Repeating a point I saw on reddit: the Picard as a french pirate scene was very bad acting.
Except in this case, the "bad actor" was the character Picard, not the actor Patrick Stewart. The character Picard is not an actor, he is a (former) Starfleet officer. So his acting ability isn't supposed to be good. So in this case we actually have the actor Patrick Stewart "pretending" to be a bad actor, which makes perfect sense in the show. And the best part is the people that get upset before actually reading this spoiler comment!
I know I shouldn't have really expected them to make any kind of connection whatsoever to the timeline established for STO (which is a damn sight more hopeful than what we're seeing here), but the fact that everything seems to be deteriorating so dramatically in this series kind of makes me sad. I am absolutely convinced now that the only reason the Federation is being turned damn near fascistic, with high officials collaborating with enemy spies, is because the writers are attempting have art imitate life - seeing as the Federation is more or less based on the United States, it looks like the U.S. in the present day and the Federation near the end of the 24th century are one and the same.
And to be honest... I don't particularly care for it. I confess that I am one of those people who is well aware that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but I find my escapes from reality in things like Star Trek. And having the real world replicated and shoved in my face in Star Trek does not particularly appeal to me. I was always of the impression that this future was supposed to be different, hopeful. Maybe a utopian vision is a bit much to hope for, but... it's certainly been better than this up to now. Even with the introduction of Section 31 way back in DS9.
I know I shouldn't have really expected them to make any kind of connection whatsoever to the timeline established for STO (which is a damn sight more hopeful than what we're seeing here), but the fact that everything seems to be deteriorating so dramatically in this series kind of makes me sad. I am absolutely convinced now that the only reason the Federation is being turned damn near fascistic, with high officials collaborating with enemy spies, is because the writers are attempting have art imitate life - seeing as the Federation is more or less based on the United States, it looks like the U.S. in the present day and the Federation near the end of the 24th century are one and the same.
And to be honest... I don't particularly care for it. I confess that I am one of those people who is well aware that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but I find my escapes from reality in things like Star Trek. And having the real world replicated and shoved in my face in Star Trek does not particularly appeal to me. I was always of the impression that this future was supposed to be different, hopeful. Maybe a utopian vision is a bit much to hope for, but... it's certainly been better than this up to now. Even with the introduction of Section 31 way back in DS9.
Pretty sure TOS trek was replicating things that were happening in the 60's like civil rights for an example. The aliens with black and white faces, Trek always imitates life, this isn't new it's just we didn't pay attention to the world when old trek was new. Now that we are older and have the internet and know everything going on not only locally but now world wide where before people rarely knew world events unless it was something massive like a war.
Edit
People forget that when TOS was new WW2 was only 20 years ago to them so watching TOS now may seem like they are talking about history but to them it was only 20 years ago that WW2 ended, Picard is in 2020 and 20 years ago 9/11 happened and changed how the U.S reacted to things, so its only fitting that Trek would show how the Federation would react to their version of it with Mars
If i was a citizen of the federation, after the borg came, then the dominion who occupied member worlds then the mars and Romulan crisis happening I would be like yeaaah why are we still in this federation again?
The new star trek tv shows are not created for the old fans of this franchise, but for the new fans and to attract newcomers in this universe.
Weird, because I'm a fan from so far back that some of my earliest memories involve TOS on NBC, and I'm really enjoying this show (and DSC), while VOY lost my interest fairly quickly as it became apparent that Berman and Braga just wanted to make more TNG in a different place.
Oh, and my wife's been a Trekkie since the late '70s, and she feels the same way.
As for poor Icheb, someone on Twitter pointed out that a fair number of minor changes to lore can easily be attributed to our mucking about with Krenim temporal technology during the Iconian war - the same way that Noye lost his wife.
Talking is not the same thing as whining. By your "definition", your own post would be "whining". But it's not, because your "definition" is wrong.
Who the felgercarb cares about that?
People who are talking about it, obviously. If you don't, that's cool.
Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not opposed to profanity in TV shows/movies in general. And I don't mind it in Trek either, as long as it's not just for shock value.
Data cursing when seeing the ship about to crash with his emotion chip turned on seems "right" to ME. An Admiral cursing in "private" (1 on 1) with a former admiral she thinks betrayed Starfleet also seems "right" to ME(others are free to disagree). Tilly saying the F-word because she thinks something is "cool" seems unprofessional and like the writers just wanted to say the "F" word (again, to ME; others are free to disagree). So to ME it's completely dependent on the context.
That said, if this isn't an issue you care about, that's cool. No one will force you to talk about it. But don't act like just because something doesn't matter to you that other people are doing anything wrong by talking about it.
I'm european too, and I don't understand (but I accept) why these words are a problem; the Roddenberry's utopy was a fairytail vision; Humanity will stay the same even in 2,3,4 centuries only technologies evolve. Sumerians (4500 bc) had also their "f" words.
These words will be still used in the future, I have no doubt about this. In tv shows, these words make the characters human as we are in rl. after all, we are not robots; we have weaknesses, impulsivity. This is exactly how Tilly was; a human female; that's all.
we can improve, but not fundamentally change.
Some people like me grew up watching Star Trek in one form or another as kids. It has always been a pretty kid friendly show, not just for the lack of swearing and extreme violence, but for the positive outlook on the future. Some of those people went on to invent things, or go into scientific fields, inspired by the show that many of us can't imagine living without today.
NuTrek is none of that, unfortunately. It isn't inspiring, its dire, dreadful. That's fine if you like it, but for myself, its not Star Trek at all. A mirror universe version of it maybe, but it lacks the heart and soul of what people love in Star Trek. I hope Picard changes for the positive, but I won't hold my breath.
The needless swearing is part of that, not just because it is unnecessary, but because it feels forced, jammed into the script to set a certain tone. There are times and places we've all dropped F-bombs but most of the ones I see are just forced and unnatural.
Frankly I don't understand why Picard is called Star Trek. If it weren't for the names of various things and people, what is there to make it recognizable as Star Trek? It could be its own thing and stand on its own, but the brand Star Trek is trying to draw in fans of Trek, only to disappoint many.
I grew up also with Star Trek, but things evolve, we are now in 2020, no need to watch the past with nostalgia.
Kids in 2020 are not like my generation (born in 1974) and maybe yours; they are less naive; they have access to a lot of stuff in internet; they can see during the News on tv, the violent reality. We didn't have all of that.
