Talk:Star Trek: Picard/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Star Trek: Picard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
New cast additions
I know this is a draft so I wasn't sure if I should add anything but there are 2 new additions to the cast just announced. Santiago Cabrera and Michelle Hurd. article Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Picard's relationship with the Romulans
This was something of an ongoing theme in TNG,[1][2] but currently our article seems to be placing more emphasis on the 2002 and 2009 films. IMO it'd probably be better to closer match the Hollywood Reporter's weighting here.
Also, technically the source says the character has gone through a change since the "dissolution of the Romulan Empire", which was not depicted or even directly alluded to in the 2009 film: presumably the destruction of their homeworld would hasten the decline portrayed in the background of several seasons of TNG and DS9, and (ironically enough) the senate massacre seen at the start of Nemesis, and presumably Picard would be "deeply affected" by both the destruction of Romulus and the heretofore-only-implied resulting dissolution of their empire, but if the source says that (it does say the latter but appears to only imply the former), shouldn't we?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Star Trek: Picard
We have an official name, now. https://comicbook.com/startrek/2019/05/15/star-trek-picard-series-title-logo-footage-upfronts/ ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Cover
We've got a cover and a trailer! ‘Star Trek: Picard’ Drops First Teaser Trailer, Poster (Watch) Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Plot development
| unrelated stuff about the elderly Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Could somebody confirm or deny the rumours that plot premise is going to be a future retirement home for Federation High Officials? Personally I assume it to be a joke which invokes some of the problems elderly people - even of the far future - have to face. Without going into details of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.140.138 (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC) I don't understand. Is it a satire? There are lots of distateful jokes about the elderly. I work in a retirement home, and there is nothing funny about it. You cannot imagine the problems they have to struggle with - even if you are a priviliged one like Patrick Stewart and don't have to live there. It's a fight against old age, and there are many bold warriors among them - so to speak. By the way: Those among the Star Trek Fandom which watched the Original Series in their youth are themselves in exactly the same condition. In an ever older growing population they are the target group and at the same time a commodity - as fictional characters like in the "Red" movies. And surely they would save the world if they could. And i don't want to hear anything like "Captain Alzheimer", like they discuss it in certain forums. It's true that a lot suffer from neurodegenerative deseases and 80 per cent or more wear diapers. But that is not funny at all! It's disgusting to talk about a "Federation Diaper Service" or "Hyperspace Crap Pants". Yuch! Everybody grows old and those who make fun of it now are only afraid to face the facts of life. But some day the have to. Sorry for being so emotional about it, but i've heard a lot of distateful stuff and this maybe not be the right place to talk about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.223.149.41 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC) |
Cast
Would the paragraph about Stewart in the Cast and characters section be better under the Production>Casting section?
I agree with the above statement.
Patrick Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard: A retired Starfleet admiral. is telling us which actor plays which character and gives short details on who the character is.
Stewart returns to the role after last portraying the character in the 2002 film Star Trek: Nemesis. He felt that at that time his role in the franchise... etc, etc, is really more of a behind the scenes information on how the actor feels about being involved in the show, thus is about production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4880:B01:15E2:39A2:F6FF:17EB (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- I believe the "Casting" section is more about the business side of things while "Cast and Characters" gives an overview of who the character is. I think this is in the right place. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Destruction of Romulus
While that did happen at the end of the 2009 Star Trek movie, that movie takes place in an alternate timeline to Picard’s, and the destruction of Romulus in that movie would have happened before Picard was even born.
That detail should be removed from the opening paragraph. Equal (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- You're thinking of the destruction of Vulcan. The destruction of Romulus happened in the future according to Spock and Nero. DonQuixote (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
After 20 years, not 18
Star Trek:Nemesis is a 2002 film (18 years ago), but the events of the film (Data's death and coup d'état of Shinzon) are dated 2379, 20 years before. TV series set in the 2399, in the second episode: Utopia Planitia, Mars, 2385, 14 years ago.--Kirk39 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
sources
- https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/21/star-trek-picard-audition-exclusive-jonathan-del-arco-borg-boyfriend-aids-12095032/ — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
"Untitled Picard series" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Picard series. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Why is Jeri Ryan not considered a recurring or main cast member?
Jonathan Del Arco is listed as recurring member and was, at least, an equally important character in Star Trek: Picard. With Jeri Ryan's character seemingly joining the crew in the final scene, not to mention the hint of a relationship with the Raffi character, shouldn't she be elevated to Main Cast?
user:mnw2000 22:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Because she's credited as a "Special Guest Star". We don't make any judgement calls beyond that. Anything else is original research. oknazevad (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- The list here reflects what the opening credits say. If the opening credits are officially changed for season 2 so that she is also part of the main cast, then a note may also be added saying something like "(special guest star - season 1; main - season 2)". Otherwise, making any such a modification is premature at this point. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
This series is not related to the J. J. Abrams film Star Trek
I don't think User_talk:Ajd understood why I removed the reference to the film Star Trek, and they reverted back.
Star Trek - The film by JJ Adbrams, is in fact not the same 'universe' as this Star Trek series. Picard would not have been influenced by the events in this film because the stories are not related. The events in the film never happened in the 'Picard' universe. Hope that clarifies. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- You're mistaken. The destruction of Romulus isn't in the Abrams film universe (in which Spock is played by Zachary Quinto); it's in the mainstream Trek universe (in which Spock is played by Leonard Nimoy). The Abrams film involves Nimoy-Spock traveling in time from the mainstream Trek universe to the the Abrams Trek universe in the aftermath of the destruction of Romulus in the mainstream universe. Moreover, the destruction of Romulus is a major piece of Picard's backstory in this series. AJD (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- You are correct that the Spock character travelled between the universes in that film, but that doesn't make the stories the same 'universe'. If that were true then there would be no planet Vulcan after the events of that film as well, right? - by the way, I'm not in any way downplaying the importance of the Romulus' destruction to Picard (and didn't remove anything about that), just don't accept there is a line of events connecting that film and to the story of Picard. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- They are set in the same universe, different timelines, and the new timeline was created due to the destruction of Romulus as explained in the film. This series begins in the original timeline after the destruction and carries on with characters who did not travel to the new timeline (i.e. not Spock). Also, the series is connected to the film in the real world as well as executive producer Alex Kurtzman co-wrote the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Adam is correct. The destruction of Romulus in the prime timeline in the 2009 film is the same event referenced in the backstory of Picard. The two are definitely connected, and the new series depends completely on the 2009 film. oknazevad (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- They are set in the same universe, different timelines, and the new timeline was created due to the destruction of Romulus as explained in the film. This series begins in the original timeline after the destruction and carries on with characters who did not travel to the new timeline (i.e. not Spock). Also, the series is connected to the film in the real world as well as executive producer Alex Kurtzman co-wrote the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- You are correct that the Spock character travelled between the universes in that film, but that doesn't make the stories the same 'universe'. If that were true then there would be no planet Vulcan after the events of that film as well, right? - by the way, I'm not in any way downplaying the importance of the Romulus' destruction to Picard (and didn't remove anything about that), just don't accept there is a line of events connecting that film and to the story of Picard. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Criticism
Maybe include a point that the show has been universally panned by non shills / corporate hacks? Glen Gormley (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Find a reliable source that says that maybe? Axedel (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Done. 2601:5C1:4500:6E10:C882:A6DF:AC02:1DA4 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- As I said in my revert, we do not cherry pick criticisms, especially for a series that neutral aggregators have indicated has received generally positive reviews. This is not the place for your biases. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I did my best to provide a balanced survey of several major reputable magazines, including positive reviews, all properly cited and in Wikipedia style, but whatever. We can just delete stuff instead of trying to improve and balance it. Or is Wikipedia not the place for information? 2601:5C1:4500:6E10:C882:A6DF:AC02:1DA4 (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Furthermore, Wikipedia:Cherrypicking recommends that "the remedy is to edit to reflect what another editor missed, because we don't expect an editor to know all the sources on a topic or even all of a consensus". To the best of my knowledge, my edit accurately reflected the consensus of reviews found on the first several pages of Google search results. Are we going to simply not provide any survey of specific reviews for this show, despite it being common practice for Wikipedia articles on television, video games, movies, etc.? 2601:5C1:4500:6E10:C882:A6DF:AC02:1DA4 (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Considering the general tone of this thread and the fact that the exact same negative bias was brought to the talk page of Star Trek: Discovery I am inclined to believe that your intentions are not as altruistic as you are trying to say they are. By the way, as I said in my revert, specific reviews should go (and have been started to be included) at the season article that they apply to, in this case Star Trek: Picard (season 1). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Since Season 2 hasn't aired yet, it's impossible to distinguish between reviews of Season 1 and reviews of the whole series; I see no reason why reviews that are relevant to the entire series to date shouldn't be mentioned in the article about the whole series. AJD (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- This situation is fully expected to change. Why not put Season 1 reviews in the Season 1 article where they will be most appropriate when season 2 episodes are released? —ADavidB 16:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, pretending like there isn't already separate articles for the seasons makes no sense. Season 1 info is already at the Season 1 page, so reviews should be treated the same way. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- How can you tell whether a review is intended to be a review of season 1, or a review of the entire series to date? (Honestly I don't see why there's even an article for Season 2 already anyway, seeing as how very little information even exists about it.) AJD (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- The entire series to date is season one. Unless there will be no more seasons that will ever be produced, all reviews are about season one. DonQuixote (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- By the same argument, all reviews of season 1 are about the entire series, and therefore belong on the article about the series. AJD (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, that's only true if there will be no other season. Season two and three have already been ordered. It's not that hard to understand. If Picard ever gets cancelled before season two is produced, then, yeah, all reviews of season one are reviews of the entire series--but it hasn't been cancelled yet. Otherwise, all reviews of season one are reviews of season one and reviews of the series as a whole (including seasons two, three, etc.) are reviews of the series. DonQuixote (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, think of Police Squad! which lasted one season. All reviews of season one are reviews of the entire series. Sledge Hammer! lasted two seasons. Reviews during season one are reviews of season one and not the entire series since season two hadn't aired yet. DonQuixote (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- I mean honestly I don't really care about the question at hand; I'm just trying to demonstrate that it's not absurd to think that articles that are attempting to review the whole series as it exists at the time should be in the main series article. Really I'm just salty because I think it is absurd that this show already has a separate article for season 2, long before production has even begun on the season. It's really treading the line of violating WP:CRYSTAL. Even the cast list on the season 2 article isn't supported by a reliable source. AJD (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- The season 2 article exists because there is more than enough reliably sourced information (including casting details) to justify the article existing and there are no strict rules against television articles existing before filming begins. And since the second season article exists, we are splitting information into that which applies to the series as a whole, that which applies to the first season, and that which applies to the second season. Criticisms of the first season clearly apply to the first season article, plus we have a brief overview at the series article which will eventually include an overview of the second season's reception as well. Saying that criticisms of the first season apply to the entire series doesn't make sense, as we do not know if they apply to the second season yet. Once it has come out we will be able to make that call. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- The only source cited for the claim that the main cast (Pill, Briones, etc.) will return is this article, which doesn't say that. It lists the first-season cast by way of describing the show while stating that the show will have a second season, but it doesn't claim that those actors will return for the second season, and doesn't assert any knowledge about whether they will. AJD (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- The season 2 article exists because there is more than enough reliably sourced information (including casting details) to justify the article existing and there are no strict rules against television articles existing before filming begins. And since the second season article exists, we are splitting information into that which applies to the series as a whole, that which applies to the first season, and that which applies to the second season. Criticisms of the first season clearly apply to the first season article, plus we have a brief overview at the series article which will eventually include an overview of the second season's reception as well. Saying that criticisms of the first season apply to the entire series doesn't make sense, as we do not know if they apply to the second season yet. Once it has come out we will be able to make that call. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- I mean honestly I don't really care about the question at hand; I'm just trying to demonstrate that it's not absurd to think that articles that are attempting to review the whole series as it exists at the time should be in the main series article. Really I'm just salty because I think it is absurd that this show already has a separate article for season 2, long before production has even begun on the season. It's really treading the line of violating WP:CRYSTAL. Even the cast list on the season 2 article isn't supported by a reliable source. AJD (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- By the same argument, all reviews of season 1 are about the entire series, and therefore belong on the article about the series. AJD (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- The entire series to date is season one. Unless there will be no more seasons that will ever be produced, all reviews are about season one. DonQuixote (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- How can you tell whether a review is intended to be a review of season 1, or a review of the entire series to date? (Honestly I don't see why there's even an article for Season 2 already anyway, seeing as how very little information even exists about it.) AJD (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, pretending like there isn't already separate articles for the seasons makes no sense. Season 1 info is already at the Season 1 page, so reviews should be treated the same way. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- This situation is fully expected to change. Why not put Season 1 reviews in the Season 1 article where they will be most appropriate when season 2 episodes are released? —ADavidB 16:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Since Season 2 hasn't aired yet, it's impossible to distinguish between reviews of Season 1 and reviews of the whole series; I see no reason why reviews that are relevant to the entire series to date shouldn't be mentioned in the article about the whole series. AJD (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Considering the general tone of this thread and the fact that the exact same negative bias was brought to the talk page of Star Trek: Discovery I am inclined to believe that your intentions are not as altruistic as you are trying to say they are. By the way, as I said in my revert, specific reviews should go (and have been started to be included) at the season article that they apply to, in this case Star Trek: Picard (season 1). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- As I said in my revert, we do not cherry pick criticisms, especially for a series that neutral aggregators have indicated has received generally positive reviews. This is not the place for your biases. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Done. 2601:5C1:4500:6E10:C882:A6DF:AC02:1DA4 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
A neutral article should reflect that most criticism has been positive, but if quotations of positive reviews are included in addition to just statistics (as they currently are) the criticism section should also include negative reviews. It's inappropriate to remove reference to negative response, which while the minority of critical reviews has nonetheless been significant.
Rumors about the main cast being unhappy don't count, but for example the pilot was criticized by Entertainment Weekly and including criticism such as theirs could provide for neutrality.Rufe12 (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
POV?
An editor with a relatively new account recently applied a "POV" banner to the top of the article, though did not initiate any discussion here to explain the claim. The same user applied another edit the day before, which was reverted with the edit summary: "non-US details should be kept at ths season article since this is supposed to be an overview, and they should be presented in a more neutral tone than this". Comments regarding the POV claim? —ADavidB 00:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- ADavidB Discussion was initiated in the "third party viewership data" and in the existing "criticism" discussion. My own issue centers on using marketing statements from CBS as the sole source of viewership information and the exclusion of data from all major third-party ratings agencies. I observed that other users on the talk page than myself have taken issue with the editorial bias of this article in the past so I added the tag. Rufe12 (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I hope through some additional discussion here, a solution or compromise can be reached. —ADavidB 14:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't believe the addition of the POV tag is legitimate because it appears to have been added based soley on the editor not getting their own way on the ratings section. Its fairly normal for a show to lose viewers if there's an increase in competition, especially for shows which draw a large audience. Not to mention losing viewers from a series premiere is entirely normal and something which happens to every show. To conclude, I support the removal of the tag as there's no justifiable argument to keep it. 81.97.84.42 (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Third-party viewership data
Data collected by third parties on viewership should really be included in the viewership section, not just CBS's statements, which like most such statements is selected to encourage investors. Rufe12 (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's included in Star Trek: Picard (season 1) so it's not like the info is scrubbed. The argument it's too detailed for this article and is better put in the Season 1 article. Honestly, I'm ok either way on whether or not including that info in this article also. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Rufe12, as I said when I reverted the edit, this is not the place to feature detailed content about a specific season when there are already dedicated season articles. And it is absurd to claim that the article is biased because you couldn't add your content when your addition was clearly written with non-neutral language. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's not only that my information, the only objective information on viewership available, was removed. Any and all information that is not positive about the series has been systematically removed, as can be seen from the discussion under "criticism".
- If your objection was really language, you could have edited that (though I do not feel stating that viewership fell below the top 10 is any less neutral than the apparently acceptable statement that the premiere broke records, both are simply facts). Instead, you chose to remove the information completely.
- There is clearly a severe editorial bias at work in this article. Rufe12 (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
There is clearly a severe editorial bias at work in this article.
