[Terry Matalas interview starts at 14:48]
Tony and Laurie talk about how the WGA strike could affect Star Trek, especially if it keeps going, and do a quick round-up of new merchandise (including Prodigy toys, Patrick Stewart’s memoir, and Jonathan Frakes’ return to Riker in the Star Trek: Resurgence game).
The rest of the podcast is spent with Terry Matalas, showrunner on Star Trek: Picard season 3. With the series now complete, Terry talks to us about roads taken and not taken, scenes he wished he’d been able to include, gratifying moments, backstories, and more. He also talks about fan and industry feedback including calls for a spin-off, and he offers some insight into how he would approach a spin-off if it were ever to happen.
Links:
How The Writers Strike Could Impact Star Trek
‘Star Trek: Resurgence’ Game Sets May Release Date
Jonathan Frakes Is Returning As Captain Riker For ‘Star Trek: Resurgence’ Game
Star Trek Merch: Stewart’s Memoir Revealed, SNW Soundtrack Released, ‘Prodigy’ And More Figures Out
Michael Chabon Reveals His ‘Star Trek: Picard’ Romulan Mythology… In Intimate Detail
‘Star Trek: Legacy’ Fan Petition Surpasses One Preceding ‘Strange New Worlds’
Fan-made “Star Trek: Legacy” animation that inspires Terry
Let us know what you think of the episode in the comments, and should you be so inclined, please review us on Apple.
Subscribe to our podcasts
The All Access Star Trek podcast has joined the long-running Shuttle Pod as part of the TrekMovie.com Podcast Network. If you already subscribe to The Shuttle Pod, your subscription will now include both shows from the TrekMovie Network. If you prefer, you can sign up for only the Shuttle Pod or All Access Star Trek using the links below.
| TrekMovie.com Podcast Network of Shows | ||
|---|---|---|
| TrekMovie.com Podcast Network | All TrekMovie.com podcasts | Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Stitcher |
| The Shuttle Pod Podcast | The original TrekMovie.com podcast | Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Stitcher |
| All Access Star Trek Podcast | All about the Star Trek Universe | Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Stitcher |
Keep up with everything to do with the Star Trek Universe at TrekMovie.com.
So what is he developing at CBS/Paramount if it’s not Star Trek?
As long as the writers are on strike, nothing.
That’s not true given the big studios all have a huge library of movie and TV pilot scripts they have purchased, but not moved forward on. So, if they have the option to develop some of those in which the scripts are mature enough to move forward with without changes.
In fact, this would be the perfect time to develop more pilots based on scripts that have been previously submitted.
We’ll have to disagree on that point. I’m assuming that library has a pile of “don’t call us, we’ll call you” cover letters on them. If something was shelved years (or decades) ago because it was s**t, just because the writers are striking doesn’t meen they’ve suddenly become hidden gems. Nothing’s impossible, I suppose, but what you’re suggesting is highly improbable, and not in the studios best interest.
I hear what you’re saying, but part of that pile may be scripts that were in their plan in the near future, but not for this next year that they can accelerate. And then they have the vast library of scripts that maybe some suit didn’t originally assess very highly, but now they can have others review them and find a few hidden gems.
Thanks Laurie and Tony. Trekmovie is the only Star Trek site I’ve come across to do a deep dive on the WGA strike.
Studios, pay the writers.
They’ll come to an agreement. Eventually. But there’s a lot at stake, and it doesn’t appear that anyone involved is expecting a quick resolution. The WGA has a $20mm strike fund, so they can hold out for a little while.
I’m more concerned about the viability of Paramount’s streaming service. It’ll be years before they turn a profit, if ever.
I’ve seen projections of the strike lasting 1-3 months, all the way to *next year* (admittedly that would be the absolute worst case scenario).
IndieWire posted a story about a Wells Fargo analyst, basically saying Paramount should quit the streaming race and sell the movies/shows they make to other services. Of course, that analysis is for the benefit of investors, whose attitude of profit and growth at all costs is largely the reason Hollywood is facing not just a writers strike, but actors and directors possibly striking as well.
This is a very interesting time in showbusiness. I read the IndieWire story, and I can certainly see Paramount+ being left on the side of the road by other services. Star Trek is a valuable property, although not extraordinarily so, and I’ll be interested to see what the studio does with it.
Wells Fargo, the company that had just pay out $3 Billion to close systematic fraud cases with it’s investors and government agencies just three years ago — now there’s a company who’s opinion I would trust on what Paramount is going to do with it’s streaming services to serve it’s investors…lol
Most of the smaller services pop up in conversation when the topic is M & A. It’s only a matter of time before there’s some consolidation.
To Tach and Will (and others):
I think this writer’s strike is even bigger than how streaming is impacting writers and our fav TV shows. Listening to the The New York Times’ “The Daily” on it, they said this is basically a big inflection point for all streaming/TV/studio structures in general. The last big strike was in 2008 and that was just the start of streaming. Now that the streaming concept has “matured”, the affects are larger, and the impacts on the TV industry at large seem to be practically unprecedented (again based on what “The Daily” was saying; I personally know nothing). If they are correct, it sounds like everything about how studios and TV companies do business needs to be changed or at least revised: including how they budget for shows, how they contract with writers, how payments and residuals are structured, whether streaming platforms are going to merge, how they sell (or don’t sell) shows to others, and even down to how new writers/producers/show creators get experience in the industry. It just seems like a true upheaval for how TV (streaming, broadcast, or cable) is developed.
Based on that discussion, I imagine there will be massive revolutions in how TV is developed in the next decade. How much we the viewers/fans really see or understand of those changes might be small, but I think we would be very lucky to only get a minor disruption to the production of our favorite shows or franchises. I hope all the Trek currently planned actually gets made (gets their shots) and the next ideas up in the proverbial batter’s box gets their chance at bat too; but it sounds more iffy than I would have thought before.
It’s more than an upheaval in how TV is developed – what the writers in Hollywood are striking for gets to the very heart of the nature of work from here on out. Part of what they’re fighting for is that all writing that ends up being produced is written by people, not AI. It’s a real test of how AI regulations and safeguards will be put in place now that it is so rapidly developing, faster than any policies that are even considered being put in place. The writers strike represents the very real struggle that all workers in all industries face moving forward as this technology matures. It isn’t just TV – it’s everything.
