The concept: we all know "haters gonna hate", and true "hate" isn't really useful and should probably be dismissed. But what shouldn't be dismissed is constructive criticism from people who are actually FANS of the show, because those are the folks that actually want the show to succeed!
This premise proceeds from a false assumption that people who did not like the shows did not want them to succeed. From my perspective, it seems all fans regardless of liking Discovery or Picard want Star Trek to be successful.
but they want it to be sucessful "on their terms" they want a show they dislike to do poorly so that the franchise can be "saved" by doing what they think it should do.
The concept: we all know "haters gonna hate", and true "hate" isn't really useful and should probably be dismissed. But what shouldn't be dismissed is constructive criticism from people who are actually FANS of the show, because those are the folks that actually want the show to succeed!
This premise proceeds from a false assumption that people who did not like the shows did not want them to succeed. From my perspective, it seems all fans regardless of liking Discovery or Picard want Star Trek to be successful.
Most negative criticisms from Star Trek fans boils down to it is not my Star Trek. Discovery and Picard are certainly less optimistic than the other Star Trek series.
I don’t put much stock in “Its not my Star Trek.” I’ve heard that song for every series since TOS.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
1: Discovery tech looking FAR different from TOS, like the Star Wars holography.
2: All the ships being much larger and boxier in Discovery than TOS...and no smoothness or curves.
3: Bridge window....none were before or after Discovery.
4: The dark, grim, pessimistic feel for it all.
5: It's essentially "The Michael Burnham Show!"
6: Fetish convention Klingons.
7: In Picard, the Federation seems to be moving backwords in how they think.
8: Seeing old Disco shuttles in Picard
9: One long story in weekly chunks.
10: Changing the Enterprise (not even making it look more TOS at the end of season 2)
11: Kurtzman's idea of making it fit into cannon......a cover up, than EVERYONE, Federation and Klingon, both, somehow, agree to, and never, EVER mention Burnham or the Discovery ever again.
"7: In Picard, the Federation seems to be moving backwords in how they think."
it happens. I dunno why people keep fetishizing the idea of federation perfection.
> @captainbrian11 said: > "7: In Picard, the Federation seems to be moving backwords in how they think." > it happens. I dunno why people keep fetishizing the idea of federation perfection.
You are strawmaning. Smokebailey did NOT say the Federation should be perfect. Pretending someone said something they didnt actually say is not cool.
Though if I could say one thing about both, that's not related to my feelings, its that I think the shows are too nihilistic. This is kind of a problem of many modern television shows, not just sci fi. It feels like writers think everything has to be dark, bleak, apocalyptic, for people to watch it and its just tiring if anything.
So I would suggest they try and make things a bit brighter, since like with the Walking Dead, if everything is TRIBBLE, what's the point of watching?
Tbh outside of comedies and cartoons I really don't find 'brighter' shows or movies very interesting anymore.
I hear you; I also enjoy dark shows and movies. I mean, I loved DS9 and it is much darker than the other Trek series. But here is the thing: just because I love DS9 does not mean I want all my Trek to feel like DS9. Kind of like how even though we all have our favorite foods, we don't want to eat the same thing for every meal.
Also, almost all modern sci-fi is in a "dark" phase. So rather than doing anything different, both Disco and Picard are just following the trend of every other new sci-fi show at the moment.
Having said that, S2 of Disco had a noticeably "lighter" tone, and it just so happens that most people seemed to enjoy it more than S1. Make of that what you will.
I just find the whole "utopia" concept boring and uninteresting. And on a slightly different topic I also highly prefer serialized shows, to the point that I won't watch something that's purely episodic anymore. I'm not saying either of these things are bad necessarily, I just don't find them interesting anymore and I probably wouldn't be watching either of the new Trek shows if they had gone that route.
I loved TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise as a kid/teen, but aside from a few specific episodes I don't really re-watch any of them as an adult. I DO however binge watch the entire BSG series every year or two, and I occasionally try to do the same with Babylon 5 (the dated effects and lack of a remaster make that one difficult for me though).
Though if I could say one thing about both, that's not related to my feelings, its that I think the shows are too nihilistic. This is kind of a problem of many modern television shows, not just sci fi. It feels like writers think everything has to be dark, bleak, apocalyptic, for people to watch it and its just tiring if anything.
