Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 3x02 - "Disengage"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Several of you made similar comments:
The others: yes, it could be a squishy situation when in a crisis, and you could have the crew just follow orders from a retired admiral who barks orders, but that isn't the normal way things work in Starfleet. In practically any previous version of this scene, the captain (in actual command) would have ordered security to remove the uppity "official" from the bridge in a time of crisis, not just handed them the keys. This very thing basically happened in Generations, and Captain Harriman didn't just hand over command to Kirk, but did take advice. That was a friendlier situation, and even though they didn't say so explicitly, it seemed clear from Scotty's, Kirk's, and Harriman's reactions that Kirk didn't have actual command authority.
Re: a plot hole. I still think this is the very definition of plot hole. It runs counter to the entire point of a previous scene without any explanation of why not. We can speculate an infinity of hypothetical reasons (like that the crew just all decided to go along with it) that might be reasonable under some conditions, but on the face of it, this scene directly contradicts the previous.
Thinking about it, I don't know if I could name any positive actions or positive developments that take place in PIC s1 (outside of the main/hero characters) until maybe the last couple of episodes of the season. It is almost unrelentingly negative until then. I am sure I am forgetting some things, but thinking back, it is just seems so bleak: the news reporter, the Romulan kill squads, infiltrated Starfleet with no one noticing, Starfleet abandoning the Romulans, accepting Picard's resignation, Clancy, Seven's revenge, Rios's whole backstory, the Riker/Troi backstory (I guess Thad and Kestra are positives, but Thad dies and Kestra doesn't get to do anything), the whole reason for the Fenris Rangers, the hell planet that is Freecloud, treatment of the XBs, etc. Ugh.
Though that doesn't really explain Discovery (in either century)...
As for tone vs substance: that is definitely one of my objections to DIS and PIC. While how much of a difference in substance there is (how "bad" things were depicted in "old Trek" vs NuTrek) can be argued, I think the tone is very much darker, and I don't like it. It is hard to reconcile the tones of DIS and PIC with those of LDS, SNW, and PRO. Each of LDS, SNW, and PRO have darker, edgier elements that fit in with "modern" ideas of television and get away from the campier, supposedly too-idealistic elements of 90s Trek, but those three series manage to walk the line, staying on the good side of a dark tone.
That said, so far, PIC season 3 is a vast improvement in tone. I just hope it continues.
Despite that the episode was decent and pretty fun, I always disliked VOY's ultimate approach to "Author, Author": that they failed to reference (in all but the most tangential way) the obvious precedent from "Measure of a Man" and thus seemingly forgot a seminal moment in Trek and what it should mean for the rights of artificial persons in the Federation. Also, the coda - while cute in its depiction of an oppressed minority and the potential future revolution (that apparently never came) - was pretty dumb in that why would the Federation use hugely complex holograms that were developed as and ultimately considered failures as doctors when they could use simple mining robots or transporters (or even that particle fountain from "The Quality of Life"?)? But really, how do you write a whole "artificial rights" episode and not mention MOAM?
As for Seven killing Bjayzl: while I kind of like the execution (no pun intended) of the story of Seven getting revenge on this obviously evil person, I still think it does a major disservice to the character of Seven and the "character" of Starfleet/the Federation/Star Trek. It doesn't really fit in Trek. That a main heroic character, "raised" by Janeway to understand the principles of the Federation and what it means to be human and in Starfleet (though she technically wasn't), who developed and demonstrated a set of principles and morals throughout 4 years of VOY, would decide to beam back down and in cold blood kill someone (even a ruthless gangster), and suffer no consequences to her psyche, to her reputation, or any criminal penalties (as far as we have seen), undermines what Star Trek is supposed to be about. Even when Sisko did his most questionable acts (e.g., "In the Pale Moonlight", "For the Uniform"), it was done knowingly, with an examination and recognition of the ethical questions and consequences of the actions. In Seven's story, it was more like a "look at her being badass and violating some moral/ethical boundaries to get petty revenge on someone who harmed her" without ever addressing what any of it was trying to say about her character as a person. I don't think they were actually concerned about what it meant for her character, especially as it has never been referenced again.
