"Star Trek: Discovery" Renewed for Season 3

Because of production and financing issues, the people behind it, the world it's set in, the first episode and pretty much everything about it. It will have a hard time getting green lit for second season and I'm highly doubtful it will make it past that with any form of success.

The only semblance of a good reception is because of the name's false tie-in. Once that illusion passes, it will be a hard nosedive.

I do believe I read that it was already greenlit for a second season...
 
Look at the end of the day, who gives a shit if it's canon or alternate timeline? Nobody gives a shit about TOS anymore, that was way before most people's time (I wasn't even close to being born yet). The only people who care are either boomers or really hardcore Trek nerds and both are a vocal minority to which the market has long since passed up. If Picard succeeds (which I think it will), we'll continue seeing more action/dark oriented Trek and I'm totally fine with it. As long as they make the writing somewhat intelligent and give us good stories, I'm happy with the alternate timeline. As far as I'm concerned, they could reboot Trek entirely and start fresh since I think that would be the best way to handle it moving forward. The boomers who grew up with Trek will be dead soon, the market isn't for them.
 
I do believe I read that it was already greenlit for a second season...
I would take such news with a massive grain of salt at this early stage. Those are mostly paid promotional pieces to boost interest.

I have to think it’ll do better than STD, and that was record breaking for CBS.
So much so they kept the numbers secret out of embarrassment. Plus, it would take barely anything to break their streaming service record at the time. Imvestors/distributors pulling out fast should be a hint on how well it did.
 
Look at the end of the day, who gives a shit if it's canon or alternate timeline? Nobody gives a shit about TOS anymore, that was way before most people's time (I wasn't even close to being born yet). The only people who care are either boomers or really hardcore Trek nerds and both are a vocal minority to which the market has long since passed up. If Picard succeeds (which I think it will), we'll continue seeing more action/dark oriented Trek and I'm totally fine with it. As long as they make the writing somewhat intelligent and give us good stories, I'm happy with the alternate timeline. As far as I'm concerned, they could reboot Trek entirely and start fresh since I think that would be the best way to handle it moving forward. The boomers who grew up with Trek will be dead soon, the market isn't for them.
Yeah, fuck the past and kill it. Those boomer Star Wars fans sure got egg on their face with the intelligent new stories. Fuck the old dorks, there's a new generation in town. And the new Star Trek shows showed us how modern television is done and the younger modern audiences came in droves and can't purchase subscriptions and merchandise enough. We want more pew pew in Star Trek, god dammit, what the fuck was that slow societal and philosophical commentary shit, amirite?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, fuck the past and kill it. Those boomer Star Wars fans sure got egg on their face with the intelligent new stories. Fuck the old dorks, there's a new generation in town.

You may be sarcastic but it's reality. Star Wars will continue moving forward whether the boomers like it or not and so will Star Trek. They can keep crying about SJW, homosexuals, women etc but nobody cares. I certainly don't care, all I want is a good story and the action is fine too. I don't really want a rehash of the campy Trek stories of yesterday. If Picard can get on the level of BSG type writing w/a dark slant I'd be ecstatic, I don't really need some utopian Trek. This new scifi market is built to cater to millennials/genz and to a smaller extent Gen X. Boomers are yesterdays audience, they will be joining Rodenberry in the grave soon.

P.S. whoever said the best movie for TNG was First Contact was 100% right, the rest were down right mediocre. The rebooted Trek movies were far better.
 
Last edited:
Because of production and financing issues, the people behind it, the world it's set in, the first episode and pretty much everything about it. It will have a hard time getting green lit for second season and I'm highly doubtful it will make it past that with any form of success.

The only semblance of a good reception is because of the name's false tie-in. Once that illusion passes, it will be a hard nosedive.

Your opinion on the quality of a show has jack to do with whether or not it was a flop. Also, it was already renewed for a second season and they’ve already confirmed the Whoopi Goldberg is returning as Guinan at some point in S2. You can dislike the show all you want, but don’t fall into the trap of believing that your opinions and desires are somehow reality.
 
You may be sarcastic but it's reality. Star Wars will continue moving forward whether the boomers like it or not and so will Star Trek. They can keep crying about SJW, homosexuals, women etc but nobody cares. I certainly don't care, all I want is a good story and the action is fine too. I don't really want a rehash of the campy Trek stories of yesterday. If Picard can get on the level of BSG type writing w/a dark slant I'd be ecstatic, I don't really need some utopian Trek. This new scifi market is built to cater to millennials/genz and to a smaller extent Gen X. Boomers are yesterdays audience, they will be joining Rodenberry in the grave soon.

