test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

✯✯✯ STAR TREK PICARD ✯✯✯ (reactions and discussion WITH SPOILERS)

1161719212233

Comments

  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 14,378 Arc User
    I don't understand where you see the darkness in this tv show, at the contrary. Humanity is shown with its imperfections, emotions, hope. And, Death is life. The future is shown realistically, not a like in a fairytale.
    And the lesson to keep in mind is that obscurantism (political, religious) and fear can have some serious repercussions (interdiction of the researches on the positronic tech)
    Will and Picard seat on the bench was a really nice sequence.
    Elnor is a main character (i hope), Hugh's death is a kind of lesson, he spent most of his live in a kind of monastery. Hugh's death is not useless at all.
    Agnes' act is "bright" moment, she makes a sacrifice for her friends, what do you need more?

    In fact the characters in this show are more human, and alive than the same characters in TNG.

    My issue with it is the constant, dark, undertones.

    Yes, Will and Picard sat on the bench was nice. Riker clearly built a nice life for his family - but they went to that planet for a reason, and their 'happiness' came at a cost.
    Elnor... who knows, too soon to say and definitely not safe to say that they won't kill him off.
    Hugh's death would have been more meaningful if they'd let him destroy the trajector in the Queen's room. Granted, he died knowing he liberated heaven knows how many drones - I'll give you that, but still - another secondary character from a previous series killed to create another casus belli.

    And sorry, but I really don't like the way they're sort of implying that everything would've been better if Robot the Sidekick was still alive.


  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 2,632 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    I don't understand where you see the darkness in this tv show, at the contrary. Humanity is shown with its imperfections, emotions, hope. And, Death is life. The future is shown realistically, not a like in a fairytale.
    And the lesson to keep in mind is that obscurantism (political, religious) and fear can have some serious repercussions (interdiction of the researches on the positronic tech)
    Will and Picard seat on the bench was a really nice sequence.
    Elnor is a main character (i hope), Hugh's death is a kind of lesson, he spent most of his live in a kind of monastery. Hugh's death is not useless at all.
    Agnes' act is "bright" moment, she makes a sacrifice for her friends, what do you need more?

    In fact the characters in this show are more human, and alive than the same characters in TNG.

    Maybe not so realistic though when you consider the odds.

    If everyone who was killed or close to the people killed were a loosely organized group looking into the conspiracy and were murdered when they got close or whatever then yes, it is realistic. OR if on the other hand, if they were totally random people who are drawn in to the situation in different, chance ways it also realistic. In fact, that second situation is a technique writers very often use to get a team of heroes together in the first place, out of a random selection of people who would otherwise have never met and wouldn't have banded together any other way.

    The problem is that neither situation actually applies (especially the second since they are not just random new characters) which makes justifying it happening to those particular people out of hundreds of trillions of possible random victims far less realistic, a sort of metagaming of the plot like the villains somehow saw the various TV series the good guys came from and tried to eliminate or scare off any main cast characters who might interfere with their plans (that is a surprisingly easy trap to fall into btw, especially when writing more complex plots).

    While I have not seen the series so far it certainly does sound like they are deliberately doing "dark" to some degree, possibly to fit in better with the DSC stuff (to be fair, it really would be awkward and possibly damaging for CBS to seem to start ignoring their own previous take on Trek with the way Hollywood gossips and works behind the glamour). The tone might even be appropriate considering the show happens far from the ivory towers of Starfleet.

    They may even be going for a deconstruction, though from what I have seen of DSC I am not sure the CBS writers could pull that off successfully (they can be wickedly tricky to do without tainting the original or turning the deconstruction into an unintentional lampoon), especially with the contempt some key production people show for anything resembling TOS ideals (and TNG pushed those more than TOS did in many ways, especially Picard himself).
  • valoreahvaloreah Member Posts: 10,691 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    reyan01 wrote: »
    It was nice yes, but even then they just HAD to work something tragic into their story. This series doesn't really seem to know how to do 'happy'.
    ltminns wrote: »
    Everything has to be so dark these days.