If there’s a show like Legacy, then it must be ABOUT something. Just having a fan wish list of characters and ships is not a premise. We already have two episodic ship shows with SNW and LDS. We already have two shows that are fodder for TNG-era cameos with LDS and PRO. It can’t just be about blowing up bad guys, like season three was. If one show is drowning in ships, characters, and references, but puts forward the idea that bad guys are just to be blown up, then it’s not Star Trek. If a show has characters we’ve never seen before, and it takes place entirely in a broom closet for seven years, but it has something profound to say about humanity, and is about seemingly implacable foes learning to communicate in order to solve problems in a society where everyone’s basic needs for survival are met without means testing then that is Star Trek.
To me, season 3 was never been about blowing up bad guys, or the mystery box of the Changeling/Borg plot. That misses the forest for the trees.
It was about something: the characters.
It was about these characters finding each other again, the characters realizing what they’ve lost in distancing themselves from the closeness they had with each other once upon a time, and re-finding their strengths and growing as people once they come together and realize their mistakes to deal with a problem.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is not about the mysterybox of the probe. At the end of that movie, we don’t know who sent the probe, we don’t know why the probe wanted to talk to humpback whales, and we don’t even know what the whales and the probe said to each other. Leonard Nimoy and Harve Bennett realized that none of that matters to the themes of that movie. All the mystery of the probe serves is to set up the conditions to watch the interaction of the TOS characters, see how they work together after all of the years, and reinforce how they stand together as a family, where at the end of the movie we know why Kirk deserves to be in the captain’s chair of the Enterprise-A with Spock and the rest of them at his side.
That’s exactly the same story dynamic in season 3 of Picard, where the story is a means to an end with reuniting these specific characters and seeing how they’ve changed, but how they’re a family and meant to be on the bridge of the Enterprise-D together again in the end.
When Riker readies himself for his own death and says: “I love you, Imzadi. We’ll be waiting. Me and our boy.” I felt that and it hit me. When Data talks about Spot teaching him love, that worked for me. The entire climax hinges on the audience caring about Picard’s desire to have a connection with Jack.
To reduce the appeal of season 3 to just being nostalgia and “Pew Pew Pew” battles is just so wrong.
It was mostly about legacy characters, though. That’s fine for the reunion special that was Season 3, but, like Eric said above, hopefully a Legacy series is something more than that.
Well put! What you say is the very definition of a macguffin. Some people do mistake the macguffin for what the series is actually about.
Beautifully said.
That last scene was fun, but doesn’t seem like enough of a premise for a compelling show. Like you say, Trek needs to be more than just Misfit Cowboys in Space.
This is my favorite comment.
Largely agreed. Going by the S3 finale, I’d guess the hook for Legacy is supposed to be “scrappy, non-flagship crew that doesn’t play by the rules.” It’s not a bad premise, but LDS has that covered, along with the fan service potential. But I guess that’s something they’d need to hammer out in the pitch stage.
That is basically the premise of every version of NuTrek.
No Premise?!?! To boldly go!
In the post Next Gen time period. SNW will continue the brightly colored idealism of TOS and LD is just a comedy. I am not interested in the kid’s show. It’s a great format for new fans but PRO will intentionally avoid being a TNG/VOY continuation, which is what the fans have been screaming for since The Vulcan Hello.
Discovery is ending, to be replaced by ST Academy. More fodder for young viewers, and more galactic level explosions.
Legacy could be about exploration, moral quandaries and world building for grown ups. It can carry the franchise in a unique fashion, less idealistic and nostalgic than SNW, less silly than LD, less childish than PRO, less galaxy high than Academy. More mature, more character building, more challenging morally!
There is definitely a place for Legacy in the franchise.
Scott, Prodigy is very much a continuation of Voyager given that Season 2 looks to be about the search for Chakotay and has Janeway as a main character.
Yeah pretty much lol. I think season one at least felt like it was it’s own thing. But once it was discovered the Protostar was Chakotay’s ship and he was the one lost, then we knew eventually it would lean more heavily into Voyager territory which season 2 looks like it will aim to do.
Yet Matalas’s storytelling in season 3 of Picard was basically immature JJ Abrams like action adventure, and the final two eps were a complete ripoff of Return of the Jedi?
What you’re saying sounds great, but I don’t think Matalas is the guy who would be able to deliver that. He’s an action adventure, JJA-Trek kind of guy
Beautifully said Eric.
The emotions around Star Trek that I most long to recapture are the ‘ah-has’ that I experienced as a young child watching TOS in first run.
– the understanding that the Hotta’s was alive, a person with her own goals and needs
– the challenge of ‘Let that be your last battlefield’
– the mystery of the salt vampire
I also long for the best ‘cerebral’ science fiction and competent working-the-problem of TNG and Voyager.
Dressing up tales of a future society steeped in inherited privilege, power and influence in relationships to legacy characters in no way makes it Trek to me. If anything it makes me sorrowful for the promise of an aspirational future based in merit, competence, understanding, compassion and valuing of diversity.
Well put.
I keep seeing all these requests to see such-and-such characters from past Treks in Legacy, and it makes me think it would be Star Trek: Leftovers instead. Boldly going… to reheat this meatloaf, is that it?
There are other ways to show a legacy. TNG, come to think of it, was the original example; the legacy was the name of the ship. That’s it. Picard didn’t need to be a descendant of anyone from TOS to become a compelling character. No one on the D was a ‘legacy admission,’ so to speak.
Maybe it can be a good original show in some respects, I don’t know, but the appearance of Q didn’t fill me with confidence.
I think the direction of the proposed Legacy show would be to do two things at the same time: 1) show the downstream effects, outcomes, and changes wrought by all the events of the Berman era shows, and 2) show, specifically, the legacy characters because it would be set in the early 25th Century and they are all still around, which leverages important assets (both story wise and actor-wise) and adds important emotional connections.
I personally would also like them to include a 3rd element: exploring sci-fi/Star Trek concepts. The moral dilemma of the week, the high concept of the week, etc. I think this and points 1 and 2 above are all doable simultaneously.
If you wanted to do a legacy show without (2) above, then, yeah, do it like TNG and go forward a century to the late 25th and explore the much later legacy effects of the Berman Era. But that is a different show than what is currently assumed to be vaguely anticipated.