P.S. whoever said the best movie for TNG was First Contact was 100% right, the rest were down right mediocre. The rebooted Trek movies were far better.
Your points would have a hint of validity if the new movies and shows weren't failing and the merchandise and Disney rides weren't flopping hard.

Your opinion on the quality of a show has jack to do with whether or not it was a flop. Also, it was already renewed for a second season and they’ve already confirmed the Whoopi Goldberg is returning as Guinan at some point in S2. You can dislike the show all you want, but don’t fall into the trap of believing that your opinions and desires are somehow reality.
I have recent related movies and shows to base my opinion on, you have wishful thinking. Maybe you should tell all the investors that pulled out and delayed the production how good things actually are, since you seem to know better.
 
Your points would have a hint of validity if the new movies and shows weren't failing and the merchandise and Disney rides weren't flopping hard.


I have recent related movies and shows to base my opinion on, you have wishful thinking. Maybe you should tell all the investors that pulled out and delayed the production how good things actually are, since you seem to know better.

No, you are making wild unsupported claims after a single episode. I’m simply stating facts.
 
Your points would have a hint of validity if the new movies and shows weren't failing and the merchandise and Disney rides weren't flopping hard.


I have recent related movies and shows to base my opinion on, you have wishful thinking. Maybe you should tell all the investors that pulled out and delayed the production how good things actually are, since you seem to know better.

Yes failing so hard: https://theweek.com/speedreads/8896...ecomes-disneys-7th-movie-2019-gross-1-billion And Disney rides is your retort? Really guy? And as far as Picard goes, someone above already linked it broke streaming records for CBS and is already greenlit for S2. Seems your fantasy of failure isn't grounded in reality. I'll probably grab a CBS sub just to help pad its numbers and irk guys like you.
 
Yes failing so hard: https://theweek.com/speedreads/8896...ecomes-disneys-7th-movie-2019-gross-1-billion And Disney rides is your retort? Really guy? And as far as Picard goes, someone above already linked it broke streaming records for CBS and is already greenlit for S2. Seems your fantasy of failure isn't grounded in reality.
Really, boy. Do you have any idea how movie revenue works? That is not a billion dollars in profit, at 1 billion it just passes breaking even, and the previous movie lost money. Do you know what unmoved merchandise and empty rides indicate? No, it would seem you don't.

CBS had such lackluster numbers they started hiding them soon after STD started. It's a small bar to outdo, combined with the Picard name it would be a feat not to.
 
Really, boy. Do you have any idea how movie revenue works? That is not a billion dollars in profit, at 1 billion it just passes breaking even, and the previous movie lost money. Do you know what unmoved merchandise and empty rides indicate? No, it would seem you don't.

CBS had such lackluster numbers they started hiding them soon after STD started. It's a small bar to outdo, combined with the Picard name it would be a feat not to.

68F14260-FF58-4B32-94CE-5BCE1FF0BCA9.jpeg
 
I get that you liked the movie (you probably guessed I didn't) and that's fine. But I clearly remember the Scott sharing what I said: they did it to cut cost and manage something that was quite difficult at the time. They were just being pragmatic.

As for "no one is fighting high resolution": https://www.cepro.com/audio-video/hollywood-director-barry-sonnenfeld-bashes-hdr-8k/

We've been stuck at 24 fps and low resolution forever and the reasons aren't technical.

“The problem with 8K and even 4K is that all it is doing is bringing us closer to a video game aesthetic. It just looks more and more ‘not real.’ I can’t watch any Marvel movies because none of the visual effects look real,” says Sonnenfeld.
The issue with Marvel SFX, isn't the resolution, it's the fact that the SFX don't look real. Doesn't matter if that's 2k, 4k or 8k, the issue is unchanged.

Other topics covered in the panel discussion included “day and date” services. Both Sonnenfeld and Warburton believe media servers should all offer day and date service at some point, which means homeowners will be able to watch first-run movies at home the same day the film is released in theater.
Given that they don't go to movie theaters that makes sense.

Sonnenfeld only goes to a commercial theater once a year, while Warburton says he and his wife only go a few times a year also.

“Usually we walk out saying to ourselves, ‘That’s why we don’t go to the movies,’” says Warburton, who notable acting credits include “Seinfeld”, “Family Guy”, and “A Series of Unfortunate Events.”

I go to almost 100 movies a year. The issues with cell phones is overblown. Does it happen? Occasionally, but it's rare and if you go to a matinee, it's exceedingly rare.

