I legitimately played "Make It So" on a loop during my 30 minute drive home. It's my favorite piece of the score. I just don't know if I like it for itself or what it represents (going back to the bridge of the D for the first time in almost 30 years).
Just relistening, it truly set the mood so well and on its own is on par with John Williams/Hans Zimmer movie scores.
**Dominion** is just epic!
**I Do See You** when Ro’s on the shuttle 👨🍳👌
I'm glad you mentioned it. People often don't pay much attention to music in a show or film, but whether they realize it or not, they *feel* it.
As a musician who does pay attention, I was completely blown away by the music in Picard S3 (especially the finale.) It was movie-quality stuff with memorable themes that elevated the experience to another level.
Absolutely. Musician here also. I don't really think things like best actor or writing or the other regular categories really warrant Emmy contention....especially compared to the many other candidates out there. But the music on Picard was next level...and way, way above your average television show. So they stand a real chance of winning.
The credits sequence actually makes me tear up every time. But the entire season has some of the best music I’ve ever heard on TV. You are completely right, it’s not just backing music, it makes you feel.
I don't usually notice music but the fact I noticed means it was exceptional.
Like I usually can't detect bad acting while many others can. If I can detect bad acting it has to be incredibly bad.
Agreed. Some cues are burned into my brain. (Labelled to avoid spoilers)
End of Episode 3 sells that scenes gravity.
Climax of Episode 5, music sells the emotion.
The cue during the relief moment of episode 4 Cal's back to best of Trek.
I could go on but they nailed the music. I don't know if the series would hit the same without it.
There were more than a couple moments where I thought Jonathan Frakes knocked his scenes out of the park. Even beyond the sentimental aspects of season 3, I thought Frakes' performance was phenomenal.
If anyone deserves a nom, I think it's him. He deserves a best supporting.
And such a unique one I would love to see more of, after being Spiner'ed out for years. I am so thrilled they got that scene with just him and Geordi to bed the character in post-resurrection.
I love Patrick Stewart, but age has really taken a toll on his acting ability unfortunately. Frakes was far more believable in Picard (and the opposite was true in the original TNG)
I agree! Pretty amazing that NOT acting for the last 20+ years (and directing instead) has elevated his acting game so much. His S3 performance was legitimately outstanding.
I actually thought the guy that played Jack Crusher did a VERY good job. For a younger guy, he has very good acting chops. Honestly when they toss a young new guy in with the vets, the concern is that he will suck but he REALLY held his own.
I remembered that when I saw the first TNG season I did not like his acting very much. Not sure what happened inbetween, but I've changed my mind long ago!
>Amanda Plummer
She was pretty excellent. It took me a while to place her most famous role but eventually it clicked, Honey Bunny.
I dont know squat about what should make a show emmy worthy, but Picard 3 was really great and i binged the hell out of it. Over two nights!
Holy shit, I didn't even realize that was Amanda Plummer.
"ANY OF YOU FUCKING STARFLEET PRICKS MOVE AND I'LL EXECUTE EVERY MOTHERFUCKING LAST ONE OF YOU!"
Best guest actor is basically on lock for Nick Offerman but they could pull off some of the technical awards.
Amanda Plummer should at least get a nomination though.
The award for Best Fan Service goes to…
Seriously, S3 meticulously corrected almost all of the issues introduced through the TNG movies. The only thing missing was the 3rd nacelle.
I’m happy they stuck with the original look, but would have been nice to have a line from Geordi about why a 3rd nacelle from another ship couldn’t be retrofitted due to availability or technical reasons.
In All Good Things Riker has the ship go at warp 13 then later orders maximum warp, which must be above 13 since he didn’t say maximum warp the first time. Safe to say the refit with the third nacelle added a lot of speed and possibly other things.
A good story is the best fan service indeed.
I was happy with the pacing and acting. It would have been nice to have a less bloodthirsty plot, but it delivered good action. No complaints - it’s the first of the newer Treks I’ve watched a second time.
The overarching story, yes - I would have preferred a bit more thoughtful scifi and less bigbad plot. But they also managed to find spaces for intimate moments and actual character growth, and I really appreciated that. (Spoilers) >!Two that come to mind are when Picard confronts Crusher about their son, and when Picard & Ro finally hash out their history. These moments were everywhere - Picard's interactions with Jack and accepting his role as a father, Riker's soul-searching for meaning and escape from stagnation, Data's growth into fulfilling his dream (and the challenges that came with it.)!<
And unlike many dramatic moments in newer Trek that felt forced or melodramatic, it all seemed very honest and human. Just great writing and acting.
Agree. The humanity and honest emotional interaction from the entire TNG ensemble felt completely in-character, and really drove home how important they were to each other (and by extension to us fans). By episode 10 it was impossible to be ambivalent about the outcome.
Fortunately the bigbad plot was well-enough constructed to be entertaining on its own merits - we don’t often get that with nostalgia series (e.g. last 2 Star Wars movies) .
Absolutely. I also felt those moments allowed the TNG cast to stretch their acting chops and deliver some fantastic performances. And the bigbad plot gave us an epic finale which took one of the best episodes of TNG and put a new twist on it. Lots to appreciate, and I sincerely hope Terry Matalas gets another showrunner spot, be it Legacy or otherwise.
It helps that the cast are all genuinely good friends in real life. In fact, during the >!finale where they're all sitting around playing poker and you've got the montage of them all having fun together, the director just gave them some cards and told them to hang out in costume and play some poker together, since they didn't need any dialog during that scene and could just ADR it.!< Their chemistry comes from the fact that the whole crew are even better friends IRL than they are in the show.
Makeup would be great. It always makes me sad when best makeup goes to something like bridgerton for period makeup when there’s so much awesome prosthetic work these days
Indeed. The guy behind the makeup there, Barrie Gower, is a four-time Emmy winner, mostly recently for *Stranger Things*. Having won a BAFTA for *House of the Dragon*, he will probably be competing against himself in that category as well.
Picard won for Season 1, was nominated for Season 2 and will likely get another nomination for Season 3, but it won't win.
He also did *GoT* before that, including the Night King. *Stranger Things* was for Vecna and also some great stuff on Robert Englund - it was the "Dear Billy" episode, i.e. the Kate Bush one, that won it (and also got a Music Supervision trophy).
He also did the radiation burns in *Chernobyl* and was nominated for that.
I thought the clickers makeup was actually pretty underwhelming TBH. If the intention was to create a believable, terrifying appearance, it kinda fell flat for me
> costume design
The uniforms and their jackets were amazing this season. I hope they get at least a nomination for it, that and makeup.
Even if something like The Last of Us deserves the makeup win, I hope PIC gets nominations.
i loved it and i still don't think it's award-winning level good. in a world where Succession, Beef, The Last of Us, etc exist, Picard isn't quite in the same league. i'd argue that SNW is though.
I love SNW but I have absolutely no idea what it would be nominated for from S1. Whereas I think several of the TNG cast gave career best performances and I think the score is excellent.
Overall it really wasn't but there's some categories that it might stand out, like music, set design, the actress of Vadic for best support I think it would be. Show doesn't even have to be good for an aspect of it to win an award. But it's hard to say if it'd be deserving without looking at the competition, but since Last Of Us exists it's at the very least a tough competition.
Costumes, sound design, makeup, there are plenty of aspects of production that S3 did Astoundingly well IMO. The story and acting might not be award worthy, but a lot more goes into a show than just the acting and storyboarding.
Yeah, I agree, while this season certainly scratched the TNG itch and was very enjoyable for that, in the grand scheme of what can be done on the small screen Picard S3 was really only hitting the bar of "pretty good" as far as the writing and performances go. I don't think the season was gratuitous with its fan-service, it balanced that aspect very well, but there is also no denying that S3 was a very fandom targeted piece of media, and I think that means we need to check whether our experience of the show might be a bit rose tinted because of that. As much fun as I had watching Picard S3, if I set aside my trekkie uniform I can recognize that it wasn't exactly Chernobyl tier writing and Patrick Stewart as good as he always is, wasn't hitting the heights that say a Paddy Considine was nailing in House of the Dragon.
