Shuttle Pod 66 – ‘Picard’, ‘Lower Decks’, and ‘What We Left Behind’
Subscribe to Shuttle Pod: The TrekMovie.com Podcast on iTunes, Google Play Music, and Pocket Casts!
Like what you hear? Please leave us a review on iTunes.
Recorded on the day the Star Trek: Picard teaser dropped, Brian, Jared, Matt, and Laurie discuss the Picard show news. Plus, writing on Lower Decks is well underway. The Shuttle Pod crew also discusses the long-awaited Deep Space Nine documentary What We Left Behind.
Information point for Laurie.
The Animated Series was available Saturday mornings in Canada in first run for those of us that lived close enough to the border to get US stations on cable.
My spouse, who grew up in a small place, says that neither TOS nor TAS were available first run. They only saw TOS when border UHF stations started broadcasting in syndication.
I did get American stations (since I grew up in Toronto) but somehow I missed it, and I was one of those kids who used to comb through TV Guide looking for anything Trek. But thank you for the information, TG47. I have been trying to verify this for a long time. We DID get TOS, for sure. My mom watched it in its initial run, she’s the one who introduced me to it. Any idea what channel the Animated Series was on?
We were getting it on the NBC station from Seattle I believe.
I would have thought that the Buffalo NBC stations would have had it too. It was part of the Saturday morning cartoon line up.
We watched various Buffalo stations, I remember all the local ads very well.
I remember seeing TAS on Saturday mornings and having discussions about the episodes in the schoolyard. Same as others – American stations available in Toronto.
I actually watched it around 1987 (was 6) Saturday morning cartoons on the CBC right after O Canada and the station intros (this was the days when TV stations shut down for the night). I remember getting up early to watch. CBC used to show TOS a lot, the RDTV affiliate showed TOS as soon as I got home (this would have been er, 1990-1992 (was 9-12). This was back when the CBC wasn’t all statist propaganda (a long time ago).
Cool, I had now idea that the CBC picked it up later.
At this point, I believe it’s only available in Canada on Crave streaming. It’s the one Trek show Space doesn’t broadcast.
Star Trek: The Animated Series also is on Netflix Canada. I could have sworn it was on Teletoon Retro at some point but I have had digital antenna only for years. I do remember seeing TOS in the mid-80s (I was 4 or 5) on CBC. I could have sworn CBC radio 1 played the audio at some point but that doesn’t make much sense…30+ years ago so who knows
Can confirm it was on Teletoon circa 1997-98.
Just adding to that popular demand for Laurie. She adds a lot to the podcast and I hope she does many more in the future!
I really appreciated Laurie’s intervention about the need for a female writer (and writers of colour) for Lower Decks.
And I’d add the same concern for the Nickelodeon show. There’s a real lack of diversity in kids’ animated series both on the screen and on the production side.
Also, Nichelle Nichols son is attempting to take control of her affairs. https://people.com/tv/star-trek-nichelle-nichols-conservatorship-battle-son/
Anyone see the article saying Spiner will be in the Picard series?!
Isn’t Data dead?
Brent Spiner has portrayed many more characters than just Data!
It’s made pretty obvious at the end of Nemesis that Data was starting to slowly emerge from B4’s neural network. It was a safeguard in case the film did well and they wanted to make another one.
Yeah. That was their version of the Spock’s coffin scene at the end of WoK. The original cut did not include it and test audiences were left with no hope. The Nemesis folks learned from that.
Do you mean the article saying there is a *rumor* Spiner be in the series? That is all it is, just a rumor.
He could easily be playing B4 and being de-aged by cgi wouldn’t look as awkward since he is an android afterall.
This could go in many directions if in fact the rumours about Spiner are true.
We know that one of the casting precis proposed a character with expertise in positronic brains.
So, some involvement of a Song android is a reasonable inference.
That said, characters aren’t necessarily as outlined in casting calls.
In the TNG Relaunch post-Nemesis novels Data is restored, but has no intention of returning to Starfleet. The revived Data is quite a wild card character: a wealthy recluse in Orion society.
indeed, in the “Countdown” comic book, Data took over B4 and became the new Data
In the books, the download into B4 was transferred by Soong himself into Soong’s last available positronic brain…one Soong had intended for himself (along the lines of what he’5 done for Data’s mother).
So Soong essentially employs Sargon’s plan.
Not really, because Soong sacrifices his own immortality in order to restore Data.
But one always wonders if there is a bit of residualSoong somewhere deep inside Data’s positronic matrix.
I’ll take your word for it. I don’t recall the episode at all. Must have been one of the many that did not really leave a lasting impression one way or the other. Just what you described sounded like Sargon’s plan.
The events that TG47 is referring to happened in the ‘Cold Equations’ trilogy of novels, written by David Mack. They are set post-Nemesis (about 4 years later) and were published in 2012.
*Discusses. There. Fixed the headline for you.
And you actually changed it! I was just kidding lol but I appreciate your commitment to grammar 👍
I changed “React” to “Reacts” and missed the second verb! Thanks for flagging it.
It’s my job to make things grammatically correct, good to know yall reading every comment 👀😬
It is often my job too! Cheers.
More Piller would have been great in the documentary, but I’m not sure he was really Behr’s mentor. I always got the impression they were peers, though Piller was about five years older. Behr already had quite a resume before doing Trek. In fact, Behr’s first teleplay sale predates Piller’s, since Piller started at a local CBS news station.
