Pondering Patrick Stewart's return to the franchise

August 10, 2018

Article Text

Twenty years later: Short of timeline shenanigans more convoluted than Stewart's role in the X-Men movies, the chances of seeing a future Picard that resembles the version in "All Good Things" are probably zero.

This past weekend at Star Trek Las Vegas 2018, Patrick Stewart made a surprise appearance and gradually built to the announcement that he will return to the Star Trek franchise to reprise his role as Jean-Luc Picard for an upcoming series to be produced for CBS All Access.

After telling a story about how he had encountered fans for which Star Trek had greatly affected them, and how that played into his mind about returning, he went on to offer up some details of what is currently known about the new endeavor — which is to say, not much so far.

"We have no scripts as of yet," Stewart said, adding that the show's developers have so far just been talking in terms of broad story outlines. "He may not be a captain anymore," he said of Picard. "It may be a very different individual, someone who has been changed by his experiences. Twenty years will have passed."

He added, "It will be — I promise you, I guarantee it — something very, very different." But, he said, the new show will come with the same passion and love of the material as The Next Generation.

So what should we make of this?

On the one hand, it strikes me that Stewart certainly didn't have to bring Picard out of retirement unless he felt there was a compelling reason. Stewart has consistently acted in the years since he left the franchise, and it's not like he is or ever was hurting for work. And as he says in this very announcement, returning to Picard was something he never planned to do, never expected to do, and fully intended to decline even this time around. Something changed his mind. What was it? Did he, at 78, want to ensure he caps his career by returning to an iconic role? (I'm pondering parallels in his return for a closing-chapter role in Logan.) Did he feel a need to return to a franchise of optimism in our current world of seemingly unremitting ugliness? Was the idea of the new show just that good?

It's hard to say. But something convinced him to come back, and with this announcement provides hope for rediscovered, nostalgiac glories for long-time fans who haven't found it in the most recent franchise efforts — namely Discovery or the J.J. Abrams reboot films.

Or does it?

The new series will be produced by Alex Kurtzman, who is already a key player on Discovery and who worked on the Abrams movies, and is now the guy who basically runs the entire Trek TV franchise. And with the big deal CBS gave him comes the expectation he will go forward and create a whole new slew of Trekkian products to be streamed/televised.

Discovery had a rough — although apparently financially successful — first season. (That's if we're to take CBS at its word; there's no way of truly knowing given the black box that is the performance of streaming services.) One would think the creative energy might be spent in turning the flagship show on the fledgling streaming service into something better and maybe someday eventually great. But Hollywood does not think in such small-scaled terms. I mean, why have one new Star Trek series when you could instead have an entire Star Trek Streaming Televised Universe! (We have, I suppose, the runaway success of the MCU to thank for such infinite ambition.)

I don't know. As always, I will withhold judgment, being neither optimistic nor pessimistic about the Picard series until there are more details — or perhaps an actual show to watch. But it seems to me that cultivating one thing (Discovery) might be more prudent than overextending into building a new empire of televised products. Even at the height of the Berman years, which arguably was the apex of Trek's popularity, Berman never thought it was prudent to do more than two shows at once. If Discovery and Star Trek: Picard are not even all we're talking about here in terms of the near future for televised Trek (there are apparently more projects being drawn up), there seems to be a substantial risk of watering down the whole enterprise. There's also potentially the very bad collateral risk of damaging Picard's character, should smarter ideas not prevail.

Will lessons be learned from the box-office underperformance of Solo? (This is a film I still have not seen and thus can't comment on from a creative standpoint.) In less than three years, Star Wars went from king of the box-office mountain to a cautionary tale of the risks of over-saturation — something I warned about back when all the stand-alone films were announced.

We'll see. The plan for CBS to mine Trek so deeply and so quickly seems risky, and I wonder how much actual demand exists. On the other hand, anything with Patrick Stewart in it at least has Patrick Stewart as a principal asset.

Like this site? Support it by buying Jammer a coffee.

◄ Blog Index

Comment Section

103 comments on this post

    I’m curious what this will wind up becoming, but that’s about it. This reminds me of the re-introduction of the Borg on Voyager. Nobody likes our show so let’s bring back an old favorite to boost morale. Both Trek and SW are run by clueless corporate suits who have no regard for what made either special to begin with. And that’s not gonna change anytime soon, if ever.

    On the one hand, I understand the skepticism. Paramount and CBS have been struggling to make a very consistent Star Trek program for years (decades if you count back from Enterprise). From a more cynical perspective, a studio bringing in a recognized actor could be seen as a Hail Mary pass to try and recapture TNG’s fanbase a la Harrison Ford in The Last Jedi.

    The key difference from Ford/SW is that it looks like Stewart wants to be around for a larger and lasting role in a new Trek installment. I don’t think Stewart needs the money, and to be sure his legacy in the franchise is safe even as is. So what does Stewart want out of this? Jammer brings up some really good questions and I’m just hoping we like the answers.

    I admit, I totally fanboy-ed out when I first heard this news a few days ago. It truly seems like Sir Patrick is bringing the character back for the fans, and I doubt he would agree to it if he didn't think the future producers/writers could deliver the goods.

    Star Trek the Next Generation is my favorite show of all time, but I was only 11 when the finale aired. I'm beyond excited to see such an iconic character return to the small screen and hopefully remove the bad taste that "Insurrection" and "Nemesis" left for so many of us.

    20 years will have passed in-universe, so Picard will be what, 95? I can't see him being a ship captain, not with Discovery being the flagship. And Admiral Picard doesn't sound like a very interesting premise. He had no kids, no love interest, his brother and nephew both died in a fire (what a stupid, unnecessary plot point that was)...eh.

    I'm not a writer, far more imaginitive minds will surely come up with something for him to do, and with Patrick Stewart it'll be well-acted, but I'm not exactly excited by this yet. Until we see some actual plot details, my interest doesn't even rise to the level of 'intrigued'. We'll see.

    TNG is my favorite Trek. And I’m glad to see atrek once again going forward instead of relying on TOS but with the same creative forces behind the horrible Abram films and the poorly done DIS(which I dropped six episodes in and never watched anymore)I’m pretty skeptical about what will become of the Picard series. I fear it will be more NEM than TNG seasons 3-6

    Modern shows have done nothing for me. I find they’re bloated and unnecessarily complicated with ridiculously sized casts and lots of gimmicks thanks to LOST’s template.

    So when The X-Files became first revival I was ecstatic hoping to see a return to more traditional storytelling But the two seasons the revival produced made me realize that those contemporary storytelling styles were going to be incorporated. So instead of recapturing some of the show’s heyday they felt more like the horrible last few seasons of TXF original run or kore of the same mediocrity churned out so regularly these days. So I can totally understand and appreciate Gillian Anderson choosing to not return for more seasons.

    Same thing I experienced with other revivals like Roseanne, Will and Grace etc. they weren’t going to take me back in time like I had hoped

    So I suspect those of us tuning in hoping to recapture some of the greatness of TNG will be sorely disappointed. Not only that but it seems this may be a Picard only vehicle without the rest of the TNG cast as regulars which would be further disappointment since part of TNG’s appeal was the chemistry of the ensemble and the weekly adventures they had together.

    Another concern I have is the modern day obsession of grim and dark storytelling. This sounds like it could be a pretentious dark character study on Picard which is the last thing I’d be interested in watching

    I think all these mediocre revivals have shown is that you really can’t go back. You can’t recapture lightning in a bottle. That said I’ll give the Picard show a chance and resubscribe after cancelling my CBS AllAccess after the sixth episode of the awful DIS

    Like many others I am hoping for the best but expecting the worst. I just don’t see Patrick Stewart taking part on something that is trash but the chances of it meeting our hopes is low

    "So I suspect those of us tuning in hoping to recapture some of the greatness of TNG will be sorely disappointed."

