Star Trek Picard and Trek Taking on Modern Politics

[Enterprising]

Probably because there is a shared identity of being part of the Federation, and things that affect the Federation as a whole affects them all more or less equally.

Again, I'm going on the basis the Dominion War shook the Federation psyche to its core. Their peaceful exploration brought a superpower to their doorstep. While the Federation as a whole did not fall, member worlds, MAJOR member worlds, were conquered. Worlds, peoples, and planets bear the scars of the conflict.

Was there a Dominion war in this instance? Remember, this show is being made in the universe that jump-starts the 2009 movie, not a post TNG/Nemesis universe. I suspect there will be a lot of similarities/name drops to try and make viewers think this is post TNG/Nemesis, but it’s all being made under the alternate Paramount creative license.

This is why I believe we’re seeing interviews such as those from Patrick Stewart, dismissing what was done in TNG, while dropping all these hints of “this isn’t the Picard/Federation/Starfleet you remember” we’re being softened up to discard any expectations we have that this is continuing the original Star Trek timeline.

[Yukaphile]

Well, I will agree - we don't know yet. My feeling is that DISCO was what you describe, tailoring the story based off everything from the 2009 reboot, or the first new Trek era since Enterprise ended (which was the last of Gene's Vision, for lack of a better word, since there is all sorts of connections back to TOS through Voyager and to 2005 with the cancelling of Enterprise), while this is their first genuine attempt to create a story that IS about the era we left. That said, the corporate red tape could easily get in the way of their attempts to do so, like how that corporate red tape arguably slowed down Lucas to such an extent that Frank Darabont couldn't touch up the script to the prequels with him.

[clearspira]

Well, I will agree - we don't know yet. My feeling is that DISCO was what you describe, tailoring the story based off everything from the 2009 reboot, or the first new Trek era since Enterprise ended (which was the last of Gene's Vision, for lack of a better word, since there is all sorts of connections back to TOS through Voyager and to 2005 with the cancelling of Enterprise), while this is their first genuine attempt to create a story that IS about the era we left. That said, the corporate red tape could easily get in the way of their attempts to do so, like how that corporate red tape arguably slowed down Lucas to such an extent that Frank Darabont couldn't touch up the script to the prequels with him.

The problem is that even though the ''has to be 25% different'' clause no longer applies since the CBS/Viacom merger, ''Picard'' originated from that era and thus is based upon a foundation made out of turd. Supposedly Ms Redstone (who took over CBS after Les Moonves was MeToo'd) is none too pleased with what Star Trek has been offering. If ''Picard'' fails (lets hope) then we may either get true Star Trek back or just a cancellation of the franchise for another decade in the same way that ''Enterprise'' accomplished. I would rather the latter than any more of the crap we have endured since 2009.

Lets get a director who understands modern sci-fi but isn't someone who seemingly hates real Star Trek.

[Yukaphile]

I mean, it's very telling that when Star Trek went off the air in 2005, that only four years later they did what lazy studios do - REBOOT. We just can't follow what Ron Moore had said, can we? To let it stay off the air for a decade or more, so that fans will be getting nostalgic, thinking fondly back to the times when the series had two TV shows side by side? No, no, no, no. We'll just repackage it, surely that will work! They are so out of touch to fans. Though normies have no problem with this.

[Mecha82]

All signs based on trailers indicate that Picard takes place in prime timeline. Not in Kelvinverse. What is basis for this speculation that it might not take place in Prime time line? Also I find it strange that there are people that want something to fail before it's even out. I mean why not want something to be good and successful instead.

[Simplicius]

All signs based on trailers indicate that Picard takes place in prime timeline. Not in Kelvinverse. What is basis for this speculation that it might not take place in Prime time line? Also I find it strange that there are people that want something to fail before it's even out. I mean why not want something to be good and successful instead.

The Romulan ships are updated TOS models, rather than the TNG/DS9 models. Alongside that are the constant proclamations that this "not a sequel" which is weird and makes no sense, since continuity is what establishes something as a sequel, rather than tone or style. If you maintain continuity with a previous entry then tada you've created a sequel, nothing matters beyond that.

For example, wouldn't you have considered it weird if Disney had marketed The Last Jedi as not being a sequel to The Force Awakens? Those films have distinct tones and are at odds on both a narrative and thematic level but that doesn't mean one isn't a sequel of the other.

I, for one, don't want Picard to fail. I have learned to let go. The new fans will, probably, love it because it's more of the same flashy, action-oriented, fake woke, garbage. They will determine its success or failure and everyone deserves to be happy.

[MerelyAFan]

Honestly if there's any skepticism on my part regarding Picard, its more than I think modern Trek works a lot better when its exploring themes that aren't specifically contemporary and are broader than just the issues that are timely at the moment.