Ira has often referred to Piller as a mentor.
The animated series was my first exposure to Star Trek. It was on Nickelodeon in the early 1980s. But I did not become a big Star Trek fan until about the third season of TNG. I am beyond excited for this Picard show, but I am cautious to be too optimistic as the current version of Trek being run by Kurtzman has me nervous. The fact they are using the split delta symbol as the official version even in the Picard show displays all these new shows fall under the Kurtzman umbrella. Major bummer, but here’s hoping it’s good.
And yes, Trek needs way more diversity beyond the camera and continue to increase it in front.
Y’know, I have to confess how much I have grown to love “Shuttle Pod”. I often listen to it on my late night drives home from my one of my regular gigs. Its great to hear in-depth analysis of Trek from folks who clearly take it seriously and facilitate great conversations. Far better than any of the other Trek podcasts I’ve sampled in the past. Keep up the good work, folks!
Thank you very much! We’re so glad you enjoy it!
First, I’ve said this before but I really think that flute was coincidental. I never made the Inner Light connection and I felt the flute just sounded appropriate.
On to the “Family” connections. I honestly do not get the love for that episode. Granted, I’ve only seen it the one time back when it aired but I recall my impression was being amazingly underwhelmed. The other thing I recall was the old man fight was just embarrassing to watch. I also felt like the Worf B story was far more interesting than the Picard A story. Probably because Worf was always the most interesting character on the show. Pretty much any time they made “character” episodes they failed. I never saw BOBW as an episode geared towards any character. It was just a neat Sci-fi episode that pretty much would have worked no matter what characters were populating the bridge. Which is the case for all the really good episodes of TNG. I can say this with 100% absolute certainty. None, not one of the good episodes of TNG were character driven. The good ones all dealt with interesting Trek-ish sci-fi concepts.
I am also very much heartened by the comments about McMahon’s book. I am looking forward to Lower Decks more than any other confirmed show. Side note, I honestly do not care about race or gender of the writers so long as the final result is making me laugh.
I gotta say that some have spoken about how a show learned lessons from another. DS9, I think, totally learned a lot of lessons from TNG. In terms of character and story. It just worked SO much better.
What I had heard about Farrel/Dax… I heard she was interested in leaving but was disappointed they killed Dax. It was that they killed Dax was what irked her more than anything. I think she wanted to leave it open to return for something. But that was a long time ago, so I might be mis-remembering here.
I never really latched on to Jadzea Dax and I agree that Ezri Dax I found far more interesting.
ML31 I’m wondering if you might have a different reaction to Family at this point in your life.
Many fans said that DS9 was unwatchable for them when they were younger.
I can see how older men acting out there sibling issues could be mortifying at an earlier point in life.
I will have to let you know. I do plan to start rewatching TNG in the near future to see if I can look at it differently like I did for Voyager recently. I was 25 when that episode aired. That was long before before Mrs ML31 and my kid. So who knows? Maybe. But I will say this… I rewatch TVH about once a decade to see if my perspective on it ever changes. It hasn’t. In fact, it feels like that movie actually gets worse with each successive viewing.
I had a different reaction to “Family” when I rewatched it. I’d always liked it, but I think when I was younger I thought Robert was really being an ass, and when I rewatched it, I saw the tenderness there even when it LOOKED like he was being an ass.
I recall Robert being as ass as well. But, and I think this is the more important part, I never really latched on to Jean-Luc as an interesting character. So his family dynamic just didn’t interest me in the slightest. In my 20’s something always seemed off or inhuman about him. Sure, Stewart has gravitas and forced the show to work though his charisma alone most of the time. By the end of the series’ run I think I decided the reason Picard never resonated to me was because he was an impossible person. He was just way too perfect to care. When he exhibited his first flaw in the feature “First Contact” was the first time I found him to be someone who was worth caring about just a little. That confirmed the theory.
The thing is ML31 that I never saw Picard as perfect.
He was interested in music, art science and literature. But never at the level of the true expert.
His interests (likely because the writers felt these would resonate) usually came across like a greatest hits of freshman WesternCiv.
Most of my friends who were experts in any of the above seemed to have a bit of a wry amusement at Picard’s earnest interests.
What Picard was top notch at was being an intelligent, curious generalist and determined and centred moral leader who drew out the best of everyone in his crew.
The episode in which Q showed Picard how mediocre his road not traveled (as a science officer) would have been, really rang true for me.
Picard had an inherent humanity because despite his confidence as a great captain, he always held a desire to reach for these other things.
First Contact showed his first flaw? I don’t know about that. He’s terribly repressed and awkward when around children and women, and uptight to the point of being a bit withdrawn. Which probably explains why he was sympathetic to Barclay.
Anyway, not the worst flaws, I’ll grant you, but the guy ain’t perfect. He’s essentially a Vulcan without the pointed ears, and they’re more messed up than they’d like to admit.
I also never found him to be perfect. What I loved about him from the get-go was that he STRIVED to be perfect, and I found that to be a great leadership quality. He tried to keep his weaknesses as a person separate from his leadership, and I admired the way he valued intellect and reason over physical strength. I grew up loving Captain Kirk, but was so happy when Trek expanded its view of what an effective captain could be by including both of these examples. Picard didn’t take away from Kirk, he added to him. I found Picard to be a fascinating character and quite rich.