My nephew started to play at violent games when he was 11 years old (but he was accompanied by an adult), he likes the Mandalorian, and other tv shows. he is sane, and even too kind.
The new star trek tv shows are not created for the old fans of this franchise, but for the new fans and to attract newcomers in this universe.
That thing about "modern" viewers being so different from viewers from other times is nothing but an illusion. Every generation says that kind of thing, not just about TV but about society and other things as well. And despite "the problems of today are so worse than in the past", "the bomb/killer fog/the invasion/whatever is coming", "society is falling apart and violence will consume it", and even "modern viewers are different from viewers in the past", we are all still here and "modern viewers" are still capable of watching old movies and TV with their parents or whatever and understand what they see well enough.
Billy Joel wrote a song about the way that illusion crops up every generation, (called "We Didn't Start the Fire"), because he got tired of people talking like the present is always so much worse than the previous generation had it. The fact is, the entertainment industry moves in cycles and fads just as much as the clothing industry (and many others for that matter). Even more so in some ways.
TOS mostly bucked the industry trends of the time but all the rest pretty much followed them instead, which is how TNG ended up a "space procedural", following the general writing trends of shows like Hill Street Blues, LA Law, and St. Elsewhere but in a post-scarcity sci-fi setting where the peer pressure was against greed instead of in line with it for instance. If TNG would have stuck with its original Macross-like format then would have bucked the trends too which might have kept the following shows from settling into the prevailing trends of their times the way they did.
DSC and PIC are no different, they are firmly products of the current entertainment industry fads and fashion (to the point that DSC seems very generic in fact), and those trends cycle, it is not some inevitable "evolution" any more than skirt hem height is.
the illusion is thinking that the generations don't evolve. Of course, mentalities are different, kids currently don't have the same vision of the world that the old generation (at least mine 70's). Even if a lot of kids are overprotected and keep a childish behavior during a long time, like i said they have internet, and only this detail makes a huge difference. For a lot of teenagers and young adults, violence, sex, insults in tv shows or games (GTA is good example) etc, are just a part of the show, nothing more nothing less.
I think that you have misunderstood, I don't say that if you are not a teenager or a young adult, you can't watch these new shows, but we are not the principle audience targeted. And it is totally logical.
and the idea that the federation's only just suddenly gone to TRIBBLE ignores a lot of the evidance from earlier times. Tasha Yar's home world had gone completely to hell, sure they left the federation but it was still a human colony, it just happened to be on the fringes, we had the Maquis. an entire group of worlds that was basicly forced to turn terrorist to survive. there's a LOT of evidance hinting that even in the 24th century some places just fell through the cracks.
we just didn't see much of it because worlds that collapsed due to neglect tend not to see visits from the federation flagship
and the idea that the federation's only just suddenly gone to TRIBBLE ignores a lot of the evidance from earlier times. Tasha Yar's home world had gone completely to hell, sure they left the federation but it was still a human colony, it just happened to be on the fringes, we had the Maquis. an entire group of worlds that was basicly forced to turn terrorist to survive. there's a LOT of evidance hinting that even in the 24th century some places just fell through the cracks.
we just didn't see much of it because worlds that collapsed due to neglect tend not to see visits from the federation flagship
Kodos the executioner's world was starving and he earned his name by killing a large chunk of the population so that their food stocks would last longer. And that was TOS. Optimistic utopia? hah!
Utopia was what people were striving for, not what they had. Oh and Kirk never went to the planet that Kodos ruled. Kodos changed his name and went into hiding because people wanted to prosecute him for murder. Kirk found him years later as an old man living in his assumed identity in another star system.
Oh and why did Kodos have the famine in the first place? Because it had been YEARS since he had any contact with the Federation.
The generations do not evolve, instead they reflect the zeitgeist they were brought up in which is not "evolution" (it is actually more of a collection of cycles that move at different rates). Thinking they evolve is the same hubris that leads people to think that people today are the pinnacle of some kind of impossibly fast evolution. It is not a linear process at all, it cycles just like any other fashion (and yes, fashion is not limited to clothing, there is the equivalent in many things including politics, philosophy, architecture, and others).
The illusion of evolving generations is a variant of the same nonsense that was popular in the Victorian age, where the prevailing idea on cultures held that if you were to take a baby out of a primitive setting and raised it in a modern one they would somehow retain the "primitive mindset" and not be able to fully function in "modern" society, even in the face of plenty of proof to the contrary. Khan actually had it right, technology evolves on a short time scale, people do not.
And technologies analogous to the internet have come numerous times in the past, the telegraph, the telephone, radio and TV, fax machines (well, that one was a bit of a flash in the pan), and undoubtedly the printing press before that (even writing way back in ancient times) that were touted as the thing that will change human thinking forever, and it has not actually happened that way. Inventions like that only make information and communication easier to get to, there is no fundamental change to the human psyche, and its influence on society is just that it presents a wider choice (and people still tend to limit that choice to the general fashion cycles regardless).
As for Star Trek being a copy of the 1960s, that is more complex.
It is true that the first season writers guide stated that the recent history somewhat paralleled real world recent history (in a toned down sort of way) in order to make it easier to all writers be on the same page as to general history. The last big war was twenty years before Kirk got command of the Enterprise, and the ship was a sort of legacy of that war (in fact, according to anecdote along with some of the technical details mentioned in dialog, Roddenberry based the ship on the US Iowa class fast battleships that were in the news at the time he was just starting to put what became Star Trek together.
As a side note, one of the big objections to DSC is that Burnham's war would correspond to the Korean conflict time wise, and the major war that ended in the mid 2240s (and was the justification for a ship like the Enterprise) apparently never happened in DSC, which conflicts with the information in the early writers guide.
There were actually several writer's guides, the latest one did not go into the basic details much, only the briefest possible current overview, and introduced the new third season idea of calling the ship a "Starship" with a capital S instead of a heavy cruiser, along with dealing with recurring problems the slush readers ran into, like the "Kirk grabs the female guest (or Yeoman or whatever) on the bridge to comfort her and shield her from danger" thing they had to cut all too often.
Anyway, despite the general similarity of history and a few allegories to the problems and society of the '60s, it was not a copy of the 1960s, especially when it came to the Federation. The US government of the '60s was loosening up a bit after the paranoid McCarthyism of the 1950s but it was still very opaque, patronizing to the citizens, and "Need to Know" secrets were a big thing even compared to today (though it is slipping back into that mode rapidly over the past few years).