    Yeah, we should absolutely not expect this. Even hoping for it will only lead to disappointment.

    "I think all these mediocre revivals have shown is that you really can’t go back."

    Yup, exactly. This MIGHT end up being a good show in its own right, but it most assuredly won't be TNG Part 2. We'll just have to see what it's like, ultimately.

    @ Chrome

    I think you meant The Force Awakens. Harrison Ford wasn’t in The Last Jedi. Unless you meant Mark Hamill (confusing the words Hamill andHarrison is understandable)

    @Cody B

    Yes, I meant The Force Awakens, but I suppose you could apply it to either movie. Personally though, I thought Hamill was great in TLJ and that he brought more to that movie than Ford’s sleepy performance in TFA.

    Yup. Expecting them to screw it up the same way they screwed up Luke in the Last Jedi.
    But hoping for the best.

    Still waiting for a movie where Kirk, Sisko, Picard, Janeway and fellow captains team up in all battle versus an enemy (Borg...)
    They're all still alive. The time is now.
    I can dream, can't I.

    See, even the few comments here reveal the real difficulty in what CBS is now trying to accomplish. The people on this comment board seem to want something like the glory days of TNG back, and yet they don't like the Abrams movies or the first season of Discovery. This, to my mind, is an oxymoron, since the main reason for the artistic failure of the Abrams movies, in particular, is the filmmakers' attempts to recapture the glory days of a product long gone, rather than trying to do something genuinely different.

    TNG was amazing, largely because they refused to be bogged down by what fans thought of as "real Star Trek." Instead of a dashing young captain, they had a cerebral bald British guy pretending to be French. Instead of ending every episode with a fist fight, they had almost no action at all for most of its seven seasons. It's not even an action show. It's a drama. And a talky one, at that. This was a risk, a completely new direction for the franchise, and it paid off.

    The same goes for Deep Space Nine - a stationary setting, devoid of exploration, and full of deeply flawed individuals goes against basically everything that made TNG work. The fans complained. And the writers of DS9, to their credit, mostly ignored them. And as a result, the show was largely awesome as well.

    When did the franchise start to go wrong? In repeating itself. In trying to recapture shit. Nemesis was an attempt to retell Wrath of Khan. Voyager and Enterprise, both with original premises, ended up becoming lightweight retreads of TNG. And Discovery ultimately failed as a first season because, like Voyager and Enterprise before it, it doesn't have the courage to pursue its own premise where it logically needs to go. They chickened out, and now, the trailers for next season are all about nostalgia again - Captain Pike! The Enterprise! Spock! Give me a break. We've been down this road a hundred times in the last 20 years. Trying to recapture the glories of past Star Treks DOES NOT WORK.

    For this Picard show to work, it needs, absolutely, NOT to try to recapture what made TNG great. The powers that be have been trying, without success, to recapture what made TNG great for over twenty years (since after First Contact, I would say). They have not once succeeded. The presence of a great actor will not change that (as Nemesis can attest to.) It needs to be an attempt to tell a NEW story, provide a NEW kind of conflict, a new setting, perhaps even have a new style, new storytelling approach, new tone, new narrative structure, new everything. It needs to be as brave as TNG was, and as brave as DS9 was, without trying to emulate anything about what they did. Unless this new show is an attempt to create ART rather than provide mere product for fans, it will fail.

    But who am I kidding? This is Alex Kurtzman. It's not going to happen. The last people to run Star Trek who legitimately had a vision and the courage to do something really and truly new with the franchise and this fictional universe have long since moved on to other things.


    I agree just about 100% with your post. This has to be something new or it won’t work. But I don’t think Stewart would have signed on unless the story outline presented promised just that. I eagerly look forward to the new series!

    As far as “Discovery”, Jammer expressed some skepticism that it was highly profitable.

    Actually — according to all reports — “Discovery” was a tremendous success from a profitability perspective for CBS All Access. And a large part of that had to do with Netflix. According to insiders, Netflix paid for as much as 50% of the production costs for the first 13 episodes. Beyond that, the series gave CBS All Access tremendous visibility as each episode of “Disvovery” was instantly analyzed on innumerable YouTube channels and internet sites. All the additional subscribers which All Access gained during this period could be considered just a bonus !

    But one thing CBS quickly learned was that when the episodes ran out the newly gained subscribers started to fade away and the weekly buzz stopped dead in its tracks. So they’re determined now to eventually have some form of new Star Trek available throughout the year. It remains to be seen if this will lead to oversaturation. Right now, they consider it a risk wort taking.
    Live Long and Prosper! 🖖

    Ubik said: "TNG was amazing, largely because they refused to be bogged down by what fans thought of as “real Star Trek.” [...] "The powers that be have been trying, without success, to recapture what made TNG great for over twenty years"

    I think it's the opposite. Almost every other great TNG episode has an analogous TOS episode, and both TOS and TNG owe a lot to early weird fiction, anthology science fiction (Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, 1950s SF print short fiction) and the spirit of 1960s modernism.

    What TNG initially struggled with is how to take TOS and update the aesthetics, tone, and how to make it work in contemporary times and several decades in the franchise's future (problems of decor, not spirit). Once that was figured out, the result wasn't something different; it was TOS with an extra layer of gloss and a stronger attempt at seriousness and sophistication.

    Aside from sporadic moments, Voy, Ent, Disco, DS9, the TNG movies and the JJ movies, do not attempt to "recapture what made TNG or TOS great for over twenty years". Their influences and TV tropes are far more mundane, generic and familiar.

    To be genuinely new, modern Trek has to do what TNG and TOS tried to do, and then up the ante; be more politically and philosophically radical, draw from contemporary modernist SF novels and novelists (rather than postmodern TV), fish for writers outside of the Hollywood gene pool, and steal from cutting edge science. Then wrap that in Utopian Hornblower.

    (reposted from the Disco page)

    In theory, I'm the target audience for a Picard series. But given how bad STD was, and given that the same production team is helming this series too, I'm terrified they're going to ruin Picard's character. We can talk about the direction the show might go in, but until they get writers who can actually write it's all for naught. Even with Discovery, the problems were so much in execution, not concept.

    As for Patrick Stewart being involved in the scripts... Well, I love him as a human being and an actor, but he's not a writer and his storytelling ideas on TNG weren't always great. He famously kept asking the writers to give Picard more action and sex. He was all for driving that dune buggy in Nemesis. I'm sure he'll do an amazing job bringing the scripts to life, but I'd actually prefer if he only had minimal story input.

    @Ubik "TNG was amazing, largely because they refused to be bogged down by what fans thought of as “real Star Trek.”"

    I think TNG's success is more about the fact that it captured the "soul" of TOS without aping the "look" of TOS. TNG didn't simply try to replicate the Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic and changed the look of the costumes, ships, etc. It did try to tell smart science fiction stories and kept to the broad liberal humanist philosophical outlook.

    The JJ Abrams films did the opposite. They looked like TOS, but they felt and sounded like generic action films. The JJ Abrams films didn't even try to recapture the spirit of TOS.

    And at the end of the day I think that's what Trek fans really want. I could care less if the new Trek show has a familiar character like Picard or has a ship named Enterprise. I do want the new Trek to engage with important ethical and social questions and be a beacon of optimism on the TV landscape.

    I’m really excited about this! I can’t stand the rebooted movies, but after a lot of scepticism I ended up enjoying Discovery despite its flaws. I don’t really like the idea of prequels, so for me, after Enterprise, the new movies and discovery, it’s nice to finally have a series that actually takes the show forward (time wise).

    Sure, the X files is a shining example of how NOT to do a new series of an old show, but I think Twin Peaks The Return showed how to do it properly (one of my favourite shows from last year). Decline, the passage of time, these are themes that can be really poignant and it sounds like that’s what they’ll be incorporating.

