[TV] New Star Trek Show in Development?

[El Guapo]

Abrams has touched so many things, and a lot of them with the ill-defined "producer" role, that it's hard to judge him overall. He's certainly been attached to several great things, including Lost. But it sure seems like he was deeply involved in the Kelvin Trek movies, and those movies are solidly mediocre, so I don't have much hope for his fourth crack at it. Maybe if the Wandavision guy takes the lead.

But I'll also admit that I'm particularly sour on him on account of the Star Wars movies, because Rise of Skywalker was incredibly awful, and because a lot of the problems with the overall trilogy were the result of crazy plot choices made in order to shoehorn Force Awakens into being a A New Hope remake.

[$iljanus]

But I can't forgive what he did to both Star Trek and Star Wars. How can one man destroy two franchises?

Meh, the same things were said by some folks when The Next Generation (and DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise and....) and Star Was 1 through 3 (and 7 through 9 and....) were made. Both franchises are still around and going strong though. I think "destroy" is being a bit overly dramatic.

I think that Baby Yoda and it's supporting cast of characters on Disney plus will insure that Star Wars will remain quite resilient for some time...

[hepcat]

But I'll also admit that I'm particularly sour on him on account of the Star Wars movies, because Rise of Skywalker was incredibly awful, and because a lot of the problems with the overall trilogy were the result of crazy plot choices made in order to shoehorn Force Awakens into being a A New Hope remake.

However, he did produce The Last Jedi, which is one of the few Star Wars entries that understood nuance and wasn't just a blunt force blow of narrative. Although Abrams did try to go back and rewrite what Rian was trying to do in the last film.

Oh, and it gave us gilk. And I KNOW you share my love of gilk.

But I can't forgive what he did to both Star Trek and Star Wars. How can one man destroy two franchises?

Meh, the same things were said by some folks when The Next Generation (and DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise and....) and Star Was 1 through 3 (and 7 through 9 and....) were made. Both franchises are still around and going strong though. I think "destroy" is being a bit overly dramatic.

I think that Baby Yoda and it's supporting cast of characters on Disney plus will insure that Star Wars will remain quite resilient for some time...

I'm going to get some hate here, but I've grown to friggin' hate Baby Yoda. He's becoming the Star Wars mascot at this point and the franchise is becoming all about the cuteness. Also, the poorly done waddling Baby Yoda does every time he moves annoys me. If you're going to use practical effects and puppets, do it like Farscape did and make it somewhat realistic looking. I mean, they put Rygel on a sled for a reason.

[El Guapo]

But I'll also admit that I'm particularly sour on him on account of the Star Wars movies, because Rise of Skywalker was incredibly awful, and because a lot of the problems with the overall trilogy were the result of crazy plot choices made in order to shoehorn Force Awakens into being a A New Hope remake.

However, he did produce The Last Jedi, which is one of the few Star Wars entries that understood nuance and wasn't just a blunt force blow of narrative. Although Abrams did try to go back and rewrite what Rian was trying to do in the last film.

Oh, and it gave us gilk. And I KNOW you share my love of gilk.

But he directed both Force Awakens and Rise of Skywalker but not Last Jedi, right? That's part of what makes me think that the more he's involved the less likely a movie is to be great.

[hepcat]

I had to go back and look and yeah, Abrams was not involved in the script for The Last Jedi, but is listed as the writer on the other two.

So maybe he has a good eye for talent, but is unaware he's weak in that arena.

But I still enjoy his films on some level. For eye candy, they're not as insultingly stupid as an Underworld film, for example.

Again, I'm not saying they're good films. But they can be entertaining at times. And I'll readily admit that's my own prejudice and is not any indication that I believe that the rating system used by Rotten Tomatoes is by any means wrong. They certified me as fresh, didn't they?

Also, Jedis are dicks.

[El Guapo]

I will say when I wound up re-watching Star Trek Into Darkness on TV and accepted that the plot was stupid and made no sense, I actually enjoyed it.

Also, this is my favorite pitch meeting:

[hepcat]

That pitch meeting video makes a great point about how The Last Jedi tried to establish that she wasn't special, and that the force could be strong in anyone...but then Abrams came along and just destroyed that. Now I am a little more miffed at him for The Rise of Skywalker.

