FA+
Shop
Star Trek: Picard vs Old Trek (Spoilers)
5 years ago
There are friends and acquaintances here that do journals on occasion. I really like reading posts that delve into pop culture, general interests, or food for thought. Contributions that stimulate discussion, promote thinking, or convey passion. I thought I would contribute for a change.
I just finished watching the first season of Star Trek: Picard. It was a rather interesting experience for me. When I've stated my blunt grievances to others on the show, they asked why I still watched it. I told them that it was like watching my house burn down. I had to watch it burn from beginning to end. That's an over-the-top analogy, but it stresses how a particular property of science fiction has transitioned from one state to a completely different (albeit unpleasant) one.
My pops, brothers, and I would watch Star Trek: The Next Generation together when I was younger. We were big into science fiction and fantasy in our early days thanks to such exposure. This was the late 80's to early 90's where there was no internet. Once an episode aired, unless you were lucky with a re-run, that was it. I remember us recording what episodes we could on VHS, commercials and all. How those tapes became precious and their degradation (or consumption) led to heartbreak. (Yes, your VCR could vore your tapes. That magnetic tape getting all caught up with its innards and being ripped from the cartridge if it was in a bad mood.)
I remember how we would wait an entire week for each new episode with anticipation. There was no Netflix binge-watching in those days. Once an episode aired my dad would call his friends and talk about the episode in depth. One of my fondest memories of Star Trek was visiting some friends out of state. When we stayed there we watched the two parter, The Descent, which re-introduced a titular villain and the Borg. How often does a show bring people together in a living room these days? What sparks enthusiasm and debate week after week? In this day of wonderful, yet over saturated television, I hope it does so more often than not for you. Star Trek ruled the 90's with TNG, DS9, and Voyager for many sci-fi fans.
Anyway, Star Trek made me feel good. Old Trek does so to this day. The magic of Star Trek is two things to me: A hopeful future and the discovery of problems with creative solutions.
Now, onto Picard
As most of you know Star Trek takes place centuries from now. There's no poverty or hunger. Earth is part of an interstellar alliance of myriad cultures and creatures that share ideals of unity, equality, prosperity, and discovery. The story exists out there in the unknown. While there are stories that revolve around the inner workings of the Federation, many of the stories juxtapose this Utopian establishment and ideology against issues that still plague other parts of the galaxy.
The Federation, and its space-faring organization Star Fleet, uses its developed tools of diplomacy and sciences as a lens to confront the issues that exist on other worlds and cultures. To the characters of Star Trek it's talk first and shoot second. The primary goal is to acquire understanding to absolve any potentials for conflict.
This is cool in two ways: For one, it shows a positive approach in dealing with general uncertainty. Two, if shooting does occur it has much greater impact. The fact that violence is so sparse means that when an episode comes around where shooting happens it really means something.
Finally, not everything can be solved positively or end hunky-dory. When this does occur at the end of an Old Trek episode, it has more meaning ... but it needs to be applied properly.
Picard sets the tone out the gate. The very establishment of the Federation has become a political statement of the current times. It has become racially prejudiced and conveys a sense of aggression through its typically Lawful Good characters of the Federation. Shaking up the foundation of the federation with racism is an interesting idea, but it is not earned in the plot. The event of creating synthetic lifeforms that rebel does not justify a complete shift in attitude. What do I mean by that? The racially prejudiced perspective and treatment of synthetics prior to the rebellion was so out of character for Federation citizens.
Also, the attitude of the Federation versus the Romulans does not conform to previous attitudes of the show. If anything, look at the Klingons and the Federation as a historical example. They cherish their hard won alliance, however somewhat tenuous it may be. They had a war-faring relationship for many years, but the Federation stands for peace and unity regardless of the creeds it faces in a tumultuous galaxy. So, the attitude toward the Romulans within the story is jarring and illogical.
A hopeful future does not just apply to the Federation and other elements of the setting, but to characters as well.
The hopeful future perspective of many characters is twisted inappropriately in the show. Seven of Nine was a character that grew to cherish her humanity, yet retain her scientific pursuit of perfection attained from the Borg. She was like the best of both worlds. It would make more sense for her to be a scientist within the context of the show, but instead she becomes an interstellar pew-pew cowboy. Her perceived future is bathed in the hopelessness that humanity can't get better and must be zapped with a laser gun. It is not longer worth being human in a positive way that started with her personal quest in Star Trek: Voyager.
