NCOs in Trek go as far back as the first pilot.
My father was a NCO in the USAF, serving for 25 years. So I know a little bit about life in the military from the standpoint of a dependent.
Picard: "Just Like Other Sci-Fi"
- Thread starter Danny99
- Start date
My father was a NCO in the USAF, serving for 25 years. So I know a little bit about life in the military from the standpoint of a dependent.
Yeomen are NCOs. Or yeowomen in Rand's case. Yeopeople? Anway, they were there since the first season of TOS
Deep Space Nine did it all the time. It's just they didn't do it in such a graphic way because they were still trying to maintain the family audience they had built on TNG even if it means sonny and daughter sometimes have to explain the weird things a little bit more to grandma and grandpa. Things like "Why does that monster looking guy take orders from those white elf people or why can't that lady with a broken nose be a nice young lady like that Dr Crusher."
Jason
Picard would be wise to take this advice
It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life.
-- J.L.
I've never understood why a story taking place in a less than utopian corner of the galaxy somehow taints the entire setting and sends it tumbling towards Warhammer 40000 levels of grimdark. Especially when even TNG wasn't shy about portraying the dichotomy between the urban, civilized core of the galaxy and the wild-west like frontier where the Federation's grasp is tenuous at best. We've had failed colonies rife with gang warfare and isolated colonies routinely left to their own devices. The only difference is that the story now is focused there, as opposed to solving one single problem on one single planet and leaving at the end of the episode.
And Starfleet's brass, especially those admirals who never really had to leave the City and County of San Francisco, have always been portrayed as collectively having their heads in the sand. Not generally evil or self-serving, just hopelessly disconnected from the realities of the lawless fringe and expecting things to work as smoothly there as they do in the home counties. Just remember how Nechayev thought that merely reminding the Maquis that they are Federation citizens (e.g. civilized, evolved human beings) would solve the entire problem in the Cardassian DMZ in one fell swoop. This hasn't changed in Star Trek: Picard.
What has changed, however, is that the Federation has just barely survived two separate invasions by the Borg and the Dominion War, all three with great losses, which made Starfleet Command overly cautious, unwilling to move outside its comfort zone. But other than this, the main focus of the show is not about how Starfleet has changed, even though it is there in the background, but how the universe's treatment of Picard has changed. After resigning from Starfleet and withdrawing from the galaxy, his name and word no longer carry the same weight as they did before and he has to find a new place for himself in a universe that has continued on without him and no longer listens to him.
And Starfleet's brass, especially those admirals who never really had to leave the City and County of San Francisco, have always been portrayed as collectively having their heads in the sand. Not generally evil or self-serving, just hopelessly disconnected from the realities of the lawless fringe and expecting things to work as smoothly there as they do in the home counties. Just remember how Nechayev thought that merely reminding the Maquis that they are Federation citizens (e.g. civilized, evolved human beings) would solve the entire problem in the Cardassian DMZ in one fell swoop. This hasn't changed in Star Trek: Picard.
What has changed, however, is that the Federation has just barely survived two separate invasions by the Borg and the Dominion War, all three with great losses, which made Starfleet Command overly cautious, unwilling to move outside its comfort zone. But other than this, the main focus of the show is not about how Starfleet has changed, even though it is there in the background, but how the universe's treatment of Picard has changed. After resigning from Starfleet and withdrawing from the galaxy, his name and word no longer carry the same weight as they did before and he has to find a new place for himself in a universe that has continued on without him and no longer listens to him.
For me, the ST universe and its rules were built on hope. Nothing more, nothing less. Even in TNG, the most "positive" ST show, the utopia wasn't there, but - and this is an important but: The utopia always seemed to be withing in rage. Of course, DS9 showed us, what it costs to go all the way to the 'perfect world', but even Q got convinced by the idea, that the human race would grow in the future. Now we're in this future and see: Q failed. As long as this is just temporary and they have a good explanation for it, I have no problem with it - but for me, the show stands and fails with the way, they handle it to end with the "positve note", ST always represented for me.
Small nit: 40K is grimdark, in the same sense that Earth is an Earth-like planet.
The funny thing is that we don't actually see Earth (or any core part of the Federation) sliding into immorality or corruption. Earth still looks ideal, as it was in TNG. It is still the place where saints have the easy life.
