perfect, with no more than a few "bad apples" who are clearly exceptions to the rule; those who expect Picard to be a faultless beacon of light. As good as classic Trek is, it does have problems with assuming that idealism is something you can put on autopilot, not to mention TV tropes like the "magic reset" where few if any of the events from one episode have even a modest impact on the next.
 
Aurelius said:
Does it need to retain that feel? Picard is set decades after Nemesis, which itself was part of a tonal shift that came with the TNG movies. And let's face it, Picard is airing in an era when even some of the basic idealism that fuelled earlier Trek is under attack. Not to say that Picard has done the greatest job of expressing itself, but I do like the thought of a story where Jean-Luc is trying to restore broken ideals rather than just uphold them, and where he's a complex, flawed character... a person.

You have a good case for Doctor Who. My objection is mainly to people who bristle at the very thought of the premise changing in any significant way from past shows. Those who argue the Federation must always be virtually perfect, with no more than a few "bad apples" who are clearly exceptions to the rule; those who expect Picard to be a faultless beacon of light. As good as classic Trek is, it does have problems with assuming that idealism is something you can put on autopilot, not to mention TV tropes like the "magic reset" where few if any of the events from one episode have even a modest impact on the next.
Click to expand...

At least we can finally understand why you like Picard and don't want it to have anything to do with the previous decades worth of Star Trek content. You don't want the Federation. You also don't understand anything at all about Star Trek because the Federation was the point of Star Trek. The Federation and its ideals are literally the basis for Star Trek. It was about a man's dream of what humanity could be in the future and many loved the concept. They loved it enough to spawn many movies and quite a few shows lasting decades.

And you want to throw that all out because you don't like it.

That's why so many hate this show. It tries to throw out everything which Star Trek is supposed to be; and remove or change anyone who was the embodiment of Star Trek and the ideals of the Federation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top