Warburton cited “all the hassle,” including other theater patrons on cellphones, people with colds coughing and sneezing, and other noise distractions.

Seriously, coughing? When exactly did he go to movies, because that was an issue 50 years ago.


Both men are big proponents of home cinema as the best way to watch movies and TV content.

If you have a great home theater, yes. Most people have, at most a sound bar. I'm sorry, but a soundbar on a 40" TV is never better than a movie at a decent theater (which most AMC, Regal and Cinemark theaters are). And if you do AMC's stubs a list, you can see 3/week on any screen (IMAX and Dolby Cinema included) for 20 bucks (22-23 in a few markets).

That said, if you have a great home ehater, then maybe it matches a movie theater, though probalby not IMAX or Dolby Cinema.
 

Both men are big proponents of home cinema as the best way to watch movies and TV content.

If you have a great home theater, yes. Most people have, at most a sound bar. I'm sorry, but a soundbar on a 40" TV is never better than a movie at a decent theater (which most AMC, Regal and Cinemark theaters are). And if you do AMC's stubs a list, you can see 3/week on any screen (IMAX and Dolby Cinema included) for 20 bucks (22-23 in a few markets).

That said, if you have a great home ehater, then maybe it matches a movie theater, though probalby not IMAX or Dolby Cinema.

They're not wrong though, movie experience can vary wildly depending on where you go and concession prices are a rip off for a full family. That experience is ruined further by obnoxious audiences. You can find 65" Samsung 4K tvs for around $500 these days so even the average person who enjoys movies can get a nice setup for cheap. I'd take watching a movie on my 65" in the comfort of my room for first run over a theater anyday.
 
Name one, my opinion it will flop akin to STD not included.

I’ve listed multiple. It’s already renewed, they’ve already started casting for S2, general audience response is positive. This is all after one episode. You can’t call a show a “flop” after a single episode because it takes longer to see what the over-all trend is.

Despite being terrible, STD is headed into its third season. Not really sure that can count as a flop either. Unless they’re just sinking money into it hoping it boosts All Access subs.
 
I’ve listed multiple. It’s already renewed, they’ve already started casting for S2, general audience response is positive. This is all after one episode. You can’t call a show a “flop” after a single episode because it takes longer to see what the over-all trend is.

Despite being terrible, STD is headed into its third season. Not really sure that can count as a flop either. Unless they’re just sinking money into it hoping it boosts All Access subs.

And that's fair. Picard is still too new to really call it anything. Either you found it interesting enough to watch the next episode or you didn't. I did, but I had a few problems with the first one. I know I've been fairly critical of it, but I didn't actually hate it. I was at least relatively entertained for the most part. It might also be that my science fiction standards are in the toilet given how shitty Discovery is, what they've done to Doctor Who and how bad Star Wars has gotten.
 
And that's fair. Picard is still too new to really call it anything. Either you found it interesting enough to watch the next episode or you didn't. I did, but I had a few problems with the first one. I know I've been fairly critical of it, but I didn't actually hate it. I was at least relatively entertained for the most part. It might also be that my science fiction standards are in the toilet given how shitty Discovery is, what they've done to Doctor Who and how bad Star Wars has gotten.

Ugh, Doctor Who. What an absolute waste of Jodie Whittaker’s talents. I had so much hope for Who after Whittaker was announced as the Doctor and Chibnall as show runner. Broadchurch was excellent and I thought that combo could work well in Who. Pity Chibnall’s garbage take on the series is ruining what few good “Doctor” moments Whittaker has.
 
Ugh, Doctor Who. What an absolute waste of Jodie Whittaker’s talents. I had so much hope for Who after Whittaker was announced as the Doctor and Chibnall as show runner. Broadchurch was excellent and I thought that combo could work well in Who. Pity Chibnall’s garbage take on the series is ruining what few good “Doctor” moments Whittaker has.

I stopped caring about Dr. Who after David Tennant left.
 
Watching STD (apt acronym) last night I thought to myself. Screw you Warner Bros/CBS. You took a brand with over 50 year's legacy and shit all over it by making a Star Wars and Marvel stylistic series because you had a hard on for Disney's success with those two franchises and thought Trek fans would flock blindly toward the brand like moths to a flame as SW fans do. Trekers are more sophisticated than that. At least I like to think I am. Will continue to watch for the pretty colors I guess.