“…and I admired the way he valued intellect and reason over physical strength. I grew up loving Captain Kirk, but was so happy when Trek expanded its view of what an effective captain could be by including both of these examples.”
Kirk also valued intellect and reason over physical strength, so your comment is nonsensical. Perhaps you don’t actually know the character of Kirk very well if you think what you wrote is true.
I understand why people think you’re anti-TOS when you say such ignorant things about Kirk.
I never said that Kirk valued physical strength over intellect and reason. He was a great leader and one of my favorite qualities of his was the way he often embraced his enemies instead of conquering them. He had nuance. BUT when Picard came along, we had a guy simply was NOT likely to get in a fistfight. He was a very different type of captain, and it was refreshing. There’s room for both. (But saying one character values something isn’t saying the other one doesn’t–I didn’t MEAN to express that at all.)
“BUT when Picard came along, we had a guy simply was NOT likely to get in a fistfight.”
The moment a terrorist beams onto the bridge in “The High Ground”, Picard punches him with no attempt at talking first. But…yeah, okay, not a fistfight guy.
Whatever you did or did not “MEAN to express,” you clearly implied that Kirk did not value intellect/reason over physical strength. Read your own words carefully. They definitely imply exactly what I’m inferring.
He didn’t NEVER punch anybody. He was a less physical person, generally. There’s no question they were two very different types of captain. Both were intelligent, analytical, resourceful, and nuanced. One was much more likely to get into a physical altercation than the other. Kirk was a fiercely intelligent captain, but his idea of shore leave was climbing a cliff, whereas Picard’s was reading Shakespeare. I may have accidentally implied something I don’t feel–can you not accept that I am clarifying it? Kirk was an exceptional captain and I grew up admiring him. That feeling never changed.
Wow. Sorry I bumped the chip on your shoulder. Peace.
PaulB, seriously you are not making yourself look good..at all. I think everyone got what Laurie was saying. Take it down a notch.
Tiger2, take yourself down a notch. Nothing wrong with anything I said, and the conversation is already over.
You are coming off offended over a statement she already made clear wasn’t saying what you implied it was saying. She never said Kirk was some hot head idiot, she only said she liked Picard for being more intellectual and waaaaaay less physical, which he obviously was. How many times did Picard get his shirt ripped off in seven seasons? Now how many times did Kirk in three? The guy did it so many times they literally made a joke about it in Beyond. But that doesn’t mean she was saying Kirk wasn’t smart or thoughtful either, so get a grip. And then you accused her of being anti-TOS over it. Seriously take it down a notch. You’re the one coming off nonsensical here, not her.
@Tiger2 – No, I didn’t express offense. Yes, her statement said EXACTLY what I inferred from it. No, I did NOT accuse her of being anti-TOS.
If you insist on trying to drag out an ALREADY CONCLUDED conversation, you should at least try to read with accuracy. You not only insulted me repeatedly, with no justification or provocation, but you lied repeatedly about what I said and about what she said–or perhaps it’s a reading comprehension issue for you. For whatever reason, you’re spewing inaccuracies and nonsense.
Also, I didn’t make personal attacks as you have done REPEATEDLY toward me. (Hey, admins, don’t you…I dunno, admin this place?)
Since you keep insulting me and since you are responding to your own made-up version of the discussion, there is no reason for me to read anything else you say. You’re wasting my time.
Bye, Tiger! Enjoy shouting your nonsense into the void!
PaulB you’re the one who has been spewing inaccurate nonsense, hence why no one here is agreeing with you. Get the HINT already. You were also the first to insult Laurie by calling her VERY innocent statement about Picard ignorant along with accusing her of being anti-TOS. But now you are claiming everyone is attacking you first and want to play the victim. Got to love the internet lol.
And this IS the internet, how is anyone suppose to know when something is ‘finished’? Because you got the last word in lol? Hate to break it to you, but it doesn’t work that way chief, especially since I responded to you on the day you were still whining over her comments. Its not like I responded 3 weeks later or anything.
PaulB you don’t seem to realize how in the wrong you look. But yes you ARE wrong and just look ridiculous arguing with everyone over something YOU started in the first place, not Laurie. And of course you can disagree with her, but your OP DID come off aggressive and insulting when all you had to do was explain why you disagreed in a polite matter. You didn’t do that. So again, stop playing the victim. And if you want to tell others to stop with the insults, start with yourself.
But since you didn’t read this of course I don’t have to worry about another nonsensical post from you thankfully! Sadly everyone does.
Why are you apparently so bound-and-determined to have an argument with someone who isn’t disagreeing with you?
Michael, you should try reading the entire exchange before speaking up. It’s already over. If I were determined to have an argument, I would have, gee whiz, had an argument instead of ending my side of the conversation.
I responded to what she WROTE, while you and Tiger2 are sniping at me. Instead of sniping at me, how about you stay on the actual topic? Hmmm?
I suppose, and thankfully it wasn’t a competition between your opinions. If it was, Laurie would have won…
That’s a nonsensical statement, but hey, have fun with that!
I did read the entire conversation, which the awful comments system here placed my remark at the bottom of. And yes, you were insisting on taking offense over her distinguishing Picard as an ‘intellectual’ captain as opposed to Kirk, though she made several attempts to assure you that she meant nothing of the kind. Try growing a thicker skin.