Indeed, the utopian setting / "evolved" humans shtick is meaningless without something to contrast it to.
Thus why it is named Star Trek: Picard, not Star Trek: Treatise On The Macroeconomic, Societal, And Martial Conditions Existing In The Federation During The Late 24th, And Early 25th Centuries.
Episode five broke my benefit of the doubt. I cancelled CBS with a constructive note of what I love about Star Trek.
It took me up until about Perpetual Infinity with Discovery to realize they weren't going to "fix" it to my tastes and this was what they were intentionally going for. I've given up on Picard a lot quicker. It's bizarre, because I was right here with you defending Discovery for a long while. I have unnecessarily large spot in my heart for Star Trek, but at some point I can't keep making excuses. Picard worked well enough up through episode 5, but if murderous Seven is the direction of the show, it's missing the biggest part of what made me like Star Trek.
What I love about Star Trek, most simply, can be broken down 1) Scifi adventures/mysteries 2) Cool ships/futurism 3) Characters that demonstrate outstanding moral character and help us learn to be better having learned from them.
I'm finding it baffling that so many people are encouraging the following: Seven didn't help because it was the right thing to do, she was secretly trying to get revenge. When this is revealed the team talks her out of murdering Byjazyl for the simple reason that it would put a target on their backs. - this is all fair game to me so far, but a bit worrying - Picard explains to Seven that revenge is not the solution. They have a good heart to heart. - still fine - I really have trouble understanding who thought it was a good idea to then have Seven beam down with two rifles, immediately murder two henchmen, and then blow up Bjazyl. We leave her in a fire fight taking out an unknown number of people. ... I mean, this is next level jumping the shark.
Edit: Forgot to mention Seven beaming back down and murdering Bjazyl arguably would put a target right back on La Sirena. Though I doubt the plot will assume such going forward. If killing her five minute earlier puts a target on the crew, you'd think five minutes later wouldn't change much, even if Seven goes her own way the crew was still implicated.
Add in that this is followed up by another betrayal and murder and then revisit that Elnor could have gone for the legs of the Romulan senator... and add in the depressing rejection by Raffi's son and you've got something utterly un-Star Trek. It makes for decent television, just not for good Star Trek. In general, "Let's do the most dramatic thing possible for each character in every situation" is more CW than peak tv.
It took me up until about Perpetual Infinity with Discovery to realize they weren't going to "fix" it to my tastes and this was what they were intentionally going for. I've given up on Picard a lot quicker. It's bizarre, because I was right here with you defending Discovery for a long while. I have unnecessarily large spot in my heart for Star Trek, but at some point I can't keep making excuses. Picard worked well enough up through episode 5, but if murderous Seven is the direction of the show, it's missing the biggest part of what made me like Star Trek.
What I love about Star Trek, most simply, can be broken down 1) Scifi adventures/mysteries 2) Cool ships/futurism 3) Characters that demonstrate outstanding moral character and help us learn to be better having learned from them.
I'm finding it baffling that so many people are encouraging the following: Seven didn't help because it was the right thing to do, she was secretly trying to get revenge. When this is revealed the team talks her out of murdering Byjazyl for the simple reason that it would put a target on their backs. - this is all fair game to me so far, but a bit worrying - Picard explains to Seven that revenge is not the solution. They have a good heart to heart. - still fine - I really have trouble understanding who thought it was a good idea to then have Seven beam down with two rifles, immediately murder two henchmen, and then blow up Bjazyl. We leave her in a fire fight taking out an unknown number of people. ... I mean, this is next level jumping the shark.
Edit: Forgot to mention Seven beaming back down and murdering Bjazyl arguably would put a target right back on La Sirena. Though I doubt the plot will assume such going forward. If killing her five minute earlier puts a target on the crew, you'd think five minutes later wouldn't change much, even if Seven goes her own way the crew was still implicated.
Add in that this is followed up by another betrayal and murder and then revisit that Elnor could have gone for the legs of the Romulan senator... and add in the depressing rejection by Raffi's son and you've got something utterly un-Star Trek. It makes for decent television, just not for good Star Trek. In general, "Let's do the most dramatic thing possible for each character in every situation" is more CW than peak tv.
Just like Worf with Duras, Kila Marr with the Crystalline Entity, or Dax with the Albino. Revenge hasn't been eliminated from the human heart.