I don’t think they would need to go forward a century. Simply toss Jack Crusher out the airlock and it’s already a stronger show. So long, Poochie! ;-)
Jack Crusher is a completely unnecessary character.
He’s every worse thing that the harshest critics of Michael Burnham claimed, with no redeeming virtues.
I agree. Jack Crusher is ridiculous. Pass. Further, I don’t like that the only competent Star Fleet officers are our heros/main characters.
Classic rage addict post.
Everything is worse than anything has ever been, far worse than the hardest critics ever criticized. Nothing good. Everything bad.
I saw a post last night on Reddit.
“It’s so refreshing that the fans have stopped posting so the criticism can start.”
Non-fans crave outdoing each other on how awful things are.
Ryan, I guess you haven’t seen many of my posts here dude, or at least on this season.
I actually signed that petition for a continuation of the 25th century, long before 2/3s of its current supporters. I’ve mentioned that several times here.
So, I must have seen enough to like to hope that we could get a new show in that era, even if I feel the finale left Starfleet in one of its darkest moments.
But hey, any expression that I don’t want the new show to include one of the characters Matalas is proposing, that I believe adjustments are needed to Matalas’ proposal, makes me a ‘rage addict?’
I’m generally positive about the shows on this board. I do say what works for me or does not, and often find myself a positive contrarian (liked the MU and the Burn in Discovery, like the Gorn in SNW).
I’ve been enjoying all Trek, more or less since 1966. For a long time TNG was my favourite, now I’m not quite so sure. The movies and Picard have influenced the way I interpret TNG now, and not so positively.
In terms of tone in discussions, I’ve been particularly concerned about fans bandwagonning to pit themselves against one another in camps.
Part of the bandwagonning seems unfortunately to be personal attacks on people who have different views. I don’t recall your having done that here before, so I’m calling you on it.
So many TNG fans who were emotionally moved by Picard S3 have been coming here to rage that Legacy wasn’t greenlit immediately or to demand, in an unpleasant tone that Starfleet Academy should be pushed back to let Legacy take precedence. My way or the highway campaigns. It’s the side of the franchise that’s disturbed me since the 1970s.
I’m also really exasperated as it happens with seeing how the same people who have been unrelentingly critical of everything other Secret Hideout Trek offering are giving Picard S3 a complete pass. We’ve been talking here about a pattern of issues in SH Trek, but there’s also a pattern of strengths. It’s hard to have that kind of thoughtful constructive discussion when personal attacks are the response.
Bravo Wiley. “Star Trek: Leftovers. Boldly going… to reheat this meatloaf”. .
I really like the idea of Star Trek Legacy, but gotta admit your description is Laugh Out Loud funny!
I agree with this. All that I want is for a show to just to go back to Gamma Quadrant and explore it some more while the Federation and the Dominion just sit down and talk to each other and hopefully become friends. That’s the Trek I want because it’s such a Trek concept to me.
I keep thinking back to DS9 and how much care and prescience went into setting it up for success. It was more than just a series set on a rickety space station vs a shiny ship, it had all these story threads they could play with – exploring a new quadrant, political machinations on Bajor and Cardassia, exploring the Prophets’ relationship with Sisko, unpacking Odo’s past, delving into relationships of characters who don’t all like each other. The show went in some amazing directions based on that foundation and thoughtful premise. Voyager also had one hell of a hook to differentiate it in the 24th century, and it too got a decent leg-up from TNG and DS9 setting up the Maquis for them.
But that is the kind of unique premise a Star Trek: Legacy show needs, and what would let the show stand on its own feet before letting in all the returning characters we want to see again. If the show is set on the Enterprise-G, it needs one hell of a new mission.
Well said!
I agree with this too. I don’t think just throwing more TNG and VOY characters on a ship should make a show alone. There needs to be something more. But I think there will be. I have faith (of the heart) Matalas has big ideas where he sees things going in this period of Trek.
That was the thing about the Picard show…it was all geared around him and (unfortunately) certain mandates from Stewart. That was part of the problem, it couldn’t really open things up like a spin off can where it doesn’t all funnel through one character basically (even if its a very important one) but can be about bigger things in general. It can present the kinds of stories we got in TO-ENT again but maybe more of a focus if it’s going to be serialized. But it’s a reason people want a spin off so badly, not just to have Riker show up, but to finally open up the universe again in a brand new era and anything is once again possible.
Fascinating interview with Matalas. I really enjoyed it quite a bit. Nice deep dive. Calling the gathering of all ships for Frontier Day stupid probably could have been worded differently, and Matalas was right to object to the wording that was used in the interview.
I really enjoyed this season 3 of Picard. I think it did find the right balance between what was, and what could be. I think Matalas had to make tough decisions due to budgets, production time, actors time, and the flow of writing. People can complain of too much exposition, or too little exposition, but there are real world considerations that showrunners have to make all the time. As a viewer, I was able to figure out on my own that the Face was the Borg Queen, but I recognize that others wanted that spelled out more clearly on the screen. However, one minute spent doing that means one less minute doing something else. It’s about finding that balance.
I think it would be interesting to spend time in one of these podcasts to really unpack the entire third season of Picard, now that some time has passed. I think it could be really interesting in comparing our immediate reactions to each episode, versus our reactions now that the entire series has been revealed.
For me highlights are:
Frakes-He was the right counterpoint to Stewart, and he quite simply made Stewart better this season. He brought that certain twinkle that Picard was missing in seasons 1 and 2. I never realized how much I missed Riker until this season of Picard.
Dorn-Worf has always been a great character, but they brought something new for him to explore; he played opposite Raffi quite well and gave her something new to work through, and he also made the connection between TNG and the Changelings explicit.
Stashwick-Great new character who seemed one way on the surface, but had depth and complexity to him as we saw more of him. Some sort of Legacy continuation could have recurring flashbacks to Seven’s early days on the Titan under Shaw, sort of like how they would weave in flashbacks in the Arrow TV series. That could be one way to bring back Stashwick.
The Enterprise D: I thought it was just the right amount of the D, but it really paid off for me. We finally got to see a Galaxy Class ship do what we imagined the ship could do, but the TNG budgets could never show on screen. Seeing the D unleashing its full fury on the Borg ship, then seeing Beverly going like “Yeah, I did that”, was for me the best single scene in this season.
