• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 3x03 - "Seventeen Seconds"

Engage!

  • Total voters
    264
Commander Troi said:
1987 was pretty scary IIRC
Click to expand...
Granted, we're talking about a time when I was 8, so it's not like I was watching the news, but I don't remember 1987 being scary.

If anything, wasn't this the year Reagan said, "Gorbachev! Tear down this wall!"? The Cold War was ending.

There were drugs and crime, but not something I would've noticed because I wasn't hanging out on the streets. I wasn't allowed to leave my backyard. Maybe there's something there. I remember those stupid McGruff commercials with that ridiculous jingle. "Users are losers, and losers are users, so don't do drugs, don't do drugs! Take a bite out of crime!"
 
Last edited:
Farscape One said:
I see nothing wrong with having characters you want to aspire to be. A lot of characters in the franchise are ones people would aspire to be like.
Click to expand...
Well, with due respect but you're approaching this like I'm saying something is wrong with it. I'm not.

I'm asking is that the draw? It isn't for me with most fictional characters, save for the occasional like Spock, or Greenwood's Pike. As I replied to @Commander Troi my aspirations come from a different place, which I will concede is not everyone's experience. So I am trying to appreciate other people's experience and why this season is not as appealing. It's interesting ot me because I have little, if any, emotional investment in these characters. So, when I see people saying there's "damage" I am trying to wrap my mind around what motivates that response.
 
fireproof78 said:
I recall being more scared of my dad than 87 but I was still quite young and that changed over time.

Regardless, I guess I don't have the hero worship for fictional characters. I enjoy them to be sure, but I enjoy them because they show moving through struggles rather than any specific aspirational quality. I'm sure I had heroes but they were largely real life, or the infatuation was more short lived. Or my memory is failing, but I definitely recall liking the characters, but always creating my own to interact with them. Or, if I was aspiring to be like them it was always through my sense of values, i.e. balance vs. logic and emotion, or courage in the face of fear.

But, then, I was an odd child who like The Ten Commandments, TOS and Star Wars growing up.
Click to expand...

You pretty much made my point for me.

Balance of logic vs. emotion, courage while facing your greatest fears, having a strong sense of morality and values, etc... these are all things that are wonderful traits to have and to shoot for.

And the ability to make progress despite struggles is something to aspire to, because a lot of people can't do that.

You don't need to have hero worship for these characters, but their presence helps remind us that we can do and be those things, even when real life people try to prove you otherwise.
 
Farscape One said:
You pretty much made my point for me.
Click to expand...
Except I don't have the disappointment that others have around these characters. So, while I see part of your point, I don't get this emotional response, so I'm still confused.

Farscape One said:
You don't need to have hero worship for these characters, but their presence helps remind us that we can do and be those things, even when real life people try to prove you otherwise.
Click to expand...
Ok, but, again maybe my experience is way out of line, but I had that with real people, either historical or in my real life. Sppock was probably the closest thing when I hit a certain age, but that was due to him being more of an outsider, than anything specifically aspirational.

Again, I think I understand your point, but the disappointment and the "damage" (as you put it) is where I struggle far more.

ETA: And a little bit of Obi-Wan Kenobi, but that changed over time.
 
fireproof78 said:
Except I don't have the disappointment that others have around these characters. So, while I see part of your point, I don't get this emotional response, so I'm still confused.


Ok, but, again maybe my experience is way out of line, but I had that with real people, either historical or in my real life. Sppock was probably the closest thing when I hit a certain age, but that was due to him being more of an outsider, than anything specifically aspirational.

Again, I think I understand your point, but the disappointment and the "damage" (as you put it) is where I struggle far more.
Click to expand...

Well, being an outsider gives you a very unique perspective. I've been an outsider for a vast majority of my life. So I totally understand why Spock is s draw for you.

Regarding damage, maybe the closest parallel I can draw is this... Bill Cosby. All of us older than 35 know THE COSBY SHOW and how Cliff Huxtable was pretty much America's dad. Cosby was part and parcel with the character and the image. Then we find out what he did with all those women. Now we can never look at Cliff Huxtable the same way again.

Granted, this is not an exact parallel, but it's the closest and most immediate example I can think up right now.
 