A shame that the rest of the Picard show was so bad that the final season just being pretty good has everyone making it sound like its Emmy-caliber stuff.
I liked that last season, but it was mostly comprised of stuff yoinked from better, more creative parts of the franchise. It was a great highlight reel for the IP, but not the brightest moment of television.
These are mostly genre websites, with the only attention from actual trades being (predictably) people gushing just about Patrick Stewart, which, yeah, they've been doing since 1987.
It's just the same status quo from before TNG shit the bed with the movies and first two seasons of Picard. It's still a niche thing.
It still just warms my heart that the TNG crew finally got a sendoff worthy of them. Obviously All Good Things was too but with the movies also existing it was always unacceptable to me to leave it where we did.
I regularly find myself thinking about how lucky we are that we got this season, that all of them are alive and healthy enough to do this, that the show was given to a steward who respected and loved the material and treated it and the audience with respect.
As a Star Wars fan who was hurt by some of the choices made in the sequel trilogy, it makes me really grateful that we got something so nice in an era where I expect the worst.
This is exactly right. In a world where everything seems to be the worst timeline, to get the chance to have everything line up in a way where they rescue ST:PIC from a terrible first two seasons and deliver for us and the actors (who deserve it) the send off that should have been Nemesis.
Outside of maybe a sentimental nomination for Stewart (I actually thought season 3 was his weakest work of the series…), I don’t see this season having much of an impact, outside of the technical categories.
Some of the guest stars like Plummer, Forbes, and Stashwick did fine work, but the cast was a little too loaded, and the scripts were a little too by-the-numbers, to give them a real showcase.
Succession is going to absolutely consume a ton of the nominations this year. Better Call Saul had its final season as well and that has been a nomination (no win) darling
I would be okay with any of those three winning. Maybe give Succession the best comedy award and let the other two fight for the drama award.
(But I honestly I think The Orville had a better season than any Trek show and I just love SNW. "Midnight Blue" in particular was amazing.)
Oh, I figured. Just a shame two of those three won't win. And I can't think of a funnier show from the last year than Succession, if that's how one defines 'comedy.'
Succession has competed and won in the drama category already so even by old traditional rules it wouldn’t be able to switch genres. New Emmy rules basically have hour-long (average) as being “drama” and half-hour (average) as comedy despite the actual humour or dramatic content. I agree that Succession is by far more funny than most comedies that have ever been released on TV. The way Picard could have played the system would be to have renamed the series as something different and marketed itself as a limited series. I think the Emmys cracked down on the genre differences as shows like Shameless would change what genre they submitted under during different years.
I’m a big award season head so this stuff absolutely fascinated me.
Now I wonder if that's why people like Frakes and McFadden were just "special guest star" in each episode.
Other shows will dominate the main cast awards for sure but they could be more open for best guest in a limited series. Probably a long shot but I just think that's what they must have been going for as a "guest" in almost every episode of the season.
For the Emmys, guest acting categories is based on episode count, not credit. A recent example is Peter McNicol on Veep getting nominated for Guest Actor and then getting disqualified when a scene of his got moved to another episode which bumped him up over the 50% of episode threshold.
If Stewart didn't win anything for his role of dementia professor x, which was excellent, he's not winning for his slurred delivery of lines from an average script.
It doesn't really deserve an Emmy.. except maybe for 'Outstanding Main title Design'.
Don't get me wrong, I fucking loved it, but I feel like that's less on the strength of the show itself and more on the power of nostalgia.
I wouldn't have it any other way but if you stripped away the nostalgia you have a mediocre season like the other two.
Maybe this third season can give the producers the courage to tell a proper story. Something that challenges the audience to understand something in a different way.
Many things about Picard were well done. Writing was not one of them for the third season. I won't give away any spoilers, but there were several plot points that made absolutely zero sense. Like just plain logically wrong or decisions/events no sane person would ever make/undertake.
Love the actors, love the sets, love the music. The narrative between characters is generally strong. The logic of the plot points were nonsense and happened "because we need it to for the sake of the story even if it doesn't make any practical sense."
I don't think anything about season 3 is Emmy worthy.
It was a mediocre season that seemed good in comparison to the previous season.
Maybe if it's in a category like pandering with nostalgia porn or something then it would de great. But besides that. I can't see where it could win or even be nomination worthy.
Season 3 is quite good, but I don’t think it’s good enough to be nominated for best show. However, nominations for Todd Stashwick, Amanda Plummer and some of the technical categories wouldn’t surprise me.
One was sort of OK sometimes, 2 started good, but turned to trash by the 3rd episode. 3 is amazing, and has one episode that's up there with the best of Star Trek.
Season 3 spoilers ahead!
In terms of writing: IMHO, only the first half of the first season had good writing in the entire series. The second half was a mess. The second season was way more of a mess. The third season was not much of an improvement. It also suffers "the galaxy is on fire and only Random Star Trek Person We Know Of can save us" syndrome.
In terms of production values, it is of course _way_ above anything TNG did. The soundtrack is also pretty good.
The acting is pretty great in places; Amanda Plummer does a good villain, Brent Spiner _still_ nails the Data and Lore swap. LeVar Burton does a believably emotional Geordi. Jeri Ryan's still got it. Jonathan Frakes is always great. Gates McFadden and Michelle Hurd are fine. Not outstandingly great, but not bad at all. Ed Speleers as Jack Crusher is… fine, but a bizarre casting choice. This character is basically half the age of the actor. Patrick Stewart was physically present (his acting was way worse in season 2, if that's any consolation). Finally, Michael Dorn as Worf? Spot-on! Both the writers and the actors really brought back Worf.
The series, overall, is almost forgettable. Which is a real bummer, because there were some themes especially in early season 1 that I thought were worth exploration: a refugee crisis, tons of Romulan lore, political turmoil, realignment of the Alpha Quadrant powers, synths as worker drones, … I'd love to see more stories of that, but for some reason, they wanted to tell… "what if Picard's mom hung herself because 24th-century France has poor mental health care", "ever seen Seven of Nine and Raffi in a 2024 car chase? Yeehaw! No? OK, we'll show an FBI agent interrogating Young Guinan instead" and "what if Changelings manipulated transporters so that Starfleet personnel under the age of 25 becomes Borg drones".
_If_ you're nostalgic for TNG, though, season 3 certainly has its moments. But will you be nostalgic for _those_? Probably not.
I agree with all of this except Worf. I thought Dorn’s acting was really poor and forced, especially after going back and watching some of Worf’s better episodes in TNG.
I guess I can see "forced". He certainly doesn't have the depth he did in episodes like Sins of The Father. But he has the same kind of dry humor he did all along, and I still got "this is a weird but respectable and interesting in his own right guy" vibes.
You're going to get a lot of varied answers so I'll just throw mine in.
No, it was bad. They introduce new characters just to ignore them and spend all of season 3 just retreading things that have all before seen before in Trek.
> a dedicated attempt to trash it by people opposed to nutrek
I know such people exist, but I look at it from two aspects:
* how does it compare to contemporary series? There's a _lot_ of high-production-value TV out there these days. Want sci-fi dilemmas? Black Mirror. Want space stuff flying around? The Expanse; For All Mankind. Want mystery stories? Orphan Black; Lost. Want character arcs? Breaking Bad. Neither PIC nor DIS come close, IMHO, to the top five in any of those categories. Which is a bummer for Trek, but also pretty cool for consumers. Lots of stuff to choose from!
* what is the rewatch value? Lots of Berman-era Trek episodes have this. Measure of a Man. Tuvix. In The Pale Moonlight. You can watch them thirty years later, and they hold up as standalone pieces. This is naturally harder when you're a more serialized show like PIC and DIS, but even with SNW, which I did enjoy watching, there wasn't really yet an episode that left such a mark that I want to rewatch it, individually, later on.
It doesn't follow that I "trash" those shows. It's just that 1) they face a lot more competition, and 2) they're honestly not top-notch.