The Federation on the other hand was more like a tighter-knit version of the United Nations, taken to the point where unlike the UN the Federation actually is a "government of governments" with a president and a space navy of its own, but a very open and accessible structure. The US government did not have a structure anything like that since the days of the Continental Congress, and the most accessible and transparent time of the US government was thirty years after TOS aired (and probably still fell far short of Federation standards).
Overall, the fact that in Picard the Federation is in some kind of dark murky slump does not break Star Trek as long as it IS a slump rather than a retconned norm. Sure, there have always been relatively small conspiracies and it is has never been all sweetness and light without a hint of corruption, but the important point is not that it was supposed to be some utopia (it wasn't, it was just better than we have it now) it was that they continually strived towards that utopia.
Overall, the fact that in Picard the Federation is in some kind of dark murky slump does not break Star Trek as long as it IS a slump rather than a retconned norm. Sure, there have always been relatively small conspiracies and it is has never been all sweetness and light without a hint of corruption, but the important point is not that it was supposed to be some utopia (it wasn't, it was just better than we have it now) it was that they continually strived towards that utopia.
Right. And the "bad admirals" or even bad policies were the exception, not the norm. Usually, once they were exposed the other admirals or leadership got rid of them and corrected things. So, no the Federation was never "perfect", but it was clearly shown to be a fairly benevolent government trying to do the right thing as a WHOLE. And the tone of Trek has always been one of optimism, even during war.
The problem is the people who are strawmaning what you and I just said. We did NOT say the Federation was a "perfect utopia" or that it NEVER made mistakes. We did NOT say there were not still problems. And we did NOT say that Trek did not have "dark" episodes or themes it explored. Those are absolutely misrepresentations of what people like you and I are actually saying, and the people doing the misrepresenting are the problem.
A lot of what we are seeing is not "The Federation". It's the world outside the Federation. And we know the world outside of the Federation can be a rough place.
The Orion Syndicate is well known for murdering traitors, and an apparently non-Federation colony world of the Trill (where Ezri Dax family lived) was a place they interfered with. We know of "netgirls" (apparently some kind of cyberspace prostitution?), hackers, we know of weapons dealer that sell even WMDs to warlords.
Vashti or Freecloud are clearly not Federation worlds, the "Artifact" is controlled by Romulans.
The only "bad" Federation place we've seen so far in Picard is Raffi's home. Except... She still has access to food, space internet and even can afford possibly illegal drugs - and she is living in an isolated place on a Federation homeworld, which likely has a high population density and such places aren't easy to find. It seems like her environment is more of a choice than a sign of things being bad.
The optimism of Star Trek is that it shows we can advance beyond all this "roughness". But it doesn't come for free. We need to work for it. Star Trek tells us it takes WW3 (not exactly optimistic) before humanity finally comes together and finds a better way, and carves out a positive environment not just for itself, but also many others. It required effort to create it, and it required constant effort to maintain it.
And we see that people are working to improve things even outside the Federation. On Vashti, the candid Romulans are doing their thing to contribute, and the world also had helped by the Fenris Rangers.
I wonder if there aren't actually some people in the Federation that realize how good they have it, and that's why we find them leave the Federation and help those that aren't there yet. It doesn't always work (Ezri's family has a decent mining business going on which is probably getting good jobs for local workers and helps build up the planet, but the Orion Syndicate interferes with them, too. Tasha Yar's colony failed.). But they still try.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
There's a pretty interesting, and somewhat convincing, thread on Twitter that maintains the Federation is in fact an alternate timeline, created by the crew of the Enterprise when they molded Cochrane into the man he was "supposed" to be in First Contact, and that the "correct" timeline, the one we would follow without someone telling us about that bright future, is in fact the Terran Empire. And that even in that future, they need occasional reminders of what humans can be, and what humans should be, in order to remain on course, because people like Leyton and Sloan keep trying to lead us astray - for certain personalities, there can be some comfort in fascism, after all. (Yes, the Empire claims to have been around for "thousands of years." And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, right?) The idea isn't that humans are basically evil, but that when we're frightened, say in the wake of a planetary war or aliens landing, we have a tendency to seek comfort in seemingly strong leaders and give them far too much power - to "protect" us, of course.
So there was Cochrane, in possession of something that if used improperly could give him near-unlimited power, in the wreckage of what had been the United States of America - and these people come to show him a brighter future, one where the world has been restored, where humans live in peace and safety, and where he himself is revered as a hero for not giving in to his impulses and becoming the first Terran Emperor. Without Riker and Troi and the rest telling Cochrane what he could be, it's not impossible to imagine his consolidating power by threatening to kill anyone who rose against him, establishing an iron-fisted Empire, to "keep everyone safe from war" (cf the Brotherhood of Steel in the Fallout games). Then the Vulcans land, and since every strange thing these people have seen, from the "supermen" of the Eugenics Wars to the strange creatures likely to have emerged from a nuclear exchange, has tried to kill them, well obviously the smart move is to strike first, right? Only the Trek timeline, Cochrane used his warp drive peacefully and extended the hand of friendship to the alien visitors - because he'd been told by time travelers that Vulcans were safe.
There was also a tongue-in-cheek addon to that thread proposing that Roddenberry himself was just such an agent, and Trek was his vehicle for steering us toward the light, including "evidence" in the form of Roddenberry's political activism and inspiration of others and the advanced tech we've developed that was inspired by his vision...
There's a pretty interesting, and somewhat convincing, thread on Twitter that maintains the Federation is in fact an alternate timeline, created by the crew of the Enterprise when they molded Cochrane into the man he was "supposed" to be in First Contact, and that the "correct" timeline, the one we would follow without someone telling us about that bright future, is in fact the Terran Empire. And that even in that future, they need occasional reminders of what humans can be, and what humans should be, in order to remain on course, because people like Leyton and Sloan keep trying to lead us astray - for certain personalities, there can be some comfort in fascism, after all. (Yes, the Empire claims to have been around for "thousands of years." And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, right?) The idea isn't that humans are basically evil, but that when we're frightened, say in the wake of a planetary war or aliens landing, we have a tendency to seek comfort in seemingly strong leaders and give them far too much power - to "protect" us, of course.
