He also said Data would be 'happy' to give himself up.
Star Trek Picard is not Star Trek
- Thread starter AnotherGalaxys
- Start date
Hmm ... so when Picard dared Loki to kill him in Who Watches the Watchers, he wasn't risking anything.
It wasn't just a limited approach, the people who oversaw it also felt that the story in TMP was "plodding" and that it was "boring," were factors in the tepid reception it got. The writer also cited the first films lacked a "real villain." Less exploration more hero vs arch-villain.
It's a far more conventional film than TMP, and it was a hit.
But, why? People change over the years. I know one or two.[/QUOTE]
People do change, but that's not a one-size fits all answer to something that might be an example of inconsistent or uncharacteristic writing. If Picard is shown to have previously engaged in genocide and its coverup, "oh well, people change," is not a satisfactory explanation of its own.
As far as Picard goes, it's just not too believable to me. He's portrayed at times as a very empathetic captain, diplomatic and sensitive at times. He was shown as going off into a career in archaeology had it not been for Starfleet, but he was tempted. He geeks out over nerd stuff. That goes against the reckless young military cadet who was a womanizer and starting fights. Of the people I know who are similar to that, willing to and often times get into fights like that, do not show traits of having intellectual hobbies. Now I'm sure there's some savage ass fans of 16th century Inuit weaving, somewhere out there, that would start a fight with some rowdy biker gang members. But in general it's a little unlikely.
And somehow his confidence around women goes backwards because you can tell that the metamorph and Lt Daren both have he's inwardly excited to suddenly have women interested in him. It gives the impression that he's not used to it.
Last edited:
I think that was the point. To show that Picard has evolved and it took a near death moment for him to begin the journey to becoming the character we know.
TOS Kirk wasn't often reckless. As a cadet Kirk's rep was as a overly serious stack of books with legs who read "long hair" philosophers. He was Picard before Picard was Picard. Kirk had to learn to loosen up and Picard had to learn to tighten up.
When it came to love Kirk tended to fall hard and fast. And it usually ended badly. He wasn't the interstellar Romeo people think. I think he and Picard have that in common.
Archaeology can be an adventure. Just ask Doctor Henry Jones, jr.
There are a lot of in character reasons I can give for Picard developing the way that he did over time. Being young and impulsive as a cadet doesn't immediately mean impulsive and reckless as an officer. Getting stabbed in the heart was one thing that seemed to temper that attitude. The loss of Jack Crusher was another. The battle with the Ferengi another. At each step Picard becomes more seasoned, more tempered, and more measured.
It's not like there was a jump from reckless cadet to statesman Picard. There was a whole life lived.
It just felt weird that taking a risk that was foolish and almost got him killed is what taught him to take risks? It was fine because the overall episode was great but it doesn't make too much sense to me.
Really? Is this referenced in the TOS or the films because I'd like to check out that out. If that's the case, that's a nice little inversion of how the two character progressed.
Everyone falls in love hard and fast at some point. But Kirk charming women was second nature. He knew Saavik was interested in him, and the marine biologist? He didn't even have to try, she was into him. He was totally comfortable.
Picard on the other hand...he was definitely the passive one in that situation with Lt. Daren, same with Kamala. He was easily manipulated into spending more time with her.
And Picard is no Indy. But maybe the writers were slightly influenced or inspired by that? The last episode I watched Picard is geeking out over the woven baskets or some other ancient history and even his crew is looking at him like "what a nerd." Isn't the Vash episode related to the his archaeology hobby? He's a little more action hero in that IIRC. Another episode where gets played by a woman feigning interest.
Referenced in the second pilot.
Because the woman he wanted he never went for, both at the Academy and with Beverly. Part of him still struggled with that.
Ugh, I forgot about that!
I can see Beverly being into him, but if Picard was this ladies man early on, I can't see Beverly being the one that got away which would affect future relationships. He had no problem getting with Daren while Beverly was on the ship. No struggle there until it came to sending her to possibly die.
Beverly was in the friend zone. Picard getting married to her in the last episode was probably him just being lonely and wanted someone to take care of him. It felt more like a throw away line anyway, to mark the passage of time. There was like zero sparks between them two. Daren + Picard...that was more believable, from a cynical POV, or a romantic one.
Where No Man Has Gone Before said:
I don't think either one was into him. Dr Taylor was more into saving the whales.
Again, I'm talking about TOS Kirk not movie Kirk.
With respect, you and I have very different experiences and expectations around romantic relationships.
Picard never being with the one he wanted at the Academy impacted his view from then on. Being a ladies' man doesn't automatically mean being good at relationships.
