Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 1x04 - "Absolute Candor"

[zenophite]

I think the Federation almost coming to an end multiple times in the past 30 plus years was a bit of a wake up call. Starfleet weren't ready for the Borg, they weren't ready for the Dominion, they weren't ready for a synthetic revolt. Starfleet and by extension the Federation had been complacent and that complacency has resulted in a lot of death. It would be understandable that the Federation would become hawkish, isolationist and resistant to aiding a people who have actively plotted to destroy the Federation since it's inception.

I agree completely and again these are elements I would love to see explored. What are the limits of the kind of 'open society' implied by what we have understood to be the Federation? What are the factors that cause civilizations to rise and fall and can sentient beings short circuit these cycles intentionally given enough personal, social and technological evolution.

Star Trek gave us a humanity that had apparently thrown off its baser instincts - how does that really work? Does it have permanence? These are the types of things that interest me. I guess I was hoping that a 'mature' or more 'adult' take on trek was more than season long story arcs involving end of the galaxy scale mystery boxes, sex and cursing.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek gave us a humanity that had apparently thrown off its baser instincts - how does that really work? Does it have permanence? These are the types of things that interest me. I guess I was hoping that a 'mature' or more 'adult' take on trek was more than season long story arcs involving end of the galaxy scale mystery boxes, sex and cursing.

These things are difficult to explore at the personal level that Picard is currently focused on. Picard is a story about Picard and his reaction to these events, not society as a whole.

Also, I disagree that Star Trek is humanity that has "thrown off" its baser instincts. Both TOS and DS9 in particular acknowledged that humans are killers, capable of great and terrible things. What had changed was the ability for humans to chose to move past pure survival. But, it is still there.

 

[Noname Given]

my money is on gozer

No love for Zul?

 

[Racefuel]

Star Trek gave us a humanity that had apparently thrown off its baser instincts - how does that really work? Does it have permanence? These are the types of things that interest me. I guess I was hoping that a 'mature' or more 'adult' take on trek was more than season long story arcs involving end of the galaxy scale mystery boxes, sex and cursing.

DS9 more or less established that the human instincts are still there, it is simply that due to technology we've been able to cope with them better and more or less make them irrelevant most of the time.

Quark summed it up best in DS9..

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[zenophite]

Oh, there were plenty of times in TOS and DS9 that what was being commented on was from from subtle: Private Little War, Let This Be Your Last Battlefield, Past Tense, Rejoined.

Sure, but I think the allegory aspect of the story was done far better in at least some of those examples (frankly I'd have to watch again to be sure my memory of them is correct).
I am open to the idea that there might be some bias in the way I'm looking at the differences...but to me it simply feels like this crop of writers is simply far less capable at conveying ideas in a creative way.

I don't want to turn this into an Orville rant but I think it does a far better job in this department.

 

[zenophite]

These things are difficult to explore at the personal level that Picard is currently focused on. Picard is a story about Picard and his reaction to these events, not society as a whole.

Also, I disagree that Star Trek is humanity that has "thrown off" its baser instincts. Both TOS and DS9 in particular acknowledged that humans are killers, capable of great and terrible things. What had changed was the ability for humans to chose to move past pure survival. But, it is still there.

I'd agree that they might be difficult to explore but that is the perview of the 'creatives' isn't it? To translate things and ideas creatively into a form that can be conveyed in an interesting and meaningful way? At this point in time there seems to be a business around 'creative people' in tv and film patting themselves on the back for their own cleverness. I think true 'creatives' are few and that these guys don't really have many ideas. That's sort of the way i see it, ultimately. Other surely might disagree.

DS9 more or less established that the human instincts are still there, it is simply that due to technology we've been able to cope with them better and more or less make them irrelevant most of the time.

Quark summed it up best in DS9..

