Picard Season 3

[Clint_L]

Okay, I just finished it. Thoughts:

I enjoyed Season 1. Season 2 was terrible. Season 3 started kind of weak, but by the time the gang was all back together, it was pretty fun and hit the right nostalgia notes. It still had all the silly Star Trek things and was basically fan service to its core, but what can I say? It was a good time.

SPOILERS!!!!!

Is Season 2 even canon anymore? The show runners sure pretended like it never happened! Picard's new Romulan love interest got, what, 2 minutes in episode 1 and was never mentioned again; by the end of the season it seemed implied that he and Crusher were a thing. But that's nothing on the previous season's Borg Queen - Gerati-Queen. What a weird choice to do basically the same villain back to back, and you think Gerati would have shown up to help out in that final battle. Or at least be mentioned. If season 2 had actually happened, which it clearly did not. It was all a fever dream. As confirmed by the post-credit scene.

I liked the old fart version of the crew, but I think a few episodes was all we needed. It was hard to take them seriously as action heroes. Beverly suddenly being a dead shot with the weapons systems (and she had to target manually, like Luke Skywalker!) cracked me up.

On the other hand, I'd be onboard for a new season focusing on Captain Seven's crew. Though less so if Jack is the focus character. He got better but...meh. Sensitive Kirk just doesn't do it for me. And I could do without Raffi as well. What a weird character arc she had if you look at all three seasons. And I have questions about Starfleet's personnel decisions - is it smart to make her Seven's second in command if they are a couple? Or an ex-couple? Though I guess we could file that under "season 2 never happened" (even though Worff briefly alluded to their relationship). But Seven...yeah. She has a solid Captain of the Enterprise vibe. I'm not saying she's Kirk or Picard calibre, but she's already ahead of Archer.

At least Beverly mentioned that she had another son once during that entire story arc. They could resurrect Q as if nothing happened but Wesley couldn't show up, leaving his only appearance in the series that cameo at the end of the season that never happened?

I really liked zen Worff. I've liked every incarnation of Worff. I also liked "human" Data...though his return really undermined the whole premise of season 1. Still, you couldn't really have the reunion without him, so I get it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The occasional stand alone episode would have really helped those shows out I think. See SNW.

Disco did a number of basically stand-alone episodes where the main arcs were very much in the background, but it didn't really help matters. The problem Disco had was a combination of not really being an ensemble show (unlike literally all previous Treks except TOS, but TOS was sort of accidentally one) together with a lot of the major arcs not actually being very compelling. There was too much use of mystery in a way that just made it confusing rather than leaving you guessing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In other words, Discovery was simply bad.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In other words, Discovery was simply bad.

I don't agree at all - so no, that's not other words for what I'm saying.

There was nothing simple about the issues Discovery had. It was the opposite of "simply bad". It had complex issues that that sort of caused a resonant cascade failure or something (to use a bit of Treknobabble), where individually, most of the elements involved were fine or even good, but they didn't fit together well or work for audiences.

This is distinct from ENT, which was much closer to "simply bad". Like S1 ENT, you have:

A) A bunch of actors giving poor performances.

I don't critique the actors for this - I've lived too long and watched too much TV and too many movies to believe that, when a whole bunch of actors give a bad performance, it's on the actors. It's on the showrunners in the case of something like this. Really the only actor who seemed to be able to rise above it was Billingsley. I'm not sure he could give a bad performance if he tried though (in his very specific character-actor range).

It didn't help that some of the actors they cast were basically cast for not-great reasons which related more to delusional perceptions by the showrunners about how they'd "drawn in audiences" rather than because they were right for the role (indeed some of the already-shallow roles were changed because they got the actors). Certainly Trineer, Park and Montgomery - all of whom have since shown they can act well - fit into this category. I still remember an article where the showrunners were gloating about getting Trineer and how he'd pull in some soap opera audience. They thought Park and Montgomery would bring in "the kids".

Bakula too, actually - the showrunners didn't even consider anyone else, despite Bakula not being that enthusiastic (having already had his career kind of screwed by being the lead in a successful genre show). They didn't write a compelling captain character and then look at who was the best person to play it. They realized they could maybe get Bakula, so Archer was basically just written for him, which lead to Archer being very generic. Because they had no vision.