Michael – Stop the personal attacks, okay? I didn’t attack Laurie nor did I attack you, yet you keep making comments about me.
Meanwhile, the entire conversation was OVER before you decided to get attention for yourself by speaking up. No, I didn’t insist on “taking offense”–please show my deep offense, anywhere in my comments. Oh yeah, it’s not there.
It’s simple. I’ll explain it to you:
1) In other comments, Laurie’s attitude toward TOS has been questioned and challenged. She has come across as anti-TOS but claims to be a big TOS fan.
2) Her comment, to which I replied, stated EXACTLY what I claim it did. That statement, as she wrote it, supports the belief that she is anti-TOS because it perpetuates a bogus claim (i.e., that Kirk was a fight-don’t-think guy and that Picard finally brought that to Trek).
3) I called out HER CLAIM, not her as a person. (as you continue to do to me). She replied, and we discussed it.
4) It was clear from both her replies to me and her replies to others here that she is extremely defensive and easy-to-take-offense. Thus, I said I bumped the chip on her shoulder and “peace”‘d out.
Nothing in ANY of that justifies your ongoing sniping at me personally. Again, try sticking TO THE TOPIC instead of sniping at other fans on the board.
Notice how I just explained it all to you, yet I still haven’t sniped at you personally…the way you keep doing to me.
The problem here ain’t me, buddy. Not by a long shot. But hey, keep on attacking me…about a conversation that was over already…that wasn’t what you claim…yeah, that makes a ton of sense.
The idea that I’m not a TOS or Kirk fan makes me laugh. If you have either of William Shatner’s Trek memoirs (Star Trek Memories or Star Trek Movie Memories), go read the acknowledgments: I’m in both. My Shatner-signed copy of the first one says, “Thanks for all the help,” which he handed over to me before we sat and chatted for a while. He even gave me his chair, as I recall…
That’s a mic drop if I’ve ever seen one!
“The idea that I’m not a TOS or Kirk fan makes me laugh.” It has been based entirely on what you say and write, as several others have observed. At no time did I say you are not a TOS/Kirk fan, merely that I understand why people think that based on the things you say and how you say them.
Instead of being so ridiculously defensive, maybe you should think, “Gee, a lot of people keep misunderstanding my love of TOS because of the things I say and write, so maybe I should be more aware of the things I say and write” instead of having such a massive chip on your shoulder about it. Actual writers and public communicators care about the accuracy and clarity of their writing. They don’t just get defensive about it.
Who are these “lot of people” that you speak of?
Apparently all in PaulB’s head.
TG47, It seems to me that Picrad was presented at pretty much a near or actual expert in everything he ever attempted. For a hobby he sure did seem like someone others in the field greatly desired to talk to. He seemed to get plenty of papers published for someone doing it as a “hobby”. As far as drawing out the best of his crew, I honestly never saw that. In general, I loathe to compare Kirk to Picard as they are very different people. But I DID see Kirk get people to want to give him their very best. He seemed like someone you wanted to do right for. Never got that feeling from Picard. Maybe it’s that Picard’s command style just would never work on me. In fact, he would make me want to get transferred if I was working closely with him. And his desire to be a “better person” was in itself one of the aspects that made him perfect. No one strives like he does and succeeds at everything like he does.
Cub, he was indeed uncomfortable around children. Which yes I suppose could be seen as an imperfect element. But the fact is the families on the Enterprise were sorta ignored to the point that I actually forgot they were even there as the show moved on. So that element nearly vanished entirely. I would argue that his failure in the female department could very well be a side effect of him being so very perfect. No woman could possibly be a fit for him as a result. Unless he found an equally perfect one. I suppose it’s like Sherlock Holmes never settling down with anyone because there were none who were is intellectual equal.
Laurie, I really wish I saw in him what you and others seem to. Yes, he strived to be perfect and it seems he succeeded. In everything he did. He wanted to be a starship captain. He did it. He likes archeology. He became an expert. He was the go to Federation negotiator as well as the greatest military strategist they have had for decades. From my point of view everything he touched he succeeded at. His only flaw was succumbing to revenge in First Contact. Which made him a little more human to me, but felt like a bit of a cliche when it comes to character flaws.
Well, not every character is going to resonate with everyone. I love how aspirational Trek characters are and he was a shining example … and I liked how he was just as aspirational as Kirk but had a completely different style. But there will always be characters that don’t work for you, you know? People love T’Pol, and I think she was the worst regular character in Star Trek history (and this isn’t about the actress, who did a good job). To each their own.
Fair enough. For me only Worf I found to be an interesting character on TNG. The later shows seemed to learn their lesson and all had more interesting characters than TNG had. I strongly suspect TNG’s character failures were mainly GR’s doing. He was against casting Stewart to begin with, too!
For the record, I think the worst regular character in Trek history is easily Troi. Not only was she a boring person but she was completely unnecessary and was badly portrayed. (sorry to potentially open that can of worms)
I liked Worf, but not in large doses and I found the Klingon episodes among the least interesting. Loved the other characters. Troi definitely had some bad moments, but I found her a lot more interesting than, say, Malcolm Reed! (Again, not about the actor.) Marina brought an energy to the character that helped a lot. Anyway, that’s why it’s good there’s so much Trek. Something for everyone.
That would be ST:VI for me. Horrible movie. Horrible.