Calling the gathering of all ships for Frontier Day stupid probably could have been worded differently, and Matalas was right to object to the wording that was used in the interview.
Nope, that was worse than stupid — it was moronic and nonsensical. We need more journalistic interviews like that versus the fawning-worshipping blather types of softball questions that we get on many media/fan site interviews. The interviewers on this podcast do a great job and I want more serious questions like that.
S3 was basically JJA-Trek, and the finale was a total rip-off of ROTJ. I still liked it though for the proper TNG-closure and great character moments — and the actors (excepting Stewart) were awesome, but no, I don’t need to see a new series with this storyteller where he doesn’t have his sentimental/fan service elements to cover up these lame types of JJA-like stories that he thinks are good Star Trek, but which are really a huge departure from TNG stories from that great series back in the day.
I agree, I think it was a brutally stupid plot point. Because that’s all it was: a plot point, one designed to facilitate the mediocre Borg plotline Matalas (under)cooked up. Nothing about it makes the slightest bit of sense.
Matalas seems like a nice guy, and I absolutely believe he loves Star Trek. But the fawning some Trekkies are doing at the very mention of his name is bizarre to me.
Because we enjoyed it.
It’s hysterical on social media because you can see the pack of rage addicted non-fans who came week after week to spend entire days posting about how awful Star Trek is, how much they hate it, how much it’s worse than the worst writing ever written in the entirety of human history….which they download at 3:01am PST like clockwork and watch religiously because they enjoy complaining about it more than anything….
…during Picard Season 3, they couldn’t get traction and were ripping their hair out. The fans loved it. Every week, they loved it more. Now that most fans are moving on with their lives to enjoy something else, they’re posting in earnest all day every day about how much Terry sucks and how awful Season 3 really was and now can be finally rip it to shreds now that the numbers are a bit more in our favor.
Give it a few months, let the strike end, let Legacy be announced, and you’ll start seeing posts, “Given Season 3 was clearly a failure…look at the comments…fans hated it beginning to end….” 😂
Are you seriously saying that everyone who hated and criticized that season isn’t a real Trek fan because holy gatekeeping batman
Not at all. There’s always room for fans to love or criticize Star Trek. Some fans love one series and not another, one era and not another, or week to week have misses and hits. Some start a season and give up on a show, etc. Fans come in all forms.
From the 60s to the 90s, more vocal as social media improves, there is always an underbelly of people who hate everything they touch, get off on finding new and interesting ways just how awful each episode is, how it’s the lowest form of human expression to this point, until next week’s episode is out. Anything they watch is awful, their boss is terrible, their parents were wrong cutting them off, they don’t tip in restaurants. These people are fans of anything. To them, complaining is cathartic. These are rage addicts. They’re professional victims and professional haters.
**MODERATORS — please review the above post.
I largely agree with your annoyed reaction UpperDecks.
Ryanpfw’s posting, while sensible at first, descended into something of a generalized rant.
However, it was also in response to some pretty darn brutal postings from you and Bryant.
Fans can have strong opinions, and often express them in strong terms — you included.
Whether i agree or disagree with you, I would not call for Moderator reviews of your angrily expressed sentiments.
I would say that, at this point at least. Ryanpfw should be extended the same level of leeway as you currently and rightly enjoy.
Cape-BD, the HUGE difference here is the name-calling of “rage addicted non-fans.” That’s why I alerted the moderators. While my posts can be negative and upset some, I certainly don’t do personal attack name calling of others. And in another post here, he says we are the kind of people who don’t tip at restaurants…WTF? That is off-base and too personal…no man I don’t say that kind of lame BS to others here.
As Picard said, “the line must be drawn…here!”
🤔 😕 ❔❔❔❔❔❔❔
Gritizens, if you take the time to reread Ryan’s post, you will clearly see that he wasn’t saying “everyone who hated and criticized this season isn’t a real Trek fan” Of course, deep down, you probably already knew that, but you needed to turn him into some kind of straw man villain in order to criticize him.
Then you topped off your exercise in distortion by accusing him of gatekeeping. Hey, try looking in the mirror before tossing out that accusation — which, by the way, is often a favourite of actual gatekeepers. In other words, physician, heal thyself.
That said, I usually really enjoy your often witty, humorous and interesting postings, but taking cheap shots at others really doesn’t become you.
I can’t speak for Gritizens, but for myself, his post basically name calls all of us who have issues with Picard S3 as not true Star Trek fans (which of course means he is), and we are rage addicts. And in another post here, he says we are the kind of people who don’t tip at restaurants. Dude, that’s all a personal attack.
And when you personally attack an entire group of fans, and set yourself up as the decider of who is a fan and who isn’t, well that certainly is gatekeeping — Gritizens is correct in pointing that out.
You really need to read his post again. You are making false equivalencies here — Gritizens and I may have some negative and hard-hitting posts at times, but we don’t do personal attack name-calling, and we don’t tell people they are not true Trek fans.
Yup, UpperDecks, I reread the postings, and I agree with your point. Like you, I dislike ad hominem attacks, and Ryan did sadly drift into that territory, .
Ryan, if you are reading this, I hope you will rein in that impulse, because you otherwise often make enjoyable contributions to this site.
I love the vigorous expressions of opinion here when they centre on aspects of the shows, but for me, the persistent readiness of some posters to combatively attack others on a personal level is both unacceptable and a real downer.
With on-line debating, in part because of the basic anonymity afforded participants, the temptation to cross the line into mean-spirited insults can be strong. I think it’s something we all have to guard against.
Well said! And I can certainly do better myself.
I didn’t hate it. I loved a lot of it, and was frustrated because the resolution was weak. Overall, I’d say it was — apart from excellent performances by most of the main actors — mediocre. A step up from the first two seasons, but a long way from being the salvation of the franchise like some people feel.
Bryant, yeah that’s about where I’m at as well. It was enjoyable to watch for the fan service and TNG character closure elements. It works OK in this regard for a sentimental one-off season, but I don’t think the Matalas storytelling approach would be great for a long term new Star Trek series.
Bro I absolutely loved this season but I have to agree with others here who just didn’t like it and that’s absolutely OK too. They don’t have to be called names over it.
