Kurtzman intentionally killed Legacy?

[Phily B]

So once she realized that her son was going to voluntarily put himself in danger all the time anyway, why didn't she let Picard know of his existence then, if the only reason she kept Jack's existence from Picard a secret was because she feared Jack would be in danger?

Sorry, but no. I have yet to hear any plausible reason why Beverly would keep Jack's existence from Picard (and everyone else) a secret. It's not like Picard was some rogue who constantly put himself in danger anyway. It was just a silly plot device that made no logical sense.

First of all, she didn't know that for years and years because he was a baby and then a child. Then she gave Jack the agency and let him make the decision. This is actually happens in real life quite commonly and in fact - HAPPENED TO ME. She saw all the times he had nearly died, the ship had nearly blown up etc. We're also ignoring the fact she already lost her husband and son to the Starfleet life!

And it was a point of contention in the show as well.

 

[Dukhat]

First of all, she didn't know that for years and years because he was a baby and then a child.

So, what? You assume that Picard would have told Beverly that their son has no other recourse in life than to be a Starfleet officer? That he couldn't just stay on Earth and have a life of his own? That he would force her to take a baby/child on a starship with him if that wasn't what she wanted? That's ridiculously out of character for Beverly to think this.

Then she gave Jack the agency and let him make the decision.

And he chose to put himself in the exact same danger that Beverly hoped to avoid. So what's stopping her from revealing his existence then? So Beverly's logic was "You can't be with your father and I can't tell him you exist because it will put you in danger, but you can get into all the danger you want with me, and I still won't tell your dad you exist because I don't want you to suddenly decide to join Starfleet like he did?"

This is actually happens in real life quite commonly and in fact - HAPPENED TO ME. She saw all the times he had nearly died, the ship had nearly blown up etc. We're also ignoring the fact she already lost her husband and son to the Starfleet life!

And it was a point of contention in the show as well.

It makes Beverly into a ridiculously over-the-top overprotective parent, whose reasoning for said overprotectiveness makes no logical sense. Whatever happened to you in your life notwithstanding.

 

[Phily B]

So, what? You assume that Picard would have told Beverly that their son has no other recourse in life than to be a Starfleet officer? That he couldn't just stay on Earth and have a life of his own? That he would force her to take a baby/child on a starship with him if that wasn't what she wanted? That's ridiculously out of character for Beverly to think this.

No, the point was that Picard was constantly thrusting himself into the limelight, into danger, into action. He was Starfleet, Captain of the Enterprise, in danger all the time. As was said in the show. And as has been evidenced by the shows.

And he chose to put himself in the exact same danger that Beverly hoped to avoid. So what's stopping her from revealing his existence then? So Beverly's logic was "You can't be with your father and I can't tell him you exist because it will put you in danger, but you can get into all the danger you want with me, and I still won't tell your dad you exist because I don't want you to suddenly decide to join Starfleet like he did?"

That's his own agency, as a grown man. She can't keep him away from his father forever, nor a life that he has chose. Wesley Crusher was groomed for Starfleet by growing up around ships, pushed into joining, pretty much set up the whole time on a career path. She didn't want that because she lost two people to it already.

It makes Beverly into a ridiculously over-the-top overprotective parent, whose reasoning for said overprotectiveness makes no logical sense. Whatever happened to you in your life notwithstanding.

They talk about this in the show, they debate whether it was right or wrong and it isn't ridiculous because it happens a lot in real life whether you know it or not. I grew up poor and it felt like a quarter of my friends were to single mothers for various reasons.

 

[Dukhat]

No, the point was that Picard was constantly thrusting himself into the limelight, into danger, into action. He was Starfleet, Captain of the Enterprise, in danger all the time. As was said in the show. And as has been evidenced by the shows.

Again, I will ask why Beverly would have assumed that Picard would want the same life for his son that he had.

That's his own agency, as a grown man. She can't keep him away from his father forever, nor a life that he has chose.

Yet she still didn't tell Picard or the others of Jack's existence. Why?

Wesley Crusher was groomed for Starfleet by growing up around ships, pushed into joining, pretty much set up the whole time on a career path. She didn't want that because she lost two people to it already.

Picard and Beverly both realized in the end that Wesley was not meant for Starfleet, despite all that grooming. Do you not think that they both might have learned any lesson from that?