...but we digest...er...digress.

[$iljanus]

I'm going to get some hate here, but I've grown to friggin' hate Baby Yoda. He's becoming the Star Wars mascot at this point and the franchise is becoming all about the cuteness. Also, the poorly done waddling Baby Yoda does every time he moves annoys me. If you're going to use practical effects and puppets, do it like Farscape did and make it somewhat realistic looking. I mean, they put Rygel on a sled for a reason.

You are a monster and I’m going to foe you now (whatever that entails)!

[Sudy]

Meh, the same things were said by some folks when The Next Generation (and DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise and....) and Star Wars 1 through 3 (and 7 through 9 and....) were made. Both franchises are still around and going strong though. I think "destroy" is being a bit overly dramatic.

Hyperbole is my default state. I have measured hope for the future of both franchises. The Mandalorian isn't perfect but I'm very happy with it. The Star Trek series, as we've discussed, I'm very disappointed with. But I still enjoy watching them. With Star Wars what I'm most excited for are the future works that abandon the known universe to a great degree.

I was too young to be aware of what "some folks" were saying when TNG launched, but I can imagine. It's very tonally different from TOS, and that's OK. Given how society was evolving, It had to be. But fans of that generation also had the right to miss TOS. Voyager I always has a problem with though, and Enterprise I was often openly hostile toward despite previously loving Scott Bakula and eagerly tuning in to each episode. Fans are complicated.

Star Wars episodes 1-3 really did destroy the franchise though, in a sense. The writers of current-generation SW are still doing damage control to this day. It didn't destroy it in the sense that the original trilogy was no longer enjoyed, no. Or even that we thought we wouldn't get future properties (with Lucas, who knew... but he was always working on something new). But in terms of the damage it did to canon and the series' reputation I think it's irrefutable. Critically, I think episodes 7-9 have had a similar effect albeit on a much smaller scale. (Note: I half loved The Last Jedi, but it was also problematic. Separate discussion.) They have only breathed new wind into the franchise when they could have redeemed it. (Or at least don't a better job of trying.) If Abrams has been given total control of the trilogy with enough time to plan, I think it would have been much more passable (even though I'm sure we'd still nitpick the hell out of it).


I respect and appreciate your opinions hepcat... and I think I actually have a fairly open mind when it comes to these series futures. But the current iterations just diverge too far from what a logical progression would be in my mind. And I've made peace with this. But it doesn't mean I'll shut up about it. Because I want more, and I want better.

As for Kelvin Trek... I had an open mind following the first one. But what Into Darkness did with the source material was so heinous I could never forgive them. From the beginning, I'd rather they didn't recast the original crew. But most of the castings were enjoyable in their own way. The films were just so tonally different and constantly action oriented. As for Urban, I like him a lot. And I agree he does a good Bones. But he does a good Bones impression, and that to me comes off as kind of insulting and cheap. If this generation really needs its own Trek, go ahead. But it should do its own shit rather than just aping the past. Because how could you ever hope to surpass it? I love Anson Mount too, but don't tell me the new Trek series isn't going to be TOS worship distorted through a 2022 lens.

[hepcat]

But the current iterations just diverge too far from what a logical progression would be in my mind. And I've made peace with this. But it doesn't mean I'll shut up about it. Because I want more, and I want better.

Then you must have REALLY hated The Next Generation as it was quite different than TOS.

As I said before, hating on new shows in long established franchises is to be expected. I don't begrudge you your right to do so.

I love Anson Mount too, but don't tell me the new Trek series isn't going to be TOS worship distorted through a 2022 lens.

Every new entry in the franchise is distorted through the lens of the time period in which it is birthed. DS9 was radically different than any previous Star Trek show and was a reflection of its time in our history (a distrust of government, the rise of the morally gray heroes, etc.).. So that one you must have also really hated.

[Sudy]

Yeah, but you can have a divergence that feels right. I'm trying to think of good example. I'd say Battlestar Galactica, but I didn't know anything about the first show so that's not really fair. You can have a logical progression that feels good, as well as one that doesn't feel quite right. Similarly you can just go batshit different but still come out respect the legacy somehow. And I think the Kelvinverse tried and failed at that. There's a lot of effort to reproduce classic Trek "feelings", but it misses the mark because so much else is different (including our culture).