What about Icheb? What about Hugh? Is there any thoughtful positive outcome or meaning to their deaths? Is there any chance to explore what positive hopeful lens they may have in the future as characters? Is there any chance for them to have their faith renewed in a hopeful future if they've acquired a negative view? No. Unfortunately, the future of Picard is a grim-dark future for cameos of beloved characters.
As the show progresses, Picard uses diplomacy to a degree in order to solve the greater issues at hand. He clearly prefers it over violence. While these ingredients might be fresh and tasty, they are lost in the base that is the stew of this show. The foundation and events surrounding Picard are soured with illogical circumstances and irrational setting choices. When a Star Fleet admiral drops an F-bomb, it (hilariously) hit me at the core. It was not only out of character, but using the F-word is an anachronistic word that was purged from the human lingo centuries ago.
In another example, there is a new character called Raffi who has a deep repoirt with Picard. She expresses her resentment for the material wealth he has with his estate. It was expressly demonstrated in previous shows that humans in the Federation have advanced beyond a desire for things as well as the whole poverty thing. This example along with the Admiral's usage of swear words are all symptoms of a larger problem with the backdrop narrative of Picard.
On a final topic, I know that the season-long story may just be the new norm for Star Trek. However, I ran across an observation online that reminded me why I liked the self-contained episodic stories so much. If I didn't like the story of one episode, I could look forward to a completely new one down the road. With a season long story if I do not like the story it is not fun to continue watching the show. The mystery of "what will our characters get into next time" is so much more fun and hard to predict than "oh geez, I think 'x' might happen because of 'x' cliff hanger."
To sum it all up, I hope that one day Star Trek will return to its roots of a hopeful perspective of the future. There are simply some tenets and rules established in the setting that make for this manner of storytelling. I think it is fine to bend these rules and tenets (Deep Space Nine did it with Section 13 and the Dominion War), but it needs to be done sparingly and be justified. In Picard it feels like the rules and tenets are broken.
It has often been said that Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future was so restrictive in its "perfection" that it made it hard to convey drama in TNG. However, I imagine this extreme rigidness produced some great television when it challenged writers and started to lax slightly in Season 3 onward. If Roddenberry wasn't so restricting, would it have made for such unique and positive television as TNG evolved?
Wow, this post was too long. Thank you for reading! What are you opinions? Are you a Trek fan or curious about Trek? What did you like or dislike about Picard or other areas of Star Trek?
I just finished watching the first season of Star Trek: Picard. It was a rather interesting experience for me. When I've stated my blunt grievances to others on the show, they asked why I still watched it. I told them that it was like watching my house burn down. I had to watch it burn from beginning to end. That's an over-the-top analogy, but it stresses how a particular property of science fiction has transitioned from one state to a completely different (albeit unpleasant) one.
My pops, brothers, and I would watch Star Trek: The Next Generation together when I was younger. We were big into science fiction and fantasy in our early days thanks to such exposure. This was the late 80's to early 90's where there was no internet. Once an episode aired, unless you were lucky with a re-run, that was it. I remember us recording what episodes we could on VHS, commercials and all. How those tapes became precious and their degradation (or consumption) led to heartbreak. (Yes, your VCR could vore your tapes. That magnetic tape getting all caught up with its innards and being ripped from the cartridge if it was in a bad mood.)
I remember how we would wait an entire week for each new episode with anticipation. There was no Netflix binge-watching in those days. Once an episode aired my dad would call his friends and talk about the episode in depth. One of my fondest memories of Star Trek was visiting some friends out of state. When we stayed there we watched the two parter, The Descent, which re-introduced a titular villain and the Borg. How often does a show bring people together in a living room these days? What sparks enthusiasm and debate week after week? In this day of wonderful, yet over saturated television, I hope it does so more often than not for you. Star Trek ruled the 90's with TNG, DS9, and Voyager for many sci-fi fans.
Anyway, Star Trek made me feel good. Old Trek does so to this day. The magic of Star Trek is two things to me: A hopeful future and the discovery of problems with creative solutions.