So I would suggest they try and make things a bit brighter, since like with the Walking Dead, if everything is TRIBBLE, what's the point of watching?
Tbh outside of comedies and cartoons I really don't find 'brighter' shows or movies very interesting anymore.
I hear you; I also enjoy dark shows and movies. I mean, I loved DS9 and it is much darker than the other Trek series. But here is the thing: just because I love DS9 does not mean I want all my Trek to feel like DS9. Kind of like how even though we all have our favorite foods, we don't want to eat the same thing for every meal.
Also, almost all modern sci-fi is in a "dark" phase. So rather than doing anything different, both Disco and Picard are just following the trend of every other new sci-fi show at the moment.
Having said that, S2 of Disco had a noticeably "lighter" tone, and it just so happens that most people seemed to enjoy it more than S1. Make of that what you will.
I just find the whole "utopia" concept boring and uninteresting. And on a slightly different topic I also highly prefer serialized shows, to the point that I won't watch something that's purely episodic anymore. I'm not saying either of these things are bad necessarily, I just don't find them interesting anymore and I probably wouldn't be watching either of the new Trek shows if they had gone that route.
I loved TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise as a kid/teen, but aside from a few specific episodes I don't really re-watch any of them as an adult. I DO however binge watch the entire BSG series every year or two, and I occasionally try to do the same with Babylon 5 (the dated effects and lack of a remaster make that one difficult for me though).
That's cool; taste is different. But it sounds like Trek as a whole really isn't your thing, because Trek as a whole is exactly the things you just said you find boring and uninteresting and by your own admission aren't really interested in re-watching (as an adult). And again, that's fine. I, on the other hand, do enjoy Trek as a whole.
Also, I refer back to my comment about just because I might have a favorite type of food does not mean I want to eat it for every meal. You just said you prefer serialized shows to the point that you WON'T even watch something purely episodic anymore. Ok, that's fine. If you want to eat the same food for every single meal, that's ok. But I'm not that extreme, and prefer a good variety.
I just skipped Smokey's comment, because the start of this thread asked for criticisms from people who like DSC and PIC. And Smokey's made her feelings on the topic pretty doggone clear for the past couple of years now.
The concept: we all know "haters gonna hate", and true "hate" isn't really useful and should probably be dismissed. But what shouldn't be dismissed is constructive criticism from people who are actually FANS of the show, because those are the folks that actually want the show to succeed!
This premise proceeds from a false assumption that people who did not like the shows did not want them to succeed. From my perspective, it seems all fans regardless of liking Discovery or Picard want Star Trek to be successful.
Nope, you are wrong and are misrepresenting what I said. The paragraph that you quoted mentions 2 types of people: "haters" (who obviously just want to hate something) and fans who actually want the show to succeed and may have constructive criticism to provide.
Nowhere in that statement does it say those are the ONLY 2 groups of people, it simply showed a contrast between 2 very different groups. If you are somewhere in between those 2 extremes, like someone who doesn't really enjoy the shows but still have some constructive criticism to provide, go for it. But don't pretend I said something I didn't, because that's lame.
"7: In Picard, the Federation seems to be moving backwords in how they think."
it happens. I dunno why people keep fetishizing the idea of federation perfection.
That's because all OTHER sci fi has the tired old "the future will be like now, but worse."
I dunno why people fetishize about so much dark, gloomy nasty stuff. It's like like folks don't WANT to envision something better, unable to comprehend such a.....concept.
I dunno why people fetishize about so much dark, gloomy nasty stuff. It's like like folks don't WANT to envision something better, unable to comprehend such a.....concept.
May be a combination of trying to make it believable while still sticking to what's been established.
Star Trek has generally been more positive about the future, but we also mostly just focused on the events surrounding one ship or station. Not the Federation as a whole.
Its possible that the idea of a "utopia" has changed over the years. And in some cases, people might be less trusting of anything being called a "utopia" because "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is". Until recently Star Trek avoided this except in certain circumstances, mostly involving a rogue Starfleet officer or rogue agency like Section 31. Now... they're showing just how complicated the Federation is, and that its not the absolute perfect organization. It has flaws like any other. Hell... that's kinda the reason Picard resigned from Starfleet. Because it wasn't the same Starfleet he joined years ago.
