Shall we go down the list of the many times the opposing viewpoint of Picard has been shown to be "cartoonishly evil"? Because it's a long list.
Spoilers Picard 1x1, "Remembrance"
- Thread starter The Old Mixer
- Start date
Shall we go down the list of the many times the opposing viewpoint of Picard has been shown to be "cartoonishly evil"? Because it's a long list.
We don't know that yet...he doesn't visit Star Fleet Command until Episode 2...
/em It's ALL DOWNHILL FROM HERE...WEEEEEEEEEE!!!
(Oh, and sorry, but "Destoryed main character is almost immediately found to have an Identical Twin"...not cartoony??!!
)^^^
Now had they waited to reveal that until sometime in episode 2; I might have cut them more slack here.
If it makes you happy, but we're talking about this episode.
Because it Picard who's the protagonist, then whoever disagrees with him can't be cartoonishly evil, right? His impassioned speech at the end has to be well thought out and considered, again, because its Picard.
Picard being right is a foregone conclusion.
That’s not the kind of conflict you can reliably work with around the Picard character, with a couple of notables exceptions...even then it’s usually about moral conflict rather than grey areas (defeat of the Borg vs saving as many lives as possible, defeat of the Borg as a group vs the rights of the individual etc.) and what many seem to describe as ‘moral grey areas’ seem to end up in quite obvious not grey at all areas. (Step forward exhibit a...oh, she got eaten after booby trapping dead bodies...). I have quite enough of ‘morally grey’ of late. They serve little purpose.
I will agree to disagree. I think Picard is the perfect kind of character to work within a moral conflict, when the answer is not completely clear. I think that Star Trek, as a format, lends itself to that kind of storytelling and worldbuilding.
I can understand the fatigue of such tales, but they do serve a purpose and Star Trek is a good place to explore such things. Largely because moral stands do not occur in a vacuum, and our principled protagonists should be able to rationally defend their arguments, rather than assuming to be good just by being the protagonist.
There's only one issue that dominates this episode, and only one antagonist that Picard has to overcome. And when the moment comes, there's no struggle, there's no lets look at all sides, there's no moral conflice. There's one decision to be made, and it isn't questioned any less perfunctorily than Disco has previously. But since its Picard making the decision, no one is bothered and its automatically assumed to be well considered.
Whataboutism doesn’t invalidate criticism of Discovery. It’s a modern streaming show in the era of peak TV, trying terribly hard to seem “adult.” Yet it gives us simplistic, juvenile commentary like “genocide is bad” as it wraps up a war with a tidy bow in the last episode.
Do I expect more from Discovery than from TNG 30 years ago? Yes, absolutely.
I'm sure that somehow made sense in your head, but I'm not quite sure what you're babbling about.
Put it this way... anytime a character was shown to have suffered rape, or as near as in its SF way, under Picard, they didn’t then...to my memory...then sweep that part of the story under the carpet, and have the character shack up and conceive a child with their rapist. The writers in those days certainly never clumsily ran down that path then ran back from it twice as fast.
I sort of mostly like DISCO, I certainly do t actively dislike it, but it’s flaws were on show, flaws which so far this series doesn’t have, and historically flaws it’s narrative predecessors never suffered from either. The DSC vs PIC fight is fruitless, firstly because it’s unnecessary, but secondly because it’s objectively one sided. The hand is stacked. So better not to have it.
That's the genesis of dreadfully boring drama.
Ok, let's talk about "The Child". Oh, wait. You don't want to talk about "The Child" because to do so would be objectively one sided?
Yes, same way like no one likes James Bond films because it is foregone conclusion that Bond will ruin the bad guy's plans in the end.
Exactly so.
One episode in, at least, Picard does a lot to take away the sour taste of two years of STD. There are a lot of differences between the shows, but at base it comes back to the writing. Picard's well-written, and STD isn't.
And there are heroes in the Trek franchise who are morally right...but for the wrong reasons. Trip in "Cogenitor(ENT)" does - from a moral and ethical point of view - the right thing by helping an illiterate alien woman who actively seeks to learn how to read but is not allowed to due to the strict cultural impositions of her world. But he does it at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons and as a result the budding new relations between Earth and the Cogenitor's species may have been damaged for years if not decades or longer. And it costs the Cogenitor her life. Trip's heart and ethics were in the right place but because it was not the time nor the place to do what he did he damaged a diplomatic and cultural relationship that both sides felt would be of great benefit.
Picard can often be right from the ethical perspective but go about it the wrong way or express his opinion at an inopportune moment that damages his ship or the Federation or both.
Picard can often be right from the ethical perspective but go about it the wrong way or express his opinion at an inopportune moment that damages his ship or the Federation or both.
What do you see at the protagonist and antagonist of the Pilot ep of Picard. What was the main issue being dealt with, in your opinion?
Well, let's be fair, we've only seen one episode. There's plenty of time for them to fuck this up.
Are you a TNG fan? i don't want to assume anything about your comment until I have a better Idea where you are coming from.
That's a whole lot to claim after just one episode. IMO, the writing of Rememberance was designed to get Picard from A to B, and it cut a fair number of corners to do that, considering that Jean Luc really had no one in the episode to seriously counter the path he was taking at all.