@FASAfan – Agreed! TUC was a mockery of the classic Star Trek characters, a terrible film in every way.
I’m curious, why do you think that?
Mark, thanks to your snide and pointless comments in the thread above, I have no interest in engaging with you. Peace.
Fair enough. This was an honest question, but I get it.
You didn’t ask me, but I can offer you my view. It is, because the writers had no idea what the Star Trek world was and who those characters were. Everyone acted out of character, beginning with Kirk and Spock and ending with Uhura and Scotty. Kirk never hated the Klingons. In the series, you always got the impression he cheerfully enjoyed his banters with them. Spock would not mind rape someone and the crew would not express outdated cliched racist remarks. I always found it unfair that Stuart Baird got attacked for knowing nothing about Trek, but these guys not so much. But I have to admit, after all TUC is a much better movie, if you get over these things.
You’ve summarized my problems with VI.
I wouldn’t go as far as your “never hated the Klingons” sentiment. The entity in DAY OF THE DOVE found it relatively easy to bring Kirk’s hatred for them out. But more to our point, Kirk demonstrated in the same episode that he was aware of it and was determined not to give into it.
Between the events of the series and Star Trek VI Klingons killed Kirk’s son. That might have changed his attitude towards them somewhat although he seemed to have less of a beef with them in Star Trek V (which itself has also been accused of having the crew act out of character).
In DAY OF THE DOVE the entity proved expert in getting the humans to feel real hatred for false deaths of non-existent relatives, such as a son, at the hands of the Klingons – not to mention real deaths that it would turn around and undo and start the whole battle cycle all over again. As I recall, when Kirk eventually caught on, he speculated they had been manipulated into countless replays.
@Disinvited: My previous comment was in response to odradek, not to you (blame the comment system for not aligning it correctly).
Anyway, unless I remember incorrectly (haven’t seen Star Trek VI in a long time) Kirk also comes to realize in that movie that his hatred was misguided.
Odarek, your comment “Everyone acted out of character, beginning with Kirk and Spock and ending with Uhura and Scotty.” is my very complaint about TVH. Our crew were not our crew in that in the slightest. It was like we were watching entirely different characters. I get that they were trying to go “light” but even that effort failed. TVH was an epic failure on EVERY level. Bad writing. Bad story. Bad directing. Bad acting. I honestly cannot find one redeeming thing about that film. I never understand ripping on Nemesis but loving this. It’s the other way around!
Ah jeez you really gotta rewatch Family, one of the most poignant episodes in any Trek series, imo. The mud scene where Picard admits they broke him, “they used me to kill and to destroy and I couldn’t stop them, I tried so hard,” I get misty every time
Yeah… By that point I was long detached from the episode. Like I said, Robert was just a turd and the fight was embarrassing. None if it felt right or organic at all. It all felt very forced. But then, I’m also forced to admit that I never found Picard a good character so since that is the case why would I care about his family dynamic? But I do plan on rewatching the series for the first time soon. So it’s possible my view towards it might change a little. It did for Voyager when I rewatched it for the first time of the last year.
wow you guys are kind of awful… sorry… at least from what i heard… i fully admit i could be mistaken. but i tried listening. i was like “great i can listen to other people who enjoy trek”… but you all seem so unhappy. then i jumped to the discovery one and was all this is what they did wrong here and this is their mistake there. admittedly i jumped around so maybe i kept landing on the whiny trek fandom part. maybe there’s more positive stuff that i missed or you reached a level of actual joy at one point so i could be wrong. i just can’t listen to dour sad trek fans. there’s so much hatred in trek fandom for new it’s a shame and this just reminds me of that.
That’s why I stopped listening to shuttle pod, to much complaining about change. Besides it’s to biased. Anything regarding TNG and those characters is awesome but anything to do with TOS is trash, atleast according to shuttle pod.
I often think of ShuttlePod and TrekMovie generally as leaning toward TOS more than TNG.
Now Discovery is set in the pre-TOS period, but it’s very much it’s own thing. So critiquing Discovery isn’t critiquing TOS. All the more so since Discovery has moved to another time period.
For the record, 3 of the 4 people involved in this particular episode (Laurie, Matt, and myself) are huge TOS fans. Assuming we somehow don’t like TOS because we’re critical of Discovery is…quite a stretch.
Yeah, I find that odd too. We are all huge TOS fans! Also, I actually AM a Discovery fan. I get frustrated with what I perceive as shortcuts in storytelling or thinking, but I love all the characters, I thought the spore drive stuff was interesting, and I very much enjoy watching it. But my goodness, I was raised on TOS and adore it. It’s the series I know best, having watched and loved those episodes endlessly throughout my childhood and still today. We are all huge Trek fans. I myself love TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Discovery. I’m less of an Enterprise fan, but I watched it all and occasionally rewatch an episode or two.
I will just say that there is a lot of talk about being excited about Picard coming back but a lot of dislike of Spock coming back for discovery. I also dont mean yo say that criticism of discovery equals criticism of TOS, however I rarely hear good things about TOS when compared with TNG. Thate my take anyway. I actually think discovery honors canon way better than TNG did.
False equivalence. Spock, Pike, the Enterprise, etc. being wedged into Discovery – seemingly for no other reason than to be there – as opposed to Picard, which will be exploring who Jean-Luc Picard is in the twilight of his life, and in an era we’ve never seen before. They are completely different things and we treat them as such. It has nothing to do with favoring TNG over TOS.