[hepcat]

I'm not talking about the Kelvin stuff. I'm talking about Discovery, Picard, etc.. Those are not in the Kelvin timeline.

There's a lot of effort to reproduce classic Trek "feelings", but it misses the mark because so much else is different (including our culture).

Which classic Trek do you want? Because we have multiple versions.

Also, I'm curious what "distortion" you're attributing to the latest Star Treks in the context of their production years? From what I can tell, they're including even MORE of the stuff that The Next Generation would have endorsed. For example, gender equality and same sex parents and their families.

[Sudy]

I don't know, this discussion involves about nine franchises at this point.

For the record, I was only three when TNG launched. But when I started watching TOS several years later, I actually was initially shocked by how different TNG was once I moved on to it. But it won me over because it was a good show.

In regards to new Trek productions failing to reproduce classic Trek "feelings", I was referring to Kelvin. But it applies to Discovery as well, in sometimes different ways. And I'm certain it will apply to Strange New Worlds. Let's just call it "nostalgia", but it's more than that. There's a massive effort to shoehorn "what made x great" into these modern productions, and time and again my reaction is that the writers either have no idea what actually made the originals great, or they just aren't up to the task of reproducing it (if it's even a worthwhile effort to try). Give me a pitch black Trek for pitch black times, it's fine. Lorca was honestly my favourite part of Discovery season 1. I just wish the series hadn't been set in the past.

[Sudy]

Also, I'm curious what "distortion" you're attributing to the latest Star Treks in the context of their production years? From what I can tell, they're including even MORE of the stuff that The Next Generation would have endorsed. For example, gender equality and same sex parents and their families.

They're ticking boxes. Sometimes they fit into the overall worlds and stories they're trying to tell, sometimes they don't. Overall, it's definitely a good thing. Even if the first stories that break the ice aren't good, they lay the groundwork for better ones.

When you look at Discovery, do you see a series that feels like an extension of what TNG (pre-movies) built? Because I don't. Somewhere in season two or three they started trying to inject "hope" into Discovery, but it's not the same thing.

[hepcat]

When you look at Discovery, do you see a series that feels like an extension of what TNG (pre-movies) built?

Yup...and I see some TOS, some DS9, some Enterprise and (unfortunately at times) some Voyager. You seem to think Star Trek is a monolithic entity. It is not.

In regards to new Trek productions failing to reproduce classic Trek "feelings", I was referring to Kelvin. But it applies to Discovery as well,

I get the feeling you're not actually watching Discovery, because they most certainly do reproduce those feelings. Last season was all about reestablishing the ideas of Starfleet after a cataclysm broke it apart (the last remaining son of a federation officer manning a lonely outpost and continuing the duties of his father stands out as emblematic of that) . This season is all about doing the right thing even when it's difficult. It absolutely lives up to what TNG (and other Star Trek shows) embodied...and it even serves up a positive message to the LGBTQ community in the process in an organic and meaningful manner. Even if you feel that means

They're ticking boxes.

Oh, and it has Reno.

[Sudy]

When you look at Discovery, do you see a series that feels like an extension of what TNG (pre-movies) built?

Yup...and I see some TOS, some DS9, some Enterprise and (unfortunately at times) some Voyager. You think Star Trek is a monolithic entity. It is not.

I don't think it is, but I want it to be. In my world Enterprise was barely in the same universe. Doesn't seeing Discovery as a natural extension of the existing franchise make you the one who sees it as one entity?

I get the feeling you're not actually watching Discovery, because they most certainly do reproduce those feelings. Last season was all about reestablishing the ideas of Starfleet after a cataclysm broke it apart (the last remaining son of a federation officer manning a lonely outpost and continuing the duties of his father stands out as emblematic of that) . This season is all about doing the right thing even when it's difficult. It absolutely lives up to what TNG (and other Star Trek shows) embodied...and it even serves up a positive message to the LGBTQ community in the process in an organic and meaningful manner. Even if you feel that means

I've watched it and I give it my full attention. Caveats would be I'm only on episode 4 of this season, and that I haven't re-watched earlier seasons so my memory of some of the first one etc. is likely pretty foggy. I understand what you're saying about the themes of the past season; what I'm meaning is that, to me, many of these things feel undeserved or insincere. Maybe I'm the problem is I'm too cynical/depressed/my feelers are misaligned. (Seriously... I'm clinically depressed, on meds for it, and have become frigging cynical over the past decade... maybe it really is me.) But it just feels like they built toward and pulled off these concepts much better in the 90s series.

