That would also require a ship which is equipped for that. If she was using that fighter she used in the previous episode there probably wasn't enough space for a stasis chamber on it.
Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 1x05 - "Stardust City Rag"
- Thread starter NCC-73515
- Start date
I really fucking hate that scene.
Get the fucking gore out of Trek. That shit was already asinine when in appeared on almost every episode of DIS season 1.
It's fine if it's genuinely motivated by the story. I liked it when they used the gore to show the transwarp malfunction in DIS episode 3 - that's how something like that should look like. This level of violence is appropriate when the story is actually about such violence. But I hate this level of vileness to be used as a cold opening just to grab attention.
It's just so... cheap. There is no value in there. No lesson to be learned. Nothing profound, no insight into real life issues or anything. It's just in there for shock value. I hate that. It tarnishes everything.
Get the fucking gore out of Trek. That shit was already asinine when in appeared on almost every episode of DIS season 1.
It's fine if it's genuinely motivated by the story. I liked it when they used the gore to show the transwarp malfunction in DIS episode 3 - that's how something like that should look like. This level of violence is appropriate when the story is actually about such violence. But I hate this level of vileness to be used as a cold opening just to grab attention.
It's just so... cheap. There is no value in there. No lesson to be learned. Nothing profound, no insight into real life issues or anything. It's just in there for shock value. I hate that. It tarnishes everything.
Im not shocked. Some unfortunate real life drama happened with Manu (ichebs voyager actor) seemingly defending kevin spacey against anthony rapps (stamets on disco) accusations a few years back. You can google manu intiraymi anthony rapp
So its not surprising trek just killed the character to rule out manu coming back.
G
Gonzo
Guest
No not by the looks of it, she definitely believes what the Commodore showed her, as a Vulcan the Commodore could perhaps overpower Jurati's mind but if that was the case she wouldn't have been crying while doing it.
Jurati was shown something that disturbed her enough that she felt she had no choice but to kill him in an attempt to atone for the part she played in helping him.
Plus it ties in with Rizzo and her absolute hatred for AI and synthetic, Narek is trickier as he doesn't seem to be as hardcore as she is yet was presumably shown the same event.
So that means either Jurati was duped in some way or we should all agree with what she's doing?
I'm starting to think Alanis Morrissette's "You Oughta Know" should be in the soundtrack for Picard. The second half fits almost too perfectly.
Does she know how you told me
You'd hold me until you died
'Til you died, but you're still alive
And I'm here, to remind you
Of the mess you left when you went away
It's not fair, to deny me
Of the cross I bear that you gave to me
You, you, you oughta know
You seem very well, things look peaceful
I'm not quite as well, I thought you should know
Did you forget…
Does she know how you told me
You'd hold me until you died
'Til you died, but you're still alive
And I'm here, to remind you
Of the mess you left when you went away
It's not fair, to deny me
Of the cross I bear that you gave to me
You, you, you oughta know
You seem very well, things look peaceful
I'm not quite as well, I thought you should know
Did you forget…
Jurati: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.
Picard: Don't quote Spock on me.
Thanks, Old Mixer. I always get a kick out of how people on TV namedrop the person they are talking too, as if they don't know their own names, Old Mixer.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Not at all but it does indicate that whatever the truth is it is very serious indeed and would affect everyone not just the Romulans/Vulcans.
In other words I don't think its going to be about the Romulans or Vulcans being synths anymore.
As that would not give Jurati a reason to do what she did so knowing that Commodore Oh probably showed her the event we can use that information to narrow down the possible options.
She could have shown her a lie but at this point I don't think she did.
It could be to do with the creation of the first Borg though.
Ummm no.
It was there to establish the absence of morals on the part of the criminal underworld who deals in these parts, the fact that Borg (even those liberated from the Collective) are viewed by some as a commodity, the fact that the Federation has become so weak it allows these criminals to operate, that Seven has experienced catastrophic loss, and that the overarching conspiracy has damaged the lives of all it has touched.
I am not sure it was the same actor who played Icheb on Voyager.
It wasn't.
I know, it was a new guy in this episode. and the reasons why it wasn't Manu are possibly due to what I just mentioned (but just speculation).
*sigh*
Okay, want to know what might keep us from "acting surprised"?