    ^ Could not agree more. It was not enough to have Riker and Troi just be retired. There just has to be some dark tragedy tossed in.

    Again, the continuity in writing is poor. Legolas had no problem beaming onto the Cube, but they can't beam him out even if he didn't want to be?

    Post edited by valoreah on
    Dear Devs: I enjoyed the Legacy of Romulus expansion much more than the Delta Rising expansion. .
    thecosmic1 wrote:
    Anyone calling Valoreah a "Cryptic fanboy" must be new to the forum.

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • valoreahvaloreah Member Posts: 10,691 Arc User
    While I have not seen the series so far it certainly does sound like they are deliberately doing "dark" to some degree, possibly to fit in better with the DSC stuff (to be fair, it really would be awkward and possibly damaging for CBS to seem to start ignoring their own previous take on Trek with the way Hollywood gossips and works behind the glamour).

    It makes more sense for Discovery because of the era it is set in. People seem to forget there was a lot of bickering and in-fighting between characters on TOS. They were not the utopia yet. That did not come about until TNG.

    Dear Devs: I enjoyed the Legacy of Romulus expansion much more than the Delta Rising expansion. .
    thecosmic1 wrote:
    Anyone calling Valoreah a "Cryptic fanboy" must be new to the forum.

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • captainbrian11captainbrian11 Member Posts: 588 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    It's pretty clear to me that what last episode did was "Stakes build" will and deanna's personal tragedy shows us that there are stakes at play here beyond just "ohh well no new data's will be built"now we see the cost, with people we care about, it has an emotional impact beyond a pure "ohh random person says X" likewise Hugh's death makes Elnor's new mission more personal. AND (more importantly) eistablishes Nerak's sister has his personal foil. chances are they'll fight again and he'll defeat her.

    Look I get some people hate that the heros have personal costs, and that things don't go well all the time etc. and frankly if that's your view, well.. you're looking for fairy tales and kids tv. real life doesn't have happily ever afters
  • sennahcheribsennahcherib Member Posts: 2,655 Arc User
    Hugh's death would have been more meaningful if they'd let him destroy the trajector in the Queen's room

    I agree, in fact that would have been awesome :)
    I don't understand where you see the darkness in this tv show, at the contrary. Humanity is shown with its imperfections, emotions, hope. And, Death is life. The future is shown realistically, not a like in a fairytale.
    And the lesson to keep in mind is that obscurantism (political, religious) and fear can have some serious repercussions (interdiction of the researches on the positronic tech)
    Will and Picard seat on the bench was a really nice sequence.
    Elnor is a main character (i hope), Hugh's death is a kind of lesson, he spent most of his live in a kind of monastery. Hugh's death is not useless at all.
    Agnes' act is "bright" moment, she makes a sacrifice for her friends, what do you need more?

    In fact the characters in this show are more human, and alive than the same characters in TNG.

    Maybe not so realistic though when you consider the odds.

    If everyone who was killed or close to the people killed were a loosely organized group looking into the conspiracy and were murdered when they got close or whatever then yes, it is realistic. OR if on the other hand, if they were totally random people who are drawn in to the situation in different, chance ways it also realistic. In fact, that second situation is a technique writers very often use to get a team of heroes together in the first place, out of a random selection of people who would otherwise have never met and wouldn't have banded together any other way.

    The problem is that neither situation actually applies (especially the second since they are not just random new characters) which makes justifying it happening to those particular people out of hundreds of trillions of possible random victims far less realistic, a sort of metagaming of the plot like the villains somehow saw the various TV series the good guys came from and tried to eliminate or scare off any main cast characters who might interfere with their plans (that is a surprisingly easy trap to fall into btw, especially when writing more complex plots).

    While I have not seen the series so far it certainly does sound like they are deliberately doing "dark" to some degree, possibly to fit in better with the DSC stuff (to be fair, it really would be awkward and possibly damaging for CBS to seem to start ignoring their own previous take on Trek with the way Hollywood gossips and works behind the glamour). The tone might even be appropriate considering the show happens far from the ivory towers of Starfleet.

