The upcoming thing Trek fans seem to be most excited about is the return of Sir Patrick Stewart to the role of Jean-Luc Picard for an upcoming series on CBS All Access. For the first time since announcing his return at Star Trek Las Vegas last summer, Stewart is talking about what we can expect for the new show.
Series will reference present day, and no old-age makeup needed
Speaking to Yahoo, Patrick Stewart gave a bit of info on what we can expect from the show:
And what we have coming up is exciting. It’s exciting for me because it excites me as an actor. Oh, the story is great. And – I could be so careful what I say or they’ll skin me alive if I say the wrong things. But it has – it references the present day at times, and that’s all I can say, really. I’m not saying we are in the present day. We’re not. But the world that we find Jean-Luc Picard in is not quite the world that we left him in.
Stewart’s comments about changes to the world we left him in likely refer to changes in galactic politics in the 20 years following his final appearance in Star Trek: Nemesis. Alex Kurtzman has already given a big hint regarding these changes, recently revealing “Picard’s life was radically altered by the dissolution of the Romulan Empire.”
He also joked about how today he doesn’t look as old as he was made to look in the flash-forward in the Star Trek: The Next Generation season finale “All Good Things.” Stewart indicated he will look as he does now on the show, saying:
[In “All Good Things”] I grew a beard, and they made me up old. I looked older then, eighteen years ago, than – I don’t think I am saying too much – than I will in the upcoming series… Jean-Luc Picard and Patrick Stewart are the same age.
Patrick Stewart in old-age makeup in “All Good Things” (1994) and at an event in late 2018
A 10-hour movie, with more a possibility
Stewart also indicated that the show will be ten episodes, in a serialized arc, telling Yahoo:
They are writing a 10-hour movie.
One of the questions regarding the series is whether it will be a limited series or an ongoing series. Initial assumptions were that the show would be limited, with Stewart’s comment about a 10-hour movie seemingly confirming that. A recent report in Variety also indicated the show would be a limited series. However, at NYCC in the fall, executive producers Alex Kurtzman and Heather Kadin told TrekMovie the show is being planned as an ongoing series with hopes for multiple seasons. In the new interview with Yahoo, Stewart added some clarity to all of this, saying:
We’re hoping for more than one season.
Patrick Stewart was last seen as Picard in Star Trek Nemesis in 2002
Why he signed on
Stewart also discussed how he has long resisted a return to the role of Picard but ended up signing on to the new show after hearing the pitch (presumably from executive producers Alex Kurtzman and Michael Chabon and others) for something “very unusual” that got him “intrigued.” Stewart gave some more details about the path to his decision, saying:
What I was afraid of was in some way, this is going to be jokey. And I don’t want to do that. I respect the work we did on Next Generation, and also it changed my life in every way. I said “you know what? I think I am up for this.” But I asked a lot of questions and the answers were very satisfying. And I was struck by how clever these people were I was talking to, who could tell a narrative very well and seemed to be tuned into what an actor might need to hear. So, I signed on.
Stewart also gave an update to the process of making the Picard show – on which he is also an executive producer – saying:
I have been in the writers’ room for a total of three weeks in the last couple of months. The work that is being done there is extraordinary. I basically just sit and listen. I mean, these clever guys’ ideas going backwards and forwards like what if, what if what if, nah, that wouldn’t work, what if.
Patrick Stewart and the Picard show writers’ room in September (Photo: Twitter/Patrick Stewart)
Watch video below
Keep up with all the news on the Picard show and other upcoming Star Trek TV shows here at TrekMovie.com.
Could not be more excited for this series!
“Jean-Luc Picard and Patrick Stewart are the same age.”
I assume he doesn’t mean this literally, since in 2399(20 years after Nemesis) Picard should be 94(born in 2305). Stewart is 78, 16 years difference.
Not that it really matters.
Or (and I don’t think this is what he meant) maybe he means that Picard is 78 in the new series and it is set only 4 years after Nemesis.
I think he just meant they aren’t going to age him up
I think he probably does mean this literally but I wouldn’t be too alarmed as he’s not actually writing the show and the people that are seem to be making an effort to respect canon.
But they’ve already told us the show is set 20 years after Nemesis. And I’m not sure the Romulus thing happened only 4 years after Nemesis (sorry, I’m too lazy to hit up Memory Alpha to find out).
Maybe they’ll retcon his birthdate to be 16 years later (I’m sure someone would complain but most folks probably won’t care), or more likely just not reference his age to downplay that he is supposed to be in his nineties.
Did they ever really reference his age in TNG or was it just something that Roddenberry put in the show bible?
People regularly live well past 100 in the 24th century. It shouldn’t be a big deal that Picard is in his 90s.
It’s not, I was merely highlighting the fact that Patrick Stewart probably doesn’t even realise the character is older than him because it wasn’t particularly relevant during TNG’s run.
Good point
That said, characters will be aging better in the future, so that he’ll be 94 and be played by a 74yo is not really a problem.
Kurtzman is a hack writer. I have faith in Sir Patrick, and his judgement, but judging the rest of Alex’s body of work. I’m maintaining a cautious optimism for this series.
I have more faith in this than discovery. I don’t think Steward could come back for garbage.
Nemesis.
Watched ‘Nemesis’ the other night for the first time in ten years. MUCH better than I remember it being. I think it’s detractors have tried over the years to hypnotize everyone into thinking it’s no good. They are wrong – it’s a decent film that is better than ‘Insurrection’ and nearly as good as ‘Generations’ a film that is itself flawed. ‘First Contact’ is of course the best TNG movie, but it needed a battle scene at least as good as the one in ‘Nemesis’.
It was the appalling choice of director that did for Nemesis. He cut the film to ribbons and didn’t even watch TNG before filming, so had no idea of the series’s pacing, feel or character dynamics. The basic story was sound enough though, as was the casting – Tom Hardy no less.
As for this show? Sounds very promising. It’s Stewart’s iconic role with the general public. He wouldn’t risk its high regard for dross.
Again, I disagree. Trek needed a new director. Going with someone who was not a Trek veteran was a good choice. Insurrection felt very stale and it seemed like the entire cast might have been feeling a little too comfortable with Frakes by then. The new director gave the film a fresh feel. It certainly didn’t feel cut to ribbons. I’ve seen many of the deleted scenes and while some might have been nice to include, none of them would have made the movie better. Baird’s an Oscar nominated editor, for god’s sake.
You folks are narrow-focusing, trying to put the blame on one person, when both the director and the writer did thoroughly rotten jobs on NEM. Baird has no business being behind the camera, based on his three absolutely terrible directorial efforts (personally I consider him massively overrated as an editor as well, with some very good efforts and a lot that are highly regarded which I found downright terrible.)
