Will this ruin the legacy of Jean-Luc and TNG?
I am not sure how this will be good without the supporting cast involved.
shareJeri Ryan is there.... what more you need?
share
MovieChat Forums > Star Trek: Picard (2020) Discussion > Will this ruin the legacy of Jean-Luc an...
Star Trek and Picard has been officially destroyed. Thanks SJW's.
sharethanks CBS...
shareStar Trek was always liberal. Why don't young people know that?
shareOld "liberal" was great. Nu-liberal is something different.
shareStar Trek was always CENTRIST, Kurtzman Trek is radical far left nonsense. Why don't dumb people know that?
shareSome liberal and even revolutionary behavior in the 1960's would be considered centrist now.
For instance, most 60s shows had all-white casts. Roddenberry fought to have a black person on the bridge. Diversity was very radical for a show. ST also had Asian and Hispanic characters which was even more rare.
He failed in having a female second-in-command because viewers weren't ready to accept that a woman could have power. ALL news commentators were white men when I was a kid. After the 3 networks lost a class-action suit, I remember there was major concern that viewers wouldn't find a woman's voice "authoritive" enough to deliver news.
Now, a diverse cast, female leaders and news commentators are considered normal!
The South banned a few ST episodes from airing. One episode in which Kirk and Uhura kissed.
Now, mixed-marriages are routinely portrayed on TV in ads and shows. Kissing is common.
The point is that people had to fight to make changes. Those formerly liberal things are considered normal and centrist now.
The world you lived in as a child will be drastically different from the one you live in many decades later. What was shocking then will become normalized.
Original Star Trek was liberal. Not centrist. Once, it was also radically futuristic. But, we caught up with our personal computers, stunguns, smartphones, CAT scans, etc..
Gene Rodenberry named Janice RAND after REPUBLICAN author Ayn Rand who he admired. Ayn Rand liked Star Trek, probably because it was CENTRIST and didn't offend either side.
shareIrrelevant, if it's true. Characters aren't always named after someone who is admired.
Furthermore, only someone who is close-minded would limit their TV viewing or books based on their political views. Intellectuals explore ideas.
You know that capitalism doesn't exist in the federation and money is extinct. They're also socialists - in the literal sense. Yet Rand who was pro-capitalism was a Trekkie.
Oh, you're one of those idiots spreading the myth ST is socialist. ST is post currency. They use replicators for all there needs.
shareThe capitalists Ferengi, whose main goal is profit, are considered greedy, deceitful and opportunists. All negative characteristics.
There is no private industry in the federation. The means of production is controlled by the state, therefore they're socialists. BTW, the state created those replicators.
https://fee.org/articles/is-star-trek-s-society-really-socialist/
shareIrrelevant. An opinion piece from an unknown individual.
You're moving very far from your original position which was about Ayn Rand. You implied that she was a Republican therefore Trek was central. Your conclusion is illogical.
Anyway, she was a capitalist. The federation is not a capitalist society. They have no free enterprise system. They have a society in which food, medical care, shelter, clothing, jobs and replicators are provided by the federation government.
Kurtzman Star Trek? Do you mean STD?
It's not canon nor is in an alternate timeline, therefore I don't consider it Trek and I won't watch.
Just out of curiosity, what do find radical about it?
Picard and STD are produced by Kurtzman.
shareI didn't find anything radical about Picard.
STD isn't watchable. Besides not canon, it's very boring, dark and dreary. The opposite of what Roddenberry wanted in his utopian series.
Picard's character was assassinated by this show as he apologizes to scolding harpies for being male, then dies and is brought back as an empty shell the same age he was before. It's all just pointless and completely idiotic.
shareOnly if you watch it.
sharewell it did, I tried watching it the first episode since it was free but I couldn't finish it. I might try to finish it soon but it was nothing like I remember ST being. i just dont want it ruin my perception of Picard while watching TNG.
sharefinally watched season 1, it was ok, not great. the constant cursing was inappropriate for star trek. Picard turning into a android/synth was weird. Season 2 is getting worse and makes no sense. Its just a social justice woke commentary. They blew their load on Q, not sure who they can bring in for season 3 to make it palatable.
shareIt also ruined a good chunk of Voyager's legacy as well. That bright city on the hill that was the United Federation in TNG/DS9/VOY feels like a dark and scary place in Picard. It's like after 2379, Star Trek Nemesis, they decided to embrace the values and wickedness of the early 21st century instead of continuing on already established 24th century values & morals.
shareSadly it has a bit. They killed picard off in season 1...smh
shareI was going to say no - I mean, TNG is a separate entity, despite this being a continuation of sorts.
The problem is.... Patrick Stewart has creative control of this thing. And this thing, based on the reviews I am reading - is falling apart even faster than STD - and much of that is the fault of Patrick Stewart - with this thing serving as his vanity project.
So... it's kind of like Will Smith and Bill Cosby - their personal flaws came to light and tarnished everything they have ever made in the past. Same goes for this abortion of a show. Patrick Stewart led the way, talked big - fucked it up in every way possible and if you ever find yourself watching TNG, you may begin to wonder why you'd ever want to watch a dude that fucked up the legacy of this franchise.
Last but not least, because this serves as a direct continuation of TNG of sorts and because it is so poorly written, it's akin to the last season of Game of Thrones. Ask yourself this simple question - did the last season of Game of Thrones tarnish the legacy of the show? It most certainly did.
All of the TNG alumni should be cursing Patrick Stewart's arse for destroying the legacy of a show they were so proud of until now. This will hurt them financially.
I concur. If anything this stains the legacy of Patrick Stewart, not Star Trek. I had no idea before he started starring in garbage projects like this one that his politics were so characteristic of Hollywood douchebags. I used to be under the illusion that the British had a bit more common sense, but their SJW nonsense seems just as bad.
shareAfter watching Season 1, and then watching TNG, I can't look at Captain Picard the same way anymore. Part of me wants so badly to forget this dumpster fire of a show exists, because of that.
share