So there was Cochrane, in possession of something that if used improperly could give him near-unlimited power, in the wreckage of what had been the United States of America - and these people come to show him a brighter future, one where the world has been restored, where humans live in peace and safety, and where he himself is revered as a hero for not giving in to his impulses and becoming the first Terran Emperor. Without Riker and Troi and the rest telling Cochrane what he could be, it's not impossible to imagine his consolidating power by threatening to kill anyone who rose against him, establishing an iron-fisted Empire, to "keep everyone safe from war" (cf the Brotherhood of Steel in the Fallout games). Then the Vulcans land, and since every strange thing these people have seen, from the "supermen" of the Eugenics Wars to the strange creatures likely to have emerged from a nuclear exchange, has tried to kill them, well obviously the smart move is to strike first, right? Only the Trek timeline, Cochrane used his warp drive peacefully and extended the hand of friendship to the alien visitors - because he'd been told by time travelers that Vulcans were safe.
There was also a tongue-in-cheek addon to that thread proposing that Roddenberry himself was just such an agent, and Trek was his vehicle for steering us toward the light, including "evidence" in the form of Roddenberry's political activism and inspiration of others and the advanced tech we've developed that was inspired by his vision...
The idea is certainly plausible, but what is the point, really? The prime universe for Trek is the one we know and love, a universe sans goatees. Whether it only exists because of temporal meddling is somewhat irrelevant isn't it?
We already know Trek buys into the theory of quantum universes, so the prime is absolutely not the only universe. So what defines the prime universe? There are other ones, worse ones, similar ones, but I think the prime universe can be generally defined as being the best one (or at least it could have been pre NuTrek) and that goes with the proposed theory, if people keep meddling to put the prime universe on that track. All of these other universes are valid which is the real kicker.
Not only is there a universe where Cochrane shook the hands of Vulcans, and one where he murdered them, but there's also one where they murdered him, one where the Vulcans simply ignored his warp flight, another one where the Vulcans and Romulans never split and conquered Earth, surely one where the Iconians just wipe everyone out, and one where warp speed is impossible because something broke subspace. In the prime universe, we saw two species come together peacefully, which sure seems like the best outcome.
But even if the prime universe is a construct of constant meddling by some forces to set it on the inspirational, better path, and thus fits Trek into its theme of a positive, inspirational future, then its hard to swallow the dark ideas laid out in Picard as being part of the prime universe.
There's a pretty interesting, and somewhat convincing, thread on Twitter that maintains the Federation is in fact an alternate timeline, created by the crew of the Enterprise when they molded Cochrane into the man he was "supposed" to be in First Contact, and that the "correct" timeline, the one we would follow without someone telling us about that bright future, is in fact the Terran Empire. And that even in that future, they need occasional reminders of what humans can be, and what humans should be, in order to remain on course, because people like Leyton and Sloan keep trying to lead us astray - for certain personalities, there can be some comfort in fascism, after all. (Yes, the Empire claims to have been around for "thousands of years." And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, right?) The idea isn't that humans are basically evil, but that when we're frightened, say in the wake of a planetary war or aliens landing, we have a tendency to seek comfort in seemingly strong leaders and give them far too much power - to "protect" us, of course.
So there was Cochrane, in possession of something that if used improperly could give him near-unlimited power, in the wreckage of what had been the United States of America - and these people come to show him a brighter future, one where the world has been restored, where humans live in peace and safety, and where he himself is revered as a hero for not giving in to his impulses and becoming the first Terran Emperor. Without Riker and Troi and the rest telling Cochrane what he could be, it's not impossible to imagine his consolidating power by threatening to kill anyone who rose against him, establishing an iron-fisted Empire, to "keep everyone safe from war" (cf the Brotherhood of Steel in the Fallout games). Then the Vulcans land, and since every strange thing these people have seen, from the "supermen" of the Eugenics Wars to the strange creatures likely to have emerged from a nuclear exchange, has tried to kill them, well obviously the smart move is to strike first, right? Only the Trek timeline, Cochrane used his warp drive peacefully and extended the hand of friendship to the alien visitors - because he'd been told by time travelers that Vulcans were safe.
There was also a tongue-in-cheek addon to that thread proposing that Roddenberry himself was just such an agent, and Trek was his vehicle for steering us toward the light, including "evidence" in the form of Roddenberry's political activism and inspiration of others and the advanced tech we've developed that was inspired by his vision...
link your source, that goes without saying and i don't know why i need to tell you that.
If this federation timeline is an alternate timeline then that implies it shouldn't of happened, more to the point if it shouldn't of happened, how is it the Borg, a group of two and ships be able to to come out of a timeline that doesn't exist and should never of existed?
Put it this way, the Borg came back through time as they should of but there was no federation and no terran empire in pursuit of the sphere, it launches its charges and destroys the compound, earth is assimilated by an aggressive pathogen that assimilates the planet in record time. so how is it that cochrane is planning to celebrate his new found success over the evil aliens without a warp ship to prove humans have gotten into outer space? without the Vulcan's noticing them, after all they don't go looking at what piques their interest, only by what is proven to be the case, in this case a species has achieved warp travel.
let's go back even further, if the empire does it's thing and there was no borg to worry about, the past would of never changed, so how is it possible it did in the first place without any precursors that set off an alternative timeline.
i'm not so convinced.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Regarding the style of the Picard show, and I suppose to some degree, both Discovery and the later seasons of DS9, there's only so much peace loving you can do with a fictional show. Roddenberry had this utopian vision for humanity, and that was great, but lets be realistic here; if we ever reach the stars, we're going to be more like the Terran Empire than we are the Federation.
Greed, Power and Resources are always going to be at the forefront of what humanity aspire toward - not all of us, but the few who just so happen to control (one way or another) the many. You can look at any nation on Earth today, and for the most part, it's the minority in power that're controlling the majority below them. It's always been that way, and it'll always be that way. Space travel and recolonisation isn't going to change that.
As much as Trek is fictional, I find I prefer it when it's more realistic, and I further feel that the dark and gritty episodes of Trek are that realism which Roddenberry didn't want to deal with, which I suppose is ironic as he was hardly a saint himself, but we'll not go there.
Star Trek of old (so TOS and TNG) I don't believe would appeal to the audience of today. We've gotta' remember, it's not just the Picard show that's gone dark and gritty; there's plenty of other space opera shows that have gone that route too, because that's what people are going to tune in and watch. Despite what some people choose to believe, the audience of today is very different from the audience of 25/30+ years ago.
Star Trek Discovery and Star Trek Picard do what they need too, both for their targeted audience, and for the times we're in.
So now Seven is a crazy murderer. I'm not sure why that is remotely believable. She doesn't even try to save Icheb.