- Or, and bear with me on this one, it could be that you're a minority viewpoint and it seems biased because we're not giving you more weight than you deserve (see WP:false balance and WP:DUE). To be honest, you can't get more neutral than just quoting review aggregators. Now for the aggregators themselves being biased, you would need to cite reliable secondary sources showing that. DonQuixote (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- User score on Metacritic is 4.1 out of 355 Ratings [1]. It is unavoidable that compared to other "positively" evaluated shows, Picard has a very bad scoring even if part of the user scores would be deliberate downgrading. I assume Metacritic is a credible site. At worst there is proof that they manipulated reviews to, in their words, counter "review bombing" but always only to improve the score. I believe it is on you to prove his "minority viewpoint" or that the user rating is a victim of brigading of 355 people, because the facts confirm his claim. Users cannot monopolise the scoring, while 27 critics from a selected group can. The significant disparity for certain "disputed" entertainment products is a proof of that. As are completely non-transparent relationships between reviewers and producers. Anyhow one looks at this article, the show evidently aroused conflicting opinions. That there is absolute no mention of it under the section Critical Response indicates disingenius conduct. - ddelete013 16:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Unless it's a controlled sampling, which it is not, 355 is too small compared to a million. It has zero statistical accuracy. DonQuixote (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- User score on Metacritic is 4.1 out of 355 Ratings [1]. It is unavoidable that compared to other "positively" evaluated shows, Picard has a very bad scoring even if part of the user scores would be deliberate downgrading. I assume Metacritic is a credible site. At worst there is proof that they manipulated reviews to, in their words, counter "review bombing" but always only to improve the score. I believe it is on you to prove his "minority viewpoint" or that the user rating is a victim of brigading of 355 people, because the facts confirm his claim. Users cannot monopolise the scoring, while 27 critics from a selected group can. The significant disparity for certain "disputed" entertainment products is a proof of that. As are completely non-transparent relationships between reviewers and producers. Anyhow one looks at this article, the show evidently aroused conflicting opinions. That there is absolute no mention of it under the section Critical Response indicates disingenius conduct. - ddelete013 16:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think a show dropping out of the top 10 list of shows on Numeris is notable on a website like Wikipedia. Because things such as competition can have an impact on a shows numbers. 81.97.84.42 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's pretty clear that some biased content was added here based on a lack of understanding, and when it was removed the editor retaliated by tagging the article. Unless there is a legitimate concern with the neutrality of the article I think we should just remove the tag and move on. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- There is clearly a severe editorial bias at work in this article. Rufe12 (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
References
infobox
Could someone with the right wisdom edit the "seasons" row in the infobox? It says "1" (since 1 season has been on the air), but apparently season 2 has already been filmed(?) and 3 has been approved, and the infobox should somehow reflect this situation. I leave it to you to figure out how. What I mainly wanted to find out from the article was whether the series is still on the air, and the infobox made it sound like it had been cancelled after 1 season, which is misleading. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:4F12 (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Until a new episode airs, the second season is still in post-production, so the infobox only lists seasons that have aired, not ones that are still works in progress. It will be updated once the second season begins airing. oknazevad (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Soji's mother credit
Is there any way we can see the Star Trek: Picard script to confirm how Soji's mother is credited? She isn't in the guest-tier characters where the character name is explicitly listed, and I didn't see the off-screen captions or audio descriptions. Do they explain that there? We have multiple conflicting character names:
- Soji's mother
- Soji's "mother"
- Marisol Asha
- Mom AI
Once that's figured out, we can update the entries on season 1 and the characters list. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is a way to get the official credit. "Marisol Asha" is interesting since it is an actual name but I have not seen anywhere official that it would have come from. "Mom AI" isn't very useful I don't think, if we have no official credit then explaining it with "Soji's mother" is better. "Soji's 'mother'" makes sense from an objective perspective once the audience knows that she isn't actually the mother. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Gonna say it
The TNG stars “joining the cast” for season 3 feels rather unclear as to what it means. It’s not quite indicating series regular status for me, though it does on the surface sound like it--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- The official press release refers to them as starring in the season, and previous press releases for the series have differentiated between starring and guest starring, so at the moment I think we should be listing them as main cast members for the third season. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Likely they will be guest stars... I doubt they will be there for the entire season. Spanneraol (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- See, this is exactly why I went here instead of the page itself. If So I’m going to introduce a third scenario: It’s a LaMonica Garrett situation granted for six people (instead of across 5 series): Functionally guest stars or meet the minimum threshold for recurring, but branded series regulars. CreecregofLife (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- If it comes to that then we can adjust. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. Just pointing out that there were possibilities. I certainly don’t expect it to be the third, but it’s there CreecregofLife (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- If it comes to that then we can adjust. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- See, this is exactly why I went here instead of the page itself. If So I’m going to introduce a third scenario: It’s a LaMonica Garrett situation granted for six people (instead of across 5 series): Functionally guest stars or meet the minimum threshold for recurring, but branded series regulars. CreecregofLife (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Likely they will be guest stars... I doubt they will be there for the entire season. Spanneraol (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's definitely premature to be listing them as starring actors in this article, long before the season in which they appear has been released. (Maybe it's appropriate to add them to the season 3 article.) After all, the infobox says "number of seasons: 2 / number of episodes: 15", and those aren't updated until new seasons and episodes are released. Why should the same not be the case for the cast of future seasons, especially based on a single ambiguously-worded press release? For this article, for the time being, I think "the main cast of The Next Generation were confirmed to be starring in the third season" in the Casting section is appropriate, but listing all of these actors who have not yet appeared in the lede, the infobox, and the cast section definitely seems like overkill. Saying "LeVar Burton, Michael Dorn, Jonathan Frakes, Gates McFadden, and Marina Sirtis also star" is definitely not true yet; saying they "will join the cast for season 3" would be accurate. AJD (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. The source doesn't provide sufficient clarity to make such pronouncements, and the phrasing goes beyond the press release into a level that can be considered WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTALBALL. oknazevad (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- As I noted above, the previous press releases have clearly differentiated between starring and guest starring and this one does not say guest starring, so any suggestion that they are actually guest stars is not supported by the current sources. Not showing the season or episode numbers until episodes air is a guideline in the template documentation, but that is not the case for cast members and doing so would lead down a slippery slope. We also know that filming for season 3 is finished and the announcement came with a teaser that featured new footage and audio of the actors from the third season, so we know that they have already returned to star in the series and "they will join the cast for season 3" is not actually accurate. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- But of themC only Spiner has been in season 2 and that’s not in a series regular capacity. Heck, The Flash and Agents of SHIELD had bios for actual new series regulars hidden until the season actually started airing. And they certainly weren’t in the infobox during that period either CreecregofLife (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what their previous roles were in the series if we have a source saying that they are main cast members in season 3 (which we do), but for the record Spiner is actually a main cast member in the second season. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- According to WP:PRSOURCE, information from press releases "should be used cautiously". If we're not certain that it means they will be main cast members (rather than just using "starring" hyperbolically for PR reasons), I think we shouldn't jump to listing them as such here. It's less costly to omit information that later turns out to be true than to include information that later turns out to be false. AJD (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also gonna say it - until we have episodes out in the open along with very clear sources, we should not - in any way, shape or wishful thinking - presume what season 3 is going to bring. There is no hurry, and we are not a fansite. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with AJD and Jack. We definitely need to ere on the side of caution here. No matter what we think certain wording means in the past, it's still synthesis to extrapolate what it might mean now. We will be told more eventually. BilCat (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's basically what I was saying from the start. It was too vague of language to really be jumped on CreecregofLife (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- We aren't just talking about a press release, the actual source used in the article is not a press release and is as reliable as it gets for film and TV news. The source says starring, not guest starring, and suggesting that starring actually means guest starring in this specific instance is WP:OR. If we get a source in the future that says guest starring then we can update the article, but currently we don't have that. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- The default should be guest-starring, the stretch is the more extreme circumstance, in this case concluding that they’re series regulars CreecregofLife (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- The default is guest starring if we don't know that they are starring, but the people who literally made the season put out a press release stating "LeVar Burton, Michael Dorn, Jonathan Frakes, Gates McFadden, Marina Sirtis and Brent Spiner will star alongside Stewart in season three". That is not vague at all. When the people who make the show say that these actors are starring alongside the main star, and we know that those same people only months ago were making clear distinctions between stars and guest stars in their press releases, we don't get to decide to just ignore that and put whatever we want. If a source comes out stating that they are actually guest stars then we can make the change, but for now we have very clear statements from the actual producers of the show stating that they are starring in the season, not guest starring. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97, the "actual source used in the article" (Variety) doesn't say starring or guest-starring; it just says "joining". Press releases are to be used "cautiously", and the independent third-party source doesn't take "starring" seriously enough to use the term. AJD (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- We can't make assumptions about what the writers of that article take seriously. The press release can be added to support them as "starring" but I was waiting for this discussion to finish. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- But you assumed that they were series regulars when it hasn't been clear CreecregofLife (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't, but this conversation obviously isn't going anywhere. I have removed them from the main cast list for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- “This conversation isn’t going anywhere” is a weird way to describe you not having consensus and having to concede CreecregofLife (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not really. Do you have an issue here? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- It came across that way to me too, Adam. I'm glad to hear it isn't so. BilCat (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not really. Do you have an issue here? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- “This conversation isn’t going anywhere” is a weird way to describe you not having consensus and having to concede CreecregofLife (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't, but this conversation obviously isn't going anywhere. I have removed them from the main cast list for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- But you assumed that they were series regulars when it hasn't been clear CreecregofLife (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- We can't make assumptions about what the writers of that article take seriously. The press release can be added to support them as "starring" but I was waiting for this discussion to finish. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- The default should be guest-starring, the stretch is the more extreme circumstance, in this case concluding that they’re series regulars CreecregofLife (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- We aren't just talking about a press release, the actual source used in the article is not a press release and is as reliable as it gets for film and TV news. The source says starring, not guest starring, and suggesting that starring actually means guest starring in this specific instance is WP:OR. If we get a source in the future that says guest starring then we can update the article, but currently we don't have that. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's basically what I was saying from the start. It was too vague of language to really be jumped on CreecregofLife (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with AJD and Jack. We definitely need to ere on the side of caution here. No matter what we think certain wording means in the past, it's still synthesis to extrapolate what it might mean now. We will be told more eventually. BilCat (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also gonna say it - until we have episodes out in the open along with very clear sources, we should not - in any way, shape or wishful thinking - presume what season 3 is going to bring. There is no hurry, and we are not a fansite. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- But of themC only Spiner has been in season 2 and that’s not in a series regular capacity. Heck, The Flash and Agents of SHIELD had bios for actual new series regulars hidden until the season actually started airing. And they certainly weren’t in the infobox during that period either CreecregofLife (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- As I noted above, the previous press releases have clearly differentiated between starring and guest starring and this one does not say guest starring, so any suggestion that they are actually guest stars is not supported by the current sources. Not showing the season or episode numbers until episodes air is a guideline in the template documentation, but that is not the case for cast members and doing so would lead down a slippery slope. We also know that filming for season 3 is finished and the announcement came with a teaser that featured new footage and audio of the actors from the third season, so we know that they have already returned to star in the series and "they will join the cast for season 3" is not actually accurate. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. The source doesn't provide sufficient clarity to make such pronouncements, and the phrasing goes beyond the press release into a level that can be considered WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTALBALL. oknazevad (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is a really good reason why we adopt a wait-and-see attitude with these sorts of 'proclamations' by showrunners ahead of events. To begin with, they are often wishful thinking or tactical contract negotiation on the part of those same showrunners to hype up their value to studio execs; it's largely bullshit with very little of substance.
- Additionally, there is no effing way that they can guarantee that the main cast will show up in the finished product. What if one of them dies, gets ill or has some other crisis which prevents them from appearing? That has happened all the time, and will always happen. Wishful thinking - even on the part of show-runners or actors speaking about best-case-scenarios does not rise to the litmus of inclusion. We are not a fansite, and we add details as they become concrete, and supported by numerous references, as a show with as many moving parts as ST:P should. I will repeat from my earlier post. We are not in a hurry. If in doubt, we wait. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- They filmed seasons 2 and 3 back-to-back. They just finished filming season 3. DonQuixote (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, these appearances are already in the can, but the announcement of them was held off to have something to hype on First Contact Day (which is a fan thing). Doesn't change that we should wait regarding adding them to the infobox, though. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia litmus for inclusion is sourcing, not truth; a lot of contributors have difficulty with that concept. Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- And the fact that the seasons were filmed back-to-back is already sourced in the article. oknazevad (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia litmus for inclusion is sourcing, not truth; a lot of contributors have difficulty with that concept. Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, these appearances are already in the can, but the announcement of them was held off to have something to hype on First Contact Day (which is a fan thing). Doesn't change that we should wait regarding adding them to the infobox, though. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- They filmed seasons 2 and 3 back-to-back. They just finished filming season 3. DonQuixote (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Mentioning RedLetterMedia's Review and Negative Fan Reception
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 | Star Trek: Picard/Archive 1 (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 7 June 2022 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
this section needs some serious review
RedLetterMedia, a popular video production company that produces web series and reviews, has been a vocal critic of this series, and their reviews of Picard have gone viral (most notably https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwF1iri1GjQ w/ over 3 million views). I think it might be worth noting this negative reception in the "Critical Reception" section. Right now the section reads overtly positive, but many hardcore Star Trek fans are not happy with the series and I think that should be reflected here. Even if you disagree and like this show, you can't deny that many fans don't feel that way. ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why? Who's "Many fans"? Why should their feelings get a platform? CreecregofLife (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why do we care about the feelings of some you tubbers? Spanneraol (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- This was to the OP, right? CreecregofLife (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes.. sorry. Spanneraol (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- This was to the OP, right? CreecregofLife (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm curious Wrong19. Would you argue that negative and positive fan reaction should be included? Or is it just negative fan reaction you are arguing in favour of?
- BTW For whatever it's worth, I watch RedLetterMedia videos, I enjoy RedLetterMedia videos, I recommend RedLetterMedia videos to friends, but I don't for a second think they should be included here. They're as much, if not more, playing things for laughs than giving actual criticism. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing this. I personally think RLM has more critical merit than other YouTubers. A good breakdown of why can be read in this article, found on RLM's page regarding their reception https://pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/ijcs/article/id/29588/ ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Rather than picking random fan critiques that happen to be negative, the article uses review aggregators covering many critics and therefore gives a neutral assessment of the response. We don't include things like audience scores because they are not accurate, but we do have some trustworthy viewership data that gives an idea of audience feelings. There are also more details on the critical response for each season at their own articles where you can find a better spread of positive and negative thoughts (or will in the future, in the case of the season 2 and 3 articles). - adamstom97 (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I was curious to see what criticisms, if any, were present on this article (so much so, I expected it would be locked because it's such a highly controversial and contentious show, for so many reasons). Instead I'm surprised and taken aback.... only positive and glowing reviews? Huh? Something here is amiss, outside reviewer have been heavily, if not unprecedentedly, critical of this show. The damage done to CBS corporation by this and other so-called "Star Trek" shows--helmed by Alex Kurztman, have been clearly documented. This isn't just poor or weak writing, it is by design meant to vandalize and damage a franchise. I'd go as far as saying to destroy a part of a decades old pop culture, for some political agenda. Though if we just want to talk about critical analysis, RedLetterMedia's review would be a beneficial and welcome contribution the article. Unless there is some valid reason not to, I'd be happy to write up an entry. Yes, they do a comical spin with their videos, but it is a highly intelligent, well thought out and thought provoking review. They also have quite a large following and highly relevant, this isn't someone broadcasting from their basement with a handful of followers. Though I'd just like to question in general, why the strange absence of any critical reviews from this article? They certainly do exist, and in spades!--Apple2gs (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- So it's not about fairness, but to validate and confirm your biases? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it's about fairness, and not to me, but to the readers of this article. And fairness is to show BOTH sides of the coin, the positive and the negative reviews. If one side is censored, that goes against Wikipedia's neutrality. And yes, I do have very strong opinions about this show (I won't pretend to hide that) but I won't be putting any that in the article should I choose to edit it.--Apple2gs (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, both sides of the coin. Not both extremes. It has already been demonstrated how the article has opinions on both sides.
- You also said "Unless there is some valid reason not to, I'd be happy to write up an entry", so there's a contradiction right there CreecregofLife (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- If negative fan reaction gets significant coverage in reliable published sources, then that coverage can be cited in this article. But user-generated content, including user reviews, is not generally acceptable on Wikipedia. That's the limits we have to work within. BilCat (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I fail to see opinions from both sides, only one side--the positive. See these quotes pulled from the "critical response" section of the article....
- -"Anchored by the incomparable Patrick Stewart, Picard departs from standard Starfleet protocol with a slower,
- serialized story, but like all great Star Trek it tackles timely themes with grace and makes for an exciting push
- further into the final frontier."
- -"Picard gets some backup from franchise fan favorites in a sophomore season that charts a course towards
- recapturing more of the classical Star Trek spirit and makes it so."
- -"generally favorable reviews". <-- (this is stated 3 times!)
