Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Jerry and his wife sold wine for a while (to local restaurants).  I am not sure if they are still doing it.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I don't believe Picard specified that he sold his wine, but he's putting a lot of effort into a large crop. Regardless, PICARD is declaring that capitalism is part of the STAR TREK universe and not acknowledging that it hasn't been since 1988. The more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with PICARD ignoring TNG, DS9 and VOY's declaration that money does not exist in the Federation.

Even though the writers mocked the concept, it's been an established part of the STAR TREK universe for 22 years and upheld by every writer up to NEMESIS. And the truth is, despite the writers saying it didn't make sense, the replicator technology offered a path of world-building to make this concept work.

I think PICARD should have gently retconned the no-money concept while still maintaining it. Every Federation citizen gets a basic replicator and housing allowance. When you can make anything from nothing, the social safety net ensures you always have at minimum a dorm room, health care, clothing and food. Education is free (thanks to holographic transmission). If you want more possessions, more storage space, more privacy, a kitchen, you can work to earn it. Restauranteurs, booksellers, filmmakers and lawyers ply their trade out of interest in their field and do receive additional replicator allowance that they can use to buy homes and furniture and clothing and whatever. However, no one is interested in working for the money any more; the money is incidental to their lives.

Seth MacFarlane once joked that THE NEXT GENERATION boasted the most professional people ever seen on television. No one was ever bored, tired, bad-tempered, anxious, nervous or uninterested in their job except for Reginald Barclay and when that came to Picard's attention, it was so unusual and peculiar that Picard had an entire senior staff meeting about how to assist and support an underperforming employee.

THE NEXT GENERATION has been regularly mocked for how blandly pleasant and therefore uninteresting the characters were and while that's a fair point, one also has to note: the replicator can make ANYTHING and the ship has an AI that operates and cleans and can presumably run almost every function automatically. Of course no one is ever drained or weary; no one has to do chores. No one has to cook or clean or do laundry.

This means that Geordi goes to the engine room because he loves engines, Dr. Crusher goes to sickbay because she's fascinated by medicine, Worf goes to the bridge's security post because he loves weapons, and so forth. There's a scene in "Hollow Pursuits" where Barclay is late for his shift and Riker towers over him, glaring at the terrified crewman and tells him, "I don't know what you got away with at your last posting, but this is the Enterprise. We set a different standard here."

Why is Barclay so scared? So what if he gets fired? He's not going to default on his loans or lose his house. Who cares about any of that in a replicator-equipped society? No, Barclay is scared because he would lose the little place and purpose he has in life.

I recognize that this can be difficult to write and that the writers in TNG, DS9 and VOY never took it seriously and PICARD, wanting to have Picard lack the unlimited resources of the Enterprise and Starfleet, has used money to hold him back. But they could have softened the discrepancy a bit by indicating that the Federation was culturally disinterested in money, that payment has become incidental, that the true acquisition is purpose and achievement -- but that there is an underlying currency of replicator credit that the average person is not interested in. It's not that money doesn't exist; it's that it's become beneath notice.

PICARD could say that Picard couldn't mount a Romulan rescue without Starfleet commiting the resources to synthesizing and replicating the equipment and fuel and then remark, "Even an admiral's replicator stipend won't produce what we need." Rios could say that he's "very expensive; well above standard replicator credit rates" because conventional civilian private charter and passage wouldn't have the security and safety clearances to go on Picard's mission. Raffi could be enraged that her basic replicator allowance entitles her to a dorm, a self-serve sickbay and access to a replicator canteen but no other luxuries. And then we could have Dr. Agnes Jurati confused. "I don't understand why you're so fixated on this 'money' concept; I haven't checked to see if I've been paid in years. I have a room above my lab and there's a replicator in the canteen."

Why couldn't Jake bid on the auction on DS9? Let's retcon that to say that replicator credits weren't accepted. Why wasn't Jake paid for his book? Let's say people receiving a Starfleet replicator stipend (which Jake was as Sisko's dependent) generally waive additional payment for their labour and what difference would it make if Jake's replicator credit could, from book sales, produce 10,000 daily root beers instead of the 100 his basic stipend covers? Instead of ignoring the past, let's add a bit of supplemental information. Why did Picard say "money doesn't exist in the 24th century"? Let's adjust that to say, "Money is no longer a cultural force in the 24th century when a replicator can create whatever we need."

