Picard Season one.... I miss Star Trek

[fireproof78]

I get it, an opposing or negative view is not welcomed I will take that cue.

Nah, I just want to understand the point of view. Thus far I appreciate that there is a desire for Seven for to be a hero and to do no wrong and want that moral good.

What I am looking for is what makes sense in context for that character. Insisting that she does the good thing without context feels as shallow as what is insisted Picard is.

 

[Lance]

OP, what you write you write from your heart, and I want to personally thank you for sharing it. I tend to fall into a similar camp. The things that Star Trek: Picard does, I recognise it does well. But I can't find a link between the dark, hateful, dystopian perspective it presents, and the unerring hopefulness that used to be a hallmark of this franchise. As you rightly say, even when past Star Treks got dark, they did so without deconstructing that hopeful, optimistic future. DS9 was never as dark as Picard. Voyager was never as dark as Picard. TNG certainly was never as dark as Picard, which feels perverse given Picard is ostensibly a follow-up to it. The Abrams movies weren't as dark as Picard. Hell, I'd even go as far as to say that even Discovery isn't as dark as Picard, mirror-universe episodes notwithstanding. I recognise the Picard in Star Trek: Picard, barely, but I don't recognise the Star Trek in it. The writers are enjoying deconstructing Star Trek so much that, like Ichaeb on that table, there's only a bloodied, mutilated, nearly dead body left. That's a great analogy. Once upon a time, all our franchises had their own respective sacred cows, lore that could not be dreamed of being touched, a foundation to build on yes, but always a foundation. Picard is the first piece of Star Trek I think I've seen where the writers seem to have gone, nope, sledgehammer that foundation too, and use the rubble to build our own thing. I see why they did it, I even see some entertainment in it of itself. But nevertheless, it distresses me on some deeper level I can't quite describe.

You’re not a “proper” show now if you don’t have dark, brooding menace and characters that either want to cut their wrists or cut other people.

It's indicative of modern zeitgeist. No television is valid unless it competes with Game of Thrones. But some franchises can not just be shoved into that style. Not without losing some thing. Superman is the same, in my opinion. The writers at Warner Brothers tell us the reason they can't make a Superman movie is because they don't know how to write for an optimistic, inherently light character in a world with so much dark. No-one seems to understand that's Superman's appeal as a character, they just look at him and say "He's too nice a character to write for, and we can't figure out how to write for that". It's like, that's the viewpoint that Picard's writers brought to Star Trek. 'We don't know how to write a positive, conflict-free future'. When new showrunner Michael Piller came aboard The Next Generation in it's third season he expressed similar misgivings, but respected that's what Star Trek is, and tried instead to write dramatic stories inside that. He turned a challenge into a strength, decided that it would be rewarding to work inside those limitations and turn them into a blessing. And in so doing, he presided over some of that show's strongest pieces. Stuff like The Best of Both Worlds explores conflict and darkness without once jettisoning Star Trek's optimism. I sometimes feel like today's writers are incapable of that. Everything must be dark, full of conflict, full of angst. Because that's 'realistic'. But... is it 'Star Trek'? Piller certainly didn't think so.

 

[Lance]

To paraphrase (ish ) Captain Picard in the episode 'Peak Performance': I can enjoy Star Trek: Picard, but still recognise the flaws in it.

Does that make it bad? No.

Is it, therefore, good? Not necessarily.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Seven kills her straight up for revenge. It wasnt about the logistics or difficulty in bringing her to justice it was simply she wanted to kill this person and wanted to bring up Icheb before doing it.

Right now, all I see is a lot of moral grandstanding without any other suggestions or alternatives. There is no acknowledgement that what Bjayzel was doing was horrific, to the point that people have sworn off Picard altogether. No, we don't question it. Killing is wrong-a most surface level read at best.

This sounds so wrong, but I actually found it funny when she did that. She straights up lies to Picard about not seeking revenge, and then beams down and blows everyone away because she knew she was going to do it anyway.

I don't know if it was for shock value or if the producers intended to do it that way. Besides the fact, that we saw what Bjayzel did in gory detail. It's too late. We sympathize with Seven already.

I expect people rooting for Seven to murder the unarmed bad guy because its practical should also root for that grieving mom in Silicon Avatar to destroy the Crystalline Entity.

I was going to bring that one up after seeing this discussion too.

There was a scene where Picard argued that it had just as a much a right to exist as they did. Then he used the sperm whale eating millions of fish a day as an analogy.

But when he did that, he lost me. The problem is, we've seen too much of the mom's point of view already. It's hard not to sympathize with her, besides the threat it posed to other innocent life forms. And in a way, he reduced people to cuttlefish and somewhat implied that like cuttlefish, they weren't worth seeking revenge over.

The show itself made it look like Picard was right and the mom was wrong, but I think it was tone deaf on this one. Probably most of the viewers agreed with the mom.

I'm still trying to figure TNG out. At its height, its moral concepts and behaviors seem so advanced. In retrospect, now I wonder how realistic it is.

Like the value of sentient life must take a backseat to certain things like the Prime Directive, or punishing fugitives etc. Sometimes, I think by the time of TNG, they went through so many Redshirts on an almost weekly basis, that the value of sentient life had become a blurr.

I think that script wise, what Seven did might have been a minor dig at TNG's concepts.

 

[Sci]

Edited to add re: the Crystalline Entity.

The big difference between Seven killing Bjayzel and the attempted killing of the Crystalline Entity is, I don't think it's entirely clear that the C.E. understands that it is murdering sentient lifeforms when it acts, and, furthermore, it may be a one-of-a-kind entity. Whereas, Bjayzel clearly understands that she is violating other people's rights, and is clearly not the only one of her kind. End edit.

Yes, it is. You just didn't engage with the material on its own terms and are therefore denying the implications of the text and the subtext. Any work of art can be made to seem shallow if the viewer chooses not to actually engage with it.

Couldnt you say the same about any shallow story?

"The same?" "The same" would be, "any story can be made to sound shallow even if it is deep if the person describing it refuses to engage with the material."

Trying to rebut that statement with a claim that it applies to shallow works of art is... counter-intuitive. It doesn't contradict my claim that a deep story can be made to sound falsely shallow, it just adds an additional claim that shallow stories can be made to sound shallow.

Sometimes there's just not much to engage with.