Regarding my ticking the boxes comment, I'm no way against Discovery's many LGBTQ+ inclusions. I think they're great, and necessary, and it's nice to see the series trying to provide some cultural leadership in the mainstream space. (Even if it's a couple of decades behind the broader industry in general.) I'm just cynical, overall, about some of the writing and steering overall. To me, the quality, or the motivation, or the time they give many themes to breath just isn't sufficient.

[hepcat]

Yup...and I see some TOS, some DS9, some Enterprise and (unfortunately at times) some Voyager. You think Star Trek is a monolithic entity. It is not.

I don't think it is, but I want it to be. In my world Enterprise was barely in the same universe. Doesn't seeing Discovery as a natural extension of the existing franchise make you the one who sees it as one entity?

Only if I agreed with you that all Star Trek shows should avoid reflecting the sensibilities and outlook of the times during which they're produced. They've all done so.

Regarding my ticking the boxes comment, I'm no way against Discovery's many LGBTQ+ inclusions. I think they're great, and necessary, and it's nice to see the series trying to provide some cultural leadership in the mainstream space. (Even if it's a couple of decades behind the broader industry in general.)

That might be because it's been almost that long since a Star Trek TV show has been on the air.

I've watched it and I give it my full attention. Caveats would be I'm only on episode 4 of this season, and that I haven't re-watched earlier seasons so my memory of some of the first one etc. is likely pretty foggy. I understand what you're saying about the themes of the past season; what I'm meaning is that, to me, many of these things feel undeserved or insincere.

And to me, I don't see what they could have done to make it feel "deserved" or "insincere". Those two are such subjective feelings that the only way I can possibly debate them is to simply say "I don't agree".

To me, the quality, or the motivation, or the time they give many themes to breath just isn't sufficient.

They spent an entire season reestablishing the ideas of the Federation. They're spending an entire season covering the belief that doing the right thing is sometimes the harder path. I will admit (as El Guapo pointed out earlier) that the whole Zora wind up felt a bit rushed (although I still believe they gave it no small amount of study over the course of two seasons), but I can point to numerous perfunctory episodes of any Star Trek show and claim the same grievance.

[Sudy]

Yup...and I see some TOS, some DS9, some Enterprise and (unfortunately at times) some Voyager. You think Star Trek is a monolithic entity. It is not.

I don't think it is, but I want it to be. In my world Enterprise was barely in the same universe. Doesn't seeing Discovery as a natural extension of the existing franchise make you the one who sees it as one entity?

Only if I agreed with you that all Star Trek shows should avoid reflecting the sensibilities and outlook of the times during which they're produced. They've all done so.

I do not recall stating this. I don't think TNG and DS9 are better because they were produced in the 90s. I just think they're better. Better written, and more consistent. Could one of those writers craft a good Discovery arc? I don't know. Maybe in this era this really the extent of how far this concept can go. I'd hate to think so.

Regarding my ticking the boxes comment, I'm no way against Discovery's many LGBTQ+ inclusions. I think they're great, and necessary, and it's nice to see the series trying to provide some cultural leadership in the mainstream space. (Even if it's a couple of decades behind the broader industry in general.)

That might be because it's been almost that long since a Star Trek TV show has been on the air.

Yeah, I'm not sure what I meaning there. Just that Star Trek has led in some places but others they've always felt very hard behind.

[hepcat]

That might be because it's been almost that long since a Star Trek TV show has been on the air.

You don't think they could have done a better job before that?

Stamets has been gay and married since day one, dude.

I do not recall stating this. I don't think TNG and DS9 are better because they were produced in the 90s.

You complained that the upcoming Pike show would be star trek through the distorted lens of 2022. I took that to heart when I replied.

Maybe in this era this really the extent of how far this concept can go. I'd hate to think so.

I think it is for those who really want to hate any change and forget that change has always been an integral part of Star Trek.