Ah yes, with all of her vast medical expertise, and ready access to advanced surgical equipment - oh, wait.
Icheb was dying. Don't know how much more plain it could have been made, apart from dialog along the lines of, "Oh, no, Icheb! You're dying!" "Yes, I'm dying. You can't stop it. You're a vigilante, not a doctor." "Oh, my poor dying Icheb! You're going to die!"
The only equipment she carried on that mission was a phaser. All she was able to do was make his death quick and painless; the only alternative was leaving it slow and painful. What, precisely, did you expect Seven the Fenris Ranger to do? Call the Voyager to beam them up?
i to was shocked by the death of icheb and how graphic it was for a star trek show but we are now in 2020 and star trek shows of this era will never be like those of the past i loved next gen deep space nine and voyager no f- bombs or graphic violence and it worked well and made for good tv but tastes change and so do Audience's and so shows have to move with the times
i hope they maintain strong links to past trek shows but i also understand times are changing
However I loved what they did with Captain Pike and thought that actor portrayed him very well. Made me wonder why CBS, Paramount, or Viacom seems so disinterested in just doing the actual prequel to TOS covering Pike's tenure on the Enterprise with a younger Spock?
That being said, Ethan Peck is no Zachary Quinto. Peck did not pull off his role at all, yet I daresay that "as written" the character of Spock was not included nor present during their second season? Would like to have seen more of Number One, Romijn did well with her limited screen time.
I have enjoyed Picard and their willingness to step outside the box of fan expectations. It is much more Trek to me than Disco.
A lot of what we are seeing is not "The Federation". It's the world outside the Federation.
It is still the Federation who turned their backs on the Romulans in a time of need, regardless of being an "old enemy" or not. It is still the Federation who seems to have become some isolationist regime. Sorry, I just do not see it.
I have to confess, Ep5 offended me. Firstly, Seven. I said before the show began that I felt that her inclusion in the series was fanservice and I maintain that opinion; seeing her reduced to a vigilante super hero-action character is very diminishing, if not dismaying. I guess her desire for revenge was understandable, but that brings me to my next point; the death of Icheb as her trigger for revenge was a disappointing exploit in my opinion. I hate seeing a character, on which another writer invested a lot and who had been through years of development, brutally tortured and killed for the sake of creating a casus belli. Icheb was a character with a bright future and I absolutely hate what they did to him in 'Picard'.
(All the more sad that we saw a 'grown up' Icheb in an alternate future where Voyager was still the Delta Quadrant in VOY: 'Shattered').
And looking beyond that, its disappointing on another level: Trek used to be something that a family could enjoy together, which mine did. However, I would never let my children watch this profane, gory, garbage.
Could not agree more. This episode utterly ruined the characters of Icheb and Seven of Nine. Complete waste of an opportunity with Icheb and turning Seven into some murderous vigilante is unimaginative bad writing to me. Here is a character that spent the better part of Voyager's run coming to terms with murdering countless millions as a Borg, learning the values of being human and compassion for others - even enemies - only to have it all cast aside. I get that they want to change it up however to me it is too much. As I said, I will be passing on Picard and wait to see what happens with Disco season 3.
A thing to point out that I saw in another thread is that this show is an awful lot like undiscovered country, where Kirk was appalled by the idea of peace with the klingons, believing them to be bloodthirsty savaged and by the end of the movie he has learned the error of his ways. And during the movie the majority of the federation was extremely pleased by the idea of peace and saving the klingons even though the klingons had been their enemies for years.
The show however has the entire federation suddenly all turn into Kirk, where they are so full of hate and xenophobia that they would rather let the romulans go extinct than step in to save them, with picard being one of the few that actually cared about the romulans. THey essentially took the plot of the movie, and reversed the role of the main character (Kirk and Picard) and the federation's attitude.
Undiscovered Country was a different era in Star Trek lore. You will also remember, the Federation and Starfleet were keen to work with the Klingons to help them.
If anything, I would think the Federation learned from its past mistakes and would not turn their back on anyone coming to them for help, even the Romulans.
Exactly. I was already upset before I even saw the comparison made but now the whole picard plot of that makes even less sense than it did before.
So now Seven is a crazy murderer. I'm not sure why that is remotely believable. She doesn't even try to save Icheb.
Ah yes, with all of her vast medical expertise, and ready access to advanced surgical equipment - oh, wait.
Icheb was dying. Don't know how much more plain it could have been made, apart from dialog along the lines of, "Oh, no, Icheb! You're dying!" "Yes, I'm dying. You can't stop it. You're a vigilante, not a doctor." "Oh, my poor dying Icheb! You're going to die!"
The only equipment she carried on that mission was a phaser. All she was able to do was make his death quick and painless; the only alternative was leaving it slow and painful. What, precisely, did you expect Seven the Fenris Ranger to do? Call the Voyager to beam them up?
I don't know, I guess you're right. It's not like there was a ship nearby with an advanced EMH that she could have tried to contact. I don't imagine injecting him with some fresh borg nanites could have rebuilt anything either. Surely none of the tools in the room could have been useful either. Since there really were no options, seeing her in a frantic panic doing whatever ultimately futile efforts she thought of to try and save the life of the man who risked his own life to save hers, who she helped raise like he was her own child, that would have been a terrible, not far more emotionally powerful scene compared to what we got.
Could not agree more. This episode utterly ruined the characters of Icheb and Seven of Nine. Complete waste of an opportunity with Icheb and turning Seven into some murderous vigilante is unimaginative bad writing to me. Here is a character that spent the better part of Voyager's run coming to terms with murdering countless millions as a Borg, learning the values of being human and compassion for others - even enemies - only to have it all cast aside. I get that they want to change it up however to me it is too much. As I said, I will be passing on Picard and wait to see what happens with Disco season 3.
I see Seven's being a vigilante completely differently. She's not a murderer running around, but someone who tried to help and save those who cannot do it themselves. It's her way of atoning for destroying lives as a Borg drone -- to save as many as she can now. At any cost, esp. if the law doesn't protect them.
That said, even if Icheb couldn't be saved, they could play it out better. Show what she did as the last resort, after she tried everything to help him first, even if it was hopeless.
Some people just need to admit that no show is perfect(including this one) and that every show(including this one) could have done certain things better. It's clear that it's not just one person thinking "did she really need to kill Icheb?", so that certainly could have been more clearly portrayed, and there is nothing wrong with admitting that. It doesn't make you less of a "super fan" to admit your favorite show isn't perfect. But what it does do is make you look unreasonable when you are trying to defend even valid criticisms.