But Logan’s script, like nearly every movie he has written (and I’m talking about HIS work, not movies that carry his name but were then subsequently massively rewritten by others), was really like lead. The fact they didn’t do ‘resonance’ scenes, which in NEM would have been easy (you could have had Data echo Picard’s earlier ‘shut up’ to him at the end when he causes the Captain to be beamed away) is just one example of missing completely on the kinds of things that would make the big sacrifice an emotional moment instead of the whocares/bigdeal that it plays like.
And the ‘stupid’ factor is immense in NEM too. The idea you can put your engines in reverse to pull away from a ship that is imbedded in your hull is about as stupid as anything in TSFS, which is saying a lot. It would have been visually more interesting to see the Scimitar firing one set of thrusters forward and the other backward, then alternating, trying unwedge themselves from the -E, because that would have been credible physics-wise and a ton better cinematically.
When you look at NEM cut scenes, they are scenes that absolutely benefited from being cut or shortened, both because the written material was not incisive and because the director didn’t know how to shoot it in a way that was engaging. Like most editor turned directors, Baird tends to burn a lot of film and shoot a lot of angles to find the movie later in the cutting room, instead of making choices on the day and refining from a clear objective going-in. The gunfights in NEM are shot in a totally boring way, too.
There’s a lot of this in BOURNE ID too, where you have an action scene that is not shot in a smart or engaging way, so they just hysterically overcut it, trying to inject some faux excitement into terrible material. I remember in the theater that I probably checked out of BOURNE in terms of being engaged pretty early on, during a scene when he climbs the side of the building, which was entirely a scene built on editing, without thrilling stuntwork or good camera angles. (the only thing I liked about that movie was Clive Owen, the assassin with headaches, and I found myself rooting for him against Bourne.)
I had the exact opposite impression when I rewatched it last year. Far worse than I recalled. The story is nonsensical, the characters suddenly start acting like idi0ts, and the action set pieces aren’t even well executed.
I’m sorry, but it’s easily the worst of the TNG films, and second only to STV of all the films. To put it succinctly, Nemesis was badly conceived, poorly written and, unless the masses of cut material had any worth, horribly structured. Oh and the cast were all embarrassingly old for the sort of story they were acting in!
“I had the exact opposite impression when I rewatched it last year. Far worse than I recalled. The story is nonsensical, the characters suddenly start acting like idi0ts, and the action set pieces aren’t even well executed.”
That sounds like the exact same thing I said time and time again about TVH. Except that it had no action sequences so I would add the comedic elements were badly executed. It is EASILLY the worst Trek movie of all time. And the next worst, TFF, isn’t even close.
See, I think Nemesis gets a bad rap too. I really only have one issue with it and based on the director’s commentary track he eluded to the possibility of agreeing on it. I found it MUCH better than Generations (a lost opportunity). It’s right up there with First Contact as the top TNG movies for me.
Hi, agree. The scene in the briefing room where they discuss Shinzon’s intentions before going to battle stations is pretty neat.
First Contact is a hilarious film to watch.
Kurtzman isn’t a writer on the Picard show. He’s an executive producer, who is mostly just around to oversee the greater Trek on TV franchise. As a producer he helped pitch the show to Stewart.
The actual writers’ room staff is shown in the picture in the article, including Pulitzer prize winning author Michael Chabon.
Good to know! I didn’t realize he wasn’t actually writing. Chabon is a superstar. Appreciate the heads up.
He also hasn’t written any of the teleplays of Discovery up to this point. He only had a story credit for the pilot, but did co-write the first Short Treks.
And, I might add, his Short Trek was the best of the 4.
He’s not a hack at all.
Three posts in to get the ‘Kurtzman is a hack’ cheap shot in. Some people just need to stir the pot….
” it references the present day at times, and that’s all I can say, really. ”
Oh dear… THAT does not bode well for this show at all. Hopefully the “at times” is extremely limited.
Oh no, Vulcan’s will be identifying as Klingon’s, shipmate’s forced to pee in the same bathrooms :(
Ha! Excellent, LOL. And don’t forget, everyone will be offended by everything.
soon there will be the ‘Offendics Wars’ led by genderfluid Khan
So, you guys are not acting offended?
lol.
I think it bodes well for the show. If I wanted substance-free Trek on a big budget, Trek 2009 will always be there.
Who said anything about it being “substance free”? I know I didn’t. I actually prefer it to be deep and have substance. But those buzz words generally mean a lack of substance. Honestly hope this is just a tiny insignificant bit taken out of context.
What buzz words did he use?
It ABSOLUTELY bodes well. Star Trek has ALWAYS commented on the current day. It’s in its DNA, going back to the beginning. Without current-day social commentary, it wouldn’t be Star Trek.
True, it has from time to time used their genre to guise current events. But with a couple of exceptions, it was done in a clever and thought provoking manner. However even with the positive looking start to season 2 I have my doubts that the minds behind STD are up for that task.
That’s not true though, many episodes of STV were not so clever! And what about the less-than-thought-provoking episodes of STE?
So which episodes were not so clever in your estimation? Give me a list.
Just google a list of episodes of STV.
OK, so you don’t have one. Just what I thought.
Twisted, Threshold, Tsunkatse, Endgame, A Night In Sickbay, Vanishing Point, Precious Cargo, These Are The Voyages are prime examples and I am sure there are more that I could think of.
I could list nearly all episodes of TNG by that estimation. Furthermore, whenever TNG dealt with the issues of their time they failed miserably at it. However, I think I should make it clear that when I mention episodes of Trek in a general nature like I did above, I am pretty much referencing TOS as it is the series I am most familiar with. And the only series where I have seen every episode more than twice.
Now you’re just being argumentative for the sake of it. Which I can appreciate.
But to your point of TOS, that show was just as guilty. They hit you over the head with allegories with all the subtly of a mini gun, and wasn’t exactly what i’d ever call clever.
A: Wrong again. I am NEVER being argumentative for the sake of it. Ever. In fact, it is amazingly rare when I am argumentative.
B: Just because you recall “Let That be Your Last Battlefield” doesn’t mean that was the way they dealt with such issues on a regular basis.
Cock.
A list of thought provoking and clever Voyager episodes could be counted without taking off your shoes.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy STV. It’s a decent Trek show. Thing about that one is there’s very few terrible episodes. 70% of the show is serviceable. 20% is better than that, 10% is worse. And it’s so rarely ever great.
The one thing it almost NEVER is though, is clever.
I agree. Curious to see what they intend to do.
It’s exploring the fall out from the collapse of the Romulan Star Empire. I’m pretty sure that parallels will be drawn with the break up of the Soviet Union. The Romulans could be Russia, the Klingons China, and Cardassia could be Syria or some other war torn Middle East Country. It’s likely the Federation will not quite be the utopia we remember with a populist president who has risen to power on the back of issues like a surge in immigration caused by crises like the Dominion War and the destruction of Romulus. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have one of the original founding members deciding to leave the Federation, probably the Vulcans due to Romulan meddling.
