log in or register to remove this ad

 

Star Trek Picard SPOILERS thread

Sadras

Hero
I know! I was thrilled.

Edit: It also helped that much of the characters were more likeable in Season Two...

Speaking about characters (IMO)
1. They gave the protagonist less screen time and it wasn't always about her angst.
2. They also did not ruin Christopher Pike the same way they ruined Gabriel Lorca.
3. There was more to build on thanks to the previous season.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sadras

Hero
“Toxic fan culture” refers to something very specific.

What I'm afraid is happening, is that many real concerns of many fans for various genres do not seem to matter to a few Hollywood types. Only the bottom line matters for obvious reasons. So from a fan perspective the big corporate pushes on in willful ignorance fueling this toxic fan culture.

From my perspective those HW types live in a bubble without any concern of the fandom. The clearest example of this are the two Ferengians who made GoT. Personally, I would happily see those two individuals burn online given their absolute apathy towards the fans and any criticism of their show.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
I'm sorry, I didn't follow GoT at all (yeah, yeah, turn in my geek cred card at the door :( ) but, from what I understood, GoT was insanely popular. What was the issue?
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I'm sorry, I didn't follow GoT at all (yeah, yeah, turn in my geek cred card at the door :( ) but, from what I understood, GoT was insanely popular. What was the issue?

The ending/last two seasons.

It started going downhill season 5 but the last two seasons were rushed espicially the last one.

The pacing was off, rushed, probably unsatisfied ending.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
What I'm afraid is happening, is that many real concerns of many fans for various genres do not seem to matter to a few Hollywood types.
Again, that is not what 'toxic fan culture' means. I've explained it, like three times now. It has nothing to do with that.
 

Sadras

Hero
I'm sorry, I didn't follow GoT at all (yeah, yeah, turn in my geek cred card at the door :( ) but, from what I understood, GoT was insanely popular. What was the issue?

Don't worry if we have to turn our geek card in at the door I would be first with SW. I watched Rogue One, it wasn't what I wanted from SW and I knew Disney would not be able to deliver/cater for my likes so I didn't watch anything after that. Heard about all the blowback from both sides. What a hot mess.
From what I heard and could be mistaken, it seemed like the person in charge went in without a plan for the 3 movies.

Anyways back to GoT. It was not just that the last few seasons were bad (and they were bad) - it was the absolute ABSOLUTE apathy and sheer SHEER arrogance of the two show runners i.e. what they were saying in interviews as well as interviews they purposefuly dropped out from. SW fans can be grateful these two were cut from any SW projects. Those two deserve everything they got and keep getting online. That is the way I feel.

With regards to Picard. I was disappointed. The story they wanted to tell was not bad and they did try to plug an interesting hole I had never thought of before about the absence of andriods/synths not existing within the ST universe. The inter-connectivity (forced relationship) with everyone involved with the synths was a little over the top but what you gonna do. HW seems to be filled with a plethora of average writers of late...so many shows I have stopped watching because of that. It forces one to try out European movies and series instead which is the silver lining.

So last year I watched the Ghostbuster movie on Netflix in a casual relaxed unassuming environment (which I think plays a huge role in one's opinion on a movie). I liked the cameos and I actually didn't mind it - but I can see how fans of the originals may take issue with it.
Now funny enough, my reaction to The Hustle, a Dirty Rotten Scoundrels remake, was much much stronger. The Hustle for me failed in almost EVERY regard and I like Anne Hathaway - but seriously how could they try to match the two ladies to Steve Martin and Michael Caine which latter two were already giants by the time they made that movie.

It is different for everyone and the circumstances one watches the movie in plays a major role.
For instance, I watched Iron Man II as part of a massive marathon so that I could watch Avengers & Endgame and I actually was much less critical of it the second time round. I actually surprised myself in this regard.
 



Hussar

Legend
Yeah, @Sadras, I can totally understand that. I watched Solo and thought the same thing as you thought with Ghostbusters. It was a fun movie and I enjoyed it and so did my girls. Which makes all the storm und drang over it just seem so strange. I'm so far removed from fandom that most of the hype, positive and negative, totally passes me by.
 

