Picard Will Lead "Radically Altered" Life in New Star Trek Series

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,350
yeah i think people are mixing up how it was described which i almost thought the same thing when i first read it.. but realized it's using the story Nero talked about in the 2009 movie as the filler between when Star Trek: Nemesis movie ends and where this series starts.

Oh! We misunderstood the article badly then. It was very confusingly written.
 

theplaidfad

Lurker
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
1,118
And when "new" Picard refers to photon torpedoes as "laser missiles" you can be there to cheer. The rest of us will be sparing ourselves from the debauchery of another classic franchise.

I bet you're real fun at parties. Whine on, uber fanboy. I still remember how to have fun
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
I'm not a fan of him either, that doesn't change anything. You don't have to be a family guy fan to enjoy the orville, just a trekkie.

It changes a lot.

Seth is the lead actor and he is a terrible actor. He's a fine voice actor, but terrible in live action.

Even if they got rid of Seth as lead, it's still a cringey parody which gets old fast IMO.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
I don't agree with this. There's no reason to ignore it since at least some of them are good action movies. But you need to keep in mind these are action movies; they are not Star Trek movies. Replace the Star Trek elements with some other names and they are perfectly enjoyable as they are.

Star Trek movies are almost all action movies..seriously have you watched the ST movies? None of them are anything like any series. They are almost all action, the enterprise gets blown up in damn near every single one of them. The reboots don't differ from the Star Trek movie formula in the slightest. You might not like JJ's film style or even the writing, but saying the reboots aren't just like the other ST movies is disingenuous at best. Every single time I hear someone whine about the reboots they always compare to one of the TV series and conveniently ignore the fact that nearly every single movie was an action flick that did not use the same formula as the TV series.

I'm beyond sick and tired of this revisionist bullshit people keep spouting as a reason to hate the reboot. I don't care if you just don't like it, but the constant pushing of a flatly wrong narrative has to stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMCM
like this

TheOne&OnlyZeke

100% Irish
Joined
Jul 21, 2000
Messages
10,872
I always preferred Picard the diplomat rather then Picard the action hero
Hopefully this falls somewhere in the middle or leans more towards diplomat
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
28,089
Star Trek movies are almost all action movies..seriously have you watched the ST movies? None of them are anything like any series. They are almost all action, the enterprise gets blown up in damn near every single one of them. The reboots don't differ from the Star Trek movie formula in the slightest. You might not like JJ's film style or even the writing, but saying the reboots aren't just like the other ST movies is disingenuous at best. Every single time I hear someone whine about the reboots they always compare to one of the TV series and conveniently ignore the fact that nearly every single movie was an action flick that did not use the same formula as the TV series.

I'm beyond sick and tired of this revisionist bullshit people keep spouting as a reason to hate the reboot. I don't care if you just don't like it, but the constant pushing of a flatly wrong narrative has to stop.
They took the "sci" out of sci-fi starting with the 2009 movie and that is why I don't like the new movies. If I wanted space magic I'd go watch Star Wars.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,683
I'm looking forward to it. I remember in the 180's when TNG first launched - I hated Picard. Everyone was comparing him to Kirk. After a few episodes, I found myself really liking the character.
I ended up filing TOS and TNG into different folders in my brain. They might be under the parent folder Star Trek, but they are distinct.

I immediately gravitated towards TNG and IMO it was one of the best shows ever. I never cared much for the original series, too corny for me.
 

lostin3d

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
2,043
I don't care for this.

One of the reasons I liked TNG was because of who his character was. I was excited when I heard he was coming back, but now I'm just rolling my eyes.

The idiots they out in charge of writing Star Trek shit these days just can't get out of their own way. They feel the need to make shit "their own" rather than stay within existing boundaries. Fuck that

If you want to make something your own, start your own goddamned series. There shouldn't not be any creative freedom at all in Star Trek.

Even more ironic since CBS/Paramount put so much effort into shutting down the fan film/series that were existing within the boundaries and merely fleshing out story gaps. Sure they were approaching epic funding, had original cast members, and pretty good effects, but that doesn't justify this. So many good projects that got scrapped for these lame, let's rewrite our way, approach.
 

Solhokuten

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
1,390
Hmm. I didn't follow all of the launch buzz, so I missed how much of a big deal they were making of a female lead. I'm just judging the series based on having watched it, and nothing feels unnatural or preachy about the series when watching it. At least not to me. That said, in previous Star Trek series one of the things i liked was that there was very little in the way of leads. They were a team. Some episodes focused more on one character or another, but overall it seemed like a cast where everyone played an equally significant role. The focus on the story of one person, which is the direction Discovery has gone a little bit more (but not completely) in, is lwaa good to me, but it still has some very good writing, great suspense and plot twists, good acting and good effects. The first season was really quite good!

