Huh. Picard's dad was a scientologist.
Spoilers Is Picard season 2 a failure?
- Thread starter Ometiklan
- Start date
Huh. Picard's dad was a scientologist.
In the first draft script of "The Battle", Jean-Luc Picard recalled, "My father used to say, 'Nature is the best medicine for a troubled mind.'" However, later in the same scripted scene, he considered that his father may have been incorrect, concluding, "The best medicine for a troubled mind is a good woman."
A shame that line isn't there because it says everything about Maurice Picard.
Perhaps that was the point?
The episode was written in the bowels of the pandemic.
I mean it may be too subtle but Maurice Picard being a counselor and Picard refusing psychotherapy plus what happened to Yvette?
I mean, it pretty much shows, "This was spectacularly unhealthy and ruined lives."
I don't think Maurice was a counsellor in real life. Jean Luc's subconscious inserted him into that role in a coma-dream, and also concealed his identity despite clearly showing his face. It doesn't mean Maurice was a counsellor in real life, any more than it means Jean Luc had forgotten what his father's face looked like. Dreams are just weird like that.
No, I believe it is representative of a theme in the show's storytelling.
Misplaced overweening pride over technophobia done the Picard clan in, indirectly incurring one suicide and one house fire, both easily avoidable domestic tragedies on Earth past the 22nd century (and its reflected in the extreme militant pride of the Confederacy and Borg).
It was a necessary labyrinth in order for Picard to finally commit to Laris.
Surely that cuts both ways?
That is; if it's so inconsequential, why bother to fiddle around with it at all?
Artists going to art.
I enjoyed it. The acting was very good. Loved seeing Guinan, Q, and Crusher (briefly). I loved the cast and characters. It is a bit sad to see Picard so old, but he is my all time favorite Star Trek character. Was it perfect? No. But TNG and DS9 were not perfect either even though they are my all time favorite shows in any genre.
I don't follow...
Artists always want to leave their mark in some way on a piece, either original work or working inside an established franchise.
I recall my first experience with this. In 11th grade/junior year of high school I had a short story assignment for my English class. I asked a good friend of mine who was a very talented artist, if he would be willing to draw a cover with the three main characters. He was willing but asked if he could draw it in a style he was currently experimenting with, rather than closer to more realistic like he usually did. He said it was something he liked to do to give it his own little flourish, something unique. So, even though it was my story he wanted to add his touch.
So, when I look at art, even within an established franchise, artists are going to want to add their own touches, even in what would largely be considered small ways. A change in the angle of the nacelles may seem minor, so minor as to not require a change. Except, that, it matters to them and they want to add that little change.
Reminds me of a story my uncle told when he was a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) instructor for the US Army. A private in his class lamented the lack of individuality within the US Army. My uncle's friend and assistant instructor smiled and unbuttoned his camouflage uniform top revealing rainbow patterned suspenders to keep his uniform pants up. He said "You can make your own individuality if you know how to do it."
A very small thing can mean a world of difference to people.
That's a very thoughtful way of looking at it.
I think, though, that there's a time and place for people "tweaking" something. Sometimes you want a faithful recreation. I've seen some gorgeous renders of the original Constitution-class; one can't help but wonder why the focus isn't on the audience rather than people wanting to "make their stamp".
I suppose the part that's a bit irksome is that this is a well-established ship, with a well-established set of characters and so on. It seems a little disingenuous to want to cash in on something that's well-loved to get attention, but then not want to have to play by the rules it's established.
The vessel they've done is a lovely design and wayyy better than the fairly ugly Fisher Price-esque versions that popped up in the JJ Abrams trilogy. But it isn't the original Enterprise. And given we don't have any alternate universe shenanigans to gloss over it with, that feels like an unnecessary change for the audience, even if pleases the artist.
Needs of the many, needs of the few or the one, etc etc.
Artists are there to please themselves, not just the audience. They are not recreation machines, but people who want to add their touch.
I think this is far more of people expecting strict literal interpretation, rather than allowing for dramatic interpretation by creative people. For me, I like the SNW Enterprise, not as much as I love the TOS one, or even the Abrams one. But, as vehicles for adventure goes it's perfectly serviceable. Which is all I ask. I'm not looking for historic recreation-I'm looking for creativity, artistry, entertainment and adventure stories.
Are studios artists?? There is a balance to be struck to be sure but an artists want their own touch on their work.Most studios would strongly disagree with you
I think there's a three-way concern - the studio, the artist(s), the audience.
Depending on the job in question, the balance might lean one way or the other.
For example - if you took over as the SFX guy on a show, I think they'd expect you to maintain the same look. I don't think you could change the look of a ship mid-season because you were new and "wanted to put your stamp on it".
I'd personally argue the same applies in-universe (or, "in-franchise").
Yes, but that's not what happened with Trek. New show, new ideas.
Similar threads