Last edited:
To those who protest against senseless killings, murderous rage, and revenge I ask: Have you watched the show?
G
Gonzo
Guest
Star Trek had to grow up sooner or later although I do appreciate that in doing so it has lost some of its innocence and some viewers will not be OK with that (I am fine with it myself), feeling that they can't sit and watch it with their children like their parents did with them.
The Maquis story-line was the start of that reality check I think, an acknowledgement from the Federation that they would rather give ground than fight for their citizens, its not as if the Cardassians were the Federations equals in technology they were just more aggressive, history has shown that appeasement never saves lives or achieves anything in the long run except make you look weak which will just embolden your enemies.
We have been shown that time and time again in Star Trek, against the Klingons and Romulans although at least we can say that both of them were more of a match for the Federation, definitely more so than the Cardassians who are second tier at best like the Breen.
Just think about it, if the Federation had given the Cardassians a good hiding in the 2350's-2360's when it mattered the most they may not have ended up inviting the Dominion into the Alpha/Beta quadrants later on, DS9 may not have been built or perhaps destroyed before the events of the show itself sparing the people of Bajor a great deal of suffering and hardship.
I do think its quite funny how some are labelling Star Trek as grim dark, it clearly shows they don't know what that really means.
Star Trek and the term Grim Dark don't belong in the same discussion at all.
The Maquis story-line was the start of that reality check I think, an acknowledgement from the Federation that they would rather give ground than fight for their citizens, its not as if the Cardassians were the Federations equals in technology they were just more aggressive, history has shown that appeasement never saves lives or achieves anything in the long run except make you look weak which will just embolden your enemies.
We have been shown that time and time again in Star Trek, against the Klingons and Romulans although at least we can say that both of them were more of a match for the Federation, definitely more so than the Cardassians who are second tier at best like the Breen.
Just think about it, if the Federation had given the Cardassians a good hiding in the 2350's-2360's when it mattered the most they may not have ended up inviting the Dominion into the Alpha/Beta quadrants later on, DS9 may not have been built or perhaps destroyed before the events of the show itself sparing the people of Bajor a great deal of suffering and hardship.
I do think its quite funny how some are labelling Star Trek as grim dark, it clearly shows they don't know what that really means.
Star Trek and the term Grim Dark don't belong in the same discussion at all.
Lenore Karidian sure does.
Good Point.
The leading context and ultimate action is relevant. In two cases you're working within the moral code of the Klingon Empire, a society that is based on the honor of war and violence. In the case of Kila Marr, she was argued to be in the wrong within the episode. Now imagine Data, Odo, or Spock (Seven being their series equivalent) being talked out of revenge and then beaming back down to go on a killing spree. It's...odd.
Perhaps I'm just being an apologist now, but pulling some questionable, but less blatant, examples out of hundreds of episodes is a bit more forgiving than having three questionable murders in 2 out of 5 episodes of a series so far. I hope the arch of Picard is to go dark and come out of it with everyone improving and getting better. Hard to say at this point if this is the norm or an inflection point.
I don't want to be the grumpy old man, but pulling my subscription is the only vote I have in hoping that one of these seven series, on air or in development, will cater to some thoughtful Trek. I have no problem with the premise of Picard, I think it's quite good less a handful of baffling scenes that I find really hard to excuse. I hope it turns around. I love the character of Picard and hope his sensibilities wear off on those around him.
G
Gonzo
Guest
That is fair enough, if the show is not for you then walk away, or perhaps just wait until all of the episodes have been released and binge watch it all at once, it may be more palatable then as the season may end on a high note.
I believe that we have to look beyond how culture changes affect Star Trek. Since TNG went off the air, American society itself has had more honest, less idealistic conversations about any number of subjects. We are now having conversations about the ramifications of actions around the world and dealing with the broad dislocations that they cause. They involve violence of the most vile variety, whether in Syria or Central America. Star Trek was always meant to be relevant even before it was meant to represent a better future.
TOS
The Man Trap
Charlie X
Where No Man Has Gone Before
Count the dead in just the first three episodes.
I think any protest against increasing "edginess" in modern Trek is a futile one. The overwhelming pull of the marketplace is to make streaming shows more "adult" in both content and tone. Apparently, being an adult is equivalent with darkness and death, punctuated by multiple encounters with temporary sexual partners.
Similar threads