I did chafe at the Klingon changes, but they never stood out as being africanized on some way. Just different than they should be, the way they were previously in the universe. I don't like it when they allow new people to come in and make changes to an existing universe. The appearances of all aliens should always stay true to where they were when they first appeared, at least starting with 1978's "The Motion Picture". 60's TV TOS should be an exception, because the low budget makeup department couldn't do anything well.

The rest of the stuff in this series is good enough though, that you almost forget about the Klingon problem once you get into it.

Agreed on every point.
 
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
634
Counterpoint: The Simpsons post season 10. But, yeah any new Simpsons is good Simpsons!

I hope (Radically Altered) Gentleman Johnny Pickard got his pay up front and is willing to take the heat not from fans necessarily but from hollywood as they blame any failures on him.

I'm sure you meant to say "post season 4", heathen!
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,273
It changes a lot.

Seth is the lead actor and he is a terrible actor. He's a fine voice actor, but terrible in live action.

Even if they got rid of Seth as lead, it's still a cringey parody which gets old fast IMO.
How much of it have you watched?
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,273
Hmm. I didn't follow all of the launch buzz, so I missed how much of a big deal they were making of a female lead. I'm just judging the series based on having watched it, and nothing feels unnatural or preachy about the series when watching it. At least not to me. That said, in previous Star Trek series one of the things i liked was that there was very little in the way of leads. They were a team. Some episodes focused more on one character or another, but overall it seemed like a cast where everyone played an equally significant role. The focus on the story of one person, which is the direction Discovery has gone a little bit more (but not completely) in, is lwaa good to me, but it still has some very good writing, great suspense and plot twists, good acting and good effects. The first season was really quite good! .
The problem is that the supposed protagonist had made numerous decisions and outbursts in the very first episode that are completely irreconcilable with the values star trek used to stand for. Everything was distilled down to how does it make her feel, who cares about the numerous dead crewmen. She has done and said idiot things, and still was propped up as a hero. It might have worked if they presented it as an antihero story like mad-max, but it wasn't that. It was a winy bitch who put her own feelings above of the lives of the crew. Disobeyed numerous orders for petty or bad reasons. And got into an ego driven dick measuring contest that put the entire ship at risk.

I don't know if anyone have read the Mass Effect Uprising novel. It is exactly the same. Centered around the feelings of a self-infatuated bitch, who worries more about the race of the leader than the actual merits of leadership, and prioritizes petty bullshit above the survival of the entire crew. All while whining about how her feet hurts. And I'm not even joking.

What's common the common thread with these two, apart from both being scifi stories? That they are both written by sjws for sjws. And apparently for whoever is tone deaf enough to not notice the moral bankruptcy in them.
 

Celeryman

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
418
They took the "sci" out of sci-fi starting with the 2009 movie and that is why I don't like the new movies. If I wanted space magic I'd go watch Star Wars.

Exactly, thats the other huge thing missing in all the "new" Trek, including Discovery. Put the science back in. It's so sad to me that the Lost in Space reboot on Netflix has more science in it than Star Trek.

And wth is with Discovery's rotating saucer? I think it looks beyond stupid when it starts rotating.
 

Patton187

Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
669
If you liked TNG you should watch the orville. This is shaping up to be an even bigger woke disappointment than discovery.

Edit I was skeptical about the orville at first too, but after watching a few episodes it is more star trek, than STD can ever hope to be. STD writers clearly don't understand Star Trek, and even if they claim to be fans of the original, they are for all the wrong reasons.
I wonder how many orange man bad they can work into the plot.
 

Ultima99

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
4,905
I can't wait for the episode where Picard has to decide what bathrooms everyone can pee in.
 

SamuelL421

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 3, 2016
Messages
412
Patrick Stewart in new star trek? I'll bite. I say this as someone who has not been able to stomach any of the shlock on CBS (sans NFL..) in over a decade.
 

spugm1r3

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
1,153
This is rad. I grew up on The Next Generation and I had a hard time enjoying anything after that. Now, cue the comparisons between Data now and twenty years ago... as advanced as robotics were in that universe, I can't imagine they would bake in aging.
 

The Mad Atheist

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
1,291
So Picard marries the hot Rommie chick from the last TNG movie and goes on a quest from Q to fix the time line!?
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,942
I don't care for this.

One of the reasons I liked TNG was because of who his character was. I was excited when I heard he was coming back, but now I'm just rolling my eyes.

