But there's another way to look at this too. Regardless of your age, disembodiment for 20 years will change your perspective. Data died in NEM through his actions. Picard in PIC died from a defect. Data chose his end, he chose to sacrifice himself. Picard didn't get to make any such choice in his situation with the defect.
But Data wasn't suicidal. He chose to give his life for Picard, and that's great for him, but I think if he had the choice for both to survive, he would take it. I would be willing to guess that when someone dies a heroic death, he doesn't do so wanting to die--he does so trying to save others. And if that hero has the choice to save others while living, I would be willing to guess that 100 percent of people like that would choose life.
Data didn't choose to die in Nemesis--he chose to give up his life to save Picard.
First Contact is my favorite TNG Movie by far, I like Discovery (as much as I like Picard, I'll have you know), and I like Voyager enough on-balance that I wouldn't want it to go. But I can do without everything else on your list
I think it's safe to say that they will NEVER make the decision to say that Picard never left the nexus. Not only would it be a twist that no one would have the guts to make, but because it would completely invalidate all Trek that came after 1994, they wouldn't want the backlash. Yes, a lot of people, maybe even more than not, do not like most Trek after 1994, FC notwithstanding, but they would never do that. Whether I agree or not, people do like those incarnations. Now in theory, even if they never happened in the "real Trek world," they would still be canon, even if they were part of Picard's nexus world.
But still, I'm pretty sure you will never have to worry about this problem.
Rafi was flawed, no doubt, but I guess they wanted to show that humanity isn't much different near the turn of the 25th century. I don't know if that was a right decision, given where humanity should be in GR's universe. It's an interesting debate, but not one that I feel should be held against the writers, who I will bet did not intend any racism.
Except he wished to be dead. He is no longer the only synthetic lifeform out there and has been stuck in limbo for years.
I don't like it but I definitely see the respecting a person's wishes to die position.
I understand that, but I feel it's out of character for Data, who only wanted to be human, and being human means living.
Data actually remembers dying, which is a strong implication that this is indeed Data himself, not some copy.
Brent Spiner is also just done playing the character too.
First, they could have built Data a body that could allow him to age. The technology seems to have improved. Second, it's a problem when the actor's wishes move to the character. In real world terms, it only makes sense that Data chose to die because Brent Spiner wanted it. In Star Trek terms, that was very out of character and nonsensical.
That’s a fraught perspective because it justifies stereotypical portrayals. People of color have long been stereotyped as being prone to substance abuse and having broken families, and media has played on this for ages. Yes there are people in any group who fit a stereotype, but when their group is routinely portrayed that way you can’t really just dismiss that as “the way it is”. The cultural baggage is just too heavy.
What are the statistics on that? Real world ones. Just making up a number, but what if 75% of families of a certain race are broken homes? Is it racial to portray a family of the same race as a broken home, or racial NOT to do so? We have seen our share of broken families in Star Trek, as Starfleet really isn't that great for being a nuclear family in general. As for the drug use, I hated that. I also hated the cigars. It seems inconsistent with GR's world.
But devil's advocate--this is Star Trek--a more idealistic and optimistic view of the future. Perhaps it IS better to portray strong nuclear families, especially fathers of color. Ben Sisko was one of if not THE best fathers in Star Trek.