Farscape One said:
Regarding damage, maybe the closest parallel I can draw is this... Bill Cosby. All of us older than 35 know THE COSBY SHOW and how Cliff Huxtable was pretty much America's dad. Cosby was part and parcel with the character and the image. Then we find out what he did with all those women. Now we can never look at Cliff Huxtable the same way again.
Click to expand...
That helps bridge the gap a little further. Again, I don't share the same affinity for Cosby, though I did enjoy the Cosby show as well as his stand up routines and listened to them on LPs. However, I guess disappointment is the best emotion to share, because that is something I don't revisit. I close the door and walked away from it when it became apparent. Similarly to Liam Neeson for different reasons though.

Fictional characters just have a way different draw than that, so if a character is "damaged" due to a future installment, I usually just go back to the older installments and watch those, and close the door on the others that are less that satisfying.

I'm not doing a great job of explaining myself and this all sounds very clinical no doubt. But, my head processes around fictional characters is way different than many fans than I encountered, and I can only look at it, and, like Spock, raise and eyebrow and go "Fascinating" because I don't have the same experience.

That's not wrong; that's life.
 
Farscape One said:
But the one thing that completely makes it out of character is Riker publicly telling Picard, "You just killed us all."
Click to expand...
It's these wild swings of temperament and opinion that are hard to swallow.

And yeah, I keep wanting Gene Hackman from Crimson Tide to come on board and slap these bozos around. These aren't conversations you have on the bridge. I hate to think that this is reflective of how the writers and directors behave.

Fingers crossed that all will become clear and it all makes sense in later episodes.

Aspirational: Whatever the word is, we didn't watch these folk for 35 years because they were dislikable jerks or stupid.
 
Farscape One said:
It's rather out of place when you consider how friendly Picard and Riker were only 2 episodes ago.
Click to expand...

Tuskin38 said:
It's not out of place, they're in a different situation now.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Personal friendliness is one thing, but command deck decisions are different. I feel they have almost made a POINT of Picard's gaffes regarding changes in Starfleet, and yet he is an Admiral and a legend and the crew knows it.

Riker needs to get the distraction off of the bridge. He HIMSELF, I think is distracted by Picard, because Picard WAS good at those decisions. Picard is a friend, but Picard has just gotten a large mental shock learning about a son, he's also retired and not up on current Starfleet regs, he's also NOT the captain or captain pro tempore, and he's not being a good first officer because a first officer offers alternatives but then once the decision is made, enacts it without second guessing the Captain in front of the drew.
 
Fireproof78...

Fair enough. It's another perspective, and it definitely has merit. I'm just not a psychoanalyst and that's not my go to thought process. My wife would qualify more in that realm.

But I'm glad I was able to make my thought process a little clearer.
 
Tallguy said:
Aspirational: Whatever the word is, we didn't watch these folk for 35 years because they were dislikable jerks or stupid.
Click to expand...
One can appreciate a character and still not aspire to be like them. My favorite shows are MASH, NCIS and JAG, and there are a couple of characters I might like and maybe utilize some of their wisdom, but the main characters in MASH, especially early on? Hardly aspirational.

Again, balance.
Farscape One said:
I'm just not a psychoanalyst and that's not my go to thought process. My wife would qualify more in that realm.
Click to expand...
Your wife went to psychoanalyst school? Cool if so.
 
fireproof78 said:
One can appreciate a character and still not aspire to be like them. My favorite shows are MASH, NCIS and JAG, and there are a couple of characters I might like and maybe utilize some of their wisdom, but the main characters in MASH, especially early on? Hardly aspirational.

Again, balance.

Your wife went to psychoanalyst school? Cool if so.
Click to expand...

She has a psychology degree, and she does use it. She analyzes many things... sometimes to my detriment. :)
 
Farscape One said:
She has a psychology degree, and she does use it. She analyzes many things... sometimes to my detriment. :)
Click to expand...
I mean, I do as well, but my wife does the analysis, much to my detriment as well.

I was more curious if she had attended a Freudian school of psychoanalysis, which actually still exists in England, if I recall my history of psychology class correct.
 
Episode 4 spoilers
The preview photos show Picard in the Captain's chair and Riker in the first officer chair, so I think Riker and Picard will talk it out
 
Farscape One said:
I can accept there being opposing views between Riker and Picard on what to do. I can even buy there being some anger in the mix. But the one thing that completely makes it out of character is Riker publicly telling Picard, "You just killed us all."

That was phenomenally over the top, not just in the fact he did say it but in front of the whole bridge crew... never mind the fact it was Riker who gave the order, and the responsibility ultimately falls on him. Riker was never one to shift responsibility or blame to someone else for his actions or orders.
Click to expand...

Or he was never ALLOWED to ... until now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top