You might want to fix your quote tags. Beyond that, even if you don't count the TNG films they are still fair game for the writers to inform them about Picard. Picard has a rebellious streak-he alludes to it in "Tapestry" and has that artificial heart to prove it.
How? Your making a really generalist statement so provide examples to support your claim. Picards dialogue changed over the course of TNG as well. He went from sounding stiff and militaristic is the first 2 seasons, to a much more relaxed and thoughtful way of speaking in later seasons Whether you 'count them' or not is irrelevant. The point is that we've seen changes in Picards personality before. I mean we saw his personality change in TNG. He goes from being a dour stick in the mud during season 1 who hates kids and doesn't make personal attachments to his crew to a guy who plays poker with his crew mates and sees them as family. You might not like those changes, but the character does change because that is what people do in real life.
I just peaked into this thread for the first time. I'm glad Discovery came out two years ago. Because I've had that experience, I was prepared for the onslaught by gatekeepers and neo-purists when it came to Picard.
The "Romulans Only" sign and Picard's treatment of it and purposely escalating the situation, for example. That's a good point about me "counting them which I'll get to in a minute. I will say for right now that I think most of the changes for Picard in TNG were more natural. About not counting them, yes, it's a bit hard to argue that he's out of character when he became more of an action hero for the films, which I believe was partially motivated by request of Patrick Stewart. However, I think an argument is to be made for ignoring some parts of canon that don't work well. Take another franchise like Star Wars for example. Lucas retconned in "midichlorians" as part of the Force. Most fans dislike it and by the time Disney gets it, they completely ignore it. I think most would agree it's for the best. "Tapestry" is an interesting one. I was kind of surprised back then to see Picard was this risk taking womanizer as a young man. And by starting a fight he learned to take risks? It sounds more like it would have made him wiser to NOT take stupid risks. But okay, Picard was a risk taker in his youth, by going along with a revenge scheme over losing a game of space pool, getting into a fight over pride, and getting stabbed in the heart. Well, that was way back then because by the time of him being Captain he came across as much more restrained, thoughtful and by-the-book, most of the time, and I thought he considered by fans in general to be more of the anti-Kirk. So he was rebellious as a young cadet, restrained as a Captain in TNG, then more like Kirk in the films, and by the time he's 90, he's getting people killed because he started problems with the "Romulans Only" sign. His change in First Contact didn't seem natural, it seemed retconned in order to fit the idea of what a typical sci-fi/action film should be. Just like Data saying "oh shiiiiiiiit" when previously we never heard anyone say "shit" in TNG, no matter how crazy the situation. It felt more like, "oh, this is a big time movie, so this is the obligatory comedic moment."
He had to get the Romulans attention. The entire settlement had been blatantly ignoring him. I don't think Picard foresaw Elnor's intervention or that he would kill someone. Elnor's actions are his own and Picard can't be blamed for them. Picard was pretty pissed at Elnor as well, it's not like he said 'thanks bro' gave Elnor a fistbump and went to bed. The whole point of Tapestry was to show Picard that he had never stopped being that risk taker. It was the whole reason he was the Captain of the Federation Flagship. I think he was more of a 'philospher-captain' but he was still one to take risks, and he also didn't follow orders blindly as evidenced by the amount of times he argued with Admiralty.
Does no one remember Jean-Luc's little bridge speech in "A Matter Of Time"? "To try or not to try, to take a risk or to play it safe. Your arguments have reminded me how precious the right to choose is. And because I've never been one to play it safe, I choose to try." He definitely has a rogue/rebel side that would have come out a lot more forcefully if he hadn't been a Starfleet officer - it's just that people choose to ignore all this because pop culture's interpretation has somehow made them think Jean-Luc is a by-the-book diplomat who gets offended by the slightest idea of not playing by the rules. I will admit that he does play things by the book when there is a higher purpose need for it (such as there was in "The Wounded" when he refused to follow Maxwell along - because he was there to preserve the peace between the Federation and Cardassia), but otherwise... nah. I mean we're talking about the guy who takes his ship into the Neutral Zone AND close to the Romulan side of it because his friend said the Iconian homeworld MIGHT be there. Or the dude who didn't give a damn about "inconveniencing a few squabbling delegates" (direct quote) whose negotiations he was supposed to arbitrate and instead took his ship on a tour and followed a series of breadcrumb clues his old mentor left behind because he wanted to know what was up with that. In short: Jean-Luc is a risk taker - he just usually acts calm and rational around it, making himself look like an innocent cinnamon roll, but he's actually a cinnamon roll that bites into YOU first if you're not careful. He wouldn't have been the captain of the Federation's flagship if he hadn't been the risk taker that he is. As "Tapestry" wonderfully demonstrates. And now that he's no longer bound by Starfleet AND older AND less in control of his emotions... yup, rebel!Jean-Luc galore.
He didn't "get people killed." He's not a captain nor he is responsible for how Elnor intervened. And he isn't always restrained as a captain. He was, after all, the captain selected for the mission to infiltrate the Cardassians. I think he is more contemplative as a captain, but that rebelliousness never altogether left. Which brings me to: On this point I completely disagree. Picard is a man who prides himself on a measure of control. But, then he is put face to face with his most traumatizing event. He becomes irrational, angry, and driven by revenge. All of that is consistent with trauma. Yes, of course, it is amped up in a film, rather than an episode. But, I think Picard coming face to face with one his most traumatizing events would bring out some intense emotions. I think that Picard became more in touch with his rebellious side as he grew older.
I agree with this, and I'm not the biggest fan of First Contact. I thought Picard's Captain Ahab breakdown came out 6 years too late. It was manufactured for that movie and I never bought it. Just like I never bought that it took someone from the 21st century to talk him down. Dr. Crusher and Worf shouldn't have been undermined for a film guest star. Dr. Crusher's job is to remove the Captain if she deems him unfit.
Disagree. But mileage will vary. On this point I am more likely to agree here too a point. Picard was so myopic that it took an outsider to actually shake him out of it.
I thought the 6 years made it more believable. He was living with his trauma for six years, suppressed it for a very long time until he couldn't anymore and all that was boiling inside him for all those years came out at once EDIT: Thinking about it...Deanna, you had ONE job!