ISir Patrick is very outspoken on political matters and a pitch for a show that adds Star Treks voice to the discussionlikely would have appealed to him. What I’ve suggested might be a little too on the nose, the minutiae might be different or some of the players might be substituted but I’d expect the themes of this new show to be very contemporary.
Nicely encapsulated, Corinthian. I’ll bet you’re not too far off with that.
The fall of the Soviet Union was already done in TUC. It was not so much about the balance of power or other political dealings but rather the concept of living in a world where something so major has changed and how intimidating that might be. What was it Gorkon said? “If there is to be a strange new world our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.”
Thanks @Danpaine. @ML31 I don’t mean to say that the new show will have a narrative based around the fall of the Soviet Union, rather that it will be providing a commentary on a world several decades removed from such an event. As I say the issues facing Alpha and Beta Quadrants will be rooted deeply in contemporary global scenarios.
So many political and social events from 2005-2017 (when TV trek was off the air) that could be touched upon, whether that’s the rise of the radical right to the Arab Spring, the list is endless.
@Afterburn Agreed. I do however think that the show will address political and social events that are close to Stewart’s heart but this doesn’t have to be and probably isn’t restricted to just Brexit and Trump.
If they are going to to allegories to our times, they need to be clever and fair about it. Trek is at it’s best when multiple solutions all have thorns of some sort with them. This was nonexistent on STD’s season 1.
Maybe i’m misunderstanding what you mean by “clever.”
Allow me to educate you.
Clever: Showing intelligence or skill. Ingenious.
”I wouldn’t be surprised if we have one of the original founding members deciding to leave the Federation, probably the Vulcans due to Romulan meddling.”
Possibly, Corinthian7, although it could also happen for other reasons, as I’ve suggested elsewhere on this thread today.
Having said that, “Romulan meddling” could have had other consequences too: It could have become so destructive for the Federation that, in the end, “the highest authorities” (Section 31, pre-Picard POTUFP, whoever) decided to destroy Romulus as a last-resort defensive option, with the “unpredicted supernova” subsequently being a fake cover story.
I’ve previously mentioned the notion of Section 31 etc potentially being responsible, but your comment about “Romulan meddling” is interesting. If this sequence of events does turn out to be the case, it would add another layer of realism and moral complexity to the show’s storyline.
That’s an interesting theory and certainly plausible Jai. The reason I suggest Romulan meddling is because ‘Russian interference is such a hot potato at the moment that I can’t help but think they will touch upon this in a series that seems likely to be more political than typical Trek. The Romulans have got previous form for this sort of thing, their star empire has likely broken up much like the Soviet Union and of course it’s more than a century since Spock first initiated unofficial Vulcan-Romulan reunification talks so from a Trek narrative point of view there’s that angle too. However, your Section 31 scenario has made me think. We’ve seen in DS9 that they too have no qualms about interfering in the politics of other states – specifically the Romulans. Heck, we even had Captain Sisko plot to bring the Romulans into the Dominion War so perhaps it might be the Federation/Section 31 that do the meddling.
Yes, they should honor Star Trek’s time-honored tradition of trying as hard as possible not to reference current issues via allegory
That’s not what I said or even inferred but please… Continue to misinterpret things.
Oh please – the entire original series was rife with allegory from 1960s politics and events
He was being sarcastic chief.
My thoughts exactly ML31. They’ll probably shoehorn in a bunch of digs at Trump and his supporters like Discovery did despite the fact that literally no previous Star Trek has ever concerned itself with modern American political parties and politicians. Star Trek is supposed to be beyond that. I don’t recall Star Trek ever referencing Nixon or Clinton so why do they feel like they have to made everything about our current political climate?
Correct. They traditionally didn’t take digs at their current political state. But they did deal with issues generally in a non-one sided way. The best allegory Treks presented compelling cases from all sides and the solution taken may not have always been the best one.
To be fair @ML31 there’s no reason to assume that this show won’t be more nuanced in how it deals with current issues. I’ve never read any Chabon but he certainly seems to be held in a high esteem and Kurtzman himself contrasted the DSC and the Picard series by describing the former as like a bullet and the latter as a more contemplative show. In my lifetime there has not been a more divisive time in politics with schisms occurring even within close families. Perhaps we’ll see this explored through fractures in the relationships of the Enterprise’s former bridge crew.
“there’s no reason to assume that this show won’t be more nuanced in how it deals with current issues.”
I hope they are more nuanced but given the proclivities of most of the people behind the production, it’s not a bad assumption to make. We shall see. BTW.. I thought Chabon’s short was by far the best of the 4. That at least is a hopeful sign. BTW… Kurtzman’s was easily the worst.
I get that ML31, DSC wasn’t exactly subtle but maybe that’s a sign of the times. The thing is though I don’t watch Star Trek to sit in an echo chamber, I want to see a show that challenges the audience to think and opens up discussion. I’m confident of which side of the fence Rodenberry’s philosophy would have sat but Insulting half of your audience doesn’t help anybody so I hope to see a thoughtful, empathetic approach to the subject matter.
Think it’s hilarious that fans think Star Trek should be limited to ONLY things its done in the past. Absolutely hysterical.
@Afterburn no one thinks it should be limited only to what’s done in the past, but you have to stick to the core formula. Star Trek was never divisive in fact that’s the exact opposite of what Star Trek is all about, unity. So when you have a Star Trek show taking sides in modern politics and saying that those on one side are the enemy, that goes against the very nature of what Star Trek is all about.
Yes they do think that.
Article after article, comment after comment, fans are angry that “TOS never did that! TNG didn’t do that! DS9 didn’t do that!”
And while I agree it should stick to a core formula, it shouldn’t be constrained by it. Likewise, I think you misinterpret its core formula. It has nothing to do with unity or not taking sides. Besides, who says this show will not be about unity? You are making bold assumptions and casting judgements without any actual information.
Talk about un-Trek like. Because the core formula, to me, is about giving everyone a fair shake, and then making a judgement. Even if that judgement is “this side is right, that side is wrong.” Trek is not about being non-judgmental, it’s about judgements being rooted in fairness.
That’s what has always drawn me to Trek, particularly to the character of Jean-Luc Picard.
You and I saw a very different TNG. The thing that worked against TNG for me was there was often, not all the time but enough to notice, a smugness among Picard and the crew about the superiority of not just the Federation but humans in general. They come across some society custom that it OBVIOUS they (and the bulk of the audience) find distasteful or stupidly overboard and then go on and on about how superior they are by allowing this society to do as they wish. An underlying theme throughout their series (not so the movies, however) was ‘humans are the greatest beings in the entire galaxy’. I guess Roddenberry wanted to explore the “human condition” but I also felt that subtext went against the all inclusive theme they tried to present as well.
Yes, you definitely saw a different show.
The show I saw and am talking about was a show called Star Trek: The Next Generation. It aired in syndication in my market on KBHK on Saturday evenings starting in 1987 and ran for 7 seasons.
