Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

kingtj

macrumors 68030
Oct 23, 2003
2,606
749
Brunswick, MD
For me it was the complete opposite. I thought he did a wonderful job with acting. The argument he had with the starfleet officer was so intense but he also had really touching scenes with Troi, Soji, and Data.

I tend to agree. Really, there wasn't much I could fault with the acting from any of the characters in this series? I thought all of them played their roles well. Soji, especially, did a good job going through that whole process of trying to discover who she really was - complete with the anger, confusion, distrust, hope .... all of it.

I don't think it's relevant to compare Picard's character to his role played in X-Men movies. Professor X and Jean Luc are not supposed to be the same people at all! (FWIW, there's a movie out there called "Safe House" that stars Patrick Stewart in more of a comedic role, where he really manages to break out of the "mold" I think we all tend to typecast him in. Worth checking out if you never saw it and like his acting.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisterSavage

Huntn

macrumors Core
May 5, 2008
23,516
26,631
The Misty Mountains
Hard to please us all isn't it? lol

Irrespective of my thoughts on Picard the series, I think they should have left him dead and moved on.

The timing and situation were right, particularly with Data going as well (albeit - again)..
I'm not a huge fan of sci-fi constantly doing the "he's dead!" -- wait...an all new miracle! He's back! routine..

It's very "schticky" IMO

Let's have death actually be "death" and mean something for a change...
The their dead, wait, no they are not, is a story crutch frequently used to toy with the audience emotions. Avengers Infinity War is crowned the King for relying on this mechanism. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Obi Wan Kenobi

phrehdd

macrumors 601
Oct 25, 2008
4,321
1,314
I agree to each his own. :)
A couple days ago, I watched X-Men United which is hard to believe it came out 17 years ago, and Patrick Stewart still has his edge. And I have seen elderly actors who have done excellent jobs such as Edward G.Robinson in Soylent Green or Maggie Smith in Downton Abbey, but Patrick Stewart’s performance in Picard is a bit to geriatric for me making it harder to invest myself in the story.

I guess the best thing to do is focus more on story lines and other characters and consider him a catalyst and that is all. No matter which way they took the character, it would have been problematic. Rather than stuck at the vineyard, it seems he would have "retired" to do archeological digs and such but that would have then had people arguing that he is being shaped after Dr. Jone or Laura Croft or... For me, I'll just go for the story as this late life of Picard is a whimper.
 

Huntn

macrumors Core
May 5, 2008
23,516
26,631
The Misty Mountains
I guess the best thing to do is focus more on story lines and other characters and consider him a catalyst and that is all. No matter which way they took the character, it would have been problematic. Rather than stuck at the vineyard, it seems he would have "retired" to do archeological digs and such but that would have then had people arguing that he is being shaped after Dr. Jone or Laura Croft or... For me, I'll just go for the story as this late life of Picard is a whimper.
Easier not to watch, as I said, other elements of the story did not pull me in either. But I‘m about to finish up Discovery Season 2. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: phrehdd

fuchsdh

macrumors 68020
Jun 19, 2014
2,018
1,818
I was happy they brought Spock back from the dead so they had me hook, line, and sinker! :D

Spock's death and return is perhaps the perfect example of how to make a character resurrection work. His death is a huge part of the themes of Star Trek II, and likewise so is his resurrection—Kirk and co. risk their careers and ultimately lives, and Spock's resurrection costs Kirk his son and his ship. To top it all off, the film after that still has the characters grapple with the fact that Spock isn't exactly the character they knew.

It's a far sight away from stuff like Picard or (even more egregiously) the recent Star Wars film pull, where they kill characters and backtrack in mere minutes, and there's no actual consequences.

The the dead, wait, no they are not, is a story crutch frequently used to toy with the audience emotions. Avengers Infinity War is crowned the King for relying on this mechanism. :)
Likewise I don't think this counts either. Everybody dies in the previous movie, they spend time developing the fallout from that, and the characters who die in the second film by and large stay dead.