    I do hope this is the first of several moves forward for Star Trek, I just want more stuff set after TNG and DS9 after all the rehashed prequel stuff.

    @Chubbs, I agree about wanting more stuff after the DS9 era. The fact that this new series is so closely tied to Picard worries me though. TNG made a decisive break from the TOS era, which freed it up to tell new stories. It didn't have to worry about the continuity or baggage from the older era. It could do things like introduce new aliens or create a peace with the Klingons and audiences could accept it because so much time had passed since TOS. But with this new show, there's still a lot of continuity from the DS9 era that will be pretty relevant. And, having seen Discovery, we know these writers have no respect for continuity. I for one am not looking to seeing how the writers contradict and retcon DS9.

    I am very much aware that it'd be best to withhold judgment for now and see how things shape up. Sadly, Kurtzman doesn't exactly inspire optimism in me, what with Abrams movies he was involved with, and Discovery too. While I certainly think that DIS is better than those... unfortunate feature films, that's not a particularly high bar to cross, and Discovery barely crossed it. Honestly, Abrams and Kurtzman only perfected what Berman aimed for: to make a slick, well-oiled action machine out of Trek.

    That said... Picard is Picard and Patrick Stewart is Patrick Stewart! Both of those guys are legends, and rightly so. I grew up on TNG, it was the very first TV show I religiously followed as a small kid almost 30 years ago... what, no, it wasn't almost 30 years ago, it was MORE than 30 years ago! Man, does the time fly.

    I know it's wise to be cautious, I know I shouldn't get my hopes up until we have something more concrete, but I can't go against a lil ole me who loved (and still loves) that show, and this particular character, more than is probably warranted and/or healthy. I want Patrick Stewart to bring Jean-Luc to life one last time. Even if it falls short of our expectations (and, let's be real, it probably will), it's a cherished family member coming come for a final hurrah. That has got to have some worth in and of itself. Right?

    I don't expect Star Trek: Picard to be a long-running TV show. Sir Pat is 78, after all, and he'll probably be 80 by the time the series airs. He's got money, recognition, and adoration of geeks the world over. My guess is that ST:P is going to be a one-off miniseries with a clear beginning, middle, and end. At least that's my hope. Not too long to water it down, not too short to be a cheap attempt to play up the nostalgia angle and nothing more.

    @Trent: "Aside from sporadic moments, Voy, Ent, Disco, DS9, the TNG movies and the JJ movies, do not attempt to “recapture what made TNG or TOS great for over twenty years”. Their influences and TV tropes are far more mundane, generic and familiar.

    To be genuinely new, modern Trek has to do what TNG and TOS tried to do, and then up the ante; be more politically and philosophically radical, draw from contemporary modernist SF novels and novelists (rather than postmodern TV), fish for writers outside of the Hollywood gene pool, and steal from cutting edge science. Then wrap that in Utopian Hornblower."

    This is a very good point (though we're not in agreement where DS9's quality is concerned). TOS and especially TNG had a distinctive storytelling approach that, as you say, owed a lot to quite a few giants of literary and televised science-fiction. They were topical, relevant, and, not to underestimate this last point, recognizable as quite a unique TV product.

    The main problem that plagues both Discovery and Abrams films (and later shows and movies of the Berman era), in my opinion, is the loss of "genre creds", the abandonment of recognizable and thought-provoking sci-fi ideas rooted both in genre history as well as politically and socially relevant issues of the day in favor of more generic plot-based action storytelling. Even when done really well (e.g. First Contact, severaly DIS episodes I enjoyed), this approach doesn't sufficiently stand out as its own things as it's essentially an action vehicle with Trek trappings. As a little tangent, that's why BSG works so wonderfully as science fiction TV show: it has action, and sex, and religious mumbo-jumbo, yes, but it wholeheartedly embraces what it is, forges its own path without the need to emulate and ape someone else.

    Look, Patrick Stewart reading a damned phone book would be entertaining. Is there any way to watch STD (not calling it DISCO, sorry) legally without CBS All Access? Cause I want this but not that.

    Well pretty much the point of doing a revival for a once popular program is to recapture the nostalgic feel for why we enjoyed it in the first place. Otherwise if you’re wanting to do something new or fresh you’d go out and create a brand new show with a brand new cast. Right?

    So I don’t see it being wrong to expect a TNG revival to resurrect the things that made folks fans of it to begin with. Frankly we have had enough experimenting with the “ Trek model” and storytelling in general I think to see what the franchise needs is to get back to basics.

    VOY and ENT failed for various reasons. You can’t pin their problems on not doing something different. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with standalone adventures of the week. Serialization doesn’t always meant better. I mean look at the slew of cancelled serialized programs from the last decade riddled with awful writing. The problem boils down to fundamentals

    VOY could have outshined TNG potentially but the creativity and writing wasn’t there. They had this brand new Quadrant and instead of seeing something wondrous and new we got stale. Plus there were casting issues and weaker characters that hurt that series too. Same for ENT which thought recycling ideas from earlier Treks through a crew which hadn’t would add a fresh spin on things

    Re: Abrams films and DIS trying to recapture past glories

    When I say recapture past glories I don’t mean recycle or plagiarize. I mean tell new stories but with the same actors, aesthetics and sensibility of the original. Neither Abrams or DIS do that. The worst thing you can do is recast iconic roles. You’re never hoping to measure up

    On top of that the writing is awful. The plots are thin or non existent with a bunch of plot holes. Way too much emphasis on cons and lifting stories and passing it off as homages rather than what they really are—lazy fanboy writers bereft of any new ideas

    The Abrams films are nothing but shiney sound and fury More spectacle than a solid entertains story with interesting characters

    Same for DIS which from what I saw then later read was more interested in cramming in Easter eggs and cons than telling a coherent story. Most noticeably with the ADHD storytelling where they jump from one major arc to another then at the last minute back to what seemed the original arc to hurriedly resolve it.

    If Recapturing the TOS spirit is the goal of DIS they sorely missed it. That show feels nothing like TOS from costumes to characterizations of familiar TOS characters and aliens like the Klingons. Heck ENT did a much better job at the TOS feel than any of the Abrams stuff has

    TNG was successful and didn’t rely on nanedropping or Easter eggs. That’s the problem with television today they ignore writing and replace it with gimmicks—mystery boxes, long cons, breakneck paving, large bloated casts, etc

    @Startrekwatcher, you expressed my sentiments exactly. I'm flabbergasted when I see people on Twitter hoping this new Trek show gives Picard "The Last Jedi" treatment by making Picard a broken man. Which is just so insipidly lazy. Star Trek is Star Trek, and Star Wars is Star Wars. Why would anybody just want Star Trek to copy the same character arc as a Star Wars film? I love both, but the franchises have different names because they ARE different. What I want, and have been waiting for since DS9, is a Star Trek show that tells a uniquely Star Trek story unlike anything else on TV.

    @Paul M., well put with regards to what makes Trek unique. The rule of thumb I use is this: Stephen Hawking was a fan of TNG. Isaac Asimov respected TOS. NASA invited the crew of the TOS to watch the space shuttle Enterprise launch. TOS and TNG especially inspired generations of engineers. Would they like the Abrams movies or Discovery?

    i’m flabbergasted that anyone would *want* Picard to get the Last Jedi treatment. Sheesh. That would be more reviled then Nemesis or ”These Are the Voyages”. And I like Nemesis.

    The only way I could see this new show working is if Kurtzman took a backseat to more competent writers the way Berman did with DS9. But judging by everything that’s come out with the tTrek name on it in the last decade , they either can’t or won’t hire competent writers.