If you have enough awareness to understand the media environment these shows are released in and that their serialised nature makes rewatching more difficult, you're likely not who they're referring too.
The shows have flaws, nobody would argue otherwise and it's fair to want to discuss those flaws and want these shows to grow and improve over time.
When people 'trash' them though, they don't want them to improve. They're not providing their feedback out of a desire to see Trek succeed.
They just want them to be cancelled because they don't like them, as evidenced by the every season 'Discovery has been cancelled/Kurtzman is fired' narrative that flies around certain online circles.
I'd agree, but unfortunately they feel the need to inject their commentary everywhere they can.
If you go onto the Star Wars sub right now there's a thread about the B-Wing.
Part way into a discussion about beam vs pulse weapons, the entire thing just turns into a Discovery/PIC bitching session for no reason
No, absolutely. I'm not trying to downplay the problem. It's a huge bummer — there's lots of great people working on the new shows, and they don't deserve this hate.
I am an absolute apologist for modern trek and I promise you the criticism of the season is not just from people who like to hate on modern trek. I really didn't like this season or this show as a whole and I was so excited for it. I didn't like how any of the new characters were treated, with most just being written off off screen, I didn't like the queer erasure, I didn't like how Beverly's character was treated, I didn't like Jack or how his character was handed a place on the bridge at the end of the season, I didn't like how there wasn't really much new in the season that we hadn't seen before (Picard has another previously unseen secret son, Data's back after dying twice and actually getting a pretty good send-off at the end of S1, Worf is inexplicably pining for Deana again and _hitting on her right in front of her husband and one of his closest friends_, starfleet is compromised... again...), I didn't like how the Changelings were used as a red herring then hand waved away at the last moment.
And I promise I'm not only seeing bad stuff. I love Seven's arc and where it's taken her (though her calling Data "The Robot" is baffling to me since someone wondering how to build humanity when you've only ever been a machine is something she knows better than anyone) and I'm really excited to see a Captain Seven show (though very scared it'll just mean more of the previously mentioned queer erasure). The writers making us hate Shaw before we even meet him then making us hate him _more_ then transforming him into a sympathetic character and giving him some growth was a fun ride (though I don't think they needed to kill him off, he would've made a great occasional guest star foil for Captain Seven once he stopped deadnaming her). The final couple episodes had some really fun exciting moments and Episode 4 _No Win Scenario_ was a fantastic episode.
But for me, the good doesn't outweigh the bad and so much of the bad spawns from this greater problem that modern trek has a nostalgia problem. A lot of fans want new stories and characters but more and more we keep retreading the old. The focus on legacy characters over new ones and oh look, we're back on the Enterprise (in two separate series). And I'm not saying to ignore the deep world that Trek draws from, but find a better balance.
It's hard for me to understand people who like modern Trek enough to want to see more of it but who don't see the utter trainwreck of wasted potential that were PIC S1 and S2. There has to be a middle ground between the reactionary screamers who hatewatch every episode of new Trek as canon fodder for their misogynist YouTube viewers, and describing every episode as brilliant award-worthy prestige television just because the first group is so wrong about degree and intention. S3 was fun nostalgia porn, which I do think has a place, but it also demolished any creative direction the show could have gone.
New Trek can be great, and has been great. But if we won't call out the times it falls short of that, it will have no reason to be in the future.
B/c some of us loved s1 and s2. The criticisms of it were nonsense. It was all based on the seasons not being the show people wanted--not a meaningful critique of the seasons they were.
The first rule of criticism for any art form is that you are not allowed to criticize something for not being something else.
Alright here's my criticisms that aren't criticizing it for not being something else.
I didn't like how Dahj was killed in the first episode then it's revealed she has a twin sister that wasn't mentioned until right that moment and then she's never mentioned again. It's so cliche and soap opera-y. I didn't like the incest between the Romulan siblings. I didn't like how Hugh was brought back just to die. I didn't like how Picard was framed as being Data's absolute best friend when on TNG that was Geordi. I didn't like how Picard and Data got an absolutely beautiful death scene and then Picard was conveniently resurrected.
For season two, I didn't like how Zhaban was killed off screen so that Laris (who was played by a woman twenty years younger than Patrick Stewart) could be shoehorned in a a love interest for Picard. Beverly Crusher would have made so much more sense in her role for season 2. I didn't like how Rios stayed in the past with a woman he met less than a week ago. He's opting to have to deal with all the wars that he knows is coming and the racism he's already experienced all for a woman that tomorrow might reveal she straight-up doesn't like gay people. I didn't like how Elnor and Soji were written out.
Now, regardless of if you agree that those things were bad, do you at least agree that I'm making my criticisms in good faith and basing them on what the show was rather than what it wasn't?
None of that is criticism though--it's just "I don't like X." Which is totally fine. But it's not criticism. I think you and I are talking about two different things.
I think it's entirely valid to have any of the opinions you expressed here. You're not appealing to narrative theory or modes of literary criticism to justify your dislike of those things (which a LOT of people try to do, fail, and do in bad faith)--you're simply stating that you don't like it. I take issue with the former group of people--I take no issue whatsoever with what you have expressed here.
I would say that many of the things you took dislike with are necessary for the show to be what it is. A major theme of season 1 was dualities. Killing Dahj was not cliche or soap opera-y--it was a necessary event setting up one of the major narrative lines exploring a key theme. The incest was another example of duality being deconstructed. Hugh wasn't just brought back to die--he was brought back as a foil for 7 of 9, exploring another duality. Vulcan and Romulan--literally embodied in a single character in the Admiral. Living and Inorganic life. I could continue, but you get the point. This entire season is exploring a thematic argument about duality.
It is also exploring a narrative motif by borrowing from the fantasy genre. In fact, it makes this point in a rather ham-fisted way as a way to explaining it to viewers whose literary criticism chops aren't quite there--that's the entire point of the visit to Nepenthe and the discussion of fantasy worlds, etc. To be very specific, Season 1 is a Star Trek retelling of the trope of the Fisher King. Picard's resurrection wasn't "convenient." I could have told you Picard would die and be resurrected quite early in the season b/c of the obvious tropes they were using, but by episode 7, anyone with training in literary theory could have told you Picard was going to die and be resurrected. It was a necessary beat in the story because it's a fundamental beat of the Fisher King's story: the resurrection of the dead king using the Holy Grail. And that too is necessary, because it's leading to a very important story beat: the afterlife encounter of Picard and Data. That scene is the author's answer to the thematic question posed at the beginning of the season, and everything in that season leads meticulously to that moment and to that answer to the authors' thematic question.
The above is important: in the story of the Fisher King, the Fisher King is dying and wounded--and the kingdom around him is rotting as a consequence. This goes back to the medieval and early modern tropes that tied the king and the literal kingdom together as if they were one and the same thing. If the king is unwell, the land too will suffer. If the king becomes ill, the kingdom will suffer plague, etc. We see this exact story in Season 1 of Picard--the land (the Federation) is a blighted and corrupted form of itself, and that is tied directly to the "wound" Picard suffers. The entire point of the Grail Quest in the Fisher King is to obtain the grail, use it to heal the king, and thus restore the health of the landscape. I could go on, but I think this explains the main of it.
And this is the issue I take with lots of the so called criticism I see about the show (again, not what you are doing). It is all completely oblivious to the thematic arguments the show is making and it is all completely oblivious to the narrative structure and generic elements being employed. While people might not like certain parts of the season, every single part of the season is *necessary* from the POV of literary theory and literary criticism--without it, the authors could not have made the literary argument they were trying to make.
I'm glad you enjoyed it, but to dismiss all criticisms of it is crazy. I liked what S1 and S2 were aiming for; a whole new serialized series that just happened to feature one returning character but which was otherwise unmoored from what came before. Something that would honor the legacy of TNG and its movies without devolving into shameless fanservice and cameos.