In fact, I think it would mean the opposite.
Not at all, but if you're a so-called ladies man, you're not likely to get get finessed so easily or get giddy when some woman offers you some tea. I can see Patrick Stewart acting like that, I can see archaeologist nerd Picard acting like that, but not former, reckless, womanizer Picard.
It depends on the lady. Reckless womanizers can often be smitten by a lady (or type of lady) that they are put off by. They are not perfectly able to handle all women equally.
And, again, we don't know when Picard stopped being the womanizer. Maybe it was after being stabbed in the heart. Maybe it was after watching the hurt of Beverly over the death of Jack. Maybe he decided that it was too hard and shut himself off for a bit. He becomes very wistful when Wesley asks why he didn't have kids, indicating some sort of history for him.
Picard grows a lot as a character. That's the point of Tapestry and his whole journey. Even I, no Picard fan as I am, can appreciate that journey.
Heck, even TMP and TWOK are not one and the same and they're both Prime Timeline TOS films released just 2-1/2 years apart.
You never know - depends on IF the unit was "Out Of Warranty"...
No! It was a very frustrating experience. The reporter pretty much admitted that the slant of his article was already determined: "Trekkies Hate New Movies!" and was only interested in sound bytes to that effect. I spent at least a half an hour on the phone to him, explaining to him that fandom did not speak with one voice, and that many of us old-time Trekkies quite liked the new movies, but that's not what he wanted to hear. Sure enough, when the article came out, it was all about how (surprise!) "Trekkies Hate New Movies!" and the only quote from me was the bit where I grudgingly admitted that, okay, some Trekkies had issues with the reboot movies . . ..
None of the good stuff I said about the new movies, about how they reminded me of classic TOS, was quoted.
Not that I'm still bitter or anything . . .
Roddenberry being able to execute his ideas better isn't really the issue. In fact, Roddenberry didn't even have The Vision during TOS. That came later, as something to capitalize on all all the success the show found in syndication.
Roddenberry' original plan for making Star Trek was to tell stories about sex, religion, racism and politics in a science fiction format so he could get that shit past the censors. It had nothing to do with The Philosophy.
But Roddenberry was an opportunist, and when he started seeing the success in syndication and heard fans talking about the "positive vision" as a reason for their passion...he doubled down on that. Then you got the preaching in the convention circuit, the interviews, and ultimately the antiseptic, sterile philosophy he tried to interject into TNG.
I like TNG to some extent...but your right...they are different. TOS was far more fun, dynamic, energetic, relatable and adventure-oriented. TNG was much more self-conscious, dramatically constrained and overly concerned about "The Vision" more than providing pure fantastic entertainment.
One of the greatest franchise myths is that the basis of TNG was "exploring the galaxy." I think years ago someone posted an analysis that showed that less than 20% of TNG episodes were actually about exploring. Even when the episode may have started off about exploring, it typically morphed into something else by the end of act one.
Diplomatic missions, colony check-up duties, defense/patrol, rescue missions, time travel/anomaly tomfoolery, Starfleet milk runs, holodeck schlock, etc far outweighed exploration.
I think some people definitely view the franchise through some interesting glasses. Not only is the "It's not Star Trek" phenomenon translatable to "It's not TNG" as someone very adeptly pointed out...but people's romanticized version of what TNG was actually clouds the issue even more.
I'd go so far as to say that when compared to the content, tone, and pacing of the rest of the franchise (series and films), it's actually the TNG series which is the outlier.
You are a better person than me, then.Not that I'm still bitter or anything . . .
No! It was a very frustrating experience. The reporter pretty much admitted that the slant of his article was already determined: "Trekkies Hate New Movies!" and was only interested in sound bytes to that effect. I spent at least a half an hour on the phone to him, explaining to him that fandom did not speak with one voice, and that many of us old-time Trekkies quite liked the new movies, but that's not what he wanted to hear. Sure enough, when the article came out, it was all about how (surprise!) "Trekkies Hate New Movies!" and the only quote from me was the bit where I grudgingly admitted that, okay, some Trekkies had issues with the reboot movies . . ..
None of the good stuff I said about the new movies, about how they reminded me of classic TOS, was quoted.
Not that I'm still bitter or anything . . .
Aren't reporters supposed to gather up information and THEN form the headline based on what they find?
I'm trying to look for that article online right now.
This was The New York Post.
The article came out around the time STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS debuted. And, yeah, when I declined to give him the answers he wanted, he asked me to recommend a STAR TREK novelist who did dislike the new movies. Again, I declined to play ball.
Similar threads
