Spoilers Is Picard season 2 a failure?

[Sci]

To me, the most immediate answer is that Soji could have taken most of the role that Tallinn played. She could have been the primary cast member Jean-Luc was siloed off with, and she could have been the one to journey into his mind and help him through coping with his mother's suicide. Tallinn could still have been in the series in a less-central role that would have been more appropriate to how little we learn about her as a person -- she could still have been the one to sacrifice herself for Renee, for instance.

I don't know. Soji the equivalent of a 20-year-old. I don't know how much I buy someone who's effectively 20 guiding someone who's pushing 100. I think the guide had to be someone who looks like they've lived life and has some wisdom and more maturity. Tallinn fits that role a lot better than Soji.

I don't entirely disagree, but you'll notice that I didn't say Soji should "guide" Jean-Luc. I said "journey into his mind and help him through coping with his mother's suicide." It's certainly true that young people often need the guidance and wisdom of elders. But sometimes elders need young people to call them out on their lifetimes of bad habits, too. It goes back to Jean-Luc's line from the end of S1 -- "That's why we're here: To save each other." Not Soji having all the answers and "guiding" Jean-Luc like she knows better than him. But both of them helping each other and learning from each other. Soji learning more from Jean-Luc than Jean-Luc from her -- but maybe Soji calling him on his bullshit sometimes when he needs it.

 

[dupersuper]

The shows have depicted them as more mortal than they like to admit.

Not really...

Picard did it pretty well in its opening season

Agree to laugh heartily then disagree...

 

[gvn2fly]

100% agree with this. Shows like DS9 and FARSCAPE did it MUCH MUCH better. The seasons were peppered with episodes that had nothings to do with the main Arc which was weaved through the seasons. Same with shows BTVS and ANGEL. Yeah it's still advised to watch those shows in order but they all had great episodic shows thrown in.

I think there are three issues beyond the new shows not having episodic episodes, at least in the case of DS9 and Farscape (I haven't watched the Buffy shows).

1. The new show's focus on "season arcs" that have to be wrapped up by episode 10. The shows mentioned above and their arcs just continued..there was no artificial point that said this complete plot has to be wrapped up by the season finale, or by episode 10. Scorpius as a villain wasn't just in one season, only to be have to be defeated in 10 episodes. Same with the Dominion threat, which grew over the course of years and was allowed to develop. Not just a threat introduced in the beginning of 1 season only to be wrapped up in 10 episodes.

2. The "mystery box" style of the new shows where a problem the characters don't know the answer to is introduced in the premiere and spend the entire season trying to figure it out. The season hinges on the resolution, which may not be that great and can retroactively hurt the season. Discovery - What's the red agnel? what caused the burn? what is the anomaly? Picard - Who/what is Soji, why do the Romulans want her, and creating new questions throughout the season, Why is Q doing this, What changed the timeline? What happened in Picard's past? I think also when the show is framed as a mystery that needs to be solved, everything not in the service of answering those questions (which typically are not answered until the finale or episode 9) can feel like filler.

3. This is kind of related to both points above, but I think more with 1 where the writers feel an arc or story has to span the entire season. They have some good ideas - I think Picard season 2 had great ideas but I don't think those ideas, or at least the execution of it, worked for a 10 episode season. It's been said before, but they're taking plots that would make really solid 1-3 episodes and expanding them into 10...so let's spend half an episode in Picard's mind with characters running, lets have a 30 minute episode where Jurati sings a song, lets have characters get arrested twice in 6 episodes, a lot of it just feels like padding rather than naturally moving things into place.

 

[eschaton]

I think there are three issues beyond the new shows not having episodic episodes, at least in the case of DS9 and Farscape (I haven't watched the Buffy shows).

1. The new show's focus on "season arcs" that have to be wrapped up by episode 10. The shows mentioned above and their arcs just continued..there was no artificial point that said this complete plot has to be wrapped up by the season finale, or by episode 10. Scorpius as a villain wasn't just in one season, only to be have to be defeated in 10 episodes. Same with the Dominion threat, which grew over the course of years and was allowed to develop. Not just a threat introduced in the beginning of 1 season only to be wrapped up in 10 episodes.