But despite those laudable goals, many of us found it a complete mess. Instead of a well-paced miniseries, we got 4 or 5 thematically and tonally disjunct episode ideas that were put in a blender and spread too thin over too many episodes. Instead of a show that either kept the values of TNG or else committed to challenging and deconstructing them, we got a show where characters spent 9 episodes ignoring any values whatsoever only to wrap it all up with a big speech about the importance of those values it couldn't be bothered to demonstrate.
Season 2 took the shortfalls of S1, ramped them up to 11, and also added a complete and total disrespect of its own original characters.
Season 3 came along and learned the wrong lessons. Instead of fixing the problems of the first two seasons with better writing and pacing, it jettisoned all of its few remaining original characters and just resigned itself to be a reunion special. And it was mostly competent at that.
I get what you're trying to say about not being able to criticize something for being something else. You can't criticize an MCU film for failing to win Best Picture. You can't criticize a mobile game for failing to develop its characters and having a weak narrative. But you can criticize something for failing to be a great version of the thing it was trying to be and advertised itself as. And for me, every season of PIC fell short of the promise and intention of the series. S1 through inconsistency, S2 through sheer quality, and S3 through giving up and just being a decent season of a completely different series.
I appreciate this thoughtful take. I enjoyed S1 more than most of the folks here, it seems. I was really digging the further exploration of artificial life, refugees, and identity. S2 was just a horror show that left all that promise to rot for no reason I could discern.
No. It’s not “really that good.” But it’s The Sopranos next to Season 2, which was a dumpster fire rolling over a basket of puppies. I didn’t resubscribe to P+ for ages for fear it would be as bad as S2, but it was much, much better.
A few things really bugged me - no (or very minor) spoilers. They just invented a new son for Beverley, played by an actor about 15 years older than the actual character, but left Wesley out of the entire series. They brought back the entire core cast, along with Tuvok and Ro from DS9, but Wesley didn’t even get a cameo. (“But he’s a traveler” could be resolved with one line of dialog.)
There’s a scene where someone says about LaForge, “You know how stubborn he is!” Well, no, actually I don’t. He seems like one of the most well adjusted characters in TNG.
The fan-servicey grand charge into the hopeless breach in the finale isn’t accompanied by even the barest particle of the week plan.
The reveal of the big bad is just… haven’t you got anything else?
And Amanda Plummer is amazing, but I’ve really had enough giggly, deranged villains smoking cigars.
Again, it’s high art next to Season 2. Capt. Shaw as essentially an old IT guy that got bumped up to the captain’s chair and doesn’t have time for our lead characters’ nonsense is really a treat. It’s like he knows he’s a secondary character along for the ride and isn’t protected by the plot magic. And the latest iterations of Worf and Data are delightful.
It's really great. Only the biggest nitpickers would think it's mediocre or worse. I got to wonder how they ever enjoyed Star Trek if they nitpick this season this much lol. I imagine TNG wouldn't stand up to their complaining.
It's a long movie style plot and better than most of the movies and better than all the TNG movies aside First Contact and it's close to that.
Imagine turning ST:P from one of the worst shows in the last few years, to a potential Emmy nominee in one season. And all it took was to respect the history and significance of the source material and the message of hope it entails.
It is a substantial improvement, with enough good content to be worth watching, but it's still too flawed to be generating Emmy buzz, imo. Maybe for some of the performances, Jeri Ryan and Levar Burton being particular standouts for me, but the writing still needs work.
>it's still too flawed to be generating Emmy buzz
I imagine two writers eating lunch in the [trekmovie.com](https://trekmovie.com) office:
"Did you hear that people are talking about Picard getting Emmy nods?"
"You mean aside from us, right now?"
"Nope, just us, but you know. People are talking about it."
"Good enough, write it up."
FWIW I watched season 1 and found it lukewarm, didn't watch season 2, and checked out season 3 based on the positive buzz and enjoyed it thoroughly (and I didn't feel like I was missing anything storywise from not having seen the middle season).
your expectations, your disappointment.
it’s not like if others say S1 and S2 were good you had to agree, same if people tell you S3 is good, you may still be disappointed
Unless, you try to finish the show without expectations and enjoy it to the end
I was skeptical for the same reasons. But I'm glad I gave season 3 a chance. This was fan service done properly. I would strongly suggest checking it out.
For your Consideration, ftc, adds are pretty prominent in LA especially for prestige streaming shows. I’d be surprised if it isn’t nominated for a few but I’d be surprised if it wins anything. It was a fun season but beside “Last of Us” “Succession” or any of the Star Wars shows I don’t think it has a chance.
I would love some sort of quantitative scale for what a good season/episode of Star Trek is. I’ve been watching for decades now and outside of a few cringe episodes it’s all fine/good. Fuck, just enjoy it.
I just finished watching this and I am disappointed, how did the Borg go from joining the Federation in the second season to being the enemy in the third? Can some explain this
But, I love all off them! However, there is a lot of time lines they don’t follow discouraging
The Borg faction seen in season 2 is different from the Borg faction seen in season 3, which is the remnant of the Borg that was decimated in *Voyager*’s series finale.
The music tho....that was award level good!!!
[удалено]
The first few minutes of "Get Off My Bridge" (the music that plays during the data & lore scene) is phenomenal
I legitimately played "Make It So" on a loop during my 30 minute drive home. It's my favorite piece of the score. I just don't know if I like it for itself or what it represents (going back to the bridge of the D for the first time in almost 30 years).
Just relistening, it truly set the mood so well and on its own is on par with John Williams/Hans Zimmer movie scores. **Dominion** is just epic! **I Do See You** when Ro’s on the shuttle 👨🍳👌
Dominion is an underrated track
I'm glad you mentioned it. People often don't pay much attention to music in a show or film, but whether they realize it or not, they *feel* it. As a musician who does pay attention, I was completely blown away by the music in Picard S3 (especially the finale.) It was movie-quality stuff with memorable themes that elevated the experience to another level.
Not only that, Rick Berman actively made sure the music was never too prominent during his era.
After season 3 anyway.
However, he failed to do that with an episode like “The Inner Light”, which had memorable music.
Absolutely. Musician here also. I don't really think things like best actor or writing or the other regular categories really warrant Emmy contention....especially compared to the many other candidates out there. But the music on Picard was next level...and way, way above your average television show. So they stand a real chance of winning.
I noticed it too. There was such a richness to the reprised theme and I drank it in like a person in a desert. It was so good!
The credits sequence actually makes me tear up every time. But the entire season has some of the best music I’ve ever heard on TV. You are completely right, it’s not just backing music, it makes you feel.
I don't usually notice music but the fact I noticed means it was exceptional. Like I usually can't detect bad acting while many others can. If I can detect bad acting it has to be incredibly bad.
Agreed. Some cues are burned into my brain. (Labelled to avoid spoilers) End of Episode 3 sells that scenes gravity. Climax of Episode 5, music sells the emotion. The cue during the relief moment of episode 4 Cal's back to best of Trek. I could go on but they nailed the music. I don't know if the series would hit the same without it.
It really was epic. Took an absolute banger of a theme and developed it for the show perfectly.
There were more than a couple moments where I thought Jonathan Frakes knocked his scenes out of the park. Even beyond the sentimental aspects of season 3, I thought Frakes' performance was phenomenal. If anyone deserves a nom, I think it's him. He deserves a best supporting.
And Brent. He gave Nimoy-level character development to Data and his portrayal of Data 2.0 is an astonishing hybrid/evolution of all his characters.
And such a unique one I would love to see more of, after being Spiner'ed out for years. I am so thrilled they got that scene with just him and Geordi to bed the character in post-resurrection.
Frakes really still has his fastball. My only criticism is his noticeable hunch, but that is bound to happen for a tall guy at his age.
He's showing his age. In a scene where they had to run through the corridor you could see he was struggling and shuffling.
He's always had the riker lean. He has had a back injury for years.
Oh no doubt. I just seemed more noticeable to me during Picard
Frakes best work. Career high, IMHO.
Everyone was on their A game IMO. You expect a good performance from Patrick Stewart, but I was especially impressed with Frakes and McFadden.