Maybe if the producers didn't keep making comments that indicated that they were just pushing the envelope a bit and 'playing it safe' by marking them TV-MA, those of us with more sensitive sensibilities wouldn't feel as upset when it happens. Though most (if not all) of the comments coming to mind were made in reference to Discovery, they're most often from Akiva Goldsman, co-creator of Picard, who is in the habit of saying things like:
"We are pretty dedicated to being able to watch the show with our families. Having said that, in [“Context Is for Kings”] we had some swirled up bodies. They were not entirely palatable to my ten-year-old daughter. So, it is those kind of reasons. We are very thrilled about the new boundaries that are offered to us by streaming, but not because we can do a lot of sex and violence. It is because we can do more serialized storytelling. We can do deeper, more emotional stories. On occasion if those take us into territory that feels a little bit more risky than would typically be seen on network TV, we just stamp it [with TV-MA]. It is always stamped for the most extreme. It is Star Trek, so for us that means we want to be able to have your whole family talking about it after."—Akiva Goldsman
https://trekmovie.com/2017/10/11/ex...to-2017-and-why-star-trek-discovery-is-tv-ma/
“We are not particularly swear-y or naked or violent. We’re still Star Trek and we’d like everybody to be able to watch together. We’re trying to go as deep as the original series did, but because we get to do it for longer the hope is you don’t have to reset your emotions every time the credits roll.”"—Akiva Goldsman
https://www.wired.com/story/star-trek-discovery-cbs-business/
Again, these specific quotes are in reference to Discovery, but I haven't seen a lot of producer comments as to what to expect from Picard, and Picard co-creator Goldsman expresses this as his view on Star Trek as a whole. (Aaron Harberts made additional similar quotes about Discovery. Since he's not involved with Picard [or Star Trek at all at this point] I won't cite them here, but I'll include them at the bottom as a point of curiosity.)https://trekmovie.com/2017/10/11/ex...to-2017-and-why-star-trek-discovery-is-tv-ma/
“We are not particularly swear-y or naked or violent. We’re still Star Trek and we’d like everybody to be able to watch together. We’re trying to go as deep as the original series did, but because we get to do it for longer the hope is you don’t have to reset your emotions every time the credits roll.”"—Akiva Goldsman
https://www.wired.com/story/star-trek-discovery-cbs-business/
Or maybe we wouldn't get a mixed impression if the CBS didn't promote the show with videos of a 7-year-old watching and reviewing the first two episodes:
Or if the TV ratings system were a little more consistently scaled it might create less confusion. I personally take an R rating seriously and avoid it, but I've seen material that was PG-13 or even PG in my mind and then later saw it marked as TV-MA. E.g., Short Treks tends to fall pretty firmly into PG or maybe PG-13 category, but it's often marked with a TV-MA, sometimes apparently due to profanity that might appear in a PG film. So, in practice, TV-MA is an almost useless rating when it comes to setting expectations since, depending on who is applying it, it can cover anything from a strong PG to NC-17. (And that's in comparison with the sometimes-inconsistent MPAA ratings. Conversely, I've occasionally run into material rated TV-14 that felt like a clear TV-MA to me.)
Or if the show wasn't creating a mixed impression due to gradual escalation (both series started with TV-14 episodes), leading content monitoring sites like Common Sense Media to rate both Discovery and Picard as "Common sense selection for families with teens". https://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/star-trek-picard
Or if Short Treks wasn't creating further a mixed impression by following up two family-friendly animated episodes with the (unrated but PG in my mind) prelude to Picard, which starred a couple of kids.
Or if softening of Discovery that led IMDb to change the overall series rating from TV-MA to TV-14 didn't lead some of us to infer that Star Trek was going back to being a little more family-friendly. (Other than "Point of Light", season 2 was relatively family-friendly IMO.) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5171438/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_9
So, yeah, some of us are genuinely surprised and even feel a little betrayed when the producers keep pushing the envelope further for a franchise that they describe as a franchise "to have your whole family talking." And if we can't express it on a Star Trek forum, then where?
"Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing."
(Just to be clear, not upset at Racefuel in particular, but as you've probably guessed this has been bugging me. Thanks for taking the time to read my rant. Even if you don't agree with it, I hope it helped you understand my perspective a little more.)
Here's the Harberts quote referenced above. Keeping it separate due to his lack of involvement in Picard, but for some of us it still helped set the tone of what to expect:
“Every writer’s impulse when you get to work on the streaming shows with no parameters is to go crazy. But then you look at things like: How does nudity play on Trek? Eh, it feels weird. How does a lot of [profanity] on Trek? Not so great. Are there moments where it merits it that we’re trying to push here and there? I would say we’re trying to push more by having the type of complicated messed-up characters who aren’t necessarily embraced on broadcast. I’m not saying we’re not doing some violent things or doing a tiny bit of language, but what’s important to the creative team is the legacy of the show — which is passed down from mother to daughter, from father to son, from brother to brother. We want to make sure we’re not creating a show that fans can’t share with their families. You have to honor what the franchise is. I would say we’re not going much beyond hard PG-13.”—Aaron Harberts
https://ew.com/tv/2017/07/28/star-trek-discovery-nudity/
https://ew.com/tv/2017/07/28/star-trek-discovery-nudity/
None of that is established by a closeup of someone'seye getting ripped out while conciousness.
I don't have problems with all this backstory or Ichebs fate specifically. It's a bit weird (shouldn't he be, like, in the Delta quadrant?), I liked Icheb, and it's kind of a common trope to bring a somewhat familiar character for a bit part just to kill him off.
That part is fine. It's a bit clichèd. But the story is woven nicelsy around it.
I just hate the fucking gore in family entertainment. I don't want to see Batman ripping people's throats out. And I don't want to see people getting flayed alive on Star Trek. It's very easy. I'm okay with both of that happening in an appropriate medium (rated R else-world stories of horror movies). But putting such graphic gore in the main line shows a chocking lack of self-awareness.
They've done intense torture scenes before without graphic mutilation. Chain of Command. That was just as impactful to the story there if not more.
They didn't need that here if they didn't need it in Chain of Command. Chain of Command is a classic episode without it. Arguably it would have been more relevant to Chain of Command as we all know in a realistic scenario Madred would start lobbing off body parts every time Picard said "four lights".
Icheb was aboard Voyager when it got home. The only significant character left behind in the Delta Quadrant was Neelix and that was only because he wanted to stay behind.
I have no problem with a change of actors but the character Icheb was very likable regardless of who played him.
It's like say, Zorro. Many actors have played Zorro but if it turned out that one of them was a child rapist that wouldn't be a reason to stop playing zorro would it? Maybe just stop showing the episodes with that actor in them...
I was just thinking they could just have made Bjayzl Naomi Wildman to mess with fans. That would have made the betrayal felt by Seven massively more believable (and the show even darker).