Picard - Remembrance

[Link8909]

I respectfully disagree but most of the arguments and counter-arguments about this topic have already been made here in this discussion or in other places such as on Reddit and it inevitably comes to two points. Creator's intentions and my personal reaction to the TV series. For the creator's intentions I advise everyone to read the interview that Variety did with the Showrunner of season 1 - Michael Chabon here: https://variety.com/2020/tv/features/michael-chabon-star-trek-picard-1203544717/

I especially want to point to the question in the interview:

So were there things about “Picard” that you knew you wanted to do that you could sense would test some boundaries for fans?

and his answer

Sure. To the extent that I was aware of the kind of toxic fandom, the anti-SJW, you know, sad little corner of fandom — you just disregard that. Sometimes you’re motivated to have things simply because it’s possibly going to piss off or provoke people who seem to have missed the memo about just what exactly “Star Trek” is and always has been all about.

This is exact and full quote of his answer on the topic (in the next paragraph he goes to answer fan reaction to deaths of fan favorite characters like Icheb.) And I don't think even the authors of the most divisive parts of Star Trek like DS9 or Enterprise would outright respond the way he did. That sometimes they want to intentionally aggravate and provoke those fans who liked Gene's vision of optimistic Star Trek whom he lumps together with buzzwords of "toxic fans" and "anti-SJWs". Nor do I think any of the other showrunners would claim that they themselves are the only ones deciding what Star Trek "is and always has been all about" The "has been always about" part being especially infuriating because it sounds to me personally like attempts of "rewriting the history to suit current political views" which is never warranted.

So in my view - the creator's intentions of ST:Pic are less than stellar and even with my best attempt to give it a chance I couldn't force myself to finish watching Season 1 and stopped shortly after the Riker&Troi episode because I wasn't enjoying myself and I already had a better version of the story of Trek's future in Star Trek Online. As for the game itself I've already given my opinion and experience with
ST:O here: https://sfdebris.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4215&start=32

What I will add to my original statement is that with the sad passing of Aron Eisenberg and René Auberjonois ST:O is the last time we will ever get them reprising their roles and I'm just glad that it has been a majestic and worthy outing in ST:O Gamma Quadrant with Captain Nog of U.S.S. Chimera and Odo leading his own Dominion fleet and bringing justice to the Jem 'Hadaar (who are a playable race) which resulted in a "grand faux-season of DS9" to quote Charles Phipps review (warning includes spoilers) as found here: https://sfdebris.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4215&start=65

The thing is Michael Chabon isn’t wrong here, there are people out there that are just as terrible and toxic as he says, that say nothing but terrible and hate filled things not just about the show, but use this to justify harassing the cast and crew of these new series, while for lack of a better term, bully other people into thinking the same way as they do though gate keeping tactics and demeaning other peoples intelligence, all under the guise of protecting the integrity of the franchise.

And it isn’t even a new occurrence, as he says in the interview that there were people who tore Deep Space Nine and Voyager apart the same way as Discovery and Picard, the difference now is thanks to YouTube and other social outlets, no one can escape the sheer volume of negativity, and it isn’t exclusive to just Star Trek, other mainstream franchises suffer from this, and that these type of people don’t actually care about wanting these new shows to get better, they just want everyone else to be as hate filled, miserable and cynically as they are.

But that’s not to say that everyone who has issues with any new piece of media is like these people, just because you didn’t like Star Trek Picard doesn’t mean your like those people, you are entitled to your own viewpoints and opinions, and everyone is different, I myself have mixed feelings about Icheb’s death, and when Chuck get to it I’ll probably go into that more, however I personally thing Star Trek Picard is fantastic, but I don’t have a single problem with other people not liking it the way I do, my problem is when those type of people constantly keep belittling me or other people that liking a piece of media that they don’t like makes us an idiot, or not a true fan, and the "correct" way to react is to be as hate filled, miserable and cynically as they are.

And Michael Chabon wasn’t lumping all the people who have issues with Star Trek Picard with those people who are terrible and toxic, he was simply saying that those people exist, and he’s not going to let them dictate the story he or the rest of the creative team wants to tell.

Also, Gamma Quadrant story arc in Star Trek Online that you talked about is fantastic and I strongly recommend people checking it out when they have the time.

[MixedDrops]

fans who liked Gene's vision of optimistic Star Trek whom he lumps together with buzzwords of "toxic fans" and "anti-SJWs"

That's not what he was doing there at all, and I don't understand why any time a creator says something similar there's a large squad of people looking to be offended (ironically) who take the words in that way (that "there's people like this in the fandom" means "the fans are like this"). He specifically said there's a section of the fandom like that (which I don't think is in dispute since it's always been that way) and that he and other writers need to remind themselves to not fall victim to the desire to respond specifically to them.