I originally hated a lot of NuTrek because a lot of sucked to me up until the last two years. I was even convinced I wouldn’t love any of it and just continue to focus on the old shows.
But surprisingly I’m enjoying most of it thanks to Lower Decks, SNW, Prodigy and Picard season 3. But not everyone will like all these either if course. As long as you enjoyed it just focus on that. And most people seemed to like it but I don’t think anyone will say it’s a perfect season either.
I loved most of it though and happy it’s at least a huge improvement of the first two. Hoping we get more Terry Trek in the future. 😀
Agreed on the stupidity aspect; they could have demonstrated a ‘linked’ fleet (tho why you’d want to I still dunno, rife with bad potential) that was spread out over multiple star systems, with multiple cams showing how everything was ‘in formation’ at different parts of fedspace, and if they’d gone that route, you’d at least have had a clock running, since the coordinated attack on ‘dock and earth would have taken a while to get started with the other ships warping in. It would have made more sense too if 7 & crew was only fighting off a small fraction of the fleet, too.
Hardcore rage addict post, right here. You can feel the anger coming off you. You’re the same person that never tips because it builds character. The idea that people enjoy their lives, and their Star Trek, keeps you up at night.
Lol, now that’s a real demonstration of fan ANGER! Bravo, dude. Lol
The hilarious thing about your emotional, reactionary reply to me was that I enjoyed season three of Picard. But the storytelling was more Star Wars than Star Trek, it’s so I personally don’t need a follow on series where the storytelling will need to stand on its own without the crutch of TNG crew and the fun sentimentality that goes with that.
You see here how I explained my position calmly and in a straightforward way? You don’t have to agree with my position, but perhaps you might want to take a few notes about how to get your point across versus silly, emotional outbursts?
I hope TrekMovie cautions ‘Ryan’.
At this point, their usage of ‘rage addict’ here is kind of personal slur.
I agree Decks&Necks that it is overly emotional.
Gritizens is also correct that it’s overt gatekeeping.
All the more so in my view because the closest to rage we’ve seen here has been some fans of Picard S3 exclaiming their outright demands that Legacy go ahead in the cue before Starfleet Academy.
Well said, TG. Thanks!
No, I probably could have worded that different. I wasn’t commenting on the quality of the plot point. I was trying to convey that, as professionals, Tony could have used language in his question that was something other than stupid. They are professionals, and Terry is a professional in his industry. I simply felt that referring to an element of Terry’s work as stupid should not have been used simply because it undermines, in my opinion of course, the professionalism of the interviewers.
OK, that makes sense — thanks for clarifying.
I keephearing somefans say Starfleet is supposed to be perfect, that Star Trek is about a utopian future.
This comes as a surprise to me. I think some fans have selective memories and have turned their view of Trek into some sort of idealized comfort food.
If you take an objective view of all the Trek that came before the new Treks, you will see time and time again that Starfleet had bad players. Enterprise Incident, A Taste of Armageddon, Drumhead, Pegasus, the entire Section 31 arc on DS9 and Enterprise, ST: Insurrection… lots of examples and many more out there where Starfleet and the Federation have bad players that our crews deal with. Our heroes are honorable but you can’t generalize their idealism onto Starfleet.
Not just Starfleet. Tasha Yar’s colony world. It was human colony but left the Federation and descended into chaos and violence.
Well, I’m one of those fans, and I felt that way the first time it came up on DS9. I don’t expect everyone in the Trek universe to be perfect, but I truly loved the idea that Starfleet and the Federation would be organizations that succeed without that dark underbelly. To me, that is built into the premise of Star Trek. Sure, there are admirals who get mired in procedure or the letter of the law, there are occasional bad actors who get rooted out or lose their focus, but the idea of Starfleet’s success being partly due to a nefarious group that does things on their behalf is dismaying to me and in direct opposition to the premise that drew me into the show in the first place as a kid.
I agree Laurie, there’s a line.
Star Trek to me was always providing an aspirational beacon while telling allegories to confront dark and difficult questions. I can however accept detours as long as there is a firm enough helmsman for the franchise that ensures that in the long run the Federation remains aspirational and not a shining cover for cynicism.
People talk about the ships being characters, but I would argue that the Federation itself and Starfleet are legacy characters that must be protected and managed overall with a firm hand.
The thing that’s frustrating me with the shows is that it is possible to get it right.
The way the Relaunch novelverse thoughtfully and deliberately confronted and resolved questions about how far can dark ops go over dozens of books worked. The corrosive effects of a Federation President knowingly keeping the secret of a dark underbelly were acknowledged. The aspirational society corrected the corruption in the end. It made sense.
Federation society itself was in the end rocked and disturbed to learn that there had been amoral choices made in the name of preserving the aspirational society. There need to be a public reset.
The Relaunch books, especially those by David Mack, have been criticized for being dark. In the end however, they did the hard work to hold up those aspirational Federation values. This is due to the quality of the editors charged with the series, but also the writers room.
If I have one thing to ask of Kurtzman and Secret Hideout, it would be to play the long game to protect the value of the IP by reigning in some of the dark excesses and having a clear mapping out of a throughline for the character of the Federation.
LOL no questions about Laris…! :(
That was great, thank you.
The only thing that I wished had been followed up on (and maybe it was and was cut) was wondering what the thing or things most of the compliments cited when they met with Terry, or would he have been uncomfortable revealing that because it might’ve tipped who said it? Like, did everybody just say, “Thank you for justifying an excuse to bring the Enterprise-D back?” or “I think No Win Scenario was a perfect hour of TV and Star Trek?”
Thanks for asking about Kestra! I’d been wondering since they just quit mentioning her halfway through and I thought maybe something got cut.
This season and show seem so uninterested in her. Hopefully both her and Alexander can be a part of Legacy if it happens. And that they can do their Naomi follow up as well.
I would so love to see Kestra and Naomi again. (I’m okay with Alexander too, but they’d better do something interesting with his character… I liked him in TNG’s “Cost of Living” and that’s about it.) I think you can hear me make a sound when he says Naomi! I love her.
Same! I’d love to see Naomi reunite with Seven
I had noticed they mentioned Kestra a few times up until the last two and then did mention her at all there so again thanks for asking. I was definitely wondering. Shame it got cut.
I don’t get why anyone would have found Naomi Wildman irritating or annoying in Voyager.