MarkB

Legend
This as I kid I didn't get Khan, probably because I didn't know who Khan was.
Pretty much nobody knew who Khan was. He appeared in one episode of the original series, and at the time the movie came out, pretty much the only cheap and accessible way to catch up on old episodes was to hope they happened to be re-run on TV.
 

S'mon

Legend
Re Picard's alluding to current events (Romulans = manipulative Russians or hapless Syrian refugees, Federation = Trump's America) - well they did that in TOS too, often with less subtlety! In itself I don't see that as a bad thing at all, it depends on how well it's handled. Maybe I have a low bar for SF following The Last Jedi, but I thought Picard did a pretty good job. I liked how they rooted so much in the lore, so that even the suddenly multi racial Romulans could claim ancestry in Voyager's Tuvok as well as in the wildly varying past depictions.
 

Ryujin

Hero
Pretty much nobody knew who Khan was. He appeared in one episode of the original series, and at the time the movie came out, pretty much the only cheap and accessible way to catch up on old episodes was to hope they happened to be re-run on TV.

Kids didn't know. People my age knew ;)
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
What I'm afraid is happening, is that many real concerns of many fans for various genres do not seem to matter to a few Hollywood types. Only the bottom line matters for obvious reasons.

So... this form of argument often contains some implicit gatekeeping. You may not intend it, but, I want to unpack it.

Posit: Anyone who goes, "Oh, cool, there's a new {insert franchise here} movie coming out. I'm going to see it," is a fan of that franchise. This means that there is pretty much zero difference from serving the bottom line, and serving fans.

There are some fans who disagree with my posit. They think (perhaps implicitly) that the bulk of folks going to the movies aren't real fans. They feel their real fandom entitles them to greater consideration of their concerns.

That sense of entitlement is part of the toxicity, and it can go climb a rope.

So, you kind of have to have evidence that the "many fans" were actually a huge number, that would have made a significant dent in the box office gross (or ratings, or subscription rates for TV and streaming services). We are usually talking about movies that made a billion dollars at the box office - it becomes hard to argue that a majority of those people had big issues.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
So... this form of argument often contains some implicit gatekeeping. You may not intend it, but, I want to unpack it.

Posit: Anyone who goes, "Oh, cool, there's a new {insert franchise here} movie coming out. I'm going to see it," is a fan of that franchise. This means that there is pretty much zero difference from serving the bottom line, and serving fans.

There are some fans who disagree with my posit. They think (perhaps implicitly) that the bulk of folks going to the movies aren't real fans. They feel their real fandom entitles them to greater consideration of their concerns.

That sense of entitlement is part of the toxicity, and it can go climb a rope.

So, you kind of have to have evidence that the "many fans" were actually a huge number, that would have made a significant dent in the box office gross (or ratings, or subscription rates for TV and streaming services). We are usually talking about movies that made a billion dollars at the box office - it becomes hard to argue that a majority of those people had big issues.

Outside of Disney there were a lot of bombs in 2019 for various franchises eg Men in Black, Charlie's Angels, Terminator.

Star Treks also done on the big screen for the forseeable future (pre Covid).
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Outside of Disney there were a lot of bombs in 2019 for various franchises eg Men in Black, Charlie's Angels, Terminator.

There's a lot of movies (and TV shows) that bomb, period. Being part of a franchise doesn't change that.

Star Treks also done on the big screen for the forseeable future (pre Covid).

This is the best example of my point - despite having very little change in casting, half or more of all Star Trek movies... aren't great.

Interestingly, I've yet to see a Star Trek on TV that I didn't find good enough to please me. Some of them have some weaknesses, they all occasionally have clunker episodes, but they have all been worth my time, overall.
 

Sadras

Hero
So... this form of argument often contains some implicit gatekeeping. You may not intend it, but, I want to unpack it.

Perhaps there is.

Posit: Anyone who goes, "Oh, cool, there's a new {insert franchise here} movie coming out. I'm going to see it," is a fan of that franchise. This means that there is pretty much zero difference from serving the bottom line, and serving fans.

There are some fans who disagree with my posit. They think (perhaps implicitly) that the bulk of folks going to the movies aren't real fans. They feel their real fandom entitles them to greater consideration of their concerns.