Star Trek's never been shy about controvertial subjects, dating all the way back to TOS. Kirk and Uhura kissing? In the 60s? WUT?! INCONCIEVABLE!
Yet it happened.
Also keep in mind what we're seeing in Picard are the fringes, the areas where the federation isn't perfect. and we've seen this in old trek as well.
DS9 touches on this with the Maquis, and even Sisko himself notes how the frontier can be rough and tumble and how "well it's easy to be a saint in Paradise"
"7: In Picard, the Federation seems to be moving backwords in how they think."
it happens. I dunno why people keep fetishizing the idea of federation perfection.
That's because all OTHER sci fi has the tired old "the future will be like now, but worse."
I dunno why people fetishize about so much dark, gloomy nasty stuff. It's like like folks don't WANT to envision something better, unable to comprehend such a.....concept.
I believe it has to do with the success of Game of Thrones. The end of the latest episode with Maddox could have come straight from Game of Thrones.
"7: In Picard, the Federation seems to be moving backwords in how they think."
it happens. I dunno why people keep fetishizing the idea of federation perfection.
That's because all OTHER sci fi has the tired old "the future will be like now, but worse."
I dunno why people fetishize about so much dark, gloomy nasty stuff. It's like like folks don't WANT to envision something better, unable to comprehend such a.....concept.
Because sci fi can show us a positive future if we get our act together
However
Sci fi at its most powerful is when it shows us what will happen when we don’t.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Well being its called discovery it would be kind of ironic if they actually discovered something. As for Picard I love it especially in the sense that the past series were centered on an enterprise, being lost in another quadrant, or mainly about a station like DS9. This new series gives you something you know is Star Trek which is Picard but without as many restraints so if Picard wants to go to risa you'll more than likely end up seeing risa lol. The one thing I would like to see on Picard though is the hood coming off that cardassian and then Picard asking him how many lights there are lol
The concept: we all know "haters gonna hate", and true "hate" isn't really useful and should probably be dismissed. But what shouldn't be dismissed is constructive criticism from people who are actually FANS of the show, because those are the folks that actually want the show to succeed!
This premise proceeds from a false assumption that people who did not like the shows did not want them to succeed. From my perspective, it seems all fans regardless of liking Discovery or Picard want Star Trek to be successful.
but they want it to be sucessful "on their terms" they want a show they dislike to do poorly so that the franchise can be "saved" by doing what they think it should do.
I think you need keep in mind, grimdark NuTrek is pretty deliberately kicking out old fans that liked Trek for being positive and inspirational. There is no franchise to save if it continues down the grimdark route, because for these people Trek is simply dead. It can continue on in some other form, but it simply isn't worth watching to the people who liked it for all the things that were discarded by NuTrek.
I think it's more inspirational when people try to be good in-spite the world around them not being perfect.
I'm left feeling like, to get the haters topic out of the way, that many people just wanted a carbon copy clone of TNG, AND at the same time, they are delusional that a world would remain the same no matter what. A world in which technology stays 'exactly' the same over 20 years would be itself dystopian. And people change a little as they get older as a result in the change of there local environment.
Not to mention it's only earth and maybe the other species home-worlds that were portrayed as a utopia under the federation. And picard otherwise portrayed earth as just that, a utopia.
The rest of the universe isn't likely to be perfect.
They forget that DS9 was fairly dark in places being on the frontier. You have the maquis forming out of the difficulty of living on the frontier by scared people who just don't have it as easy living near varying groups they just don't like and have no reason to trust them(and the cardassians even arming themselves on the same principle). Those people were straight-forward terrorists and almost mindless fanatics, mostly focused on just being jerks.
Picard isn't on the same frontier as DS9, but takes place on a frontier where a very dark and paranoid empire had literally just DIED, and where chaos and ensuing power struggles is all that remains.