They talk about this in the show, they debate whether it was right or wrong and it isn't ridiculous because it happens a lot in real life whether you know it or not. I grew up poor and it felt like a quarter of my friends were to single mothers for various reasons.

The show did not give any satisfactory reason why Beverly did what she did. As I mentioned before, it was just a plot device to move the story along.

 

[Tuskin38]

Picard Season 3 was worse than seasons 1 and 2.

Fan service slop with all the same problems the first couple seasons of Discovery had.

 

[Phily B]

Again, I will ask why Beverly would have assumed that Picard would want the same life for his son that he had.

I already answered. And she says why in the show.

Yet she still didn't tell Picard or the others of Jack's existence. Why?

Already answer. And she says why in the show. Not only that, but I'll repeat - it was a point of contention within the show, Picard was rightfully angry.

Picard and Beverly both realized in the end that Wesley was not meant for Starfleet, despite all that grooming. Do you not think that they both might have learned any lesson from that?

Beverly essentially lost her son because of it. If a mother (or anyone) loses a son AND a husband, she probably doesn't want to repeat.

The show did not give any satisfactory reason why Beverly did what she did. As I mentioned before, it was just a plot device to move the story along.

I disagree, but again I have real lived experience of this happening multiple times including my own personal tale. And none of them involved a woman who lost both her husband and son already to that lifestyle. It was a point of contention in the show, it wasn't brush aside, it was illogical but people can be illogical when it comes to emotional issues.

 

[Phily B]

Picard Season 3 was worse than seasons 1 and 2.

Fan service slop with all the same problems the first couple seasons of Discovery had.

A triumph critically, widely well received by fans.

Making your show look like Star Trek is not fan service. Bringing back old characters is not fan service.

 

[Daedalus]

Picard Season 3 was worse than seasons 1 and 2.

Fan service slop with all the same problems the first couple seasons of Discovery had.

2 is better than 3?

 

[Dukhat]

I already answered. And she says why in the show.

What does she say?

Already answer. And she says why in the show. Not only that, but I'll repeat - it was a point of contention within the show, Picard was rightfully angry.

Give me her exact wording, please.

Beverly essentially lost her son because of it. If a mother (or anyone) loses a son AND a husband, she probably doesn't want to repeat.

That response did not answer my question. Knowing that they were wrong about Wesley's future, what makes you think Picard would have forced Beverly to raise their son in the Starfleet way?

I disagree, but again I have real lived experience of this happening multiple times including my own personal tale. And none of them involved a woman who lost both her husband and son already to that lifestyle. It was a point of contention in the show, it wasn't brush aside, it was illogical but people can be illogical when it comes to emotional issues.

I'll agree to disagree about what happened in the show.

 

[Tuskin38]

2 is better than 3?

Slightly

 

[Tuskin38]

A triumph critically, widely well received by fans.

They are blinded by nostalgia. It's full of the same stuff people were complaining about in the first couple seasons of Discovery.

Making your show look like Star Trek is not fan service. Bringing back old characters is not fan service.

It is when it's nothing like the shows those characters come from.

 

[Phily B]

What does she say?

Give me her exact wording, please.

Rewatch the scene in E3 Sickbay where they argue at length about it over five minutes, it was a great scene. Two adults arguing about two different points of view and neither were wrong. I think Picard was more right, but then again I am a man and not a mother. I completely understand Crusher's POV.

That response did not answer my question. Knowing that they were wrong about Wesley's future, what makes you think Picard would have forced Beverly to raise their son in the Starfleet way?

I didn't say Picard would force Beverly to do anything, nor is that implied. It is just Beverly didn't believe for a second Picard would retire from active duty and live a quiet life.

I'll agree to disagree about what happened in the show.

I think it reflects a lot of what happens in real life to many people, it isn't some illogical plot device that is stupid. It isn't out of the blue.

 

[Phily B]

It is when it's nothing like the shows those characters come from.

I am very confused here. You say it is nostalgia driven slop, but then complain that the characters aren't like their characters from 20-30 years ago? Which was one of the driving factors of the show getting made?

 

[Char Kais]

Yet both Picard and Beverly say he's 23/24 despite the show being set in April 2401 and this is despite the previous season being in autumn 2401

Picard season 1 takes place later than 2401

Of course "Romulan sun" doesnt necessarily mean the star of the Romulus system especially as this is a term being used by a very unreliable source. The journalist was shown to not be the most knowledgable or moral.

