Star Trek Picard Series

[Jack]

Picard, Data, Han Solo, John Connor, etc, etc, etc. The new "writers" have a need to destroy all these characters. If a significant part of a show can be undone or retconned to meaninglessness, like with Seven and Icheb, all the better.

To people with no talent, the work of talented people only serves to remind them of how little talent they themselves have. It's a giant beacon to others to show what hacks they are by comparison, doomed to use the creativity of others to get themselves fed.

I'm not impressed that they found out about Memory Alpha to help them destroy the franchise.

[Babar]

Picard, Data, Han Solo, John Connor, etc, etc, etc. The new "writers" have a need to destroy all these characters.

Is it all that surprising? I'd say it is almost necessary if they want to continue:

Any attempts at creating new characters and story arcs in a decades-established canon will fail, or at least not draw people with the same level of nostalgia as seeing something familiar would
The familiar actors are old, it would be hard to centre a franchise around them.
Any attempts at recreating or recasting those characters would inevitably fail, because people are too used to the original actors for those characters.
The characters are too well defined and with completed story arcs. It would be hard to add anything new.
Any attempts at sticking as close as possible to the original characters and their arcs would also inevitably fail, as there would always be differences that people pick at, and those stories were a product of their time, and may not necessarily fit well with today (plus this would be the creatively boring choice).

The best option is therefore to kill off the old characters after they've handed over the torch to the new ones.
I suppose another option would be to keep the very basic character premises and settings, and change everything else every couple years, like in James Bond or Doctor Who, but characters and a universe like the Star Wars setting don't really lend themselves well to that, and you still have whiners complaining when that is attempted ("Thor is a woman now?! That's horrible, and against the character!").

While I watched TNG when it originally ran, and I've got a couple of the movies and books, I've never been a super-fan of Star Trek, so I wasn't pinning my hopes on some grand revival or anything. I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak to whether they captured the "essence of the characters" or the universe, or whether this or that nostalgic reference hit me. I watched this, and enjoyed it while I watched it, but I have no illusions that 25 years down the line people will still be talking about it.

[Jack]

No, Babar. If you were creating a RoN game, you wouldn't spend the whole game destroying the old characters and the universe itself, unless that was what it was about.

If you removed the old characters from the entirety of this show, there would be nothing left. A puddle of nonsense that nobody wants to watch.

The only way this will be remembered in 25 years is as a bad example. Just another sign of the collapse of civilisation.

[Danvzare]

Picard, Data, Han Solo, John Connor, etc, etc, etc. The new "writers" have a need to destroy all these characters.

Is it all that surprising? I'd say it is almost necessary if they want to continue:

Really? 
Firstly, Star Trek is the type of show that doesn't need the original characters, as proven by the success of the spinoffs.
It's the universe of Star Trek that's interesting. It's just too bad writers can't recreate that universe anymore. Probably because it was an optimistic look at the future, and writers like being edgy.

Secondly, the Mandalorian and just about every Star Wars game that has ever come out, has proven that Star Wars is also about the universe and not the characters. Thankfully it seems as though there's been more success at recreating that universe than with Star Trek.

Thirdly, removing John Connor from Terminator is like removing Guybrush Threepwood from Monkey Island. He's the main character, it's his story. The universe of the Terminator films never really got much added to it, so he is the universe. (There's a reason why Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers were eventually brought back after disappearing from one movie in their respective franchises.)

Fourthly, if you want the easy money you get from making something that's part of an established franchise, then you've got to accept the cost of having higher expectations. It's as simple as that.
Companies keep making stuff that's part of already established franchises, because they know that it'll sell. But the thing is, it has a price, and that price is that people will expect more.The bar will be raised. The mediocre will no longer be acceptable. If a company can't accept that, then they should've made something original.

Unfortunately everyone only seems capable of seeing things from one point of view. Either from the point of view that "it's got the name of a popular franchise, therefore expectations are higher" or from the point of view that "taking it as it's own thing, it's at least average", which results in petty arguments such as this.

[Babar]

No, Babar. If you were creating a RoN game, you wouldn't spend the whole game destroying the old characters and the universe itself, unless that was what it was about

There was some RotN games that did. But I'm not sure RotN is an appropriate example, each game adds to the characters and their arcs, the entire collection is like a season of TV.

Really? 
Firstly, Star Trek is the type of show that doesn't need the original characters, as proven by the success of the spinoffs.
It's the universe of Star Trek that's interesting. It's just too bad writers can't recreate that universe anymore. Probably because it was an optimistic look at the future, and writers like being edgy.

Secondly, the Mandalorian and just about every Star Wars game that has ever come out, has proven that Star Wars is also about the universe and not the characters. Thankfully it seems as though there's been more success at recreating that universe than with Star Trek.

Thirdly, removing John Connor from Terminator is like removing Guybrush Threepwood from Monkey Island. He's the main character, it's his story. The universe of the Terminator films never really got much added to it, so he is the universe. (There's a reason why Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers were eventually brought back after disappearing from one movie in their respective franchises.)

Fourthly, if you want the easy money you get from making something that's part of an established franchise, then you've got to accept the cost of having higher expectations. It's as simple as that.
Companies keep making stuff that's part of already established franchises, because they know that it'll sell. But the thing is, it has a price, and that price is that people will expect more.The bar will be raised. The mediocre will no longer be acceptable. If a company can't accept that, then they should've made something original.

Unfortunately everyone only seems capable of seeing things from one point of view. Either from the point of view that "it's got the name of a popular franchise, therefore expectations are higher" or from the point of view that "taking it as it's own thing, it's at least average", which results in petty arguments such as this.

There hasn't been a really successful spinoff since TNG. The next best series (DS9) had only half the estimated viewership of TNG (can't really compare the newer series, since they're measured with different metrics.
The Mandalorian leans in pretty heavily on nostalgia.
John Connor featured in only 1 of the 2 good Terminator movies, and he was an irritating brat in that (I personally liked the TV show as well, but he was pretty bland in that as well). The star had always been Sarah Connor for me. And Arnold, I guess.
Expectations of higher quality aren't really relevant. Simply attaching a name to a property is often more than enough. For example, every single one of the new Star Wars movies (bar one) grossed over a billion worldwide.


What are we pettily arguing about, again?

[ManicMatt]

I enjoyed Picard season one.

[VampireWombat]

I enjoyed Picard season one.

Heretic!
But yeah... I'm watching the last 2 episodes tonight and have so far enjoyed it.

[ManicMatt]

Heh! There were some things that didn't sit right with me that's already been covered by others but on the whole it's good entertainment. I'll buy the bluray boxset should it get one. (if i have the money..)