B) Cardboard cut-out characters with clunky motivations.

None of the characters had particularly interesting or well-considered personalities/backstories even on paper. And their motivations and relationships? Dire stuff. Obvious stuff. Nothing clever or interesting or that made you go "Oh!". No other Trek show has ever had this issue (despite it being sadly common in genre shows). And this contributed to A, I'm sure, because these were just not fully thought-through characters.

(There was almost an epidemic of this in genre shows in the early '00s - just a lot of writers/showrunners barely sketching out characters and assuming they'd be somehow grown into - and in most cases it didn't happen.)

C) No idea what show it wanted to be, apart from "Another Star Trek show".

This was a huge problem for ENT. It was Trek for the sake of Trek. TNG, DS9, even VOY, all had specific stories and ideas behind them. But ENT didn't. It had the disease prequels often have in any media, the disease which leads to people still groaning when they hear about a prequel. Which is that most prequels don't have a compelling story to tell of their own, they're just trying to emulate the show(s) that already exist and using the earlier time period as an excuse to do so.

Disco for all its flaws definitely did not have that problem. If anything the opposite.

D) Really uncompelling aesthetics.

Every aspect of ENT's aesthetics was mediocre or sucked. As I've said before, I was basically able to predict every element of how ENT would look, two years before they said they were even doing the show. The colour and style of the uniforms, the visual design of the ship interiors, and so on. That's not a good thing that I was able to do that. I was able to do that because it was extremely obvious and lacked creativity. And just everything about the aesthetics did - and I mean aesthetics in the broadest sense - the music (not just the cliched and awful intro, but even the in-episode music), the style of dialogue (or lack thereof), the special effects, and so on. Even a lot of the forehead alien make-up designs was just profoundly uninspired (Shran being a rare exception).

I could go on or talk about specifics like literally re-using un-filmed VOY episodes, but those were symptoms not causes. If ENT had really had any kind of vision at all, they wouldn't have been re-using VOY scripts/concepts - but it had none - it was Trek filler - it existed because they didn't have a better idea and needed a Trek show. But anyway that's what a "simply bad" Star Trek show looks like. It looks like ENT. I don't care if people liked ENT, or have nostalgia for it (it's been nearly 20 years). It was bad. Real bad.

Eventually it improved, which people frankly unreasonably defend it for. Eventually the performances improved a bit - but not much - the characters got a bit better - but again not much, and almost all of them remained cardboard. It did, in like, late S3 and particularly S4, finally decide what it wanted to be, but that was way too late. People talk about Trek shows taking 2 seasons to find their feet - but even in S1 of TNG or DS9 or even VOY, the basic intent, the basic mission statement is there. It wasn't really in ENT.

Trek for the sake of Trek.

Disco's problems were much more complicated and bizarre, and I've discussed them before, but they were not a matter of being "simply bad" - they were interlocking and the result of a rather strong initial vision being desperately backpedalled on after the audience was, if not quite booing, then at least not responding in the way that had been hoped. And it was a drastic overcompensation, too turning a very dark take on Trek into basically a slightly weepy "fun adventure" series.

TLDR - ENT was closer to "simply bad" - it was the result of a total lack of vision, and making a Trek show for the sake of making a Trek show, which impacted every level of the show.

 

[delericho]

I've enjoyed what I've seen of Discovery (three seasons before it left Netflix). My only real problem with it was that it opened with a vision of a show I think I'd much rather watch - Captain Georgiou and Commander Burnham flying around in the starship USS Shenzhou doing Star Trekky stuff.

But it sounds like we've got essentially that in SNW, so that's good - I don't need every show to be the same.

 

[ART!]

This is distinct from ENT, which was much closer to "simply bad". Like S1 ENT, you have:

A) A bunch of actors giving poor performances.

[...]