There's plenty to engage with in PIC. The show is rife with examinations of mortality, of existentialism, of guilt and redemption, of the meaning of family, of prejudice and oppression, of liberation and connection, of death and new life. You just don't want to engage with it.

Somebody stole Neelix's lungs and Janeway let them off the hook.

It's been ages since I've seen that episode, but I seem to remember that Janeway recognizes the context of what happened: Both insofar as there is no rule of law in Vidiian society (because it has reverted to a predatory state due to the effects of the Phage), and insofar as Voyager is not powerful enough to enforce the rule of law upon the Vidiians -- and insofar as there is a need for compassion and forgiveness for people who are essentially pressured into predation by social forces beyond their control.

Bjayzel, by contrast, faces no such pressure. She clearly has the means to emigrate to a planet where there is the rule of law and adequate social and technological infrastructure for her to be safe and have all of her needs met.

So, I'm not persuaded by the comparison. Yes, Janeway in "The Phage" and Seven in "Stardust City Rag" are both facing people who have engaged in predation in an environment where there is no rule of law, and in which they (Janeway and Seven respectively) do not have sufficient power to enforce the rule of law. But the key difference is, the Vidiians have no choice but to prey upon others if they are to survive; Bjayzel has no need to prey upon others to survive. So, no, I'm not convinced that the mercy Janeway showed the Vidiians is a binding precedent upon Seven.

Lon Suder wasnt executed.

Because within the internal environment of the USS Voyager, they have the rule of law. This example does not apply to Seven's situation.

They didnt execute unarmed people, other than Tuvix

You mean, they didn't murder unarmed people except when they did?

which was explored pretty well

It got one episode and then no allusion or reference to it ever again. We never even saw allusion to Tuvix ever again, never got any indication his death haunted Janeway the way Bjayzel's death haunted Seven.

True he straight up killed Joker in that one. Also he kicked a guy off the bell tower. I was more thinking of the Nolan batman. But I love 89 Batman as well

I mean, the Nolan Batman isn't all that much better. He talks a big talk about how he only has "one rule," but he damn near turns to the camera and lawyers to the audience that he isn't responsible for Ra's's death in Batman Begins, he kills Harvey Dent at the end of The Dark Knight, and he outright kidnaps and tortures people throughout both films.

The things that Star Trek: Picard does, I recognise it does well. But I can't find a link between the dark, hateful, dystopian perspective it presents,

Okay, sorry, gotta fight you on this.

Star Trek: Picard is not dystopian. If you use that word, you either are intentionally using it fallaciously, or you do not understand the definition of the term.

A dystopia is not a society that is flawed or a story that features unpleasant political circumstances. A dystopia is a particular kind of fictional society, that is fundamentally oppressive and tyrannical in some way. Oceania is a totalitarian dystopia based upon authoritarian Stalinism; the World State in Brave New World is a dystopia based upon authoritarian hedonism; the Community in The Giver is a dystopia based upon the control of human memory and psychological development; Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopia based upon cisheteropatriarchy. Etc.

The United Federation of Planets in Star Trek: Picard is not a dystopia. Period. Federation citizens in Star Trek: Picard have numerous civil rights and liberties. There is no authoritarian government out to oppress the masses. There is no poverty, disease, or war. (Even Raffi, who seems to have totally shut down and isolated herself from everyone, is living in a mobile home that frankly looks pretty cozy, and there's no indication that she is in any way unsafe living by herself isolated from most of society.)

What the Federation in PIC is not, is a utopia. It is a mostly-good society which has some major problems and has done terrible things, in the form of banning the development of synthetic lifeforms and refusing to extend evacuation assistance to the Romulans.

That is a terrible thing, but it is not dystopia. The Federation is not fundamentally abusive; it is not an authoritarian state.

The biggest difference between the depiction of the Federation in PIC and the depiction of the Federation in TNG is not anything that the Federation does. TNG was full of times the Federation did awful shit -- the Federation tried to forcibly relocate the Ba'ku in INS, it tried to develop illegal phase clock technology and then cover it up in "The Pegasus," it tried to forcibly relocate the Native American colony on Dorvan V, it ignored evidence warp drive was damaging the fabric of space-time until someone died to prove it, it was ready to allow the people of Boraal II to go extinct in a planetary disaster, it tried to funnel weapons to the Bajoran Resistance in violation of the Prime Directive and its treaty with Cardassia, it assigned an investigator who started a witch-hunt aboard the Enterprise-D, tries to kidnap Lal away from Data to study her, it was willing to just let the people of Drema IV go extinct in a natural disaster, and it tried to order Data to submit himself to be dismantled so his positronic brain could be studied.

And that's to say nothing of all the times we saw the Federation commit horrible abuses of power in DS9 and VOY. Use of slave labor from sentient EMH Mark Ones, anybody?

The difference is in framing and tone. In TNG, the tone is bright and optimistic, and the characters are shown as always having sufficient social capital to Do The Right Thing. The narrative frames abuses of power by agents of the Federation government as deviations from the Federation norm (except when it frames that horrible abuse of power as being itself somehow acceptable, such as allowing the planets Dorvan V and Drema IV to go extinct).

PIC, on the other hand, begins with a tone of weariness and regret, and Picard is shown as lacking sufficient social clout to force the Federation to Do The Right Thing. The narrative frames two horrible abuses of power by the Federation government as being an indictment of the Federation as a whole rather than as a deviation from a rogue agent.

Objectively, the Federation in TNG and PIC aren't that much different. The real difference is in how the narrative frames the Federation's behavior and what mood the narrative wants you to have. In TNG, the narrative wants you to think the Federation is Good. In PIC, the narrative wants you to be a bit more skeptical of the Federation's leaders (but still affirms Federation values).

The other difference, of course, is arc. The Federation does not grow or change in TNG, because the narrative frames the Federation as already damn-near perfect. The Federation, however, grows and changes in PIC, coming to realize that it has allowed fear and pain to drive it to make destructive choices for which it must atone. The Federation begins PIC in a state of sin, and is led to a state of forgiveness by Picard. PIC is a story about restoration.

As you rightly say, even when past Star Treks got dark, they did so without deconstructing that hopeful, optimistic future.

Oh bullshit. DS9 was all about deconstruction. DS9 literally had characters saying, "Earth is the problem. On Earth, you look out the window and you see Paradise. It's easy to be a saint in Paradise."

DS9 was never as dark as Picard.

Horseshit! DS9 had the Federation fighting a terrible war that was killing huge numbers of people. It had the Federation assassinating four innocent men so as to trick the Romulans into joining the war on the basis of falsified evidence!