Now, onto Picard
As most of you know Star Trek takes place centuries from now. There's no poverty or hunger. Earth is part of an interstellar alliance of myriad cultures and creatures that share ideals of unity, equality, prosperity, and discovery. The story exists out there in the unknown. While there are stories that revolve around the inner workings of the Federation, many of the stories juxtapose this Utopian establishment and ideology against issues that still plague other parts of the galaxy.
The Federation, and its space-faring organization Star Fleet, uses its developed tools of diplomacy and sciences as a lens to confront the issues that exist on other worlds and cultures. To the characters of Star Trek it's talk first and shoot second. The primary goal is to acquire understanding to absolve any potentials for conflict.
This is cool in two ways: For one, it shows a positive approach in dealing with general uncertainty. Two, if shooting does occur it has much greater impact. The fact that violence is so sparse means that when an episode comes around where shooting happens it really means something.
Finally, not everything can be solved positively or end hunky-dory. When this does occur at the end of an Old Trek episode, it has more meaning ... but it needs to be applied properly.
Picard sets the tone out the gate. The very establishment of the Federation has become a political statement of the current times. It has become racially prejudiced and conveys a sense of aggression through its typically Lawful Good characters of the Federation. Shaking up the foundation of the federation with racism is an interesting idea, but it is not earned in the plot. The event of creating synthetic lifeforms that rebel does not justify a complete shift in attitude. What do I mean by that? The racially prejudiced perspective and treatment of synthetics prior to the rebellion was so out of character for Federation citizens.
Also, the attitude of the Federation versus the Romulans does not conform to previous attitudes of the show. If anything, look at the Klingons and the Federation as a historical example. They cherish their hard won alliance, however somewhat tenuous it may be. They had a war-faring relationship for many years, but the Federation stands for peace and unity regardless of the creeds it faces in a tumultuous galaxy. So, the attitude toward the Romulans within the story is jarring and illogical.
A hopeful future does not just apply to the Federation and other elements of the setting, but to characters as well.
The hopeful future perspective of many characters is twisted inappropriately in the show. Seven of Nine was a character that grew to cherish her humanity, yet retain her scientific pursuit of perfection attained from the Borg. She was like the best of both worlds. It would make more sense for her to be a scientist within the context of the show, but instead she becomes an interstellar pew-pew cowboy. Her perceived future is bathed in the hopelessness that humanity can't get better and must be zapped with a laser gun. It is not longer worth being human in a positive way that started with her personal quest in Star Trek: Voyager.
What about Icheb? What about Hugh? Is there any thoughtful positive outcome or meaning to their deaths? Is there any chance to explore what positive hopeful lens they may have in the future as characters? Is there any chance for them to have their faith renewed in a hopeful future if they've acquired a negative view? No. Unfortunately, the future of Picard is a grim-dark future for cameos of beloved characters.
As the show progresses, Picard uses diplomacy to a degree in order to solve the greater issues at hand. He clearly prefers it over violence. While these ingredients might be fresh and tasty, they are lost in the base that is the stew of this show. The foundation and events surrounding Picard are soured with illogical circumstances and irrational setting choices. When a Star Fleet admiral drops an F-bomb, it (hilariously) hit me at the core. It was not only out of character, but using the F-word is an anachronistic word that was purged from the human lingo centuries ago.
In another example, there is a new character called Raffi who has a deep repoirt with Picard. She expresses her resentment for the material wealth he has with his estate. It was expressly demonstrated in previous shows that humans in the Federation have advanced beyond a desire for things as well as the whole poverty thing. This example along with the Admiral's usage of swear words are all symptoms of a larger problem with the backdrop narrative of Picard.
On a final topic, I know that the season-long story may just be the new norm for Star Trek. However, I ran across an observation online that reminded me why I liked the self-contained episodic stories so much. If I didn't like the story of one episode, I could look forward to a completely new one down the road. With a season long story if I do not like the story it is not fun to continue watching the show. The mystery of "what will our characters get into next time" is so much more fun and hard to predict than "oh geez, I think 'x' might happen because of 'x' cliff hanger."