That sense of entitlement is part of the toxicity, and it can go climb a rope.

If I am understanding you correctly and I readily admit I'm unsure if I completely am...
For me there is a marked difference between watching a movie and watching 8 seasons of a series. One watching a movie might not necessarily be a fan. One watching 8 seasons of a series is fair enough to be called a fan.

As for the greater consideration - my "toxicity" is not derived from how much I dislike the show - but the comments made thereafter by the two showrunners as well as the dodgeball they played at conventions letting the poor actors, a handful of which made indirect disapproving comments about the script or the way their characters behaved, who were left alone to deal with a frustrated audience/fanbase/whatever.

That was absolute cowardice. So I'm happy to have them go climb a rope.

So, you kind of have to have evidence that the "many fans" were actually a huge number, that would have made a significant dent in the box office gross (or ratings, or subscription rates for TV and streaming services). We are usually talking about movies that made a billion dollars at the box office - it becomes hard to argue that a majority of those people had big issues.

In my post I'm referring to a series not a movie. And I fail to see why I have to justify the use of the words many fans that would equate to significant dent in economic profits. Many fans is I suppose in the eye of the beholder. When a petition gets raised to complain about a series ending and receives 1.5 million signatures - to me that is many fans. You may disagree - that is fine.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
There's a lot of movies (and TV shows) that bomb, period. Being part of a franchise doesn't change that.



This is the best example of my point - despite having very little change in casting, half or more of all Star Trek movies... aren't great.

Interestingly, I've yet to see a Star Trek on TV that I didn't find good enough to please me. Some of them have some weaknesses, they all occasionally have clunker episodes, but they have all been worth my time, overall.

I think Trek is better for longer series based storytelling. The movies are very hit and miss.

I liked IV and First Contact a lot. Movies might work better with a TV show cast.

The Star Trek movies need to be lower budget, under 100 million more focus on the story, less explosions IMHO.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Supporter
The line between liking a thing and being a fan (short for fanatic) of that thing is fuzzy, and trying to pin it down easily leads to gatekeeping.

But there is a difference.

I liked and enjoyed the movie "Shrek". I've even seen it more than once. But I wouldn't consider myself a fan. I'm indifferent to seeing it again.

I'm definitely a Star Trek fan! I've seen all the episodes and movies multiple times each and looking forward to rewatching (most) of them again and again.

But, I'm not a Trekkie or superfan. I've only read some of the novels, don't own any of the tech manuals, only have a few collectables. I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the franchise.

Are these differences real? Yes. Are they important? Perhaps situationally, but any superfan who wants to gatekeep me can take a long walk off a short pier.
 

Hussar

Legend
I think Trek is better for longer series based storytelling. The movies are very hit and miss.

I liked IV and First Contact a lot. Movies might work better with a TV show cast.

The Star Trek movies need to be lower budget, under 100 million more focus on the story, less explosions IMHO.

Heh. "longer based storytelling?" That's newer Trek like Discovery or Picard. You might make the argument for ST:Enterprise as well. Older Trek? Totally episodic. Even the DS9 stories were mostly episodic with a couple of longer stories being sprinkled into the mix after the Dominion gets involved.

And, really, the movies have always been more miss than hit, as far as money making goes. None of them, other than the first movie, made any significant money. They might not have bombed, but, they also weren't lighting up the charts either. It's not like any of them would be considered blockbusters. They are kind of like Bond movies that way - solid, middle of the road money makers.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Heh. "longer based storytelling?" That's newer Trek like Discovery or Picard. You might make the argument for ST:Enterprise as well. Older Trek? Totally episodic. Even the DS9 stories were mostly episodic with a couple of longer stories being sprinkled into the mix after the Dominion gets involved.

And, really, the movies have always been more miss than hit, as far as money making goes. None of them, other than the first movie, made any significant money. They might not have bombed, but, they also weren't lighting up the charts either. It's not like any of them would be considered blockbusters. They are kind of like Bond movies that way - solid, middle of the road money makers.

Yeah they might drop the ball but episodic is the way to do Trek IMHO.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top