RedLetterMedia - Star Trek Picard

[Nobody700]

I watched some of their videos and I have to say, while I agree with the general tone they got for the show, I feel they kind of get too nitpicky on stuff. Ironic, coming from people who mock nitpickers. So it's wrong to nitpick films they like, but it's okay for them to nitpick stuff they don't like.

[Captain Crimson]

I found their criticism of Picard over the top so far. The series has many flaws, but it's the closest "Trek" to Trek we got in quite a while and it ain't half-bad. Feels undeserved to "Plinkett" it.

Same. I've only been browsing clips online, and I feel mixed. My impression is that it's cringe, and yet... it's also within the natural character evolution from where TNG left off, with DS9 and the other worlds thrown in, and that this is the genuine show we should say "give it time, let it get better." I had felt STD deserved no such claim. STP absolutely does. RLM is off-base in saying we should have more optimistic ST, and I don't consider STP bold enough in today's market with stuff like GOT making that trendsetting, but it's still a natural continuation, as I see it. I mean, true, I'd prefer once in a while we got an "aw shucks!" country-boy style idealist, but... like I say elsewhere for SW, you just gotta roll with it. I stand by my statement. This seems to be building off the TNG movies, and those had potential. Let's give this time.

I've been giving Trek time since 2009. I am done giving it time. It went from a cheap knock off of Star Wars to a mash-up of the Battlestar Galactica reboot and Blade Runner. When exactly is Star Trek going to return to my screen exactly?

That is very fair. I could understand completely. Like I said above, I'd like a more traditional idealist on screen every now and then. But these are the times we live in, and you gotta roll with the punches every so often. If you can't do it, well then I get where you're coming from. The world sucks at times, doesn't it? So our one distraction is being taken away. Is that how you feel? But I don't know, take SW. My bias is the older EU, but I also can see plenty to love in the new SW. Just not enough to justify the bad management by LF at this point.

I felt as if STD had no goal in mind. It was just a cash-grab. That won't fly with a long-established lore and a built-in fanbase. Like, what did it want to accomplish? For STP, I absolutely think they had a plan in mind and know where they want to go. Same way I feel about toxic groups like the fandom menace honestly. What do they hope to accomplish? I mean, you know, at least the EU crowds I hang in wanna get more Legends, they don't want to displace the canon, and think the new labeling is a golden chance. I do hope visual sci-fi will reach new peaks like they had decades ago. You can't help but hope.

[Mecha82]

I watched some of their videos and I have to say, while I agree with the general tone they got for the show, I feel they kind of get too nitpicky on stuff. Ironic, coming from people who mock nitpickers. So it's wrong to nitpick films they like, but it's okay for them to nitpick stuff they don't like.

In other words they are bunch of hypocrites. It does make me wonder why people still take them seriously.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I watched some of their videos and I have to say, while I agree with the general tone they got for the show, I feel they kind of get too nitpicky on stuff. Ironic, coming from people who mock nitpickers. So it's wrong to nitpick films they like, but it's okay for them to nitpick stuff they don't like.

I've seen them make fun of social media, loot box promotions, and trailer reactions. They make fun of fanatical things, while on Half in the Bag they react to stuff with their personal takes on things, not unlike what anyone does here.

[PerrySimm]

Were I possessed of modly powers, this thread would be merged into one the many other general Star Trek Picard threads. Unless, that is, RLM folks secretly visit this forum. Which would be VERY COOL.

[Riedquat]

Same. I've only been browsing clips online, and I feel mixed. My impression is that it's cringe, and yet... it's also within the natural character evolution from where TNG left off, with DS9 and the other worlds thrown in, and that this is the genuine show we should say "give it time, let it get better." I had felt STD deserved no such claim. STP absolutely does. RLM is off-base in saying we should have more optimistic ST, and I don't consider STP bold enough in today's market with stuff like GOT making that trendsetting, but it's still a natural continuation, as I see it. I mean, true, I'd prefer once in a while we got an "aw shucks!" country-boy style idealist, but... like I say elsewhere for SW, you just gotta roll with it. I stand by my statement. This seems to be building off the TNG movies, and those had potential. Let's give this time.

Having just watched it the way it ended I think the goal was possibly to shift it back to optimistic Trek, albeit certainly not right from the start. But rather than just jump the tone from what we've been getting it seems the right decision to move there more slowly, even though from a plot chronology point of view it wasn't linked. A meta-Trek world perhaps, changing.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Same. I've only been browsing clips online, and I feel mixed. My impression is that it's cringe, and yet... it's also within the natural character evolution from where TNG left off, with DS9 and the other worlds thrown in, and that this is the genuine show we should say "give it time, let it get better." I had felt STD deserved no such claim. STP absolutely does. RLM is off-base in saying we should have more optimistic ST, and I don't consider STP bold enough in today's market with stuff like GOT making that trendsetting, but it's still a natural continuation, as I see it. I mean, true, I'd prefer once in a while we got an "aw shucks!" country-boy style idealist, but... like I say elsewhere for SW, you just gotta roll with it. I stand by my statement. This seems to be building off the TNG movies, and those had potential. Let's give this time.

Having just watched it the way it ended I think the goal was possibly to shift it back to optimistic Trek, albeit certainly not right from the start. But rather than just jump the tone from what we've been getting it seems the right decision to move there more slowly, even though from a plot chronology point of view it wasn't linked. A meta-Trek world perhaps, changing.

Oh I got that from the get go. They wouldn't have made Picard as sappy as they did for no reason.

