Captain Jean-Luc Picard to Return?

[bladela]

you are probably right.

A new series about starfleet academy, however, is one of my worst nightmares.

[Mikey]

Ignoring, of course, the fact that he just did a two season series in which he was onscreen approximately 99% of the airtime.

[Nutso]

https://deadline.com/2018/08/patrick-st ... 202440492/

“My goal is that there should be a Star Trek something on all the time on All Access,” CBS TV Studios president David Stapf said Sunday during a Deadline interview about the CBS streaming service that included the platform’s president and COO Marc DeBevoise and EVP Original Content Julie McNamara.

DEADLINE: How did the idea of bringing back Patrick Stewart’s character come about, and how long did it take to get him to do it?
STAPF: It came to us, as do all things Trek now, through Alex Kurtzman, with the idea of, wouldn’t it be cool to do something Next Gen-oriented, and/or get Patrick Stewart and/or any of those iconic Next Gen characters. As Patrick himself has said, he was of the opinion that “I’ve done that character,” but he got a meeting with Alex and some of the other guys and they won him over. The deal didn’t take that long once he decided to do it.

[Nutso]

[Nutso]

[Graham Kennedy]

The issue fans had with Luke was not that it was a new take on the character, as such. I don't think anybody expected Luke to be identical to the way he had been previously. What fans objected to was the idea that Luke would change in the way that the writers changed him. If you change a character in such a way that it's essentially a completely new and different person - and even Mark Hamill literally said that the Luke he was playing in Last Jedi was not the same person, to the extent that they should have called him something other than "Luke" - then you're going to piss fans off.

Suppose they wrote Picard as somebody who has left Starfleet and become an archeologist. Suppose he's grumpier, more isolated from other people, less interested in Starfleet and the Federation. I could totally see that as "an older Picard". It would make perfect sense for the Picard we know to become that person. Not saying he should, or that I think he will, just that he could.

But suppose they have Picard as somebody who defected from the Federation to the Romulan Empire. He's now the head of the Romulan fleet, and has announced that his main aim is the destruction of the Federation and the extinction of all life on Earth.

That would be an outrage. It would be an utter betrayal of the character and the fans who love him. Because established characters are not arbitrary things that can just become whatever you like because a few decades have passed.

So by all means evolve the character. Just don't turn him into something that he could never become.

[bladela]

Suppose they wrote Picard as somebody who has left Starfleet and become an archeologist. Suppose he's grumpier, more isolated from other people, less interested in Starfleet and the Federation. I could totally see that as "an older Picard". It would make perfect sense for the Picard we know to become that person. Not saying he should, or that I think he will, just that he could.

it would be perfectly logical. For example this could be an incipit, then comes a crisis that leads him to be recalled in the star fleet (obviously now no longer captain) to deal with it.
Perhaps it isn't so original...

But suppose they have Picard as somebody who defected from the Federation to the Romulan Empire. He's now the head of the Romulan fleet, and has announced that his main aim is the destruction of the Federation and the extinction of all life on Earth.

here, you just spoiled the plot of the new series.

[Graham Kennedy]

Okay, after seeing this I'm starting to see the return of Picard as outright sinister

[Nutso]

http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/blo ... 5eca8aba13

New Star Trek series name “revealed” in trademark application – According to the popular Trademark Ninja blog, the name of Patrick Stewart’s new Star Trek series may have been revealed in a recent trademark application. TV network CBS filed a STAR TREK RELIANT trademark application on the same day that Patrick Stewart announced he was reprising his role as Jean-Luc Picard. The mark is filed in class 41 for services including “a continuing multimedia series featuring drama”. “Suspicious much?” the blog asked, while predicting that CBS will respond by claiming they “regularly file trademarks for all manner of things”. But relatively few Star Trek-related marks are filed by CBS, the blog points out, and all marks in recent years appear to have been used for products, TV shows, games and/or movies. If true, and Star Trek: Reliant is the name of Patrick Stewart’s upcoming series, then spare a thought for Newfoundland resident Darren Hann, who released an unofficial web series in 2012 called Star Trek: Reliant. Each episode of the fan-made show features a clear disclaimer, including a “thank you” to Paramount Pictures and Gene Roddenberry (creator of the original Star Trek series) for allowing the fan-made series to be made. But if an official show is released with that name, could an IP dispute arise? (TJL)

[DarkMoineau]

The issue fans had with Luke was not that it was a new take on the character, as such. I don't think anybody expected Luke to be identical to the way he had been previously. What fans objected to was the idea that Luke would change in the way that the writers changed him. If you change a character in such a way that it's essentially a completely new and different person - and even Mark Hamill literally said that the Luke he was playing in Last Jedi was not the same person, to the extent that they should have called him something other than "Luke" - then you're going to piss fans off.

Suppose they wrote Picard as somebody who has left Starfleet and become an archeologist. Suppose he's grumpier, more isolated from other people, less interested in Starfleet and the Federation. I could totally see that as "an older Picard". It would make perfect sense for the Picard we know to become that person. Not saying he should, or that I think he will, just that he could.

But suppose they have Picard as somebody who defected from the Federation to the Romulan Empire. He's now the head of the Romulan fleet, and has announced that his main aim is the destruction of the Federation and the extinction of all life on Earth.