    @Geekgarious, see:


    I have no problem personally with the abram’s movies. I liked the first two more than third, I felt the third movie sort of played it safe. I havnt seen discovery but from the few clips I’ve seen and what I’ve heard people say it seems to cater to this “safe space” type left which is the same problem a lot of hbo programming is having. You can be accepting of people but still not want to watch shows that preach feminism and homosexuality. Key word being preach. Once you start beating me over the head with it is when I tune out

    I've seen great characters come back and ruin their good reputations many times. CBS really does not care, if it's a likely financial gain, even short-term, they'll do it. Creativity and integrity are not on the balance sheet. I'd be a little surprised if Stewart signed a contract, unless he's been assured massive creative control.
    I've given the later Treks a chance, but found them an assault on my spare time. I loved most of DS9, and adore TOS & especially TNG, but dear God, I wish I hadn't wasted a second of my life on VOY or most of the other rubbish. I did like the later ENT episodes, but I think it was mostly garbage. It reminds me of Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad - they run out of story but keep milking it for the cash. I'll be optimistic and hope Sir Patrick passes away before filming starts.

    “I’ll be optimistic and hope Sir Patrick passes away before filming starts.”

    Not cool, man.

    Despite Kurtzman's checkered creative history, I have little reason to worry about the new series just yet. Something significant convinced Stewart to return and he insists it will be something "very, very different". I'm inclined to be optimistic. There are infinite possibilities for a Trek show returning to the late 24th century (and early 25th century potentially). I'd certainly love to see a Trek series try to recapture the sense of optimism that our world sorely lacks.

    As always, time will tell.

    Very happy about this news, especially that it is most likely to get back to moving forward in the timeline instead of going back (first time since Star Trek: Nemesis).

    I hope it is just Picard with a different set of stories and characters, not with the regular TNG cast (cameo appearances would be ok, I guess).

    I enjoyed the last three movies, as well as DIS (even with its flaws), so Kurtzman being at the helm does not bother me. The Involvements of Beyer and Duff are positives too.

    Very little known so far. Couple of years, I reckon, before we know enough to say anything beyond wild speculation.

    “I’ll be optimistic and hope Sir Patrick passes away before filming starts.”

    Wowwww. Terrible thing to say. Worst kind of "fan".

    I was kidding about Stewart dying. Jeez, he's probably the last actor I'd have ill wishes for. He's a true hero, and great inspiration to many.

    A few questions for the group:

    1. CBS CEO Leslie Moonves said, in December of 2016, that "We have estimated, we expect to have 4 million subscribers by 2020." "It's not going to be a huge business, but it's going to be for Millennials, the cord-cutters, the cord-nevers." Has he changed the forecast since then? How many subscribers are there now? Does he really think a show centered around Picard is one that will appeal to, of all people, Millennials and cord-nevers? (That's a hypothetical question).
    It sounds to me like whether Discovery is profitable in part a function of how Moonves chose to define "success." Regardless, what neither Moonves nor anyone else knows is how many subscribers will RETURN when the 4 teaser episodes/Season 2 of Discovery appears. CBS surely has access (no pun intended) as to how many people cancelled their subscriptions; if the information is not something It wishes to brag about, we may not know it. So I'm agnostic on how much profit CBS is making off Trek (The numbers matter. The level of profit will ultimately dictate how saturated the CBS Trek Universe will become). We don't yet even know the budget per episode (if it is indeed weekly episodes) of Stewart's show.
    2. What happened to Nicholas Meyer's involvement in Discovery? First he apparently wrote (or was one of the writers of) "Battle of the Binary Stars," then he didn't; then he was a "Consulting Producer..." Does anyone know if he is still affiliated with the show.

    3. (Slightly off topic, I guess): Robert McNeill recently said, "“I wanted to direct Discovery.” “I met with their producing director. I didn't know the show that well, but I met with him on their last hiatus to talk about season two. I also produce now. So, I hire a lot of directors. The last few years, there's been a seismic shift in terms of the priorities toward female and diverse directors. That reality now has meant that what used to be normal, which was a lot of white guys, to be quite honest, has changed. .....Most importantly, it's a wonderful thing that's happening... Discovery does a limited number of episodes and a priority there is to get female and diverse directors, so there are fewer opportunities for people like me, which is a great thing. But, yeah, if the opportunity arose to direct Discovery and I fit what they needed and it fit my schedule, I'd love to do it.” Has the list for Season 2 directors been made available yet? How would he know he can't get a chance to direct?

    And lastly, just some observations:
    As much as Kurtzman may suck as a showrunner, I find it hard to believe that an optimal creative environment existed under his predecessors Gretchen Berg and Aaron Harberts, if the allegations against them are even remotely true. These allegations vaguely remind me of why so many people (David Gerrold, D.C. Fontana) claim to have left TNG during its early seasons. Mediocre writing doesn't become better when the writers are verbally abused.

    Someone noted, "The only way I could see this new show working is if Kurtzman took a backseat to more competent writers the way Berman did with DS9. But judging by everything that’s come out with the Trek name on it in the last decade , they either can’t or won’t hire competent writers." Right now it does appear they can't or won't hire competent writers. But if they DID, maybe all hope would not be lost. So far, we don't know who is on the writing staff of the new show.

    I really love the idea of Picard coming back in a mini-series or short run series. But what role role would we accept him in? He's Captain Picard, and Stewart himself says he's not the captain at this point. What are some thoughts on this site about this? An admiral? An ambassador? A diplomat?

    Frankly I’d love the TNG crew back together on the ENT tackling some epic mystery adventure or threat. Then being together on the same ship would be no more far fetched than Scully and Muldee still working in the basement of FBI. It furthers the nostalgia factor.

    But if not that I’d like Picard still a captain of a ship. Kirk in GEN stressed to Picard about never giving up his captains chair. So I could see him turning down promotions. Then maybe have the show feature a second ship maybe the ENT with a Riker as captain and Troi. Worf onboard Picards ship. Beverly on the Pasteur something like that where they coordinate their efforts on different fronts and then together

    I really don’t want Picard as an instructor or admiral

    The idea of gimleading cadets doesn’t appeal to me. And being an Admiral keeps himself some starbase or Earth he needs to be in the thick of things.

    I just hope the series has the fun entertaining adventure element that TNG perfected. I don’t want some plodding introspective meditation crap that’s so en Vogue these days


    With all due respect, Stewart (and Picard) will be, like, 80 years old. To have him as gallivanting around the cosmos as a Captain would be absolutely impossible to believe, and would no doubt feel exactly like what it is - fan fiction.

    I can guarantee you right now that, if the show does what you claim you hope it does, it will be awful, for the same reason the new X Files seasons were awful - because people's lives are not stagnant. To suggest that the same people would just be hanging around doing the exact same thing they did, like, 30 years ago, with the same basic ideas and opinions and values, is ludicrous. That isn't what happens in real life, ever. The audience would sense the inauthenticity, the lies, and wouldn't buy in.

    I don't believe the "introspection meditation crap" is "in vogue" at all - I just think that, as a human being reaches 80, that is precisely what happens to them - they become introspective and meditative. An 80 year-old doesn't have the same urge for adventure and change that a 40 year-old does; that's simply not human nature. Great storytellers from the ancient Greeks all the way through to today recognize that when a person approaches 80, especially one like Picard who no doubt had inestimable influence over the shape of the galaxy over his long life, they start to look back, not forward.

    If this show is worth anything, it will absolutely be meditative and introspective, not to be fashionable, but just to be realistic. That doesn't mean it can't have galactic implications, politics, ethical dilemmas, etc. But it certainly can't be an action show with an 80 year-old Captain Picard running through hallways with a phaser. If that's all they plan to do, I hope to God they just forget about it.

    As a viewer over the years of tv and film I’ve been asked to accept a lot of things. So I’d be willing to go along with a galavanting captain at age 80. I’d go along with it like I did the X files with Scully and mulder still agents despite that not necessarily being realistic—nostalgia. If we are doing a revival then the whole point of a revival is to play off fans’ nostalgia for the original series.

