Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 3x08 - "Surrender"

[gweeps]

Maybe Nagilum is back?!

 

[Tosk]

RIP Earl Boen.

Showing off: I edited the novelization of that movie, back in the day. As I recall, it sold pretty well.

Now I know who to blame for the spelling error that pops up repeatedly throughout the book. It's supposed to be Lois and Clark, not Lewis and Clark.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Jack is just a candle in the wind.

Did Elton rewrite the song again?

 

[The Old Mixer]

Spoiler: Shhhh

The soundtracks last listing is “Where it all
Began”.

Take that as you will

I knew we'd see that primordial goo again!

 

[Racefuel]

I knew we'd see that primordial goo again!

Them amino acids again

 

[Cortez]

When I was…younger, I watched film and TV for the plot/story first and all else was quite a bit lower on the list. Finding flaws and inconsistencies was like a sport. Sharing my “discoveries”, though, wasn’t as much fun for others around me as I thought it should have been. Turns out being a 15-22 year old trying to show everyone how clever he is became tiresome. Who knew?
Over time, however, my interest shifted to performances. In part because I can enjoy a good performance more than once (unlike a mystery that only works the first time) and, in part, because after watching enough film and TV, flaws in plot/story become evident almost everywhere (especially if seen more than once). So it’s either abandon all but a very little film and TV (an entirely fair choice) or find something about them to enjoy that renders the flaws moot. Doesn’t always work—some things are really bad (especially if the performances are not sufficient to overcome the other flaws), but this approach has certainly allowed me to enjoy more entertainment than I used to (and made me far less insufferable to those around me…I think. ).

I have to get in here. I genuinely have no problems with plot holes or crazy situations as long as I have faith in the scriptwriters ability to tell a good story. Even an okay story. We don't have a story here at all and we're six plus hours into it. The writers believe that we'll accept all the ridiculous plot contrivances because we're so desperate to see the old crew together. That's genuinely it in a nutshell.

 

[Ovation]

I have to get in here. I genuinely have no problems with plot holes or crazy situations as long as I have faith in the scriptwriters ability to tell a good story. Even an okay story. We don't have a story here at all and we're six plus hours into it. The writers believe that we'll accept all the ridiculous plot contrivances because we're so desperate to see the old crew together. That's genuinely it in a nutshell.

Of course there’s a story. That you don’t like the story doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

 

[cooleddie74]

Them amino acids again

My favorite pop song from '70s FM radio.

 

[Cortez]

Of course there’s a story. That you don’t like the story doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

There's always a story, but it's as weak as f$%k and doesn't hold up when scrutinized in degree of detail.

 

[Cortez]

any

 

[137th Gebirg]

 

[Ovation]

We don't have a story here at all

And

There's always a story

cannot both be simultaneously true (even in a post-structuralist sense).

I’m not going to say you have to like it (your dislike is a perfectly valid choice) but if you want a meaningful discussion of your criticism of the show, there needs to be some consistency in the criticism. Otherwise, complaints about storytelling inconsistencies will appear…unpersuasive.

 

[NCC-73515]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I don’t like the new phasers at all. Too ray gun.

Too Romulan disruptor pistol.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I don’t like the new phasers at all. Too ray gun.

I'd rather they look like ray guns or more to the point reminiscent of TOS movie era phasers, than something i would use to clean between the cushions of my couch.

 

[thribs]

I just wish there were more traditional phasers. Both handheld and on the ships.

 

[Sketcher]

I don't mind the new phasers. Honestly they look like an evolution of the TNG phasers, but with a handle attachment.

 

[Mr Awe]

And yet, there have been older uses of these colors. From Wiki:
Traditional political mapmakers, at least throughout the 20th century, had used blue to represent the modern-day Republicans, as well as the earlier Federalist Party. This may have been a holdover from the Civil War, during which the predominantly Republican north was considered "blue".
Later, in the 1888 presidential election, Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison used maps that coded blue for the Republicans, the color perceived to represent the Union and "Lincoln's Party", and red for the Democrats.

That doesn't contradict what @SJGardner said earlier. Before 2000, there was a lot of inconsistency about how colors were used to denote the political parties. Different networks had their own schemes. But starting around 2000, it become more standardized.

And, no, the parties didn't switch in the 80s. As this article discusses, the switch occurs between the 1860s and 1936.

When Did Democrats and Republicans Switch Platforms?

Sorry for the tangent but couldn't let the inaccuracies stand!

 

[Danja]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This is a fanwank with T-1000 footage spliced in from Terminator 2.

 

[Tosk]

This is a fanwank with T-1000 footage spliced in from Terminator 2.

Hey, hey...hey. It's true that they spliced T2 footage into the fanwank.
But also Hot Shots Part Deux as well.

 

[Ovation]

Hey, hey...hey. It's true that they spliced T2 footage into the fanwank.
But also Hot Shots Part Deux as well.

If you saw Part Trois, you’d cut Part Deux some slack.