What "law"? She vaporized Bjayzl (who was unarmed and defenseless) and then proceeded to shoot and kill her minions on her way out of there.
The whole "the foe was unarmed and defenseless therefore killing them is wrong" always makes me laugh WHEN the villain has been shown to be an unrepentant monster with various evil minions still under their orders and who makes it clear they will keep doing their monstrous actions once they get the chance.
But because the hero catches them at the precise moment they don't have a weapon, it suddenly becomes wrong to prevent more suffering.
Also, it's not like Bjayzl was remorseful, considering she smugly kept talking to Seven, even calling her by her human name as if using her to get to Icheb and vivisect him wouldn't have impacted their relationship much... that and bringing Maddox to near-death:
"How sentimental of you then. Risking your revenge while saving their lives... almost reminds me of the Annika of old."
"Like you used to have (hope)? Before I took it away from you."
Plus, it's clear even that was just her stalling for her security group to show up since she panics when Seven points it out, so in any case, it was a cold and horrible attempt to talk to Seven with zero intent to justify her actions.
There is a difference between executing a villain whose organization has just been dismantled/wiped out and is out of bullets with nowhere to escape the hero with the cavalry coming, therefore left completely and permanently powerless, harmless and about to be brought to justice ;
AND killing a villain who's still in charge of their organization and has no regrets or intent to stop and just happens to have the tables turned on them.
So now Seven is a crazy murderer. I'm not sure why that is remotely believable. She doesn't even try to save Icheb.
Ah yes, with all of her vast medical expertise, and ready access to advanced surgical equipment - oh, wait.
Icheb was dying. Don't know how much more plain it could have been made, apart from dialog along the lines of, "Oh, no, Icheb! You're dying!" "Yes, I'm dying. You can't stop it. You're a vigilante, not a doctor." "Oh, my poor dying Icheb! You're going to die!"
The only equipment she carried on that mission was a phaser. All she was able to do was make his death quick and painless; the only alternative was leaving it slow and painful. What, precisely, did you expect Seven the Fenris Ranger to do? Call the Voyager to beam them up?
I don't know, I guess you're right. It's not like there was a ship nearby with an advanced EMH that she could have tried to contact.
And what ship would that have been, exactly? This was a flashback - she didn't go down from the La Sirena to find Icheb.
I don't imagine injecting him with some fresh borg nanites could have rebuilt anything either.
Probably not, because nanites are about repurposing systems for the benefit of the Borg Collective - they tended to simply kill drones injured on missions. Anything too badly injured to fight doesn't seem to have concerned them.
Surely none of the tools in the room could have been useful either.
Describe the surgical techniques needed to rescue a former Borg who had had most of his implants violently removed without either anaesthesia or concern for his surviving the procedure. Be specific. Should be easy, since you expect a former astrographer turned vigilante to know exactly how to proceed while enemy forces are closing in.
Comments
PS: here is the reddit post for anyone interested.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
And to be honest... I don't particularly care for it. I confess that I am one of those people who is well aware that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but I find my escapes from reality in things like Star Trek. And having the real world replicated and shoved in my face in Star Trek does not particularly appeal to me. I was always of the impression that this future was supposed to be different, hopeful. Maybe a utopian vision is a bit much to hope for, but... it's certainly been better than this up to now. Even with the introduction of Section 31 way back in DS9.
"There's No Way Like Poway!"
Real Join Date: October 2010
Pretty sure TOS trek was replicating things that were happening in the 60's like civil rights for an example. The aliens with black and white faces, Trek always imitates life, this isn't new it's just we didn't pay attention to the world when old trek was new. Now that we are older and have the internet and know everything going on not only locally but now world wide where before people rarely knew world events unless it was something massive like a war.
Edit
People forget that when TOS was new WW2 was only 20 years ago to them so watching TOS now may seem like they are talking about history but to them it was only 20 years ago that WW2 ended, Picard is in 2020 and 20 years ago 9/11 happened and changed how the U.S reacted to things, so its only fitting that Trek would show how the Federation would react to their version of it with Mars
If i was a citizen of the federation, after the borg came, then the dominion who occupied member worlds then the mars and Romulan crisis happening I would be like yeaaah why are we still in this federation again?
Oh, and my wife's been a Trekkie since the late '70s, and she feels the same way.
As for poor Icheb, someone on Twitter pointed out that a fair number of minor changes to lore can easily be attributed to our mucking about with Krenim temporal technology during the Iconian war - the same way that Noye lost his wife.
My character Tsin'xing
the illusion is thinking that the generations don't evolve. Of course, mentalities are different, kids currently don't have the same vision of the world that the old generation (at least mine 70's). Even if a lot of kids are overprotected and keep a childish behavior during a long time, like i said they have internet, and only this detail makes a huge difference. For a lot of teenagers and young adults, violence, sex, insults in tv shows or games (GTA is good example) etc, are just a part of the show, nothing more nothing less.
I think that you have misunderstood, I don't say that if you are not a teenager or a young adult, you can't watch these new shows, but we are not the principle audience targeted. And it is totally logical.
we just didn't see much of it because worlds that collapsed due to neglect tend not to see visits from the federation flagship
Utopia was what people were striving for, not what they had. Oh and Kirk never went to the planet that Kodos ruled. Kodos changed his name and went into hiding because people wanted to prosecute him for murder. Kirk found him years later as an old man living in his assumed identity in another star system.
Oh and why did Kodos have the famine in the first place? Because it had been YEARS since he had any contact with the Federation.
My character Tsin'xing
The illusion of evolving generations is a variant of the same nonsense that was popular in the Victorian age, where the prevailing idea on cultures held that if you were to take a baby out of a primitive setting and raised it in a modern one they would somehow retain the "primitive mindset" and not be able to fully function in "modern" society, even in the face of plenty of proof to the contrary. Khan actually had it right, technology evolves on a short time scale, people do not.
And technologies analogous to the internet have come numerous times in the past, the telegraph, the telephone, radio and TV, fax machines (well, that one was a bit of a flash in the pan), and undoubtedly the printing press before that (even writing way back in ancient times) that were touted as the thing that will change human thinking forever, and it has not actually happened that way. Inventions like that only make information and communication easier to get to, there is no fundamental change to the human psyche, and its influence on society is just that it presents a wider choice (and people still tend to limit that choice to the general fashion cycles regardless).