Even if he had said that they did specifically put things to annoy people like that it would arguably not be that big an issue, unless you count yourself among their rank. I don't see it as any different from Roddenberry saying (I'm paraphrasing here) "I put minorities on my show because there weren't that many on TV" or "I had an interracial kiss on the show because it was offensive to racists". I also think of the numerous times TNG writers or other staff wanted to put gay couples on the show which would get shot down by executives and I feel like that's one thing from the TNG era we could definitely use less of.

Nor do I think any of the other showrunners would claim that they themselves are the only ones deciding what Star Trek "is and always has been all about" The "has been always about" part being especially infuriating because it sounds to me personally like attempts of "rewriting the history to suit current political views" which is never warranted.

Saying "Tolerance and acceptance has always been part of Trek" is not a controversial statement and not a new aspect to Trek. Before the part you quoted he specifically talked about how in the past people made the same sort of comments about a female/black Captain or Tuvok from Voyager/DS9. Just because bad actors on the Internet have decided that that's now an offensive stance doesn't mean you should buy into it.

All that said, I don't have a problem with you or anyone else disliking the show of course. I have a lot of issues with it myself. I do think attacks on the writers and creators or assumptions of their motivations from a lot of people who don't like the show are as bad as ever though.

[Thebestoftherest]

My worst field is that Alex will stay at Star Trek and force Star Trek Picard to be about Micheal again.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

While I do feel dredged in a "the main problem with..." ramble, these are seemingly interesting points from a different perspective.

[CaptainCalvinCat]

fans who liked Gene's vision of optimistic Star Trek whom he lumps together with buzzwords of "toxic fans" and "anti-SJWs"

That's not what he was doing there at all, and I don't understand why any time a creator says something similar there's a large squad of people looking to be offended (ironically) who take the words in that way (that "there's people like this in the fandom" means "the fans are like this"). He specifically said there's a section of the fandom like that (which I don't think is in dispute since it's always been that way) and that he and other writers need to remind themselves to not fall victim to the desire to respond specifically to them.

Even if he had said that they did specifically put things to annoy people like that it would arguably not be that big an issue, unless you count yourself among their rank. I don't see it as any different from Roddenberry saying (I'm paraphrasing here) "I put minorities on my show because there weren't that many on TV" or "I had an interracial kiss on the show because it was offensive to racists". I also think of the numerous times TNG writers or other staff wanted to put gay couples on the show which would get shot down by executives and I feel like that's one thing from the TNG era we could definitely use less of.

Nor do I think any of the other showrunners would claim that they themselves are the only ones deciding what Star Trek "is and always has been all about" The "has been always about" part being especially infuriating because it sounds to me personally like attempts of "rewriting the history to suit current political views" which is never warranted.

Saying "Tolerance and acceptance has always been part of Trek" is not a controversial statement and not a new aspect to Trek. Before the part you quoted he specifically talked about how in the past people made the same sort of comments about a female/black Captain or Tuvok from Voyager/DS9. Just because bad actors on the Internet have decided that that's now an offensive stance doesn't mean you should buy into it.

All that said, I don't have a problem with you or anyone else disliking the show of course. I have a lot of issues with it myself. I do think attacks on the writers and creators or assumptions of their motivations from a lot of people who don't like the show are as bad as ever though.

How does the internet-crowd say it these days? "^This - a million times THIS"

[BunBun299]

I had hope for this series when I first saw this episode. Hope that just maybe, this wouldn't just be more of STD.

Those Hope's were dashed by the following episode.

Even this episode I had a lot of problems with. Why didn't Dahj immediately call 911 (or what ever the 24th century equivalent is) after she was attacked? Medics could have been there in seconds. Maybe they could have resuscitated the boyfriend. Cops could have protected her from further assaults. Calling for help should have been priority one.

Also, the idea of cloning Data is just laughable. He was a fully artificial being, he doesn't have cells to clone.

[tyrteg]

fans who liked Gene's vision of optimistic Star Trek whom he lumps together with buzzwords of "toxic fans" and "anti-SJWs"

That's not what he was doing there at all, and I don't understand why any time a creator says something similar there's a large squad of people looking to be offended (ironically) who take the words in that way (that "there's people like this in the fandom" means "the fans are like this"). He specifically said there's a section of the fandom like that (which I don't think is in dispute since it's always been that way) and that he and other writers need to remind themselves to not fall victim to the desire to respond specifically to them.