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Yeah I get what both of you are saying...again I like the speculative and contemplative side of science fiction and it's ability to present ideas and explore possibilities. I'm completely fine with the idea that the idealized Federation/Star Fleet might have some or many elements of propaganda and self-deception - that humans in federation times might not be quite the enlightened creatures we might have originally thought - now that would be an interesting way to go!

 

[fireproof78]

I'd agree that they might be difficult to explore but that is the perview of the 'creatives' isn't it? To translate things and ideas creatively into a form that can be conveyed in an interesting and meaningful way? At this point in time there seems to be a business around 'creative people' in tv and film patting themselves on the back for their own cleverness. I think true 'creatives' are few and that these guys don't really have many ideas. That's sort of the way i see it, ultimately. Other surely might disagree.

I don't see the "patting themselves on the back" nor do I think that the production team things of themselves to be super clever.

What I do see is a tentative willingness to be more and more creative. My observation has been that Hollywood is highly reticent to try new things and to push boundaries. Right now, they will play it safe. That's the balance and the world the creatives have to work within.

Now, would I enjoy more creative exploration? Certainly, but I'm in the minority and these companies have to sell to a much larger audience than just me.

 

[juventuz]

Jurati says there are over 3 billion stars.

That is, technically, correct.

Sure, saying there's over 10 would be technically correct as well. As I said, I was just nitpicking because I had recently helped one of my kids with a science project and learned from them that there were over 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, which caught me by surprise.

 

[Spot261]

Star Trek gave us a humanity that had apparently thrown off its baser instincts

Oft stated but rarely evidenced. We see a society which has accommodated many of humanity's basic needs in such a way they are no longer of life and death import, but greed, jealousy and petty ambition clearly still exist. We see some of the old prejudices displaced, but only onto new targets. We see much of crime reduced, but only by virtue of eliminating poverty with magical hand waving technology.

Humanity remains, IMHO, much as we are today, in some cases worse where the ivory tower blinds people to the difficulties they longer personally face.

I guess I was hoping that a 'mature' or more 'adult' take on trek was more than season long story arcs involving end of the galaxy scale mystery boxes, sex and cursing.

What would you like it to look like? Trek has always tried to find some balance between the cerebral and the entertaining. Frankly there are a lot of shows around now which have beaten it to the punch with regard to exploring the former, but what did you have in mind?

Sure, but I think the allegory aspect of the story was done far better in at least some of those examples (frankly I'd have to watch again to be sure my memory of them is correct).
I am open to the idea that there might be some bias in the way I'm looking at the differences...but to me it simply feels like this crop of writers is simply far less capable at conveying ideas in a creative way.

I don't want to turn this into an Orville rant but I think it does a far better job in this department.

Are you sure? I'd suggest rewatching some of those episodes with the rose tinted glasses off and trying to imagine your response to them as if they were brand new. You might find they aren't quite as subtle or deftly done as you remember them to be.

 

[Spot261]

Sure, saying there's over 10 would be technically correct as well. As I said, I was just nitpicking because I had recently helped one of my kids with a science project and learned from them that there were over 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, which caught me by surprise.

I know, I was just throwing a little gentle play into the mix.

There's room in all those stars for even the quirkiest sense of humour.

 

[Racefuel]

What would you like it to look like? Trek has always tried to find some balance between the cerebral and the entertaining. Frankly there are a lot of shows around now which have beaten it to the punch with regard to exploring the former, but what did you have in mind?

Literally the only inclusion that hasn't been uttered before is "fuck". Shit,etc, has already been in Star Trek.

Sex? That's nothing new, literally every series has had characters hooking up either due to changing desires, chemical imbalances, mental possession/contamination, alternate timelines, amnesia..

The more people react to some of the more raw elements in Picard the more it's obvious that they remember a Star Trek that has never existed.

 

[Noname Given]

Sure, saying there's over 10 would be technically correct as well. As I said, I was just nitpicking because I had recently helped one of my kids with a science project and learned from them that there were over 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, which caught me by surprise.