Voyager was never as dark as Picard.

VOY literally had the Federation using slave labor from sentient EMH Mark Ones!

Once upon a time, all our franchises had their own respective sacred cows, lore that could not be dreamed of being touched, a foundation to build on yes, but always a foundation.

On this point, it's a matter of your aesthetic taste.

It's like comparing, say, A Superman for All Seasons to The Dark Knight Returns. All Seasons is a story that's about re-affirming positive, optimistic archetypes. That's the core of the Superman character and world: A hero who comes from the sky and does only good. The Dark Knight Returns, on the other hand, is a deconstruction of the superheroic genre, and it analyzes the kind of pain and anger that drives a character like Batman.

I happen to think that Star Trek, as a franchise, encompasses both poles along this axis. Star Trek is at its core always going to have a certain level of optimism, but Star Trek is not always positive. It does do deconstruction. It did it in DS9, and it does it in PIC. Star Trek encompasses both Superman and Batman.

It's indicative of modern zeitgeist. No television is valid unless it competes with Game of Thrones. But some franchises can not just be shoved into that style. Not without losing some thing. Superman is the same, in my opinion. The writers at Warner Brothers tell us the reason they can't make a Superman movie is because they don't know how to write for an optimistic, inherently light character in a world with so much dark. No-one seems to understand that's Superman's appeal as a character, they just look at him and say "He's too nice a character to write for, and we can't figure out how to write for that".

I agree with you 100% on Superman... But Star Trek is not Superman. Star Trek encompasses both Superman and Batman, metaphorically speaking. It encompasses both archetype and deconstruction, and it has for decades. DS9 was deconstructing TNG's optimism in 1993! Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was deconstructing TOS's heroic idealization of Captain Kirk in frickin' 1982!

It's like, that's the viewpoint that Picard's writers brought to Star Trek. 'We don't know how to write a positive, conflict-free future'. When new showrunner Michael Piller came aboard The Next Generation in it's third season he expressed similar misgivings, but respected that's what Star Trek is, and tried instead to write dramatic stories inside that. He turned a challenge into a strength, decided that it would be rewarding to work inside those limitations and turn them into a blessing. And in so doing, he presided over some of that show's strongest pieces.

Siiiiigh. Getting rid of the rule against conflict is the best thing to happen to modern Star Trek. A "conflict-free future" is both boring and dishonest. That's not how human beings have ever been or ever will be. It's not "optimism" to claim that there's no conflict in the future -- it's just a lie.

Optimism is saying, yes, people will be people, but we'll make better choices and have better supports. And when TNG rejects the "no-conflict" rule, that's when it's at its best. For example, Miles O'Brien in "The Wounded" is clearly a man who struggles with bigotry against Cardassians because of the traumas he endured during the Cardassian War. He's not perfect -- he's not inherently "more evolved" than us modern types. But he's part of a society that taught him to recognize this flaw in himself, and he's doing his best to fight it and deal with it -- and in the end, he gets the rogue captain who was to about to re-start the war to turn himself in.

Frankly, that "no conflict" rule means that TNG could never evolve beyond its positive archetypes, that even its best episodes (i.e., the ones that broke that rule) would have no long-term consequences because to showcase psychologically realistic characters over the long term would be expose the lie of its "conflict-free" future.

I love Superman, but the thing about Superman is, there's a limit to how deep and how high of artistic quality a Superman story can achieve. Because Superman is, at the end of the day, a story for children, about reaffirming the idea of a morally just apollonian order over a morally corrupt dyonisean chaos. Adaptations of Superman should honor that, but there are sever artistic limits that come with that, too.

Star Trek is not Superman. Star Trek certainly encompasses the positive archetypes of Superman, but it also encompasses deconstructivism and skepticism. It does so without being nihilistic, but it's also not always positive. It returns to hope in the end, but yes, Star Trek sometimes takes long detours into darkness first. That's a longstanding ST tradition, and PIC is not unique for indulging in it.

Stuff like The Best of Both Worlds explores conflict and darkness without once jettisoning Star Trek's optimism.

"The Best of Both Worlds" is a deviation from TNGish "positive and conflict-free future" on every level. It's all about the personality conflict between Shelby and Riker on one hand, and about the Federation facing a near-apocalypse on the other. It literally depicts the violent assault and metaphoric rape of the main character, and features the deaths of 11,000 innocent people. It is dark and conflict-ridden as hell.

I sometimes feel like today's writers are incapable of that. Everything must be dark, full of conflict, full of angst. Because that's 'realistic'. But... is it 'Star Trek'? Piller certainly didn't think so.

You really shouldn't imply a dead guy would back up your opinions just because you want him to. For all you know, Piller would love PIC.

And, yes, Star Trek: Picard is still legitimate Star Trek, because Star Trek: Picard is a classical comedy: It starts in darkness, and ends in light. By the time S1 of PIC ends, the Federation has repealed its ban on Synthetics and realized it was wrong to deny Romulan assistance. It has taken the people of Coppelius under its protection, even though they tried to destroy the Federation, because it has recognized that forgiveness and peace are better than fear and war. Picard himself has been redeemed from his greatest failure, by his willingness to face the world and sacrifice for what he believes in.

Star Trek: Picard deconstructs -- and then re-affirms.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

There isn't much of a point to come up with an alternative story where she doesn't murder the bad guy if you cant see that for yourselves. Maybe start it off with two words: stun setting. Then maybe start thinking of how there's an entire group of XB's who should have a say in it other than her.

As far as this being more "adult" than the old shows, The Lon Suder incident had more complexity than this show went into here. This here was just meant to be a bad ass moment and they barely bring it up again. That's fine but at least recognize this character didnt really do a good thing here, its questionable at best.

Lon Suder is a completely different beast. Suder murdered because there was something wrong with him. He knew it and tried his best to control it. It took him nearly all of Voyager's first year in the Delta Quadrant to succumb to his urges and then he was either willing to die for his crimes or accept rehabilitation.

Bjayzl on the other hand ripped people apart for profit and even makes quips about it. She was willing to kill Seven of Nine given the chance and she showed absolutely no remorse for her crimes. Nah, Seven did the galaxy a favour putting that bitch down.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Edited to add re: the Crystalline Entity.