Even if he had said that they did specifically put things to annoy people like that it would arguably not be that big an issue, unless you count yourself among their rank. I don't see it as any different from Roddenberry saying (I'm paraphrasing here) "I put minorities on my show because there weren't that many on TV" or "I had an interracial kiss on the show because it was offensive to racists". I also think of the numerous times TNG writers or other staff wanted to put gay couples on the show which would get shot down by executives and I feel like that's one thing from the TNG era we could definitely use less of.

Nor do I think any of the other showrunners would claim that they themselves are the only ones deciding what Star Trek "is and always has been all about" The "has been always about" part being especially infuriating because it sounds to me personally like attempts of "rewriting the history to suit current political views" which is never warranted.

Saying "Tolerance and acceptance has always been part of Trek" is not a controversial statement and not a new aspect to Trek. Before the part you quoted he specifically talked about how in the past people made the same sort of comments about a female/black Captain or Tuvok from Voyager/DS9. Just because bad actors on the Internet have decided that that's now an offensive stance doesn't mean you should buy into it.

All that said, I don't have a problem with you or anyone else disliking the show of course. I have a lot of issues with it myself. I do think attacks on the writers and creators or assumptions of their motivations from a lot of people who don't like the show are as bad as ever though.

Oh saying that "Tolerance and acceptance has always been part of Trek" is certainly not a controversial statement. And if he said that - I wouldn't have complained. But that is not what he said in that interview. Hell he could've added it at the end. One more phrase and I'd be mostly okay with it. Instead what I read is - "I'm purposely antagonizing and railing up people watching this show and if you dislike the changes I bring to the franchise you're a toxic fan who doesn't understand what Trek is about. I do understand what Trek is about and I'm not going to mention what it is - because it's automatically assumed you know too." Except that's where we get to the point where - what I assume Trek is about - is probably not what Michael Chabon assumes it's about.

Though I agree he did raise good points about internet backlash and how nowadays people are more vocal and can reach further to larger audiences with their outrage or disappointment than in the past. It was one of the reasons why I even read that article originally. Because he was raising valid points. But then he started talking about intentionally antagonizing and that's where I started having issues. And the title of the article itself also emphasizes that point. The fact that Michael Chabon doesn't mind being divisive.

Also as for the fans of original optimistic Star Trek (that are disappointed by Picard's grim dark) being thrown together with "toxic fans" you are correct. He didn't state that outright. But he also hasn't mentioned any kind of fans who are disappointed with his show without being toxic. He didn't even address their existence or their concerns. Viewers who dislike what's on the screen completely devoid of any politics or agenda behind it - which I feel is my case. I don't care if you're putting an equal number of people of different genders in the show. I see them all as equally valid characters so their genders doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is what's happening in the show. Which is people being hostile to each other almost all the time. As well as killing/torturing characters from the previous shows and creating new relatives only so they can die in a pointless tragedy (Riker&Troi's first child was almost like something from a hurt/comfort fanfic) and finally having a serious discussion whether genocide on organic life committed by androids is really such a bad thing. (Luckily they decide it is and abort it.)

What also matters to me is whether the author of the media is aware of the rest of the fans who are disappointed and politely disagree with what's happening in the show. And that he pays them and their arguments at least as much attention as he's paying to the "toxic fans" who are outraged over every change and take offence at anything that doesn't fit their head-canon. In a way he seems to me the same kind of extremist as the people in the "anti-SJW" camp only pushing in the opposite direction. And sadly unlike them he actually has the keys to the franchise and it's the moderate - politely disappointed people that will suffer the consequences. If he's aware of that tendency and

he and other writers need to remind themselves to not fall victim to the desire to respond specifically to them

as you said then I'm a bit more hopeful about Picard's future even though that was not the feeling I got from reading that article. Could you quote me the part where he mentions it? I've re-read the article and couldn't find it.

[MixedDrops]

what I read is - "I'm purposely antagonizing and railing up people watching this show

I feel like you're just misreading what he's saying, although admittedly he might've worded it in a slightly confusing way (at least when its written down in text). He says literally the opposite of doing this, right in the quote that you used. Let's break down what he said:

Sure. To the extent that I was aware of the kind of toxic fandom, the anti-SJW, you know, sad little corner of fandom — you just disregard that.

What I'm reading is: There's a section of toxic fandom/anti-SJW types that are only a small section (a "little corner", in his words) of the fans, and as a writer, he disregards that in his work, because they are, after all, a small subsection.

Sometimes you’re motivated to have things simply because it’s possibly going to piss off or provoke people who seem to have missed the memo about just what exactly “Star Trek” is and always has been all about.