100% Agreed, Brian.
Exactly Brian! Discovery basically wedged TOS into its show by having Spock and Pike, which I thought worked fairly well, but lets be honest it was still forced. They had to come up with the craziest excuse for Pike to be captain of Discovery while he was still very much captain of the Enterprise. If that’s not a wedge I don’t know what is lol.
But that’s where the criticism was coming in, regardless how good you felt it was executed. For a lot of people it just felt like it was done for mere TOS fan service and to find a way to prop Discovery up and little else.
Picard is its own show and a continuation about the character in the post-Nemesis era. Nothing is being forced in order to do it. Its a different issue completely.
I don’t really see that wedge any odder than how in the 2009 movie and its immediate sequel that, even though the E is supposedly Pike’s ship, once Kirk gets his captaincy, Pike is wedged off the E cinematically. In the 2009 effort it’s even written so that he literally can’t set foot on her after that occurs. We are teased by its sequels’ dialogue that it’s going to happen, but it never materializes on screen for Pike. He’s even deprived in STID of the easy Prime resonance of sacrificing his quality of life to radiation to save the lives of his crew — although my point is more: if you are going to kill him anyway, why deprive a hero Pike in any universe of his big selfless sacrifice scene?
Well just for the record I’m not a big fan of how Kirk got the Enterprise in those movies either lol. The whole cadet to captain thing in a week (sorry Bob) still really really bothers me, much less he’s given the flagship of the fleet. Nog had way more experience than him as a cadet during the Dominion war, but no way would anyone make the guy a captain just because he pulled off a rescue mission (and of course we all now know present day Captain Nog wouldn’t have fared so well ;)). But I understand of course why they decided to go that way with Kirk. I still think they could’ve done it a little differently though, but hey.
And we know in the movies Pike is really just there to encourage Kirk to be the man we all know he will be. But he at least feels like he has (or had) a place in the films. He could’ve been given a bigger death scene though, I agree.
This Pike is basically just thrown on the show with the small Spock connection to give him and Michael a reason to talk but it still felt a little forced. THAT said though it wasn’t that big of a deal, I get its still just a TV show and yes second season greatly benefited from having him on so you get no complaints out of me about it.
Cadet-to-Captain was much, much worse than anything Discovery has done so far, even the Lorca reveal and Burnham’s all-too-easy redemption.
I beg to differ, Michael. The Lorca reveal is still way more ludicrous than the cadet to captain move. As absurd as it is, there was a certain logic to it. Not saying it was good here. Just saying it added up if you don’t think about it too much. The Lorca thing was just idiocy of the highest order from the get go.
Since the whole backstory of Burnham is built around her being Spock’s stepsister, the accusation that he was simply “wedged” into Discovery’s second season is pretty absurd on its face. You might not like that backstory, or the way it was handled on the show, but that’s not relevant to the complaint.
I’ve been critical of Discovery myself (though the apparent inability of the Game of Thrones producers to write a satisfying finale has made me a little more sympathetic to Kurtzman and Co. in that respect), but nonsensical sniping like this is why I’d pretty much given up on the shuttle podcasts.
Which is why I’m mainly talking about Pike and not Spock. And as I said seeing Pike in the story is not really the issue but HOW they used him was, which felt super forced to me and I loved him on the show.
But thats just my opinion, nothing more.
I’m with you on this one Tiger2.
The integration of Pike as interim captain of the Discovery worked well beyond any reasonable hope.
But the way it was justified in the show did seem like a prima facie wedge regardless of Burnham’s relationship to Spock. One could say that Pike’s captaincy (and the excellent Spock/Burnham sibling dynamic) were in some ways the exception that proves the rule…
if a franchise is going to pull in long-standing characters, the dynamic needs to be well done. Given that fans want more of Pike and Spock, I’d say that they very much surpassed the threshold.
Which is rather all to say that while Discovery has stretched fans credulity with recessive reliance on twists and tie-backs, these wouldn’t be the ones I’d critique.
And as a complete aside, I don’t think that the pretext of the red signals was needed to justify Pike’s interim command of the Discovery. Great captains don’t get left beached for a year when their ships are in refit, and a major refit after a long range exploration wouldn’t be unexpected.
More to the point a ship (or business) that has had a destructive leader is often assigned a 1-2 year ‘turn around and workout’ leader to get the team through the rough ground of transition to a healthier organization. Assigning a long-term captain right after Lorca’s departure /death would not be consistent with good practice.
If they wanted Pike on the ship, they probably could’ve just came up with a better pre-text of what they did. But how they did it felt more forced.
I mean they didn’t even bother giving a real reason why the Enterprise suddenly went down to the point it was out of commission for what I’m guessing weeks. Many thought it was going to be story related but it really wasn’t. I seen every episode of Star Trek ever, I can’t recall a ship being down for weeks over an electrical malfunction. A day or two MAYBE I guess. I can’t even recall what was the reason besides the hologram communication, which felt like a huge stretch, but it may have not been the only one.
And then I didn’t understand why Pike and ONLY Pike was important enough to investigate the red signals? Again when it was originally assumed it may have been tied to Spock disappearance then I felt it was somewhat justified until we learned no one even knew his disappearance had anything to do with the signals.