One might rationalize she was talking about Stars that had planets with intelligent life I suppose...

 

[zenophite]

I don't see the "patting themselves on the back" nor do I think that the production team things of themselves to be super clever.
What I do see is a tentative willingness to be more and more creative. My observation has been that Hollywood is highly reticent to try new things and to push boundaries. Right now, they will play it safe. That's the balance and the world the creatives have to work within.
Now, would I enjoy more creative exploration? Certainly, but I'm in the minority and these companies have to sell to a much larger audience than just me.

I think the patting themselves on the back thing is what I get from the marketing side of this (and other shows) - they make it a point to emphasize how topical, timely or relevant the show is to current times but personally i find most 'issues' being presented in a rather ham handed fashion.
I'm not so sure that the aversion to boundary pushing is really as strong as it once was. In fact, at this point 'pushing boundaries' is either directly or indirectly part of the marketing efforts of genre productions.

I get that they have to sell the thing but I don't agree that the two have to be mutually exclusive. In a world where the whole entertainment (and socio/cultural ) pie is being divided up into smaller and smaller slices, maybe the right way is to try to find things that appeal to those niches rather than try a broad based approach that worked in the past...i don't know - there are people with six or seven figure salaries whose job it is to figure this stuff out and who fail miserably so who knows what the answer is...

 

[Spot261]

Literally the only inclusion that hasn't been uttered before is "fuck". Shit,etc, has already been in Star Trek.

Sex? That's nothing new, literally every series has had characters hooking up either due to changing desires, chemical imbalances, mental possession/contamination, alternate timelines, amnesia..

The more people react to some of the more raw elements in Picard the more it's obvious that they remember a Star Trek that has never existed.

Fun fact, Kirk averaged a sexual encounter in one of every four episodes of TOS.

Never with the same person twice.

Picard has a lot of catching up to do.

 

[zenophite]

Oft stated but rarely evidenced. We see a society which has accommodated many of humanity's basic needs in such a way they are no longer of life and death import, but greed, jealousy and petty ambition clearly still exist. We see some of the old prejudices displaced, but only onto new targets. We see much of crime reduced, but only by virtue of eliminating poverty with magical hand waving technology.

Humanity remains, IMHO, much as we are today, in some cases worse where the ivory tower blinds people to the difficulties they longer personally face.

Again, I totally get it - I reiterate a point I made in an earlier post - I think exploring this aspect of the Federation and humanity in particular is how much technical advancement can set up that haughty mentality where people believe their society to be far more enlightened than it actually is. I think there could be creative ways to explore these (and other) ideas without it becoming a dull, talking-head affair.

What would you like it to look like? Trek has always tried to find some balance between the cerebral and the entertaining. Frankly there are a lot of shows around now which have beaten it to the punch with regard to exploring the former, but what did you have in mind?

Primarily, I think at this point I'd like a show that doesn't necessarily have to be about setting up an explicit season wide arc and uses episodes to explore specific ideas in a compact yet accessible way. Maybe this is a unicorn...I don't know. I think a good example would be the approach they took in Person of Interest...it was a gradual building up of the arc over the course of multiple seasons but where (especially at first) episodes where largely self-contained victim of the week type fare. The great part was that they paid off those who watched and folded in some of those stand alone episodes as supporting the larger arc later on.

Are you sure? I'd suggest rewatching some of those episodes with the rose tinted glasses off and trying to imagine your response to them as if they were brand new. You might find they aren't quite as subtle or deftly done as you remember them to be.

Not at all sure. I thought I was clear that my comment was based on what could be faulty or a sentimental recall of those past shows.

 

[Alan Roi]

You agreed that it would make sense for him to say if he were asked, and then when reminded that he WAS asked about former colleagues BY NAME, now it is not sensible? Sure, all speech, not just dialogue, can be used to hide the truth, shade it, conceal motives, etc. I agree. But context is what would matter in that case. Why would he lie to Zhaban about his reasons for not contacting Geordi or Worf? Why would it matter if Zhaban knew? Then they have Zhaban say something stupid about needing then to ask people who hate you! That's dumb. No, you dont ask people who hate you. That's silly.