    So I say don’t mess with what worked. Appeal to fans with what worked for them in the first place. There’s plenty of new shows now that does all that you describe. Let a revival like this work in its own box I say. Frankly if I had my way the series would be on the ENT-D recreating the sets and bridge the way Roseanne , for instance, rebuilt the sets of the home of that series.

    But I realize that would likely not happen so next best thing was my suggestion of him still being captain on a ship. And a couple points. One in the 24th century humans live a lot longer so I don’t see an issue him being a captain at 80 or 90. Two —Patrick Stewart himself looks vital and energetic. I wouldn’t think it’d be hard to accept him as a galavanting captain. And three Picard in the series wasn’t much of an action hero. He was always more cerebral so his physical shape really shouldn’t matter

    Oh and whoever writers work on the Oicard series needs to unlearn everything they’ve learned about writing from Abrams, Kurtzman, Harberts, Berg and Goldsman. Instead they need to rewatch TNG seasons 3-6 carefully. And take notes on what good writing entails.

    TNG wasn’t about gimmicks the way Abrams films and DIS are. Don’t worry about namedropping, Easter Eggs, long cons, mystery boxes, headspinning pacing, bringing in every last TNG guest star or recurring character, big twists or a-ha moments. Because TNG employee none of this and was all the better for it.

    Lost and Abrams has pretty much ruined storytelling. Practically every show since then got bogged down in the gaming of the audience. Shows used to not be like that.

    I'm filled with foreboding at the thought of Alex Kurtzman heading this Picard project. As wonderful as it is that Patrick Stewart has come back, the writing and characterisation should be worthy of him.

    If it had been Ron D. Moore, Ira Steven Behr or even Brannon Braga (eek) as showrunner I might be feeling more enthused but alas.

    @Startrekwatcher, great point. Given modern Hollywood's obsession with reboots and remakes, it's actually amazing to remember just how seldom TNG - and DS9 - relied on easter eggs and fan service. Sure, the shows would sometimes use the same alien races and same characters, but that made sense for a shared universe. But for the occasional guest star (i.e., Scotty on TNG, Thomas Riker on DS9), such connections never felt forced or gimmicky. None of the main characters on TNG were directly related to the TOS crew. Aside from the introduction of Worf into DS9, none of the DS9 crew had direct ties to TNG.

    You started to see this slip in Voyager, which kept introducing Alpha Quadrant aliens even though the ship was in the Delta Quadrant. Enterprise went so far as to bend continuity by introducing the Borg and Ferengi decades before the Federation encountered them because "fan service." I took over reliance on fan service to be a sign that the franchise was exhausted, and it's not great that this new era of Trek is leaning so hard into it.

    Please no SJW nonsense like with Discovery. Don't turn Picard into a political activist.

    @Dom "Aside from the introduction of Worf into DS9, none of the DS9 crew had direct ties to TNG. "

    For shame! How could you forget Miles "kill a Cardie, get a hardy" O'Brien?

    @Henson, True... but he was a pretty minor character on TNG. I was thinking of the regular cast. He probably wasn't a significant enough character to persuade a lot of TNG fans to watch DS9. He certainly was certainly no Worf.

    I'm encouraged by the the reason he gives for doing this. Describing the detective who watches TNG to "know we're going to have a future" despite the cruelty he sees on his job, Stewart says that that "lies at the very centre of what I have to tell you now".

    Unless I'm wildly off-base, that means that the series will have something like the hopeful tone and vision of classic TOS and TNG.

    The best case scenario would be that Picard will be in the Tarantino Trek film. No series just the film written and directed by Tarantino with complete control. Oh and an R rating

    Dom said, Stewart "famously kept asking the writers to give Picard more action and sex. He was all for driving that dune buggy in Nemesis."

    Yup. Even Sir Stewart doesn't understand Star Trek.

    I've been so disappointed over the years that what I am doing right now is simply enjoying that adorable video clip and not thinking about what might happen. It was fun when my social media started exploding with the news of Picard's return--I think every person in that auditorium must have tweeted the news!--but my hopes won't go up. I'll check it out, but if they butcher it as they did with Discovery, I won't be surprised.

    Although it does still amaze me how many people don't get what made Star Trek great. I am not sure where they get their inspiration, but it isn't on the bridge of the Enterprise.

    In several articles (all citing the same source?) it’s apparent CBS is looking at several long running series, a short run mini-series, and a Khan mini-series. My bet is that this is the short run mini-series.

    The comments above about the aftermath of the Dominion war - and the subsequent exposure of Section 31 and the seedy side of the Federation and Starfleet - this could be fertile ground for a Picard miniseries.

    Trek, and sci-fi in general, does best when they take current events and issues and flip them or represent them so that we can explore and deal with them. Given our American political polarization right now, good writers could overlay our polarization onto a post-war and militarized starfleet. That could be a fascinating show to watch.

    I have mixed feelings about this.

    This could potentially be a wonderful new chapter in Star Trek. Jean-Luc Picard is among the finest of all Star Trek characters. It would certainly be interesting to see him later in life. We know nothing about the setting or premise of this series but I think it's a safe bet he won't be a captain of a starship. Which is fine. There are lot of possibilities here. I think a lot of us just want to see what is going on with the Federation in the years after the war with the Dominion. What is going in the Gamma Quadrant? What kind of relationship does the Federation have with the Romulans? What's going on with the Cardassians?

    This new Picard series may not address these questions. It could be more of a character series which could just fine as well. If done right.

    But given the largely awful recent Star Trek films and the disappointing and politically-driven Discovery series I am concerned that this new series with Patrick Stewart may also disappoint and alienate fans. I would feel a lot better if Ronald Moore was involved. I would have faith he would treat Picard and other character with respect and dignity. He clearly loves Star Trek. I don't know what the motivation of CBS is behind all this.

    I enjoy Moore’s work on TNG and to some extent on DS9 but I kinda find him overrated as a writers. He’s definitely a step up from the likes of Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Berg, Goldsman, Harberts but he can be quite uneven and BSG was an exercise in excess and pretentiousness. I think having Michael Piller on TNG and Behr on DS9 oversee his writing helped those episodes

    @grumpy_otter, agreed. It’s a bit troubling for the franchise that so many Trek fans seem to think the franchise is about nothing more than a bunch of people with funny outfits flying around in space. The new creators are missing the soul of Trek, the intellectual depth of the franchise.

    Yes Trek can be and should be intelligent and thought-provoking. But it was also just a fun adventure series. That’s what made TNG great—it told a variety of stories from morality plays to high concept sci fi to mystery to character stories.

    I hope Picard is allowed to remain as a straight white male.

    @Startrekwatcher, I agree. Variety helped TNG feel fresh after 7 seasons. Unfortunately, that's something we're going to lose with serialization (and I have no doubt the Picard show will be heavily serialized).

    It's pretty simple. If there is Star Trek, I will watch it. That's true even if I have to pay a monthly subscription fee. But since DIS S1 ended, I have not been subscribing. Nothing else on the service interests me. If I am to keep paying for the service, I'm going to want to keep getting the product I want. I don't think I'm alone in that position! CBS' course of action, then, is clear: Stagger new Trek shows so there's something always airing.

    Just a thought: because Picard is a character in a prospective series doesn't nescessarily mean the series is simply about Picard. ST series have always been ensemble works. Unless he's indicated otherwise, Stewart's character may be an albeit important character in a much broader context than some Picard bio. This would permit a lot more latitude for story style.

    My brain still won't look at the mosnters in Discovery and think "these are Klingons".

    If the Picard reboot has these same monsters and calls them Klingons, hard pass.

    Alex Kurtzman is running that ridiculous "Salvation" show right now. If that's the style of a new Picard show, I'm not very interested.