This is a continuation of the above, where he says there's a temptation to respond to such types. He straight up said that you "disregard it". But again, even if they had fallen victim to said temptation...what's the problem? Why should Star Trek be afraid to offend such people? Again, the fear to offend such people was one of the reason Berman-era Trek constantly shot down the idea of having gay couples being depicted even when it made perfect sense (most notably in The Outcast).

if you dislike the changes I bring to the franchise you're a toxic fan who doesn't understand what Trek is about

This is just you putting words in his mouth. I don't get how you could've possibly gotten this out of what he said. He never said anything even remotely close to "people who dislike the show are toxic".

He then goes on to talk about the logic of why they killed characters like Icheb and Hugh- they knew perfectly well that would ruffle some feathers in the long-time fans, but they pushed forward regardless because they felt it furthered the story they had in mind. I don't understand why you ignore that this is the core of the answer to the question about pushing boundaries. This is what is being highlighted when it says Chabon doesn't mind it being divisive.

Obviously if you didn't care for the deaths of Icheb or Hugh, that's fine (I myself was mostly fine with the former but not with the latter), but this article is about Chabon's (and the other writers') thought processes. The point being made here is that they pushed boundaries when they thought it was suitable for the story, even if they thought it might've angered some fans. I don't consider this a bad thing even if the final product leaves a lot to be desired.

Nowhere in there does he lump people who just dislike the show with "toxic fans" or whatever, this is always a problem so many people seem to have. And yeah it sucks he doesn't address your specific concerns or complaints about the show, but how often do writers do that? Actually if I recall, Chabon did respond to the few of them (most notably I recall him responding to the accusation that the Federation is somehow in decline or morally bankrupt in the Picard setting...i'm having a hard time finding that interview atm though).

[CaptainCalvinCat]

Why didn't Dahj immediately call 911 (or what ever the 24th century equivalent is) after she was attacked?

Well, it's obvious. The authors wanted her to go to Picard, not to call the cops - one could explain it with the plotline, that her Programme forced her to go to Picard, not to call the cops. Same with the Medics - Programme kicking in, so her first priority is calling Picard for help, not other people. Think of it as a plot-threat taken from a movie out of film noir.

what I read is - "I'm purposely antagonizing and railing up people watching this show

I feel like you're just misreading what he's saying, although admittedly he might've worded it in a slightly confusing way (at least when its written down in text). He says literally the opposite of doing this, right in the quote that you used. Let's break down what he said:

Sure. To the extent that I was aware of the kind of toxic fandom, the anti-SJW, you know, sad little corner of fandom — you just disregard that.

What I'm reading is: There's a section of toxic fandom/anti-SJW types that are only a small section (a "little corner", in his words) of the fans, and as a writer, he disregards that in his work, because they are, after all, a small subsection.

That's all you can do, honestly. Ignore the idiots, who are bitching and moaning and "das eigene Ding durchziehen" (as it is called in German) - more or less "Just do it" or "Do the thing". Personally, I'd like it better, if more authors would have that chuzpe, have that balls to say "Know what? I know that is not for everyone, but I don't care, I write it anyway."

Sometimes you’re motivated to have things simply because it’s possibly going to piss off or provoke people who seem to have missed the memo about just what exactly “Star Trek” is and always has been all about.

This is a continuation of the above, where he says there's a temptation to respond to such types. He straight up said that you "disregard it". But again, even if they had fallen victim to said temptation...what's the problem? Why should Star Trek be afraid to offend such people? Again, the fear to offend such people was one of the reason Berman-era Trek constantly shot down the idea of having gay couples being depicted even when it made perfect sense (most notably in The Outcast).

Unfortunately, Trek is a brand. And if enough Idiots keep bitching and moaning, about "how new Trek is hurting his feelings" because "mimimi, this is just SJW-Stuff" and idiots with a huge range might tell other idiots "don't bother watching it" and those nincompoops say "Hey, great, thank you, Nerdrotic said "it's not worth watching" so I don't need to watch it" , this might lead to Picard, Discovery, Strange, New Worlds etc. to be cancelled.
And they were afraid of Trek being cancelled or having less advertisment in the Berman-era, too. Because some conservative Jack Ass might say "Oh, I am not pouring our hard earned money in an advertisement that is connected to gay couples." I'm glad, we're done with that bullshit.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Why didn't Dahj immediately call 911 (or what ever the 24th century equivalent is) after she was attacked?

Well, it's obvious. The authors wanted her to go to Picard, not to call the cops - one could explain it with the plotline, that her Programme forced her to go to Picard, not to call the cops. Same with the Medics - Programme kicking in, so her first priority is calling Picard for help, not other people. Think of it as a plot-threat taken from a movie out of film noir.

Or because she didn't. She just killed 5 people. At best, calling the cops is something that might have happened depending on how she felt after what did just happen.