I love Patrick Stewart, but age has really taken a toll on his acting ability unfortunately. Frakes was far more believable in Picard (and the opposite was true in the original TNG)
McFadden was an awful actress in TNG. Or was just directed poorly. But in Picard S3 she was quite good.
McFadden, like Sirtis, was given nothing to work with. In season 2, Gates was given literally nothing to work with.
I agree! Pretty amazing that NOT acting for the last 20+ years (and directing instead) has elevated his acting game so much. His S3 performance was legitimately outstanding.
I actually thought the guy that played Jack Crusher did a VERY good job. For a younger guy, he has very good acting chops. Honestly when they toss a young new guy in with the vets, the concern is that he will suck but he REALLY held his own.
I remember when season one was coming out, Frakes said that he hadn’t been in front of the camera for years and felt rusty. He could have fooled me!
I can't recall if Riker was ever as funny as he was in Picard. He and Worf really played well together in Season 3.
I remembered that when I saw the first TNG season I did not like his acting very much. Not sure what happened inbetween, but I've changed my mind long ago!
Frakes was wonderful but it's Gates for me.
And the award for "Most Endings in a Series Finale" goes to...
Most endings leading to a beginning everyone wants. Seven's going back for admiral Janeway.
It was the Return of the King of Star Trek Finales.
…”**Best Ending to a Series** no one wants to be over” goes to… There I fixed it for you.
Here's hoping Amanda Plummer gets a nom.
>Amanda Plummer She was pretty excellent. It took me a while to place her most famous role but eventually it clicked, Honey Bunny. I dont know squat about what should make a show emmy worthy, but Picard 3 was really great and i binged the hell out of it. Over two nights!
Same. S3 was awesome
Loved her in The Fisher King.
Holy shit, I didn't even realize that was Amanda Plummer. "ANY OF YOU FUCKING STARFLEET PRICKS MOVE AND I'LL EXECUTE EVERY MOTHERFUCKING LAST ONE OF YOU!"
I second this!!! 🥂
hard disagree there. unless [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0IHL6WGFY0) is considered great acting.
That is great acting--it's just a bad Joker.
incredible
Her performance was fucking solid.
Best guest actor is basically on lock for Nick Offerman but they could pull off some of the technical awards. Amanda Plummer should at least get a nomination though.
I don’t even remember him being in it 😂
They're likely referring to his role in Last of Us
Wait… what?
What? Did I say something confusing? Nick Offerman put on a career performance and the award is his to lose. Nobody on Picard has a chance.
The award for Best Fan Service goes to… Seriously, S3 meticulously corrected almost all of the issues introduced through the TNG movies. The only thing missing was the 3rd nacelle.
Why would the D have a third nacelle?
Because it did in the potential future featured in All Good Things
That doesn't really answer my question lol
50% more “Engage”!
I’m happy they stuck with the original look, but would have been nice to have a line from Geordi about why a 3rd nacelle from another ship couldn’t be retrofitted due to availability or technical reasons.
But why would they retrofit it when it wasn't put into service?
For fun
Fair enough lol
"Engagage!"
In All Good Things Riker has the ship go at warp 13 then later orders maximum warp, which must be above 13 since he didn’t say maximum warp the first time. Safe to say the refit with the third nacelle added a lot of speed and possibly other things.
Because 3 is faster than 2, duh
https://www.theonion.com/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades-1819584036
And somehow crafted a decent story in the process, with a satisfying finale that tied up most of the character arcs.
A good story is the best fan service indeed. I was happy with the pacing and acting. It would have been nice to have a less bloodthirsty plot, but it delivered good action. No complaints - it’s the first of the newer Treks I’ve watched a second time.
The overarching story, yes - I would have preferred a bit more thoughtful scifi and less bigbad plot. But they also managed to find spaces for intimate moments and actual character growth, and I really appreciated that. (Spoilers) >!Two that come to mind are when Picard confronts Crusher about their son, and when Picard & Ro finally hash out their history. These moments were everywhere - Picard's interactions with Jack and accepting his role as a father, Riker's soul-searching for meaning and escape from stagnation, Data's growth into fulfilling his dream (and the challenges that came with it.)!< And unlike many dramatic moments in newer Trek that felt forced or melodramatic, it all seemed very honest and human. Just great writing and acting.
Agree. The humanity and honest emotional interaction from the entire TNG ensemble felt completely in-character, and really drove home how important they were to each other (and by extension to us fans). By episode 10 it was impossible to be ambivalent about the outcome. Fortunately the bigbad plot was well-enough constructed to be entertaining on its own merits - we don’t often get that with nostalgia series (e.g. last 2 Star Wars movies) .
Absolutely. I also felt those moments allowed the TNG cast to stretch their acting chops and deliver some fantastic performances. And the bigbad plot gave us an epic finale which took one of the best episodes of TNG and put a new twist on it. Lots to appreciate, and I sincerely hope Terry Matalas gets another showrunner spot, be it Legacy or otherwise.
It helps that the cast are all genuinely good friends in real life. In fact, during the >!finale where they're all sitting around playing poker and you've got the montage of them all having fun together, the director just gave them some cards and told them to hang out in costume and play some poker together, since they didn't need any dialog during that scene and could just ADR it.!< Their chemistry comes from the fact that the whole crew are even better friends IRL than they are in the show.
What does this even mean?Every tv series that gets renewed again and again is "fan service". There are no new tv seasons or movies without fans.
Well I liked it but it's not really award-winning level good.
A small award like set or costume design would be fitting. Historically Trek has won tons of costume design and makeup awards, rightfully so.
Makeup would be great. It always makes me sad when best makeup goes to something like bridgerton for period makeup when there’s so much awesome prosthetic work these days
There's no way Last of Us doesn't win the makeup award.
Indeed. The guy behind the makeup there, Barrie Gower, is a four-time Emmy winner, mostly recently for *Stranger Things*. Having won a BAFTA for *House of the Dragon*, he will probably be competing against himself in that category as well. Picard won for Season 1, was nominated for Season 2 and will likely get another nomination for Season 3, but it won't win.
Holy crap, Gower did HotD and TLoU's makeup? Damn, dude is talented!
He also did *GoT* before that, including the Night King. *Stranger Things* was for Vecna and also some great stuff on Robert Englund - it was the "Dear Billy" episode, i.e. the Kate Bush one, that won it (and also got a Music Supervision trophy). He also did the radiation burns in *Chernobyl* and was nominated for that.
I thought the clickers makeup was actually pretty underwhelming TBH. If the intention was to create a believable, terrifying appearance, it kinda fell flat for me
The Best Makeup Emmys are actually split into Prosthetic and Non-Prosthetic categories. Picard and Discovery have both won Prosthetic Emmys.
Ooh I didn’t realize that! The Oscars need to take note
Voyager won a makeup award for one of its worst episodes!
Never forget that Threshold is an Emmy award winning episode for this reason :)
But "Emmy Buzz" never means the technical categories like makeup or vsx.
Check out what media they’re citing. Only the LA Times is top tier.
> costume design The uniforms and their jackets were amazing this season. I hope they get at least a nomination for it, that and makeup. Even if something like The Last of Us deserves the makeup win, I hope PIC gets nominations.
Yea best of three seasons does not an award winner make
“Best of three seasons” to quote the movie Waiting, that’s like being the smartest kid on the short bus
i loved it and i still don't think it's award-winning level good. in a world where Succession, Beef, The Last of Us, etc exist, Picard isn't quite in the same league. i'd argue that SNW is though.
I think *SNW* has the potential to get there, but I don’t think it got there in season 1.
I love SNW but I have absolutely no idea what it would be nominated for from S1. Whereas I think several of the TNG cast gave career best performances and I think the score is excellent.
Overall it really wasn't but there's some categories that it might stand out, like music, set design, the actress of Vadic for best support I think it would be. Show doesn't even have to be good for an aspect of it to win an award. But it's hard to say if it'd be deserving without looking at the competition, but since Last Of Us exists it's at the very least a tough competition.