[Sudy]

No, I meant... the last time Star Trek series were on the air.

But, I've gone back and edited myself. I'm not where I was going with that line of thinking to begin with.

Spoiler:

Edit: He wasn't technically married while Culber was dead.

[Sudy]

I do not recall stating this. I don't think TNG and DS9 are better because they were produced in the 90s.
You complained that the upcoming Pike show would be star trek nostalgia through the distorted lens of 2022. I took that to heart when I replied.

Only nitpicking because it matters; I said the TOS worship would be distorted through a modern lens. It's not the lens that's distorted. It's how we're viewing and trying to recapture past spirits and sensibilities.

[hepcat]

Which is what I believed I understood you to mean when I wrote my original reply.

In any case, do I believe that Discovery has been great since day one? Of course not. Every Star Trek entry has struggled to find its footing. But I truly believe Discovery listens to its audience and is willing to rectify things people feel are wrong. Hence "fixing" their problematic Klingons from season 1, and the move to more thoughtful characters and stories over the course of the last two seasons.

I honestly believe those who hate it because it's not "Star Trek enough" have forgotten what Star Trek was, they've idealized it past the point of reality, or they just are unable to separate the Abrams stuff from the new stuff.

Hey, did I mention Discovery has Reno?

'Cause it has Reno.

[Rumpy]

Whew, the hate is strong here. I didn’t think he was THAT despised. I’m more ambivalent about his movies than anything else. To ruin a franchise takes a bit more effort, I think.

I wouldn't say I hate him. It's just that I haven't seen any particularly good examples of his work since taking over either Star Trek or Star Wars movies. There are certainly better directors that could take a shot at Star Trek than him.

And I dunno... I don't really care for much of his formula. They don't really work for me.

But I can't forgive what he did to both Star Trek and Star Wars. How can one man destroy two franchises? (Not that there was much life left in them at the point he came in.) He's the frigging chosen one. And I know there are many who enjoy the Kelvin movies for what they are... that's fine. It's OK to try a new spin on things. I just don't think it was successful; the films were structurally flawed in many ways, pandered to nostalgia in the worst way, and could never touch the shadows of what came before. Which applies to his work on Star Wars as well. J. J. is all Hollywood. He's safe, and most people confuse him for good. He hasn't directed anything original in the last decade. (I thought Super 8 was pretty good though.)

Yep, right on. I mean, it's telling to me that with SW already being fairly lite, he dumbed them down even further.

[Sudy]

Hey, did I mention Discovery has Reno?

'Cause it has Reno.

I like Reno. Very much miss Reno this first half season in fact.

I accept your view, and am indeed very happy for you because I wish it were my view. It just isn't.

I hope I don't stink up these threads, because even though I'm not enjoying the current series I'm still enjoying watching them. Not hate-watching, just watching. Well, sometimes a bit hate-watching. With great optimism.

[hepcat]

I love discussing Star Trek, so I hope you don't take my debating you personally.

And yes, my fan script for Star Trek: Stamets and Reno should be in your mailbox soon. El Guapo is helping me punch it up now.

[pr0ner]

I enjoyed Westworld, but only saw the first couple of seasons. I have no idea where he took it after that. I really enjoyed Lovecraft Country, but he didn't get the chance to turn that into a confusing mess before it was cancelled.

Westworld was all Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy's doing. Abrams was just an EP; he didn't have any significant creative input in that show.

[Rumpy]

I love discussing Star Trek, so I hope you don't take my debating you personally.

And yes, my fan script for Star Trek: Stamets and Reno should be in your mailbox soon. El Guapo is helping me punch it up now.

Hey, at least you're not debating with me! haha.

[hepcat]

I do love me a spirited debate on tv shows/movies.

[Sudy]

So do we want to create spin-off threads for each series (there's already one for Strange New Worlds), or do we like things this way? I don't really have a problem with one-shop stopping for Trek TV, but it's a bit of a pain if you're trying to recap a single series.

Episode 1 of Picard, Season 2 is out.