And before you say "No they could have still been brighter!", chaos and anarchy ALWAYS happens when an empire's seat of power falls every time guaranteed. Empires are built on 'one' world being great and everything leading to it. It's the predecessor to colonialism. When you destroy the capital of an empire people immediately go for each others throats to determine who takes over to control everyone else. Alexander the Great's empire did it and split apart before his corpse was cold. The roman empire(ok, western half) started collapsing pretty much over Rome being taken for literally just a few days. And that was after repeat civil wars over the emperor dying. Empires are vulnerable to power vacuums it's just fact.
Critiques of the two shows(SPOILER WARNING, i'll try not to reveal to much):
Discover:
Discovery's Michael Burnham is a little to perfect. Characters kind of bend over for her at times also.
Picard:
My only criticism so far of Picard is another certain character feels to perfect, but then it's also hinted she's "to good to be true". Other characters have taken notice, which not what you see with Michael Burnham. We'll see with later episodes though.
Parts of me also couldn't help but be reminded of the general plot of Max Payne in the latest episode. From losing someone, taking up alcohol when before alcohol...was rather impairing. And going on a perfectly understandable revenge spree. I had not played Max Payne 1 but remember reading and watchin a longplay. Some may not like that kind of plot but it's been done before. I wasn't to bothered by it in Picard though, and I totally understand and the story does make sense.
Thinking of ideas from lots of games for, dunno how long now.
I think it's more inspirational when people try to be good in-spite the world around them not being perfect.
That has been literally every Trek show. No Trek show portrayed the Federation as "perfect" with no flaws or bad actors.
I think this is the best way to explain it: previous Trek shows portrayed humanity as "not perfect, but getting better", but in Picard it seems to be "getting worse".
That said, this constant talking point to the effect of "some people are upset because the world isn't "perfect" in Picard" is strawman nonsense. No one ever said the world or the Federation or Starfleet was supposed to be "perfect".
Hasn't been said, but seems to be implied by how people react.
I think Picard is just putting a big spotlight on how not perfect the Federation is. Yea its better than the alternative, but even the Federation has its issues. And the issues within Starfleet as well...
Its easy to be idealistic, but when faced with politics, idealism kinda falters from sheer weight.
The decision to not help the Romulans was in two parts. One, the rescue fleet was decimated in the Synth attack, and Two, at least 15 worlds threatened to break away from the Federation if they continued to try. While they could have been able to still save as many lives as they could, the decision was political. What's more important? A few thousand lives of a species that had been antagonistic towards you since day one? Or 15 member worlds staying member worlds?
The powers that be chose the latter in this case.
If not for the synth attack, its possible that the politics wouldn't have come into play.
Hasn't been said, but seems to be implied by how people react.
I think Picard is just putting a big spotlight on how not perfect the Federation is. Yea its better than the alternative, but even the Federation has its issues. And the issues within Starfleet as well...
Its easy to be idealistic, but when faced with politics, idealism kinda falters from sheer weight.
The decision to not help the Romulans was in two parts. One, the rescue fleet was decimated in the Synth attack, and Two, at least 15 worlds threatened to break away from the Federation if they continued to try. While they could have been able to still save as many lives as they could, the decision was political. What's more important? A few thousand lives of a species that had been antagonistic towards you since day one? Or 15 member worlds staying member worlds?
The powers that be chose the latter in this case.
If not for the synth attack, its possible that the politics wouldn't have come into play.
And the Federation compromised their ideals by choosing those 15 member worlds over saving lives. This could explain the current state of the Federation that was shown in the Discovery Season 3 trailer. One compromise after another that continually erodes the Federation until there is only 6 stars remaining according to the flag. If threatening to leave the Federation worked once to get their way, then it will work again and again until they finally leave. Also, there were far more than a few thousand lives at risk.
Hasn't been said, but seems to be implied by how people react.
That's not how good faith discussions work. You don't pretend you know what someone "really meant" even though they didn't say something. Respond to what people actually say, and if you aren't sure what they meant then ask. But don't pretend they said something they didn't and respond to this imaginary thing that no one actually said.
That said, this constant talking point to the effect of "some people are upset because the world isn't "perfect" in Picard" is strawman nonsense. No one ever said the world or the Federation or Starfleet was supposed to be "perfect".