ML, that is exactly my takeaway from most TNG. Far too much of the time, they challenged other cultures to live up to their standards rather than find themselves challenged — even though they’d trot out a hypocritical view often enough, one that should solidly place them in the dumb category, despite their much vaunted advancedness.
Yeah AB… I never said that but please, continue to be wrong about things you read here.
@ML31 Exactly. They always presented cases from all sides and sometimes a solution wasn’t ever even found, especially in many episodes of Voyager where issues often times weren’t resolved at all in the episodes. The best allegories make you think and allow you to make up your own mind.
“The best allegories make you think and allow you to make up your own mind.”
Yes! This! That is something TOS did a number of times. I don’t recall TNG doing it much at all (granted I’ve only seen most shows the one time they aired) and STD had was pretty much the exact opposite of that.
Spock referenced Nixon, but not when he was president. I suppose with Trump, it is a bit different, because the fact that he is a blithering idiot is an objective fact that transcends political party or ideology. But Discovery didn’t address Trump in any meaningful way. Jason Isaacs is xenophobic and says the Trump line, and he’s revealed to be the villain, but then the show undercuts that by propping up the equally xenophobic Mirror Georgiou as a cool anti-hero who is getting her own show. The statements of Discovery producers has been more partisan than the show itself.
@khambattafan Seriously. It’s not an objective fact that’s your opinion and you know it, so stop it. And everyone knows what statements Discovery was trying to make about Trump it’s obvious even if it wasn’t done in any meaningful way, the statements of the Discovery producers have definitely been more partisan than the show but still we know what the producers say about what the things in the show represent and what their intentions are so it’s literally impossible to separate what the producers have stated and what is seen on the show. I don’t know how anyone can honestly say that Discovery holds the same values of Star Trek when it’s trying to literally paint an entire side of the country as the enemy.
I have mixed feelings the Nixon line. I think it was meant to garner a laugh more than anything but it was still a weird thing for Spock to say. It also felt like a good comparison to Kirk leading the Federation envoy.
And let’s be fair. Regardless about how one feels about his personality or politics, Trump is not an idiot. For the record, I say that as someone who, ahem, does not care for the man at all. The same is true of most people who have achieved the level of running for President of the United States. There are politicians I have not agreed with but I’ve always stopped short of “idiocy”. Do not confuse narcissism and being a blowhard with being an idiot. Furthermore, Trek is not the sort of show that ought to be presenting one political dogma as “right” or “wrong”. It needs to be above all that.
“…no previous Star Trek has ever concerned itself with modern American political parties and politicians..”
^
this explains they have a character named “Colonel West” and not “Colonel North” in a movie that referenced ….yeah, right NIXON. lol
Not to mention the Xindi arc on STE was a VERY clear allegory for 9/11 and even went as far as to make the extremists sympathetic.
The producers of the show admitted as much even before the season aired. But they did not come down hard on one political side vs the other. They presented actual dilemmas for our heroes to deal with.
There was no political side on 9/11. Not in the story they explored. It’s not like anyone was defending the Taliban. I don’t know if you lived through 9/11 as an adult but it’s one of those rare times in American politics where left and right were sympatico. There was no side for STE to take.
I don’t know what you were doing during 9-11. Perhaps enjoying your milk and cookies? (see how I just did to you what you did to me?) But the political division emerged no more than a few days after the event. (as it always does. That is nothing new in American politics. I’m not going to dive into politics here, however. Go have your last word.
I really think we’re either getting President Picard or Federation Councilor Picard versus the Federation President…
I wonder too if, like in the Q future, they depict him suffering or beginning the effects of the irrumodic syndrome. It could be interesting story wise.
I’m getting a Logan vibe from this series already.
Logan vibe? I hope we get a “Fuck you, Number One” out of Picard. :)
great. now im picturing Riker helping Picard off the toilet .. thanks for that
@William I think the second scenario with Picard being in opposition to the Federation leader is far more likely although the series might end with Picard becoming president. My gut feeling is that he won’t be afflicted with irrumodic syndrome, it will likely be referenced but my guess is that Beverley dedicated herself to finding a cure. I base this on Stewart’s comment about the Picard of ‘All Good Things’ being older than the character depicted in the new show. I took this to imply that Jean Luc will be a much more vibrant character in full control of his faculties in this show. Although I suppose they could go down the route whereby the syndrome can’t be cured but can easily be managed with an ongoing treatment. That way they could still do an episode in which he is deprived his medication and has to battle a problem whilst simultaneously struggling to retain his mental prowess.
If it is indeed a political show and Picard does have an adversarial relationship with the President it will be interesting to see whether there is a personal connection between the two i.e somebody we’ve seen on TNG before. Ronnie Cox is getting a little long in the tooth but according to IMDB he’s still acting and Edward Jellicho would seem a plausible candidate. Or maybe it will be more personal than that like say President Riker!
”I think the second scenario with Picard being in opposition to the Federation leader is far more likely although the series might end with Picard becoming president.”
I’ve been thinking along the same lines. Sections of Federation society (including some politicians) may have become significantly more hardline in the wake of the Dominion War and, later, due to a Romulan refugee crisis. Picard will either be POTUFP from the outset and the first season will show him having to deal with these issues in that capacity — or Picard’s mounting outrage at various “incidents” will provoke him into running for election and ultimately winning at the close of the first season.
So you can imagine a lot of parallels with The West Wing, plus Picard monologues admonishing the hardliners, inspiring campaign rally speeches about “Federation values”, and so on.
Just to add to my earlier reply, there may be even darker issues that President Picard could have to deal with, again involving Romulans.
As I wrote on another thread a few weeks ago, it would be an interesting twist if it turns out that a Section 31/Starfleet Intelligence black ops mission destroyed Romulus, maybe involving protomatter weaponry based on Genesis research. Remember Kirk’s son in TWOK warning about the military getting their hands on that technology. The “supernova” would be a convenient cover story, and the attack has the benefit of eliminating one of the Federation’s main geopolitical rivals.
If Picard has subsequently become President, he’d have to deal with the fallout — and he’d also be outraged after discovering the truth. Ditto if he finds out DS9’s “Pale Moonlight” incident was a false flag, authorised by Starfleet Command.
“As I wrote on another thread a few weeks ago, it would be an interesting twist if it turns out that a Section 31/Starfleet Intelligence black ops mission destroyed Romulus, maybe involving protomatter weaponry based on Genesis research. Remember Kirk’s son in TWOK warning about the military getting their hands on that technology. The “supernova” would be a convenient cover story, and the attack has the benefit of eliminating one of the Federation’s main geopolitical rivals.”
Elements of what you wrote are actually pretty close to how Star Trek Online handled it. Protomatter, some component of Red Matter, and Iconian technology are what caused the supernova, due to rogue Romulan experiments on a planet in that star system.