To sum it all up, I hope that one day Star Trek will return to its roots of a hopeful perspective of the future. There are simply some tenets and rules established in the setting that make for this manner of storytelling. I think it is fine to bend these rules and tenets (Deep Space Nine did it with Section 13 and the Dominion War), but it needs to be done sparingly and be justified. In Picard it feels like the rules and tenets are broken.
It has often been said that Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future was so restrictive in its "perfection" that it made it hard to convey drama in TNG. However, I imagine this extreme rigidness produced some great television when it challenged writers and started to lax slightly in Season 3 onward. If Roddenberry wasn't so restricting, would it have made for such unique and positive television as TNG evolved?
Wow, this post was too long. Thank you for reading! What are you opinions? Are you a Trek fan or curious about Trek? What did you like or dislike about Picard or other areas of Star Trek?
Trek, in this case, is like a mixed drink. The original recipe was already great to begin with, but when the person who made it teaches someone else to do it (In this case, CBS taking liberties with Roddenberry's work), the instructions get changed around to suit that person's tastes, and it just isn't quite the same drink as a result. Sometimes, the best way to experience something is to experience it how it was meant to the first time around, not from someone's off-hand changes just to make it 'cooler'.
There is some good to come of this, however. Battlestar Galactica? Ronald Dowl Moore did work on Star Trek and went on to do Battlestar. He helped make some very compelling television.
I hope that one day writers of Star Trek may realize the error of their ways and return to the roots. I am going to start watching The Orville, which I hear encapsulates elements that were lost with the present iteration of Trek.
Also, thanks for the watch too! ♥
Paramount execs banned Maizlish from the studio lots during the second season, but he still snuck in and broke into offices to doctor scripts. The man he hired, Maurice Hurley, clashed with the actors, getting Gates McFadden fired, which is why there was no Doctor Crusher in Season 2. When he was fired after Season 2, she was rehired, and Rick Berman, who Roddenberry dislike, had control of the show. Berman was better at studio politics than Miazlish was, and Gene Roddenberry's failing health meant he had little creative control left. It was the time for Ronald D. Moore, Michael Pillar, Steven Ira Behr, and Berman and Braga from that point on, and Star Trek really did change after that.
But on the other hand, Miazlish did hire John de Lancie as Q, with Maurice Hurley writing "Q Who" which established the Borg, so their decisions weren't ALL bad.
Oh, studio politics. I might like the behind-the-scenes a little TOO much.
What you talked about reminds me of that documentary, Chaos on the Bridge. I felt it was a great watch coupled with the behind-the-scenes stuff you can find on the TNG blu-rays and DvDs. It helps paint a picture of the goings-on when developing TNG.
After Gene, they still adhered to Roddenberry's formula in TNG since characters and situations were already set, but sometimes writers would deviate. I remember episode 6x18, Starship Mine, which was basically "Die Hard on a Starship" (this was how the writer first pitched it, Die Hard was popular back then) which featured Picard murdering a whole bunch of people without really much remorse or hesitation. I know it's a popular episode, but it feels really.. .not like Picard. I'm doing a late at night TNG rewatch while I still can (who knows how long Netflix will have it). It's my favorite section of Star Trek. That and the Harve Bennett Trilogy of movies.
But it was the TNG movies. The TNG movies is where they really went off the rails, turning the crew of the Enterprise D/E into action characters, roles they were terribly unsuited for. It worked to a certain extent in First Contact, but everyone looked silly in Insurrection and Nemesis. Then came the reboot movies, which are pretty far from where Star Trek started. Again, action movies. Ugh.
I'd heard that Roddenberry didn't consider TAS to be canon, but I always wanted more Caitians.
Starship Mine is a wonderful example of the rules and tenets of the character being bent (or broken). At the start it was a fresh take for many people, but then when the TNG movies came and it all went off the rails ... oh dear lord.
Bending the characteristics of a ... well, character is just such a dangerous road. It can be extremely effective when done right or done sparingly. However, go too far and keep doing it and it all becomes a twisted rendition of its former self.
Miss you, bat bat! Hope you're doing well!
I agree with your opinions on TMP. It needed a re-edit to trim a lot of fat or better direction in some scenes. I have mixed feelings about the grim camaraderie, myself. I like that the relationships are strained a bit due to being apart for so long, but at the same time some personality is lacking like you say. Could have used a bit more warmth here or there.