Bakula too, actually - the showrunners didn't even consider anyone else, despite Bakula not being that enthusiastic (having already had his career kind of screwed by being the lead in a successful genre show). They didn't write a compelling captain character and then look at who was the best person to play it. They realized they could maybe get Bakula, so Archer was basically just written for him, which lead to Archer being very generic. Because they had no vision.

I feel a little badly that I haven't really seen him in anything else, and I'd be open to suggestions of something he's really good in, because I hear he's been really good in some things.

He's just so incredibly dull in ENT. I can't remember a single dramatic or funny or poignant Archer moment.

I take that back. There was an episode where he's on the bridge talking to some alien on the main viewer, and somehting in the conversation/negotiations reminds him of a Very Relevant Anecdote, Yes Indeed about a time he was on a safari on the Serengeti, and I just wanted to yell at the tv for him to shut the %$#! up about his $%#^&*@ safari.

B) Cardboard cut-out characters with clunky motivations.

None of the characters had particularly interesting or well-considered personalities/backstories even on paper. And their motivations and relationships? Dire stuff. Obvious stuff. Nothing clever or interesting or that made you go "Oh!". No other Trek show has ever had this issue (despite it being sadly common in genre shows). And this contributed to A, I'm sure, because these were just not fully thought-through characters.

Even TOS had characters who didn't have much to do and very little if any character background, but they were novel enough and/or charismatic enough to stand out.

C) No idea what show it wanted to be, apart from "Another Star Trek show".

This was a huge problem for ENT. It was Trek for the sake of Trek. TNG, DS9, even VOY, all had specific stories and ideas behind them. But ENT didn't. It had the disease prequels often have in any media, the disease which leads to people still groaning when they hear about a prequel. Which is that most prequels don't have a compelling story to tell of their own, they're just trying to emulate the show(s) that already exist and using the earlier time period as an excuse to do so.

And it was a premise rife with possibilities, given what it seems like they wanted to do, or at least made noises about wanting to do. This would pre-Trek-as-we-know-it, with no shields, no phasers per se, slower ships, sketchy transporters, some of the earliest first contacts, etc.

There's so much you can do with that!!

My feeling at the time was that we would get a more rough-and-tumble Trek than we had had in a long time, at that point - but no such luck. As you point out, the showrunners were too used to the kind of stories Trek had been doing for about 15 years at that point.

D) Really uncompelling aesthetics.

Every aspect of ENT's aesthetics was mediocre or sucked. As I've said before, I was basically able to predict every element of how ENT would look, two years before they said they were even doing the show. The colour and style of the uniforms, the visual design of the ship interiors, and so on. That's not a good thing that I was able to do that. I was able to do that because it was extremely obvious and lacked creativity. And just everything about the aesthetics did - and I mean aesthetics in the broadest sense - the music (not just the cliched and awful intro, but even the in-episode music), the style of dialogue (or lack thereof), the special effects, and so on. Even a lot of the forehead alien make-up designs was just profoundly uninspired (Shran being a rare exception).

I love the interior sets of the Enterprise itself, because they feel lower-tech than what we had seen of later-era tech. It feels like a submarine crossed with a space shuttle, and that feels right. The uniforms jibe with that as well.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

ENT is actually very similar to Picard, if you think about it.

People were really looking forward to the first season, and then .... oh. We're getting this?

Then there was a second season that amounted to a reset and decided to UP THE STAKES to a decidedly mixed reception.

Finally, a third season that people liked, but only because it chose to stop doing anything new and just concentrate on pure, unadulterated fan service.

Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

 

[Micah Sweet]

ENT is actually very similar to Picard, if you think about it.

People were really looking forward to the first season, and then .... oh. We're getting this?

Then there was a second season that amounted to a reset and decided to UP THE STAKES to a decidedly mixed reception.

Finally, a third season that people liked, but only because it chose to stop doing anything new and just concentrate on pure, unadulterated fan service.

Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

Well, I'm a fan, so throwing out some fan service to wrap up one of my favorite stories is just fine with me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

I don't even need to search my feelings, what you're saying is definitely true, yeah. But then the fan service went too far... (c.f. the last episode).

I feel a little badly that I haven't really seen him in anything else, and I'd be open to suggestions of something he's really good in, because I hear he's been really good in some things.