I know there is almost no possibility they’ll keep the Star Trek Online backdrop and canonize it, but I think they could tell a really solid story that jives well with what the game gave the fans.
Wonder if Brent Spiner will feature given where we left Data at the end of Nemesis
Maybe as an original character or as a voice only but not as Data in costume. He’s very adamant that he’s too old for the make-up.
He’s wrong, because Data has already had a line in TNG regarding his skin being able to age and that he would simply go back to young Data once all the people he had known had died.
He said that at one point, but I seem to recall reading an interview where he’d seen how far CGI characters had advanced. Of course, I think that was years ago and it looks like he’s since gone back to saying he’s too old for the part.
I don’t want to attribute motives, but I would bet that he just doesn’t want to return and that this is the most convenient excuse since there’s any number of in-universe reasons why he looks older.
For instance, he could be trying out a new “older looking” head to help him fit in with his aging friends. If they really need to sell it for the audience, have a “classic” Data head appear in his house/lab, and maybe even use a little CGI magic to have him with the “classic” Data head for a brief moment. Just long enough to sell the concept, but not too long as to make it obvious that it’s CGI. They haven’t quite perfected the technology (Tarkin and Leia were *almost* there).
A 10 hour Star Trek movie starring Patrick Stewart.. this somewhat softens the blow of no Trek 4 for time being…until QT anyway
I am very much looking forward to this. And good news, CBSAA, I’ll be switching my Amazon access back on for it.
With how poorly Discovery has treated the Star Trek universe in so many ways I am not optimistic about this show. One saving grace is the designers can be as futuristic as they wish and it can work within the Star Trek universe. The design of Discovery is nothing more than a big middle finger to everything that’s come before.
Discovery has been excellent. Stop whining, kid.
I know it’s easier to call legitimate criticism “whining” because that’s just name calling, and it doesn’t require thoughtful analysis and explanation. Not to mention calling Ted C “kid,’ which is just disrespectful.
I think Discovery has been a systematic undoing of Star Trek’s philosophy and ideals and spirit. It is about superficial action and negativity (mirror universe, again, anyone?) rather than compassion based in thoughtfulness. In this way it has been a break from past Star Trek. However, by criticizing and name calling another poster, it seems you have very much resonated with the spirit of STD.
“I think Discovery has been a systematic undoing of Star Trek’s philosophy and ideals and spirit. It is about superficial action and negativity”
Proof that people see what they want to see. Because that’s not what I see. What I see is classic Trek accented with big budget action and cinematic sets and FX. The premiere, “Brother” was a better Trek film than almost half of actual Trek films.
I did feel season one was definitely getting away from the ideals of Trek but I also feel season two is trying to get back to that. I know we only have two episodes to judge so far but as one of its more harsher critics in season one (but still liked the show) I’m a bit more optimistic we are getting the spirit and positivity of the show back. It may not happen overall but I think they heard the criticisms and course correcting. For me, I’m just happy they are giving it more of an effort versus last season where it felt ignored.
Ok, Ted Cruz.
Ouch. And, yes, I couldn’t help but chuckle.
You’re chuckling about ‘Ted Cruz’ when it takes no leap of imagination to get to Denny C(rane)?
Who’s Denny Crane? Is that from Frasier?
And you purport yourself to be a Trek devotee, but don’t know Shatner’s best regular role? (oh that’s right, you’re the guy who thinks they were building new bridge sets for each star trek movie in the 80s.)
Shatner is a hack, I don’t like him, nor follow his work outside of Trek. And i’m sorry, but i’m having trouble talking with all the words you stuffed in my mouth.
But keep going, it’s fun hearing you try to figure out what people are saying and being hilariously wrong!
Pity you missed out on THE INTRUDER then, because that proved (pre-TREK) that in a role written to exhibit the full range of his skills, that Shatner was once an exceptional performer, even brilliant with his choices.
And double the pity if you missed his Denny Crane, which is fantastic as well, though in a self-aware way that builds on his public perception.
And what words did I stuff in your mouth? (sounds very impolite, btw) I merely reminded about yet another instance where you were abusive while being factually incorrect, then dropped out of the thread when called on it.
Gotta go to work now, that should give you plenty of time to think up some kind of reply. Also, are you a Trump supporter? You seem to have adopted his tactics, and I’m wondering if that abuse-and-demean-without-facts tactical approach is jumping from his subset of Americans to more general use among generally civilized folks, too.
I never said they rebuilt the set. They changed it. Go look at screenshots. They altered elements for every movie.
And please, learn the definition of abuse.
Cock
Your exact quote: “And yes, they redesigned and enlarged the bridge for TMP, again for TWOC, again for TUC,”
So how would you ‘enlarge’ a set (which they did not) without rebuilding it? You’d need more floor to do that, which means more building. Except for shifting elements around like Spock’s station, plus modest cosmetic changes like switching from RP to CRTs and then to okudgrams, the set built for phase 2 is what you saw up through TVH. What you saw in TUC was a repainted mucked-over version of the mostly-new bridge built for TFF, a fact evident to anyone who actually bothered to learn anything about the subject matters they chose to discuss.
It’s bad enough when you duck out on discussions when somebody points out you’re wrong, but it’s positively Trumpian to keep changing your story — literally and actually, you’re coming across as The Worst of Both Worlds — unapologetically uninformed.
Agreed about Shatner, kmart, and a number of his roles before and after Trek – standout, and worthy of the Emmy he received for Crane.
I think some may be misinterpreting. I never said he wasn’t good outside his Trek work, just that I didn’t like or follow it. I am aware he won an award for that James Spader show. Boston Commons was it?
Also, I wonder why i’m called not much of a Trek fan for not following his non-Trek work. That makes zero sense.
Have faith, Ted C. As you pointed out, this show is actually going forward in the timeline, furthering it, instead of shoehorning itself into Trek’s past. Hoping for the best.
And yet, after penning another ‘middle finger’ post whining about the current production, you can’t actually cite an example unique to this show, or something that can’t be attributed to creative license.
Stop whining Teddy.
You mean like the way TNG retconned A LOT of the very popular TOS when it first hit the airwaves in 1987?
If anything Discovery shows you can do an entertaining and interesting show that keeps the essence of the TOS era’s “better” Humans, as opposed to the TNG Berman/Braga era of “Utopian” Humans who all too often think so much alike they can’t even arguue without being mind controlled.
Why do people say stuff like this? Have you never seen a single episode of DS9 or even Voyager? Picard didn’t think like 2/3rds of the admirals he butted heads with. Humans weren’t anymore perfect or less conflicted in the 24th century as they were in the 23rd. Every time I read these things its like people watched only 20 episodes or something.
Discovery and its presentations of Starfleet officers isn’t doing anything new in that arena that hasn’t been shown most of the previous shows. Nothing.
Really looking forward to it!
And, my god, I’m not saying unload all the info to us, but, they make it seem like if anything is so much as hinted at, a hit man will take them out.