    They may even be going for a deconstruction, though from what I have seen of DSC I am not sure the CBS writers could pull that off successfully (they can be wickedly tricky to do without tainting the original or turning the deconstruction into an unintentional lampoon), especially with the contempt some key production people show for anything resembling TOS ideals (and TNG pushed those more than TOS did in many ways, especially Picard himself).

    first of all, if you don't have seen the show, how you can comment objectively its content; it is not a reproach :) but take a look at the show ;)

    DSC in my opinion is the worst trek show and not dark at all, even TNG is better. Most of the characters are totally forgotten or ridiculous. I cannot take this show seriously. Burham the super hero of the universe, mega extra lol. In fact, cbs writers ignore totally DSC. DSC is a fail, of course not in the point of view of the profesisonnal critics. it is just my point of view.

    STP explores the fact of being just a person: Picard's doubts and weakness, soji's quest, etc, Elnor's evolution etc.

    It is hard for me to like TNG or Discovery because my fav trek show is DS9, a tv show where the characters were all complicated, and the tragedy at each street corner (Jadzia's death for example). The best trek tv show ever, and I like it :p

    i personally like dark stories, because after the death, the sadness,etc, there is always a hope. Take a look at Altered Carbon ;)
    "Meta is what you like" : Spot the Red cat

    Un ali mat zo mat bepred Ha pa ve digant ur sot e ve
    (Good advice is always good, even though it comes from an idiot).
  • captainbrian11captainbrian11 Member Posts: 588 Arc User
    I agree, there seem to be some people who don't like the heros being challanged, facing loss and troubles. but thats what a good story SHOULD do, put the heros through the wringer so that when they emerge on the other side, it's more sastifying. yeah you don't wanna do it (I know a lot of people who gave up on GOT because it took so long to get to the pay off, but that was 6 or 7 seasons of "LOL STARKS GET SCREWED!" yeah if Picard season 1 ends with nothing happening and, I dunno. the tal shiar cutting off Picard's head I'll be a bit annoyed) I mean, I said kids TV earlier, but even transformers killed Optimus.
  • shadowfang240shadowfang240 Member Posts: 35,849 Arc User
    bad example - transformers also always brings optimus back​​
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!

    RIP Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks & Calvin Munerlyn

    blacklivesmatter.png

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."

    "Curiosity is bad! It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed...and more importantly, it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • captainbrian11captainbrian11 Member Posts: 588 Arc User
    bad example - transformers also always brings optimus back​​

    sure he's basicly become the "Jean Grey" of the franchise these days, but back when they did it the first time, it was tramatizing. th backlash agaisnt it was actually pretty severe (it's why they simply had Duke go into acoma in the GI Joe movie) and fan backlash back then on that scale was rare (what with the lack of the internet and the ability by people to whip up the fanbase over every perceived little complaint with ease)


  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    I don't understand where you see the darkness in this tv show, at the contrary. Humanity is shown with its imperfections, emotions, hope. And, Death is life. The future is shown realistically, not a like in a fairytale.
    The humans in Star Trek are supposed to be flat out better than us. You (and the writers) fail to look through the lens of "science fiction". "Imperfect humanity" is a fairly tired trope, used to set up simplistic, easy, copy-pasted stories that require little effort on the part of the writer. These stories rely entirely on the actor (in coordination with direction and editing) to create a satisfying experience.

    Why are the humans in Trek better? They are far braver, and probably wiser, than any of us.

    The Federation is a DEMOCRACY. It's wondrous and terrifying. When we hold elections, we do so with other humans, whom share a common history and possibly culture. The Federation is composed of dozens of alien races, each having unique cultures, histories, physiologys, psychological make-up, needs and wants. Humans all agreed to give the power to make policy to beings who are radically different from them in every conceivable way. Can you imagine giving that power to the citizens of a nation that borders your own? How can they do that, unless they have become wiser than we are now? Braver and more secure in themselves than we are?