The idiots they out in charge of writing Star Trek shit these days just can't get out of their own way. They feel the need to make shit "their own" rather than stay within existing boundaries. Fuck that

If you want to make something your own, start your own goddamned series. There shouldn't not be any creative freedom at all in Star Trek.
Damn straight! Not even the Borg queen could change time, don't tell me some Romulan miners who's captain was upset his wife died radically changed everything in the Universe. I'm hell I think they got that taken care of during the Voyager series with the federation of the 27th century with the temporal prime directive, telling me they couldn't just have gone back and fixed this too? Horseshit! No reboots!
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
5,215
Romulus not existing really doesn't make a lot of sense. If you think about how many times time travel has been used in Star Trek then just about anything can be changed. That's one area where they sort of fucked up making time travel pretty easy and arguably easier as the series and movies went on.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
32,872
The problem is that the supposed protagonist had made numerous decisions and outbursts in the very first episode that are completely irreconcilable with the values star trek used to stand for. Everything was distilled down to how does it make her feel, who cares about the numerous dead crewmen. She has done and said idiot things, and still was propped up as a hero. It might have worked if they presented it as an antihero story like mad-max, but it wasn't that. It was a winy bitch who put her own feelings above of the lives of the crew. Disobeyed numerous orders for petty or bad reasons. And got into an ego driven dick measuring contest that put the entire ship at risk.

I don't know if anyone have read the Mass Effect Uprising novel. It is exactly the same. Centered around the feelings of a self-infatuated bitch, who worries more about the race of the leader than the actual merits of leadership, and prioritizes petty bullshit above the survival of the entire crew. All while whining about how her feet hurts. And I'm not even joking.

What's common the common thread with these two, apart from both being scifi stories? That they are both written by sjws for sjws. And apparently for whoever is tone deaf enough to not notice the moral bankruptcy in them.

Yeah, but she was also court-martialed and sent to prison for that, only allowed to serve back on a ship without her rank due to extrodinary circumstances.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
28,116
Captain Kirk or Picard? Kirk all the way, Patrick Stewart is a self centered prick that ruined STNG when he demanded that all episodes from season 4 and beyond be centered around him after season 3 end Season 4 start The Best of Both Worlds. Before that point all of the main characters had episodes centered around them and it was not all Stewart centered.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
They took the "sci" out of sci-fi starting with the 2009 movie and that is why I don't like the new movies. If I wanted space magic I'd go watch Star Wars.

I would love to hear you expound upon exactly what science the next generation films had in them that the Kelvin timeline films did not. Because Those were the films I specifically grew up with and I sure as heck don't remember them as anything beyond an action movie. I can go back further, but that would require me to re-watch a few of the older flicks as my memory is a little more hazy on those. The only difference I see between the two timelines is a rose colored glasses view from people who just seem to dislike JJ Abrams. The new films weren't my favorites, but frankly I don't see where 90% of the moaning about them comes from.
 

piscian18

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,021
Star Trek movies are almost all action movies..seriously have you watched the ST movies? None of them are anything like any series. They are almost all action, the enterprise gets blown up in damn near every single one of them. The reboots don't differ from the Star Trek movie formula in the slightest. You might not like JJ's film style or even the writing, but saying the reboots aren't just like the other ST movies is disingenuous at best. Every single time I hear someone whine about the reboots they always compare to one of the TV series and conveniently ignore the fact that nearly every single movie was an action flick that did not use the same formula as the TV series.

I'm beyond sick and tired of this revisionist bullshit people keep spouting as a reason to hate the reboot. I don't care if you just don't like it, but the constant pushing of a flatly wrong narrative has to stop.

I'd disagree. Star Trek I, III, IV, V didn't really have much if any kickassery. I'm not saying they were good but they were fairly intellectual films. I don't recall there being a ton of action in Generations either which I also kinda dug.

Star Trek I was about the search for New Life and the biggest complaint on record is specifically that theres almost no action in it.
Star Trek II pew pew pew explosion fest
Star Trek III very little action theres one ship being blown up by dickheads and then a sort of old man fistfight at the end
Star Trek IV no action its just kind of a comedydrama
Star Trek V couple of fight scenes thats about it
Star Trek VI pew pew explosions

The only reason I feel like I can defend that is I literally sat down and marathoned them last week to test my 7.1 setup. Star Trek V and III are kinda meh for me but the rest were great!

If you're saying any film with scifi effects in it is an action, fine whatever but I'd disagree.
 
Last edited:

arentol

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
2,712
If they were just trying to emulate his vision it may never be quite as good, but I'd still be OK with it.

What I hate is when they try to change shit.

Color inside the goddamned lines!

This is exactly what has gone wrong with Star Wars as well.... They went outside the lines with Midi-chlorians and such in the prequels. Then in the sequels they did the same with things like hyperspace capable planet destroying mid-flight splitting beams apparently instantly visible from any planet anywhere in the galaxy, and things like the ability to track through hyperspace, and situations like "There is only one thing in the entire galaxy to solve this problem, and low and behold, it is only a few minutes away by hyperspace.... WTF are the odds of that?" .. It is hard to enjoy a show when they take the established rules of the universe and dump on them and all logic and reasonableness at the same time.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
28,116
ST II the Wrath of Khan is arguably the best of the original series and Insurrection/First contact are the best of the TNG series...
 

jordan12

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Messages
9,751
I grew up with TOS and the TOS movies. TNG series and movies grew on me. All great.