The big difference between Seven killing Bjayzel and the attempted killing of the Crystalline Entity is, I don't think it's entirely clear that the C.E. understands that it is murdering sentient lifeforms when it acts, and, furthermore, it may be a one-of-a-kind entity. Whereas, Bjayzel clearly understands that she is violating other people's rights, and is clearly not the only one of her kind. End edit.



"The same?" "The same" would be, "any story can be made to sound shallow even if it is deep if the person describing it refuses to engage with the material."

Trying to rebut that statement with a claim that it applies to shallow works of art is... counter-intuitive. It doesn't contradict my claim that a deep story can be made to sound falsely shallow, it just adds an additional claim that shallow stories can be made to sound shallow.



There's plenty to engage with in PIC. The show is rife with examinations of mortality, of existentialism, of guilt and redemption, of the meaning of family, of prejudice and oppression, of liberation and connection, of death and new life. You just don't want to engage with it.



It's been ages since I've seen that episode, but I seem to remember that Janeway recognizes the context of what happened: Both insofar as there is no rule of law in Vidiian society (because it has reverted to a predatory state due to the effects of the Phage), and insofar as Voyager is not powerful enough to enforce the rule of law upon the Vidiians -- and insofar as there is a need for compassion and forgiveness for people who are essentially pressured into predation by social forces beyond their control.

Bjayzel, by contrast, faces no such pressure. She clearly has the means to emigrate to a planet where there is the rule of law and adequate social and technological infrastructure for her to be safe and have all of her needs met.

So, I'm not persuaded by the comparison. Yes, Janeway in "The Phage" and Seven in "Stardust City Rag" are both facing people who have engaged in predation in an environment where there is no rule of law, and in which they (Janeway and Seven respectively) do not have sufficient power to enforce the rule of law. But the key difference is, the Vidiians have no choice but to prey upon others if they are to survive; Bjayzel has no need to prey upon others to survive. So, no, I'm not convinced that the mercy Janeway showed the Vidiians is a binding precedent upon Seven.



Because within the internal environment of the USS Voyager, they have the rule of law. This example does not apply to Seven's situation.



You mean, they didn't murder unarmed people except when they did?



It got one episode and then no allusion or reference to it ever again. We never even saw allusion to Tuvix ever again, never got any indication his death haunted Janeway the way Bjayzel's death haunted Seven.



I mean, the Nolan Batman isn't all that much better. He talks a big talk about how he only has "one rule," but he damn near turns to the camera and lawyers to the audience that he isn't responsible for Ra's's death in Batman Begins, he kills Harvey Dent at the end of The Dark Knight, and he outright kidnaps and tortures people throughout both films.



Okay, sorry, gotta fight you on this.

Star Trek: Picard is not dystopian. If you use that word, you either are intentionally using it fallaciously, or you do not understand the definition of the term.

A dystopia is not a society that is flawed or a story that features unpleasant political circumstances. A dystopia is a particular kind of fictional society, that is fundamentally oppressive and tyrannical in some way. Oceania is a totalitarian dystopia based upon authoritarian Stalinism; the World State in Brave New World is a dystopia based upon authoritarian hedonism; the Community in The Giver is a dystopia based upon the control of human memory and psychological development; Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopia based upon cisheteropatriarchy. Etc.

The United Federation of Planets in Star Trek: Picard is not a dystopia. Period. Federation citizens in Star Trek: Picard have numerous civil rights and liberties. There is no authoritarian government out to oppress the masses. There is no poverty, disease, or war. (Even Raffi, who seems to have totally shut down and isolated herself from everyone, is living in a mobile home that frankly looks pretty cozy, and there's no indication that she is in any way unsafe living by herself isolated from most of society.)

What the Federation in PIC is not, is a utopia. It is a mostly-good society which has some major problems and has done terrible things, in the form of banning the development of synthetic lifeforms and refusing to extend evacuation assistance to the Romulans.

That is a terrible thing, but it is not dystopia. The Federation is not fundamentally abusive; it is not an authoritarian state.

The biggest difference between the depiction of the Federation in PIC and the depiction of the Federation in TNG is not anything that the Federation does. TNG was full of times the Federation did awful shit -- the Federation tried to forcibly relocate the Ba'ku in INS, it tried to develop illegal phase clock technology and then cover it up in "The Pegasus," it tried to forcibly relocate the Native American colony on Dorvan V, it ignored evidence warp drive was damaging the fabric of space-time until someone died to prove it, it was ready to allow the people of Boraal II to go extinct in a planetary disaster, it tried to funnel weapons to the Bajoran Resistance in violation of the Prime Directive and its treaty with Cardassia, it assigned an investigator who started a witch-hunt aboard the Enterprise-D, tries to kidnap Lal away from Data to study her, it was willing to just let the people of Drema IV go extinct in a natural disaster, and it tried to order Data to submit himself to be dismantled so his positronic brain could be studied.

And that's to say nothing of all the times we saw the Federation commit horrible abuses of power in DS9 and VOY. Use of slave labor from sentient EMH Mark Ones, anybody?

The difference is in framing and tone. In TNG, the tone is bright and optimistic, and the characters are shown as always having sufficient social capital to Do The Right Thing. The narrative frames abuses of power by agents of the Federation government as deviations from the Federation norm (except when it frames that horrible abuse of power as being itself somehow acceptable, such as allowing the planets Dorvan V and Drema IV to go extinct).

PIC, on the other hand, begins with a tone of weariness and regret, and Picard is shown as lacking sufficient social clout to force the Federation to Do The Right Thing. The narrative frames two horrible abuses of power by the Federation government as being an indictment of the Federation as a whole rather than as a deviation from a rogue agent.

Objectively, the Federation in TNG and PIC aren't that much different. The real difference is in how the narrative frames the Federation's behavior and what mood the narrative wants you to have. In TNG, the narrative wants you to think the Federation is Good. In PIC, the narrative wants you to be a bit more skeptical of the Federation's leaders (but still affirms Federation values).

The other difference, of course, is arc. The Federation does not grow or change in TNG, because the narrative frames the Federation as already damn-near perfect. The Federation, however, grows and changes in PIC, coming to realize that it has allowed fear and pain to drive it to make destructive choices for which it must atone. The Federation begins PIC in a state of sin, and is led to a state of forgiveness by Picard. PIC is a story about restoration.



Oh bullshit. DS9 was all about deconstruction. DS9 literally had characters saying, "Earth is the problem. On Earth, you look out the window and you see Paradise. It's easy to be a saint in Paradise."