We need Aaron Sorkin to tell us how humanity evolved above world war 3.
Life imitating art in more ways than one. Great interview with an obviously enthusiastic and energetic Patrick Stewart. Not only is he age-wise more like the character he played way back in All Good Things, but his story about the interview process reminded me of Picard being sought out by the Atlantis Project people in the episode Family, where Picard too agreed to a simple interview. Fortunately for us, unlike the fictional Atlantis Project people, Kurtzman and the team were able to convince Stewart to join up. Production begins in April. Hopefully that means, with any luck, we will see something around October of this year. (Only a guess, but I don’t think the post production work will be as extensive as it is with Disco – it supposedly is not taking place in space) He’s hoping for a multi-season show??? So are we!!
Just a thought but each season does not have to be about Picard. The following season could feature Riker, the season after that Janeway and so on. Overall, a follow up to each of the 24th Century series.
I’m a little wary of Trek actors in the writers’ room (and/or producing). See: Trek V, Insurrection, Nemesis.
Trek IV…
First Contact…
To be fair, Trek IV is pretty much the only good example.
Frakes directed First Contact, he did not direct Nemesis, that was Stuart Baird.
I love how people who bash Discovery are excited thinking this is going to be Next Gen part 2. The whole point of what Patrick is saying is that this is something new and exciting from an actor’s standpoint. That’s blatant talk that this isn’t going to be what you’re wanting but will take the character into totally new territory. I like what the new gatekeepers are doing with Trek so I’m excited. “So much, for the little training cruise…”
I can’t wait for the complaints.
There has been complaints about literally every show, TNG literally the biggest at the time. Obviously this won’t be any different. I don’t know why people think this is some special thing. Tell me a show people DIDN’T complain about?
Botox flattens out a lot of age lines….
I think his age lines have actually deepened, comparing photos. I’m usually the first to call out botox use but I think in this case he’s actually au naturel.
Picard — Space Herbalife Salesman
A 10-hour movie? So no episodes about Picard befriending a cute puddy tat?
Picard becomes an advocate for Romulan refugees, negotiating the intergalactic politics behind, say, getting the Klingons to not want to conquer a nearly extinct race or finding them resettlement in hostile territory w/in the Alpha Quadrant?
Nobody would watch that.
Are you kidding? I’ve been advocating that exact scenario. The Klingons attempt to conquer the remnants of the Empire while the Federation seeks to save them. That’s a very compelling story in its own right, but also could be the catalyst for stories that parallel a lot of real world social issues.
It would make an interesting book, but not a TV show.
I disagree. I would watch that in a heartbeat.
It would also be a great allegory for the end of Picard’s life, as we witness the end of this era of politics in the Alpha Quadrant AND it gives a purpose for a man who perhaps at the beginning of the story, is feeling useless, feeling like the sum of his life has amounted to little.
I can imagine an opening monologue where he laments his own accomplishments. Questioning the point of diplomacy, and all those peace treaties and armistices he negotiated. Everyone is still at war, billions are still dying. Peace has broken down, worlds are being conquered. His entire life has been a zero sum game, he might think.
That sounds like an amazingly compelling setup for a show. I’ve actually been thinking that’s where they’ll go with it and I would be very enthusiastic about such a set up. The allegorical possibilities are numerous!
That would only appeal to hardcore fans. All 10 of them. It’s like you guys want Star Trek to die.☹️
Shame its only 10 episodes, but I guess at Pats age it could be quite a physical burden to do anymore.
I really do hope it is an ongoing series. But, it probably can’t last more than 3-4 seasons as he will be in his early 80s by then.
There are actors working right into their nineties. As long as he’s healthy and can remember his lines they could go on. Of course, they would have to write it age-appropriate, so probably not a lot of running around.
I was hoping for at least 13 like DIS, but this is still good. I think it probably balances it out with his age but also all the work he’s doing. He’s basically a movie actor now and probably doesn’t want to just be doing this show all year.
I would have been happy with a tele-movie, a 10 episode season is more than most ever would have imagined. The possibility of multiple seasons feels like candy on cake.
A bit of Trump, a bit of a wall and a bit of Brexit I reckon.
Oh! Some member planet wants to leave the Federation. Can see something like that happening, too. In any case, there will be at least one episode dedicated to Picard arbitrating something.
@Tiberius Mudd Most likely the Vulcans, we know that Spock opened up reunification talks as early as 2293 so it’s not straight out of left field and as well facilitating an allegorical approach to dealing with Brexit it opens up the door to explore Russian interference in the political processes of rival states.
That would be interesting if they did something like that. I have seen this idea before and I also suggested the Vulcans if they did go this way. One thing that has been interesting about the Vulcans, especially on Enterprise, is that there has always been a core of them that has never felt comfortable being so integrated with the Federation and humans in general. I rewatched the Gambit episodes a few weeks ago and I completely forgot about the subplot about the extremist Vulcan who wanted to leave the Federation.
So this really could work. Especially when you include the issues with Romulus and creates a division within Vulcan on how all of that was handled.
Same time, I admit, it would feel a bit sad to me Spock’s legacy would be completely unraveled. Not only do the Romulans and Vulcans not unite but then Vulcan isolates itself to its biggest ally in the process. But many it would make for a great story! And its Star Trek, they can still turn it into a positive conclusion by the end, ie, the Vulcans don’t leave the Federation after all.
I’d completely forgot about the Vulcans in Gambit as well but as you say there is evidence right throughout Trek that there was an element of their society that never really bought into the UFP and this goes right back to TOS with Vulcan only ships and a science academy that wasn’t very welcoming to other Federation races. I suppose it wouldn’t necessarily have to be viewed as failing, perhaps the followers of Spock will become allies of Picard and help him turn the situation around.
Alternatively you could argue that Spock’s actions can’t really be faulted in that he was effectively facing a no win situation as nobody knew that Romulus was going to be destroyed by a supernova . A real world comparison could be Angela Merkels decision to open its borders to Syrian refugees in 2015. I tend to believe this was one of the factors that contributed to the Vote Leave Campaign winning the 2016 referendum but the alternative for Merkel was to ignore a massive humanitarian crisis. This seems like a classic Kobayashi Maru scenario and the thing that I always took from that test (aside from cheating is apparently acceptable in Starfleet) is that you can’t always win but there can be a right way to lose and not all defeats are actually losses.
Another plausible scenario for Vulcan deciding (or wanting) to leave the Federation is if there’s a widespread backlash against allowing Romulan refugees to settle in the Federation, eventually including large-scale violence against them — and it escalates to the level of targeting Vulcans too.
If Vulcans perceive they’re no longer safe in the rest of the Federation, or that there’s official sanction for what they’re facing, secession would be a logical option.
You can also imagine them taking this route if they don’t necessarily face widespread violence but they’re still being prevented from allowing Romulan refugees to “come home” to Vulcan. On the flipside, Federation citizens and politicians objecting to this could claim that it’s dangerous to let large numbers of the former rulers of the Federation’s main geopolitical rival to settle on one of the Federation’s founding worlds.
