Here's an interesting take on the, uh, climactic events of the finale:
https://hugoclub.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-phoenix-farce.html
https://hugoclub.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-phoenix-farce.html
Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 1x10 - "Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I will probably regret wading in to this particular minefield but it is something I have thought about quite a bit, probably since Firefly.
Character deaths are not used the way many would prefer they get used. There is still this desire for long, dramatic, deaths that would make Shakespeare pause for moment to regard them.
Now, I will not fault those who want such things. Certainly the dramatic death has been a part of cinematic language for a long time. However, I will not fault things like "Into Darkness" or "Picard" for having the shorter deaths. Why? Because the experience of time for the audience is not the same as the character's choice.
That article lists "Into Darkness" as another example of this "problem." Except, from a character point of view, Kirk had no way of knowing what would happen when he made that choice. And that's the drama is in the character choice. Not whether they come back, not that they survive but that they made the choice in the first place.
I am trying to be sympathetic to the desire for longer consequences, since I am a big fan of consequences. But, when a character chooses death I think that brings the drama regardless of how long they are dead.
Mileage will definitely vary, but this complaint is one that I find odd, to say the least.
In hindsight I didn't really mind Kirk dying underneath a collapsed bridge on an uninhabited planet trying to save 230 million pre-industrial humanoids on the neighboring planet. His only help was Picard and they were both successful. Kirk died as he wanted: making a difference.
It wasn't an overly dramatic, drawn-out death but it was a fitting one for a man who'd lived his adult life and Starfleet career trying to make a difference. He succeeded.
It wasn't an overly dramatic, drawn-out death but it was a fitting one for a man who'd lived his adult life and Starfleet career trying to make a difference. He succeeded.
As I get older I get more accepting of this idea. That death doesn't require this big dramatic presentation, but is more important what the person chooses in that moment. I understand that this is dramatic medium but there is an overemphasis on long drawn out death and speech, rather than what the character would actually be going through.
I wish the death of Picard was the last episode of the series, having his death and rebirth in less time that it takes to cook porridge cheapened the scene.
While I do think that Picard's resurrection was a little cheap, I do acknowledge that this is a franchise that have had characters come back from the dead after having their bodies exposed to regenerative radiation and then having their mind restored because he conveniently transferred it to a colleague before death, and resurrection through a person's DNA being transferred to the mycelial realm by way of a tear which conveniently restored the body and memories. I think that out of the three, Picard's resurrection is the least outrageous.
Last edited:
That was a good read and I like how they brought up the trend of short-lived deaths in mainstream comic book storytelling.
It makes the stories less compelling and meaningful if there's no consequences for these characters actions. Picard's willing to sacrifice his life to prove something to Soji, and he dies to prove it. There was never any doubt that Captain Picard would risk or sacrifice his life to save others. So there's no surprise in his action, it's only if it carries some consequence does it matter. And yet, right after, he's conveniently brought right back to life. Why even kill him off in the first place if his death was going to be so short, even within the time-frame of the story?
I understand he's the title character so of course he has to live, but if that's the case, why rely on stale tropes in the first place AND execute them so poorly? It would have been more fascinating to see Picard facing life while struggling with the effects of Irumodic Syndrome. That would have been something different, to tell the story or adventures of an iconic TV/film hero who's dealing with something akin to Alzeheimers or Parkinson's Disease.
Yes! That should have been the series finale. And it is Picard who gives The Speech about life, sacrifice and embracing mortality.
The way they should have done it, TBH, was basically to have Soong just replace his parietal lobe with a synthetic replacement. Maybe have him slip into a coma first, so you can have some of the same mourning interactions between the other characters - along with a chance to see Data in "purgatory" as they fix his brain.
Honest to goodness I swear I experience stories differently than most. I have yet to watch a story or read a book where the main character stays dead. It doesn't cheapen it if they, the characters, don't know they are going to survive, in my opinion.
For me, what's so painfully repetitive, is the tearful death scene. Dear Hollywood, you are not Shakespeare. Please stop.
Seriously? You must have a very specific diet of fiction.
Hopefully James Cameron stops fooling around with terminators and avatars and finishes production of Titanic 2: Jack's Back.
Can't stand the Terminator and the Titanic is overrated. Apologies to my wife.
And, I realized I phrase my statement quite poorly. I should say that stories like Star Trek where the main character stays dead. Even SW gets around this with Force ghosts. Point is-I'm not expecting anyone to stay dead in Star Trek and the idea that them not staying dead "cheapens" death comes across as very, well, cheap.
Trip’s still dead. 
Too soon?
Too soon?
Even in episodic fiction, it's not unheard of for a series lead to be killed off and replaced by another character. An example that pops to mind for me is Twelve O'Clock High...when they wanted to replace Robert Lansing as lead, they killed him off (off-camera) in the first episode of the second season, and the character of the new series lead, Paul Burke, was promoted to fill his position.
For a more recent example on a serialized show, see Vikings.
For a more recent example on a serialized show, see Vikings.
I stand corrected. I must have a highly limited fictional diet.
Oh well.
Oh well.
That's the problem. They're relying on the same worn out tropes, like a crutch. Maybe they should try something different in order to get a strong emotional response from the viewer. We're supposed to be moving away from the reset-button style of storytelling but apparently not.
And that's another problem. It becomes predictable.
Eh, maybe...I don't know. When I'm in the moment and watching those characters I don't care that it is a trope. I'm invested with the characters and their experience. For me, that is enough.
Mileage will vary.
Also, highly amusing to me, is the refrain of "It needs to be more like Star Trek" and then when the TNG style ending shows up, save, you know, with consequences, then it needs to be less like Star Trek.
Trip’s still dead.
Too soon?
It'll never not be too soon.
[*Weeps in pan-fried catfish*]
I think they pulled a TWOK. They killed off Picard in the first season to take our minds off it, like they "klled" Spock in the first scene of TWOK only to reveal it wasn't for real, so we can now watch the rest of the series without wondering if he'll die. Then they'll blindside us later.
And now that I posted it, that's probably what's not going to happen.
And now that I posted it, that's probably what's not going to happen.