Horseshit! DS9 had the Federation fighting a terrible war that was killing huge numbers of people. It had the Federation assassinating four innocent men so as to trick the Romulans into joining the war on the basis of falsified evidence!



VOY literally had the Federation using slave labor from sentient EMH Mark Ones!



On this point, it's a matter of your aesthetic taste.

It's like comparing, say, A Superman for All Seasons to The Dark Knight Returns. All Seasons is a story that's about re-affirming positive, optimistic archetypes. That's the core of the Superman character and world: A hero who comes from the sky and does only good. The Dark Knight Returns, on the other hand, is a deconstruction of the superheroic genre, and it analyzes the kind of pain and anger that drives a character like Batman.

I happen to think that Star Trek, as a franchise, encompasses both poles along this axis. Star Trek is at its core always going to have a certain level of optimism, but Star Trek is not always positive. It does do deconstruction. It did it in DS9, and it does it in PIC. Star Trek encompasses both Superman and Batman.



I agree with you 100% on Superman... But Star Trek is not Superman. Star Trek encompasses both Superman and Batman, metaphorically speaking. It encompasses both archetype and deconstruction, and it has for decades. DS9 was deconstructing TNG's optimism in 1993! Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was deconstructing TOS's heroic idealization of Captain Kirk in frickin' 1982!



Siiiiigh. Getting rid of the rule against conflict is the best thing to happen to modern Star Trek. A "conflict-free future" is both boring and dishonest. That's not how human beings have ever been or ever will be. It's not "optimism" to claim that there's no conflict in the future -- it's just a lie.

Optimism is saying, yes, people will be people, but we'll make better choices and have better supports. And when TNG rejects the "no-conflict" rule, that's when it's at its best. For example, Miles O'Brien in "The Wounded" is clearly a man who struggles with bigotry against Cardassians because of the traumas he endured during the Cardassian War. He's not perfect -- he's not inherently "more evolved" than us modern types. But he's part of a society that taught him to recognize this flaw in himself, and he's doing his best to fight it and deal with it -- and in the end, he gets the rogue captain who was to about to re-start the war to turn himself in.

Frankly, that "no conflict" rule means that TNG could never evolve beyond its positive archetypes, that even its best episodes (i.e., the ones that broke that rule) would have no long-term consequences because to showcase psychologically realistic characters over the long term would be expose the lie of its "conflict-free" future.

I love Superman, but the thing about Superman is, there's a limit to how deep and how high of artistic quality a Superman story can achieve. Because Superman is, at the end of the day, a story for children, about reaffirming the idea of a morally just apollonian order over a morally corrupt dyonisean chaos. Adaptations of Superman should honor that, but there are sever artistic limits that come with that, too.

Star Trek is not Superman. Star Trek certainly encompasses the positive archetypes of Superman, but it also encompasses deconstructivism and skepticism. It does so without being nihilistic, but it's also not always positive. It returns to hope in the end, but yes, Star Trek sometimes takes long detours into darkness first. That's a longstanding ST tradition, and PIC is not unique for indulging in it.



"The Best of Both Worlds" is a deviation from TNGish "positive and conflict-free future" on every level. It's all about the personality conflict between Shelby and Riker on one hand, and about the Federation facing a near-apocalypse on the other. It literally depicts the violent assault and metaphoric rape of the main character, and features the deaths of 11,000 innocent people. It is dark and conflict-ridden as hell.



You really shouldn't imply a dead guy would back up your opinions just because you want him to. For all you know, Piller would love PIC.

And, yes, Star Trek: Picard is still legitimate Star Trek, because Star Trek: Picard is a classical comedy: It starts in darkness, and ends in light. By the time S1 of PIC ends, the Federation has repealed its ban on Synthetics and realized it was wrong to deny Romulan assistance. It has taken the people of Coppelius under its protection, even though they tried to destroy the Federation, because it has recognized that forgiveness and peace are better than fear and war. Picard himself has been redeemed from his greatest failure, by his willingness to face the world and sacrifice for what he believes in.

Star Trek: Picard deconstructs -- and then re-affirms.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[SJGardner]

This whole argument about Seven is really starting to sound like Melisandre's simplistic black-and-white moralizing to Ser Davos about how a half-rotten onion is a rotten onion. Why is it necessary that people are either completely good and righteous or totally irredeemable, evil monsters? Don't say because it's Star Trek and Star Trek needs to have its heroes and protagonists to be incorruptible paragons of justice all the time. Didn't Janeway torture a Starfleet crewman for information? Didn't Archer attack a non-hostile ship to raid it for spare parts? Didn't Bashir break his own Hippocratic oath when he interrogated Sloan with a Romulan mind-probe that is known to cause permanent neurological damage when he looked for a cure for Odo? The list could go on, but Sisko's deeds are controversial enough and Data deciding to kill Fajo was already covered upthread.

But to misinterpret the OP too, I do miss Star Trek. It's been six weeks already. I hope we still get something new this year.

And for the last time: just because we visit the seedy underbelly of a generally positive setting, it doesn't turn the entire setting itself dystopian. By that logic, Star Trek has been a dystopia since TOS... Federation members with stratified economies where the majority of the population is forced into a life of hard labor? Ritual duels to the death being legal on other member planets? The government casually tossing aside its own moral-high-ground laws regarding non-interference in primitive cultures if their homeworlds have strategic resource deposits? Death penalty for things as minor as visiting a restricted area of space? But TOS doesn't count, of course. From what I've seen on the internet, half-remembered nostalgic memories of TNG are what truly constitutes Star Trek.

 

[Lance]

Edited to add re: the Crystalline Entity.

The big difference between Seven killing Bjayzel and the attempted killing of the Crystalline Entity is, I don't think it's entirely clear that the C.E. understands that it is murdering sentient lifeforms when it acts, and, furthermore, it may be a one-of-a-kind entity. Whereas, Bjayzel clearly understands that she is violating other people's rights, and is clearly not the only one of her kind. End edit.



"The same?" "The same" would be, "any story can be made to sound shallow even if it is deep if the person describing it refuses to engage with the material."

Trying to rebut that statement with a claim that it applies to shallow works of art is... counter-intuitive. It doesn't contradict my claim that a deep story can be made to sound falsely shallow, it just adds an additional claim that shallow stories can be made to sound shallow.