    Humans in the future are role models, not terrible, awful, garbage beings, ruled by fear and insecurity. This is the best part of science fiction; imagining possibilities and pushing boundaries. Not "yeah, humans are going to be ruled by greed and lust for power because we suck today; so we will always suck. Imagining anything different is foolish and wasteful; make sure to imagine things that are profitable while you are at it".

    So, then come the "But, what about terrible human x or y in episode z? A handful of examples totally cripples your stance on the human race as a whole in Star Trek!" statements. That is not true, convenient strawman. Freedom of individuality (another trait of better future humans) would allow some humans to indulge in baser or even anti-social behaviors. Curbing individualism would just lead to some Orwellian nightmare. Criminals, though probably fewer than any other era, would exist. Probably at the fringes of the Federation, where it would be easier to indulge in behavior that would be refuted by the majority of humanity.
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 2,632 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    Hugh's death would have been more meaningful if they'd let him destroy the trajector in the Queen's room

    I agree, in fact that would have been awesome :)
    I don't understand where you see the darkness in this tv show, at the contrary. Humanity is shown with its imperfections, emotions, hope. And, Death is life. The future is shown realistically, not a like in a fairytale.
    And the lesson to keep in mind is that obscurantism (political, religious) and fear can have some serious repercussions (interdiction of the researches on the positronic tech)
    Will and Picard seat on the bench was a really nice sequence.
    Elnor is a main character (i hope), Hugh's death is a kind of lesson, he spent most of his live in a kind of monastery. Hugh's death is not useless at all.
    Agnes' act is "bright" moment, she makes a sacrifice for her friends, what do you need more?

    In fact the characters in this show are more human, and alive than the same characters in TNG.

    Maybe not so realistic though when you consider the odds.

    If everyone who was killed or close to the people killed were a loosely organized group looking into the conspiracy and were murdered when they got close or whatever then yes, it is realistic. OR if on the other hand, if they were totally random people who are drawn in to the situation in different, chance ways it also realistic. In fact, that second situation is a technique writers very often use to get a team of heroes together in the first place, out of a random selection of people who would otherwise have never met and wouldn't have banded together any other way.

    The problem is that neither situation actually applies (especially the second since they are not just random new characters) which makes justifying it happening to those particular people out of hundreds of trillions of possible random victims far less realistic, a sort of metagaming of the plot like the villains somehow saw the various TV series the good guys came from and tried to eliminate or scare off any main cast characters who might interfere with their plans (that is a surprisingly easy trap to fall into btw, especially when writing more complex plots).

    While I have not seen the series so far it certainly does sound like they are deliberately doing "dark" to some degree, possibly to fit in better with the DSC stuff (to be fair, it really would be awkward and possibly damaging for CBS to seem to start ignoring their own previous take on Trek with the way Hollywood gossips and works behind the glamour). The tone might even be appropriate considering the show happens far from the ivory towers of Starfleet.

    They may even be going for a deconstruction, though from what I have seen of DSC I am not sure the CBS writers could pull that off successfully (they can be wickedly tricky to do without tainting the original or turning the deconstruction into an unintentional lampoon), especially with the contempt some key production people show for anything resembling TOS ideals (and TNG pushed those more than TOS did in many ways, especially Picard himself).

    first of all, if you don't have seen the show, how you can comment objectively its content; it is not a reproach :) but take a look at the show ;)

    DSC in my opinion is the worst trek show and not dark at all, even TNG is better. Most of the characters are totally forgotten or ridiculous. I cannot take this show seriously. Burham the super hero of the universe, mega extra lol. In fact, cbs writers ignore totally DSC. DSC is a fail, of course not in the point of view of the profesisonnal critics. it is just my point of view.

    STP explores the fact of being just a person: Picard's doubts and weakness, soji's quest, etc, Elnor's evolution etc.