But PICARD has simply blown off the no money concept (although the replicators are still present).

Towards the end of his life, Michael Piller said that he had somewhat ruthlessly enforced the "Roddenberry box" of restrictions that barred personal conflict and money from STAR TREK scripts and that writers were quite understandably fed up with Piller's insistence that writers write around these restrictions instead of throwing them away. Piller said that he completely understood when the writers working for him declared that if Piller didn't leave VOYAGER, they would leave VOYAGER. All I can say is -- PICARD is not the first series to feel that the no money element was too difficult to write, but Roddenberry introduced the no-money concept AND the replicators, so he did cover his bases there.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

SPOILERS FOR EPISODE 5 OF PICARD

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I'm sure no one is surprised, but I was sad to see Icheb die on Picard.  When I realized they were going with the xBs angle (ex-Borg) and bringing back both Seven and Hugh, I was hoping they'd find a way to bring back Icheb.  I liked both his limited storyline and how it impacted Seven.  I thought it was one of the few times that they did something character-based and it really worked.  And I know there was some issue with the actor and Anthony Rapp, but I was sad to see that not only was he killed, he was brutally killed.

And I get that Picard is more "adult" than Voyager, but it was just bizarre to have a character on Voyager (a show that was light on both death and violence) go out in such a brutal and gory way.  It's hard to connect the Seven/Icheb relationship we saw on Voyager ending the way it did on Picard.  It was disturbing, both because I wanted more from the Icheb storyline and because I have an emotional connection to both those characters.  Maybe people felt the same about Maddox, but the Icheb stuff stuck with me.

************

As a side note to that, I'm having trouble understanding the world that Picard is showing us.  Are we simply avoiding places where the Federation is, or is it something else?  All these talks of Fenris Rangers and the collapse of the Neutral Zone and possibly the reintroduction of money and the "criminal" acts of the Federation and Starfleet are making me confused on where the universe is.  It reminds me of how I felt watching the Star Wars sequel trilogy.  I just don't understand the overarching political situation in the Alpha Quadrant, and it's confusing me. 

I had a friend describe the Federation as having fallen apart.  And not just morally...literally.  Has that been explained?  Earth seemed fine.  I'm sure Starfleet is reeling from the destruction of Mars, but has there been any indication that anyone has taken advantage of that? All signs point to the Romulan Star Empire being tattered...at least more than the Federation or Starfleet.  I don't think Cardassia would be in position to step in.  We've heard nothing of them or the Klingons or anyone else who might've tried to reclaim Federation space following what happened on Mars.

From what I've seen on the show, the Federation is fine, and Starfleet is licking its wounds from Mars but still operating the same way they were twenty years before.  I'd love for the show to somehow interact with a Starfleet vessel doing normal Starfleet work so we'd have a general idea, but it seems like everyone that Picard has met is either an outlaw, a vigilante, or retired.

Is there a supplementary novel to this I can read, ireactions? smile

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Icheb was recast. It's not the VOYAGER actor playing the character. And thank God for that. Manu Intiryami tweeted that Anthony Rapp should get a grip for viewing Kevin Spacey's assault on him as assault.

**

To get to Freecloud, the ship entered the Beta Quadrant (Romulan and Klingon space), so I assume that Freecloud is in the Beta Quadrant and that it doesn't reflect on the Alpha Quadrant at all.

**

Is there a novel or a comic book? Who cares?! The STAR TREK: COUNTDOWN comics that tied into the 2009 movie and showed how the NEXT GENERATION cast tried to stop the Romulan supernova featured Data alive and restored; that's being ignored. DISCOVERY: DESPERATE HOURS had Burnham meet Spock which is completely ignored by their TV meeting in DISCOVERY's Season 2. Also, DESPERATE HOURS has Spock visit the Shenzhou and remark that it looks a bit primitive compared to his much more advanced Enterprise ship which he describes as looking exactly like the 60s sets; DISCOVERY also ignored this by modernizing the Enterprise sets but using some of the same colours. What does it matter if there's a novel or a comic book for PICARD? It'll just be ignored before the season is even over. Who cares what's in the PICARD comics and novels?

The PICARD COUNTDOWN comic is about how Picard befriended Zhaban and Laris and how they moved into his chateau. The first issue is about Zhaban and Laris moving in the furniture. The second issue is Picard arguing with them about where to position the stove and refrigerator. The third issue is Picard painting a room blue but changing his mind and deciding he wants it to be brown instead and then there's a heart-pounding race to the store to pick up more paint before it closes for the night.