Hasn't been said in this thread. Seen it plenty elsewhere, even some other threads in these very forums - complaints that Trek is supposed to show us a utopian future, and nothing is ever allowed to be "dark". (Which, of course, ignores Sisko's famous speech in DS9:"The Maquis, Part II", about how the frontier is not paradise.)
(Have to do two posts; don't have the hang of multithreading yet. Sorry.)
And the Federation compromised their ideals by choosing those 15 member worlds over saving lives.
The other choice, of course, would be the Federation compromising their ideals by abandoning the interests of 15 member worlds, and their millions or billions of inhabitants, in order to save the lives of a few thousand beings who had declared themselves enemies of the Federation on several previous occasions (and whose people had recently attempted to kill the famed Captain Picard and destroy Starfleet's flagship - remember, the typical Federation citizen isn't privy to the ins and outs of alien politics, and has no idea who this Shinzon fellow might be or that he's not in fact affiliated with the longstanding leadership of the RSE).
They chose the compromise that made the most sense politically, because that's just how sapient beings are sometimes.
I don't know why people keep battering the idea that the Federation/Starfleet is perfect or a utopia. It is not. It has never been. I don't know why anyone would think it is either of those things. It is, on the whole, a force for positive change and optimism (hint: utopia doesn't require positive change,) and yes it sometimes trips over its own feet.
> @jonsills said: Hasn't been said in this thread. Seen it plenty elsewhere, even some other threads in these very forums - complaints that Trek is supposed to show us a utopian future, and nothing is ever allowed to be "dark".
Please quote the statement where someone says "nothing is ever allowed to be dark". I want to make sure you aren't exaggerating what was actually said.
> @foxrockssocks said: > I don't know why people keep battering the idea that the Federation/Starfleet is perfect or a utopia.
Literally no one is saying it's supposed to be perfect and without flaws. However some people are dishonestly pretending that was said so they can repeat their canned talking points
Also, there were far more than a few thousand lives at risk.
I was taking into consideration how many ships of the rescue fleet may have survived. The full fleet could have potentially saved millions. Decimated the way it was, the number they could save was also likewise decimated.
While I have not seen PIC yet, from comments and clips it seems it has the same core problem that DSC has. As starswordc already pointed out earlier they have a serious problem with the worldbuilding phase of the two series.
Without proper worldbuilding, on the writing end it is all too easy to start slinging very iffy and implausible plot points around (VOY had a lot of the same problem btw) and solving things by contrived means instead of things that actually make sense, and sense like that happens most when characters, factions, and history are reasonably fleshed out. With good worldbuilding a setting and cast often take on a life of their own and practically write themselves.
On the viewer side of things, devoting screentime to showng that good worldbuilding helps fill in the inevitable gaps that time, budget, and production technology make, and allows clever writers to foreshadow and hint at things without being too obvious, and also makes it easier to avoid unintentionally blindsiding the viewers and making it all seem too deus ex machina.
In the case of DSC some of the shortcutting might be understandable (though still undesirable) since it was intended to be as close to action movie format as possible, and those are all about the stunts and eye candy with just enough writing in between to (hopefully) turn the pile of gags into a somewhat coherent story. The thing is, if they were not going to do much of their own worldbuilding it would have made more sense to do the series in an inclusive way that could rely more on the worldbuilding already done by TOS instead of essentially throwing it in the garbage and going their own way.
And that goes even more for PIC (assuming it is not Action Movie format as well), a little thought would have made it more plausible and feel more connected with TNG and Nemesis.
One example of that is the anti-evacuation ultimatum thing people keep talking about here. For comparison, the US government is unlikely to simply cave in to some arbitrary ultimatum by a few states and cancel emergency hurricane relief or whatever to a foreign country, what is much, much more likely to happen is a faction apposed to those efforts snarling things up in the house, senate, or courts to delay action until it is too late for it to do any good. I imagine the Federation would probably be much the same way, maybe even more so, since passive resistance is so often more effective than the Hollywood favorite melodrama of politicians dropping their metaphorical flys and drawing lines in the sand, daring each other to cross.
Also, there were far more than a few thousand lives at risk.