Well I never managed to sign up for CBS last year, but peopel here hated S1, and it was infinitely better than Voyager and Enterprise. Hell, it was better than S1 of TNG and DS9 too (and I'm on record as calling DS9 the best Trek ever).

In my opinion that would have definitely been too much too soon. TOS already had the Spock character that offended and frightened many because he appeared too satanic, the Russian ensign Chekov in the midst of the cold war, and Uhura of course, who needs no explanation. Trek was before the Stonewall riots where news footage of violent clashes with police helped garner national sympathy for their plight. And please correct me if wrong on this ... the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a mental disorder until 1973. Oh how far we have come.

you are 100% correct on all counts. If they'd had a gay character in the 60s, we wouldn't be talking about Trek today (or in the 80s).
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
They can't fill the gaps leading to TOS since they broke that canon multiple times and exist in a separate universe.

And since both STD and STP flopped hard, I don't see a chance for another show, not under the Bad Robot license.
I keep hearing people say STD flopped, but I heard that after S1 and we're now doing S3.
Then there this: https://trekmovie.com/2019/01/22/cb...led-by-star-trek-discovery-season-2-premiere/.

IT's trashed on RT, but on IMDB, the reviews are roughly 7.5/10, which is pretty solid.
 


That's pretty funny. Although, like many here, it completely misses the point. I don't have a problem with Star Trek having more action, good looking people, or being a bit more accessible to the masses. What I do have a problem with is bad writing. I can tolerate that to some extent if there is enough there to over come it, but plots like what we've seen in Discovery or elements seen in Picard are hard to get over. The reboot films were actually worse in most respects, though I think casting was a strong point of those films.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M76
like this
I didn't say anything about raw cam footage. Do you really not understand how analog film works?

BTW, newer theaters generally use digital, and a lot of others have switched over to digital projection(it's a hell of a lot easier to distribute and of course handle), and it's generally pretty damn terrible since you can pretty much see the grid pattern like a screen door.
That varies. I occasionally see screen door in theaters (mostly in smaller theaters showing smaller films), but that's an exception to the rule. And to be clear, I'm one of the few who hated Plasma, because almost all of htem had screen door. I'm not sure why that is, however, because I can see it at times on a my 65" 4K TV (though I do sit about 5-6' from the TV)
 
Last edited:
They're not wrong though, movie experience can vary wildly depending on where you go and concession prices are a rip off for a full family. That experience is ruined further by obnoxious audiences. You can find 65" Samsung 4K tvs for around $500 these days so even the average person who enjoys movies can get a nice setup for cheap. I'd take watching a movie on my 65" in the comfort of my room for first run over a theater anyday.
Concessions is a red herring. You don't have to buy concessions. I see close to 100 movies a year. The only time I buy concessions is if it's a tuesday (because I can get a 20 oz drink and a tiny popcorn for 5 bucks...and even that is 550 calories). There's no doubt that some theaters are better than others, but unless you live in a very small market, there are lots of theaters...shop around and find a good one. In dallas I mostly went to the UA (now regal) Galaxy theater. 75' wide screen and it was excellent. Now I go to AMC theaters (can't beat 20 bucks/month for 3 movies/week including Imax and Dolby Cinema). Occasionally I've seen screen door in the smallest screens, though it's not consistent, even on the same screen.

And to be clear, I've got a 65" OLED TV with a nice surround setup. It's good, but it doesn't come close to IMAX, Dolby Cinema or even the Prime screen. Even some of the larger lesser screens are better. If I had cell phones all the time, talking and so on, I'd feel different, but that's not the case, and this now goes back 13 years in 4 different states in at least 9 multiplexes. I love my home theater, but it's not better than a good theater....maybe if I can get a 150" screen I'd feel different.

But regardless, the vast majority of homes have a TV with nothing more than a soundbar. Even the lesser screens at my current set of theaters are better than a soundbar.
 
I keep hearing people say STD flopped, but I heard that after S1 and we're now doing S3.
Then there this: https://trekmovie.com/2019/01/22/cb...led-by-star-trek-discovery-season-2-premiere/.

IT's trashed on RT, but on IMDB, the reviews are roughly 7.5/10, which is pretty solid.
And the truth is in between somewhere. User reviews are usually either overly positive, or overly negative. You rarely see a realistic user review.

They don't cancel discovery because it would look bad if they cancelled their supposedly subscriber magnet. But it is safe to say it is not doing that well in terms of expected viewership. If discovery did well netflix wouldn't have passed on it, and wouldn't have outright refused to syndicate picard.
 
And the truth is in between somewhere. User reviews are usually either overly positive, or overly negative. You rarely see a realistic user review.