There's plenty to engage with in PIC. The show is rife with examinations of mortality, of existentialism, of guilt and redemption, of the meaning of family, of prejudice and oppression, of liberation and connection, of death and new life. You just don't want to engage with it.



It's been ages since I've seen that episode, but I seem to remember that Janeway recognizes the context of what happened: Both insofar as there is no rule of law in Vidiian society (because it has reverted to a predatory state due to the effects of the Phage), and insofar as Voyager is not powerful enough to enforce the rule of law upon the Vidiians -- and insofar as there is a need for compassion and forgiveness for people who are essentially pressured into predation by social forces beyond their control.

Bjayzel, by contrast, faces no such pressure. She clearly has the means to emigrate to a planet where there is the rule of law and adequate social and technological infrastructure for her to be safe and have all of her needs met.

So, I'm not persuaded by the comparison. Yes, Janeway in "The Phage" and Seven in "Stardust City Rag" are both facing people who have engaged in predation in an environment where there is no rule of law, and in which they (Janeway and Seven respectively) do not have sufficient power to enforce the rule of law. But the key difference is, the Vidiians have no choice but to prey upon others if they are to survive; Bjayzel has no need to prey upon others to survive. So, no, I'm not convinced that the mercy Janeway showed the Vidiians is a binding precedent upon Seven.



Because within the internal environment of the USS Voyager, they have the rule of law. This example does not apply to Seven's situation.



You mean, they didn't murder unarmed people except when they did?



It got one episode and then no allusion or reference to it ever again. We never even saw allusion to Tuvix ever again, never got any indication his death haunted Janeway the way Bjayzel's death haunted Seven.



I mean, the Nolan Batman isn't all that much better. He talks a big talk about how he only has "one rule," but he damn near turns to the camera and lawyers to the audience that he isn't responsible for Ra's's death in Batman Begins, he kills Harvey Dent at the end of The Dark Knight, and he outright kidnaps and tortures people throughout both films.



Okay, sorry, gotta fight you on this.

Star Trek: Picard is not dystopian. If you use that word, you either are intentionally using it fallaciously, or you do not understand the definition of the term.

A dystopia is not a society that is flawed or a story that features unpleasant political circumstances. A dystopia is a particular kind of fictional society, that is fundamentally oppressive and tyrannical in some way. Oceania is a totalitarian dystopia based upon authoritarian Stalinism; the World State in Brave New World is a dystopia based upon authoritarian hedonism; the Community in The Giver is a dystopia based upon the control of human memory and psychological development; Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopia based upon cisheteropatriarchy. Etc.

The United Federation of Planets in Star Trek: Picard is not a dystopia. Period. Federation citizens in Star Trek: Picard have numerous civil rights and liberties. There is no authoritarian government out to oppress the masses. There is no poverty, disease, or war. (Even Raffi, who seems to have totally shut down and isolated herself from everyone, is living in a mobile home that frankly looks pretty cozy, and there's no indication that she is in any way unsafe living by herself isolated from most of society.)

What the Federation in PIC is not, is a utopia. It is a mostly-good society which has some major problems and has done terrible things, in the form of banning the development of synthetic lifeforms and refusing to extend evacuation assistance to the Romulans.

That is a terrible thing, but it is not dystopia. The Federation is not fundamentally abusive; it is not an authoritarian state.

The biggest difference between the depiction of the Federation in PIC and the depiction of the Federation in TNG is not anything that the Federation does. TNG was full of times the Federation did awful shit -- the Federation tried to forcibly relocate the Ba'ku in INS, it tried to develop illegal phase clock technology and then cover it up in "The Pegasus," it tried to forcibly relocate the Native American colony on Dorvan V, it ignored evidence warp drive was damaging the fabric of space-time until someone died to prove it, it was ready to allow the people of Boraal II to go extinct in a planetary disaster, it tried to funnel weapons to the Bajoran Resistance in violation of the Prime Directive and its treaty with Cardassia, it assigned an investigator who started a witch-hunt aboard the Enterprise-D, tries to kidnap Lal away from Data to study her, it was willing to just let the people of Drema IV go extinct in a natural disaster, and it tried to order Data to submit himself to be dismantled so his positronic brain could be studied.

And that's to say nothing of all the times we saw the Federation commit horrible abuses of power in DS9 and VOY. Use of slave labor from sentient EMH Mark Ones, anybody?

The difference is in framing and tone. In TNG, the tone is bright and optimistic, and the characters are shown as always having sufficient social capital to Do The Right Thing. The narrative frames abuses of power by agents of the Federation government as deviations from the Federation norm (except when it frames that horrible abuse of power as being itself somehow acceptable, such as allowing the planets Dorvan V and Drema IV to go extinct).

PIC, on the other hand, begins with a tone of weariness and regret, and Picard is shown as lacking sufficient social clout to force the Federation to Do The Right Thing. The narrative frames two horrible abuses of power by the Federation government as being an indictment of the Federation as a whole rather than as a deviation from a rogue agent.

Objectively, the Federation in TNG and PIC aren't that much different. The real difference is in how the narrative frames the Federation's behavior and what mood the narrative wants you to have. In TNG, the narrative wants you to think the Federation is Good. In PIC, the narrative wants you to be a bit more skeptical of the Federation's leaders (but still affirms Federation values).

The other difference, of course, is arc. The Federation does not grow or change in TNG, because the narrative frames the Federation as already damn-near perfect. The Federation, however, grows and changes in PIC, coming to realize that it has allowed fear and pain to drive it to make destructive choices for which it must atone. The Federation begins PIC in a state of sin, and is led to a state of forgiveness by Picard. PIC is a story about restoration.



Oh bullshit. DS9 was all about deconstruction. DS9 literally had characters saying, "Earth is the problem. On Earth, you look out the window and you see Paradise. It's easy to be a saint in Paradise."



Horseshit! DS9 had the Federation fighting a terrible war that was killing huge numbers of people. It had the Federation assassinating four innocent men so as to trick the Romulans into joining the war on the basis of falsified evidence!



VOY literally had the Federation using slave labor from sentient EMH Mark Ones!



On this point, it's a matter of your aesthetic taste.

It's like comparing, say, A Superman for All Seasons to The Dark Knight Returns. All Seasons is a story that's about re-affirming positive, optimistic archetypes. That's the core of the Superman character and world: A hero who comes from the sky and does only good. The Dark Knight Returns, on the other hand, is a deconstruction of the superheroic genre, and it analyzes the kind of pain and anger that drives a character like Batman.