I was taking into consideration how many ships of the rescue fleet may have survived. The full fleet could have potentially saved millions. Decimated the way it was, the number they could save was also likewise decimated.
And this seems to be the problem that various characters have with Picard, he gave up. It doesn't matter how many people can't be saved, but how many can be saved. By giving up, Picard let those people down. Then there is the fact that the Federation doesn't care why the Synths rebelled and outlawed all synthetic life research. It would not surprise me if part of the Federation council or more accurately their underlings TRIBBLE the Synths and destroyed the rescue armada. They get rid of a lot of Romulans and have the perfect scapegoat.
Comments
but they want it to be sucessful "on their terms" they want a show they dislike to do poorly so that the franchise can be "saved" by doing what they think it should do.
I don’t put much stock in “Its not my Star Trek.” I’ve heard that song for every series since TOS.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
1: Discovery tech looking FAR different from TOS, like the Star Wars holography.
2: All the ships being much larger and boxier in Discovery than TOS...and no smoothness or curves.
3: Bridge window....none were before or after Discovery.
4: The dark, grim, pessimistic feel for it all.
5: It's essentially "The Michael Burnham Show!"
6: Fetish convention Klingons.
7: In Picard, the Federation seems to be moving backwords in how they think.
8: Seeing old Disco shuttles in Picard
9: One long story in weekly chunks.
10: Changing the Enterprise (not even making it look more TOS at the end of season 2)
11: Kurtzman's idea of making it fit into cannon......a cover up, than EVERYONE, Federation and Klingon, both, somehow, agree to, and never, EVER mention Burnham or the Discovery ever again.
That's the short list.
it happens. I dunno why people keep fetishizing the idea of federation perfection.
> "7: In Picard, the Federation seems to be moving backwords in how they think."
> it happens. I dunno why people keep fetishizing the idea of federation perfection.
You are strawmaning. Smokebailey did NOT say the Federation should be perfect. Pretending someone said something they didnt actually say is not cool.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I just find the whole "utopia" concept boring and uninteresting. And on a slightly different topic I also highly prefer serialized shows, to the point that I won't watch something that's purely episodic anymore. I'm not saying either of these things are bad necessarily, I just don't find them interesting anymore and I probably wouldn't be watching either of the new Trek shows if they had gone that route.
I loved TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise as a kid/teen, but aside from a few specific episodes I don't really re-watch any of them as an adult. I DO however binge watch the entire BSG series every year or two, and I occasionally try to do the same with Babylon 5 (the dated effects and lack of a remaster make that one difficult for me though).
That's cool; taste is different. But it sounds like Trek as a whole really isn't your thing, because Trek as a whole is exactly the things you just said you find boring and uninteresting and by your own admission aren't really interested in re-watching (as an adult). And again, that's fine. I, on the other hand, do enjoy Trek as a whole.
Also, I refer back to my comment about just because I might have a favorite type of food does not mean I want to eat it for every meal. You just said you prefer serialized shows to the point that you WON'T even watch something purely episodic anymore. Ok, that's fine. If you want to eat the same food for every single meal, that's ok. But I'm not that extreme, and prefer a good variety.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Nope, you are wrong and are misrepresenting what I said. The paragraph that you quoted mentions 2 types of people: "haters" (who obviously just want to hate something) and fans who actually want the show to succeed and may have constructive criticism to provide.
Nowhere in that statement does it say those are the ONLY 2 groups of people, it simply showed a contrast between 2 very different groups. If you are somewhere in between those 2 extremes, like someone who doesn't really enjoy the shows but still have some constructive criticism to provide, go for it. But don't pretend I said something I didn't, because that's lame.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
That's because all OTHER sci fi has the tired old "the future will be like now, but worse."
I dunno why people fetishize about so much dark, gloomy nasty stuff. It's like like folks don't WANT to envision something better, unable to comprehend such a.....concept.
May be a combination of trying to make it believable while still sticking to what's been established.
Star Trek has generally been more positive about the future, but we also mostly just focused on the events surrounding one ship or station. Not the Federation as a whole.