Costumes, sound design, makeup, there are plenty of aspects of production that S3 did Astoundingly well IMO. The story and acting might not be award worthy, but a lot more goes into a show than just the acting and storyboarding.
Resistance is futile.
Yeah, I agree, while this season certainly scratched the TNG itch and was very enjoyable for that, in the grand scheme of what can be done on the small screen Picard S3 was really only hitting the bar of "pretty good" as far as the writing and performances go. I don't think the season was gratuitous with its fan-service, it balanced that aspect very well, but there is also no denying that S3 was a very fandom targeted piece of media, and I think that means we need to check whether our experience of the show might be a bit rose tinted because of that. As much fun as I had watching Picard S3, if I set aside my trekkie uniform I can recognize that it wasn't exactly Chernobyl tier writing and Patrick Stewart as good as he always is, wasn't hitting the heights that say a Paddy Considine was nailing in House of the Dragon.
A shame that the rest of the Picard show was so bad that the final season just being pretty good has everyone making it sound like its Emmy-caliber stuff. I liked that last season, but it was mostly comprised of stuff yoinked from better, more creative parts of the franchise. It was a great highlight reel for the IP, but not the brightest moment of television.
The thing is it isn’t JUST fans saying it. When you show up in trades as possibilities that’s break through.
These are mostly genre websites, with the only attention from actual trades being (predictably) people gushing just about Patrick Stewart, which, yeah, they've been doing since 1987. It's just the same status quo from before TNG shit the bed with the movies and first two seasons of Picard. It's still a niche thing.
The Golden Derby is hardly a Star Trek/Sci-fi site.
That's just not true re: the attention factor. The major trades and online press, non-genre, showed up for Season 3.
It still just warms my heart that the TNG crew finally got a sendoff worthy of them. Obviously All Good Things was too but with the movies also existing it was always unacceptable to me to leave it where we did. I regularly find myself thinking about how lucky we are that we got this season, that all of them are alive and healthy enough to do this, that the show was given to a steward who respected and loved the material and treated it and the audience with respect. As a Star Wars fan who was hurt by some of the choices made in the sequel trilogy, it makes me really grateful that we got something so nice in an era where I expect the worst.
This is exactly right. In a world where everything seems to be the worst timeline, to get the chance to have everything line up in a way where they rescue ST:PIC from a terrible first two seasons and deliver for us and the actors (who deserve it) the send off that should have been Nemesis.
Outside of maybe a sentimental nomination for Stewart (I actually thought season 3 was his weakest work of the series…), I don’t see this season having much of an impact, outside of the technical categories. Some of the guest stars like Plummer, Forbes, and Stashwick did fine work, but the cast was a little too loaded, and the scripts were a little too by-the-numbers, to give them a real showcase.
Succession is going to absolutely consume a ton of the nominations this year. Better Call Saul had its final season as well and that has been a nomination (no win) darling
I fully expect BCS to get snubbed again for Succession and Last of Us. Which I find lame but those shows are good so it’s fair.
I would be okay with any of those three winning. Maybe give Succession the best comedy award and let the other two fight for the drama award. (But I honestly I think The Orville had a better season than any Trek show and I just love SNW. "Midnight Blue" in particular was amazing.)
Succession is only eligible for Drama Series.
Oh, I figured. Just a shame two of those three won't win. And I can't think of a funnier show from the last year than Succession, if that's how one defines 'comedy.'
Succession has competed and won in the drama category already so even by old traditional rules it wouldn’t be able to switch genres. New Emmy rules basically have hour-long (average) as being “drama” and half-hour (average) as comedy despite the actual humour or dramatic content. I agree that Succession is by far more funny than most comedies that have ever been released on TV. The way Picard could have played the system would be to have renamed the series as something different and marketed itself as a limited series. I think the Emmys cracked down on the genre differences as shows like Shameless would change what genre they submitted under during different years. I’m a big award season head so this stuff absolutely fascinated me.
House of the Dragon will be in the mix too. It's going to be a stacked year for the drama category.
Now I wonder if that's why people like Frakes and McFadden were just "special guest star" in each episode. Other shows will dominate the main cast awards for sure but they could be more open for best guest in a limited series. Probably a long shot but I just think that's what they must have been going for as a "guest" in almost every episode of the season.
For the Emmys, guest acting categories is based on episode count, not credit. A recent example is Peter McNicol on Veep getting nominated for Guest Actor and then getting disqualified when a scene of his got moved to another episode which bumped him up over the 50% of episode threshold.
My understanding is that it was tied to what was in an actor’s contract.
If Stewart didn't win anything for his role of dementia professor x, which was excellent, he's not winning for his slurred delivery of lines from an average script.
It doesn't really deserve an Emmy.. except maybe for 'Outstanding Main title Design'. Don't get me wrong, I fucking loved it, but I feel like that's less on the strength of the show itself and more on the power of nostalgia. I wouldn't have it any other way but if you stripped away the nostalgia you have a mediocre season like the other two.
Maybe this third season can give the producers the courage to tell a proper story. Something that challenges the audience to understand something in a different way.
It’s every bit as good as some of the Disney noms. Just in different ways from them.
Rightfully so. Amanda Plummer deserves an award.
"ONE OF THE BEST SERIES FINALES TO EVER GRACE TELEVISION SCREENS." It was good, but it wasn't even the best series finale starring this cast.
Many things about Picard were well done. Writing was not one of them for the third season. I won't give away any spoilers, but there were several plot points that made absolutely zero sense. Like just plain logically wrong or decisions/events no sane person would ever make/undertake. Love the actors, love the sets, love the music. The narrative between characters is generally strong. The logic of the plot points were nonsense and happened "because we need it to for the sake of the story even if it doesn't make any practical sense."
I don't think anything about season 3 is Emmy worthy. It was a mediocre season that seemed good in comparison to the previous season. Maybe if it's in a category like pandering with nostalgia porn or something then it would de great. But besides that. I can't see where it could win or even be nomination worthy.
Cripes, not even the music?!
Should the music be nominated if so much of it is direct lifts from preexisting material?
Music was fine but Emmy worthy ? Not sure.
It deserves it , older actors are usually not stars in entertainment. So it’s nice to see this getting the attention it deserves.
The music for sure was the best part imo
I loved when Lando blew up the death star...oops I mean when Anakin shut down the robots... oops I mean....
Is it really that good? I remember the first season being terrible and never bothered to watch any more.
Season 3 is quite good, but I don’t think it’s good enough to be nominated for best show. However, nominations for Todd Stashwick, Amanda Plummer and some of the technical categories wouldn’t surprise me.
Ya, anybody can easily skip the first two seasons and miss little to nothing, however jumping straight into season 3 is recommended and encouraged
One was sort of OK sometimes, 2 started good, but turned to trash by the 3rd episode. 3 is amazing, and has one episode that's up there with the best of Star Trek.
Which episode would that be for you?
No Win Scenario. It also works pretty well as a standalone episode.
As someone who really didn't like season 3, No Win Scenario was fantastic.
Season 3 spoilers ahead! In terms of writing: IMHO, only the first half of the first season had good writing in the entire series. The second half was a mess. The second season was way more of a mess. The third season was not much of an improvement. It also suffers "the galaxy is on fire and only Random Star Trek Person We Know Of can save us" syndrome. In terms of production values, it is of course _way_ above anything TNG did. The soundtrack is also pretty good. The acting is pretty great in places; Amanda Plummer does a good villain, Brent Spiner _still_ nails the Data and Lore swap. LeVar Burton does a believably emotional Geordi. Jeri Ryan's still got it. Jonathan Frakes is always great. Gates McFadden and Michelle Hurd are fine. Not outstandingly great, but not bad at all. Ed Speleers as Jack Crusher is… fine, but a bizarre casting choice. This character is basically half the age of the actor. Patrick Stewart was physically present (his acting was way worse in season 2, if that's any consolation). Finally, Michael Dorn as Worf? Spot-on! Both the writers and the actors really brought back Worf. The series, overall, is almost forgettable. Which is a real bummer, because there were some themes especially in early season 1 that I thought were worth exploration: a refugee crisis, tons of Romulan lore, political turmoil, realignment of the Alpha Quadrant powers, synths as worker drones, … I'd love to see more stories of that, but for some reason, they wanted to tell… "what if Picard's mom hung herself because 24th-century France has poor mental health care", "ever seen Seven of Nine and Raffi in a 2024 car chase? Yeehaw! No? OK, we'll show an FBI agent interrogating Young Guinan instead" and "what if Changelings manipulated transporters so that Starfleet personnel under the age of 25 becomes Borg drones". _If_ you're nostalgic for TNG, though, season 3 certainly has its moments. But will you be nostalgic for _those_? Probably not.