- So where are the negative, or even slightly critical reviews of this show? Having unfortunately watched two seasons of Picard, there is something unsettling about those reviews, they're detached from reality. Did they even watch the show? Were they paid by a sponsor to speak positively about this show, regardless of how they actually felt? I'd like to see some other reviews added, to balance things out. At any rate, I support RedLetterMedia's review added to the section, so long as its done tactfully. Weight doesn't have to go to either side, just that both sides exist--Apple2gs (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia reflects what reputable sources have to say. If the reputable sources aren't talking about it, then you won't find it here. What you need to do is to get the reputable sources to talk about it. DonQuixote (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I watched the show and those reviews don't seem out of line to me.. RedLetterMedia is not a credible reviewer, they are just some guy with a you tube channel.Spanneraol (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it's about fairness, and not to me, but to the readers of this article. And fairness is to show BOTH sides of the coin, the positive and the negative reviews. If one side is censored, that goes against Wikipedia's neutrality. And yes, I do have very strong opinions about this show (I won't pretend to hide that) but I won't be putting any that in the article should I choose to edit it.--Apple2gs (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- So it's not about fairness, but to validate and confirm your biases? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I was curious to see what criticisms, if any, were present on this article (so much so, I expected it would be locked because it's such a highly controversial and contentious show, for so many reasons). Instead I'm surprised and taken aback.... only positive and glowing reviews? Huh? Something here is amiss, outside reviewer have been heavily, if not unprecedentedly, critical of this show. The damage done to CBS corporation by this and other so-called "Star Trek" shows--helmed by Alex Kurztman, have been clearly documented. This isn't just poor or weak writing, it is by design meant to vandalize and damage a franchise. I'd go as far as saying to destroy a part of a decades old pop culture, for some political agenda. Though if we just want to talk about critical analysis, RedLetterMedia's review would be a beneficial and welcome contribution the article. Unless there is some valid reason not to, I'd be happy to write up an entry. Yes, they do a comical spin with their videos, but it is a highly intelligent, well thought out and thought provoking review. They also have quite a large following and highly relevant, this isn't someone broadcasting from their basement with a handful of followers. Though I'd just like to question in general, why the strange absence of any critical reviews from this article? They certainly do exist, and in spades!--Apple2gs (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Lmao dude, "just some guy on YouTube" is an incredible disservice. 3.4 million views on his review. And as someone mentioned above, the current "critical reception" section is unrealistically positive. Critics are one thing, Star Trek fans have been VERY negative toward this show, and that needs to be reflected on this page one way or another. A viral critique thats been viewed 3.4 MILLION times is definitely noteworthy. Don't let personal bias get in the way, Star Trek Picard has received significant criticism in addition to "generally favorable reviews." Have to mention that or we are failing as an encyclopedia. ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Social media following does not mean someone is a reliable reviewer... RedLetterMedia as far as I can tell exists entirely just to trash pop culture properties.. and SOME "fans" who are very vocal on social media does not equal the entire fanbase, nor even the majority of it. Spanneraol (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unless reputable sources start talking about it, we can't do anything. Seriously, it took decades for the theory of relativity to start appearing in encyclopaedias. DonQuixote (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Reputable sources are discussing it, see below;
- https://www.avclub.com/star-trek-picard-offers-some-answers-on-its-worst-epis-1842280137
- https://www.avclub.com/all-is-resolved-in-an-underwhelming-star-trek-picard-f-1842501152
- https://www.avclub.com/soji-finds-her-way-home-on-a-disappointing-star-trek-p-1842403273
- https://www.escapistmagazine.com/star-trek-picard-season-2-episode-10-review-farewell/
- https://www.tor.com/2022/04/07/how-much-worse-could-it-possibly-get-star-trek-picards-two-of-one/comment-page-2/
- https://www.ign.com/articles/star-trek-picard-season-2-full-review
- Need I go on?
- And asApple2gs noted, there is really nothing about the negative reception to the show currently on the page. It's funny to see accusations of bias from CreecregofLife, because the reception page is SO CLEARLY BIASED IN FAVOR OF THE SHOW. Gotta explore both sides of the coin. Picard has generally favorable reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, but not worldwide. ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Additonally, https://trekmovie.com/2022/04/28/recap-review-star-trek-picard-gets-lost-and-found-in-hide-and-seek/
- I tried to edit already but it was reverted and was told to continue discussing here. IGN, AV Club, and RedLetterMedia's scathing reviews are all very pertinent to this discussion and should be included in Critical Reception section. Please let me know what you think and I'll revisit later this week. ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Both sides are explored. You say “Picard has generally favorable reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, but not worldwide.” Yet you also only cite American publications, which means your assertions are as biased as you claim it already is. You want your biases to be given a platform it doesn’t actually deserve CreecregofLife (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Both sides are decidedly not explored, what are you talking about? "Generally favorable reviews" is mentioned 3 TIMES, yet not one of the 7 negative articles I posted is mentioned, nor the RedLetterMedia video? That makes no sense.
- I am fully aware people like this show, but clearly User:CreecregofLife is in denial about the negative reception. The article currently makes no mention of critics or fans having any critiques of the show, and that is inaccurate and should be rectified. Picard ain't flawless User:CreecregofLife, why are you dying on this hill lol ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Where did we say it was flawless? CreecregofLife (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
A statement or two can be crafted from these sources but it should be more specific on the issues they found with the general series, like "Some critics disliked that the show overplayed the nostalgia factor and lacked originality." AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Understood. How do you think we should mention negative fan reception vs critics? Fans (unsurprisingly lol) are more negative on it than critics.
- Thanks! ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- It’s not negative fan reception versus critics, and Wikipedia does not allow falsities CreecregofLife (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Lol dude, it's not "versus" in the sense that one is better than the other, it's "versus" in the sense of differentiating the two within the article. You gotta chill, you're taking all this embarrassingly seriously hahaha ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- “Stop taking it seriously” So then you’re not being genuine with your arguments and are just joking? CreecregofLife (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- https://www.avclub.com/star-trek-picard-offers-some-answers-on-its-worst-epis-1842280137
- https://www.avclub.com/all-is-resolved-in-an-underwhelming-star-trek-picard-f-1842501152
- https://www.avclub.com/soji-finds-her-way-home-on-a-disappointing-star-trek-p-1842403273
- https://www.escapistmagazine.com/star-trek-picard-season-2-episode-10-review-farewell/
- https://www.tor.com/2022/04/07/how-much-worse-could-it-possibly-get-star-trek-picards-two-of-one/comment-page-2/
- https://www.ign.com/articles/star-trek-picard-season-2-full-review
- https://trekmovie.com/2022/04/28/recap-review-star-trek-picard-gets-lost-and-found-in-hide-and-seek/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwF1iri1GjQ
- https://www.slashfilm.com/843087/finally-its-time-for-dull-mind-numbing-action-in-episode-9-of-star-trek-picard-season-2/
- https://gamerant.com/star-trek-picard-season-2-episode-10-review/
- When these approved edits to the critical reception eventually come, please do not needlessly revert them. These are my final words on the matter. Have a great day. ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hey User:CollectiveSolidarity User:BD2412 User:AngusWOOF, what is up with this user... ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Posting random reviews of particular episodes is not helpful.. if you have language you want to propose then suggest it and we can consider it if the language is neutral and doesn't include questionable sources.. Spanneraol (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- And he keeps posting the same links over and over again, so it’s even more unhelpful than if it was the first time, and in fact instead portrays the negativity as having a smaller presence than they’ve been arguing. Tagging particular a particular user that a particular opponent has been trying to avoid due to negative experiences in order to try to undermine the validity of said opponent’s arguments means they’re resorting to personal attacks instead of strengthening their actual argument. They’re trying to win through dirty instead of clean tactics CreecregofLife (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Posting random reviews of particular episodes is not helpful.. if you have language you want to propose then suggest it and we can consider it if the language is neutral and doesn't include questionable sources.. Spanneraol (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- The 3 AV club reviews + Escapist + Tor review are for particular episodes, notably finales and some in-betweens, and isn't an overall review of the entire series, which is what would be needed here and not in the individual season or episode articles. The IGN one was meh and would be good for the season 2 article. Trekmovie is an episode review. YouTube is that RedLetterMedia video. Slashfilm and Gamerant are episodic reviews. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Here's the problem, this goes beyond a matter of reviews. Alex Kurtzman publicly said, in a video interview no less, that his intention is to use this well-established franchise (Discovery and Picard) solely as a platform for his political messages. It has been openingly stated it's been hijacked for the purpose of propaganda, with no care about destroying its established canon or Gene Roddenberry's original vision. That is significant, and THAT needs to be added somewhere within the article. I questioned such an extreme myself until I saw the interview. Of course a solid reference source is needed (I'll find some), but it's information that at least explains why such negative backlash from fans exists. Star Trek was more than just an entertaining show, it changed the world, and for the better. And for a producer to publicly state they want to dismantle a decades old franchise, beloved by millions, and it re-purpose for political agenda.....yet say nothing about it in this article?