Ultimately Picard and Discovery to me have all been suffering from the same ills as the Star Trek reboots—surrendering far too often to spectacle and noise instead of focusing on characters, and weirdly doubling down on "classic Trek" only in terms of perpetuating its faults rather than its message or its strengths.
 

turbineseaplane

macrumors G5
Mar 19, 2008
14,850
31,771
Spock's death and return is perhaps the perfect example of how to make a character resurrection work. His death is a huge part of the themes of Star Trek II, and likewise so is his resurrection—Kirk and co. risk their careers and ultimately lives, and Spock's resurrection costs Kirk his son and his ship. To top it all off, the film after that still has the characters grapple with the fact that Spock isn't exactly the character they knew.

It's a far sight away from stuff like Picard or (even more egregiously) the recent Star Wars film pull, where they kill characters and backtrack in mere minutes, and there's no actual consequences.

Bingo - At least with Spock and being a Vulcan we can sort of "work our way up to it" and buy in over the course of a narrative about why/how the resurrection can make some sense and have a journey to it...

Imagine if they'd had the whole engine room scene with Kirk...and then he's just "back" and all is well with a quick visit to sick bay with Bones, all before TWOK even ended!

That's basically what just happened with Picard.

I'm sorry to those who enjoyed it, but in my opinion that was dreadful writing and execution of that concept surrounding life>death>life for Jean-Luc
 

MisterSavage

macrumors 601
Nov 10, 2018
4,646
5,492
To top it all off, the film after that still has the characters grapple with the fact that Spock isn't exactly the character they knew.

But isn't that one of the things to look forward to for season 2? I'm especially curious how his Romulan friends on the vineyard are going to react.
 

Huntn

macrumors Core
May 5, 2008
23,516
26,631
The Misty Mountains
Spock's death and return is perhaps the perfect example of how to make a character resurrection work. His death is a huge part of the themes of Star Trek II, and likewise so is his resurrection—Kirk and co. risk their careers and ultimately lives, and Spock's resurrection costs Kirk his son and his ship. To top it all off, the film after that still has the characters grapple with the fact that Spock isn't exactly the character they knew.

It's a far sight away from stuff like Picard or (even more egregiously) the recent Star Wars film pull, where they kill characters and backtrack in mere minutes, and there's no actual consequences.


Likewise I don't think this counts either. Everybody dies in the previous movie, they spend time developing the fallout from that, and the characters who die in the second film by and large stay dead.


Ultimately Picard and Discovery to me have all been suffering from the same ills as the Star Trek reboots—surrendering far too often to spectacle and noise instead of focusing on characters, and weirdly doubling down on "classic Trek" only in terms of perpetuating its faults rather than its message or its strengths.

Not making any excuses, but Discovery being serial instead of episodic is fundamentally different than STNG. NG reigns supreme and I think it’s a lot more difficult to build 30 stand alone episodes for a season, although they are tied together with continuing story elements. I’m liking Discovery and was happily surprised when they tied Captain Pike‘s fate in with the original series. I still have the last 2 Discovery episodes to watch!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cdcastillo

fuchsdh

macrumors 68020
Jun 19, 2014
2,018
1,818
Bingo - At least with Spock and being a Vulcan we can sort of "work our way up to it" and buy in over the course of a narrative about why/how the resurrection can make some sense and have a journey to it...

Imagine if they'd had the whole engine room scene with Kirk...and then he's just "back" and all is well with a quick visit to sick bay with Bones, all before TWOK even ended!

That's basically what just happened with Picard.

I'm sorry to those who enjoyed it, but in my opinion that was dreadful writing and execution of that concept surrounding life>death>life for Jean-Luc

We don't have to imagine that... because what you outlined happened, just with magic blood, in Into Darkness. :p

But isn't that one of the things to look forward to for season 2? I'm especially curious how his Romulan friends on the vineyard are going to react.

It remains to be seen. It's not like Discovery kept a lot of its threads around in S2.

But this is another one of the problems I have with modern serialized television—the idea that maybe stuff will pay off down the line is used as a lure instead of actually having satisfactory payoffs right then and there.

If Picard being a synthetic person actually plays into things in a big way next season, I'll be rather surprised, just because they spent a lot of time making sure that it was a distinction without a difference this season—"oh and you'll have a normal lifespan still!"
 

MisterSavage

macrumors 601
Nov 10, 2018
4,646
5,492
It remains to be seen. It's not like Discovery kept a lot of its threads around in S2.

