Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 2x01 - "The Star Gazer"

While it totally doesn't fit Roddenberry's ideal world, Papa Picard being abusive really does explain a lot and is one of those things that makes sense with what we know of the character. We know he was a general butthead from Robert and Jean Luc's reactions to him. Neither of them have any good memories of the man even with Robert following in his footsteps.

And I think Robert is meant to be a BETTER man than his father, we know that Picard hates children but secretly yearns for them due to the Nexus (meaning that SOMETHING made him afraid of having a family), and Picard has a serious issue forming attachments that goes beyond Captain Kirk. Beverly was down for it but their relationship never left port and failed in alternate realities.

Picard having no idea how to relate to children except what he knows to be wrong from his abusive dad and being afraid of making the mistakes his father made really fills in a lot of blanks.

Plus its an homage to Patrick Stewart's own past. My headcanon is that Papa had some past trauma that resulted in him becoming the Luddite we know. Maybe not Starfleet but a failed colony or something.

 

Aspects of this were very good. But it was mostly just ok for me. Part of that is, I want to explore this era, but we are quickly being shunted to an alternative timeline.

I shouldn't be so annoyed by a couple of things, but I found myself quite irked. I get using Laris is easier than bringing back Beverly Crusher or creating a new love interest, but killing Zhaban for storytelling ease feels cynical.

And I especially found the idea that Picard somehow has authority to blow up the ship without a second voice --- any sort of check -- on a ship he doesn't even serve on to be the stupidest plothole. Seriously, wtf? After the episode reminds us that you can commit murder and be exonerated by virtue of alien influence. Just so so absurd.

 

Consistent with all the previous series.

 

How is that absurd? Even today, we look at whether the accused was of sound mind and aware of their actions when they committed the crime. We allow the insanity plea to mitigate sentences. In Trek, people can literally be possessed and controlled by other entities. You cannot be held responsible for actions that were caused by entities manipulating your mind or controlling you since you were not acting of your own free will.

 

Well.... not really in real life. Maybe in Trek, or whatever the plot requires.

In the USN, the ship's captain is responsible for the running of his own vessel. If he has a flag officer embarked, the latter comes with his own staff, of whom the Chief of Staff is a post-command officer himself. The admiral's job is to direct the activity of the entire squadron / task force- the workings of his flagship are technically 'not his business.' Of course, until the captain does something that causes someone else to 'lose their confidence in his ability to command', at which point the admiral fires him and someone else takes command. That seems to be a weekly occurrence now in the USN.

In light of this episode, the scene where Rios leaves the conference room to deal with 'stuff' and Picard orders the self-destruct are very backwards. Picard should have been handling 'stuff' and Rios, under orders from Picard, should have self-destructed his own ship.

 

Yes. Reminds us. Which is why giving any one person the power to blow up the ship is absurd. Not the exoneration itself. Your quote leaves out my context.

 

Yeah.

You can't draw the line there. Otherwise Captain Kirk would be serving time for when he was possessed by an insane woman, the whole Sybok mutiny, and Q knows how many other incidents. Mind control is a thing in Star Trek and you are not guilty by virtue of temporary insanity whenever it happened.

I just think people really dislike Jurati and want to see her punished for whatever reason.

 

My headcanon is now that Beverly isn't available for Jean Luc because she's decided to get over her hangups and went back to that Trill woman.

 

No, that's punishable by being exiled!

 

Actually neuroscientists generally believe that "free will" as we understand it doesn't exist at all. If all thought processes reside in the brain, than external stimulus results in action. There is nowhere for independent decision making, just stimulus and response. Hence we don't actively "choose" anything - we instinctively make choices we later rationalize. Meaning all punishment is arbitrary.

 

I think she just wants the vineyard when the old man karks it.

Too bad the show runners decided to half-ass this. Pick one and run with it- If you want the man to be a smoker, let him smoke. Otherwise, no need to flash the cigar at all.

I'll betcha that lighter comes in handy at some point, though, or 'wows' someone in the 21st Century.

 

Well we're punishing for our instincts.

 

She does seem to have an interest in culture and anthropology. For instance she learned to say cheers in an obscure human language.

 

No. At least not in my case. My point is the auto destruct situation is stupid because even a trusted officer of normally sound mind can be taken control of at any moment. Jurati is an ok character.

 

Janeway did.

 

We still allow mitigating circumstances for insanity. Using your model, we would say that the stimulus/response processes in the person's brain were not "normal" at the time of the crime and therefore we reduce the sentence. It would stand to reason that alien influence would not be "normal". We also look to see if the accused was aware of their actions and understood the consequences of their actions. So we are looking to see if they have a higher self-awareness of their own stimulus/response. Our justice system certainly does not treat people's actions as just raw stimulus/response. And even if we do look at actions as just stimulus/response, if you are possessed or controlled by an external entity, then it was not your stimulus/response that caused the crime. Using your model, you cannot be held responsible for actions caused by a stimulus/response that is not your own.

 

Apparently that particular position may have rested on a faulty premise.

 

As I said in my comment you quoted, my Grandfather more often than not, didn't light his cigars even though he pretty much had one in his mouth most of the day.

Of course it was mainly because my Grandmother couldn't stand the things and 'decreed' that he couldn't light them around her, but for him it eventually became a habit not to light them even away from her.
So it may be unusual, but not necessarily unknown.

Also, we already know that igniting a flame on a starship bridge can possibly set off alarms.
I liked how Rios flicked his lighter quickly and on the down-low, apparently avoiding said alarms.
It might even be a game for him.

 

My Grandpa quit smoking cigars and pipe tobacco back in the mid-70s when they started having all their grandkids being born. But he still kept a unlit cigar and his pipe on him to chomp on when he would get the urge to smoke.

 

Me neither. I hear a couple of notes that sound a bit like the First Contact theme, but I would have chalked that up to be being a coincidence than being some sort of reference.

I noticed in the new opening theme the short flute version of the Goldsmith theme has been replaced with a flute version of the Courage opening theme instead. Thought it might have been because they were saving money not paying Jerry Goldsmith's estate (do they have to? not sure) but then the TNG theme popped up more than ever throughout the episode which was nice.

Yet curiously the credit for the Star Trek: The Motion Picture theme was gone from the end credits this time around.