(You don't know that it's not.)

There's also a novel that I haven't read yet, THE LAST BEST HOPE, which I assume is set during Season 6 of DEEP SPACE NINE where Picard and the Enterprise-E crew dock with Babylon 5 to attend Worf's wedding only to realize they got the wrong space station and the title is based on Babylon 5's mission statement as the "last, best hope for peace."

(You don't know that it's not!)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

But to your understanding, is the Alpha Quadrant still the way that it was when we last left it?  And the Federation, while probably pretty racist now, is still on star maps (at least) the same as it was?  Or do you think the entire Alpha Quadrant is in disarray after Romulus?

I honestly can't tell.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I assume that the Alpha Quadrant and that the Federation itself remains a near-paradise as described in DEEP SPACE NINE -- except that, due to the loss of synthetic labour ensuring a universal basic standard of living, people have to work for money again whereas in TNG and DS9 and VOY, nobody got paid. Perhaps replication power is now at a higher cost without the synths. The Beta Quadrant and the regions formerly controlled by the Romulan Star Empire, however, have fallen into what we've seen.

The STAR TREK: PICARD - COUNTDOWN comic and the STAR TREK: PICARD - THE LAST BEST HOPE novel aren't terribly enlightening. COUNTDOWN is about Admiral Picard rescuing a Romulan farming planet where the Romulans are intent on abandoning their slave labour and when Picard insists on reworking the entire rescue effort to free and save the slaves as well, the Romulans hijack the rescue ship. In the course of regaining control and saving everyone, Picard meets Zhaban and Laris who help him regain his ship and he sends them to his chateau on Earth to be safe from Romulan reprisal. It's a charming, engaging little story but not particularly enlightening.

THE LAST BEST HOPE -- honestly, I can barely remember enough about this to summarize it because it was so boring. Picard and La Forge are working at different ends of the Romulan evacuation effort. Picard talks a lot with reluctant Romulan politicians; La Forge talks with various people about building ships. Months of events are summarized in a few paragraphs, as are the flashbacks in the actual episodes. Then, as we're focused on Picard, he's informed that the synths have attacked Mars. La Forge hears about it while he's on a shuttle to Earth. Then the Federation declares that they are abandoning the Romulans and we get to see the scene where Picard delivered his resignation. Then the book ends.

It's pointless. Everything in THE LAST BEST HOPE was established with far greater effect through Picard's bitter recollections and his shame at the impoverished Romulan colony and the brief, effective flashbacks. THE LAST BEST HOPE expands on all that but is simply repeating in a more overstretched fashion what was told well enough before.

And it certainly doesn't answer any of Slider_Quinn21's questions.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Still enjoying Picard, but did Jeri Ryan's "Seven" prosthetic bother anyone?  I know that was several weeks ago, but it looked more like a Cosplay piece than the genuine article.  It doesn't even look like the right color, even in brightly-lit scenes.  I don't know why I'm bringing this up now, but it's something I've thought of a lot since we first saw the trailer.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

... I guess -- it's never really looked real to me on VOYAGER, so it continues to not look real to me in PICARD. I've always thought it looked bright and plastic.

I liked how Soji knocked the wind out of Picard with a light shove because it was another reminder that Picard will not be firing machine guns through squadrons of Borg or fighting Tom Hardy with his fists any time soon. And thank God for that.

I thought that Riker's pizza looked a bit unappetizing. I liked how Riker and Troi's daughter is named after Troi's deceased sister. And I liked Riker recognizing Soji's head-tilt.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

For a brief instant in the Riker episode, I thought that Riker was going to be senile.  He abruptly screams at his daughter before realizing that Picard is there.  I was glad that he wasn't - I have a fondness for bother Riker and Jonathan Frakes, and I thought he was great in this one.

I don't know - the Seven prosthetic looks darker and less defined.  It just looks weird to me.  But I'm willing to throw it in the bin since it's a silly point smile

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I don't know - the Seven prosthetic looks darker and less defined.  It just looks weird to me.  But I'm willing to throw it in the bin since it's a silly point smile

I don't know if it's silly.