Given Matalas was an intern on that show, it makes me wonder how deeply resentful the Berman-era writers were about writing for any child characters.
What makes you think they were resentful? Naomi was a great character on Voyager, very well written, had important roles in some of the stories, was a catalyst for others, etc. They did a great job with her.
I loved Naomi and Icheb (played by an adult actor) in Voyager, and as our own kids came to the show decades later, I saw how important they were as point of view characters for young viewers.
I agree they did a great job with both characters. That doesn’t mean that the writers didn’t find it difficult or a chore they’d rather have been spared.
The question of resentment comes because of how Wesley Crusher was written and treated as a character in TNG, coupled with the kind of comments from Berman-era writers that indicate these kid point-of-view characters were a requirement from on high. Matalas’ comments to TrekMovie and other sources seem to indicate surprise that any of the audience actually cared about them.
More, Matalas has given us a season with a key plot point around people being under 25. However all these young adults played by people in their 30s, some actually closer to 40. (The only exception is the actor who has a real life family connection.) I just don’t get the feeling he wants to give actual young people characters they can relate to played by actors they can identify with.
I’ve watched all of TNG and now Picard with my two daughters and they loved Wesley on TNG. When we got to Picard, they loved Elnor and then Kestra in her episode. We just got to where Naomi shows up in Voyager and they were psyched to see a kid. Of course they love the adult characters too, but I agree that shows often overlook how important these POV kid characters are in hooking kids into these franchises.
It’s hard I imagine though to have to write for them and keep the characters from being overexposed and teetering into overly precocious. I think some writers probably love writing for kids and others hate it.
As for this season, I did get the feeling they wanted to not really be bothered with younger kids which is fine. It didn’t really lend itself to having kids around anyway. I do think it’s kind of funny that Matalas seems to be so caught off guard that people would be concerned Kestra’s whereabouts. I know they mentioned her several times and I guess he thought that was enough to establish she was safe, but I do think that’s one of those plot points and concerns the show should have seen coming. Same with him seemingly being surprised people were worried about Elnor.
Yeah the Kestra thing really bothered me as well. And I hope she will be part of the Legacy show, even if just in a smaller role. I really liked the character.
I feel bad for the dude given the the 45,000+ number is extremely disappointing. TOS had a million people who hand wrote and mailed freaking letters. 45,000+ people hitting a couple clicks for an online petition is kind of a pathetic.
I mean, come on, they should have cracked 100K in the first week if the fans and public really want this follow-on series?
It has taken decades, but I’m finally accepting after reading many accounts that the million-letter thing seems to have been mostly hype/hogwash. Low six-figures at best (which still utterly smokes more recent campaigns, esp given that they had to write the letter and lick a stamp back then), with something like 50,000 in one month as a high.
That’s still very good though. And it’s apples and oranges today because there is an abundance of Star Trek on and it’s not going anyway. Most people assume we’re getting a 25th century show regardless, it’s just a matter of when IMO. But back then, it was just one low budget struggling TV show. When that ended, people thought it was all over so there was plenty of urgency for those reasons. Today, it’s a bonafide billion dollar franchise. And Paramount is well aware of how badly people want this show thanks to the internet, social media and sites like here. So you don’t have to send a single letter to get your voices heard like back then. The petition is just one tool out of many now.
But that mail campaign back then probably saved the franchise in more ways than one even if the million letter figure is exaggerated.
“I take umbrage with your words “stupid trap.”” Lol Terry FTW
No, for the loss. That was an overly defensive BS response to a great question. It was worse than a stupid trap — it was moronic and nonsensical.
He seems like a nice guy with great indentations, but his response to that question was rude and inappropriate given that many fans and reviewers have called out that trap as being stupid or worse.
I remember when Bob Orci would comment on these boards.
BTT: I’m surprised the concept of levity was not brought up.
I don’t think most people respond perfectly when their ideas are called stupid, whether those be their television scripts or their posted internet comments.
Good point. OK, now considering that, I think now that I don’t have any issue with his response and I totally get that he would not respond positively to that. On the other hand I think the question was fine, with the wording that was used, even if it was hard hitting.
So to clarify, upon further reflection, I don’t have a problem with either the interviewer question or Matalas’s response. It’s fine for both to be a tad edgy.
It’s it’s good to have some more lively hard-hitting questions in these types of interviews given most seem to be so fawning and softball.
Tony could’ve made his point more respectfully imo. I bet he would phrase it differently if he could do it again.
Better yet, Matalas could have had a more believable plot device, in which case the question would never have come up.
If you put something in a series that’s a head scratching, dumbass story element, then please don’t whine about some interviewers asking some tough questions on it.
Matalas brought this on himself, no excuses.
I don’t share your sense of entitlement. If you have a disagreement with someone there’s better and more effective ways to get your point across than to call one of their ideas “stupid”.
Dude, I respect your differing opinion, but I don’t think you understand what the word “entitlement” means because it doesn’t make any sense in the context that you’re using it?
It seemed clear that we were supposed to understand that it was a ‘stupid trap’, that only was allowed because much of the admiralty was compromised through replacement.
If we as viewers got a different message than intended on that, the showrunner should be taking responsibility rather than umbrage.
Exactly!
Thanks both. Great interview and excellent questions. You probed as far as you could on the topics you raised and I like that you always make sure that the guest has their say. Hopefully you can get TM back in the not to distant future. It would also be great to hear from some other production staff who were involved in this landmark season.
If I could have added a question it would have been what happened to Laris?
Thanks for drawing my attention to Terry Matalas having the same initials as TrekMovie. Parsing that took a moment.
It seems clear that Matalas is a bit overused to Trek-focused interviewers giving him a gentle ride. He needs to be challenged a bit, and I’m glad Tony do it.
TrekMovie has made its reputation as an independent source of news and commentary, one that’s careful to validate its news and distinguish rumour.
Part of that has to be asking clear questions, pressing as far as the interviewee with go along with. I’m surprised that Matalas wouldn’t let it go further.
In this case, given how Picard S3 embodies so many of the same flaws that have been flagged repeatedly in other recent live action Trek, things that Matalas and his Production Design team smugly acknowledged and seemed to have claimed he would be avoiding in his YouTube rounds before release, I would have expected him to be thicker skinned.
