Star Trek Picard SPOILERS thread

[S'mon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.