Soji. Dahj died in the very first episode.
(So many Isa Briones characters to keep straight!)
Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 2x07 - "Monsters"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
(So many Isa Briones characters to keep straight!)
To be fair, I don't remember anything saying that the bottle would irresistibly compel him to appear... it could be something as much as basically a hotline that the Q agreed to answer as a courtesy. It also never referred to summoning a specific Q. There are so many of them, and they can go whenever and wherever they like in the space-time continuum, one of them might just as well decide to answer the call out of boredom.
yep, can’t remember which is which.Soji. Dahj died in the very first episode.
Soji. Dahj died in the very first episode.
They can't all be straight.
It also doesn't make new things bad either.
It's just part of the fantasy world of Star Trek. They provide a variety of different things, some with explanation, and some without.
And we're more likely than not to get no explanation or really dumb ones.
The worst part of it for me is how some fans are seemingly perfectly satisfied with being given a [tech] explanation that merely sounds science-y enough to lend it some fake credence, when most of the technobabble, especially from Voyager on, has usually been nothing more than a bunch of technical terms vaguely connected to the topic stringed together, often ending up like Joey's attempt in Friends on using a thesaurus and turning "warm, nice people with big hearts" into "humid, prepossessing Homo Sapiens with full-sized aortic pumps."
And they complain when we get things like "time crystals", because it sounds like magic and real science would always use descriptive and technical language (yeah, like puffy planets, the hairy ball theorem, the Demon Core or the various Extremely Large Telescopes). I already said this back then during the time crystal debate, but if Trek fans were to give names to real-world scientific concepts, the Big Bang would be called a Rapid Primordial Volumetric Expansion Event.
And they complain when we get things like "time crystals", because it sounds like magic and real science would always use descriptive and technical language (yeah, like puffy planets, the hairy ball theorem, the Demon Core or the various Extremely Large Telescopes). I already said this back then during the time crystal debate, but if Trek fans were to give names to real-world scientific concepts, the Big Bang would be called a Rapid Primordial Volumetric Expansion Event.
And ironically "time crystals" are one of the most TOS things since TAS went off the air. We should love the concept. It's about as late '60s Gene and Fred Freiberger as you can get. It's strange.
The device the synths gave Rios to fix La Sirena in season one is a really good example of this. It was handed over with no explanation beyond 'use your imagination' and certain fans had a fit about it being magical and an example of how terrible modern Trek is - apparently not noticing that Agnes later gave it a nice, solid technobabble explanation, calling it a fundamental field replicator with a neurocotamic interface, which is the kind of pseudo-science that Trek fans usually eat up with a spoon. If the technobabble description had come first, I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid, they'd have been all over it as an example of advances made in replicator technology. But because the 'use your imagination' instruction came first, they were all too busy clutching their pearls to even notice the technobabble.
(Incidentally, I hope the synths took out a patent on that thing!)
You mean it's not?
well, the bottle evocation was badly in concept and execution, reeeally cheesy. And mind you, I liked season one well enough and am loving this season, apparently more than most posters up here.
Most of the complaints I've seen about the device is that it's very convenient overly-powerful gadget, especially considering it was invented by a tiny colony of Federation scientists. That's what makes it too magical, not a perceived lack of technobabble.
Personally I had the same reaction to the gadget and the bottle: I basically ignored them until they went away.
Apparently so.
And cheesy is something I tolerate way more than a lot of people so I get that.
To me, it strikes me as similar to the "spirits" from Voyager's "Equinox." The aliens had a device that summoned the friendly spirits.
That might have been your complaint, but all the ongoing criticisms I've seen have all been about the 'magical' nature of the device and lack of technobabble explanation, ignoring the fact that a technobabble explanation was given.
1) I don't think it's unreasonable for the producers to assume that most people watching a show entitled Star Trek: Picard are emotionally invested in one of the most enduring and popular characters in American science fiction television.
2) I would say that Star Trek: Picard as a narrative expects its audience to be as invested in its characters as any modern television show. TV shows in general these days are written with the assumption that a deeper exploration of a character's psychology engenders audience investment into the characters rather than follows from audience investment into those characters.
Ridiculous hogwash. The worst episode in all of Star Trek is clearly the work of white supremacist propaganda that is TNG's "Code of Honor." But even setting that one aside, "Monsters" was miles better than numerous of Star Trek: Voyager's tiresome, heartless, reset button-pressing, all-plot-no-characterization paint-by-numbers.
The Godfather Part II was tedious and useless?
Are they "in general" tedious and useless, or are they "always" tedious and useless? Which is it?
I'm sorry to hear that you don't understand metaphorical depictions of psychological complexes.
Last edited:
I do agree here, no worries. I’m here for anything JLP, always. They could show him sitting on a chair, looking over the vineyard for the entire ten episodes and I’d watch with never-wavering enthusiasm because JEAN-LUC.
However, looking at some of the reactions here (and elsewhere) towards the exploration of Jean-Luc’s trauma, parts of the show’s audience clearly disagree with this much focus on Jean-Luc’s mind and seem to want for things to be resolved in a more TNG-like manner (meaning: quickly, not taking up TOO much of the plot, and by the end of an episode).
However, looking at some of the reactions here (and elsewhere) towards the exploration of Jean-Luc’s trauma, parts of the show’s audience clearly disagree with this much focus on Jean-Luc’s mind and seem to want for things to be resolved in a more TNG-like manner (meaning: quickly, not taking up TOO much of the plot, and by the end of an episode).
Yeah, there's a segment of fandom that wants shallow, two-dimensional writing that gives them pat answers and doesn't challenge them intellectually or emotionally, just like TNG.
No, not really. Dealing with psychology complexes, especially ones driven by trauma, is simply not Star Trek.
It very much feels that way at times, yes.However, looking at some of the reactions here (and elsewhere) towards the exploration of Jean-Luc’s trauma, parts of the show’s audience clearly disagree with this much focus on Jean-Luc’s mind and seem to want for things to be resolved in a more TNG-like manner (meaning: quickly, not taking up TOO much of the plot, and by the end of an episode).