- The next issue is whether RedLetterMedia is a valid source (just read their Wikipedia entry to see how big they are, and how they've become part of pop culture itself!). And the fact that it's in a video format, is it any different from say Siskel and Ebert's "At the Movies" reviews that used to be on broadcast TV? Just because parts of the review are done tongue in cheek for comedic purpose, doesn't invalidate their actual reviews. Beyond the humor, there is a great deal in depth analysis of what is at fault with the writing, the story, and the about-face in terms of what makes Star Trek, Star Trek, that is being infringed on. They don't just say "This sucks", "This is garbage", they carefully and methodically pick it apart to reveal what it truly is. I know Wikipedia has guidelines of what can be used and what cannot, but let's see if we can't fit this information in the article within those guidelines--Apple2gs (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly, you need to cite reliable sources for your claims, especially claims against a living person (see WP:BLP). Secondly, if you need to argue for the reputability of a single source that you happen to like rather than find a more reputable source or sources, it probably will fail WP:DUE. Seriously, even if Neil deGrasse Tyson, a reputable astrophysicist, were to publish videos on youtube, no encyclopaedia will start citing them. DonQuixote (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comparing RLM to Siskel and Ebert hurt your argument significantly. And also, you're reinforcing you want false balance by hijacking the page with your propaganda, claiming Kurtzman said something he most likely did not and you are misinterpreting. I'm not sure you understand what Star Trek is about. CreecregofLife (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the valuable tips (@DonQuixote), I will consider that should I decide to contribute to the article, though seeing how contentious it is, I may just stick to the the Talk forum for the moment.
- With regards to Siskel & Ebert versus Mike Stoklasa & Rich Evans, you obviously have never watched one of RLM reviews from beginning to end. As I said above, and in particular with Mike, their thoughts and in depth analysis of movies and television are not only spot on to the point, but methodically structured arguments, and quite intellectually thought out observations. Behind all the comedic silliness--and yes, it may be hard to see past it, I do see them like a modern day version of Siskel and Ebert. It's those times when they drop the silliness and get straight to the meat and bones of the discussion, that is where they really shine (and in some ways even more attuned than that famous pair from the past). You can disagree, and that's fine, but I suggest listening to some of their reviews....the more grounded ones, to understand why I praise them.
- Kurtzman never said that? Here is a direct quote from the man:
- "....are critical right now, Black lives matter, the NWACP, a lot of our cast speaking to that, Star Trek speaking to it. The goal is not really to promote Star Trek but to promote these organizations and to use it as our platform to able to bring greater awareness to these very very important messages and places"
- Here's the actually audio from that interview: (Nerdrotic on YouTube "Star Trek Epic FAIL | CANCELS Fans Again and Itself" @2:20 -- link blocked by Wikipedia)
- To address your criticism that I don't understand what Star Trek is about. It is about the human condition, with an overwhelming sense of optimism, a future where people learn to accept each other as equals, a utopian future where money, greed, racism, fascism, hatred and the need to accumulate wealth and objects is replaced by a drive to grow, better oneself and strive to benefit mankind and all others. A future where disease, poverty and social classes no longer exist. Just a bright and optimistic world we would hope to one day live in. What Star Trek is NOT: Pornographic violence, explicit profanity, blatant segregation, promoting misandry, glorifying smoking, drinking, drug use, violence and murder, gibberish meaningless dialog, and stupidity taken to levels never before seen in television script writing. It is also not a dive into dark, depressing and narcissistic driven story telling that has absolutely no meaningful message. Which does Star Trek Picard embody?--Apple2gs (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've watched the show.. it doesn't do any of that stuff.. there is no explicit violence or profanity, certainly not segregation, and it doesn't promote any of that stuff. Sounds like you don't even watch it. Spanneraol (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Spanneraol See below. I cannot directly link videos (Wikipedia blocks it) but please have a look at the YouTube video I mention called "Mr. Plinkett's Star Trek Picard Review" and jump to time index 1:29:45. You'll see the pornographic violence, profanity, murder, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. The segregation is real, but I may be thinking more of Star Trek Discovery, where groups on the ship are segregated by color, race, sexuality or gender identity (yes, it's actually a thing! The scripts have the characters choose to disassociate with other crew members that differ, and form cliques based on group identity, which is a horrible message to the audience. Compare that to the original 1966 Star Trek where all the crew are one, and blind to any differences. They even had the first ever interracial kiss shown on television on 1966 TOS!).--Apple2gs (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- So you didn't actually watch the show.. you are just taking a edited video that is trying to push a point as focus... just cause the film has some smoking, drinking etc. in it doesn't mean it is glorifying it.. the original shows all had murders and occasional violence on them as well.. space is a dangerous place... and no there is no "segregation".. I don't know what you are even talking about with that... there is no evidence from the show that anyone is "disassociating from other crew members"... can you even cite an example of such? There are all sorts of different races and sexual identities on the crew and they all interact with each other. I think you have never watched the show and just are citing biased videos. Spanneraol (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Of course I've watched the show! I diligently sat through seasons 1 and 2 of Star Trek Picard (all 20 episodes!), giving it my full attention and viewed with an opened mind I might add. I've also had the misfortune of doing the same with seasons 1 through 3 of Star Trek Discovery before finally washing my hands of that series (no surprise it has the same team of writers and also produced by Alex Kurtzman). I should also mention I've had the privilege of watching the entire run (every single episode!) of the original Star Trek (1966), Star Trek the animated series (1973), Next Generation (1987), Deep Space Nine (1993), Voyager (1995), Enterprise (2001) and all 10 films (1979-2002). I've been watching real Star Trek since the late 70's until present time, I'm no stranger to the show and its values. As for smoking, drinking, the accumulation of wealth and segregated social classes, they DO NOT EXIST in real Star Trek (1966-2005). It is stated several times throughout REAL Star Trek canon those things were abolished centuries ago and human beings have evolved into an enlightened state. I pointed out the segregation in Discovery, but have YOU actually watched Picard or paid attention? What about when Picard visits the refugee planet with Romulans? Don't remember the scene with the sign Picard kicks over and what it says, before Elron decapitates the Romulan's head with his sword? No profanity? Shall I quote the admiral, who yells at Picard "Sheer f-cken hubris!" or "Shut the f-ck up, Picard!"? What about Raffi whining to Picard about his living in his privileged 'fine chateau, with fancy things and wealth, while she's trapped in a trailer park and struggling to makes ends meet. Since when are there human social classes based on money and ethnicity in Star Trek? The show is trying to put current day issue into the show, but not an any intelligent or meaningful way. The thing with showing ICE, what exactly was the message other than let-us-hit-the-audience-over-the-head-with-a-sledge-hammer "This thing is bad!". Where are both sides of the debate, letting the audience draw their own conclusions...not bashing people over the head with propaganda and one sided message. You need to show the audience why something is "bad", not just state it as fact, otherwise that is piss poor writing. At any rate, there is no point to arguing this further. I do not like this show in the least, and I do not consider it a part of Star Trek (I'm sorry, but it is antithetical to Gene Roddenberry's vision). If you enjoy it, I'm glad, and please don't let my views or judgement push you away if you truly do like it (I mean that sincerely). Let's just agree to disagree. What we should get back to is finding a way to put both my view AND your view in the criticisms section, as clearly there are opposing views, as we've just proven. Though from proper and accepted sources of course. I do respect your opinion incidentally, even if we don't agree.--Apple2gs (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some heads need to be swung over. That’s just fact. You’re not here to improve the encyclopedia, you just want your anger justified and are upset you’re not getting it. There was no reason for you to list all of your gripes with the show here otherwiseCreecregofLife (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Before you prejudge me, I've been contributing to Wikipedia for close to 17 years, created entire articles from the ground up and helped improve and rewrite countless articles, putting in many hundreds if not thousands of hours of work. Please try and be civil here (incidentally, I've seen your user Talk page with countless edit warnings and abrasiveness towards other editors). I'm trying to make a point there are valid reasons for criticisms towards this show, including from Star Trek fans like myself (you can bet there are people in the mainstream media and review sites with even far stronger feelings than my own). I just feel it should be balanced, if there are positive remarks about Star Trek Picard do by all means show them, but at the same time the negative should not be censored. You seem to be taking it personally about any criticisms about the show, which is no different than my so-called grips about it. At any rate, I said my reasons why I dislike the writing on this show, and I'm done. I'm just interested now in focusing on what additional sources could be added that fall within Wikipedia's guidelines. If I see a particular review, I'll bring it up here before editing it into the article.