"the Romulan sun" not "a Romulan sun"

 

[Phily B]

Picard season 1 takes place later than 2401

"the Romulan sun" not "a Romulan sun"

I think the Romulan supernova was a good driver for drama, but it constantly feels like they dropped the ball for it. I think STO did something good with it.

 

[Dukhat]

Rewatch the scene in E3 Sickbay where they argue at length about it over five minutes, it was a great scene. Two adults arguing about two different points of view and neither were wrong. I think Picard was more right, but then again I am a man and not a mother. I completely understand Crusher's POV.

I'm not rewatching anything. You're arguing that Beverly's actions made sense. I'm asking you for proof of that, because I don't find her actions plausible. The onus is on you to provide that proof.

I didn't say Picard would force Beverly to do anything, nor is that implied. It is just Beverly didn't believe for a second Picard would retire from active duty and live a quiet life.

So? Does that mean that she couldn't raise their son how she wanted despite whatever career choices Picard made?

I think it reflects a lot of what happens in real life to many people, it isn't some illogical plot device that is stupid. It isn't out of the blue.

In this case, that's quite arguable.

 

[Phily B]

I'm not rewatching anything. You're arguing that Beverly's actions made sense. I'm asking you for proof of that, because I don't find her actions plausible. The onus is on you to provide that proof.

She literally spells out that every time she went to approach or talk to Picard about it, something disastrous happened. She points out that Picard has never wanted children. It was a well received scene between two actors given some great material. You should watch it, it's probably on YouTube - it's a really good scene because you understand both perspectives.

So? Does that mean that she couldn't raise their son how she wanted despite whatever career choices Picard made?

Again, this is never denied. The point is that Picard being involved was giving her Jack Crusher vibes. Maybe she suffered from some unresolved issues or PTSD rearing it's head, who knows.

In this case, that's quite arguable.

It isn't. In fact, let's move away from fiction - there are dozens of TV shows over the years that are centered around people finding their family or father or whatever for whatever reason. If you grew up in a middle class household, with two parents, then it is probably less understandable or something you don't encounter as much.

 

[Dukhat]

She literally spells out that every time she went to approach or talk to Picard about it, something disastrous happened. She points out that Picard has never wanted children. It was a well received scene between two actors given some great material. You should watch it, it's probably on YouTube - it's a really good scene because you understand both perspectives.

So you're not going to give me the actual dialogue that shows you have proof for your opinions. Gotcha.

Again, this is never denied. The point is that Picard being involved was giving her Jack Crusher vibes. Maybe she suffered from some unresolved issues or PTSD rearing it's head, who knows.

I'm just not buying that. She never showed this behavior before. She certainly didn't have it for the 7 years she allowed Wesley on board the Enterprise-D and having him groomed to be in Starfleet despite what happened to his dad.

It isn't. In fact, let's move away from fiction - there are dozens of TV shows over the years that are centered around people finding their family or father or whatever for whatever reason. If you grew up in a middle class household, with two parents, then it is probably less understandable or something you don't encounter as much.

I seem to be talking to a brick wall here, so I'm going to end this discussion.

 

[Phily B]

So you're not going to give me the actual dialogue that shows you have proof for your opinions. Gotcha

I assume when someone asks me or talks about a scene or show, that they have watched it. My mistake. It's a really powerful scene, you should check it out. I am not about to spend half an hour looking through a script when you can just watch it.

I'm just not buying that. She never showed this behavior before. She certainly didn't have it for the 7 years she allowed Wesley on board the Enterprise-D and having him groomed to be in Starfleet despite what happened to his dad.

One of the driving points of S3 getting made was that the characters have drastically changed. I don't remember Riker being a pizza dad living in the forests. I don't remember Worf being a "pacifist". I don't remember Geordi being a leading man. Crusher always had a stubborn streak, so did Picard. I think the scenes between the two work really well because neither is completely correct.

The idea that is it "forced drama" or whatever you want to label it is absurd as you could make that point about anything, it's a television show - everything is forced.

 

[Dukhat]

I assume when someone asks me or talks about a scene or show, that they have watched it. My mistake. It's a really powerful scene, you should check it out. I am not about to spend half an hour looking through a script when you can just watch it.

I did watch it. And I found no compelling reason why Beverly did what she did. You believe otherwise, and have evaded trying to offer me the actual dialogue which ostensibly proves your point. So there's no further need to drag this out.