Whenever we care about a character, we will engage with what for us is the iconography of the role whether it's the performance, the appearance or some combination of both. It's interesting that pretty much everything that defines Seven of Nine as an icon of STAR TREK (for better or worse) has been dropped. The catsuit is gone. The tied back hair is gone. The lack of contractions is gone. The robotic monotone is gone. The repressed emotion is gone.

But because Jeri Ryan is still maintaining the character's severity and calculated distance, she (I hope) still feels like Seven to you, but her appearance and performance are so different that you're likely looking to the Borg facial piece as a point of recognition. And if it isn't meeting your expectations, it will throw you off.

The way you feel about the headpiece is the way I feel about Quinn Mallory's hair and clothes. To me, Quinn's long hair reflects how he only gets it cut three times a year and trims it himself each month to keep from being blinded by length. The clothes, to me, are his father's; he wears them to assume Michael Mallory's role in his home and world. The brown coat of Season 2 conveys a certain physical hardiness against the elements. The result is that Quinn is extremely recognizable from any distance or angle or lighting, much like Batman with his cowl or Superman with the cape and S-curl.

When Quinn's hair is trimmed short and styled with gel and highlights, I don't believe it. Quinn would never be at the hairdresser that often. When Quinn wears a leather jacket, I don't accept it; Quinn would want a coat, not a jacket. Something with more pockets. And something more nondescript. Jerry O'Connell wanted his hair short and gelled and highlighted and he wanted a leather jacket because the contrasted hair and reflective jacket draw attention. More specifically, a jacket is cut higher and doesn't obscure the backside; that's why Jerry wants to wear it.

But Quinn Mallory is a slider. Perpetually a stranger in a strange land that may or may not be hostile. Quinn doesn't want attention; he wants his grooming and wardrobe to help him blend, to not stand out to bystanders although it does to the audience. I can't accept the Season 3 look because Quinn is a slider and Jerry in Season 3 doesn't look like a slider. He looks like a Hollywood actor.

Anyway. If Seven's headpiece looks wrong to you, then it's wrong. You ought to know. You're the only fan of Seven of Nine in existence. I have literally never heard anyone speak fondly of the character. Just as I am literally the only person in the world who has given Quinn's hair and flannel this much thought.

We shouldn't dismiss such concerns; we should seek to understand them because when we grasp why these things matter to us, we understand ourselves. And when we understand ourselves, we go from having psychotherapy sessions twice a week to once every 90 days.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I thought Jeri Ryan did a good job with an "evolved" Seven of Nine.  It bothered me at first because, in the trailer at least, it didn't seem like she was playing Seven.  It was Jeri Ryan or another character she's played. 

But in the episode, I saw evolution.  It's been 20 years, and she's learned to fit in better.  She was essentially a child on Voyager, and now she's an adult.  But I also read a different theory on that which I absolutely loved - the idea that Seven is playing a part.  She's taken her obsessive training, and she's created a character that she can play.  That character is laid back.  It's emotive.  It's badass.  It uses contractions. 

In the end of the episode, she lets her guard down.  She asks Picard if he ever regained his humanity.  He says yes.  All of it?  He says no.  That was Seven of Nine in her true self, and I think she sorta uses the Seven cadence in that scene.

I don't entirely buy that because I think she would've been "herself" with Icheb.  And maybe she was...I don't think there was enough there to know for sure.

I actually liked what we saw.  It definitely wasn't the Seven we saw on Voyager, but neither was Hugh from Next Generation.  I think both were logical extensions on what would've happened.  Part of me is a little sad that Seven didn't stay with Starfleet, and I'm sure somewhere out there Janeway feels the same way.  But I think this route makes more sense for her.  I think it's much more realistic that she'd quit Starfleet or be kicked out.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I haven't given Seven nearly as much thought as you have. When I say that there are no other fans of Seven, I mean to say that even people who like Seven of Nine don't really like the character; they like Jeri Ryan's body and the costume that the body was in.

The character and the performance, however, are clearly the critical elements for you, so I'm prepared to say that you are actually a a fan of the character as well as the actress. I think that Jeri Ryan clearly put a lot of effort into retaining Seven's goal-oriented, purposeful, calculated demeanor and to me, that is the part of Seven that is actually characterization, moreso than the outfit or the robotic bearing. Seven is machinelike in forcefully driving towards her goals, whatever they may be; people are either impediments or resources to complete her mission, and because that was still present in the new performance, it was still Seven except those characteristics were now expressed with sarcasm, the need for a drink, a more conversational tone and more expressiveness than before.