Let's visit the rebooted movies. I enjoyed the first one. The second one was OK. I couldn't finish the third. And I absolutely hate Discovery.

They have lost something trying to make ST something it shouldn't be. Not sure they will ever get it back.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
28,116
yea 2009 was good and into darkness was good as well, a very good homage to ST 2 IMHO. the third one just was bad..
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
I'd disagree. Star Trek I, III, IV, V didn't really have much if any kickassery. I'm not saying they were good but they were fairly intellectual films. I don't recall there being a ton of action in Generations either which I also kinda dug.

Star Trek I was about the search for New Life and the biggest complaint on record is specifically that theres almost no action in it.
Star Trek II pew pew pew explosion fest
Star Trek III very little action theres one ship being blown up by dickheads and then a sort of old man fistfight at the end
Star Trek IV no action its just kind of a comedydrama
Star Trek V couple of fight scenes thats about it
Star Trek VI pew pew explosions

The only reason I feel like I can defend that is I literally sat down and marathoned them last week to test my 7.1 setup. Star Trek V and III are kinda meh for me but the rest were great!

If you're saying any film with scifi effects in it is an action, fine whatever but I'd disagree.

Which is why I specifically said "most" not all. I knew my memory of the originals was a bit hazy, but I knew at least a couple were action. Either way the point was that out of all the films in general, most have clearly been action. Basically every single film Starting with VI have clearly been action summer blockbuster style films. So this whole thing about 2009 specifically changing everything is just nonsense.
 

The Mad Atheist

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
1,291
Star Trek I was about the search for New Life, Klingons wishing they worn their brown pants, hot bald chick acting like the Kool-Aid Man, and the biggest complaint on record is that Decker turned out to be a pedo having a 3-way between him, robo hot bald chick, and child space probe.
Star Trek II pew pew, hot Vulcan Cheers chick, OMFG must not fall asleep because of brain eating earwigs, KHAAAAANNN KHAAAANN KHAAAN, pew pew explosion fest, Spock riding a photon torpedo.
Star Trek III very little action, good morning captain, hot Vulcan non-Cheers chick, theres one ship being blown up by dickheads and then a sort of old man (I) fist (HAVE) fight (HAD) at (ENOUGH) the (OF YOU) end.
Star Trek IV no action its just kind of a comedydrama. No need to fix that.
Star Trek V WTF did the comm officer do!?, happy Vulcan bro, couple of fight scenes, not much of a god if you need a starship, thats about it
Star Trek VI CGI purple blood, cute traitor Vulcan chick, I used to be a thug then I took a kick in me balls-knee, hot-ish polymorph chick, taH pagh taHbe, more Hamlet, please follow the light with your eye before you go boom, pew pew explosions, weird looking president.

The only reason I feel like I can defend that is I literally sat down and marathoned them last week to test my 7.1 setup. Star Trek V and III are kinda meh for me but the rest were great!

If you're saying any film with scifi effects in it is an action, fine whatever but I'd disagree.

Sorry, just had to fix a few things in there from my fond childhood memories. ;)
 

piscian18

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,021
Sorry, just had to fix a few things in there from my fond childhood memories. ;)

ST I: I'd hit it, just need an oil can every once in a while. "OMG its been 10 minutes we get it! Its the goddamn enterprise! dock the shuttle already!!
ST II: Remember when she was hot? crazy. "from Hell's heart I stab at thee!"
ST III: Klingon Christopher Llyod has this weird fucking muppet dog in the entire movie. Once you notice it the first time its incredibly distracting for the rest of the movie. I wonder why they changed the actress for hot vulcan chick?
ST IV: *talks into mouse* HELLO COMPUTER
ST V: "I don't want my pain taken away! I need my pain!" The movie is pretty rough but I like it for the interludes where they talk about god, family and the value of pain in our character.
STVI: I'd hit it if shes just grow some damn sideburns. I remember thinking "wait...is the president..asian? Vulcan? Klingon? a gnome? WTH is going on here?"

Thats my review for the weekend.

as far as hot vulcan chicks nothing beats that girl from the terrible quantum leap enterprise show. I couldnt stand it and only watched like three episodes.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
As much as I enjoyed TNG (especially First Contact), I don't see myself watching this.

I think I'm just kinda Star Trek'ed out.... (same thing with Star Wars)


I loved them both, Trek, Star Wars, but I don't really want more of either.

What I do want more of is Firefly. I happen to really like "down home" in a future package.

Firefly is as real as any future I have ever seen can get.

And since someone else mentioned it, The Expanse because of the same plausible future earthy feel of it all.
 
Last edited:
Top