Star Trek: Picard (Page 3 of 4)

lighton wrote:

And it's important to remember that back in the days there were way less shows to compete with.

This is very true and being an out and out sci-fi nut I can't get enough of these shows. I realise that the time it takes to produce them is long but I can't help wishing that there were more episdes in a season. 8 episodes is way to short for me

Everyone knows Patrick Stewart gained his fame by doing a small but significant role as Richard Lionheart in Robin Hood: Men In Tights.

I respect your decision to watch what's relevant to your enjoyment, but with that way of thinking you're going to miss out on a ton of quality classic shows and movies. I guess the question for me is, have you finally decided to one day watch TNG? Also, out of curiosity, have you ever seen DS9 or Voyager?

IMHO, Star Trek: TNG never felt dated at all. Even by today's standards. There were episodes from season four and onward that had high production value for a television series of its time, plausible concepts that stimulated the mind, and quality storytelling enriched with grade-A performances. Stargate premiered only a couple of years after TNG ended, and Farscape a couple of more years after that. In some ways, Farscape and Firefly felt more dated to me in comparison to the later seasons of TNG at the time.

This was never the case for me because what's new isn’t always necessarily better. If you look closely at some of the new sci-fi shows, they are basically portraying the same age old concepts in different ways. Some more plausible than others, but they're (for the most part) entrenched in the same facts, theories, laws, and hypotheses that are rooted in the same science found in previous shows, movies, and works of literature. Star Trek: TNG has had some of the most thought-provoking episodes I've ever witnessed. I'm talking episodes that, to this day, still make the old flash bulb pop. And while I can appreciate eye candy as much as the next person, a lack thereof is never a deal-breaker for me if the quality factor is emphasized elsewhere.

I understand there are different strokes for different folks, but in your case, you happen to be a fan of an actor who's associated with a franchise within the genre that you're also a fan of. But you were never interested in watching the one series associated with the actor, the franchise, and the genre, that arguably made him famous? Yes, there are some who will argue X-Men, and believe it or not, Family Guy and American Dad ((LOL)), but even most people who have never seen TNG know Patrick Stewart as "The Captain" because of the movies.

Again, I'm not knocking your decision to watch what's relevant to your enjoyment. To each his own. However, seeing how you're a fan of Patrick Stewart, I hope you can one day give Star Trek: TNG a shot.

Other than that, I must say that "Remembrance" exceeded my expectations, and I'm very much looking forward to the rest of this series. I knew going in that most of the true Star Trek vets were operating behind the scenes, with their fingerprints all over this, and it shows. I also happen to be a fan of Patrick Stewart's on-stage performances, and after watching the premiere, I still found myself in awe. The man can act. That's no revelation. But the strongest moment in the series premiere of Star Trek: Picard for me was simply giving him a moment to emote, to condemn, to express his distress and regret over the state of things. It allowed him to do what he does best and embrace the thematic resonance and introspection that were the hallmarks of Star Trek: TNG.

graybags wrote:

Out of interest, if you've not watched TNG, why would you even watch this?  You won't "get" who Picard is, his relationship with Data, etc. etc.  Don't  get me wrong,  I don't have a problem with what you watch, that's not my business, it just seems a bit odd to me.

I have a friend who isn't into Star Wars at all, but watches The Mandalorian - I don't get that either

Not knowing the full backstory isn't necessarily a hindrance. I haven't seen any of the older Star Trek shows but Discovery was great and I just look up stuff i didn't understand from the internet.  Yeah, I won't get some references and I'm blind to fan service, but it's still great quality TV and I enjoy it.

And about not "getting" Picard is maybe even more fun as someone who doesn't know, because we get to find out now.

Also, I've seen the sexed generation, that's plenty

I've never seen DS9 or Voyager, but might pick up TNG I've been recommended TNG by many friends, but never had the drive to watch it. I really have no clue as to why it was never interesting enough for me to even consider. Might have something to do with Enterprise being kind of bland.

I think in hindsight the compelling factors of Firefly and Farscape was the cast and the fact the story could go quite dark at times. While i never thought ST could be as interesting.

If you look closely at some of the new sci-fi shows, they are basically portraying the same age old concepts in different ways. Some more plausible than others, but they're (for the most part) entrenched in the same facts, theories, laws, and hypotheses that are rooted in the same science found in previous shows, movies, and works of literature.

Star Trek: TNG has had some of the most thought-provoking episodes I've ever witnessed. I'm talking episodes that, to this day, still make the old flash bulb pop. And while I can appreciate eye candy as much as the next person, a lack thereof is never a deal-breaker for me if the quality factor is emphasized elsewhere.

As I grew older what you describe is true. I think I was lucky being young when some of the greatest sci fi shows aired. Nowadays we are served with utter shit more often than not, the creativity is mostly gone, and no CGI can make up for that.

Other than that, I must say that "Remembrance" exceeded my expectations, and I'm very much looking forward to the rest of this series... But the strongest moment in the series premiere of Star Trek: Picard for me was simply giving him a moment to emote, to condemn, to express his distress and regret over the state of things. It allowed him to do what he does best and embrace the thematic resonance and introspection that were the hallmarks of Star Trek: TNG.

Couldn't agree more!

...but only in the US...

I can see the points both of you make but I disagree with the conclusion it seems you've come to, Moze. I think we live in THE MOST AMAZING TIME for SF on the small screen.  While I agree it is true that there seems to be a sort of unified homogenization of the future there still seems to be different interpretations and even ideals. Not the ideals of the 1960's when Trek was a reflective utopia was needed but of the 21st Century when a more realistic look can be just as idealistic.

From The Expanse to (the now defunked) Dark Matter we can see the same ideals of Trek as they battle through the malaise of indifference and cruelty, reflecting today, as they fight for a better tomorrow.

It seems to be a slow burn show.  Not for Trekkies?

And the show theme song must be hated ( by them)