As for Star Trek being a copy of the 1960s, that is more complex.
It is true that the first season writers guide stated that the recent history somewhat paralleled real world recent history (in a toned down sort of way) in order to make it easier to all writers be on the same page as to general history. The last big war was twenty years before Kirk got command of the Enterprise, and the ship was a sort of legacy of that war (in fact, according to anecdote along with some of the technical details mentioned in dialog, Roddenberry based the ship on the US Iowa class fast battleships that were in the news at the time he was just starting to put what became Star Trek together.
As a side note, one of the big objections to DSC is that Burnham's war would correspond to the Korean conflict time wise, and the major war that ended in the mid 2240s (and was the justification for a ship like the Enterprise) apparently never happened in DSC, which conflicts with the information in the early writers guide.
There were actually several writer's guides, the latest one did not go into the basic details much, only the briefest possible current overview, and introduced the new third season idea of calling the ship a "Starship" with a capital S instead of a heavy cruiser, along with dealing with recurring problems the slush readers ran into, like the "Kirk grabs the female guest (or Yeoman or whatever) on the bridge to comfort her and shield her from danger" thing they had to cut all too often.
Anyway, despite the general similarity of history and a few allegories to the problems and society of the '60s, it was not a copy of the 1960s, especially when it came to the Federation. The US government of the '60s was loosening up a bit after the paranoid McCarthyism of the 1950s but it was still very opaque, patronizing to the citizens, and "Need to Know" secrets were a big thing even compared to today (though it is slipping back into that mode rapidly over the past few years).
The Federation on the other hand was more like a tighter-knit version of the United Nations, taken to the point where unlike the UN the Federation actually is a "government of governments" with a president and a space navy of its own, but a very open and accessible structure. The US government did not have a structure anything like that since the days of the Continental Congress, and the most accessible and transparent time of the US government was thirty years after TOS aired (and probably still fell far short of Federation standards).
Overall, the fact that in Picard the Federation is in some kind of dark murky slump does not break Star Trek as long as it IS a slump rather than a retconned norm. Sure, there have always been relatively small conspiracies and it is has never been all sweetness and light without a hint of corruption, but the important point is not that it was supposed to be some utopia (it wasn't, it was just better than we have it now) it was that they continually strived towards that utopia.
Right. And the "bad admirals" or even bad policies were the exception, not the norm. Usually, once they were exposed the other admirals or leadership got rid of them and corrected things. So, no the Federation was never "perfect", but it was clearly shown to be a fairly benevolent government trying to do the right thing as a WHOLE. And the tone of Trek has always been one of optimism, even during war.
The problem is the people who are strawmaning what you and I just said. We did NOT say the Federation was a "perfect utopia" or that it NEVER made mistakes. We did NOT say there were not still problems. And we did NOT say that Trek did not have "dark" episodes or themes it explored. Those are absolutely misrepresentations of what people like you and I are actually saying, and the people doing the misrepresenting are the problem.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The Orion Syndicate is well known for murdering traitors, and an apparently non-Federation colony world of the Trill (where Ezri Dax family lived) was a place they interfered with. We know of "netgirls" (apparently some kind of cyberspace prostitution?), hackers, we know of weapons dealer that sell even WMDs to warlords.
Vashti or Freecloud are clearly not Federation worlds, the "Artifact" is controlled by Romulans.
The only "bad" Federation place we've seen so far in Picard is Raffi's home. Except... She still has access to food, space internet and even can afford possibly illegal drugs - and she is living in an isolated place on a Federation homeworld, which likely has a high population density and such places aren't easy to find. It seems like her environment is more of a choice than a sign of things being bad.
The optimism of Star Trek is that it shows we can advance beyond all this "roughness". But it doesn't come for free. We need to work for it. Star Trek tells us it takes WW3 (not exactly optimistic) before humanity finally comes together and finds a better way, and carves out a positive environment not just for itself, but also many others. It required effort to create it, and it required constant effort to maintain it.
And we see that people are working to improve things even outside the Federation. On Vashti, the candid Romulans are doing their thing to contribute, and the world also had helped by the Fenris Rangers.
I wonder if there aren't actually some people in the Federation that realize how good they have it, and that's why we find them leave the Federation and help those that aren't there yet. It doesn't always work (Ezri's family has a decent mining business going on which is probably getting good jobs for local workers and helps build up the planet, but the Orion Syndicate interferes with them, too. Tasha Yar's colony failed.). But they still try.
So there was Cochrane, in possession of something that if used improperly could give him near-unlimited power, in the wreckage of what had been the United States of America - and these people come to show him a brighter future, one where the world has been restored, where humans live in peace and safety, and where he himself is revered as a hero for not giving in to his impulses and becoming the first Terran Emperor. Without Riker and Troi and the rest telling Cochrane what he could be, it's not impossible to imagine his consolidating power by threatening to kill anyone who rose against him, establishing an iron-fisted Empire, to "keep everyone safe from war" (cf the Brotherhood of Steel in the Fallout games). Then the Vulcans land, and since every strange thing these people have seen, from the "supermen" of the Eugenics Wars to the strange creatures likely to have emerged from a nuclear exchange, has tried to kill them, well obviously the smart move is to strike first, right? Only the Trek timeline, Cochrane used his warp drive peacefully and extended the hand of friendship to the alien visitors - because he'd been told by time travelers that Vulcans were safe.
There was also a tongue-in-cheek addon to that thread proposing that Roddenberry himself was just such an agent, and Trek was his vehicle for steering us toward the light, including "evidence" in the form of Roddenberry's political activism and inspiration of others and the advanced tech we've developed that was inspired by his vision...
The idea is certainly plausible, but what is the point, really? The prime universe for Trek is the one we know and love, a universe sans goatees. Whether it only exists because of temporal meddling is somewhat irrelevant isn't it?
We already know Trek buys into the theory of quantum universes, so the prime is absolutely not the only universe. So what defines the prime universe? There are other ones, worse ones, similar ones, but I think the prime universe can be generally defined as being the best one (or at least it could have been pre NuTrek) and that goes with the proposed theory, if people keep meddling to put the prime universe on that track. All of these other universes are valid which is the real kicker.
Not only is there a universe where Cochrane shook the hands of Vulcans, and one where he murdered them, but there's also one where they murdered him, one where the Vulcans simply ignored his warp flight, another one where the Vulcans and Romulans never split and conquered Earth, surely one where the Iconians just wipe everyone out, and one where warp speed is impossible because something broke subspace. In the prime universe, we saw two species come together peacefully, which sure seems like the best outcome.
