Agree with basically all of this, and a few criticisms more. Picard S1 was problematic but at least had some entertainment value; S2 is just awful. Discovery similarly got worse with time. Prodigy is the only Star Trek show that's hitting it out of the park for me. I'm hoping against hope that Picard S3 hits it (and Strange New Worlds) but if you can't write a corking season of Star Trek when you have Patrioc Stewart, Jeri Ryan, John De Lancie, appearances by the Borg Queen and Guinan, a mirror universe and guest stars like James Callis - I mean wow, very likely you can take the whole TNG cast and royally screw that up too.
Oddly, a lot of people love the new premise of DISCO. I am not one of them because I wanted them to go further into the prequel business and hate that they're never going to return.
Fingers crossed that Strange New Worlds finally goes there. Anson Mount was one of the few high spots in DISCO season 2.
I actually prefer serialized television to episodic as I find it a more engaging type of storytelling, but I agree with you that the current incarnations of Trek haven't pulled it off successfully (although I really liked season 2 of Disco and feel that is probably the most successful season of serialized Trek to date). I think there is a valid question to be asked, is Trek conducive to purely serialized format? I think it is but I think the execution of it is challenging to pull off. I think what has happened with Picard and the latest seasons of Disco is that the writers wanted to balance the main narrative of the season with "B" plots designed to build character. The problem is, as very apparent in this second half of Picard season 2, the writers got lost in those side stories and push the main plot back to the point the pacing becomes glacial. Also the prevalence of "mystery boxes" that don't get solved until the final episode is another issues. After nine episodes of season 2, we still have no idea as to why Q changed the timeline and why it matters. Character motivation is what drives story, and we should've learned this MUCH earlier to give us a sense of the "risk." Why does this matter to Q? What does he have to gain or lose by making these changes etc. Even why it's so important that Renee Picard goes on the Europa Mission was somewhat resolved by episode 8 which again, ridiculously too late to be giving vital information like that. That being said, I've enjoyed the season despite its very obvious flaws. I think there have been some wonderful character moments. Its clear the season was beset by behind the scenes issues: change in writers, Terry Matalas focusing more on season three after the first few episodes of season two were written, Akiva Goldsmith showrunning Strange New World while showrunning the second half of season 2 of Picard, COVID delays and changes to the story to accommodate health and safety restrictions in place etc.
Failure means it failed to do what the producers wanted it to do, which is enhance shareholder value of Paramount/CBS product machine. I raved about it early on. Don’t feel like cataloging my dislikes that accumulated, the biggest of which are the unnecessary psuedo-Freudian flashbacks never, ever hinted at/discussed w/ JL’s dear friends in Seven years of tv and four flicks. Failure, prob not, but a disappointment, yes. Give us a ripping, coherent yarn. The dude’s distant. Fine. He grew out of it a lot through TNG up through going to the last poker game. Fine. This gothic horror mommy BS was almost Trek jumping the shark for me. ymmv
I have enjoyed it, but I guess I was hoping for Q to feature more, Tapestry-style. One final test for Jean Luc. I was also hoping Whoopi would have a scene with De Lancie, and that her sensing something isn't right, like in Yesterday's Enterprise, is what gets Picard to go into the past. I was hoping her appearance would be plot-motivated, rather than a catch up between Stewart and Goldberg. That first encounter between Picard and Q was so strong. I think it's lost its way a bit after that. Spiner has been excellent, but some of it has felt a bit contrived. The best stuff in the past, I think, was the stuff with Rios.
Stewart might not. I'm highly reserved in person. I function but I know the source of my reserved nature. Sounds like Stewart wanted Picard to explore that reason. Now, as a function in a story the success will vary.
I find this to be extremely dismissive to people who have close relatives suffering from mental illness and suicide like, say, me. Plenty of RL people cope with trauma like spouse abuse, childhood trauma, and suicide--I'm not sure what exactly the "insult" of making Captain Picard into something like this is. What is wrong with us that you don't want Picard to be one of us? I speak from experience when I think this was handled very well--though perhaps a bit too glamorous in the way it was finally framed. Suicide is anything but glamorous.
For 35 years, Picard has been written as the model human being, the ideal man. A role model others are expected to emulate. To suddenly load him down with these issues is off-putting to a lot of people. It's the same reason people complain about the crying on Disco (it's as if Starfleet officers are expected to blithely accept that they're never going to see their families and loved ones ever again).
Why? Even here people extol the stereotypical stiff upper lip for Picard, championing a stoic attitude. Picard is pretty normal here.
I should point out that for 32 years of that time period, Picard has been written as a man suffering horrific PTSD from being assimilated by the Borg. A man who was utterly crippled by the event that he endured and only managed to cope with that by forcing himself to move on. This is adding a childhood trauma to the man but the idea that Picard is a character is an ideal and paragon with no tragedy hasn't been true since Best of Both Worlds.
It isn't an insult. It also isn't necessary. It feels like lazy writing to take a character who is more reserved in his way and insist that the only way he could be so is via emotional trauma. Can't he just be reserved? Particularly as someone in the 24th century with access to a world of understanding better than ours?
True, but at least that was well signposted. And largely assumed to be resolved in First Contact, until yet again he had to be portrayed as a "man in constant agony" rather than a beneficiary of the more enlightened age Roddenberry wrote the 24th century to be (you know, where they're so in-balance that they have a counsellor serving on the bridge).
Resolved is an odd part of mental health. Picard's statement about "every day" in Season 1 to Seven is very appropriate. It's a journey not a destination. And age does different things to people.
It's an odd part now. For better or worse, in 1987 the writer's bible for TNG created a world in which humans were more evolved: they didn't ordinarily have interpersonal conflict, or suffer everyday disease, or succumb to baser emotions, or suffer mental health issues without resolution. That's the world the character inhabits, and it seems the modern production team want to cash in on the brand and star value, but rewrite the rules, and it just makes it wildly inconsistent. Not to mention that people-suffering-trauma is one of the oldest tropes in fiction, and is even more prevalent today. Michael Burnham has trauma. Poke will have trauma. Where's the representation of folk who just fancy keeping themselves to themselves more as a sensibility? Why the need to grant, even 35 years in, ever character a hitherto-unseen trauma, as though the only plausible reason for them not being a raving extrovert would be pain?
It's very rare that someone completely "moves on". Trauma has a way of rearing its ugly head just when you least expect it.
Exactly. He's been wearing mysterious scars ever since he first told another crewman he was uncomfortable around children. Picard S2 has finally dragged them into the light to be addressed. He was afraid of passing schizophrenia on to his kids.