I don’t think Picard suddenly has actual authority. I read the scene as Picard counting on institutional (military) reflexes. A senior officer starts barking orders, lower ranks fall in line in the heat of the moment. At least, that’s my guess on how the writers approached it. Beyond that, the needs of the drama outweigh the needs of verisimilitude.
Re: Romulan_spy: I don't think he has actual authority. At the dinner table, yeah, Picard does first "suggest" that he and Captain Riker want to change course, and Shaw says no. When Picard says "I'm an admiral" that is essentially pulling rank (if he had it). If Shaw had shot down an active Admiral when pulling rank, he would have been disobeying an order. When Shaw reminds him of his retired status, and turns down Riker who does have rank, but doesn't have a command/is not in the chain of command, I think that is pretty clear that neither Picard nor Riker has authority.
The others: yes, it could be a squishy situation when in a crisis, and you could have the crew just follow orders from a retired admiral who barks orders, but that isn't the normal way things work in Starfleet. In practically any previous version of this scene, the captain (in actual command) would have ordered security to remove the uppity "official" from the bridge in a time of crisis, not just handed them the keys. This very thing basically happened in Generations, and Captain Harriman didn't just hand over command to Kirk, but did take advice. That was a friendlier situation, and even though they didn't say so explicitly, it seemed clear from Scotty's, Kirk's, and Harriman's reactions that Kirk didn't have actual command authority.
Re: a plot hole. I still think this is the very definition of plot hole. It runs counter to the entire point of a previous scene without any explanation of why not. We can speculate an infinity of hypothetical reasons (like that the crew just all decided to go along with it) that might be reasonable under some conditions, but on the face of it, this scene directly contradicts the previous.
Yeah, I know. I agree that they do show Starfleet ships with a variety of strength levels. I just personally think the technology level and capabilities of Starfleet should make any ship (even those that are not the strongest/newest ships) at least contenders in most situations. Look how easily it was for Starfleet to replicate hundreds of the most advanced ships available at the end of S1 (I know that is cheating as that scene is annoyingly dumb); that tech should enable most normal ships to be upgraded easily.
I agree that the Defiant isn't in the weight class of a larger ship like the D or Soverign class. I just called it a battleship as in a ship designed for battle (as opposed to general purpose/non-combat ships Starfleet normally builds). The Defiant isn't able to destroy that Mirror Universe Klingon Flagship either. But the Defiant can take out most anything other than a "superbattleship" level opponent - it can even hold off the Klingon Vor'cha when rescuing the Detapa Council in "Way of the Warrior" even with its shields down (and presumable not firing torpedoes due to lack of shields at that time). Being able to upgrade the 80+ year old Excelsior design to parity could also argue for my contention that Starfleet ships should generally be shown to outclass their otherwise newer opponents via regular upgrades.
+
While I think it is true that there are places or times in earlier Trek where the ideals of the Federation aren't always upheld (that was practically DS9's overarching theme - the series, not the exact setting on DS9 in Bajoran space/the frontier), in previous Trek it always seemed to be more one-offs. One bad admiral, one bad day, or one bad situation. A lot of the situations Uhura's Song mentions are external threats, one-offs, or not as extensive as reported (in ST VI it's only a few command officers as far as we know; a small cabal). And in the end, with a few exceptions, the result was to realize the failure, to try to fix it, or to improve things. Maybe that was somewhat a function of the episodic nature of earlier Trek, but now it seems like failures/dark underbellies/vices are the basic background for whole seasons and not just corruptions of the status quo. In earlier Trek the bad stuff could occur often (we do want/need conflict to help drive drama), but it wasn't the point; it was the exception that proves the rule of a more enlightened, and improving, society.
Thinking about it, I don't know if I could name any positive actions or positive developments that take place in PIC s1 (outside of the main/hero characters) until maybe the last couple of episodes of the season. It is almost unrelentingly negative until then. I am sure I am forgetting some things, but thinking back, it is just seems so bleak: the news reporter, the Romulan kill squads, infiltrated Starfleet with no one noticing, Starfleet abandoning the Romulans, accepting Picard's resignation, Clancy, Seven's revenge, Rios's whole backstory, the Riker/Troi backstory (I guess Thad and Kestra are positives, but Thad dies and Kestra doesn't get to do anything), the whole reason for the Fenris Rangers, the hell planet that is Freecloud, treatment of the XBs, etc. Ugh.