2. The "mystery box" style of the new shows where a problem the characters don't know the answer to is introduced in the premiere and spend the entire season trying to figure it out. The season hinges on the resolution, which may not be that great and can retroactively hurt the season. Discovery - What's the red agnel? what caused the burn? what is the anomaly? Picard - Who/what is Soji, why do the Romulans want her, and creating new questions throughout the season, Why is Q doing this, What changed the timeline? What happened in Picard's past? I think also when the show is framed as a mystery that needs to be solved, everything not in the service of answering those questions (which typically are not answered until the finale or episode 9) can feel like filler.

3. This is kind of related to both points above, but I think more with 1 where the writers feel an arc or story has to span the entire season. They have some good ideas - I think Picard season 2 had great ideas but I don't think those ideas, or at least the execution of it, worked for a 10 episode season. It's been said before, but they're taking plots that would make really solid 1-3 episodes and expanding them into 10...so let's spend half an episode in Picard's mind with characters running, lets have a 30 minute episode where Jurati sings a song, lets have characters get arrested twice in 6 episodes, a lot of it just feels like padding rather than naturally moving things into place.

1990s/early 2000s serialization was largely seat-of-pants (except for Babylon 5) but it was organic, which allowed them to bring back threads from earlier seasons as needed. I mean as an example, look at Season 7 of DS9, as even before the final serialized stint, most of the episodes were revisiting characters/themes from earlier seasons (the "Jack Pack," Kor, MU, Vic Fontaine, Section 31, etc.) That's good TV storytelling, you allow the setting to build organically over time, which gives you more and more established (within show) lore to draw upon.

In contrast, DIS/PIC are basically written as "episodic seasons." Virtually no plot points actually continue from one season to the next, and even relationships established between characters can get totally scrambled. Like how at the end of DIS's third season, Stamets was furious with Burham, and they had them make up off camera. Or how Raffi suddenly looked at Elnor as a son in Season 2 of Picard, where Elnor looking at Picard as a father figure was gone (as was the implication that Soji was Picard's daughter from Nepenthe). The writers just ignore the shit they find inconvenient from the previous season and do something entirely new. As a result, nothing is ever built up - it's consistently torn down.

 

[Jedi Marso]

In the end, I think a lot of the issue with Picard Season 2 is it was neither character-based writing or plot based writing - it was actor-based writing.

What I mean is the season seems like it was mostly constructed in an effort to come up with things for the cast to do. As an example:

• Fans want more Orla Brady! But she's not going back in time with them, and we want to have her in more than the first/last episode. What do we do? Oh, let's create another character who looks exactly like her. Let's make her a Watcher, and then not really do anything interesting with it.
• Evan Evagora is a shite actor, so let's sideline him most of the season. Oh, but he still needs to get paid for most of the episodes, so let's have Raffi hallucinate him, a pointless flashback, and a holo-Elnor so he still appears in most of the season.
• Isa Briones is part of the main cast, but Soji won't be going back in time. Let's create a new character who looks exactly like her, and give her the exact same character arc where she discovers her entire life is a fraud. And let's make a Soong her dad, just to give Brent Spiner something to do.
• The plot of the season has no real need for Raffi and Seven, so let's just have them bicker most of the season to give the actors a reason to collect a paycheck.
• Santiago Cabrera is great as Rios, but we don't have that much for him to do, so let's have a sort of romantic comedy sideplot that he's mostly hived off in.

Ultimately, no one was really needed for this season from the main cast other than Patrick Stewart and Alison Pill. Even in those cases the character arcs were kinda weird flexes which didn't totally jibe with what we saw before, but they were at least workable.

I think this is a very apt analysis of what was wrong with this season. The S1 cast should not have been the S2 cast, for the most part.

 

[TedShatner10]

I think serialisation works less well with DSCO and PIC (in comparison to the UK's NuWho under RTD and Moffat) is that many NA writers are still re-adjusting from writing roughly 25 episodes with the majority of shows only a decade ago down to only 10 for PIC and 13 for DSCO (to fit the streaming era), so there's less breathing room with two parters/mini-arcs.

 

[DesolationGod]

I think serialisation works less well with DSCO and PIC (in comparison to the UK's NuWho under RTD and Moffat) is that many NA writers are still re-adjusting from writing roughly 25 episodes with the majority of shows only a decade ago down to only 10 for PIC and 13 for DSCO (to fit the streaming era), so there's less breathing room with two parters/mini-arcs.