--Apple2gs (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your seniority doesn’t make your position any more correct. I have been very civil with you. And to say there’s no drinking in Star Trek pre-Discovery is rather bizarre considering what Ten Forward serves. I can be somewhat sure people have stronger feelings about this than you do, but that doesn’t make them stronger arguments or analyses. CreecregofLife (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Before you prejudge me, I've been contributing to Wikipedia for close to 17 years, created entire articles from the ground up and helped improve and rewrite countless articles, putting in many hundreds if not thousands of hours of work. Please try and be civil here (incidentally, I've seen your user Talk page with countless edit warnings and abrasiveness towards other editors). I'm trying to make a point there are valid reasons for criticisms towards this show, including from Star Trek fans like myself (you can bet there are people in the mainstream media and review sites with even far stronger feelings than my own). I just feel it should be balanced, if there are positive remarks about Star Trek Picard do by all means show them, but at the same time the negative should not be censored. You seem to be taking it personally about any criticisms about the show, which is no different than my so-called grips about it. At any rate, I said my reasons why I dislike the writing on this show, and I'm done. I'm just interested now in focusing on what additional sources could be added that fall within Wikipedia's guidelines. If I see a particular review, I'll bring it up here before editing it into the article.--Apple2gs (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some heads need to be swung over. That’s just fact. You’re not here to improve the encyclopedia, you just want your anger justified and are upset you’re not getting it. There was no reason for you to list all of your gripes with the show here otherwiseCreecregofLife (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Of course I've watched the show! I diligently sat through seasons 1 and 2 of Star Trek Picard (all 20 episodes!), giving it my full attention and viewed with an opened mind I might add. I've also had the misfortune of doing the same with seasons 1 through 3 of Star Trek Discovery before finally washing my hands of that series (no surprise it has the same team of writers and also produced by Alex Kurtzman). I should also mention I've had the privilege of watching the entire run (every single episode!) of the original Star Trek (1966), Star Trek the animated series (1973), Next Generation (1987), Deep Space Nine (1993), Voyager (1995), Enterprise (2001) and all 10 films (1979-2002). I've been watching real Star Trek since the late 70's until present time, I'm no stranger to the show and its values. As for smoking, drinking, the accumulation of wealth and segregated social classes, they DO NOT EXIST in real Star Trek (1966-2005). It is stated several times throughout REAL Star Trek canon those things were abolished centuries ago and human beings have evolved into an enlightened state. I pointed out the segregation in Discovery, but have YOU actually watched Picard or paid attention? What about when Picard visits the refugee planet with Romulans? Don't remember the scene with the sign Picard kicks over and what it says, before Elron decapitates the Romulan's head with his sword? No profanity? Shall I quote the admiral, who yells at Picard "Sheer f-cken hubris!" or "Shut the f-ck up, Picard!"? What about Raffi whining to Picard about his living in his privileged 'fine chateau, with fancy things and wealth, while she's trapped in a trailer park and struggling to makes ends meet. Since when are there human social classes based on money and ethnicity in Star Trek? The show is trying to put current day issue into the show, but not an any intelligent or meaningful way. The thing with showing ICE, what exactly was the message other than let-us-hit-the-audience-over-the-head-with-a-sledge-hammer "This thing is bad!". Where are both sides of the debate, letting the audience draw their own conclusions...not bashing people over the head with propaganda and one sided message. You need to show the audience why something is "bad", not just state it as fact, otherwise that is piss poor writing. At any rate, there is no point to arguing this further. I do not like this show in the least, and I do not consider it a part of Star Trek (I'm sorry, but it is antithetical to Gene Roddenberry's vision). If you enjoy it, I'm glad, and please don't let my views or judgement push you away if you truly do like it (I mean that sincerely). Let's just agree to disagree. What we should get back to is finding a way to put both my view AND your view in the criticisms section, as clearly there are opposing views, as we've just proven. Though from proper and accepted sources of course. I do respect your opinion incidentally, even if we don't agree.--Apple2gs (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- So you didn't actually watch the show.. you are just taking a edited video that is trying to push a point as focus... just cause the film has some smoking, drinking etc. in it doesn't mean it is glorifying it.. the original shows all had murders and occasional violence on them as well.. space is a dangerous place... and no there is no "segregation".. I don't know what you are even talking about with that... there is no evidence from the show that anyone is "disassociating from other crew members"... can you even cite an example of such? There are all sorts of different races and sexual identities on the crew and they all interact with each other. I think you have never watched the show and just are citing biased videos. Spanneraol (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also, Wikipedia doesn’t block linking to YouTube videos, otherwise you wouldn’t be advocating they be used as a reference. What they do block is the “youtu.be” formatting. They have to be in the full youtube.com formatting CreecregofLife (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Spanneraol See below. I cannot directly link videos (Wikipedia blocks it) but please have a look at the YouTube video I mention called "Mr. Plinkett's Star Trek Picard Review" and jump to time index 1:29:45. You'll see the pornographic violence, profanity, murder, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. The segregation is real, but I may be thinking more of Star Trek Discovery, where groups on the ship are segregated by color, race, sexuality or gender identity (yes, it's actually a thing! The scripts have the characters choose to disassociate with other crew members that differ, and form cliques based on group identity, which is a horrible message to the audience. Compare that to the original 1966 Star Trek where all the crew are one, and blind to any differences. They even had the first ever interracial kiss shown on television on 1966 TOS!).--Apple2gs (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've watched the show.. it doesn't do any of that stuff.. there is no explicit violence or profanity, certainly not segregation, and it doesn't promote any of that stuff. Sounds like you don't even watch it. Spanneraol (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- The former, actually. Sorry you don’t see it that way CreecregofLife (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Could you give me a solid example? (not trying to be vicious here, I'm rather curious what you're seeing that I'm not). RedLetterMedia, with Mike in his Mr.Plinkett persona, actually did an excellent A-B comparison of scenes from classic Star Trek (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) with Picard. I unfortunately cannot link it here, but go on YouTube and search for "Mr. Plinkett's Star Trek Picard Review" and jump to time index 1:29:45 and watch the short clip. Everything I just said, you will see with your own eyes and ears about it being the latter.--Apple2gs (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, you tried smearing it because its actual purpose went over your head, and has nothing to do with fair reviewing CreecregofLife (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Could you give me a solid example? (not trying to be vicious here, I'm rather curious what you're seeing that I'm not). RedLetterMedia, with Mike in his Mr.Plinkett persona, actually did an excellent A-B comparison of scenes from classic Star Trek (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) with Picard. I unfortunately cannot link it here, but go on YouTube and search for "Mr. Plinkett's Star Trek Picard Review" and jump to time index 1:29:45 and watch the short clip. Everything I just said, you will see with your own eyes and ears about it being the latter.--Apple2gs (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hey User:CollectiveSolidarity User:BD2412 User:AngusWOOF, what is up with this user... ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- “Stop taking it seriously” So then you’re not being genuine with your arguments and are just joking? CreecregofLife (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Lol dude, it's not "versus" in the sense that one is better than the other, it's "versus" in the sense of differentiating the two within the article. You gotta chill, you're taking all this embarrassingly seriously hahaha ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- It’s not negative fan reception versus critics, and Wikipedia does not allow falsities CreecregofLife (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's just ignore the rants here. WP:NOTAFORUM and all that. Because there is sure as hell nothing in there worth adding to the article. It's just one whiner's useless opinion. oknazevad (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- One whiner's useless opinion? What are you talking about? User:Apple2gs has made some great points regarding the negative reception to the show, RedLetterMedia's validity/similarity to Siskel and Ebert (not entirely sure how that "hurt" his argument, they are quite comparable), and this page's current positive bias toward the show.
