You're conflating drama and suspense. While they usually go hand-in-hand, it's important to recognize them independently. Because, despite what inevitable outcome might be, suspense can be created in the moment, which is what all the great Bond films do. Drama, however, is directly tied to conflict and conflict moves the plot. If Picard (or any of his) are right all the time, the potential for conflict dissolves - and you wind up with complaints from the writing staff.
This is an opening episode, there isn't any clear antagonist. But the moral dilemma was about helping the Romulans, though of course this is in the past. Nevertheless it is clearly defined that Picard is on the side of doing the right thing even if it is not easy. He is on the side of helping the 'enemy' even if it involved risks and sacrifices. I am sure this theme will be examined in the show further.
It is completely unnecessary and no reason to compare the two. Ugh, I'm kicking myself for wading in to the debate. I just hope that Picard is willing to explore moral dilemmas in a different way, rather than "hero is right" type of storytelling.
Sure, the ongoing morality of aiding an enemy will very much likely be a season long issue not an issut that this episode was centered around, only referring to. But there is a clear antagonist in this episode, and it needs to be defeated in order for the story of the episode to be resolved.
I didn’t say anything about Trek in general (though by and large, no it isn’t...Treks morality allegories also come dipped in a fair chunk of Utopianism and optimism. If that’s missing, it isn’t really Trek anymore.) and I disagree that it would work with the established Picard character...he can be wrong or fallible, for sure, but the character doesn’t operate in moral grey zones as it were; his conflicts come from balancing one ‘good’ against another, and if his choice leads down the wrong path, traditionally he has faced that too. To take the Ensign Lynch thing. He allowed his anger at the Borg to lead him into a dark place. But it was righteous anger, hate born from their actions against him and others. He doesn’t have the resources to save the assimilated crew, and he does have the resources to keep fighting what they have become. The conversation later (that should have fallen to Beverley) doesn’t change the moral status of fighting the Borg, it changes Picards realisation of where his responsibility lies (I.e he won’t win by killing every Borg standing, that won’t bring his people back, but maybe he can save who is left) and what has blinded him to this (anger, no matter how just, how righteous) The story is then resolved by defeating the Borg anyway..but only because compassion, not anger, took him there. At no point did Picard shift into ‘morally grey’ areas. Lynch was already dead when the Borg took him to all intents, Picard fired on the Borg, not the Starfleet ensign. Just as he had in the corridor earlier, he chipped at his own soul because he had no other option. That’s the character. In some ways it’s the define trait of every Captain we have as protagonist in the Trek setting, it’s part of the milieu. Sisko chips at his soul for the greater good too, ditto Janeway, and even in less deeply obvious ways so does Kirk. (I can’t comment on Archer, ENT bored me amongst other sins in series one.) That’s the job. Morally grey Starfleet captains in Trek *don’t* make for good protagonists, because that’s not the way the setting works. They do make for useful antagonists, because it’s a handy mirror. Other settings? Sure, have Captain Punisher of the USS MurderDeathKill, but that’s other settings working in their way. Let Trek be Trek. The ‘it’s more interesting If’ always says more about the individuals taste than the show itself. I mean some of us make think Trek would be ‘more interesting if’ it was episode after episode of xenobiological porn, I mean, do Orions have dark green genitals? What about Andorians? Where do those ridges and bumps extend to on Cardassians and Bajorans? But Trek isn’t really there to go beyond slight titillation as part of its setting. It’s not The Red Shoe Diaries in space. (Though if it goes there, I am ready to pitch and I bet they can get Braga away from the Orville for that one....)
It’s OK, but I prefer TOS by a good margin. The Romulans, for example, were never better than in Balance of Terror, which tackles both racism and the foolishness of blindly demonizing an enemy. And does so in 48 minutes.
No but TNG did do S6 - "The Outcast" - which at the end effectively said: "Look - Homosexuality/Psychological Gender Identity Mismatch from Societal Norms CAN BE CURED...and that's a good thing too, the affected character says so..." And then there's S4 - "Galaxy's Child" where Geordi effectively is stalking and borderline sexually harassing Leah Brahms - and at the end the writers practically gaslight her by having Geordi claim "I'm guilty of a terrible crime...I offered you friendship..." and her effectively agreeing when if you go back and look at the way he set up their "Business Meeting" in his quarters earlier in the episode..."
Honestly, it would be interesting if imaginations extended beyond the usual genital designs. But, that's rare in of itself.. I think, for me, it is putting Picard in a situation where there is no clear morally right answer. That's the type of grey I think the character would benefit from in his development.
I usually like RLM but they just seemed so mean spirited and got some basic details about STP wrong. They just wanted to hate on it. I was disappointed. I’m not sure anything can redeem NEM for me but if STP ends up living up to its potential at least it wasn’t for nothing!
As good as Balance of Terror is, It also wraps things up very neatly in a bow and its statements on racism and blindly demonizing an enemy are pretty simplistic. Most TOS episodes are pretty simplistic. So why is simplistic good in TOS and not good in DISCO? After all, they are set in a similar era. Is simplistic not OK for Picard, even though it was OK to make things simplistic in TNG?
in my experience, Star Trek Captains are often their most compelling when they are operating in morally grey areas.
What antagonist? What issue? What decision? What episode did you watch? Because nothing was resolved in the opening. Unless you are stretching the reporter into antagonist territory, nothing you describe here happened. And if you are, do you think we champion the ‘Romulan Lives/ No, just lives’ simply because it’s Picard? Or perhaps because it is right, and in keeping with bothe character and Trek itself? Or because, despite your protestations to the contrary, it is also justified within the episode itself (and past Trek). Should Picard trip up, rest assured, we will be here to blast holes in it; it hasn’t yet. DSC, like it or dislike it, had objectively blatant flaws early on that it’s had to work on (which is why the bridge officers suddenly had lines and names in series two, and a captain that fits the milieu. I mean I *like* georgiou on paper, and love Michelle Yeoh as an actress, but man she just came over as Janeway-as-war-criminal once that stuff got rolling. Oh, and then she got eaten because this is ‘adult’ Trek and ‘not your fathers Trek’ — no, we had Chains of Command, or Duet, or..most of DS9 tbh; which was obviously oh so childish and juvenile.) and has done so. Sorry. So far, Picard is just *better*. And that’s ok, because we aren’t going to stop watching or making DSC just because it is. It will benefit DSC to have a stablemate. There’s no need to be insecure about it. It’s a different show, they aren’t fighting each other.
And though the episode led to a firestorm of hate and debate in fandom "Dear Doctor(ENT)" had a Star Trek Captain doing just that. Knowing that providing a cure would save millions but withholding it because he didn't feel it was humanity's business to interfere on that level in the society of an alien planet. Archer is guilty of genocide to some and did the right thing in the eyes of others. That's one reason why as many failings as ENT had it allowed Trek to do things it rarely did before in the previous series and films. Play God with an entire planet.
Well, there are only four types of dramatic conflict. a) Man vs Man, b) Man vs Nature, c) Man vs God, d) Man vs Himself.
Unnecessarily simplistic and not all of these even feature 'an antagonist' in a way that the definition would make sense. But please let me know if you want to actually express your argument in intelligible manner at some point.