Spoiler:

- I liked that cold open quite a bit. It's one of the few times that the ship being tossed around has felt like more than shaking the camera.
- The theme is fantastic, but it has way too much urgency. (Perhaps that matches the show, but the tone still feels so off for me.)
- I'd actually like to see more of Picard just tending to the winery and getting mixed up in municipal politics. Conversely, did anyone actially suspect this would be his retirement?
- While is child Picard running around in clothes from the 1940s? Shouldn't he have space clothes?
- Wow... it feels a little late in the character's history to pull out a domestic abuse storyline. I mean, it's not against the rules of writing. But geez, it's like finding out in the new Batman that Bruce's loving uncle took care of him for a year after his parents died until he died in a tragic croquet accident. So this is why Picard never had a stable relationship? It wasn't legitimately (primarily) out of intrinsic duty and all the shit he went through while in Starfleet? I do buy the emotional stunting; but there's a rich history for that, even if it largely melted away throughout TNG. (Or was frequently referenced but rarely felt.)
**Edit: I read afterward that this may reference Stewart's own upbringing, so I can understand its presence if he's indeed heavily involved creatively.
- So (almost) everybody is (back) in Starfleet now?
- I find Stewart looks more vital this season (new body jokes aside).
- Smoking on the bridge of a Federation starship? This definitely isn't a utopia anymore.
- The crew of the Stargazer are so professional, and then Agnes has got to get all... Agnes.
- The Stargazer actually feels like a proper progression in terms of ship design.
- El-Aurians age slowly "only if they choose to"?? OK, perhaps that's canon... I'm not looking it up. But why do the writers feel the need to explain Goldberg's aging? Just roll with it. Eh... OK, I guess there is a segment of the fandom population who'll get pissy without an official explanation, but would they really be happy with this one?
- I like the Starfleet is no longer an alt-right hellscape that tells Picard to fuck off. (Though I'm not certain how it changed so quickly, either. But I guess there were some pretty rapid regime changes in earlier series, too.)
- The Borg want to join the Federation? LMAO! I take back every complaint. If this were the actual plot it would be the best thing ever.
- The design of the Borg queen was refreshing. Too un-Borg? I don't mind it. Which echoes my feelings on the Borg in general. Evolve them and maybe they can be something interesting.
- They had to give de Lancie an aging line as well lol. But the effect was pretty good.
- The pacing of the episode was good. They managed to bake a lot of stuff in there without much of it feeling undercooked.
- I loved the ending. I know I'm likely to be disappointed in the end, but I'm looking forward to next week's episode. I hope we get a lot more Q, even though it's more likely to be seven minutes to open the next episode and then we won't see him until the penultimate episode or something.

[Blackhawk]

*Shrug* Either way works for me, as long as people name the show and stick with spoiler tags long-term.

[Rumpy]

I somehow didn't realize Season 2 of Picard had already started and we watched it on-demand last night. Overall, It feels more hopeful and less cynical than the first season.

Spoiler:

I was wondering how everyone from his crew could into Starfleet, let alone Rios getting a commission of his own in such a short amount of time, given the ragtag nature of the previous season, and with little to no explanation as to how they got there. It dawned on me after seeing Q, that it could have been Q showing him just one of the possible futures, and was showing him the Borg the same way he had originally introduced Starfleet and the Enterprise D to the Borg. So, in one possible future, the Stargazer wouldn't be destroyed. Either way, the fact that Picard was an Admiral and also subsequently wasn't, confused me too, and there are possible multiple timelines at play here that Q will possibly help Picard deal with. Love the way they re-introduced Q. That was quite cleverly done.

So, here's my theory: We get multiple timelines, one of which everyone is a Starfleet officer and where Picard is Admiral. The other will continue with the crew on their non-Starfleet ship. Something Guinan said, 'the multiple roads not taken' clues us into this, but all will somehow involve the Borg. Unfortunately, I don't think the timeline where Picard is Admiral is technically the real one.

I'm honestly a little disappointed we have another story involving the borg again, after all the Borg related stuff in Season 1. But when Picard was on the bridge of the Stargazer, when the Borg Queen had revealed herself in the audio message, I thought for sure she was going to say she wanted Locutus after luring Picard to their location. As in, "Haha, we fooled you, Picard. We don't need your help. Who we really want is Locutus.' That was an aspect I was disappointed they hadn't touched in the first season despite the plenty of opportunities.