- Sorry that this discussion is getting somewhat heated, but I don't think it's fair to say me and User:Apple2gs are whining and ranting despite our arguments being valid and backed by multiple sources. It seems like User:Oknazevad and User:CreecregofLife are taking this VERY personally for some reason, whereas User:Apple2gs and I just want the critical reception section to reflect more than just "generally positive reviews." Do you have any additional thoughts User:AngusWOOF? I would LOVE to hear his thoughts before User:CreecregofLife attacks us any more. ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- When did I attack you? You seem to be the ones taking it very personally CreecregofLife (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Okay fair point. "Attack" was a poor choice of words, apologies. But please take a moment and look below are some of your past counterarguments;
- "So it's not about fairness, but to validate and confirm your biases?" CreecregofLife (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2022
- "You also said "Unless there is some valid reason not to, I'd be happy to write up an entry", so there's a contradiction right there" CreecregofLife (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2022"
- "You want your biases to be given a platform it doesn’t actually deserve" CreecregofLife (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2022
- "So then you’re not being genuine with your arguments and are just joking?" CreecregofLife (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2022
- "You're reinforcing you want false balance by hijacking the page with your propaganda, claiming Kurtzman said something he most likely did not and you are misinterpreting. I'm not sure you understand what Star Trek is about." CreecregofLife (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2022
- "The former, actually. Sorry you don’t see it that way" CreecregofLife (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2022
- "Sorry, you tried smearing it because its actual purpose went over your head, and has nothing to do with fair reviewing" CreecregofLife (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2022
- ALL of your aforementioned arguments stem from accusations of user's having bias, misunderstanding Star Trek, or the phrasing/structuring of our arguments. At no point have you submitted a valid counterargument for negative critical and fan reception. User:Apple2gs and I have provided sources (granted some are for episodes rather than the whole series/season) detailing negative reception, but instead of finding positive reviews as a counter-argument, you're simply declaring us biased. ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- When did I attack you? You seem to be the ones taking it very personally CreecregofLife (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the Kurtzman audio you cite a edited clip on a you tube video.. from the language you mention it does not sound as though he is talking about the show or the writing but some of the cast activities outside of the show.. He never says he is using the show "solely" to promote any political message which is what you claimed.. as to your comparison to Siskel & Ebert.. those were well established reviewers who were employed by major publications.. the RedLetterMedia guys are simply clowns who seem to exist entirely to trash pop culture on their goofy you tube channel.. how anyone can take them seriously as reviewers is beyond me.Spanneraol (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily agree w/ the Kurtzman audio, but calling RedLetterMedia "clowns who seem to exist entirely to trash pop culture on their goofy you tube channel" seems more indicative of a bias on your end than on mine hahaha. Seriously, just take a look this link from this very site and you'll see that RLM is respected and not your run-of-the-mill YouTube channel https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Red_Letter_Media#Reception It's fine if you don't like them, but you don't disregard them. The Mr. Plinkett Picard review has 3.4 million views and is the first video result if you google "Star Trek Picard review". No small accomplishment.
- But hey, guys, at the end of the day, I hope we can all remain friends <3 ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I tried watching some of their reviews but couldn't get past the terrible editing and the awful comedy bits... really if that is what they consider good writing then their criticism of anything isn't serious.. and have they ever actually had a positive review of anything? Pretty much every video I skimmed through is trashing some property or another.. and you tube views is not indicative of quality of the production. Spanneraol (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's interesting to me only because I've heard a lot of people compliment their editing specifically, but to each their own :) Their comedy skits that open their reviews are intentionally goofy and silly, and not at all reflective of their in-depth film criticisms. Sorry you don't like them, but as noted in the reception section of their article, they are held in fairly high-regard and aren't your stereotypical YouTube reviewers.
- Additionally, the idea that they are negative on everything is a bit of a misconception. Below are links to just a few of the popular movies that they've given positive reviews. (I think it's important for me to share these to dispel the mis-conception that RLM is negative towards everything)
- Avengers: Infinity War - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-zAOnxikU
- Zach Snyder's Justice League - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNp3Q0AfXRg&list=PL34C1F26D03F5F9B8&index=17
- Star Wars: The Force Awakens - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvsiJppCdmk
- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPR43PhX6PE&list=PL34C1F26D03F5F9B8&index=43 ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- If I google "Star Trek Picard review" from a private browsing window (i.e. without Google massaging the results to personalise them for me) the first video result is IGN, then AngryJoeShow, then Sci-Finatics. If I click on "View all" Mr Plinkett doesn't even appear in the first page of results. In fact they don't appear until the third page of results. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Can't argue with that, forgot about Google bias hahaha. Still, going by viewership their Picard review is immensely popular which is important :) ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I tried watching some of their reviews but couldn't get past the terrible editing and the awful comedy bits... really if that is what they consider good writing then their criticism of anything isn't serious.. and have they ever actually had a positive review of anything? Pretty much every video I skimmed through is trashing some property or another.. and you tube views is not indicative of quality of the production. Spanneraol (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I also noticed that in stating they're citing a YouTube video they claim they can't link to it, but that would only be in its youtu.be format, right? If they don't feel they can reference it here, how can they feel it's a good reference on the article itself? CreecregofLife (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again, that's the Kurtzman audio video which I am not advocating for. The RLM video can be found here and should be linked in our article https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwF1iri1GjQ ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Read WP:SELFPUB..self published sources like You Tube videos or other social media posts are generally not accepted as sources on Wikipedia. Spanneraol (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- RLM has no reputation outside of their fanbase. From a tertiary source standpoint, they're no more citeworthy than Alex Jones or Joe Rogan (or, as mentioned above, Neil deGrasse Tyson's personal youtube videos). Also, as mentioned above, if you can't move on to more reputable sources, it'll fail WP:DUE. DonQuixote (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again, that's the Kurtzman audio video which I am not advocating for. The RLM video can be found here and should be linked in our article https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwF1iri1GjQ ThanosDidSomeThingsWrong19 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Generally favorable reviews" seems to be Metacritic-specific rating verbiage. The fact that neither RT or Metacritic is showing 99-100% indicates that not every critic who they aggregate considers this "overwhelmingly positive"; the phrase is not indicated as such in the article's reception section either. In fact, Metacritic has a category called "Universal acclaim" for those high scores. So I don't see where the Reception section presents anything as overtly positive. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 23:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Star Trek (2009)
The reference to Picard being affected by the events in Star Trek (2009) seems odd given that that film takes place in a completely different timeline. I suggest that that reference be removed.
2604:3D08:5D7A:BE00:6DBB:3C3F:E936:C736 (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Old Spock, Nero and the Romulans came from Picard's timeline. DonQuixote (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @2604:3D08:5D7A:BE00:6DBB:3C3F:E936:C736 I agree. Picard does not take place in the Kelvin timeline. Also, it is the planet Vulcan that is destroyed in Star Trek (2009) not Romulus. 66.205.216.151 (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- The backstory of the 2009 film is, Romulus is destroyed in the prime timeline and, from there, Nero et al. go back in time to the Kelvin timeline, and the movie takes place there. AJD (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Reception
I don't find anything about the audience's reception of this show. Its even more intense here than discovery, a lot of audience ratings ranked from disappointing to horrible. The show was a huge disappointment for a lot of fans from the tng era. This should really be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, it feels to much like Advertisement. What do you think? KhlavKhalash (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's because there's no reliable source talking about it. DonQuixote (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- user ratings can be found in rotten tomatoes at least. Audience reception is an important piece of information. What is it not shown? (Retorical question) 2.139.18.205 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry that was a typo I wanted to say "why" instead of "what" 2.139.18.205 (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest you take a statistics course to learn why unregulated opt-in polls are unreliable. DonQuixote (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- So you're advising us to take a statistics course to justify obviously manipulated ratings for a TV show. Way to go. We have a basic WP problem here and thats your advice? KhlavKhalash (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Unregulated opt-in polls are not reliable sources. If a reliable source has scientifically acquired and interpreted audience ratings, that information can be cited and included on Wikipedia. —ADavidB 11:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- So you're advising us to take a statistics course to justify obviously manipulated ratings for a TV show. Way to go. We have a basic WP problem here and thats your advice? KhlavKhalash (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I suggest you take a statistics course to learn why unregulated opt-in polls are unreliable. DonQuixote (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry that was a typo I wanted to say "why" instead of "what" 2.139.18.205 (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- user ratings can be found in rotten tomatoes at least. Audience reception is an important piece of information. What is it not shown? (Retorical question) 2.139.18.205 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)