    RE: Kurtzman

    "is now the guy who basically ruins the entire Trek TV franchise"

    There Jammer I fixed it for ya!

    I watched some video on YouTube about this the other day and they seemed to have insider info where the whole point of the Picard series is to actually totally destroy the prime timeline altogether, so that everything we already know and love didn't really happen or some shit. This is because of copyright issues between CBS and Paramount- which also greatly explains why nothing on STD looks like how it should (ex Klingons, glass bubble shuttles and etc).

    Can you imagine if this is real and they do this? How better to shit all over the golden years of Trek!

    I'll pass on this. Patrick Stewart has always wanted to take Jean-Luc Picard (the Atticus Finch of science fiction) and turn him into John McClane. And with the Alex Kurtzman calling the shots, that's most likely what we're going to get. "See Picard make a pact with Sectlon 31 in order to stop the Borg/Dominion/-Mirror Enterprise-D Alliance taking over the Alpha Quadrant!" or some such shit. I wouldn't even watch that shit pirated on bit torrent.

    I'm calling it.

    Star Trek political drama. Picard is going to be running for POTUFP.

    His opponent will deride him by saying he prefers people who don't get captured by the Borg.

    I am not sure that Discovery turned out as they may have hoped. I have not watched it and after some reviews, am not curious. Have seen all incarnations since the Original Series when it aired in 1966. I think they are still trying very hard to bring CBS All Access into the forefront ($$$) and since TNG was very much loved by fans, this could be a coup (if it is done right). When I heard this news, I was excited, but not for long. Alex Kurtzman is in charge and not too familiar with his body of work. J.J. Abrams first attempt with Star Trek was on the money and then that went south as it was passed on. Once J.J. makes his mark, he is ready for the next shiny object. I still have issues with CBS All Access, and will wait and see after the reviews are in. I have been burned too many times.

    I remember when "The Best of Both Worlds" aired for the first time in the spring of 1990. I was thirty years old, but my jaw dropped and my heart was pounding when Locutus appeared and Riker fired the whatever-it-was beam. I recorded the episode on my VHS and then had to wait three months for Part II. This was long before the days of spoilers and easily accessible production news. Come the fall, I played my tape right before the second part aired. The conclusion was just as thrilling, and I remember marveling at the very last scene how Stewart was able to portray Picard's false bluster in front of Riker and Shelby and then transition to a moment of utter fragility after they left with so little movement or change of expression.

    No matter how good a show they create now, it will never match that experience for me. I've changed. TV has changed. The world has changed. Even if they come up with something great, it will *have* to be different. Trying to create something that will enable fans to recapture exactly those feelings from thirty years ago will never work. It's disingenuous, and it's insincere.

    I've seen pretty much all of the Star Trek that's ever been, and while there are many things I dearly love and watch over and over, all of the series have episodes I don't want to see again. I started watching The Search for Spock tonight for the first time in years and, while the first half is okay, I had to turn it off after the Klingon strangled the rubber snake. I've seen Star Trek V once and never will again. The first Abrams film was okay (at best), and they got progressively less interesting for me from there. I watched Discovery and ended up thinking that, while severely flawed, it had potential. I did like having a new Star Trek show to watch every week, however.

    Unlike some people, I don't take it as a personal insult when something Star Trek turns out to be mediocre or even bad. There's plenty of mediocre and bad Trek out there. I'll be interested to see what they do with Picard in the new series, and I'll probably watch it, but even if it sucks, it could never diminish my memories of seeing "The Best of Both Worlds" that first time.

    I'm interested and cautiously optimistic. Maybe I just want a better grace note for Picard (probably the best character of the Star Trek franchise following Spock, and certainly in my Top 3) than what he got in "Nemesis." Maybe I just really want Star Trek to go back to the 24th century (I'll own that part of my luke-warm feelings on Discovery come from feeling like the Kirk/pre-Kirk era doesn't present opportunities to tell new, interesting stories). I'm definitely always interested to see Patrick Stewart on my TV. I'll give this a go.

    @Vladimir Estragon

    "Even if they come up with something great, it will *have* to be different. Trying to create something that will enable fans to recapture exactly those feelings from thirty years ago will never work. It’s disingenuous, and it’s insincere."

    It's worked for The Orville. In fact, it's getting a second season. A smart, optimistic show would crush it in this day and age the way "The West Wing" did in the George W. Bush era. People are hungry for hope.

    Trek's been doing "different" since Deep Space Nine deconstructed the Trek mythos through their jaundiced lens. Let's get back to boldly going where no one has gone before. Let's explore space and ourselves and see what's out there. Let's have characters we can look up to. Let's have a show that celebrates problem solving and peaceful resolutions rather than the old standbys of soap opera drivel and uninspired war stories. Let's have a show that adds to the Trek mythos instead of incestuously mining nostalgia. Let's have fucking science fiction writers write for Trek and tell (god forbid!) science fiction stories! Make a Trek show that Gene Roddenberry would be proud of and people will watch en masse.

    @PatrickD, hear, hear! I've been saying for a while that if Trek really wants to stand out from the crowd in the 21st century, it'd embrace its liberal humanist roots. The people claiming that Trek "has" to be "different" for the 21st century are usually just saying that it should just copy what every other TV show is currently doing. If new Trek shows like Discovery are just going to mimic the storytelling structure and grimdark tone of Battlestar Galactica or The Expanse, I might as well just watch Battlestar Galactica or The Expanse. Star Trek TOS and TNG offered something unique to TV, something that could be invaluable to the 21st century.

    I especially second the call for a show that celebrates problem solving. Too many TV shows and movies nowadays dumb their characters down in order to create "conflict" or "drama." Outside of The Martian, it's rare to see a scientist who actually comes across as intelligent and competent as opposed to bumbling and unprofessional. That was my biggest issue with the JJ Abrams Trek films. I just couldn't buy the characters as members of Starfleet's best and brightest. I would never want to serve with any of them for fear that they'd put the entire crew at risk.

    To understand what ST: Picard will be it's only necessary to take stock of the ST trajectory to date. After the peak of TNG, Berman Trek declined progressively until ENT was a show that most fans and its own makers candidly agreed never should have existed. This was followed by JJTrek that crashed and burned even on commercial terms (the lowest of many measuring bars) over the course of just 2 films before he dumped it like bag of fresh dog turd. That in turn was followed by STD which, despite cinematic production values and near universal caution on the part of fans before the fact, ended up being so completely nonsensical that even the cautious among us were largely disgusted.

    And the specific reasons STD was bad give us the road-map - the show simply took a ST shell and dumped in all the TV fads of the past decade. The STD show runners were apparently so disconnected from their new assembly-line process, they never noticed that their "writers" stole elements from a recent video game who's creator is now suing them (their own public comments reflect cluelessness). That is currently how the sausage factory works, so throwing Stewart into the mix isn't going to change that. We've all been amply warned here.

    I think a cool idea could be Picard as Federation president, having to maintain his ideals with the reality of running a huge interstellar political entity.

    @ Josh - brilliant. LMAO

    But as Dave Kinard said the idea of Picard as UFP president truly has great potential. And I wouldn't mind if through genuine story development and characterization that at some point he is forced to assume command of a star ship, drawing on his experience to lead the crew through some crisis but realizing the years away and his experiences since being captain of Enterprise have changed the game for him. I don't think the whole show should be that but it would make a really good 3-4 episode arc.

    Not optimistic at all. Not if it involves the same minds that have brought us the JJA films and Discovery. I fear we'll see lots of lens flares, jerky camera motions, action-over-substance (though I love good action and effects, too), ultra-busy scenes and hard-to-follow story arcs.

    Wow, here's RedLetterMedia's pitch for a show titled "Star Trek: Galaxy".