I am calling them dumb and lazy since they are, in this context, dumb and lazy. IMO. Look, if you dont agree, then we are just going to have to disagree about that. Thats fine.

I'm sorry to hear calling something dumb and lazy is your go to for things you can't wrap your head around. You are demanding the dialogue be a logical risk assessment report that everyone involved approaches from an emotional distance. The context is a charged emotional situation that has erupted among three people who care for each other very much, where one has insisted on putting themselves in danger and refuses the help of those who love him and that he loves. But then, such emotionally and relationally charged situations are outside some people's emotional and relational frame of reference.

 

[fireproof78]

I think the patting themselves on the back thing is what I get from the marketing side of this (and other shows) - they make it a point to emphasize how topical, timely or relevant the show is to current times but personally i find most 'issues' being presented in a rather ham handed fashion.
I'm not so sure that the aversion to boundary pushing is really as strong as it once was. In fact, at this point 'pushing boundaries' is either directly or indirectly part of the marketing efforts of genre productions.

I get that they have to sell the thing but I don't agree that the two have to be mutually exclusive. In a world where the whole entertainment (and socio/cultural ) pie is being divided up into smaller and smaller slices, maybe the right way is to try to find things that appeal to those niches rather than try a broad based approach that worked in the past...i don't know - there are people with six or seven figure salaries whose job it is to figure this stuff out and who fail miserably so who knows what the answer is...

The answer is risk aversion. Companies are not willing to risk money. Despite the "boundary pushing" it is very incremental and hardly substantial.

Also, regarding "issues." Unfortunately, moralizing from shows often comes across as just that-moralizing. It's rarely subtle and Trek is no exception.

Finally, the entertainment pie may be being divided smaller, but Hollywood attitudes are not changing. The market will take time to adapt and I don't expect it to happen with Picard, or DSC or Section 31 or any other property any time soon.

 

[Alan Roi]

I guess I was hoping that a 'mature' or more 'adult' take on trek was more than season long story arcs involving end of the galaxy scale mystery boxes, sex and cursing.

Mystery boxes, sex and cursing are part of the human condition and have always been and also have always been part of Star Trek storytelling. The fact that you can't see beyond the mystery the characters are chasing, the sex some of them are having or the curses they say from time to time to recognize what more is going on in the season long arcs of modern Trek says a lot about you as a viewer. More so, the fact that you willingly look past the continous crude sexual references, amoral hijinx and other juvenile storytelling that permiates The Orville, and that the series it is entirely wrapped around a failed sexual relationship, in your claim it exists on a higher storytelling plane than modern Trek, strongly suggests that you could look deeper into Disco and Picard if you wanted to.

 

[cooleddie74]

Fun fact, Kirk averaged a sexual encounter in one of every four episodes of TOS.

Never with the same person twice.

Picard has a lot of catching up to do.

And Kirk wasn't nearly as promiscuous as we like to joke about him being. Kelvin Timeline Kirk is a lot more ready to hop into bed with a strange woman than Prime Kirk but the Shatner version of the character was created by American television in the mid-to-late 1960s and thus has to be the Alpha male who gets a romantic interest in many if not most episodes of a one-hour dramatic series in which he's the lead. Kirk was a ladies' man as Sisko would one day tell Dax but he definitely wasn't Hugh Hefner.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Sure, saying there's over 10 would be technically correct as well. As I said, I was just nitpicking because I had recently helped one of my kids with a science project and learned from them that there were over 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, which caught me by surprise.

I think the fact that Jurati might not be that knowledgeable about space in general is one of the points of her character. She's a doctor, not a space explorer.

She's an outsider among these people who have made it their lives to study and explore the galaxy. She has not.