I'd hasten to guess that if we had to categorize his fiction taste, you might say period fantasy. It's the one thing Shakespeare & Dixon Hill have in common, mystery, romance, drama, in an age old setting
Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 1x04 - "Absolute Candor"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Nope. He likes fiction that explores the human condition. That just happens to be - in his mind - mystery, romance and drama.
Ugh.
It's not inaccurate, as there is more than one definition. That remains true no matter how times you or anyone else here say that it has no other definitions. It does not mean always succeeds. And saying an ethical or Moral Mary Sue means that they are always in Right, Good and Just and NOT that they always succeed in their purpose. I can coin a new phrase if you insist, but it will mean the same thing.
Many different posters are making similar counters, so that accounts for making the point more than once. It is in response to others. You can't possibly have missed that. Since it appears to be a major theme of the show, is discussion of it to be forbidden? Am I not allowed to defend the position when others challenge it?
These are comments about how they have chosen to write the stories. It's not redemption when it is about the failings of others. That's vicarious atonement, since it wasn't your sins. If they wanted a redemption story, make him responsible for it. They are the ones writing the show, they could have done that if they wanted. And I plan on continuing to make that point should any continue to respond, and others are continuing to respond.
What the Hell are you doing?! Take a hint. She's the Board Administrator. Fucking move on.
Two problems with this site in less than 24 hours: no popcorn eating emoji.
I find it rather amusing that you use your demand that Mary Sue has whatever definition you or anyone wants it to be as the core of your argument while simultaneously demanding that there can only be one possible definition of how a redemption story can be played out.
Nothing like being completely tone deaf and throwing oneself on ones sword for a cause that's not worth discussing, never mind attempting to win...
We don't know that the rest of the UFP was in favor of it. Clancy said 14 threatened to secede from the Federation. You might have had dozens of other worlds who opposed aiding the Romulans, but were not going to secede over it. This is not something Admirals could have decided. This is a policy decision. The Federation Council, the President, etc. make calls like this.
I can see that he is angered, and disappointed by the decision, and for a military officer, he did the right thing by resigning even if he hadnt threatened it. Once the decision is made, there wasn't anything more he could have done there. Yes we hear that he could have tried to convince others, though I am not sure how that would have worked. Every other Power and every other World knew this was happening.
I think it is alot to put on the shoulders of one man to say he needs to convince a whole Quadrant to do the right thing. Yes, I think he is like MacArthur or Ike in 1945. He is a huge, widely known, major figure. I don't say that. Only it seems a bit much to say he needed to do that. But I agree it is not about "fair". He want's to make this right, somehow. That I have no problem with.
Two problems with this site in less than 24 hours: no popcorn eating emoji.
Here ya go ...
I find it rather amusing that you use your demand that Mary Sue has whatever definition you or anyone wants it to be as the core of your argument while simultaneously demanding that there can only be one possible definition of how a redemption story can be played out.
I can coin a new phrase if you like, but it will mean the same thing. And I dont think it is a problem to say that redemption should be about what you yourself did wrong. And not what others did wrong. Or failure to convince others to do the right thing. People can of course disagree but that seems sensible to me.
Probably belongs to the Romulans.
Fenris Ranger = LOTR Connection?
https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/star-trek-picard-seven-of-nine-lord-of-the-rings-rangers
https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/star-trek-picard-seven-of-nine-lord-of-the-rings-rangers
Apparently, the Federation and the New Romulan Govt. have both pulled out of the Vashti quadrant (perhaps in The Neutral Zone) and now a Warlord/Pirate is using his supped up BOP to control the area and has been for some time.
They said the characters name (though I can't remember it at the moment) but we never get to see him/her.
I'm hoping it is an Orion.
Local thug, I forget his name but it was mentioned earlier in the episode.
It may not have worked. But we'll never know cuz HE DIDN'T TRY. And that's rather the point we've all been kinda making here.
Yet even your argument to claim that Picard never did anything wrong, ever, is something that the character now vehemently disagrees with every turn of the way. Walking away from Starfleet at the worst possible time for millions who he promised aid to, the right thing to do. For who? Not lifting a finger to help anyone else since, when he would have in a moment before, the right thing to do. For who? Letting his loyal Number #1 have her career destroyed which is implied to be at least partly due to her loyalty to him and not lifting a finger to return that loyalty. The right thing to do. For who? Completely abandoning a young boy who he knew absolutely idolized him, and would have taken little more effort on his part than gifting the kid with a copy of The Three Musketeers, the right thing to do. For who?