Its possible that the idea of a "utopia" has changed over the years. And in some cases, people might be less trusting of anything being called a "utopia" because "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is". Until recently Star Trek avoided this except in certain circumstances, mostly involving a rogue Starfleet officer or rogue agency like Section 31. Now... they're showing just how complicated the Federation is, and that its not the absolute perfect organization. It has flaws like any other. Hell... that's kinda the reason Picard resigned from Starfleet. Because it wasn't the same Starfleet he joined years ago.
Star Trek's never been shy about controvertial subjects, dating all the way back to TOS. Kirk and Uhura kissing? In the 60s? WUT?! INCONCIEVABLE!
Yet it happened.
DS9 touches on this with the Maquis, and even Sisko himself notes how the frontier can be rough and tumble and how "well it's easy to be a saint in Paradise"
I believe it has to do with the success of Game of Thrones. The end of the latest episode with Maddox could have come straight from Game of Thrones.
Because sci fi can show us a positive future if we get our act together
However
Sci fi at its most powerful is when it shows us what will happen when we don’t.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I think you need keep in mind, grimdark NuTrek is pretty deliberately kicking out old fans that liked Trek for being positive and inspirational. There is no franchise to save if it continues down the grimdark route, because for these people Trek is simply dead. It can continue on in some other form, but it simply isn't worth watching to the people who liked it for all the things that were discarded by NuTrek.
I'm left feeling like, to get the haters topic out of the way, that many people just wanted a carbon copy clone of TNG, AND at the same time, they are delusional that a world would remain the same no matter what. A world in which technology stays 'exactly' the same over 20 years would be itself dystopian. And people change a little as they get older as a result in the change of there local environment.
Not to mention it's only earth and maybe the other species home-worlds that were portrayed as a utopia under the federation. And picard otherwise portrayed earth as just that, a utopia.
The rest of the universe isn't likely to be perfect.
They forget that DS9 was fairly dark in places being on the frontier. You have the maquis forming out of the difficulty of living on the frontier by scared people who just don't have it as easy living near varying groups they just don't like and have no reason to trust them(and the cardassians even arming themselves on the same principle). Those people were straight-forward terrorists and almost mindless fanatics, mostly focused on just being jerks.
Picard isn't on the same frontier as DS9, but takes place on a frontier where a very dark and paranoid empire had literally just DIED, and where chaos and ensuing power struggles is all that remains.
And before you say "No they could have still been brighter!", chaos and anarchy ALWAYS happens when an empire's seat of power falls every time guaranteed. Empires are built on 'one' world being great and everything leading to it. It's the predecessor to colonialism. When you destroy the capital of an empire people immediately go for each others throats to determine who takes over to control everyone else. Alexander the Great's empire did it and split apart before his corpse was cold. The roman empire(ok, western half) started collapsing pretty much over Rome being taken for literally just a few days. And that was after repeat civil wars over the emperor dying. Empires are vulnerable to power vacuums it's just fact.
Critiques of the two shows(SPOILER WARNING, i'll try not to reveal to much):
Discover:
Discovery's Michael Burnham is a little to perfect. Characters kind of bend over for her at times also.
Picard:
My only criticism so far of Picard is another certain character feels to perfect, but then it's also hinted she's "to good to be true". Other characters have taken notice, which not what you see with Michael Burnham. We'll see with later episodes though.
Parts of me also couldn't help but be reminded of the general plot of Max Payne in the latest episode. From losing someone, taking up alcohol when before alcohol...was rather impairing. And going on a perfectly understandable revenge spree. I had not played Max Payne 1 but remember reading and watchin a longplay. Some may not like that kind of plot but it's been done before. I wasn't to bothered by it in Picard though, and I totally understand and the story does make sense.
Thinking of ideas from lots of games for, dunno how long now.
Thinking of ideas from lots of games for, dunno how long now.
That has been literally every Trek show. No Trek show portrayed the Federation as "perfect" with no flaws or bad actors.
I think this is the best way to explain it: previous Trek shows portrayed humanity as "not perfect, but getting better", but in Picard it seems to be "getting worse".
That said, this constant talking point to the effect of "some people are upset because the world isn't "perfect" in Picard" is strawman nonsense. No one ever said the world or the Federation or Starfleet was supposed to be "perfect".