But as I said I don’t think it was the end of the world either. We all knew why Pike was there production wise so you just go with it. It was no different than how Worf seemed to land on the Enterprise in the movies although he was officially a member of DS9 at that point, but you would be crazy not to have Worf in those films so you shrug and go with it.
And I thought having Pike on all season would be a mistake because it would diminish the main characters. In some ways it kind of did lol (more people now seem more interested in a Pike show over Discovery although I’m personally way more excited about Discovery now that its set in an advanced century), but it was worth it IMO. And I thought the Discovery characters still got some pretty decent character arcs overall.
I would argue, Michael, that the mere fact that they made Spock Burnham’s adoptive brother to be wedging the character into the show. Even if we never saw him the entire run of the show.
That would have been my response as well, Brian.
That has not been my takeaway from the podcasts. I see them as just being honest. If they think something is hokey they will say so. They aren’t going to love it just because it has the Star Trek label on it. I mean, I think WoK is the best ST feature there is. Yet I can pick it apart as much as anyone. Doesn’t mean I still don’t think it an awesome movie.
Oh, the TrekMovie podcasters are knowledgable and have certain basic standards for storytelling and logic. If you want simple cheerleading for Alex Kurtzman projects, there are several Discovery-themed podcasts out there that you will find more comforting. All the best.
If a fandom is full of people saying nothing but nice things, or negative things for that matter, then it’s no longer a fandom. It’s a cult.
What? These guys love Star Trek. I listened to most of the podcast episodes and can state they call them as they see them. I do not always agree, but I appreciate the fact they don’t think everything labeled “Star Trek” is perfect because it is Star Trek. It’s not “whiny Trek fandom,” it is being critical of things that are not perfect. The Shuttle Pod crew do like certain aspects of Discovery, but when the show violates it’s own continuity, why not call it out?
I love Star Trek, but nothing is perfect. What’s wrong with debate?
Laurie, Star Trek needs good writers. Creativity is genderless.
If creativity is genderless then why is there such a gender imbalance in writers? Since it’s not talent (as you seem to agree) it must be a hiring bias. In that case it seems reasonable to remind people in charge to tap into that part of the talent pool whose creative voices are currently underrepresented.
Pretty much what I was going to say too: yes, creativity is genderless. So when hiring those good writers that are needed, it should be no problem to hire from a larger pool that includes other types of people beyond just white men.
Whoever doesn’t want to maximize the pool of talent to choose from doesn’t have success as their top priority. And if that is the case, they should not be in charge of Star Trek. Or anything else for that matter. But you repeated it during the course of the pod cast and it seemed to me that you were implying that the studio should hire based on group identity thus making the current generation of white men pay for past sins. Surely two wrongs don’t make a right. If we are going to raise the bar, it should be raised for everyone, including those that are trying to find a way to finally get it right; in a fair and balanced way.
I did not actually imply any of that.
A lot of people view any call for diversity as an attack on white men.
If a lot of people view that, then perhaps it calls for a different approach, don’t you think?
A lot of people used to view the call to end slavery as an attack on white men. Luckily, that didn’t stop the call to end slavery.
Now I’m not saying that the current situation (especially in the entertainment industry) can or should be compared to slavery. But just because many people hold a view doesn’t necessarily make it right.
Used to??? A lot of white male elitists still do believe. I’d like to hear your explanation for why, in a country where slavery has long been illegal, the demand for sex and labor slavery still exists and is constantly being ferreted out on its soil to this day?
@ Disinvited: You will have to ask Americans for that explanation. I only have an outsider’s perspective. In fact, I often wonder how widespread those white male elitist views you talk about actually are.
By the way: This is getting way off-topic. I would hope that the people who oppose diversity in front of and behind the camera are in a minority, but those comments sure come up every time.
To get back on topic: if suggesting that diversity would be a positive thing makes someone else think I’ve suggested all kinds of other things (like hiring based on group identity or making white males pay for their sins), there’s nothing I can do about that. I can’t control what someone else adds in their own minds about what I’ve said. If you want to make up additional points yourself and attribute them to me, then take issue with them, that’s on you. The perception from Chancellor Gowron is accurate: many people think a call for diversity is an attack on white men. Many people think a call for equality means taking something away from white men, when what it means is leveling the playing field. Sure, it feels different to those white men to no longer be the only ones at the game, but we’re not taking away, we’re just bringing everyone else to the party.
I agree with your wish for diversity in Star Trek creative personnel going forward, but several times in this podcast you made comments that seemed to attack Trek in the past for not having diversity in their writing staff. That is possibly a valid critique for stretches of the TNG era, but TOS had several women writers and of course DC Fontana was one of the primary writers for TOS. She also basically ran the Animated Series writing staff (which also included women writers and at least one American Indian writer). The point is that to critique Trek for historically lacking diversity is factually incorrect.
When we talked about the DS9 doc, I pointed out that every writer in that writers’ room (as seen in the film) was a white man. I also expressed my great admiration for all of them as writers and as people. I didn’t say there were ZERO female writers (and diversity goes beyond gender, by the way). I think the writers and producers themselves would agree with me that there could have been a lot more diversity in those rooms, and Star Trek (which I am a fan of, hello) would have benefitted from that. I don’t see how that is an attack.
I’ll just remind you that outside the US slavery still exists not only illegally but legally on many spots on planet Earth and has yet to be eliminated from its surface, and leave it at that.