”On the flipside, Federation citizens and politicians objecting to this could claim that it’s dangerous to let large numbers of the former rulers of the Federation’s main geopolitical rival to settle on one of the Federation’s founding worlds.”
Not saying I agree with this way of thinking, but my point is that it’s a plausible-sounding “reasonable” argument such people could use, based on sincere, disingenuous or bigotry-based motives (depending on the individual).
Of course, if it turns out that Romulus’ destruction was a Section 31 plot and this later becomes public knowledge, or the surviving Romulans find out that DS9’s “Pale Moonlight” event was actually a false flag…well, the situation within the Federation could escalate to some very nasty stuff indeed.
I like this idea a lot, you’re really fleshing out my theory. Vulcan’s sharing a common ancestry and looking very similar could very well incite that very reaction under the right conditions plus it provides an opportunity to explore a social commentary on what in means to be Muslim in today’s world. I guess the other thing that has maintained utopia amongst the United Federation of Planets has been that practically unlimited resources has removed need so perhaps there will be an environmental factor explored in the 25th Century. We had that episode of TNG that showed how Warp Drive was damaging the fabric of the universe or something. This was largely ignored but perhaps the new show will bring this back into play. You suggested that maybe Section 31 was involved in the destruction of Romulus but what if it was caused by the warp issue? This would provide an avenue for exploring climate change and global warming plus could also provide a way of removing the Federations unlimited resources e.g the restrictions/environmental hazards could have severely impacted the supply lines for natural resources limiting trade and causing economic chos amongst the galactic community.
Romulan refugees. Guarantee it. I will be very annoyed if a bunch of Americans start talking about Brexit like they know anything about it.
Yeah, like the American lead star who’s also the executive producer and story consultant. How dare he have anything to say about Brexit!
Yes, as if foreigners never talk about American politics and issues like they all live there and experts on the matter lol. That doesn’t matter and writers discuss world and political issues outside of their own hemisphere all the time. That’s what makes them writers in the first place.
More exciting news!!!! It never seems to stop these days.
Patrick Stewart is saying all the right things. I’m getting more excited knowing this is going to be one story line (which I always assumed). And I like its going to be allegorical to today’s time. Again not exactly a surprise but with the political issues going on today from Brexit to building walls there are some great political threads to use.
Finally I was thinking about Alex Kurtzman when he hinted a villain was going to be in the first season. At first I was thinking the Borg because if you want people to watch you bring those guys in. But now that this is sounding more political intrigue maybe it could be the Romulans if its about the supernova incident and they blame the Federation (as another Romulan once did) and wants revenge. Or maybe the Cardassians are stirring things up after getting back on its feet post-Dominion war. Anyway, a lot to think about!
24th century awaits!
The fact of the matter is that as Discovery has proven, we cannot expect any sort of serious, nuanced, multi-faceted exploration of these mentioned contemporary issues, and we certainly cannot expect any attempts in bridging divides, given that the entire writing and production teams are carefully chosen to only represent the very farthest end of one side, which of course is not surprising for contemporary Hollywood. TNG was a big picture show that explored ideas and concepts on a more holistic and abstract (metaphorical) level and very rarely ever stooped down to the kind of sledgehammer partisan politics Discovery chose to highlight in season 1, and with their ad nauseum marketing campaigns even before the show premiered. For TNG, the Irish conflict comes to mind, which predicted a success of terrorists and violent unification of all of Ireland, and that episode promptly got shot down in Britain. Of course, today we could not be further from such terrorist success and unification, which shows that series also inevitably date themselves horribly when they go for the straight forward instead of something bigger canvas, however “modern” or “edgy” that may make them in the eyes of today’s audience. Short term successes? Maybe. Classics? Never.
I also think what you are saying here might be one of the reasons why Nick Meyer could have left the show after the first season. He could have wanted to look at issues from another point of view.
Well I agree to a point the other shows at least tried to present both sides, it was always pretty clear what side the show itself leaned on. Maybe not as partisan as today but I always said Star Trek is a liberal show. I don’t think you can argue it any differently because the entire set up of the show itself is presented in liberal ideals. But yes I agree they did, at times, try to tread the line to show both sides and they didn’t always have one side winning the argument or forced the conservative side to ‘change’ by the end of the episode.
I’ve given this example before of what I mean, but if you look at the TNG episode ‘The Outcast’ which was about homosexuality and people’s fear of it, it made it pretty clear for the Enterprise crew, especially Riker, that people should have the right to be free to live in a gender they feel comfortable with. But of course the society felt differently and in the end nothing was changed. I think this was a great example of how Trek presents these issues. Anyone watching it its clear who side you are suppose to be on and that it makes the point of what Trek is actually about: to live your life any way you want free of prejudice or judgement. But same time, nothing changed in that society itself and they had to respect that was their belief as well, even allowing conversion therapy. It presented the issue, gave both sides of it, but in the end the message was its not their place to change it even if they disagree with it. That’s what makes Trek great and why BOTH sides can enjoy it at times.
To me a probably the best example was “A Private Little War”. No matter what Kirk did, the situation was still screwed. There was no proper side to be on. “The Outcast” gets put in the same category as “Let That be Your Last Battlefield.” It is very clear where the Federation and the audience stand on that issue. But it felt like the TOS crew mostly just pitied Loki and Beale and the sad fate of their homeworld as a result of their foolish hate. While the TNG crew were CLEARLY very judgey of the Outcast planet. It came across as superior smugness to this viewer. It’s something that underscored many a TNG episode.
PS… I fail to see what is ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ about the set up of the show to begin with. It came across to me as very a-political.
I agree that was a well presented, metaphorical episode. And it is a far cry to the thinly veiled demonization we see in Discovery today. No Trek before chose to equate people they disagree with, maybe even for perfectly legitimate reasons, with cannibals and genocidal murderers. This is the “artistic” level of Nazis comparing Jews with rats. I know this is a crass comparison, but this is exactly what the marketing campaigns equating Klingons with nativists and Mirror Lorca with immigration critics came across. Their argument is immediately lost because this is a completely invalid and immature line of arguing. I do not know what they hoped to accomplish with this, they are obviously not convincing anyone by slandering people and at the same time they are just preaching to the choir for their side. It is bad business too. Their streaming service depends on paying viewers and with little else on there, only fans will watch. No sane fan will pay for being insulted on their favorite TV show. I have to chalk it up to different times than the 1990s, where disagreements in world view could be resolved or acknowledged civilly and not at the most violent possible level. We also should not forget that what is “liberal” and what is “conservative” has changed considerably since the 1990s (you can google many articles on this) so I don’t think the Trek of old presented the same views that are presented today. With some of the emotional zeal going on in our era, it is really not surprising that the one or other person would find themselves on the other side of the argument suddenly and does not deserve to be treated as subhuman as a consequence.