    I really wish this fan pitch could be submitted to CBS as it is *exactly* the type of Star Trek I've been yearning for every since TNG and DS9 went off the air decades ago. Voyager and Enterprise visually looked the part, but the writing, direction and characterization of the cast were abysmal to say the least; rather like feeding your brain a junk food version of Trek. Still, as bad as they were, they still were Trek on a basic level. As for STD, it is so incredibly bad I cannot even categorize as good or bad Trek, it just isn't Trek, period. Honestly it's just turned me off completely from the series. It's offensive it carries the Star Trek name and just about killed my decades of enthusiasm for the series.

    At any rate, this Galaxy pitch rather reminds me of the film U-571, same type of premise (loosely) but in this case having to resurrect, repair and pilot a (now) outdated Federation Galaxy class starship to get back home, with Picard in command. How cool would that be? Suggest you guys watch their pitch, I'm curious what you think.

    Unfortunately we'll likely get something completely different from CBS instead, along the lines of Star Trek: Discovery if not worse. Mindless garbage that goes against everything that Trek has ever stood for, and likely will rewrite Picard as an action-guy, punching and shooting his way out of situations rather than using diplomacy and cerebral thinking. I almost don't think I can stand to watch it.

    Patrick is 78 and will be older when filming actually commences. Your final misgivings about Picard being an 'action-guy' are likely baseless.


    That's a really good link, the story they sketched out makes a lot of sense. As they point out in the video, the most difficult part is the premise: what prevents them from simply calling starfleet and getting a tow back to the nearest starbase.

    The basic idea of them being caught in some kind of galactic prison for an ancient race ticks the first box, but what would be in that region-of-space for them to explore? Would that prison be essentially a portal to another region of space that is isolated from the regular milky way? Would there be some temporal strangeness involved as well? What about some parallel to subspace?

    I don't think I'm alone in thinking the time-travel stories aren't Star Trek's strongest stories. And some subspace like technobabbel-based thing would strain disbelief.

    I like the idea of them being sent off to some faraway region, so far that flying back isn't an option; the only way back is the way they came.

    What about the centre of the galaxy? Some evil civilization was banished there eons ago, and the wormhole (as good a way as any to travel in the TNG era) that they were sent through was deliberately closed.

    Some artifacts on the planets in the star system closest to that wormhole still exist, evidence of the activity of alien civilizations eons ago during the banishment. Those artifacts attract Picard, with Geordi and Braum, who are sent out on a research cruise on a Starfleet ship; all anyone is expecting to do is science. But, over time the wormhole has reestablished itself, and, the science ship gets caught in it and drawn into the galactic centre.

    The wormhole is unstable, so no quick trip back is possible. For technobabble-y reasons, warp drive is limited at the galactic core (allowable, I think, because a] it's never been discussed, afaik, and b] TNG already brought up limits to warp speed due to environmental factors), meaning the travel time to the Federation core is on the order of centuries - the only way back is through the wormhole. Once there, they discover the old Galaxy class ship and the on-ship part of the story progresses as discussed in the linked video.

    While in the core, there is plenty to explore. What kind of civilizations live there? Does the greater density of stars and planets affect the speed of first contact for civs, their spread throughout the region, their scientific progress, and their relationships with each other? Are there interesting _actual hard sci fi_ questions to investigate about that region of space? Did the ancients who seeded the galaxy with the proto-humanoids that we're familiar with reach this part of the galaxy, or are there more bizarre creatures to be seen?

    And, for the story arc (which doesn't have to take up more than 1/4 or so of the episodes IMHO), the moral question, strongly linked to the TNG favourite prime directive: what was the effect on that region of space after that ancient evil civilization was expelled there? Did they harm the local inhabitants? Did they deserve expulsion in the first place, or were they not as deserving of punishment as it first appeared?

    Finally, the need to get back through the wormhole, along with the limited resources of the Federation crew, will force them to rely on that great pillar of TNG, Picard's diplomacy, in order to get the help they need to get back.

    Also, bringing Geordi back would be awesome :)

    Mitch! I came by to also post the RLM video. Like you that's the kind of trek I've wanted since the glory days of TNG to which no SciFi trek or otherwise has yet to match

    I thought the idea was fantastic and is just the right mood for a show ibak hoping for. Something classy as TNG was like to be. Not crass f bombs...flaunting SJW modern values whenever you can... Dark and brooding like frank millers batman and dropping f bombs and basically fitting the bill for TV in the modern era. Madmen did that right everything since has been a cheap imitation. I'm exhausted by modern day television because it is exhausting to watch

    I guess it will have to be serialized and that would be fine as long as its sci fi first

    That RLM pitch just didn't appeal to me at all. Is no one else other than me tired of convoluted scenarios and set-ups, "long-form" storytelling and "arcs" which take months to resolve?

    If the standalone episode format which served TOS and TNG so well is not an option, then what about this idea: Admiral Picard is now running an Academy course on Command Decision Making. Each week he presents his students, of whom comprise most of the cast along with a few of Picard's Academy colleagues, with a holodeck simulation of situations he faced in his career as captain. These students are the best and brightest and candidates for command - think Lt Saavik rather than Wesley Crusher.

    The format would be a combination of Picard in "Dear Doctor" style reliving his experiences, narrating his choices to himself and debating the outcomes and moral consequences, and also watching how different students handle the situation and their different approaches along with Picard guiding them and on occasion learning from them. There could even be discussions between a programmed hologram Picard and older, wiser real Picard over the ethics and ideals involved in particular dilemmas.

    Aside from the added bonus of this format in allowing new sci-fi scenarios every episode in traditional Trek fashion, it would also be very personal in the way modern shows tend to demand. We would get to see Picard's strengths in leadership and also some weaknesses, regrets over things he wishes he could have seen or done earlier. There could be ongoing threads developed over the series as well as standalone themes.

    I like simplicity and this would be a hell of a lot more appealing to me than a complicated set-up bringing together threads from all across the Trekverse to create a viable plot.

    @Jason, I agree. Too many TV shows nowadays are too convoluted for their own good. And stop with the nostalgia. Trek is about going boldly where no-one has gone before. Explore the future, not the past.

    I like the video pitch, but I still prefer Picard as Federation President. That premise possesses the scope and gravity befitting a legendary Star Trek character, unlike the piss poor last act James T Kirk was given. I just hope the producers take this show seriously and really get back into what made Trek great, not what makes Trek "current.". We don't need another Discovery , and although I like the JJ films for what they are, they sometimes get dangerously close to Trek parody.

    Oh, no worries. Just stating the facts. My grandiose plans have been inhibited by the ordinary factors of daily life, per usual.

    Last week Composer, Dennis McCarthy’s characterization of himself in his American Thinker columns as being a man and comparison of himself to Kavanaugh is false.


    Not only did he loathe members of the DS9 cast he also continues to look down on Trek followers. Especially the Trekkies at the Vegas convention when he attends

    Mrs McCarthy’s characterization of himself conflicts with a treasure of information accessed by political hacks about him enabling perps to ogle young females in his family in effort to curry favor to secure music contracts, dishonesty and fraud by him, his wife Patricia, and his children for personal gain and to harm others your opposed to.

    Country and politics aside, Г-жа McCarthy, is a liability and embarrassment to any political party, academia, or business associated with you.

    He is a poor fit and disgrace to the Star Trek franchise.

    Dennis McCarthy also coauthors and edits articles submitted by his wife Patricia McCarthy at https://www.americanthinker.com/author/patricia_mccarthy/

    Ubik said:


    For this Picard show to work, it needs, absolutely, NOT to try to recapture what made TNG great. The powers that be have been trying, without success, to recapture what made TNG great for over twenty years (since after First Contact, I would say). They have not once succeeded. The presence of a great actor will not change that (as Nemesis can attest to.) It needs to be an attempt to tell a NEW story, provide a NEW kind of conflict, a new setting, perhaps even have a new style, new storytelling approach, new tone, new narrative structure, new everything. It needs to be as brave as TNG was, and as brave as DS9 was, without trying to emulate anything about what they did. Unless this new show is an attempt to create ART rather than provide mere product for fans, it will fail."