Maybe that is how I need to look at this whole post-Dominion War period - that it was more profoundly affecting than I realized, and even the Federation is seriously damaged by it in the medium term. Not just physically and economically but socially, mentally, and institutionally. Maybe post-PIC-S3, there will be a rebirth, a new golden age, where things aren't so bleak all the time...
Though that doesn't really explain Discovery (in either century)...
I like your take on the ending of S1 of PIC. I wish I "felt" that that was the story that was told. The ending was so rushed and just not explored that I don't really get that that was the message of the show or even the plot (at least as far as Starfleet/the Federation is concerned). Because it was so contracted, when I think back about it, it "feels" to me that Starfleet only really cared that Riker came to them with info on a Romulan plot and they sent a fleet to protect innocent beings. That is kind of the minimum anyone should be able to expect from Starfleet - oppose evil attackers and protect an innocent planet. Because Riker and the fleet warps away immediately and because the synth ban is dealt with offhand in a single line of dialogue, I think it is safe to say the show wasn't really concerned much with those plot lines or what they really said about the Federation at large being damaged or changing/healing. I think the show was more interested in proving to the androids that we weren't all bad because some of us reacted negatively and banned them. And because the show is so serialized, and can really only cover one story a season, there hasn't been any real revisitation to any of the events/characters/arcs from season 1 - it's almost like they keep soft-rebooting this show each season...
As for tone vs substance: that is definitely one of my objections to DIS and PIC. While how much of a difference in substance there is (how "bad" things were depicted in "old Trek" vs NuTrek) can be argued, I think the tone is very much darker, and I don't like it. It is hard to reconcile the tones of DIS and PIC with those of LDS, SNW, and PRO. Each of LDS, SNW, and PRO have darker, edgier elements that fit in with "modern" ideas of television and get away from the campier, supposedly too-idealistic elements of 90s Trek, but those three series manage to walk the line, staying on the good side of a dark tone.
That said, so far, PIC season 3 is a vast improvement in tone. I just hope it continues.
I pulled these two bits out to discuss them separately:
Despite that the episode was decent and pretty fun, I always disliked VOY's ultimate approach to "Author, Author": that they failed to reference (in all but the most tangential way) the obvious precedent from "Measure of a Man" and thus seemingly forgot a seminal moment in Trek and what it should mean for the rights of artificial persons in the Federation. Also, the coda - while cute in its depiction of an oppressed minority and the potential future revolution (that apparently never came) - was pretty dumb in that why would the Federation use hugely complex holograms that were developed as and ultimately considered failures as doctors when they could use simple mining robots or transporters (or even that particle fountain from "The Quality of Life"?)? But really, how do you write a whole "artificial rights" episode and not mention MOAM?
As for Seven killing Bjayzl: while I kind of like the execution (no pun intended) of the story of Seven getting revenge on this obviously evil person, I still think it does a major disservice to the character of Seven and the "character" of Starfleet/the Federation/Star Trek. It doesn't really fit in Trek. That a main heroic character, "raised" by Janeway to understand the principles of the Federation and what it means to be human and in Starfleet (though she technically wasn't), who developed and demonstrated a set of principles and morals throughout 4 years of VOY, would decide to beam back down and in cold blood kill someone (even a ruthless gangster), and suffer no consequences to her psyche, to her reputation, or any criminal penalties (as far as we have seen), undermines what Star Trek is supposed to be about. Even when Sisko did his most questionable acts (e.g., "In the Pale Moonlight", "For the Uniform"), it was done knowingly, with an examination and recognition of the ethical questions and consequences of the actions. In Seven's story, it was more like a "look at her being badass and violating some moral/ethical boundaries to get petty revenge on someone who harmed her" without ever addressing what any of it was trying to say about her character as a person. I don't think they were actually concerned about what it meant for her character, especially as it has never been referenced again.
Last edited:
1. Janeway cut her loose after Voyager reached the Alpha Quadrant.
2. Starfleet rejected her for being Borg. She took out a transwarp conduit -- and killed billons of her relatives in the process -- without receiving any thanks whatsoever from Starfleet.
Interacting with Starfleet may well have left a bad taste in her mouth.