Quantum Leap is what made him famous.

That's the issue Bakula had - back in the 60s through 90s, being in a big hit/iconic genre show (cop, SF, whatever) could, unless you got kind of lucky or had done a ton of work before it, really just end your career. It still seems to happen a bit - but I don't think anywhere near as badly. He seems to have been doomed to appear in TV movies endlessly until ENT.

But yeah he wasn't anywhere near as lively or diverting as Archer as he was as Sam Beckett in Quantum Leap. I put a lot of that on the writers not really having much of a conception for the character nor any key conflicts or relationships with other officers though. I haven't seen his other big lead role in NCIS: New Orleans so I can't comment on that, but it feels like all NCIS lead roles are kind of more about a vibe than really acting!

God I kind of wonder what it would be like to rewatch Quantum Leap now. It was already a show that, as a kid in the '80s and 90s, seemed focused on the past - mainly the '60s. That's got to be a real trip now.

Even TOS had characters who didn't have much to do and very little if any character background, but they were novel enough and/or charismatic enough to stand out.

Yup. Like, I could tell you more about the apparent personalities of some one-off or rarely-seen TOS characters than I could any ENT character who wasn't Phlox.

I mean, shall I try? Character and personality.

Archer - His personality is "mild-mannered captain", that is his entire personality. I guess maybe he's a bit distractible?
T'Pol - Her personality is "generic vulcan". I wish I had anything to add to that. Being hot is not a personality trait unless you really lean into it and she didn't.
Reed - He does have slightly more personality because has this massive "up to no good" vibe and generally seems pretty sketchy for a security officer (Yar had some of this vibe too), but it's still not much.
Mayweather - His personality is "also on the bridge".
Sato - Her personality is "anxious and also on the bridge". I guess at least there's a personality descriptor there.
"Trip" - His personality is "dude who keeps ending up at sexual harassment and anger management trainings and doesn't learn anything and yet doesn't suffer any consequences for reasons".

What's sad is that these lot make VOY's crew look extremely well-developed by comparison. I mean, were they as annoying as VOY's crew? No. The lack of Neelix, Paris, Chakotay, and Torres means that I didn't actively want to turn the show off because the characters are so irritating, but at least I remembered those characters, and Seven of Nine and Emergency Medical Hologram were genuinely good characters, and Janeway eventually became good. Tuvok was absolutely fine too and not just "generic vulcan" (albeit a lot of that was in Tim Russ' subtle acting, particularly eyebrow-acting, but still! Good job Tim!).

And it was a premise rife with possibilities, given what it seems like they wanted to do, or at least made noises about wanting to do.

Indeed, and that's why I saw it as the obvious next show (rather than an Star Fleet academy show which most people expected).

Annnnnnnnnnnd they just basically did VOY stuff.

I love the interior sets of the Enterprise itself, because they feel lower-tech than what we had seen of later-era tech. It feels like a submarine crossed with a space shuttle, and that feels right. The uniforms jibe with that as well.

I didn't hate it, but I felt like it was missing some element of spin or verve that would take it to an actually-interesting place, aesthetically. Also the NX-01 looked just way too much like later ships. It was a HUNDRED YEARS before Kirk, even, and the ship looked like it was maybe the previous generation from the Constitution class, more like 20 years before. I mean, compare ships from 1923 and 2023, and whilst general configurations may be somewhat similar, the specifics and styling and surfaces and stuff are just hugely different.

 

[Ryujin]

ENT is actually very similar to Picard, if you think about it.

People were really looking forward to the first season, and then .... oh. We're getting this?

Then there was a second season that amounted to a reset and decided to UP THE STAKES to a decidedly mixed reception.

Finally, a third season that people liked, but only because it chose to stop doing anything new and just concentrate on pure, unadulterated fan service.

Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

Enterprise had a couple of things that they could have jumped on to both make it more interesting, and make it appeal to long-time Trek fans. Given the time period they could have gone with the Founding of the Federation, or The Earth/Romulan War. They didn't get to these until they already knew they were cancelled and their take on the Romular War was just... bizarre.