Kurtzman intentionally killed Legacy?

[Tomalak]

There was no real reason why she would have kept him secret from Picard. It would have been easier if they'd had an adult conversation and mutually decided that Beverly would raise him alone.

But then it would have been even more obvious that it was a plot device lifted from Wrath of Khan.

I guess there was supposed to be some irony in that everything Beverly did to protect Jack was irrelevant because he was genetically coded to be used as a Borg weapon by nature of being Picard's son. And therefore she spent twenty years keeping him apart from Picard for nothing.

 

[Phily B]

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.

I haven't evaded, I just don't know why you want me to go type out dialogue for you when I've pointed out what she says and when. She talks about Picard having a target on his back, constantly in danger and his issues in his own life. She talks about her own issues with loss. It's a great scene. I have no idea how you see a fantastic scene that gives two great actors some great material to work with as a negative.

There was no real reason why she would have kept him secret from Picard. It would have been easier if they'd had an adult conversation and mutually decided that Beverly would raise him alone.

But then it would have been even more obvious that it was a plot device lifted from Wrath of Khan.

I guess there was supposed to be some irony in that everything Beverly did to protect Jack was irrelevant because he was genetically coded to be used as a Borg weapon by nature of being Picard's son. And therefore she spent twenty years keeping him apart from Picard for nothing.

She laid out the reasons why from her logical perspective and her own selfish reasons. I'm glad you pointed out TWoK comparisons because I didn't want to bring it up but it is largely similar but I'd argue better done in Picard because they both get scenes to discuss it.

 

[Daedalus]

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.

That's one aspect that softens some of the rougher edges of Beverly's reluctance, IMO.

I wouldn't say it totally excuses her, but I could imagine a moment when she brings up the subject of having kids, only to be rebuffed every time. If she happened to be pregnant when she asked him for the final time, then that's a partial excuse for her actions. Disappointment, confusion and fear easily leads to irrational decisions.

The whole thing still doesn't sit quite with me, but I can see multiple scenarios where not telling Picard could happen. Some are better than others.

 

[Dukhat]

I haven't evaded, I just don't know why you want me to go type out dialogue for you when I've pointed out what she says and when. She talks about Picard having a target on his back, constantly in danger and his issues in his own life. She talks about her own issues with loss. It's a great scene. I have no idea how you see a fantastic scene that gives two great actors some great material to work with as a negative.

Except I didn't say it was negative. I said it was unrealistic and out of character.

 

[Phily B]

Except I didn't say it was negative. I said it was unrealistic and out of character.

Part of the driving force of Season 3 was they only brought back the characters because they'd changed. I completely disagree about it being unrealistic, in fact it was used as a plot device before as the other poster pointed out.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's a plot device out of Soap Opera Writing 101.

 

[Tomalak]

She laid out the reasons why from her logical perspective and her own selfish reasons. I'm glad you pointed out TWoK comparisons because I didn't want to bring it up but it is largely similar but I'd argue better done in Picard because they both get scenes to discuss it.

Sure, they gave her some lines to explain it, but that doesn't mean we as viewers have to agree with her reasoning or think it was made sense for the character we know to make that decision.

Like I say, they could have tweaked it and made it a mutual decision. It wouldn't have impacted the way the story played out at all. The only difference is that it would have switched some of the conflict from Picard and Bev to Picard and Riker/Seven, as they would have realised that he had an ulterior motive and knew full well the context of Beverly's distress call.

I generally really enjoyed PIC S3, but the "secret child" trope was one of the weakest aspects of the writing for me, along with "it was the Borg all along. Again".

 

[Dukhat]

Part of the driving force of Season 3 was they only brought back the characters because they'd changed. I completely disagree about it being unrealistic, in fact it was used as a plot device before as the other poster pointed out.

Let's see how the characters changed.

Picard: retired and turned into a grumpy asshole.
Riker: Retired, had some kids and one of them died to fulfill a plot device.
Troi: See above.
Geordi: Got married to someone we never saw, had two daughters in Starfleet and became head of the Museum.
Worf: Still in Starfleet. Did something to the Enterprise-E but we don't know what.
Data: Still dead as of Nemesis but a new/old version replaced him.
Beverly: Had Picard's son and never told him or anyone else for nebulous reasons, withdrew from all contact with all of them for 20+ years, again for nebulous reasons, and brought her son up alone to help her with hazardous medical jobs despite her fear that if Jack had gone with his dad, he would have been in the same danger he is facing with her, and still kept his existence from Picard and all the rest for no real good reason.