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I think Picard is just putting a big spotlight on how not perfect the Federation is. Yea its better than the alternative, but even the Federation has its issues. And the issues within Starfleet as well...
Its easy to be idealistic, but when faced with politics, idealism kinda falters from sheer weight.
The decision to not help the Romulans was in two parts. One, the rescue fleet was decimated in the Synth attack, and Two, at least 15 worlds threatened to break away from the Federation if they continued to try. While they could have been able to still save as many lives as they could, the decision was political. What's more important? A few thousand lives of a species that had been antagonistic towards you since day one? Or 15 member worlds staying member worlds?
The powers that be chose the latter in this case.
If not for the synth attack, its possible that the politics wouldn't have come into play.
And the Federation compromised their ideals by choosing those 15 member worlds over saving lives. This could explain the current state of the Federation that was shown in the Discovery Season 3 trailer. One compromise after another that continually erodes the Federation until there is only 6 stars remaining according to the flag. If threatening to leave the Federation worked once to get their way, then it will work again and again until they finally leave. Also, there were far more than a few thousand lives at risk.
That's not how good faith discussions work. You don't pretend you know what someone "really meant" even though they didn't say something. Respond to what people actually say, and if you aren't sure what they meant then ask. But don't pretend they said something they didn't and respond to this imaginary thing that no one actually said.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
(Have to do two posts; don't have the hang of multithreading yet. Sorry.)
They chose the compromise that made the most sense politically, because that's just how sapient beings are sometimes.
Please quote the statement where someone says "nothing is ever allowed to be dark". I want to make sure you aren't exaggerating what was actually said.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
> I don't know why people keep battering the idea that the Federation/Starfleet is perfect or a utopia.
Literally no one is saying it's supposed to be perfect and without flaws. However some people are dishonestly pretending that was said so they can repeat their canned talking points
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I was taking into consideration how many ships of the rescue fleet may have survived. The full fleet could have potentially saved millions. Decimated the way it was, the number they could save was also likewise decimated.
Without proper worldbuilding, on the writing end it is all too easy to start slinging very iffy and implausible plot points around (VOY had a lot of the same problem btw) and solving things by contrived means instead of things that actually make sense, and sense like that happens most when characters, factions, and history are reasonably fleshed out. With good worldbuilding a setting and cast often take on a life of their own and practically write themselves.
On the viewer side of things, devoting screentime to showng that good worldbuilding helps fill in the inevitable gaps that time, budget, and production technology make, and allows clever writers to foreshadow and hint at things without being too obvious, and also makes it easier to avoid unintentionally blindsiding the viewers and making it all seem too deus ex machina.
In the case of DSC some of the shortcutting might be understandable (though still undesirable) since it was intended to be as close to action movie format as possible, and those are all about the stunts and eye candy with just enough writing in between to (hopefully) turn the pile of gags into a somewhat coherent story. The thing is, if they were not going to do much of their own worldbuilding it would have made more sense to do the series in an inclusive way that could rely more on the worldbuilding already done by TOS instead of essentially throwing it in the garbage and going their own way.
And that goes even more for PIC (assuming it is not Action Movie format as well), a little thought would have made it more plausible and feel more connected with TNG and Nemesis.
One example of that is the anti-evacuation ultimatum thing people keep talking about here. For comparison, the US government is unlikely to simply cave in to some arbitrary ultimatum by a few states and cancel emergency hurricane relief or whatever to a foreign country, what is much, much more likely to happen is a faction apposed to those efforts snarling things up in the house, senate, or courts to delay action until it is too late for it to do any good. I imagine the Federation would probably be much the same way, maybe even more so, since passive resistance is so often more effective than the Hollywood favorite melodrama of politicians dropping their metaphorical flys and drawing lines in the sand, daring each other to cross.
And this seems to be the problem that various characters have with Picard, he gave up. It doesn't matter how many people can't be saved, but how many can be saved. By giving up, Picard let those people down. Then there is the fact that the Federation doesn't care why the Synths rebelled and outlawed all synthetic life research. It would not surprise me if part of the Federation council or more accurately their underlings TRIBBLE the Synths and destroyed the rescue armada. They get rid of a lot of Romulans and have the perfect scapegoat.