    It is hard for me to like TNG or Discovery because my fav trek show is DS9, a tv show where the characters were all complicated, and the tragedy at each street corner (Jadzia's death for example). The best trek tv show ever, and I like it :p

    i personally like dark stories, because after the death, the sadness,etc, there is always a hope. Take a look at Altered Carbon ;)

    While I have not seen the PIC show itself it is not hard to find clips, transcripts, and detailed reviews of the "episodes" (technically in a serial they are "segments" not "episodes") and those can give a very good idea of the way it is plotted and written even though a lot of the nuances and all of the eye-candy (except for what is in the clips) is absent. That is enough data to find patterns in, especially with DSC and current industry standards to compare them to.

    Of course, I was not directly talking about details of the show itself, I was pointing out that the all the deaths and tragedy focused on the characters that came from older series did not necessarily make it "more realistic" because while the viewers have probably seen those shows the villains in the current story almost certainly have not and therefore do not have the metaplot knowledge the viewers have to recognize them (unless of course it is a spoof like Blazing Saddles where the characters walk out into the "real world" and see things they otherwise would not, or the Family Guy Star Wars spoof in the asteroids where he says "look, we have 4 out of 5 of the main characters on this ship, I think we'll be fine", which is not the case with PIC as far as I know of).

    As long as it all connects in a reasonably plausible way it is fine, but if they do too much of it or otherwise handle it wrong then it turns into the same lazy "women in refrigerators" situation the comics industry went though at least twice already (a comic book writer once described it as "if you can't wow them, shock them" writing.
  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 14,378 Arc User
    It's pretty clear to me that what last episode did was "Stakes build" will and deanna's personal tragedy shows us that there are stakes at play here beyond just "ohh well no new data's will be built"now we see the cost, with people we care about, it has an emotional impact beyond a pure "ohh random person says X" likewise Hugh's death makes Elnor's new mission more personal. AND (more importantly) eistablishes Nerak's sister has his personal foil. chances are they'll fight again and he'll defeat her.

    Look I get some people hate that the heros have personal costs, and that things don't go well all the time etc. and frankly if that's your view, well.. you're looking for fairy tales and kids tv. real life doesn't have happily ever afters

    The review on ex-astris-scientia.org/ said it better than I can:
    I don't want to turn this into a rant because I overall like the episode. But let me address the second issue I have with "Nepenthe", which too is a systematic error of this series, rather than a one-time problem. Star Trek Picard leaves a frustrating trail of deaths among the "good people". Dahj, Icheb, Maddox and now Hugh. We may want to include Thaddeus Troi-Riker. The boy died in the "tradition" of very common "rare" diseases and of the extreme mortality rate among the family members of Starfleet officers - but also because the late 24th century is such a particularly bad time. It seems that everyone who shows too much friendship and compassion has to die, in a new interpretation of "No good deed goes unpunished". This might also be an attempt to clear the way for the protagonists to become or remain likable or relatable despite their many flaws. Perhaps I should be worried about Riker and Troi for that matter?
    Anyway, even if we put up with the frequent deaths of moral, likable or popular characters in Picard because it might be necessary to get the story across, Hugh's tragic death remains largely pointless, other than giving Elnor some more action. Hugh is essentially a one-dimensional victim who is killed by a one-dimensional villain. I expected him to die because it is the pattern of the series, and it only surprised me that Narissa Rizzo still spared his life in the beginning, with the lame excuse that the treaty does not allow her to kill Federation citizens.


  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,179 Arc User
    The death of Riker's child is so utterly unbelievable, it is just contrived. A silicon virus kills carbon life forms with only trace amounts of silicon in their bodies, and didn't affect the parents? There is no medical exception for this weird positronic thing he needed? What does a medical device for people even have to do with androids? How does Picard's artificial heart not fall under the same ban? Why is it no one else outside the Federation could help? What a pointless and completely unbelievable bit of exposition that only offers darkness.

    Yes, it is trying to show us there is more to banning androids that can affect humanoid life. Yet it fails miserably because it comes up with the most unbelievable nonsense possible. We are really supposed to believe that this android ban is so draconic that even some component that *could* be used in androids and *does* benefit humanoids, that too gets caught in this ridiculous ban. It is even more hilarious that they think the Federation could realistically enforce it when they can't even protect its citizens from bands of Romulans murdering them on Earth, that there wouldn't be a black market or people going to other empires or the Ferengi for their android/medical component needs.