I actually like the idea of modern tv with 10-15 episodes, seems like most of the time its less filler and wasted time. Will be interesting to see how it works out for a show like SNW which strives to be more episodic then full season arc.

 

[Norad]

I actually like the idea of modern tv with 10-15 episodes, seems like most of the time its less filler and wasted time.

That's very interesting because you describe the opposite of what it seems to be to me. The seasons of PIC and DIS contain a lot of filler, whereas the 90s' trek series had (at least) one full story in each episode.

Maybe we have different definitions of filler. Maybe it is even difficult to compare what a filler is in a serialized story against what a filler is in episodes. Having the serialized format with a presented goal we are supposed to be running to, a lot of things that are not contributing to it, are just feeling like filler - basically everything Rios does in the first eight episodes of PIC season 2 can be considered a filler. But in a season with completely independent episodes, something that is only a filler in a serialized story, could be its own story episode - although Rios' season 2 hardly qualifies. But the Agent Wells-story could be done as an independent stand-alone episode, but in the serialized context it really just felt like a filler that wasted time to get to the real goal!
What would you say is a filler or is not a filler, e.g. with the examples from PIC season 2?

I think, PIC season 2 has probably up to 70 % filler and DIS season 2 hunts a red herring for 9 episodes. Whereas 90s trek surely had sometimes a terrible episode in its collection of 26 episodes per season, but at least they had 26 stories of which some were incredible.

Regarding wasted time:
If I recapitulate a 90s trek series' season, I used 26 tv hours to find something like 22 one-hour-stories and 2 two-hour-stories that are fully-fleshed out (some great, some terrible).
And for a 20s serialized trek series' season, I used 10-15 tv hours to find something like one 2- or 3-hour-story that left most questions open and possibilities unused and, if you are lucky, one or two additional 1-one-hour-side story.

Having said that: Only 3 episodes in, SNW is already doing very well with it, no fillers at all!

 

[DesolationGod]

That's very interesting because you describe the opposite of what it seems to be to me. The seasons of PIC and DIS contain a lot of filler, whereas the 90s' trek series had (at least) one full story in each episode.

Maybe we have different definitions of filler. Maybe it is even difficult to compare what a filler is in a serialized story against what a filler is in episodes. Having the serialized format with a presented goal we are supposed to be running to, a lot of things that are not contributing to it, are just feeling like filler - basically everything Rios does in the first eight episodes of PIC season 2 can be considered a filler. But in a season with completely independent episodes, something that is only a filler in a serialized story, could be its own story episode - although Rios' season 2 hardly qualifies. But the Agent Wells-story could be done as an independent stand-alone episode, but in the serialized context it really just felt like a filler that wasted time to get to the real goal!
What would you say is a filler or is not a filler, e.g. with the examples from PIC season 2?

I think, PIC season 2 has probably up to 70 % filler and DIS season 2 hunts a red herring for 9 episodes. Whereas 90s trek surely had sometimes a terrible episode in its collection of 26 episodes per season, but at least they had 26 stories of which some were incredible.

Regarding wasted time:
If I recapitulate a 90s trek series' season, I used 26 tv hours to find something like 22 one-hour-stories and 2 two-hour-stories that are fully-fleshed out (some great, some terrible).
And for a 20s serialized trek series' season, I used 10-15 tv hours to find something like one 2- or 3-hour-story that left most questions open and possibilities unused and, if you are lucky, one or two additional 1-one-hour-side story.

Having said that: Only 3 episodes in, SNW is already doing very well with it, no fillers at all!

When I think of filler, i think of a show like the xfiles, where there was an overarching plot(albeit not so well fleshed out) but most of the episodes were pointless creature/supernatural event of the week where scully seemed to forget literally everything she saw after the episode was over. Sure that was the style of show at the time, doesn't make it less filler and overall contributed nothing to the story(a story that if they didn't try to include it would of made the format tolerable) and made scully's skepticism seem ridiculous over time.

For picard, I thought the whole thing in the past was drawn out a bit, but I wouldn't really describe it as filler as the point of the season was about picard and the others were side stories. Side stories I can't really view as filler when they are actually leading to a conclusion as for example rios plot was heading somewhere, to him staying in the past with his new family.