They don't cancel discovery because it would look bad if they cancelled their supposedly subscriber magnet. But it is safe to say it is not doing that well in terms of expected viewership. If discovery did well netflix wouldn't have passed on it, and wouldn't have outright refused to syndicate picard.
OK, but professional reviews are even more positive and on RT, top critics like it better (but here's avg for the 2 seasons we've got and note that there will not be less than 4 seasons)
upload_2020-1-29_23-35-5.png
 
And the truth is in between somewhere. User reviews are usually either overly positive, or overly negative. You rarely see a realistic user review.

They don't cancel discovery because it would look bad if they cancelled their supposedly subscriber magnet. But it is safe to say it is not doing that well in terms of expected viewership. If discovery did well netflix wouldn't have passed on it, and wouldn't have outright refused to syndicate picard.

Well, my short take on it is that Discovery Season 1 isn't as bad as the bad reviews make it out to be. It's got problems, but for the most part I can deal with most of them. The biggest issues are the canon breaking things like Sarek communicating a quarter of the way across the galaxy with a human telepathically. I don't like the look of many things in the show such as the alien ships, most of the Starfleet ships and the Klingons themselves. I do like most of the interior set design though. I'm not against the updates as some people are. There are stupid things like the mirror universe people all being more sensitive to light, which is one of the most fucking retarded things I've ever seen in sci-fi. There are also tons of missed opportunities with the show and its characters. Michael Sue Burnham being the focus is a large part of why people hate the show.

She isn't likable and she's a Mary Sue. Despite that, I still watched the show and even looked forward to newer episodes. I actually appreciate the darker tone of the show for the most part. However, Season 2 is where I draw the line on Discovery. The first episode is so bad that I quit watching the show entirely. After that, I was done. From what I understand, it was a sign of things to come and I am probably glad I didn't have to watch emo Spock or some of the other bullshit.
 
OK, but professional reviews are even more positive and on RT, top critics like it better (but here's avg for the 2 seasons we've got and note that there will not be less than 4 seasons)
View attachment 219384

Professional critics liking anything these days is totally fucking meaningless. Given the difference in user scores, its clear that critics are so far out of touch with viewers that their opinions are utterly worthless.
 
OK, but professional reviews are even more positive and on RT, top critics like it better (but here's avg for the 2 seasons we've got and note that there will not be less than 4 seasons)
You really want to represent journos as credible? They bend where the political compass points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan_D
like this
That's pretty funny. Although, like many here, it completely misses the point. I don't have a problem with Star Trek having more action, good looking people, or being a bit more accessible to the masses. What I do have a problem with is bad writing. I can tolerate that to some extent if there is enough there to over come it, but plots like what we've seen in Discovery or elements seen in Picard are hard to get over. The reboot films were actually worse in most respects, though I think casting was a strong point of those films.

For what it was, I enjoyed the 2009 reboot movie. It wasn't a good Trek movie, but the cast was great and the levels of stupid were no worse than the average Voyager episode. That said, the massive cuts made to the script and movie itself turned what could have been a dumb, but mostly enjoyable, plot into an incomprehensible mess. And then there's Into Darkness and fuck that movie.

And the truth is in between somewhere. User reviews are usually either overly positive, or overly negative. You rarely see a realistic user review.

They don't cancel discovery because it would look bad if they cancelled their supposedly subscriber magnet. But it is safe to say it is not doing that well in terms of expected viewership. If discovery did well netflix wouldn't have passed on it, and wouldn't have outright refused to syndicate picard.

Let's not forget that Netflix paid for 100% of Discovery. Even if it was doing good numbers (which I doubt) Netflix would be getting a raw deal since it would take ages for them to make back their investment. I wouldn't be surprised if CBS tried to strong-arm them into doing the same thing only to get a "hell no". Makes me wonder how much of Picard S1 Amazon is funding.
 
For what it was, I enjoyed the 2009 reboot movie. It wasn't a good Trek movie, but the cast was great and the levels of stupid were no worse than the average Voyager episode. That said, the massive cuts made to the script and movie itself turned what could have been a dumb, but mostly enjoyable, plot into an incomprehensible mess. And then there's Into Darkness and fuck that movie.



Let's not forget that Netflix paid for 100% of Discovery. Even if it was doing good numbers (which I doubt) Netflix would be getting a raw deal since it would take ages for them to make back their investment. I wouldn't be surprised if CBS tried to strong-arm them into doing the same thing only to get a "hell no". Makes me wonder how much of Picard S1 Amazon is funding.