I happen to think that Star Trek, as a franchise, encompasses both poles along this axis. Star Trek is at its core always going to have a certain level of optimism, but Star Trek is not always positive. It does do deconstruction. It did it in DS9, and it does it in PIC. Star Trek encompasses both Superman and Batman.



I agree with you 100% on Superman... But Star Trek is not Superman. Star Trek encompasses both Superman and Batman, metaphorically speaking. It encompasses both archetype and deconstruction, and it has for decades. DS9 was deconstructing TNG's optimism in 1993! Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was deconstructing TOS's heroic idealization of Captain Kirk in frickin' 1982!



Siiiiigh. Getting rid of the rule against conflict is the best thing to happen to modern Star Trek. A "conflict-free future" is both boring and dishonest. That's not how human beings have ever been or ever will be. It's not "optimism" to claim that there's no conflict in the future -- it's just a lie.

Optimism is saying, yes, people will be people, but we'll make better choices and have better supports. And when TNG rejects the "no-conflict" rule, that's when it's at its best. For example, Miles O'Brien in "The Wounded" is clearly a man who struggles with bigotry against Cardassians because of the traumas he endured during the Cardassian War. He's not perfect -- he's not inherently "more evolved" than us modern types. But he's part of a society that taught him to recognize this flaw in himself, and he's doing his best to fight it and deal with it -- and in the end, he gets the rogue captain who was to about to re-start the war to turn himself in.

Frankly, that "no conflict" rule means that TNG could never evolve beyond its positive archetypes, that even its best episodes (i.e., the ones that broke that rule) would have no long-term consequences because to showcase psychologically realistic characters over the long term would be expose the lie of its "conflict-free" future.

I love Superman, but the thing about Superman is, there's a limit to how deep and how high of artistic quality a Superman story can achieve. Because Superman is, at the end of the day, a story for children, about reaffirming the idea of a morally just apollonian order over a morally corrupt dyonisean chaos. Adaptations of Superman should honor that, but there are sever artistic limits that come with that, too.

Star Trek is not Superman. Star Trek certainly encompasses the positive archetypes of Superman, but it also encompasses deconstructivism and skepticism. It does so without being nihilistic, but it's also not always positive. It returns to hope in the end, but yes, Star Trek sometimes takes long detours into darkness first. That's a longstanding ST tradition, and PIC is not unique for indulging in it.



"The Best of Both Worlds" is a deviation from TNGish "positive and conflict-free future" on every level. It's all about the personality conflict between Shelby and Riker on one hand, and about the Federation facing a near-apocalypse on the other. It literally depicts the violent assault and metaphoric rape of the main character, and features the deaths of 11,000 innocent people. It is dark and conflict-ridden as hell.



You really shouldn't imply a dead guy would back up your opinions just because you want him to. For all you know, Piller would love PIC.

And, yes, Star Trek: Picard is still legitimate Star Trek, because Star Trek: Picard is a classical comedy: It starts in darkness, and ends in light. By the time S1 of PIC ends, the Federation has repealed its ban on Synthetics and realized it was wrong to deny Romulan assistance. It has taken the people of Coppelius under its protection, even though they tried to destroy the Federation, because it has recognized that forgiveness and peace are better than fear and war. Picard himself has been redeemed from his greatest failure, by his willingness to face the world and sacrifice for what he believes in.

Star Trek: Picard deconstructs -- and then re-affirms.

I respect your right to make the points you make. I even liked your post, because I found your points persuasive and interesting. But I object to the throwing around words like 'bullshit' in regards to debating a viewpoint that is opposite to your own. Is civility a dead thing on this forum now? I may be wrong in my points, but attack the points, not the person? The arguments you presented were persuasive, but I found the way it was done somewhat hurtful. Can we have a debate without descending into calling other people's opinions 'horseshit'? Is that really necessary?

I emphasize I found your points solid, but the aggression felt unnecessary to me. Maybe I'm old fashioned that way.

 

[fireproof78]

I respect your right to make the points you make. I even liked your post, because I found your points persuasive and interesting. But I object to the throwing around words like 'bullshit' in regards to debating a viewpoint that is opposite to your own. Is civility a dead thing on this forum now? I may be wrong in my points, but attack the points, not the person? The arguments you presented were persuasive, but I found the way it was done somewhat hurtful. Can we have a debate without descending into calling other people's opinions 'horseshit'? Is that really necessary?

I emphasize I found your points solid, but the aggression felt unnecessary to me. Maybe I'm old fashioned that way.

Calling an argument bullshit is an attack? Genuine question because I believe in civility but if I disagree with an opinion I'm not attacking the person-I'm attacking the argument. Two different things to my view.

 

[Lance]

Calling an argument bullshit is an attack? Genuine question because I believe in civility but if I disagree with an opinion I'm not attacking the person-I'm attacking the argument. Two different things to my view.

Maybe it's not. I only feel it's easy to throw words like that around -- in emphasis of a point -- but it essentially is making an aggressive point belittling another person's individual view. The meat of @Sci's points against mine were great, and very well argued. I didn't see the need to further tear anyone down with phrases like 'horseshit', it's like drawing battlelines when all any of us are trying to do is have a discussion and hopefully hear each other's views, and maybe debate them respectfully.

I'll conceed and fold. Clearly we hold opposing viewpoints on how we see the franchise's tone, and clearly he is right and I am wrong. I can see that.

 

[Sci]

I respect your right to make the points you make. I even liked your post, because I found your points persuasive and interesting. But I object to the throwing around words like 'bullshit' in regards to debating a viewpoint that is opposite to your own. Is civility a dead thing on this forum now? I may be wrong in my points, but attack the points, not the person? The arguments you presented were persuasive, but I found the way it was done somewhat hurtful. Can we have a debate without descending into calling other people's opinions 'horseshit'? Is that really necessary?

I emphasize I found your points solid, but the aggression felt unnecessary to me. Maybe I'm old fashioned that way.

Calling an argument bullshit has never been considered an attack on the poster by TrekBBS rules. Call me old fashioned, but I've been calling things people say "Bullshit" for 18 years on this BBS and I ain't gonna stop because someone who only joined in the Obama administration wants me to.

 

[Lance]

Calling an argument bullshit has never been considered an attack on the poster by TrekBBS rules. Call me old fashioned, but I've been calling things people say "Bullshit" for 18 years on this BBS and I ain't gonna stop because someone who only joined in the Obama administration wants me to.