So, I think this season will be exploring the possible roads not taken in Picard's life. Possibly, one of those futures is how his life could have been different had he settled down with a wife. He seems to have a thing for his Romulan 'friend', and she seems to be waiting for him to ask.

[El Guapo]

I somehow didn't realize Season 2 of Picard had already started and we watched it on-demand last night. Overall, It feels more hopeful and less cynical than the first season.

Spoiler:

I was wondering how everyone from his crew could into Starfleet, let alone Rios getting a commission of his own in such a short amount of time, given the ragtag nature of the previous season, and with little to no explanation as to how they got there. It dawned on me after seeing Q, that it could have been Q showing him just one of the possible futures, and was showing him the Borg the same way he had originally introduced Starfleet and the Enterprise D to the Borg. So, in one possible future, the Stargazer wouldn't be destroyed. Either way, the fact that Picard was an Admiral and also subsequently wasn't, confused me too, and there are possible multiple timelines at play here that Q will possibly help Picard deal with. Love the way they re-introduced Q. That was quite cleverly done.

So, here's my theory: We get multiple timelines, one of which everyone is a Starfleet officer and where Picard is Admiral. The other will continue with the crew on their non-Starfleet ship. Something Guinan said, 'the multiple roads not taken' clues us into this, but all will somehow involve the Borg. Unfortunately, I don't think the timeline where Picard is Admiral is technically the real one.

I'm honestly a little disappointed we have another story involving the borg again, after all the Borg related stuff in Season 1. But when Picard was on the bridge of the Stargazer, when the Borg Queen had revealed herself in the audio message, I thought for sure she was going to say she wanted Locutus after luring Picard to their location. As in, "Haha, we fooled you, Picard. We don't need your help. Who we really want is Locutus.' That was an aspect I was disappointed they hadn't touched in the first season despite the plenty of opportunities.

So, I think this season will be exploring the possible roads not taken in Picard's life. Possibly, one of those futures is how his life could have been different had he settled down with a wife. He seems to have a thing for his Romulan 'friend', and she seems to be waiting for him to ask.

Spoiler:

I took the references to "Admiral Picard" to be sort of an emeritus thing. Per season 1 Picard *was* an admiral before he resigned from Starfleet over the Romulan evacuation stuff. But like everyone knows him as Admiral Picard and so often refers to him as such, even though he's not currently an admiral, in the same way that people will often talk about "President Obama" or "President Bush" even though they're not currently president.
I don't think it was an alternate timeline situation.

As for the people now in Starfleet - wasn't Rios a former Starfleet officer who had left Starfleet due to some prior trauma? I'm not totally clear on how much time has passed between season 1 and season 2, but it seems plausible that Starfleet would accept him being reinstated, especially since he presumably would've gotten a lot of credit for heroism due to his season 1 actions.

Did you watch the "this season on Picard" preview after the episode? Looks like Q has put them in some alternate past where Earth / the Federation became a fascist type totalitarian society, and they have to deal with that while figuring out a way to get things back to normal.

[Daehawk]

Did they rip this plot from ST Enterprise?

[Jaymann]

[Rumpy]

Spoiler:

I took the references to "Admiral Picard" to be sort of an emeritus thing. Per season 1 Picard *was* an admiral before he resigned from Starfleet over the Romulan evacuation stuff. But like everyone knows him as Admiral Picard and so often refers to him as such, even though he's not currently an admiral, in the same way that people will often talk about "President Obama" or "President Bush" even though they're not currently president.


I don't think it was an alternate timeline situation.

Spoiler:

I dunno. Normally, I'd agree with you, but there seemed to be more going on here, especially when there's talk throughout the whole episode about time. It felt like a false version of the timeline to me. It's the same thing they show in the cold open which makes me feel like it's more important.

Spoiler:

Did you watch the "this season on Picard" preview after the episode? Looks like Q has put them in some alternate past where Earth / the Federation became a fascist type totalitarian society, and they have to deal with that while figuring out a way to get things back to normal.

Spoiler:

No, I didn't. For some reason, those aren't appearing in Canada while viewing via Crave. The credits roll and then that's it.

[hepcat]

I liked it, mostly. I do find the blonde scientist incredibly annoying and keep hoping she gets "forgotten" on some planet they visit soon.

What I want to see this season?