One area where this was mishandled for me recently in another property -- X-23, a teen female clone of Wolverine, has always been written as an aloof, troubled young girl with terrifying fighting skills -- basically Summer Glau as River Song to the point where most fans in 2004 wanted Glau to play X-23. However, in 2012, the very conversational, comedy-oriented Brian Michael Bendis took over the X-Men titles -- and when he wrote X-23, he wrote her as being conversational and cracking jokes, nothing like the troubled, taciturn, traumatized figure she was before.

While Bendis' stories had some rationalizations -- X-23 was teamed up with the teen X-Men from the 60s who'd never met Wolverine and had no preconceived notions of her or her progenitor, X-23 had been suffering from partial amnesia -- it seemed like a totally different character. Which really showed how a dialogue heavy, jokey writer like Bendis was not suited to writing a deadly serious, often silent character.

After Bendis left, X-23 became the star of ALL-NEW WOLVERINE in 2015 while Wolverine was temporarily dead, and writer Tom Taylor did something interesting with the character -- he kept her jokes and contractions, but there was a more deadpan, less emotional tone to them. She expressed emotions and could be happy or sad or silly -- but in much more minimal, spare dialogue. Taylor kept Bendis giving X-23 a wider palette. But he added back a balance of X-23's directness and a little more restraint  so that she sounded more like the original character even if she were vastly more human than before. Taylor found a happy medium, not undoing Bendis, but making sure that the jokes and expressions were in X-23's voice.

It's very much the way Seven was written in her episode of PICARD.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

What did we think of the end of Picard?

I thought the storyline was very muddled, but I liked the characters quite a bit.  I think they took some chances, but I think they made a really entertaining series.  My biggest gripe was the fact that I felt so thrilled when we saw the brief look at Riker on the bridge of his ship.  I was so desperate for *any* view into Starfleet, and it was pretty great to get what we got.  I'd watch the hell out of a Captain Riker show set in this time period.  I don't know if Riker would want that, but we had so much build up to Riker becoming a captain that it'd be a shame if he never really accomplished much in that role.

I wish the series had ended with Picard going back into Starfleet.  Now that Oh is gone and the ban on synthetics is over, it would've been nice for Picard and Starfleet to make up.  And, again, I'd love to get some stories in the "modern" Starfleet.  I know Picard's crew wouldn't be very interested in getting back into Starfleet, but maybe he could use them as some sort of "hired gun" situation doing missions for the Federation or something.  And we'd occasionally get looks into other Starfleet ships - check in on what Bashir and Worf and LaForge and Tom Paris are up to.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I liked PICARD. A lot. The only issue I really had with it -- the artificial synthetic apocalyptic beast from far away who would bring doom to all organics -- I didn't feel the show set up what it was, where it came from, why it was coming, what it was doing, why it left its phone number telepathically or what that was about at all. It was simply a means to an end in terms of creating a ticking clock. Aside from that, I felt in transitioned the NEXT GENERATION universe into one more a mirror of our own reality.

I thought Data's dream sequences and his final scene at the end of PICARD was poignant and beautiful even if Brent Spiner's voice reflected all the years that the CGI was wiping out of his face and girth and hairline. I'm fascinated by the question of whether Picard is still Picard or merely an approximation, a backup copy of the actual human being. I'm intrigued by where his journey will take him next. Patrick Stewart is signed for one more season of PICARD.

I'm not as Starfleet-focused as you are, but that's a valid take, I respect it. I'm happy with PICARD being about Picard's life after he left the Navy. And I think that Bashir is a computer sales clerk in San Francisco, Worf is a bombastic combat professor whom nobody likes and La Forge is somewhere in a residential area basement working on anti-gravity but on the verge of discovering something else instead. Meanwhile, Tom Paris is likely a labrat in an interdimensional experiment after he lost the use of his legs in a car theft gone wrong.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I was thinking about Star Trek: Picard this morning, and I don't know if I understand something.

So what happened with Romulus again?

I'm assuming that, while the destruction of Romulus from 2009 is canon, the Countdown comic isn't.  In that, Data is captain of the Enterprise (right, ireactions?).  So all we really know is that Picard was there, the robot insurrection happened, and Picard was called back.  But the events of Picard don't really have anything to do with that, right?  The androids rebelled on their own?  The Romulans didn't have anything to do with that? 

