Star Trek Picard is now two weeks into a proposed two-season minimum series, but how is it grading out with Redshirts Always Die?
Opinions are subjective. They are not definitive and they are not supposed to be. If you want to hear only all the good or bad about a show, film, song, etc then you are doing yourself a disservice. It’s good to get other perspectives and opinions on really anything. In the world of science, there are always groups of people trying to disprove a hypothesis. In law, there are dissenting opinions and in food, there are people who like pineapple on pizza.
Gross.
So when you read someone’s opinions, don’t just look for people who agree with you, look for those who don’t as well. See if you can glean something of value from their opinions so that you may better enjoy the product, or even see ways that they can improve upon it.
So keep that in mind as you read through the article. This isn’t meant to be a review for or against the show. There is no subjective bias intended in four of the five categories that you’ll see here. This is a review meant to highlight the plusses and the negatives without putting in too much personal opinion. You can in fact review something positively and still not enjoy it.
That’s why if you’re for or against the show, only really focus on the first four categories. Those will be the categories that even those who don’t like the show would have to agree with any positive views and vise versa.
Acting
One phrase you’ll see a lot of throughout this review is the idea of Star Trek being presented as a stage play more than anything. Details as to why that’s said in this article will be looked at later on down the road. If you chose to do a stripped-down, authentic story that doesn’t rely too heavily on special effects or set pieces, you have to rely specifically on writing and acting.
Needless to say, the acting in a Star Trek series has to be the best possible. Most Star Trek lead actors have formal training, were Shakespearian trained or were world-renowned for their incredible talent. Which makes sense, when you have a minimal budget per episode, and you’re dealing with penny-pinching networks or in the case of Star Trek: Deep Space 9, you’re in syndication, you have to rely on the simplest option; acting.
Acting can carry a series when nothing else is working. It’s the most pivotal and the most relied upon when making anything in the world of film, television or theater. It’s the cheapest of all the other things on this list and the one that is easily most replaceable if needed. For instance, Community fired comedy icon Chevy Chase and a season or so later brought on Paget Brewster. Both nailed their roles and brought so much fun to the series.
So is Picard’s acting up to the standards of prior series? In short, yes. It’s hard to see Patrick Stewart strut with an obvious disruption in his gate and the scene in the premiere where he can’t even ascend stairs was heartbreaking, the fact is that those things were supposed to elicit that type of reaction. This show is supposed to be more akin to Marvel’s Logan than say a typical Disney film. The acting reflects this. There’s a dower tone in much of Patrick Stewart’s tone and mannerisms.
While there are much younger or lesser-known actors in the series as well, the series still put a focus on acting by bringing in acclaimed character actress Allison Pill to play a roll in the series. Bringing back Brent Spiner and Jeri Ryan also shows that the series is focusing heavily on character work and ensuring that the acting talent is there despite also having the largest budget in the televised-franchise history.
Acting Grade: 5/5
Writing
The plot of Star Trek Picard is somehow both overly complicated and utterly simple. Picard is having dreams of a girl who happens to be the daughter of Data, the dearly departed droid from the Star Trek: Next Generation series. Picard then goes on a mission to find out more about the daughter, only to find out she’s one in a set of twins. That’s the general plot of the show, finding out who these girls were/are and how Data (or whomever) created them.
An issue that was noticed is that there’s a lot of assumptive writing in the script. Instead of outright stating what’s going on, it’ quietly alluded to. For a point, the use of Picard’s housekeepers Laris and Zhaban. When they’re introduced they’re working for Picard on the land he owns but it’s quietly hinted at that both were saved by Picard during the evacuation of Romulus.
That evacuation is also something that is left up in the air as the planet was still there in Star Trek Nemesis but in Star Trek 2009, the planet was destroyed due to the inaction of Spock. So what’s canon anymore? When you mention events without any details, especially when those events now contradict prior events, you need to do a better job explaining things. Leaving ambiguity is a bad way to go. Shows or films that don’t ever resolve ideas, or leave them “open to fans interpretations” generally don’t age well. Fans view that as a cop-out.
Before anyone jumps to the “Oh, it was explained in…” you’ve already lost the argument. Anything relevant enough to be part of the plot needs to be re-explained to the audience watching this specific piece of content. Don’t ever expect or assume that each fan will watch each piece of media that is generated.
Case in point, the J.J. Abrams lead show Lost is now one of the most chastized shows ever due to the fact that it never had a clear line of thought. Abrams jumped from idea to another without ever having a way to explain away a bulk of the mysteries in a clear and concise manner.
Picard seems to be falling into that trap that shows like Lost fell into. A generic mystery, with an unknown McGuffin, that Picard and his crew will have to hunt down in order to understand why the bad guys are doing the bad things. Swear, this kinda sounds like a simplified version of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker‘s plot.
Gee, I wonder why.
The dialogue is a bit hamfisted at times, and characters who speak very sincerely are oftentimes making sarcastic remarks that don’t have any emotional infliction within them. Making it confusing if the character is being a jerk or just humorous. There’s a lot that needs to be worked on and a lot that needs to be answered for. The season will better answer what the show’s writing is but for now, it remains something that needs work and conclusion.