Yeah, great character development there.

 

[Phily B]

Sure, they gave her some lines to explain it, but that doesn't mean we as viewers have to agree with her reasoning or think it was made sense for the character we know to make that decision.

Like I say, they could have tweaked it and made it a mutual decision. It wouldn't have impacted the way the story played out at all. The only difference is that it would have switched some of the conflict from Picard and Bev to Picard and Riker/Seven, as they would have realised that he had an ulterior motive and knew full well the context of Beverly's distress call.

I generally really enjoyed PIC S3, but the "secret child" trope was one of the weakest aspects of the writing for me, along with "it was the Borg all along. Again".

They never really expect the viewer to completely agree with her, which is why they're both given that scene. I think it is well done specifically cause you come out and could take either side without looking like a psychopath. I have no idea why people take umbrage with these plot point in particular, a lot of the first episodes were beat for beat TWOK stuff that has the same type of narrative drive. I don't think Marcus was ever in the wrong, but I think Kirk had a right to be off put about it.

 

[Phily B]

Let's see how the characters changed.

Picard: retired and turned into a grumpy asshole.
Riker: Retired, had some kids and one of them died to fulfill a plot device.
Troi: See above.
Geordi: Got married to someone we never saw, had two daughters in Starfleet and became head of the Museum.
Worf: Still in Starfleet. Did something to the Enterprise-E but we don't know what.
Data: Still dead as of Nemesis but a new/old version replaced him.
Beverly: Had Picard's son and never told him or anyone else for nebulous reasons, withdrew from all contact with all of them for 20+ years, again for nebulous reasons, and brought her son up alone to help her with hazardous medical jobs despite her fear that if Jack had gone with his dad, he would have been in the same danger he is facing with her.

It just seems like you dislike that the characters changed, not always for the better. It's a scripted television show, they have to change some things for drama. You can't really be snarky about a "plot device" about a character you never even knew.

You could do the same sarcastic thing with all of them. It wouldn't change the idea and fact - Bev had changed, Picard had changed and there were regrets/tension as a result of the decision. It was designed to get Stewart and McFadden into a scene where they could show their acting chops and it succeeded.

 

[Dukhat]

It just seems like you dislike that the characters changed, not always for the better.

Nope. I'm all for character development, if it makes sense. This didn't.

 

[Phily B]

I personally think "I lost my parents, my husband and son to Starfleet already" explains a lot, but that's fine..

 

[Daedalus]

Sure, they gave her some lines to explain it, but that doesn't mean we as viewers have to agree with her reasoning or think it was made sense for the character we know to make that decision.

Like I say, they could have tweaked it and made it a mutual decision. It wouldn't have impacted the way the story played out at all. The only difference is that it would have switched some of the conflict from Picard and Bev to Picard and Riker/Seven, as they would have realised that he had an ulterior motive and knew full well the context of Beverly's distress call.

I generally really enjoyed PIC S3, but the "secret child" trope was one of the weakest aspects of the writing for me, along with "it was the Borg all along. Again".

That certainly would've made it more palatable.

I've said before that it all could've coincided with her leaving Starfleet to head into uncharted space with the "Space doctors, without borders", only to end up stranded on a backwater planet with no way to communicate.

When they were finally rescued, Jack insisted on finding Picard himself, only to overhear his "never needed family" speech.

I'm no writer, that much is obvious, but I think there were better/smarter ways to play out the secret child trope.

 

[Tomalak]

They never really expect the viewer to completely agree with her, which is why they're both given that scene. I think it is well done specifically cause you come out and could take either side without looking like a psychopath. I have no idea why people take umbrage with these plot point in particular, a lot of the first episodes were beat for beat TWOK stuff that has the same type of narrative drive. I don't think Marcus was ever in the wrong, but I think Kirk had a right to be off put about it.

I mean, this is exactly why people take umbrage and say they feel that PIC S3 relied too much on nostalgia and narrative call-backs.