Because I understand Picard's point, of course.  The Federation and Starfleet should've saved as many people as they could.  But at the same time, I don't understand how much the destruction of Mars would've impacted Starfleet.  Was this like Pearl Harbor?  Did Starfleet pull their ships back because they couldn't risk losing anything else?  How long after the Dominion War was Romulus?  How secure was the Federation at that point and how "healthy" was Starfleet?

I guess I'm trying to understand how "evil" the decision Starfleet made.  Did they make a selfish one (sorry, Romulans, you gotta deal with this on your own, we got our own problems now) or a difficult pragmatic one (I'm sorry this is happening, we did our best, but we can't risk anything else or we'll be in the same boat)?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

COUNTDOWN 2009 did indeed feature a restored Data as Captain of the Enterprise. The TNG novels, which don't tie into COUNTDOWN, also featured a restored Data.

The android insurrection on Mars was revealed to be caused by the Zhat Vash, a faction of Romulans who loathe artificial life and expect that its rise would bring about an AI apocalypse.

I don't know how intentional this was, but given how the Federation is suddenly using money in PICARD when it was a post-scarcity, post-currency society in TNG, DS9 and VOY, I think we have to take it to mean that the destruction of Mars impacted the Federation's ability to produce and maintain replicators. But PICARD takes the view that the Federation didn't do its best under difficult circumstances; that it just gave up and cut the Romulans loose on the grounds that the Romulans had (a) sided with the Dominion 24 years ago and (b) tried to blow up Earth 20 years ago. That the Federation didn't even do what it could; it just decided to do nothing.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Hmmm, I guess I forgot that the insurrection was caused by the Romulans.  Did they reprogram the androids?  And they sorta shot themselves in the foot if it cut the rescue effort short.

Plus, no one else seemed to help with the evacuation.  No Klingons or Ferengi or Cardassians or anyone else came to their aid.  I guess this is when the Romulans found out they had no friends smile

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

It's almost like... the writing was kind of sloppy!

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I really don't see anything sloppy about the writing. Across TOS, TNG, DS9 and NEMESIS, the Romulans had shown a propensity for treacherous backstabbing at every opportunity. It's perfectly reasonable that after the Romulans attacked the Klingon Empire and razed Cardassia in the Dominion War and tried to blow up Earth in NEMESIS, few people outside the Romulan Star Empire were inclined to offer a helping hand that had traditionally been cut off every time anyone tried to do anything for the Romulans. The Zhat Vash were deranged extremists more interested in their pet values of hating all artificial intelligence than aid for their suffering people and reprogrammed the Mars robots to attack.

Picard's outrage at Starfleet abandoning the Romulans is because Starfleet pledged to help anyone in trouble no matter who they were or what they'd done before. And his fury is reasonable, but I think PICARD also establishes that the Federation can't be blamed for deciding that they would prefer not to assist a brutal dictatorship that always took any effort of charity as an opportunity to attack. Picard welcomed Romulan refugees to live in his home; the Federation wouldn't match his effort.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

https://bleedingcool.com/tv/star-trek-n … ew-series/

Jerry O’Connell’s career is in dire straits with SLIDERS not getting a reboot any time soon. However, his wife has a new job on a new STAR TREK show!

(I was kidding about Jerry’s career. He is doing fine.)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I wish they'd get out of the TOS era.  If Picard doesn't want to do any Starfleet action, I'd rather have a companion piece on a Starfleet show that takes place during the Picard era.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I don't think you're ever going to get out of the 23rd century. It looks like we have two 23rd century shows now, SECTION 31 and NEW WORLDS, but it's understandable. It's where the mythology took hold. It's the basement office of THE X-FILES. The warehouse of WAREHOUSE 13. The Pawnee city hall of PARKS AND RECREATION. The basement lab of SLIDERS.

However -- you didn't need to watch DISCOVERY to understand PICARD. So I guess you won't need to watch the TOS era shows to understand the post TNG shows, especially with DISCOVERY set in the distant future.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Well they can use the same actors and sets, so it's cheaper, to be in the same time period.  I think Picard might open the door for "future" endeavors in the 24th century but I also don't think it's that necessary.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

https://trekmovie.com/2020/06/11/interv … rn-burner/

ORVILLE update!

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I'm very much looking forward to the return of the Orville