@Disinvited: Thank you for reminding me ;-) Since this is not related to point being discussed (diversity in Trek) I agree to leave it at that.
Lots of people are stupid.
“Be gender-blind… don’t be so shallow.”
~ compliments of En Vogue
New show on Apple + that Soviets landed on the moon and Space Race was prolonged
That’s the Ron Moore one, right? I really hope he based it on Ben Bova’s MILLENNIUM novel, when I was a teen in the late 70s I really wanted to adapt that into a film before nukes started flying (am amazed we’re still around to consider it 40 years later.)
Yes that’s one. How “if” history is fascinating
Millennium was awesome, probably Bova’s best novel. (Unfortunately he ruined it somewhat in a revised edition which attempted to tie it more closely to his previous short stories about Chet Kinsman’s career as an Air Force astronaut.) And you’re right; it would’ve made a great film.
Wow Hall, didn’t realize you knew that one! Didn’t know about the revised edition either, though I suppose that kind of thing is inevitable given how everything has to tie-in. I got enough people I knew in high school to read it that I could use Kinsman’s line to Frank Colt, “That’s the only way you’ll stop me, Frank” in just about any situation where I had my dander up and people would get the context.
I actually was kind of fixated on Bova’s work for a few years … he has a short story called STARS WON’T YOU HIDE ME that was inspired by ‘sinnerman’ and I still have most of a 20 minute film version of that, made between 1976 and 1980. Shooting a visual representation of the universe’s collapse on a super-8 budget was tough enough, but I kind of cheaped out on the big space fleet at beginning by doing the SILENT RUNNING thing, taking stills of spaceship models and then taping them to a sliding glass door, then shooting that with a starfield set up outside the door. My remaining friends were going nuts over how much time I spent on this one thing, saying I had Orson Welles complex and calling the project ‘When are you going to finish STARS?’
I’m not sure if I’ll get an assignment to cover this Moore show or not, but I’ve already put feelers out to PR folk at Apple as well as the regular outlets.
Did you ever read Bova’s The Starcrossed, a near-future (for the ’70s) spoof of Hollywood and its tortured relations with SF, loosely based on Harlan Ellison’s disastrous experience working on The Starlost and featuring an Ellison stand-in named Ron Gabriel? Some of the satire is a little obvious and heavy-handed, but it has its moments.
Viewing the trailer it doesn’t appear that the Moore show is at all related to Bova’s book, but it does look interesting.
BTW, did you check out the Deadwood finale, and if so, what did you think?
I’ve gone through three copies of the STARLOST, and I always get a kick out of it. Have often wondered how much of the tech guy is modeled on Trumbull and how much is modeled on Bova himself, since both were involved.
I’ve seen the DEADWOOD finale twice and think I may watch it again as soon as I get off deadline. I don’t think there was a single thing I found objectionable (though the fact the flashbacks seemed sharper than the modern stuff seemed a little strange — guess that is film stocks vs however they shoot it now.) I thought they would get into how the real Al died, but I guess that wouldn’t have served where they were going on this.
A huge surprise for me was GOOD OMENS. Had never read the book, but blew through the series in two nights. Except for Michal McKean, who seemed like he was from another movie, I loved all of that too, even the at-times goofy effects. Don’t know if I’m going soft critically in old age or if stuff I’m watching is really better, but have no complaints viewingwise lately!
I’d always assumed that the mild-mannered 3D tech guy was based on Bova, especially since in a bit of wish-fulfillment fantasy it’s he, and not Gabriel/Ellison, who winds up with the hot network executive. Of course in real life the two had a working relationship that produced the stories “Brillo” and “Along the Scenic Route,” and they seemed to get on well together in spite of their political and temperamental differences.
Being a huge fan of the show I was surprised to find myself an outlier in not finding the Deadwood wrap-up very satisfying. Maybe I wasn’t in the mood; I’ll certainly give it another shot. I’ll give it this much: Swearengen’s final statement of defiance was one for the ages.
Thanks for the recommendation on GOOD OMENS, which I’ll definitely check out.
By all means give DW another shot later on; when DS9’s finale first aired, my wife and I were both totally unmoved by it (think SEINFELD finale, but less — maybe call it PICKET FENCES finale-like) …
I gave it another go five or so years later, and my wife came in finding me practically weeping during the ending b&w montage, and was flabbergasted (when we rewatched together, she ‘got it.’ Have no idea why it took us a second viewing to work.
Now if I could just get a CARNIVALE wrapup (not really – I love CARNIVALE dearly, but actually think it works pretty well with just the two seasons. I’ve read a summary of where it would have gone and bemoan not getting to see that, but cramming three or four seasons into a couple hours ain’t gonna happen, which is probably why the creator turned down a wrapup movie back when HBO cancelled it.)
Just saw the trailer. I expected TM would’ve posted it.
Are you guys on Vacation? NO updates for days.
Or maybe just no major news?
Slow news days exist. It sucks, but there’s nothing we can do about it.
Personally, I’m fine with them not posting. They provide a free service to me, and they don’t owe me anything. I’m happy when I get anything.
I’ve noticed ads on broadcast CBS saying they are bringing season 1 of THE GOOD FIGHT to air in prime time this June 16th. Any indication that we can expect something in the cards like this for DISCOVERY’s old seasons?
Is this any indication of a new cycle in getting new content to broadcast air?