It's all over the season, from the typefaces used in the opening titles and closing credits, to the music, to the design of the Titan, to the gratuitous Fleet Museum and the big finale ship reveal.

The reality is that the plot of the season is essentially a rehash of PIC S1, bulked out with other greatest hits from Treks gone by. But it make us fans feel good because it had familiar characters, familiar ships and the other trappings of 90s Star Trek. That's fine, I was a fan who felt good watching it, but I'm not blind to what they did and why it made me feel how it did.

I was happy with it as a coda for these characters and that era of Star Trek. But I know that ultimately the future of Star Trek cannot be backward looking, or we never would have got TNG, DS9 or VGR in the first place.

 

[Dukhat]

I personally think "I lost my parents, my husband and son to Starfleet already" explains a lot, but that's fine..

And I explained how that's not really a realistic line of thought, based on what we know of these characters. BTW, how did Beverly lose her parents to Starfleet?

 

[Phily B]

It's all over the season, from the typefaces used in the opening titles and closing credits, to the music, to the design of the Titan, to the gratuitous Fleet Museum and the big finale ship reveal.

There is nothing wrong with having callbacks to previous series that aren't really that important to the story. There is nothing wrong with have Star Trek music sound like Star Trek music again as opposed to the post-Ron Jones drone. There is nothing wrong with having Star Trek ships look like...Star Trek ships. No one complains about "The Archer Dock" in Discovery or ALL OF STRANGE NEW WORLDS because they're not the drivers of the story.

The way people act you'd think they'd brought back the Enterprise-D in episode 2 and had the crew flying around.

The reality is that the plot of the season is essentially a rehash of PIC S1, bulked out with other greatest hits from Treks gone by. But it make us fans feel good because it had familiar characters, familiar ships and the other trappings of 90s Star Trek. That's fine, I was a fan who felt good watching it, but I'm not blind to what they did and why it made me feel how it did.

It makes fans feel good because it reminds them of a time when Star Trek was a message that things could be better, its a throwback while retaining a good story. You don't even need - just basic stuff like leaving a spacedock to grandoise music is a staple that was sorely missed.

I was happy with it as a coda for these characters and that era of Star Trek. But I know that ultimately the future of Star Trek cannot be backward looking, or we never would have got TNG, DS9 or VGR in the first place.

Voyager was a beat for beat continuation of TNG wasn't it? Picard set the stage for an interesting concept in many ways and they decided to throw it out of the window for Section 31 and SFA.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Voyager was a beat for beat continuation of TNG wasn't it?

Which why it's one of the weakest entries in the franchise.

 

[Phily B]

And I explained how that's not really a realistic line of thought, based on what we know of these characters. BTW, how did Beverly lose her parents to Starfleet?

If you don't think your decisions being based on extreme losses you experienced in the past is realistic then there is nothing else to say to you.

And I don't know, it is never established because it wasn't important - it was just another in a long line of loss that she saw happening again with Picard.

 

[Dukhat]

If you don't think your decisions being based on extreme losses you experienced in the past is realistic then there is nothing else to say to you.

These are fictional characters, not real people. The only way to judge them is based on the attributes that the writers have given them. And in this instance, Beverly was out of character from what past writers made her. Now if new writers want to take her character in a different direction, fine. But making her act out of character is not the correct way to do something like that. As @Tomalak mentioned above, these characters are reasonable people, and in a more realistic situation they would have come to an amicable solution. But then it would have looked too much like the Kirk/Carol dynamic, so they went the stupid route.

And I don't know, it is never established because it wasn't important - it was just another in a long line of loss that she saw happening again with Picard.

Uh, YOU were the one who stated that Beverly lost her parents to Starfleet. Did you just make that up? Because that's the first I've heard of that.

 

[Phily B]

Uh, YOU were the one who stated that Beverly lost her parents to Starfleet. Did you just make that up? Because that's the first I've heard of that.

She says it in the scene that we are discussing. The one you have watched and we are discussing. It is a five minute scene. I have brought it up multiple times.

Are you serious right now? Blocked for trolling. My head is cheddared, you've just spent an hour whinging about a scene you haven't even watched and refuse to watch. Is this how you get your kicks?