    And worst of all, the foundation of all of this seems to expect me to believe that banning androids was a reasonable solution to the problem (what the exact problem was we still don't know, do we?) in the first place. We are also supposed to believe it is somehow necessary because one robot will kill trillions somehow, because a prophecy says so.

    Am I missing something, because once again it is apparent this show's writing has no science advisor or even just a logic advisor.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,894 Arc User
    That was really an excellent episode.
    Was great seeing Riker and Troi back. Their child was also really excellent, she did really well.

    Sad to see Hugh go. He deserved better, but at least he had a few decades as a free man doing good.
    Will we see Seven take over the Cube now?
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • shadowfang240shadowfang240 Member Posts: 35,849 Arc User
    no, we'll see the cube activate and attempt to assimilate the sector...and then, THE ALPHA QUADRANT! *insert saturday morning cartoon villain cackle*​​
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!

    RIP Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks & Calvin Munerlyn

    blacklivesmatter.png

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."

    "Curiosity is bad! It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed...and more importantly, it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • saurializardsaurializard Member Posts: 3,632 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    The death of Riker's child is so utterly unbelievable, it is just contrived. A silicon virus kills carbon life forms with only trace amounts of silicon in their bodies, and didn't affect the parents? There is no medical exception for this weird positronic thing he needed? What does a medical device for people even have to do with androids? How does Picard's artificial heart not fall under the same ban? Why is it no one else outside the Federation could help? What a pointless and completely unbelievable bit of exposition that only offers darkness.

    Yes, it is trying to show us there is more to banning androids that can affect humanoid life. Yet it fails miserably because it comes up with the most unbelievable nonsense possible.
    Have you ever watched some of the more convoluted Star Trek episodes, whether they're bad or not? Because of all the technobabble present, especially in Picard and its freaking biological androids created from the purely mechanical brain of another, this is the last straw, so to speak?
    And worst of all, the foundation of all of this seems to expect me to believe that banning androids was a reasonable solution to the problem (what the exact problem was we still don't know, do we?) in the first place. We are also supposed to believe it is somehow necessary because one robot will kill trillions somehow, because a prophecy says so.
    Doesn't that ring any bell considering the current RL situations on our own planet? You know, something about various fanatics causing various countries to fall back into irrational bigotry to try and punish whole groups of people while sidelining other more urgent issues...
    We are really supposed to believe that this android ban is so draconic that even some component that *could* be used in androids and *does* benefit humanoids, that too gets caught in this ridiculous ban. It is even more hilarious that they think the Federation could realistically enforce it when they can't even protect its citizens from bands of Romulans murdering them on Earth, that there wouldn't be a black market or people going to other empires or the Ferengi for their android/medical component needs.
    [...]
    Am I missing something
    Yes: Starfleet is infiltrated at its very top by Romulan fanatics, that's even the second main conspiracy of the whole show. And, as RL shows once more, you only need one fanatic/idiot/fear-mongering person in charge to have their twisted rhetoric start spreading and bring in more of these people in charge.


    IMO, I don't like how the show is killing off several past characters so easily and even so cruelly and having put others through hell. That's my biggest pet-peeve with it and I hope this will stop soon enough so it doesn't irremediably bring us into the Eight Deadly Words trope.