 

[dupersuper]

When I think of filler, i think of a show like the X-Files, where there was an overarching plot(albeit not so well fleshed out) but most of the episodes were pointless creature/supernatural event of the week where Scully seemed to forget literally everything she saw after the episode was over. Sure that was the style of show at the time, doesn't make it less filler and overall contributed nothing to the story(a story that if they didn't try to include it would of made the format tolerable) and made Scully's skepticism seem ridiculous over time.

When I think of the term filler I think of people who can't seem to enjoy a single self contained story without it tying into a longer arc.

 

[DesolationGod]

When I think of the term filler I think of people who can't seem to enjoy a single self contained story without it tying into a longer arc.

Or perhaps some like me are just over shows being cancelled early and stories not being finished because instead of focusing on the overall plots of the show, they filled it with nonsense.. The show manifest comes to mind, interesting premise, insanely stupid execution trying to milk a show that could of worked as a mini series with a contained plot instead of drawn out with no obvious intention of finishing the story. To me in shows that are designed for self contained stories, they work well, if you got overarching plots as part of your show, focus on those points. I felt picard's second season did ok for the most part with that in my view, with discovery i got a love/hate relationship with it in general.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Picard's backstory is only filler if Star Trek is spaceship porn and registry numbers to you.

 

[gvn2fly]

Picard's backstory is only filler if Star Trek is spaceship porn and registry numbers to you.

Picard's backstory is not filler to me, spending half an episode in an imaginary place in his mind with him talking to an imaginary doctor and *still* not finding out what happened in his past until a later episode is filler to me. The details of his past are fine, but it's how they were presented that many (including me) had issues with.

 

[Danja]

Picard's backstory is only filler if Star Trek is spaceship porn and registry numbers to you.

And arguments over the angles of nacelles.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Caught up with the final three episodes today. Boy, that was a self-indulgent bloated hot mess of fanwank with few redeeming features. It could have been half the length and told the same story - at least it would have taken up less of my time. If you enjoyed it, fair enough - I should learn to give up early rather than indulge in a sunk-cost fallacy. It reminded me a bit of Torchwood season 4 and not just because that also had John de Lancie in it. The side plot about Soong's "daughter" reminded me of the Dr. Evil and his son Scott in the first Austin Powers movie. She seemed to exist only so she could be used to shoehorn in an appearance by Wesley Crusher.

 

[TedShatner10]

Caught up with the final three episodes today. Boy, that was a self-indulgent bloated mess of fanwank with few redeeming features. It could have been half the length and told the same story - at least it would have taken up less of my time. If you enjoyed it, fair enough - I should learn to give up early rather than indulge in a sunk-cost fallacy. It reminded me a bit of Torchwood season 3 and not just because that also had John de Lancie in it.

You mean Torchwood Season 4? That's going some way back, I've almost forgotten it, but yeah it shared a similar problem of being dragged out unnecessarily for the plot (though PIC's story arc for S2 was better in conception, even if it was similarly flawed).

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Yeah, I meant Torchwood season 4. The writers of that and of Picard don't really get how to create a coherent serialised story in the manner of Babylon 5. Trying to hang everything off Picard's childhood trauma didn't really work. I'm sure Gaius Baltar, I mean Maurice Picard could have gotten PTSD counselling for Jean-Luc even if he didn't do it himself.

 

[TedShatner10]

Thing is, I knew what was happening more with S2 of PIC in comparison to Miracle Day with its Mystery Flesh Pit turning everybody nearly unkillable and it ended on a less bitter, depressing, and anti-clamatic note than TW's S4 did (that arguably contributed to killing the series).

I didn't mind the deep dive into Picard's childhood tragedy (because something was always rather "off" about Picard's Luddite brother and nephew way back in "Family").

EDIT - Yeah, S1 of Picard was more like Children Of Earth (dark but feels very fresh and engaging) while S2 was more like Miracle Day (overlong for its material, leaning too much on action).

 

[dupersuper]

. I'm sure Gaius Baltar, I mean Maurice Picard could have gotten PTSD counselling for Jean-Luc even if he didn't do it himself.

They didn't get help for his wife: why start now?

 

[Charles Phipps]

They didn't get help for his wife: why start now?

Fans keep wanting Maurice Picard to believe in psychotherapy when he doesn't.

Which is oddly enough a good Covid-19 metaphor.

Picard's parents were science deniers and it ruined their lives in the pro-science series.