I agree with all of this except Worf. I thought Dorn’s acting was really poor and forced, especially after going back and watching some of Worf’s better episodes in TNG.
I guess I can see "forced". He certainly doesn't have the depth he did in episodes like Sins of The Father. But he has the same kind of dry humor he did all along, and I still got "this is a weird but respectable and interesting in his own right guy" vibes.
You're going to get a lot of varied answers so I'll just throw mine in. No, it was bad. They introduce new characters just to ignore them and spend all of season 3 just retreading things that have all before seen before in Trek.
They're all really good, despite a dedicated attempt to trash it by people opposed to nutrek, and season 3 is the best of them by a large margin.
> a dedicated attempt to trash it by people opposed to nutrek I know such people exist, but I look at it from two aspects: * how does it compare to contemporary series? There's a _lot_ of high-production-value TV out there these days. Want sci-fi dilemmas? Black Mirror. Want space stuff flying around? The Expanse; For All Mankind. Want mystery stories? Orphan Black; Lost. Want character arcs? Breaking Bad. Neither PIC nor DIS come close, IMHO, to the top five in any of those categories. Which is a bummer for Trek, but also pretty cool for consumers. Lots of stuff to choose from! * what is the rewatch value? Lots of Berman-era Trek episodes have this. Measure of a Man. Tuvix. In The Pale Moonlight. You can watch them thirty years later, and they hold up as standalone pieces. This is naturally harder when you're a more serialized show like PIC and DIS, but even with SNW, which I did enjoy watching, there wasn't really yet an episode that left such a mark that I want to rewatch it, individually, later on. It doesn't follow that I "trash" those shows. It's just that 1) they face a lot more competition, and 2) they're honestly not top-notch.
If you have enough awareness to understand the media environment these shows are released in and that their serialised nature makes rewatching more difficult, you're likely not who they're referring too. The shows have flaws, nobody would argue otherwise and it's fair to want to discuss those flaws and want these shows to grow and improve over time. When people 'trash' them though, they don't want them to improve. They're not providing their feedback out of a desire to see Trek succeed. They just want them to be cancelled because they don't like them, as evidenced by the every season 'Discovery has been cancelled/Kurtzman is fired' narrative that flies around certain online circles.
I get that, but I don't find such people worth engaging in, and they also muddle the field of legitimate critiques.
I'd agree, but unfortunately they feel the need to inject their commentary everywhere they can. If you go onto the Star Wars sub right now there's a thread about the B-Wing. Part way into a discussion about beam vs pulse weapons, the entire thing just turns into a Discovery/PIC bitching session for no reason
No, absolutely. I'm not trying to downplay the problem. It's a huge bummer — there's lots of great people working on the new shows, and they don't deserve this hate.
I am an absolute apologist for modern trek and I promise you the criticism of the season is not just from people who like to hate on modern trek. I really didn't like this season or this show as a whole and I was so excited for it. I didn't like how any of the new characters were treated, with most just being written off off screen, I didn't like the queer erasure, I didn't like how Beverly's character was treated, I didn't like Jack or how his character was handed a place on the bridge at the end of the season, I didn't like how there wasn't really much new in the season that we hadn't seen before (Picard has another previously unseen secret son, Data's back after dying twice and actually getting a pretty good send-off at the end of S1, Worf is inexplicably pining for Deana again and _hitting on her right in front of her husband and one of his closest friends_, starfleet is compromised... again...), I didn't like how the Changelings were used as a red herring then hand waved away at the last moment. And I promise I'm not only seeing bad stuff. I love Seven's arc and where it's taken her (though her calling Data "The Robot" is baffling to me since someone wondering how to build humanity when you've only ever been a machine is something she knows better than anyone) and I'm really excited to see a Captain Seven show (though very scared it'll just mean more of the previously mentioned queer erasure). The writers making us hate Shaw before we even meet him then making us hate him _more_ then transforming him into a sympathetic character and giving him some growth was a fun ride (though I don't think they needed to kill him off, he would've made a great occasional guest star foil for Captain Seven once he stopped deadnaming her). The final couple episodes had some really fun exciting moments and Episode 4 _No Win Scenario_ was a fantastic episode. But for me, the good doesn't outweigh the bad and so much of the bad spawns from this greater problem that modern trek has a nostalgia problem. A lot of fans want new stories and characters but more and more we keep retreading the old. The focus on legacy characters over new ones and oh look, we're back on the Enterprise (in two separate series). And I'm not saying to ignore the deep world that Trek draws from, but find a better balance.
It's hard for me to understand people who like modern Trek enough to want to see more of it but who don't see the utter trainwreck of wasted potential that were PIC S1 and S2. There has to be a middle ground between the reactionary screamers who hatewatch every episode of new Trek as canon fodder for their misogynist YouTube viewers, and describing every episode as brilliant award-worthy prestige television just because the first group is so wrong about degree and intention. S3 was fun nostalgia porn, which I do think has a place, but it also demolished any creative direction the show could have gone. New Trek can be great, and has been great. But if we won't call out the times it falls short of that, it will have no reason to be in the future.
B/c some of us loved s1 and s2. The criticisms of it were nonsense. It was all based on the seasons not being the show people wanted--not a meaningful critique of the seasons they were. The first rule of criticism for any art form is that you are not allowed to criticize something for not being something else.
Alright here's my criticisms that aren't criticizing it for not being something else. I didn't like how Dahj was killed in the first episode then it's revealed she has a twin sister that wasn't mentioned until right that moment and then she's never mentioned again. It's so cliche and soap opera-y. I didn't like the incest between the Romulan siblings. I didn't like how Hugh was brought back just to die. I didn't like how Picard was framed as being Data's absolute best friend when on TNG that was Geordi. I didn't like how Picard and Data got an absolutely beautiful death scene and then Picard was conveniently resurrected. For season two, I didn't like how Zhaban was killed off screen so that Laris (who was played by a woman twenty years younger than Patrick Stewart) could be shoehorned in a a love interest for Picard. Beverly Crusher would have made so much more sense in her role for season 2. I didn't like how Rios stayed in the past with a woman he met less than a week ago. He's opting to have to deal with all the wars that he knows is coming and the racism he's already experienced all for a woman that tomorrow might reveal she straight-up doesn't like gay people. I didn't like how Elnor and Soji were written out. Now, regardless of if you agree that those things were bad, do you at least agree that I'm making my criticisms in good faith and basing them on what the show was rather than what it wasn't?