[Captain Crimson]

Same. I've only been browsing clips online, and I feel mixed. My impression is that it's cringe, and yet... it's also within the natural character evolution from where TNG left off, with DS9 and the other worlds thrown in, and that this is the genuine show we should say "give it time, let it get better." I had felt STD deserved no such claim. STP absolutely does. RLM is off-base in saying we should have more optimistic ST, and I don't consider STP bold enough in today's market with stuff like GOT making that trendsetting, but it's still a natural continuation, as I see it. I mean, true, I'd prefer once in a while we got an "aw shucks!" country-boy style idealist, but... like I say elsewhere for SW, you just gotta roll with it. I stand by my statement. This seems to be building off the TNG movies, and those had potential. Let's give this time.

Having just watched it the way it ended I think the goal was possibly to shift it back to optimistic Trek, albeit certainly not right from the start. But rather than just jump the tone from what we've been getting it seems the right decision to move there more slowly, even though from a plot chronology point of view it wasn't linked. A meta-Trek world perhaps, changing.

Well, of course. I would agree because GOT and NuBSG set the framework. Since then, it's just been trendsetting to make darker shows. I'd also bring up TDK in 2008 as being a huge reason. And the producer masterminds would probably also look to something like TESB and think "darker means better." Maybe even think it will get them critical acclaim easy that way and look back to DS9 with that view. I'd say that's fundamentally misinterpreting the lore, since hey, DS9 only really got that way near the end of its run, during war. Prior to that, I could see plenty of more traditionalist ST elements, just challenged more frequently than something like VOY of the same era. Though it is not surprising. Long-term fan hobbyists soak in the material far frequently than a production team with deadlines and mandates from above.

[Beastro]

I watched some of their videos and I have to say, while I agree with the general tone they got for the show, I feel they kind of get too nitpicky on stuff. Ironic, coming from people who mock nitpickers. So it's wrong to nitpick films they like, but it's okay for them to nitpick stuff they don't like.

That's part of the humour.

They're the RLM guys, but at the same time Mike and Rich are Trekkies at heart. The humour comes from them very nakedly being nerdy about a childhood passion of theirs. It's the whole joke routine with Mike dragging Rich back and him continuing to trail off about Trek things at the end of every video.

Compare this to the Star Wars videos of theirs where they never got Star Wars and don't give a damn so love to skewer them.

Well, of course. I would agree because GOT and NuBSG set the framework.

Back watching it during its original run I dislikes New BSG precisely for the grimdark angle knowing it was going to set a trend.

The thing is, Trek could use a good darkening, but it had to keep the spirit going. DS9 wasn't the harbinger of ruining that spirit of Trek like Rich has mentioned in the past, it kept the spirit while making things more serious and down to earth in ways (compared to the lofty, idealism which is a commonality of TOS and TNG though TOS was proud of Mankind's imperfection in a way TNG loath, which make me wonder if that was someone like Gene Coon's contribution to the show that Roddenberry disliked). To compare it to something else, The Lord of the Rings is dark and grim, but that is used to accept the hope and cherishing of goodness the work seeks to uphold. DS9 did that in ways showing the Fed as flawed, but still fundamentally decent.

This show doesn't have that, and I'd say like most stuff from the past 20 years, it's antithetical to it. Since at least the Matrix Reloaded, the common trend in shows and movies is that anything upfront stated at good and decent like an organization or cause must have something dark and sinister lurking beneath it that is a front to cover up the true liberation that could be done.

[Captain Crimson]

I watched some of their videos and I have to say, while I agree with the general tone they got for the show, I feel they kind of get too nitpicky on stuff. Ironic, coming from people who mock nitpickers. So it's wrong to nitpick films they like, but it's okay for them to nitpick stuff they don't like.

That's part of the humour.

They're the RLM guys, but at the same time Mike and Rich are Trekkies at heart. The humour comes from them very nakedly being nerdy about a childhood passion of theirs. It's the whole joke routine with Mike dragging Rich back and him continuing to trail off about Trek things at the end of every video.

Compare this to the Star Wars videos of theirs where they never got Star Wars and don't give a damn so love to skewer them.

Well, of course. I would agree because GOT and NuBSG set the framework.

Back watching it during its original run I dislikes New BSG precisely for the grimdark angle knowing it was going to set a trend.

The thing is, Trek could use a good darkening, but it had to keep the spirit going. DS9 wasn't the harbinger of ruining that spirit of Trek like Rich has mentioned in the past, it kept the spirit while making things more serious and down to earth in ways (compared to the lofty, idealism which is a commonality of TOS and TNG though TOS was proud of Mankind's imperfection in a way TNG loath, which make me wonder if that was someone like Gene Coon's contribution to the show that Roddenberry disliked). To compare it to something else, The Lord of the Rings is dark and grim, but that is used to accept the hope and cherishing of goodness the work seeks to uphold. DS9 did that in ways showing the Fed as flawed, but still fundamentally decent.

This show doesn't have that, and I'd say like most stuff from the past 20 years, it's antithetical to it. Since at least the Matrix Reloaded, the common trend in shows and movies is that anything upfront stated at good and decent like an organization or cause must have something dark and sinister lurking beneath it that is a front to cover up the true liberation that could be done.

I would say that I dislike DS9 starting somewhere around... I'd say late S6. It had been great up to that time, and they still had the occasional great story, but... I think it was getting too dark. I mean, the finale was always going to be about action and character, but it is too depressing. Not to turn this into B5 versus DS9, because I'm loyal to both, but I think B5 did it right. No explosions, no fireworks with the finale. It was all character. Is it sad? Sure. But it leaves room to hope. I don't get that sense with DS9, especially with all we learn about the Prophets. They impregnated Sarah Sisko against her will, they are prepared to sacrifice Jake, and Sisko is somehow okay to be staying with them? At that point, storytelling goes out the window. It is where having a plan from the start would have helped.