But even if the prime universe is a construct of constant meddling by some forces to set it on the inspirational, better path, and thus fits Trek into its theme of a positive, inspirational future, then its hard to swallow the dark ideas laid out in Picard as being part of the prime universe.
link your source, that goes without saying and i don't know why i need to tell you that.
If this federation timeline is an alternate timeline then that implies it shouldn't of happened, more to the point if it shouldn't of happened, how is it the Borg, a group of two and ships be able to to come out of a timeline that doesn't exist and should never of existed?
Put it this way, the Borg came back through time as they should of but there was no federation and no terran empire in pursuit of the sphere, it launches its charges and destroys the compound, earth is assimilated by an aggressive pathogen that assimilates the planet in record time. so how is it that cochrane is planning to celebrate his new found success over the evil aliens without a warp ship to prove humans have gotten into outer space? without the Vulcan's noticing them, after all they don't go looking at what piques their interest, only by what is proven to be the case, in this case a species has achieved warp travel.
let's go back even further, if the empire does it's thing and there was no borg to worry about, the past would of never changed, so how is it possible it did in the first place without any precursors that set off an alternative timeline.
i'm not so convinced.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Greed, Power and Resources are always going to be at the forefront of what humanity aspire toward - not all of us, but the few who just so happen to control (one way or another) the many. You can look at any nation on Earth today, and for the most part, it's the minority in power that're controlling the majority below them. It's always been that way, and it'll always be that way. Space travel and recolonisation isn't going to change that.
As much as Trek is fictional, I find I prefer it when it's more realistic, and I further feel that the dark and gritty episodes of Trek are that realism which Roddenberry didn't want to deal with, which I suppose is ironic as he was hardly a saint himself, but we'll not go there.
Star Trek of old (so TOS and TNG) I don't believe would appeal to the audience of today. We've gotta' remember, it's not just the Picard show that's gone dark and gritty; there's plenty of other space opera shows that have gone that route too, because that's what people are going to tune in and watch. Despite what some people choose to believe, the audience of today is very different from the audience of 25/30+ years ago.
Star Trek Discovery and Star Trek Picard do what they need too, both for their targeted audience, and for the times we're in.
Icheb was dying. Don't know how much more plain it could have been made, apart from dialog along the lines of, "Oh, no, Icheb! You're dying!" "Yes, I'm dying. You can't stop it. You're a vigilante, not a doctor." "Oh, my poor dying Icheb! You're going to die!"
The only equipment she carried on that mission was a phaser. All she was able to do was make his death quick and painless; the only alternative was leaving it slow and painful. What, precisely, did you expect Seven the Fenris Ranger to do? Call the Voyager to beam them up?
i hope they maintain strong links to past trek shows but i also understand times are changing
However I loved what they did with Captain Pike and thought that actor portrayed him very well. Made me wonder why CBS, Paramount, or Viacom seems so disinterested in just doing the actual prequel to TOS covering Pike's tenure on the Enterprise with a younger Spock?
That being said, Ethan Peck is no Zachary Quinto. Peck did not pull off his role at all, yet I daresay that "as written" the character of Spock was not included nor present during their second season? Would like to have seen more of Number One, Romijn did well with her limited screen time.
I have enjoyed Picard and their willingness to step outside the box of fan expectations. It is much more Trek to me than Disco.
A thing to point out that I saw in another thread is that this show is an awful lot like undiscovered country, where Kirk was appalled by the idea of peace with the klingons, believing them to be bloodthirsty savaged and by the end of the movie he has learned the error of his ways. And during the movie the majority of the federation was extremely pleased by the idea of peace and saving the klingons even though the klingons had been their enemies for years.
The show however has the entire federation suddenly all turn into Kirk, where they are so full of hate and xenophobia that they would rather let the romulans go extinct than step in to save them, with picard being one of the few that actually cared about the romulans. THey essentially took the plot of the movie, and reversed the role of the main character (Kirk and Picard) and the federation's attitude.
Exactly. I was already upset before I even saw the comparison made but now the whole picard plot of that makes even less sense than it did before.
I don't know, I guess you're right. It's not like there was a ship nearby with an advanced EMH that she could have tried to contact. I don't imagine injecting him with some fresh borg nanites could have rebuilt anything either. Surely none of the tools in the room could have been useful either. Since there really were no options, seeing her in a frantic panic doing whatever ultimately futile efforts she thought of to try and save the life of the man who risked his own life to save hers, who she helped raise like he was her own child, that would have been a terrible, not far more emotionally powerful scene compared to what we got.
I see Seven's being a vigilante completely differently. She's not a murderer running around, but someone who tried to help and save those who cannot do it themselves. It's her way of atoning for destroying lives as a Borg drone -- to save as many as she can now. At any cost, esp. if the law doesn't protect them.
That said, even if Icheb couldn't be saved, they could play it out better. Show what she did as the last resort, after she tried everything to help him first, even if it was hopeless.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
But because the hero catches them at the precise moment they don't have a weapon, it suddenly becomes wrong to prevent more suffering.
Also, it's not like Bjayzl was remorseful, considering she smugly kept talking to Seven, even calling her by her human name as if using her to get to Icheb and vivisect him wouldn't have impacted their relationship much... that and bringing Maddox to near-death:
"How sentimental of you then. Risking your revenge while saving their lives... almost reminds me of the Annika of old."
"Like you used to have (hope)? Before I took it away from you."
Plus, it's clear even that was just her stalling for her security group to show up since she panics when Seven points it out, so in any case, it was a cold and horrible attempt to talk to Seven with zero intent to justify her actions.
There is a difference between executing a villain whose organization has just been dismantled/wiped out and is out of bullets with nowhere to escape the hero with the cavalry coming, therefore left completely and permanently powerless, harmless and about to be brought to justice ;
AND killing a villain who's still in charge of their organization and has no regrets or intent to stop and just happens to have the tables turned on them.
Probably not, because nanites are about repurposing systems for the benefit of the Borg Collective - they tended to simply kill drones injured on missions. Anything too badly injured to fight doesn't seem to have concerned them.
Describe the surgical techniques needed to rescue a former Borg who had had most of his implants violently removed without either anaesthesia or concern for his surviving the procedure. Be specific. Should be easy, since you expect a former astrographer turned vigilante to know exactly how to proceed while enemy forces are closing in.