    BUT I can see the intent behind the themes of the show itself, even if it could be done in much better ways: 'Why is the Picard era so dark? Because humanity itself is going down a dark path IRL, and if you don't stop it, the future will not improve either, so future interpretations of current issues are in this future right now as a wake-up call. Don't be complacent but don't be too tempted by the overly pragmatic solutions either, or bad things are gonna keep happening.'
    #TASforSTO
    Iconian_Trio_sign.jpg?raw=1
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 5,837 Arc User
    Overall I liked the newest episode, with the exception of Hugh's fate. I was fine with Icheb dieing a few episodes ago, but killing off Hugh like that was a complete waste of a good character that was just starting to get more interesting.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    QIBp95C.png
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,473 Arc User
    BUT I can see the intent behind the themes of the show itself, even if it could be done in much better ways: 'Why is the Picard era so dark? Because humanity itself is going down a dark path IRL, and if you don't stop it, the future will not improve either, so future interpretations of current issues are in this future right now as a wake-up call. Don't be complacent but don't be too tempted by the overly pragmatic solutions either, or bad things are gonna keep happening.'

    Why should it matter if humanity is currently going down a dark path IRL? TOS aired during the Vietnam War and was extremely optimistic about the future. If the creators of Picard are concerned about humanity going down a dark path, then it should be optimistic to give us hope for the future instead of the doom of Picard. Picard shows that no matter how far into the future humanity travels, we will still suffer from bigotry and not helping former enemies in times of dire circumstances.
  • treknadi#8339 treknadi Member Posts: 16 Arc User
    Is it bad that I just don't like it if shows try to be "DARK AND GRITTY" for the sake of it?

    I'm realy not sure if I want to see more of it, I'm a little afraid that other characters of the old shows will make an appearance in one way or another just to die in a horrible way or to be shown the victim of some sort of tragedy. =/
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,894 Arc User
    Is it bad that I just don't like it if shows try to be "DARK AND GRITTY" for the sake of it?

    I'm realy not sure if I want to see more of it, I'm a little afraid that other characters of the old shows will make an appearance in one way or another just to die in a horrible way or to be shown the victim of some sort of tragedy. =/

    Ultimately, you like what you like. That is neither bad nor god, it just is. TV is entertainment, and if it doesn't entertain you, that's it.

    But I tend to think it's wrong to say stuff is "dark and gritty" for the sake of it. Is it really just for the sake of it.

    The TNG Picard didn't need a new TV series. He was in a happy place. What kind of story is there to tell about him that isn't just the same as the old ones?
    To have a story about a character, the character needs to be in some kind of conflict, he must have a challenge that he or she can try to overcome, hopefully succeeding, hopefully intact, ideally growing from it.

    And, on another level... A story has to be about something that we can relate to. We aren't perfect. Star Trek tries to show us a positive future, but it also has to give us something that relates to us, so we can draw a connection from our imperfect, sometimes pessimistic outlook to the positive future.
    TNG (and TNG era Trek) sometimes fell into the trap in making its characters to perfect - they had no flaws, they were in the right, so their succeed was a foregone conclusion. If you're not careful, it becomes just an abstract sequence of events that have no bearing to us.
    To give hope, you need to show people facing difficulty and overcoming. And I think Picard is trying to get there. Picard or Raffi weren't in quite so good places when they start out. But as they face a challenge, their mind awakens, they start to figure out things, they make new connections, they realize their mistakes and start to make lessons.

    Troi and Riker actually serve us as a strange mix of the darkness and the hope, too. They lost their son, possibly the worst tragedy parents can suffer from. But they stuck together, they had their daughter, and they managed to heal together. They are in a place where they can act as safe haven for Picard for a while, they are in a place where they can give him emotional support. We can see that you can preserve and still make a great life for yourself. The pain isn't simply gone or anything, but it's not holding them back. They can help. And so, Picard will be able to do so, too.
    And that is an important message of hope IMO, too. Yes, there are tragedies in life. Things don't work out as we want, sometimes horribly so. But you can get through that and still grow, you can still contribute, and life can still have good things for you in the future.