That would be an outrage. It would be an utter betrayal of the character and the fans who love him. Because established characters are not arbitrary things that can just become whatever you like because a few decades have passed.

So by all means evolve the character. Just don't turn him into something that he could never become.

Well you are right, Mark Hamill even called that character "Jake Skywalker" in front of press (a thing he would not have said if he really liked what have been done to Luke.) But as he signed for a trilogy before it is written, he had no choice.

Steward here signed for a show that seems centered on him. And clearly Picard could be easily be an admiral or an archeologist at the begining of the show (but I still have difficulties picturing him in a vineyard despite what All good things showed us ^^ that's too "peaceful", he is a traveler at heart).

And then anything could happens. It could star as a Starfleet Academy but following Wrath of Khan exemple, the cadet's mission gone wrong with Picard in command (not the best idea probably... Roddenberry said no to something like that for TNG) or Destruction of Romulus would bring a crisis needing Picard to go back on the Enterprise (Could be an older E or already a new F... even if I finished to like the 2409 Enterprise F from the video game ^^ or a completly new ship)

[Sonic Glitch]

I'll be honest, I'd really love an exploration of Star Trek post-Romulus. I think that opens up a lot of plot development opportunities.

Is the destruction of Romulus as described in NuTrek outrageous and ridiculous? Yes. Is there a way to turn it into good storytelling/allegories? Also yes.

[Graham Kennedy]

So what to do with that scenario?

Axiom : Romulus must have other planets, and plenty of them. The Federation has 150 planets, or 150 planets plus hundreds of colonies (it's unclear). The Klingons probably about the same. For the Romulans to offer any kind of threat, they must have a minimum of 50-100 planets or more.

Therefore, the Romulan Empire is unlikely to be significantly weaker in material terms. Even if Romulus itself is 10x the power (industrial capacity, fleet strength, etc) of the average Romulan planet, losing it would leave the Empire around 80-90% intact.

This is more so when one considers that there was apparently considerable warning of the impending disaster, which could have led to much of the political and military power relocating.

So I would suggest that the changes would be in the perception of the Empire, rather than the strength of the Empire as such.

What one may see is the Romulan government relocated to another world... but many Romulan worlds rebelling, perceiving that this is their best chance. Whilst the fleet may survive relatively intact, much of the infrastructure for controlling it may not be. Perhaps ambitious fleet commanders may see this as their chance to rebel. Strife and civil war abound. Some fleet units may go completely rogue, raiders and pirates striking at the Federation and Klingons.

But what happens then? The Klingons may want to attack. The Federation would want to help. All sorts of things could result...

[bladela]

what about the destruction of a sizable part of the romulan fleet or the romulus shipyard?

What about the C2 weakening after the disaster?

maybe the weakened central control started a general rebellion in the outer colonies (mainly slave and subjugated races )?

[DarkMoineau]

So what to do with that scenario?
Axiom : Romulus must have other planets, and plenty of them. The Federation has 150 planets, or 150 planets plus hundreds of colonies (it's unclear). The Klingons probably about the same. For the Romulans to offer any kind of threat, they must have a minimum of 50-100 planets or more.

I always considered it was 150 members, each member having an original planet like Earth, Vulcan, Andoria and Betazed so they say 150 planets, more than having actually 150 planets.


Just like speaking of France or UK, some would say Paris or London....

So with colonies it could easily go up to 1500 planets being under Feredation Law.

[Graham Kennedy]

So what to do with that scenario?
Axiom : Romulus must have other planets, and plenty of them. The Federation has 150 planets, or 150 planets plus hundreds of colonies (it's unclear). The Klingons probably about the same. For the Romulans to offer any kind of threat, they must have a minimum of 50-100 planets or more.

I always considered it was 150 members, each member having an original planet like Earth, Vulcan, Andoria and Betazed so they say 150 planets, more than having actually 150 planets.


Just like speaking of France or UK, some would say Paris or London....

So with colonies it could easily go up to 1500 planets being under Feredation Law.

I agree, and there is canon support for this. Largely because of Kirk's line to Cochrane :

Cochrane : "What's it like out there in the galaxy?"
Kirk : "We're on a thousand planets and spreading out. We cross fantastic distances and everything's alive, Cochrane. Life everywhere. We estimate there are millions of planets with intelligent life. We haven't begun to map them. Interesting?"

I always reconciled that as you suggest - there are 150 member planets like Vulcan and Earth, but that number doesn't include all the various colonies and things.

Actually if one took the "we" to mean Humanity, then it would be possible that the Federation as a whole had many, many thousands of worlds. But that seems excessive to me, and I always took "we" to mean the Federation as a whole.

In TOS we see a lot of frontier planets with colonies of maybe a few dozen people, and even worlds with nothing but a small scientific research team - sometimes only two people on a whole planet - which I assume would be part of that "thousand" figure. And then there are larger colonies like Deneva with around a million people on it.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if Earth still had a greater population than all of the Earth colonies combined. Probably that's true of most member worlds. IIRC Spock said that there were only 10,000 Vulcans left after their planet was destroyed? If so that implies that Vulcans really don't colonise at all.

In fact, it would go a long way to explaining why Humans are such a dominant presence in the Federation if one assumed that most member species don't see colonisation as all that big a deal, and have only a handful of colonies, whilst Earthers seem to love to spread out all over the place.