I feel kind of silly because I completely forgot about watching Discovery. I was way too busy to watch it when Picard was airing and I forgot that I hadn't watched it when I cancelled CBS streaming. I'll give it a proper go this fall when Picard season 2 is ready. I've got to catch up on other shows like the Expanse first.
 

turbineseaplane

macrumors G5
Mar 19, 2008
14,850
31,771
I'll give it a proper go this fall when Picard season 2 is ready.

Could be a longer wait than that..

As for when the release date of Picard Season 2 will be, the mass shutdowns of TV productions due to coronavirus has put the future of all shows in the balance. The current season filmed from April to September 2019 and aired in January 2020. However, Season 2 is unlikely to be able to start shooting in April this year, which might push the release date Season 2 to summer or even winter 2021 and beyond, depending on when TV production can begin again in the U.S.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/star-trek-picard-season-2-release-date-cast-cbs-all-access-1494375
 

Sedulous

macrumors 68030
Dec 10, 2002
2,530
2,577
STD is awful and it is clear that the people writing it have no idea what makes Star Trek “Trek”. Picard is almost worse than STD. There are too many pointless characters, Picard is NOT Picard and seems to take a backseat in his own series. The writing is jarringly bad and seems to take delight in its own inconsistency. The only scene that brought any joy was Riker leading the fleet at the end of the series. Ultimately I think both STD and Picard are not really Star Trek... they are generic sci-fi masquerading as Star Trek. They certainly have no resemblance to Roddenberry’s vision and in my opinion both STD and Picard are cultural vandalism.
 

kingtj

macrumors 68030
Oct 23, 2003
2,606
749
Brunswick, MD
STD is awful and it is clear that the people writing it have no idea what makes Star Trek “Trek”. Picard is almost worse than STD. There are too many pointless characters, Picard is NOT Picard and seems to take a backseat in his own series. The writing is jarringly bad and seems to take delight in its own inconsistency. The only scene that brought any joy was Riker leading the fleet at the end of the series. Ultimately I think both STD and Picard are not really Star Trek... they are generic sci-fi masquerading as Star Trek. They certainly have no resemblance to Roddenberry’s vision and in my opinion both STD and Picard are cultural vandalism.

You're entitled to your opinion, just like anyone else. But frankly, Roddenberry's vision bothers me as being kind of a utopian socialist idealism. I feel like despite him imagining an amazingly good science-fiction series, he also had that underlying agenda that grates on my nerves. (Politically, I'm pretty much your "small l" libertarian. Not necessarily a fan at all of many people who ran for office as part of the Libertarian Party in America, but I'm very much about libertarian philosophies and principles.)

The fact that his universe is far in the future leaves a lot of "wiggle room" to accept that most truly moved beyond Capitalism and a real need for human labor to get things done. (The Ferengi in DS9 are an obvious outlier in that, but I understand that's more because they treat wealth and money as more like a religion.) But there's always been a sense, in my mind, that the Federation acted sort of like a dictator, enforcing what the "new normal" was supposed to be for everybody. And a few Trek episodes even hint at this, when you run into the random characters who operate outside Federation law as traders or scavengers. I feel like the unspoken reality of Roddenberry's Trek is you either comply with Starfleet Command or you're not privileged to take part in the technologies they deploy that allow people to move beyond Capitalism (like replicators that just produce anything you need out of random molecules in the air).

So I actually liked the fact that the Picard series put a spin on things where Starfleet had some corruption going on in it, on the inside, and it wasn't this flawless authority that had no downsides of compliance with its mandates.
 

Sedulous

macrumors 68030
Dec 10, 2002
2,530
2,577
You're entitled to your opinion, just like anyone else. But frankly, Roddenberry's vision bothers me as being kind of a utopian socialist idealism. I feel like despite him imagining an amazingly good science-fiction series, he also had that underlying agenda that grates on my nerves. (Politically, I'm pretty much your "small l" libertarian. Not necessarily a fan at all of many people who ran for office as part of the Libertarian Party in America, but I'm very much about libertarian philosophies and principles.)