In "The Gift," Seven paints Starfleet as being "hypocritical and manipulative." They didn't seem to do too much to dispel that notion (at least, to her).
Last edited:
One, nothing about Seven as painted as positive. She does what she has to do. It cuts similarly to TOS in terms of decisions that are not always right or positive. Just a grim reality of the situation, i.e. this is a lawless space where someone like Bjayzl would face no consequences if not stopped.
Two, Seven did something similar to the Hirogen and unleashing a Species 8472 on to their ship, knowing it would kill them and against Janeway's wishes.
Finally, what justice should Seven face? She is in a lawless space!
A Fenris Rangers show might've been interesting and played nicely with those Grey themes had it competent writers.
In my head it's something like Justified's first two seasons. Reccurring characters and bad guys tolerated because they're better than the alternatives. Throw in either Seven or some younger character full of piss and vinegar at the idea of justice in a steadily deteriorating area of space. Maybe one of the Warlords that rises up could be a Fenris Ranger themselves, and our main cast are those who are opposed to their methods while many more Rangers join the guy's cause as they're "better than the alternative" of former Romulan Generals and Tal-Shiar trying to run their own petty states.
But this was the era of rotating show runners and trying to be dark and edgy. So an intriguing concept gets ditched after a few lines and becomes an easter egg in the third season.
In my head it's something like Justified's first two seasons. Reccurring characters and bad guys tolerated because they're better than the alternatives. Throw in either Seven or some younger character full of piss and vinegar at the idea of justice in a steadily deteriorating area of space. Maybe one of the Warlords that rises up could be a Fenris Ranger themselves, and our main cast are those who are opposed to their methods while many more Rangers join the guy's cause as they're "better than the alternative" of former Romulan Generals and Tal-Shiar trying to run their own petty states.
But this was the era of rotating show runners and trying to be dark and edgy. So an intriguing concept gets ditched after a few lines and becomes an easter egg in the third season.
I doubt it. I think we’ll get a DNA test next episode based off the end credits sequence
A solid "7". I want to LOVE it but the issues from my last review persist. It makes me want to watch season 1 again: more subtle, better written, breaking new ground for the character with the name on the box.
All is not lost. Revelations coming we are told.
All is not lost. Revelations coming we are told.
I thought too fast. Villain: too fast Shrike: too fast. Worf: too fast
Season one was a mess. It meandered. The need to give data a second death was not necessary and frankly creepy how they did it. Chabon was in charge and it showed on the story. He didn't break new ground with Picard or star trek. He made the characters and show feel like we were watching characters in the 21st century not the late 24th. It did not feel like star trek. The Orville which Camelot at the same time got it better. This third season while not perfect is a whole lot better so far. Without Chabon it might continue to be good. Hopefully.
It was terrific Trek and seems even better in retrospect as my short review on the season suggests.
Give it another once over. Look at it from a different angle. Purge pre-conceptions. You'll probably love it.
Don’t bother with him.
I already watched most of it again in prep for season 3. I still hated it.
While I agree with you, and find Season 1 the most engaging content with Picard, the poster you replied to is not changing. Very conservative Trek opinion and Trek shaped box.
We’re two hours in and have barely moved in the plot or character introductions — which is especially slow since we already know some of the characters. It needs just a little more speed over in the Picard/Riker thread. A little.
The Riker Picard thread is densely plotted. It's full of subtext and information. Give it a second chance. You might be surprised what you might find.
I actually think this season so far has been pretty decently paced. Certainly less languorous than Season 1. It's more arguable with Season 2, because the first two episodes had pretty rapid-fire pace, then almost nothing happened until the final episode.
I mean, they could have kept Raffi's handler a mystery, but instead, they introduced Worf pretty quickly. They also could have had Bev stay unconscious, and have the "mystery" of Jack's father kept unspoken for quite some time. Vadic didn't need to be introduced in the second episode yet either (all it did is provide for scenery chewing).
I can follow all of it, but it is moving very slowly. We established Picard Jnr is a naughty boy — twice — we established he may not be all that naughty — twice — we established Riker thinks he is Picards son — twice — we established New Captain is not an arse — twice.
Everyone knows something is only an established fact if it is repeated three times.
That's the rule of thirds, or something.
I thought that applied to cinematography and visual composition. 