Spoiler:

I'd love to explore the idea that the Borg could evolve/change to such a degree that they get past the need to assimilate our asses and actually do want to join the Federation. I know it sounds silly, but it's so out of left field that I love it. I couldn't care less about Q. That character was a one note caricature 20 minutes after they introduced him, so hopefully they don't dwell on that all season.

[Rumpy]

I liked it, mostly. I do find the blonde scientist incredibly annoying and keep hoping she gets "forgotten" on some planet they visit soon.

Hah yeah, same here. I found her annoying in the first season, and still do here. I find her neurotic.

[Sudy]

Picard Season 2, Episode 2

Spoiler:

- de Lancie is just so good! To see Q show anger and concern (confusion?) was eerie.
- I really couldn't ask for more out of the Picard-Q exchange even though I expect to be disappointed in the end.
- The android actor (Harvey in this case) really does a good job.
- "What the hell is this?!" "Columbian roast, black."
- I find it a little jarring that this is a "human supremacist" world seemingly built from one that wasn't racist.
- Name-dropping Sisko... hmm.
- Why is "Colonel" Rios piloting his old ship solo in this reality? [Oh. Because they were going to need a ship later in the episode lol.]
- I may dislike Agnes, but I'm down with Spot-73. (Patton Oswalt sure gets around.)
- It would have been OK if Q didn't feel the need to give Picard so many helpers.
- Seeing Stewart put on a sneer while pretending to the general is kind of awesome.
- The lens flares are out of control. Like did someone calibrate the cameras wrong? I know they didn't. But... are we sure they didn't?
- The crowd scenes feel pitifully small. Contrast with, say, The Man in the High Castle.

But even though it's a mishmash of several other plots, I'm still really enjoying the story. It's on the nose, but we live in increasingly on the nose times.

[Rumpy]

Loving season 2 so far. I feel it's more engaging than the first season.

Picard Season 2, Episode 2

Spoiler:

- de Lancie is just so good! To see Q show anger and concern (confusion?) was eerie.
- I really couldn't ask for more out of the Picard-Q exchange even though I expect to be disappointed in the end.
- The android actor (Harvey in this case) really does a good job.
- "What the hell is this?!" "Columbian roast, black."
- I find it a little jarring that this is a "human supremacist" world seemingly built from one that wasn't racist.
- Name-dropping Sisko... hmm.
- Why is "Colonel" Rios piloting his old ship solo in this reality? [Oh. Because they were going to need a ship later in the episode lol.]
- I may dislike Agnes, but I'm down with Spot-73. (Patton Oswalt sure gets around.)
- It would have been OK if Q didn't feel the need to give Picard so many helpers.
- Seeing Stewart put on a sneer while pretending to the general is kind of awesome.
- The lens flares are out of control. Like did someone calibrate the cameras wrong? I know they didn't. But... are we sure they didn't?
- The crowd scenes feel pitifully small. Contrast with, say, The Man in the High Castle.

But even though it's a mishmash of several other plots, I'm still really enjoying the story. It's on the nose, but we live in increasingly on the nose times.

Spoiler:

Agreed with pretty much everything. There were so many great moments in this episode. I still maintain that their present day that we saw in the first episode wasn't exactly the true version. The Borg Queen we saw on the Stargazer was way different, leading me to believe that Q did something beyond the alternate timeline that switched the Borg Queen places, as the one in the alternate timeline fits more into their current day, while the one we saw on the Stargazer feels like it fits more into the alternate. Also find it quite interesting how the Borg Queen was able to detect a change in the timeline. Have they ever had the Borg deal with time before?

[El Guapo]

ugh, I hated Picard episode 3.

Spoiler:

YMMV but I've never loved the "Star Trek characters time travel back to the present day" stories. It's inevitably a bunch of dumb jokes + characters being out of place + high minded and vague moralizing, plus it feels more like fan fiction than actual Star Trek. And here traveling back to 2024 United States as a pivot about having a fascist future or not, PLUS including an illegal immigration subplot, I mean... I generally support the politics here, but god damn is this all heavy handed. At this point I wouldn't be shocked if the pivotal timeline event here turns out to be whether Trump gets elected again or not.

Like, can we have some exploration of space at some point?

We'll see, but I'm not totally sure that I'll finish the season at this point.