I would have hoped that Tony could have probed on several more of those points, but Matalas’ ‘umbrage’ on what I took to be a clarification question, kind of set the boundaries on the interview.
Given that how it was clear that LaForge thought the the linking of ships was a clear threat, as a viewer it seemed that we were supposed to understand it was a daft idea. I’m actually fairly stunned that any other interpretation was intended by the writers.
The thing is that my prior on Matalas was very positive based on 12 Monkeys. I even have the BlueRay for that and was on the point of succeeding in persuading my spouse to watch that show with me. Picard S3, especially the final 2 episodes and some of Matalas’ tone-deaf reactions to even the most gentle puzzlements and criticisms, are making me want to hold off on that a bit.
Yeah. I enjoyed S3 well enough, but it seems like Matalas is 1) doing a lot of wallpapering over perceived shortcomings in interviews as opposed to letting the on-screen events stand on their own and 2) has been quite defensive about even mild criticism, esp. on social media. And it’s a surprising reaction given how much praise his work has gotten. PIC S3 is an undeniable success by every measure that should matter to P+, but surely even the showrunner can’t think it was flawless.
I think it’s cool that he spends as much as he does engaging with fans, whether via explaining muddy plot points or showing behind-the-scenes stuff. To write it off as “cynical” is overly cynical in itself.
You sure you’re responding to the right post? Because I never called Matalas cynical.
I agree! And ironically that’s what drew me to this site because it was great to see Bob Orci, one of the writers and producers of a major Star Trek production engage (see what I did there ;)) with fans on a daily basis, even when it was negative.
Sadly he only comes around every blue moon these days but I enjoyed talking and interacting with him and it’s great to see Matalas carry that on even if I don’t have Twitter to talk with him. ;)
I think just put yourself in his shoes for a minute, which is that you work your ass off creating something and bringing it to fruition, fighting against budget and logistical issues and running out of time as you go, and then everybody and their grandmother has an opinion about it! Most of us don’t have to deal with that level of scrutiny with our work. Yes, that’s his business and it’s part of the deal when you work on something so high-profile, but I totally get the defensiveness and the exhaustion. Doesn’t mean people’s critiques aren’t legit, but damn, it’s gotta be hard to hear so much of it after a while.
Ok, this is getting right into my own experience and expertise and my reaction is ‘but that’s the job.’
It’s perhaps Laurie because my career has involved a very analogous kind of intense work to accomplish major projects that are subsequently open to the harshest and most intense public criticism and scrutiny that I am impatient with Matalas impatience.
Putting oneself out there to sell what you’ve made and having the strong stomach to roll with the tough questions is part of the job. It’s called campaigning and it’s not for the thin skinned.
His own media handlers who coach him for these sessions should and will be the ones give him compassion for a tough interview or crowd, but then they should be running it back with him to help him handle it better. Watch or listen to the tape, run another practice session and do better.
I give Matalas a lot of credit for getting out and giving many more interviews and interacting with social media more than the other showrunners currently in Trek. It’s done an incredible amount for the media Q of Picard S3 and social media metrics like Parrot’s.
He’s very clearly enjoyed the part of pitching to ‘friendlies’, but he’s got the signs of what in the 90s people called ‘believing his own spin.’ He’s getting noticeably unhappy when he’s challenged, but that’s precisely what his own media training and practice sessions should have readied him to respond to.
One of the issues being discussed in the writers strike is how the new mini rooms and other practices have are keeping writers from having complete experiences across production and the running of the business.
Knowing how to stay gracious and keep on message when interviewers, panels and conference audience questions are not just challenging but hostile needs surely to be part of it for EPs, especially when their shows are moving up to the top ten levels.
Matalas has had the experience of running shows previously, but this is his first experience with a show that’s broken into the mass media storm of a top ten ‘demand’ overall (vs the digital original top ten).
He’s showing campaign fatigue, but I would argue that how well he handles negativity, how resilient he is, marks his readiness or lack of readiness for the next step in his development.
I don’t disagree that it’s part of the gig. I still get why he reacts that way and can relate to it as a human being. He was very gracious with us and he and Tony have an established rapport, so that back-and-forth about “stupid” and “umbrage” was good-natured. It was not an awkward moment for us; we could all see each other and there were smiles.
I got to say that Matalas pulled off a miracle. TNG, PIC Seasons 1/2 were pretty much write offs with the exception of the Borg which was then de-toothed by FC/VOY.
Star Trek would have been better off had TNG been Saavik, David Marcus and the movie era action/adventure on the final frontier where capital starships are special, but you’d think that ship had sailed.
But watch out, here comes Matalas!
Picard is compromised, Crusher doesn’t trust him with David Marcus Picard, the evil Borg return, neo-Connie’s replace the bloated dime a dozen 1000 quantum torpedo starships which get obliterated by Earth spacedock, and the entire young starfleet is left traumatized having been used to kill their mates with a Chekov in charge of rebuilding the Federation. I thought it was great, TOS movie era is back… and TNG fans thought it was “the best TNG ever” (not surprising as it was TOS movie era Trek and all final got a good adventure or perhaps because the total reboot was hidden by the tears of them seeing the ENT-D reminding them of the 90s?)
Regardless finally TNG got to be a fun watchable Star Trek so cheers to Matalas.
Even Picard Season 1 is made cool when one thinks that the Borg could have manipulated him into all the bad choices (ditching his friends, building an evacuation fleet on his watch out of robots unnecessarily programmed to act as slaves, an obsession with AI/Data).Shaw even calls out Seven on her attachment to a name from when she was kidnapped and her body was used by another and used to commit xenocide.My only wish is that they had given the Borg more episodes and had them realize last second that robo-Picard meant they did not need organics be it solids or changlings. Some hints of that though, but too little to late. The scary powerful Borg will be missed.
ST 3 Spacedock for the win!!!
I haven’t quite finished the interview yet, but so far, Matalas’ is increasingly sounding like someone who’s getting irritated explaining why his fan service season isn’t fan service.
Interesting take.
My sense is that he didn’t take seriously the idea that leaning-in to appease many of the YouTubers might garner criticisms from those who like other Secret Hideout Trek, yet more from those of us who like but have questions and criticisms on any show.