TNG, & DS9 certainly had episodes that were referencing recent events, but they've aged well specifically because they felt like they were looking forward rather than backward in terms of commentary. The latter especially examined religious extremism, terrorism, freedom vs security, and the possible necessary evils of warfare years before they became relevant in the zeitgeist. Enterprise basically doing the War on Terror in space via the Xindi certainly led to better stories than the pablum in seasons 1/2, but it feels like such a product of its time far in terms of messages far more than many of the previous series do.

There's certainly a way to make current parallels work beyond their time, but it requires a skillful hand to do it, and whether this creative team can pull that off is the big question.

[Yukaphile]

Have they given any signs they care about continuity at all, Simplicius? I hear they insist they do, but honestly, the biggest complaints I've gotten from people who hated DISCO is that it is breaking the lore and continuity. And I do suspect the shallow popcorn-movie masses with action-hero wannabe fantasies are the new bulk of their audience. So, it's gonna make most of those people happy. Not true nerds. Not real sci-fi fans.

[Simplicius]

Have they given any signs they care about continuity at all, Simplicius?

No, they don't care about continuity at all but they love references, branding and iconography. They want to have their cake (exploiting a recognisable piece of intellectual property with a built-in fan following) and eat it too (create their own distinctive work, free from the baggage of content-specific expectations and continuity/lore concerns).

This is because these works aren't being created properly/naturally/authentically. The author of Star Trek no longer exists. For the vast majority of human history, the (literal) death of the author meant the work became common property, free for use, free for transformation, free for adaptation and so on. Now, we live in an era of corporate ownership of intellectual property which, essentially, turns ideas and creative works into sources of rent.

What should happen is this; the value of the brand ("Star Trek", and its ephemera) goes down and the value of the work (the individual stories being told) goes up. Instead, as a result of this system (unprecedented in human history), it is the value of the brand (the privilege of calling your story "official") that has gone up and the value of the work that has gone down.

Whereas, a creator should want to call his work "Star Trek" if he has an interesting story to tell with its characters or its setting, now we have "creators" hired to produce trendy, if ultimately hollow, stories using the "Star Trek" branding. The new-found aggression of CBS towards fan productions bears this all out; the story itself (Discovery, Picard, "Section 31") barely matters, only the brand matters. Only one thing is "canon", "official", "Star Trek" and only one person (albeit a corporate person, in this case) is entitled to profit from it.

But this ... is why I have to let go, and why all of Kurtzman's/CBS' detractors need to let go. Trying to get the corporate owner of Star Trek to do what we want, to "respect" Star Trek, to maintain continuity, only plays into the fundamentally wrong notion that they deserve to be its corporate owner. "Star Trek", the brand, has no value (intrinsically - obviously it has market value, which is the problem). "Spock", the trademark, has no value. The stories, the characters and the setting are the things that have value.

[clearspira]

Have they given any signs they care about continuity at all, Simplicius?

No, they don't care about continuity at all but they love references, branding and iconography. They want to have their cake (exploiting a recognisable piece of intellectual property with a built-in fan following) and eat it too (create their own distinctive work, free from the baggage of content-specific expectations and continuity/lore concerns).

This is because these works aren't being created properly/naturally/authentically. The author of Star Trek no longer exists. For the vast majority of human history, the (literal) death of the author meant the work became common property, free for use, free for transformation, free for adaptation and so on. Now, we live in an era of corporate ownership of intellectual property which, essentially, turns ideas and creative works into sources of rent.

What should happen is this; the value of the brand ("Star Trek", and its ephemera) goes down and the value of the work (the individual stories being told) goes up. Instead, as a result of this system (unprecedented in human history), it is the value of the brand (the privilege of calling your story "official") that has gone up and the value of the work that has gone down.

Whereas, a creator should want to call his work "Star Trek" if he has an interesting story to tell with its characters or its setting, now we have "creators" hired to produce trendy, if ultimately hollow, stories using the "Star Trek" branding. The new-found aggression of CBS towards fan productions bears this all out; the story itself (Discovery, Picard, "Section 31") barely matters, only the brand matters. Only one thing is "canon", "official", "Star Trek" and only one person (albeit a corporate person, in this case) is entitled to profit from it.

But this ... is why I have to let go, and why all of Kurtzman's/CBS' detractors need to let go. Trying to get the corporate owner of Star Trek to do what we want, to "respect" Star Trek, to maintain continuity, only plays into the fundamentally wrong notion that they deserve to be its corporate owner. "Star Trek", the brand, has no value (intrinsically - obviously it has market value, which is the problem). "Spock", the trademark, has no value. The stories, the characters and the setting are the things that have value.

I'm reminded of the James Bond books. There is now no link whatsoever between the modern books and the man Fleming created: a grizzled hardass who is a chain smoker, an alcoholic, an elitist, a misogynist, a racist, a homophobe, and jingoistic.

I realise that no one today would want to read this character, but that still does not change the fact that he is now just a name. Just as Trek is now just a name.