The only thing that worries about Patrick Stewart’s creative involvement is that it was his decision to make Insurrection lighter disliking Michael Piller’s original more serious draft. He had some creative influence on Nemesis and we all know how that turned out. While PS is a great actor, I hope after 25 years he last said goodbye to Picard that Patrick Stewart has better ideas how and where the Picard character will be.
The way he explained it, they were the ones that came up with the main idea for the show and what got him on board. I think he’s helping them come up with some of the details of the episodes and where he like to see Picard goes in them, but the thrust of the story will come from the writers overall.
I am 100% certain they are going to ruin Picard.
Why not put some money on that in Vegas, 100% down that you won’t enjoy a good show!
This is going to Suck, why pick Picard, he 2as just one of may captains on one of treks many spin off shows
Because he’s the only one available and willing, not to mention worthy. Seriously, think for two seconds: Avery Brooks doesn’t act anymore (among other problems he seems to have), I doubt Kate Mulgrew would do it (nor would anyone really care). Scott Bakula’s show was cancelled, so I doubt there’s an audience craving a Captain Archer series.
Patrick Stewart is a bonafide star, Picard is a fan favorite, and he is available and willing to do it. He will pull in subscribers, and his return is such big news that it made major outlets front pages.
Well put, Afterburn. He’s the only former captain out there worth mining, and I agree, worthy.
The headline in Variety was “Patrick Stewart to Return as Capt. Picard in New ‘Star Trek’ Series for CBS All Access”
Can you imagine if it had been a Captain Archer show? Probably something like:
CBS DREDGES UP SCOTT BAKULA TO PLAY CAPTAIN HARPER IN STREAMING REVIVAL OF LOWEST RATED TREK SERIES
Only if you were the editor.
Actually, for me Archer is the only one worth mining. I just never felt Bakula was right for the role. I’ll watch the Picard show because I’m a Trek fan but I really don’t care about what happened to Picard post Nemesis. I just hope they can come up with a good story for the boring man.
This news colors me very, very sceptical about the Picard show, bursting my bubble of wishful thinking, and I must admit I may have temporarily fallen for their attempts at making this look as the project for the “old fans” and supposedly “totally different from Discovery”. It was never going to be. This show will only be “TNG” in being set in the 24th century (barely) and featuring a character named JLP. Not just is TNG dead, the hopeful, uniting world TNG was produced into is dead. It’s going to be the same hardcore serialization as Discovery’s arcs and we are really in one form or another suffering from since the late DS9 seasons in the 1990s (really nothing “modern” about this), the same darkness and grittiness, the same very literal and extremely one-sided political leaning that contrary to attempts at revisionist history from certain fans was never a hallmark of Star Trek, but one of bridging divides and celebrating rather than demonishing different points of views, of inviting Russians onto the bridge at the height of the cold war. Of course, non of it is really surprising given that a lot of the same personnel that created Discovery has also been creating this show (Kutzman, Beyer), and I really don’t care how many “Pulitzer winning” writers are on the show, if they all hail from the same intellectually incestuous corner of the galaxy and have their strict marching orders, that’s not going to make any difference for this show. Of course I will still check out the actual product, but at this point I expect the so-called differences to Discovery to be mere window-dressing.
10hours, 110hours… Partrick Stewart is my daddy and I’ll take whatever he gives me! LOL
Truthfully I love how excited he is about this show. That says a lot.
“They are writing a 10-hour movie.”
Sounds exciting if they can build a good story. Here’s to hoping they aren’t taking a 3-4 hour story and stretching it to 10 hours with unnecessary minutia like the recent wave of “streaming platform” serialized shows often tend to do.
So excited to see Patrick Stewart back as Picard.
That’s a good amount of episodes for a tale.
One character we wont see is Guinan as she was surely killed during the end battle in Nemesis. She was no doubt in the new 10 forward when the hull was damaged and she was sucked out into the green nebula..
Would we be so lucky?
apparently Picard was later asked by Starfleet if he wanted to retrieve Guinans body from the nebula but he said and I quote: ‘no its ok just leave it there. its what shed have wanted.’
Oh please make THAT so!
I just watched the actual video AFTER I read the quotes on TM and its funny how different I imagined him talking about it in my head. I imagined just a quiet and calm guy but then you watch the video and the excitement he has for it just pops on the screen. Man he is SUPER excited about this show and he has millions of fans who are excited for him!
But I have a feeling in the next month or so they are going to drop the whole thing on us. We heard most of the basics of Discovery a few months before filming started so I suspect the same here.
So, so exciting. Manohman, PLEASE don’t be a letdown…!
Oh i can’t WAIT for the complainers to come out when this show airs….i predict a complete and utter meltdown.
I suspect an Insurrection/Undiscovered Country vibe to this series, complete wild shot but perhaps Vulcan leaving the federation and some mystery cold war games that Picard has to solve to keep the federation from falling apart.
I can see that too, and I think that would be an excellent premise.
I like the thought of that plotline. As to complaining about it, people will, that’s inevitable, especially those who grew up with TNG. I’m more invested in TOS from childhood than TNG, which debuted while I was in college (though I still watch TNG quite a bit), so I don’t expect to have any big issues with it unless the writing sucks, which by all accounts it shouldn’t with Chabon doing the heavy lifting. This show is moving the timeline forward, finally post-Nem, finally not a prequel. Very interested to see what they come up with.
I grew up on TNG, it debuted when I was 12 years old. My personal nostalgia. But I will not complain about this series, even if they turned it into a romantic comedy. I just won’t watch.
That would be a nice change…
Yeah can you imagine what it would be like if people hated a show just didn’t watch it and didn’t bother posting in a forum about it?
Oh or are you talking about a Trek romantic comedy? I could see that. The story of a young Troi and Riker in love!
I just don’t believe you when you say you won’t complain.
So you’re ok with the full frontal scene that Stewart has planned?
Imagine if theymight worked from this kind of pattern….
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-trump-russia-investigation-and-the-mafia-state
AWESOME!!
Great news!
Romulus gone, refugees everywhere, Klingons looking at expanding into the Star Empire, isolationist right leaning Federation/Starfleet, idiot as President.
Picard to the rescue.
Etc.
Bring back the entire TNG Crew for one more movie. Data can easily return through B-4. Maybe involve DS9, maybe also Q. Above all, give us one more movie that is faithful to the narrative-thread of the TNG Series.
Reunion shows suck.
Very optimistic. Discovery has not been my cup of Earl Grey, but everything I read (though vague) seems to point to this show being up my alley. I’m all for different strokes for different folks.
I think it’s fair to speculate on the plot of the series now… It will be a refugee crisis in the aftermath of the destruction of Romulus… Some kind of Trump figure that Picard will oppose…
It is kind of ironic that Stewart is now the same age as future Picard although I hope they don’t add a beard and make him senile.