Writing: 3/5 (with room for improvement as the series plays out)
Design
The design of the shows and movies have taken a drastic shift over the years. From the original Star Trek of the 1960s to the early 2000s, the show had a unique feel and vibe. Conventional set pieces, a focus on practical effects, stunts, stage acting, and heavily worded scripts were the norm. Most of the fights, battles, and wars were shown through dialogue due to the lack of budget. With that came a certain appreciation and admiration for the simple production of the series. It felt stripped away from the unnecessary and highlighted characters, dialogues and plots. Sure there were some special effects and space battles but the bulk of each show was simply acting.
When J.J. Abram took over in the late 2000s, the entire focus of what was Star Trek shifted. Gone were the simple and fan loved design of the series and in were polished special effects, bright and fancy filming styles and of course the ever-annoying lens flairs. The movies became super-polished with each new iteration focusing more on style than substance. That’s not to say that the series and films after didn’t have substance, that’s not what’s being said. What’s being said is there was an obvious shift in focus on what was being prioritized. The bigger budgets given to the modern era of content have erased the classic DIY feel of the originals, meaning that innovations and workarounds are being forgone for the sake of re-shoots and CGI coats of makeup.
So while preference does matter here, the only question that needs to be asked is “…does this version of Star Trek do the best they can with what they have?” The answer is yes. It’s now a big-budget entity that CBS is attempting to turn more and more into Star Wars with each passing week it seems but the one thing you can’t say is that it’s being done poorly. You could argue that it’s not Star Trek in its presentation, but you can’t argue that it’s bad.
Design: 5/5
Special Effects
There’s an argument for special effects against conventional practical effects. Practical effects are undeniably the best looking because they’re real. You can’t fake reality. The quality of special effects is all determined by the amount of money a show or film has to use. They’re expensive and they’re not always worth the money spent.
Is that the case for Picard? No, the effects are spectacular. There’s also a whole use of practical effects, and you may not even realize that. With things like set pieces, sets, buildings, sunsets, etc, there’s so much there that can be and have been CGI’ed to death. Think about the Star Wars prequels, there were hardly ever any sets built for the films. Everything is shot on a green screen with very few exceptions. Why? Well, some believe that special effects are “cool and hip” and it’s better to use them, even if they look worse than actual sets.
It’s the notion that new is always better, and it’s not. Sometimes a grandly built set piece makes the scene so much better. It’s not always feasible, obviously but when it is it should be utilized. That’s what Picard has been doing, utilizing real sets at times as opposed to just green-screening every scene.
The fight scenes look fantastic and the phaser fire has never looked better. The makeup for the Romulans has been beautifully implemented though it is a stark difference from the original four shows design of them. So that comes down to more of one’s personal opinion on it.
Special Effects: 5/5
Enjoyability
Now, this is completely subjective in view. Not everyone will find the show the same as everyone else and that’s ok. It’s not an indication on you the fan, it’s simply a statement that not everyone will like the series or like it the same as one someone else.
As of right now, the show is not clicking personally as it has with others online. The tone is dramatically un-Star Trek and feels more, as mentioned before, as a Logan type of series. That’s ok that they’re doing that. Taking risks and challenging things is part of the norm in Hollywood. The decision to make Star Fleet an absentee father figure in the universe was a bit perplexing but not completely unexpected. We’ve seen Star Fleet do nefarious things in the past like in Star Trek Voyager, Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Into Darkness to name a few instances.
The tone of the series is one of desperation and after the dark tone of Star Trek: Discovery and the J.J. Abrams lead films that offered little in the way of classic Trek debates, fans were hopeful of something, well, hopeful. Picard gave fans the potential of a return to classic 90’s Trek, but instead, fans are getting more of the same.
That’s not an indication of quality, just a statement of fact. Fans that want the old Trek back are just going to have to watch The Orville, because CBS feels they need to make Trek into Star Wars. This may make fans happy, and that’s good. What’s the point of this life if you’re not enjoying things you’re investing your time into?
For this review, however, the aesthetic changes and the shift in focus from a ship to a singular person’s mission is not what Trek should be. It’s hard for some to get into this show and it’s understandable why.
Enjoyability: 2/5
Overall
The show has some issues with tone and plot, but that is a minor issue that can possibly be corrected in time over the course of the series. This is merely a snapshot at the beginning and not an overall statement of the show at the end of the series’ run. The scripting might not be what it should be for some, but it might be for many. More and more fans in “nerd” circles want darker and more gritty content. This isn’t that shocking considering this trend happened twenty years ago, and it happened 20 years before that.
Things ebb and flow and come back around in time. It always has, it always will. So if the modern version of Trek isn’t for you, wait 10-15 years when a new creator is brought on to take the series over and put their own spin on it.
If this Trek is your speed, more power to you. Same for if it’s not. There is no one-opinion that needs to exist for this property or this specific show. There are some things that the show needs to shore up on, and truthfully, there isn’t a show in the series or in the world at large that is somehow perfect. There just isn’t. Not with as much oversight that a network and a studio has over the series. You’re always just hoping that the show breaks enough towards what you the fan may want, as opposed to what the execs assume will the fans will want.
That’s why saying this show is a “B-” is really fair. Trek has gone under heavy editing and recontextualizing what it is, visually speaking. The aesthetic is vastly different and the desire for more grandiose effects is obvious. Some fans won’t like this, others might.
Overall: 20/25 (80%)