    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • captainbrian11captainbrian11 Member Posts: 588 Arc User
    I agree, the Rikers are IMHO the best example of what Picard is trying to show us. Life isn't perfect, it's messy, tragedy happens, not everyone who should live will, but carry on, push through, and things can work out and you can be happy.
    In fact one thing about this episode I think a lot of people missed, the one that might be the most important part of it, was actually something Kestrel Troi-Riker said. Before that I wanna go on a tangent and note that, in a manner of speaking, Picard with TNG and the movies never got a happy ending (in fact Nemisis was outright depressing from that standpoint) when Riker and Troi left, the band was beginning to break up, Data had died, etc. Picard had his duty, but he didn't have anyone, not really. This is something that Generations did a good job of outright telling us. (it made Picard's fall from grace truely tragic, as he had literally given everything of himself to starfleet and the mission)

    but in this episode Kestral when talking to Sojhi about family etc, tells us, with admittingly he innocence of a child when she says she has no one, says "she could have Picard.. and Picard could have her" my gut feeling is that this could end up prophetic and that Sojhi could end up a "daughter figure" for Picard.
    it's just a prediction, but if it comes true, Jean Luc Picard will finally get the happy ending, TNG denied to him
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,295 Arc User
    It's the current CBS/CW paridigm.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!
    Judge Dan Haywood
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,473 Arc User
    I agree, the Rikers are IMHO the best example of what Picard is trying to show us. Life isn't perfect, it's messy, tragedy happens, not everyone who should live will, but carry on, push through, and things can work out and you can be happy.

    I have no problem with Riker's kid dying, but the problem is linking his death to the Synth ban. Everything to do with the Synth ban is just idiotic in Star Trek including the fact that the Federation is willing to create a slave race.
  • lexusk19lexusk19 Member Posts: 1,383 Arc User
    Note: If this thread gets set upon by the trolls, mods please close it.

    That being said, I canceled my CBS All Access today due to Star Trek Picard just not being Star Trek... There is no hope in the show, its dark and moody, theres really no coherent plot, or care for what they have going on. Its disturbingly graphic in some scenes and all sense of striving for a better future is gone... Its all revenge plots and terrible writing... I truely hope CBS sells Trek off. They clearly can not make it anymore...

    Thoughts? Do you like it? If so, why?
    gVOTFcj.jpg
  • westx211westx211 Member Posts: 41,019 Arc User
    Should just do what others have done and sail the seven seas ye scurvy dog if your curiosity is ever intrigued. I'm not willing to support CBS all access due to discovery and Picard, and I honestly don't care about any other programming on it, so it'd be a waste of money for me to pay for it.

    Picard suffers from some of the same issues Discovery did, except while they traded out some of the worst parts of discovery's writing, they have instead created new terrible things that make it a bad show as well.
    Men are not punished for their sins, but by them.
  • coldnapalmcoldnapalm Member Posts: 9,245 Arc User
    So...you quit because of Picard but was okay with the Michael Burnham show...k.
  • captainbrian11captainbrian11 Member Posts: 588 Arc User
    We have an entire thread decicated to Picard already.
  • captainbrian11captainbrian11 Member Posts: 588 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    I agree, the Rikers are IMHO the best example of what Picard is trying to show us. Life isn't perfect, it's messy, tragedy happens, not everyone who should live will, but carry on, push through, and things can work out and you can be happy.

    I have no problem with Riker's kid dying, but the problem is linking his death to the Synth ban. Everything to do with the Synth ban is just idiotic in Star Trek including the fact that the Federation is willing to create a slave race.

    the prequal novel explains they weren't actually complex eneugh to be sentient. although that really should have been specificly said in the show given that people look at them and see "mass produced datas"
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,473 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    I agree, the Rikers are IMHO the best example of what Picard is trying to show us. Life isn't perfect, it's messy, tragedy happens, not everyone who should live will, but carry on, push through, and things can work out and you can be happy.

    I have no problem with Riker's kid dying, but the problem is linking his death to the Synth ban. Everything to do with the Synth ban is just idiotic in Star Trek including the fact that the Federation is willing to create a slave race.

    the prequal novel explains they weren't actually complex eneugh to be sentient. although that really should have been specificly said in the show given that people look at them and see "mass produced datas"

    They weren't complex enough to be sapient not sentient. The Doctor was sentient during the first season of Voyager, but sentient and sapient in later seasons. So without standard memory wipes or some other method of limiting sapience, then the Synths could have become sapient as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.