The fact that his universe is far in the future leaves a lot of "wiggle room" to accept that most truly moved beyond Capitalism and a real need for human labor to get things done. (The Ferengi in DS9 are an obvious outlier in that, but I understand that's more because they treat wealth and money as more like a religion.) But there's always been a sense, in my mind, that the Federation acted sort of like a dictator, enforcing what the "new normal" was supposed to be for everybody. And a few Trek episodes even hint at this, when you run into the random characters who operate outside Federation law as traders or scavengers. I feel like the unspoken reality of Roddenberry's Trek is you either comply with Starfleet Command or you're not privileged to take part in the technologies they deploy that allow people to move beyond Capitalism (like replicators that just produce anything you need out of random molecules in the air).

So I actually liked the fact that the Picard series put a spin on things where Starfleet had some corruption going on in it, on the inside, and it wasn't this flawless authority that had no downsides of compliance with its mandates.
Thank you for your considerate response. Ask yourself this question: Why call these shows (STD / Picard) “Trek” if they have abandoned the core tenets of Star Trek, established characters, and canon? These shows are Star Trek in name only. I think that is fundamentally where the divide is rooted. It is like taking a glass of milk and calling it orange juice. Likewise, it is not so much the absence of, as you say, social utopia but injection of a more “conventional gritty realism” that feels far out of place. Star Trek was supposed to be a “guiding light” that humanity can grow out of the petty squabbling tribalism and journey into the greater beyond.

”It is the struggle itself that is most important.
We must strive to be more than we are.
It does not matter that we will never reach our ultimate goal.
The effort yields its own rewards.” —Data
 
Last edited:

Huntn

macrumors Core
May 5, 2008
23,516
26,631
The Misty Mountains
You're entitled to your opinion, just like anyone else. But frankly, Roddenberry's vision bothers me as being kind of a utopian socialist idealism. I feel like despite him imagining an amazingly good science-fiction series, he also had that underlying agenda that grates on my nerves. (Politically, I'm pretty much your "small l" libertarian. Not necessarily a fan at all of many people who ran for office as part of the Libertarian Party in America, but I'm very much about libertarian philosophies and principles.)

The fact that his universe is far in the future leaves a lot of "wiggle room" to accept that most truly moved beyond Capitalism and a real need for human labor to get things done. (The Ferengi in DS9 are an obvious outlier in that, but I understand that's more because they treat wealth and money as more like a religion.) But there's always been a sense, in my mind, that the Federation acted sort of like a dictator, enforcing what the "new normal" was supposed to be for everybody. And a few Trek episodes even hint at this, when you run into the random characters who operate outside Federation law as traders or scavengers. I feel like the unspoken reality of Roddenberry's Trek is you either comply with Starfleet Command or you're not privileged to take part in the technologies they deploy that allow people to move beyond Capitalism (like replicators that just produce anything you need out of random molecules in the air).

So I actually liked the fact that the Picard series put a spin on things where Starfleet had some corruption going on in it, on the inside, and it wasn't this flawless authority that had no downsides of compliance with its mandates.
Answered in the PRSI forum: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ive-to-american-economy.2157029/post-28362835
[automerge]1586873464[/automerge]
Thank you for your considerate response. Ask yourself this question: Why call these shows (STD / Picard) “Trek” if they have abandoned the core tenets of Star Trek, established characters, and canon? These shows are Star Trek in name only. I think that is fundamentally where the divide is rooted. It is like taking a glass of milk and calling it orange juice. Likewise, it is not so much the absence of, as you say, social utopia but injection of a more “conventional gritty realism” that feels far out of place. Star Trek was supposed to be a “guiding light” that humanity can grow out of the petty squabbling tribalism and journey into the greater beyond.

”It is the struggle itself that is most important.
We must strive to be more than we are.
It does not matter that we will never reach our ultimate goal.
The effort yields its own rewards.” —Data
First off, this is not me picking a fight. :)

Why would you say Star Trek Discovery has abandoned the core tenants of Star Trek? I just finished Season 2 and I heard a whole lot about the type of ideals I’d expect to hear in a Star Trek show.
 

hvfsl

macrumors 68000
Jul 9, 2001
1,867
185
London, UK
Thank you for your considerate response. Ask yourself this question: Why call these shows (STD / Picard) “Trek” if they have abandoned the core tenets of Star Trek, established characters, and canon? These shows are Star Trek in name only. I think that is fundamentally where the divide is rooted. It is like taking a glass of milk and calling it orange juice. Likewise, it is not so much the absence of, as you say, social utopia but injection of a more “conventional gritty realism” that feels far out of place. Star Trek was supposed to be a “guiding light” that humanity can grow out of the petty squabbling tribalism and journey into the greater beyond.