    I am with you, and I have a great idea that the writers of this new show (Alex K, are you reading this!!!??) can steal all they freaking want to.

    Star Trek meets Indiana Jones! Picard has left Starfleet, and is a Treasure Hunting Archeologist! Work Vash into the mix! Get Jennifer Hetrick onboard!

    Make it TOTALLY UNRELATED to the Federation, except as relates to their constant haranguing of Picard for "Federation Law Violations" in his pursuit of Archeological Finds and his shady relationships with people like Ferengi and Yiridian Traders (not to mention Vash who is as shady as they come).

    Stop it with the Political Drama! TNG, DS9, ENT, and DIS, as well as the Abrams Movies (Nu-Trek as people call it) have absolutely done that to DEATH. It was neat in TOS, to have a TV show making a political statement and a statement about the Cold War at the time, but this show needs to BREAK AWAY from all that.

    Star Trek meets Indiana Jones! Just steal it from me and claim that great minds think alike! :D


    Nice idea. I had completely forgot Picard's deep love of archaeology.

    I think that he could be an Ambassador and continue Spock's work and see through re-unification (Vulcan's and Romulan's)

    The DO need to address the Irumodic Syndrome problem though.

    MidshipmanNorris, geriatric Indiana Jones didn't work so well for Indiana Jones itself, to be quite honest.

    PassingBy -- True, but not so much because people didn't want to see Indiana Jones anymore, as because "Crystal Skull"'s script was wonky and had ridiculous WTF moments, like the infamous "nuking the fridge", that totally destroyed the audience's suspension of disbelief before the plot even had a chance to get going. I also couldn't help getting the impression that Harrison Ford really wasn't all that into it, and that certainly didn't help sell the plot to the audience either.

    I'll admit: even though I grew up watching TNG, and still love it, I wasn't thrilled at the prospect of a new Picard series.

    Apparently, as recently as 2017, Stewart himself wasn't very thrilled with the notion either, going so far as to say that he fought for roles post-TNG that would be as far removed from Picard as possible.


    So, on the face of it, it seems a bit weird for him to have a change of heart about returning to Star Trek. Then it dawned on me:

    He probably wants to do to Picard the same sort of thing he did to Prof X in 'Logan': kill Picard, never have to play him again.

    Makes sense, really. He probably felt a satisfying sense of closure with Prof X being killed off. Maybe he wants to kill off Picard, to finally get _that_ sense of closure, and never have a good reason to go back after.

    @MadManMUC but the producers have already said they plan for this show to continue for multiple seasons. I don’t think it’s a one and done miniseries.

    I'm sorry, but not even Patrick Stewart is going to get me back as a fan of Kurtzman-Trek after the way DIS turned out. They'll probably just assassinate the character of Picard just like they did with the Klingons and Sarek and Mudd and...

    Ehm. Suffice to say that the Star Trek franchise has lost this decades-long loyal fan. I am, however, waiting quite eagerly for season 2 of the Orville to start.

    ***warps away at ludicrous speed before the stoning begins***


    Believe me when I tell you then I feel your pain, profoundly.

    And then, I read this. And it hurts even more:


    A comedy.
    A. Fucking. Trek. Comedy.

    Bring on The Orville S02. And The Expanse S04.

    I'm just completely apathetic about anything Star Trek. When I really look back at being a Star Trek "fan", I only really like 3 of 6 series on the whole, and less than half the movies. While Picard and TNG are favorites, my reaction is just Meh. Especially with Kurtzman at the helm.

    I'd like to live in the multiverse dimension where Star Trek had ended after DS9 and Undiscovered Country. THEN we could pick it today... the possibilities would be so much better than the reality of Trek has been.

    With the number of Star Trek shows potentially about to double within the next few years, I'm curious about how you're going to review them all, Jamahl, if you don't mind my asking. Will you watch every single episode of every show? Or are you going to just watch the live-action shows and skip the animated shows? Or are you just going to watch the shows that interest you the most?

    If you do review every episode of every show, will you still review The Orville if that show continues?

    That remains to be seen. If I had to guess right now, it is highly unlikely I would review (or possibly even watch) everything, if we get as much as they are saying. I would probably pick and choose and skip some things. A Picard show would be of much more interest than, say, an animated Trek comedy.

    At a certain point it just becomes too much product to keep up with, and life is short.

    But we'll see what happens. Announcements and development do not guarantee a thing will happen. Just look at the fourth Kelvin Trek movie, for example.

    I suppose that is true. Paramount and JJ Abrams were pretty certain Kelvin Trek 4 would be happening and then Star Trek Beyond only just broke even (if it broke even at all). So I guess if nobody watches Star Trek: Discovery season 2, we're not going to be getting every show that's currently in development.

    And while I do love Star Trek and hope the brand continues to do well, the idea of getting so many shows in a short period of time is exhausting to me. I'm still trying to finish Deep Space Nine, and I haven't even started Voyager or Enterprise. I have to agree with you that at some point, there's just too much to watch, so I doubt I would watch all of the shows either, except for maybe the Picard show (I'm very excited for that one).

    Anyway, thank you! I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

    What do we all think about the five seconds of leaked footage?


    Seems like Picard is no longer a household name twenty years post-Nemesis.

    There's also a leaked set photo here:


    At the very least, it's fun to see 24th century uniforms again!

    You know, at this point, the only good news for Trek would be redoing it entirely. Sooo....

    How about a series taking place in the future time period that occasionally popped up in Voyager? Make the Borg the bizarrely changed descendents of members of a colony ship, sent into the Delta Quadrant through an artificial wormhole. Get rid of the Borg Queen and the Borg habit of assimilating people. Show corruption in the Federation, and revolution brewing among the Borg.

    Have characters, for once, who wouldn't be all goodie-goodie or completely evil - somewhere in the gray areas in between. Sometimes the Federation would be the good guys; sometimes the Borg; sometimes no one would have what's right and just in their mind, and sometimes the choices would all look bad, no matter how well-meaning one was.

    Perhaps bring back a few old characters. Picard, more machine than man, letting his Borg side creep back to ward off death; a disgraced hero, a coward in his own eyes, regretting his decision every hour of every day, and forced to live with it. Janeway, a withered corpse barely kept alive by the machines tending her, telling her story to her children and grandchildren and wishing for the light of better days. Worf: Klingon ex-admiral, white-haired and world-weary, no longer able to deal with the Federation's web of lies, disenchanted with his life and his race. Seven of Nine, machine once more, a lonely aging starship with a human brain, roving the vast empty spaces in search of some answer and unable to decide which side she's on, which path to choose. Spock, another brain in a tank, unwilling prophet to a people who have at long last, and against all hope, abandoned all pretense of reason.

    Redo the ships. No more smooth-ugly hulls and crazy Christmas-tree lights; smooth dull metal now, vast ominous dark shapes that slide through space like silent birds, sensors turning, sifting the emptiness.

    Try to hire Greg Egan and Stephen Baxter and Alastair Reynolds for writing the scripts, perhaps. Get some serious science consultation. Do time-travel stories without the damn reset button. No more noise in space, no more stupid technobabble. Have new characters that people actually care about, new alien races that are scientifically pluasible without having to resort to hokey genetic seeding hypotheses, genuinely interesting and innovative plots.

    But then it wouldn't be Trek, would it? The essence of Trek, after all, is and always has been pure and unadulterated cheese. If you make it worthy of serious viewing, it's not Trek any more.

    Submit a comment

    ◄ Blog Index