My biggest problems with the 2009 movie was Kirk getting promoted out of being discharged from the Academy, to being a Captain. I also disliked the set designs. The bridge wasn't the worst of it for me though. I hated the brewery for an engine room and bullshit like that. The sets were as such that they made no sense and were shot in a way that you were never sure what you were looking at. The Enterprise is like a bad dream you can't quite remember. The ships in the earlier shows seem like real places you could visit and know your way around just by watching the shows. Lastly, I hated the Kobayashi Maru scene. It exemplifies everything I hate about how these characters are generally written. Kirk is especially bad.

This isn't the actors fault though. I think the casting is generally spot on. Sure, there are other issues with the film such as the villain being weak and other issues but those are minor compared to the rest. Your right, Into Darkness is a piece of shit. It's flat out bad. I don't much care for the third one, but at least it tried to feel like Star Trek and Kirk was written better in that one.
 
Well, my short take on it is that Discovery Season 1 isn't as bad as the bad reviews make it out to be. It's got problems.
Discovery lost me in the first episode when two crewman put their own needs (bickering) above of the safety of ship and crew.
Not to mention the direct disobeying of orders and creating a mutiny for childish reasons.
Yes, it happened before in star trek (disobeying of orders) but for the greater good that justified it in the end.
 
And that's fair. Picard is still too new to really call it anything. Either you found it interesting enough to watch the next episode or you didn't. I did, but I had a few problems with the first one. I know I've been fairly critical of it, but I didn't actually hate it. I was at least relatively entertained for the most part. It might also be that my science fiction standards are in the toilet given how shitty Discovery is, what they've done to Doctor Who and how bad Star Wars has gotten.

After the awful Doctor Who episode (Orphan-55) the last two DW episodes have been excellent.
 
My biggest problems with the 2009 movie was Kirk getting promoted out of being discharged from the Academy, to being a Captain. I also disliked the set designs. The bridge wasn't the worst of it for me though. I hated the brewery for an engine room and bullshit like that. The sets were as such that they made no sense and were shot in a way that you were never sure what you were looking at. The Enterprise is like a bad dream you can't quite remember. The ships in the earlier shows seem like real places you could visit and know your way around just by watching the shows. Lastly, I hated the Kobayashi Maru scene. It exemplifies everything I hate about how these characters are generally written. Kirk is especially bad.

This isn't the actors fault though. I think the casting is generally spot on. Sure, there are other issues with the film such as the villain being weak and other issues but those are minor compared to the rest. Your right, Into Darkness is a piece of shit. It's flat out bad. I don't much care for the third one, but at least it tried to feel like Star Trek and Kirk was written better in that one.

Lens flares aside (which isn't really set design, per se), I hate how they do the exteriors of turbo-lifts now. Used to be this elegant ride you'd take through the ship to get from point A to point B but now they show them externally as the turbo-lift car flying through the ship on some random flimsy rails. IDK if you've seen the Discovery Short Trek episodes they released but in one of them, Number 1 and Spock get stuck in a turbo-lift car that stops due to a malfunction. Rather than, oh idk...TRANSPORTING OUT, the short centers around them being stuck and unable to get out of the car until someone rappels down from above to get them out. Really?! I get the point being a bonding/character building moment between Number 1 and Spock but come on, there's better ways to strand them somewhere than in a broken turbo-lift car on an otherwise fully functioning starship. That whole thing just makes the ships feel so void and lifeless to me, no character or personality in it all.
 
Professional critics liking anything these days is totally fucking meaningless. Given the difference in user scores, its clear that critics are so far out of touch with viewers that their opinions are utterly worthless.
So if you, as a user reviewer are useless, and Pros are useless, then what's the point of this entire conversation?
 
Spoiler-free thoughts on Picard Ep2:

Significantly better pacing than the first episode, though still a bit rough in spot.

I officially hate how they're showcasing Starfleet now. The attempts to justify the actions mentioned in Ep1 are poorly written. There were much better ways to handle it.

Soji is instantly more likable than Dohj, though some of her scenes were still a bit painful

Script was better (for the most part) but some of the dialog was still pretty bad.

Every single scene with the main antagonists of the season is baaaaaaaad. Some of it feels ripped right out of a bad comic book (especially the last scene of the episode).

There's still a lot of stupid in the episode, but ever so slightly toned down from Ep1.

Over-all a better episode than the first, but still leaves a lot that needs improved and there are still so many ways it can all go wrong.
 
Back
Top