He seems himself, along with his production design team, to have fallen into the trap of thinking that the overwhelming majority of the audience thinks and likes the same things they do. He clearly hit and addressed some unfulfilled longings in many 90s fans, but it’s got its negatives for many surely.
What’s unexpected is that he seems to be continuously surprised that there are questions and criticisms. Kudos to Matalas for keeping up through the circuit and maintaining the profile, but dude taking it again and again is what promotion and advocacy are all about.
This makes me think about some of the reactions to SNW season one. I’m not sure if it was Laurie, Matt or Tony who commented on SNW that it’s made by fans but fans who have a different vision about what they want to recapture in Trek than some of us had hoped for with a Pike-helmed show. Love it for what it is overall, critique and question what misses the mark. Still great stuff nonetheless.
I finished up the podcast, and I’d agree my initial observation stands. Also, to most of your points as well (I don’t have any animosity to SH, unlike others who post frequently). He seems pretty content that there’s a Frontier Day Memorial at Starfleet Academy, they buffed out the scratches on Starbase 1, and we fixed all the kids with a transporter patch. It’s all great, right?
I’ve said this before, as a stand alone fan service project, season three (mostly) hit on all cylinders. The TNG cast delivered some memorable work, possibly the best of their Trek careers. There’s nothing to be ashamed of here…..but if you’re going to continue to pump out nostalgia based sequels of this, the developers need to take a hard look at what happened in this story. Matalas’ left the Federation a hot mess, and very diminished in universe.
Or, we can just ignore it, and move on.
https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/paramount-plus-quit-streaming-analyst-1234859135/
I hope P+ doesn’t get shut down just started getting into Trek and if that happens no new Trek. Terrible
it’s a miracle we get the level of creativity we do given the input of finance dolts / shareholder culture. imagine if they were muzzled
Like anyone trust Wells Fargo investment these days…lol
Not that I disagree (or know enough) about their opinion in the streaming business story, but as somebody who once had WF for a loan, I’m amazed they’re still allowed to function or operate in any fashion. The blatant and overwhelming amount of deception practiced on a business-as-usual fashion there was proven and admitted to and still not really punished significantly. It’s like corporate cheating is the same as defying a subpoena; at worst, only a fraction get punished, and the punishment is so modest that it means nothing, because they’ve made more on interest in the intervening period than they ever have to pay back.
Yep!
If it did get shut down, it would only be after the rights to make new Trek were licensed out to Netflix or Amazon or maybe even Disney. I don’t think there’s much chance of us ever not having new Trek on the horizon again; the only reason it went away in the ’00s is because the industry was in the process of changing so radically that “Enterprise” — which was objectively a success by many standards — fell right through the cracks.
This isn’t what was meant by the (dubious) ‘expert’ at a dubious investment firm.
They would not sell the rights to make Trek to someone else.
The recommendation was for Paramount to focus being a content producer and sell its shows and movies to other streamers, not to sell the rights to make shows with its IP.
For Trek, this would mean going back to selling all its shows to Netflix, Amazon Prime or Apple, globally and in the US, instead of for its own streamers. Basically the Sony model.
I think we will still get new Trek they would just license it to other studios or streaming services.
But sadly Paramount+ is still a little fish in a big pond. And if it’s not going to make a profit for years I cam see it getting shut down. I hope not but we be too surprised by the news. They are not all going to last. And I bet most of people who have signed up for Trek alone is exhausted by now.
I signed up to P+ here in the UK for a year and I’m very disappointed with it.
Of the x4 streamers I have, it’s easily the one I watch the least. Seems to be chock full of IMO, 3rd rate movies and other content that I would never watch plus the Star Trek content is totally disorganised and incomplete. The user interface again IMO, is not great and I won’t be renewing once my 12 months expires other than to binge watch SNW etc.
I think that the SONY model makes perfect sense and is the path they should follow.
Just stopping back to say that it’s great to hear Chris that you’re new to the franchise and want more.
It’s always great to hear from new fans, especially here where several of us are older fans going back to the 60s, 70s and 80s.
I know it doesn’t provide a lot of consolation, but the library of Trek episodes and movies is enormous at this point. But what’s better is that a great deal of it is satisfying to rewatch repeatedly.
My own consolation, especially 2002 through 2016, has been Treklit. The quality of Star Trek tie-in fiction is generally high. If you’re liking the new shows, I’d encourage you to try out the books. Simon & Schuster is generally contracting for those with some of the strongest of the Treklit authors from the past two decades.
I wonder if Terry has met with Kevin Feige or James Gunn and will be heading some new superhero movie or series due to his success with Picard Season 3. Maybe X-men? I could see Todd Stashwick as Magneto lol.
Gunn is running DC now, for WBDiscovery.
Feige is with Marvel.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the implication is that Matalas would have a first look deal with Paramount but not necessarily for Trek.
Right, but Terry mentioned how some big time people in the business reached out to him. I am speculating, but I know Feige already mentioned how much he liked PS3, maybe he’s looking at Matalas to direct or show-run a new movie/series/etc. for Marvel.
Or he may not have met anyone, and was just trying to gin up some interest in a Picard spin off.
Since then, the writers strike and disastrous financials from Paramount Global have nailed that coffin shut. The only thing left is to bury it.
Great interview TM. Love Terry and has given me the best Trek in decades. And Picard season 3 is the first season of that show I rematched. Never bothered with the first two and certainty none with Discovery.
It’s also nice to see fandom this excited about the future of Trek again. I’m excited for the Legacy show and the petition will probably cross into 50,000 now! 👍
GIVE US MORE TERRY TREK PARAMOUNT!! 😁
Oops that should be rewatched! Autocorrect can be a pain lol.
Greatly appreciate Terry being so candid about various aspects of production. As viewers it’s incredibly easy to nitpick things like the reuse of sets (take a drink every time they used the 10 Forward set), and various characters not showing up, or other choices. When in reality these things are dictated by budget, a tight production schedule, and actor availability. Odds are they’re just as frustrated with these things as we are, but they did the best they could given the constraints.
As a viewer, it helps me appreciate what we actually got, instead of focusing too much on what we didn’t. And in light of that, what we did get is nothing short of a miracle. And I’m grateful as hell. ;)
(And say this in contrast to the usual over the top, no weaknesses marketing drivel that showrunners usually shovel that I’ve long since started tuning out.)