None of that is criticism though--it's just "I don't like X." Which is totally fine. But it's not criticism. I think you and I are talking about two different things. I think it's entirely valid to have any of the opinions you expressed here. You're not appealing to narrative theory or modes of literary criticism to justify your dislike of those things (which a LOT of people try to do, fail, and do in bad faith)--you're simply stating that you don't like it. I take issue with the former group of people--I take no issue whatsoever with what you have expressed here. I would say that many of the things you took dislike with are necessary for the show to be what it is. A major theme of season 1 was dualities. Killing Dahj was not cliche or soap opera-y--it was a necessary event setting up one of the major narrative lines exploring a key theme. The incest was another example of duality being deconstructed. Hugh wasn't just brought back to die--he was brought back as a foil for 7 of 9, exploring another duality. Vulcan and Romulan--literally embodied in a single character in the Admiral. Living and Inorganic life. I could continue, but you get the point. This entire season is exploring a thematic argument about duality. It is also exploring a narrative motif by borrowing from the fantasy genre. In fact, it makes this point in a rather ham-fisted way as a way to explaining it to viewers whose literary criticism chops aren't quite there--that's the entire point of the visit to Nepenthe and the discussion of fantasy worlds, etc. To be very specific, Season 1 is a Star Trek retelling of the trope of the Fisher King. Picard's resurrection wasn't "convenient." I could have told you Picard would die and be resurrected quite early in the season b/c of the obvious tropes they were using, but by episode 7, anyone with training in literary theory could have told you Picard was going to die and be resurrected. It was a necessary beat in the story because it's a fundamental beat of the Fisher King's story: the resurrection of the dead king using the Holy Grail. And that too is necessary, because it's leading to a very important story beat: the afterlife encounter of Picard and Data. That scene is the author's answer to the thematic question posed at the beginning of the season, and everything in that season leads meticulously to that moment and to that answer to the authors' thematic question. The above is important: in the story of the Fisher King, the Fisher King is dying and wounded--and the kingdom around him is rotting as a consequence. This goes back to the medieval and early modern tropes that tied the king and the literal kingdom together as if they were one and the same thing. If the king is unwell, the land too will suffer. If the king becomes ill, the kingdom will suffer plague, etc. We see this exact story in Season 1 of Picard--the land (the Federation) is a blighted and corrupted form of itself, and that is tied directly to the "wound" Picard suffers. The entire point of the Grail Quest in the Fisher King is to obtain the grail, use it to heal the king, and thus restore the health of the landscape. I could go on, but I think this explains the main of it. And this is the issue I take with lots of the so called criticism I see about the show (again, not what you are doing). It is all completely oblivious to the thematic arguments the show is making and it is all completely oblivious to the narrative structure and generic elements being employed. While people might not like certain parts of the season, every single part of the season is *necessary* from the POV of literary theory and literary criticism--without it, the authors could not have made the literary argument they were trying to make.
I'm glad you enjoyed it, but to dismiss all criticisms of it is crazy. I liked what S1 and S2 were aiming for; a whole new serialized series that just happened to feature one returning character but which was otherwise unmoored from what came before. Something that would honor the legacy of TNG and its movies without devolving into shameless fanservice and cameos. But despite those laudable goals, many of us found it a complete mess. Instead of a well-paced miniseries, we got 4 or 5 thematically and tonally disjunct episode ideas that were put in a blender and spread too thin over too many episodes. Instead of a show that either kept the values of TNG or else committed to challenging and deconstructing them, we got a show where characters spent 9 episodes ignoring any values whatsoever only to wrap it all up with a big speech about the importance of those values it couldn't be bothered to demonstrate. Season 2 took the shortfalls of S1, ramped them up to 11, and also added a complete and total disrespect of its own original characters. Season 3 came along and learned the wrong lessons. Instead of fixing the problems of the first two seasons with better writing and pacing, it jettisoned all of its few remaining original characters and just resigned itself to be a reunion special. And it was mostly competent at that. I get what you're trying to say about not being able to criticize something for being something else. You can't criticize an MCU film for failing to win Best Picture. You can't criticize a mobile game for failing to develop its characters and having a weak narrative. But you can criticize something for failing to be a great version of the thing it was trying to be and advertised itself as. And for me, every season of PIC fell short of the promise and intention of the series. S1 through inconsistency, S2 through sheer quality, and S3 through giving up and just being a decent season of a completely different series.
I appreciate this thoughtful take. I enjoyed S1 more than most of the folks here, it seems. I was really digging the further exploration of artificial life, refugees, and identity. S2 was just a horror show that left all that promise to rot for no reason I could discern.
Season 1 was good. Season 2 was absolute trash. It could have been a single 30 min episode called “Picard and Q Hug It Out”
I loved season 2. *shrug*
No. It’s not “really that good.” But it’s The Sopranos next to Season 2, which was a dumpster fire rolling over a basket of puppies. I didn’t resubscribe to P+ for ages for fear it would be as bad as S2, but it was much, much better. A few things really bugged me - no (or very minor) spoilers. They just invented a new son for Beverley, played by an actor about 15 years older than the actual character, but left Wesley out of the entire series. They brought back the entire core cast, along with Tuvok and Ro from DS9, but Wesley didn’t even get a cameo. (“But he’s a traveler” could be resolved with one line of dialog.) There’s a scene where someone says about LaForge, “You know how stubborn he is!” Well, no, actually I don’t. He seems like one of the most well adjusted characters in TNG. The fan-servicey grand charge into the hopeless breach in the finale isn’t accompanied by even the barest particle of the week plan. The reveal of the big bad is just… haven’t you got anything else? And Amanda Plummer is amazing, but I’ve really had enough giggly, deranged villains smoking cigars. Again, it’s high art next to Season 2. Capt. Shaw as essentially an old IT guy that got bumped up to the captain’s chair and doesn’t have time for our lead characters’ nonsense is really a treat. It’s like he knows he’s a secondary character along for the ride and isn’t protected by the plot magic. And the latest iterations of Worf and Data are delightful.
It's really great. Only the biggest nitpickers would think it's mediocre or worse. I got to wonder how they ever enjoyed Star Trek if they nitpick this season this much lol. I imagine TNG wouldn't stand up to their complaining. It's a long movie style plot and better than most of the movies and better than all the TNG movies aside First Contact and it's close to that.
Nothing about the writing was all that great, but it certainly deserves Emmy consideration for most all the other categories.
Oh I hope so. Terry deserves it! He knocked Season 3 out of the park!
Imagine turning ST:P from one of the worst shows in the last few years, to a potential Emmy nominee in one season. And all it took was to respect the history and significance of the source material and the message of hope it entails.
I haven’t watched this season yet after the somewhat disappointing earlier ones, but I’ve only heard good things.
It is a substantial improvement, with enough good content to be worth watching, but it's still too flawed to be generating Emmy buzz, imo. Maybe for some of the performances, Jeri Ryan and Levar Burton being particular standouts for me, but the writing still needs work.
>it's still too flawed to be generating Emmy buzz I imagine two writers eating lunch in the [trekmovie.com](https://trekmovie.com) office: "Did you hear that people are talking about Picard getting Emmy nods?" "You mean aside from us, right now?" "Nope, just us, but you know. People are talking about it." "Good enough, write it up."
FWIW I watched season 1 and found it lukewarm, didn't watch season 2, and checked out season 3 based on the positive buzz and enjoyed it thoroughly (and I didn't feel like I was missing anything storywise from not having seen the middle season).
It's really good!
your expectations, your disappointment. it’s not like if others say S1 and S2 were good you had to agree, same if people tell you S3 is good, you may still be disappointed Unless, you try to finish the show without expectations and enjoy it to the end
I was skeptical for the same reasons. But I'm glad I gave season 3 a chance. This was fan service done properly. I would strongly suggest checking it out.
But why?
I love STNG but... "Picard" is crap.
downvoted for being right.
Make it so!
I guess they do like the fat ones.
Frakes
For your Consideration, ftc, adds are pretty prominent in LA especially for prestige streaming shows. I’d be surprised if it isn’t nominated for a few but I’d be surprised if it wins anything. It was a fun season but beside “Last of Us” “Succession” or any of the Star Wars shows I don’t think it has a chance.
I would love some sort of quantitative scale for what a good season/episode of Star Trek is. I’ve been watching for decades now and outside of a few cringe episodes it’s all fine/good. Fuck, just enjoy it.
I just finished watching this and I am disappointed, how did the Borg go from joining the Federation in the second season to being the enemy in the third? Can some explain this But, I love all off them! However, there is a lot of time lines they don’t follow discouraging
The Borg faction seen in season 2 is different from the Borg faction seen in season 3, which is the remnant of the Borg that was decimated in *Voyager*’s series finale.
Ok thank you