”It is the struggle itself that is most important.
We must strive to be more than we are.
It does not matter that we will never reach our ultimate goal.
The effort yields its own rewards.” —Data
Well in the latest Discovery, it is set in a time where the Federation has fallen apart. This has always been a story Roddenberry wanted to tell on TV, but never got the chance in his life time. His wife, after his death helped to pitch Andromeda which was based on his ideas, but it was always meant to be a Star Trek story. So while I get your point about preferring a more utopian Star Trek, one of the aims of both shows is to show a broken/fractured federation and take you on a journey of how the people change that. Essentially an allegory for the world finds itself now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kingtj

kingtj

macrumors 68030
Oct 23, 2003
2,606
749
Brunswick, MD
Considering Patrick Stewart himself appears to have had a lot of say-so in how the series was scripted? It seems to me that lends some legitimacy to it, in and of itself. I mean, if you're going to say the actor who played a main character like that in Star Trek for so many years has no idea about his own character's role and how he'd really interact with others? Well .... ok, but that seems like a big stretch.

For better or for worse, I felt like the Picard series tried to be that "guiding light" for today's world in a number of ways. Steward explained in an interview how he intended the series to draw parallels to current political events including Brexit and the clash between Pro-Trump Republicans and Democrats in America. The way the synths are treated is supposed to parallel some of the racism we see today in society.

Maybe he shouldn't have gone there? Honestly, I already know I have a strong dislike for the political leanings of some of the other Trek actors and actresses. But I can still objectively see what he was trying to communicate.

It was certainly more "gritty" and less utopian. But I guess I'm saying I could go along with that part of it, given the fact it's taking place in the future and painting a picture that the previous utopia didn't quite work out so well.


Thank you for your considerate response. Ask yourself this question: Why call these shows (STD / Picard) “Trek” if they have abandoned the core tenets of Star Trek, established characters, and canon? These shows are Star Trek in name only. I think that is fundamentally where the divide is rooted. It is like taking a glass of milk and calling it orange juice. Likewise, it is not so much the absence of, as you say, social utopia but injection of a more “conventional gritty realism” that feels far out of place. Star Trek was supposed to be a “guiding light” that humanity can grow out of the petty squabbling tribalism and journey into the greater beyond.

”It is the struggle itself that is most important.
We must strive to be more than we are.
It does not matter that we will never reach our ultimate goal.
The effort yields its own rewards.” —Data
 

fuchsdh

macrumors 68020
Jun 19, 2014
2,018
1,818
Considering Patrick Stewart himself appears to have had a lot of say-so in how the series was scripted? It seems to me that lends some legitimacy to it, in and of itself. I mean, if you're going to say the actor who played a main character like that in Star Trek for so many years has no idea about his own character's role and how he'd really interact with others? Well .... ok, but that seems like a big stretch.

For better or for worse, I felt like the Picard series tried to be that "guiding light" for today's world in a number of ways. Steward explained in an interview how he intended the series to draw parallels to current political events including Brexit and the clash between Pro-Trump Republicans and Democrats in America. The way the synths are treated is supposed to parallel some of the racism we see today in society.

Maybe he shouldn't have gone there? Honestly, I already know I have a strong dislike for the political leanings of some of the other Trek actors and actresses. But I can still objectively see what he was trying to communicate.

It was certainly more "gritty" and less utopian. But I guess I'm saying I could go along with that part of it, given the fact it's taking place in the future and painting a picture that the previous utopia didn't quite work out so well.

Stewart's lobbying was a not-insignificant part of the random action hero business in Nemesis and the dune buggy scene, as well as the ham-fisted romance of Insurrection.

In general, actors are generally not who you want to be directing the content of scripts.
 

turbineseaplane

macrumors G5
Mar 19, 2008
14,850
31,771
Stewart's lobbying was a not-insignificant part of the random action hero business in Nemesis and the dune buggy scene, as well as the ham-fisted romance of Insurrection.

In general, actors are generally not who you want to be directing the content of scripts.

Precisely my thoughts..

It's sort of akin to having the sailors steering the ship.
For most situations, it's a different skill set and perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.