As a non-American, I have no horse in that race, sir.

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe it's not. I only feel it's easy to throw words like that around -- in emphasis of a point -- but it essentially is making an aggressive point belittling another person's individual view. The meat of @Sci's points against mine were great, and very well argued. I didn't see the need to further tear anyone down with phrases like 'horseshit', it's like drawing battlelines when all any of us are trying to do is have a discussion and hopefully hear each other's views, and maybe debate them respectfully.

I'll conceed and fold. Clearly we hold opposing viewpoints on how we see the franchise's tone, and clearly he is right and I am wrong. I can see that.

There is no concession or "right and wrong" here. Points of view are just that-points of view.

But, I do appreciate your clarification.

 

[Lance]

There is no concession or "right and wrong" here. Points of view are just that-points of view.

But, I do appreciate your clarification.

Nevertheless, I conceed that my viewpoint was clearly incorrect. That's the name of the game to me, I only offer a perspective, and stand to be corrected on it. And @Sci has corrected me. Star Trek is, evidently, not what I saw it as.

 

[fireproof78]

Nevertheless, I conceed that my viewpoint was clearly incorrect. That's the name of the game to me, I only offer a perspective, and stand to be corrected on it. And @Sci has corrected me. Star Trek is, evidently, not what I saw it as.

 

[Lance]

Mate, I've had a solid opinion on what Star Trek was for my whole life, but it's true, presented with the facts, one can not deny that Trek's legendary hopeful optimism is a charade. Far too much evidence exists to the contrary, as has been demonstrated in this discussion. I'm openly admitting I clearly failed to see how dark those things were. I failed to see how bad the Federation always was. It's easy to assume the light in this fictional universe when it's shown from the comfortable chaise-lounges of the starship Enterprise, but those things Sci cited are irrefutable evidence that the dark underbelly I see having the light shone on it now was always there. It was a matter of perspective, but the slave EMH's are no better than the Synths being treated badly at Utopia Planetia. These are parallels, and I feel foolish for not seeing them before.

Starfleet is an organisation that made slaves of both holographic and synthetic life. These people forcibly removed the colonists on the native American settlement from their homes, and chose to ignore the plight of the Romulans, even determining they have a "right" to chose who lives or dies. Even Wesley Crusher calls them out on the former, and he's right to do so, and resigns for it. Starfleet holds itself up throughout Star Trek's 54 year history time after time as a paragon of virtue, while repeatedly ignoring it's own hypocrisies. But because older Trek chose to show these things from their perspective, it made a moral judgment that everything they stood for was right. See, @Sci makes these points, and frankly I have to admit he's right, and I'm wrong. That is a failure on my part.

 

[Lance]

Pivoting back, one of the things I realised from watching Picard was that wider universe perspective. It occurred to me, by my third rewatch, that I had little sympathy for the character of Picard, and none for Starfleet, but I was (surprisingly) rooting for the Romulans. It felt to me like they were right. The synths did pose a threat, and indeed, nearly pulled off that threat. I loved Starfleet's arrival on first watch because it felt comfortable, but on subsequent rewatches it felt increasingly to me like the Romulans were only trying to save the day and Starfleet's arrival shown a (yes) sheer fucking hubris in that they had that moral superiority because, y'know, they're Starfleet, so duh. Where I've found my life long view points on Trek challenged by Picard is that I seldom applied that thinking retroactively. Starfleet has always been dubious. Often, the heroism and moral correctness we perceive of Star Trek comes from that cloak of the narrative chosing them to be heroes. I've rewatched The Next Generation since Picard's transmission, and must admit, grudgingly but increasingly, I find the deconstruction of these things in Picard are opening my eyes to these things in past Trek. This thread alone has not been my only time questioning these things, but it has provided clarity. I find it harder to empathize with the Starfleet in NextTrek era now. TOS was a whole other game, it always presented itself as still being flawed humans in a flawed universe, but until Picard made me question it, I hadn't considered that of the TNG era. I've tried to rationalize these things with my life-long held views of Star Trek, the wholesale acceptance of the PR line, but increasingly I look back on that era of Trek and I don't see the impossibly correct heroes I grew up with, I see people who are as flawed as any character in any fiction. I often look at Picard's actions on TNG and see not a Captain who is considered and rational, but someone so caught up in his self-righteousness that he really does think everything he believes is right. The flawed human we see him become in Picard is the sad, wretched man he always was, beneath his rank and title. These are the many reasons why I can admit I was wrong, it's a journey Picard had already sent me along, I just still have a surface level of wanting to still trust in what I've grown up watching. That's why I defend those views, but I'm increasingly thinking that I am wrong. Starfleet was never quite as virtuous as I used to think it to be. Picard shows us very human characters, outside the organization, and therefore doesn't paint Starfleet in an entirely positive way. I'm only now realising it never truly was. Even back in the day. Sometimes the good guys are bad, and the bad guys are good.

 

[fireproof78]

Mate, I've had a solid opinion on what Star Trek was for my whole life, but it's true, presented with the facts, one can not deny that Trek's legendary hopeful optimism is a charade. Far too much evidence exists to the contrary, as has been demonstrated in this discussion. I'm openly admitting I clearly failed to see how dark those things were. I failed to see how bad the Federation always was. It's easy to assume the light in this fictional universe when it's shown from the comfortable chaise-lounges of the starship Enterprise, but those things Sci cited are irrefutable evidence that the dark underbelly I see having the light shone on it now was always there. It was a matter of perspective, but the slave EMH's are no better than the Synths being treated badly at Utopia Planetia. These are parallels, and I feel foolish for not seeing them before.

Starfleet is an organisation that made slaves of both holographic and synthetic life. These people forcibly removed the colonists on the native American settlement from their homes, and chose to ignore the plight of the Romulans, even determining they have a "right" to chose who lives or dies. Even Wesley Crusher calls them out on the former, and he's right to do so, and resigns for it. Starfleet holds itself up throughout Star Trek's 54 year history time after time as a paragon of virtue, while repeatedly ignoring it's own hypocrisies. But because older Trek chose to show these things from their perspective, it made a moral judgment that everything they stood for was right. See, @Sci makes these points, and frankly I have to admit he's right, and I'm wrong. That is a failure on my part.

I'm overblown by the honesty.

 

[SolarisOne]

What I like about "Stardust City Rag" is that it lives up to the pitch of a "space western".

It was very Firefly.