Spoilers Picard Series Retrospective: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

[Yistaan]

Bad: Shaw. I get the guy. I empathize with him. From his perspective Picard and Riker are the obstructive admiral of the week that coems on board and makes a mess of everything. However I feel between that and thedeadnaming arc

Shaw probably thought he was showing tough love by helping Seven readapt to her human name and not the Borg name that assimilated her and her family. He probably thought he was helping Seven by calling her Annika and helping her reclaim her human identity, so while it comes off as being a jerk you can see where he's coming from if you squint.

Shaw's character was kind of inconsistent. He despises the drama and chaos that Riker and Picard are known for yet admires Geordi for... what exactly? Keeping the D's engines running? Shaw should be fanboying at every engineer in Starfleet for that reason then.

Also while Shaw showed some serious PTSD over the Battle of Wolf 359, it's logical to assume that he also fought in the Dominion War. Yet that aspect of his character isn't mentioned nor is the jab from Vadic about Shaw's psych profile really followed up on.

 

[Morpheus 02]

FInally caught up with all of Picard, thanks ot my wife wanting to watch the new season of Lioness (a Trek connection with Zoe Saldana!).

DId i miss the discussion, or did everyone else miss the fact that many of Starfleet's senior officers were massacred, especially their bravest and/or most exposed (like Admiral Shelby).

That's a HUUUUGE experience gap that could lead to more fatalities in the future.

Also, which of the villains are left that could possibly exploit this weakness?


Also for me, on a character level, i thought the TNG crew, other than maybe Beverly, felt like a logical change, and especilaly Riker's old age jokes, and nuData seemed like in deed a blend of Data and Lore. I especilaly loved when he asked Picard if he could say any words of encourage. Picard said no, Data replied along the lines of "I didn't think so", but put his hand on Picard's shoulder. Patrick Stewart gave a great look in response in that it was a fitting interaction.

But for me, 7 of 9 just felt way off. She feels like a completely different character... a command personality/action adventure star, which i am sure Jeri Ryan had a ball with, but felt like a weird jump for 7.

Also, her identity also felt like the opposite of what "progressive" people think. She is holding tight to her identity as 7 of 9, despite it being her "colonizer" name, and rejecting the name of "her people". It contradicts the other progressive value of fighting intolerance (in this case, hate against the Borg) that was the point they were making with Captain Shaw insisting on calling her COmmander Hansen.

I got a few other thoughts, but maybe i can hear your thoughts on this stuff first?

Edit: OH...but this

Shaw probably thought he was showing tough love by helping Seven readapt to her human name and not the Borg name that assimilated her and her family. He probably thought he was helping Seven by calling her Annika and helping her reclaim her human identity, so while it comes off as being a jerk you can see where he's coming from if you squint.

Shaw's character was kind of inconsistent. He despises the drama and chaos that Riker and Picard are known for yet admires Geordi for... what exactly? Keeping the D's engines running? Shaw should be fanboying at every engineer in Starfleet for that reason then.

Also while Shaw showed some serious PTSD over the Battle of Wolf 359, it's logical to assume that he also fought in the Dominion War. Yet that aspect of his character isn't mentioned nor is the jab from Vadic about Shaw's psych profile really followed up on.

For Shaw Fanboying -- Geordi was not the one making decisions, at least the "bad" ones. Now, i am drawing a blank....but i assume his technical innovations were inspirational to Shaw...also his quick rise from helmsman to Chief Engineer. If anything....it gives Geordi fans a proxy to show appreciation for La Forge, who maybe didn't get the repsect he deserved throughout all of TNG (for the audience).

 

[Yistaan]

Geordi was not the one making decisions, at least the "bad" ones.

Giving a supervillain like Moriarty sentience and ****ing holo-Brahms comes to mind. Geordi went along with the Ba'ku revolt that Shaw despises so much from what I can tell, partially because he himself had his eyes cured. That jab about dropping the saucer on Veridian III was also Geordi's fault (if Shaw's low enough to blame Picard for Locutus he can blame Geordi for this). I'm probably missing others.

Geordi also befriended Hugh and was instrumental in NOT using Hugh as a carrier for an anti-Borg virus, which Shaw I'm sure wouldn't have condoned.

 

[Will_Carter]

or me, 7 of 9 just felt way off. She feels like a completely different character... a command personality/action adventure star, which i am sure Jeri Ryan had a ball with, but felt like a weird jump for 7.

Felt very Janeway to me. i mean it seems weird the ex drone isn't cold and reserved, but give about twenty years and I can absolutely see her wanting to go what her foster mom taught her and damned the rules, do what is right.

Also, her identity also felt like the opposite of what "progressive" people think. She is holding tight to her identity as 7 of 9, despite it being her "colonizer" name, and rejecting the name of "her people".

That's a genuinely interesting point. She acknowledges her old name and identity but one could make an argument that she's taking that 'slave name' and owning it. Instead of retreating to 'her people' she's owning the fact 'this changed who I am as a person. I shall make sure it is front and center because it is part of who I am.'

It's interesting and I can see reasons to discuss and debate. So long as it remains civil, as is the case here, that is healthy.

 

[StarTrek1701]

DId i miss the discussion, or did everyone else miss the fact that many of Starfleet's senior officers were massacred, especially their bravest and/or most exposed (like Admiral Shelby).

This is Star Trek's Starfleet at it's finest. Unless it's our Main Crew, almost all of Starfleet is illogically incompetent, and Federation opsec is virtually non-existent.

That's a HUUUUGE experience gap that could lead to more fatalities in the future.

But even with all that experience they couldn't stop the Borg and Dominion to join forces. Section 31 must have been asleep at the wheel.

Also, which of the villains are left that could possibly exploit this weakness?

Doesn't really matter cuz The Burn(ham) is coming around in about 800 years after the events of PIC.

But for me, 7 of 9 just felt way off. She feels like a completely different character... a command personality/action adventure star, which i am sure Jeri Ryan had a ball with, but felt like a weird jump for 7.

In-universe it has been nearly 20 years since 7of9 was last seen. People change, their situations change. 20 years is a long time for someone to have a completely different mindset from years back.

Also, her identity also felt like the opposite of what "progressive" people think. She is holding tight to her identity as 7 of 9, despite it being her "colonizer" name, and rejecting the name of "her people". It contradicts the other progressive value of fighting intolerance (in this case, hate against the Borg) that was the point they were making with Captain Shaw insisting on calling her COmmander Hansen.

It ain't really that deep. Majority of her life she's been 7of9, even after deborgification she was known as 'Seven' to her friends and saviors aboard Voyager. That caught on I presume so she feels more comfortable being called Seven.

 

[fireproof78]

Doesn't really matter cuz The Burn(ham) is coming around in about 800 years after the events of PIC.

Things change. People change. 800 years is a long time for things to happen.

 

[The Old Mixer]

"I can't watch this movie about medieval knights knowing that in 800 years, Trump is gonna get reelected!"

 

[StarTrek1701]

Things change. People change. 800 years is a long time for things to happen.

Anything happens we still know the Burn is gonna happen, that's why I personally don't like prequel stuff.
Trek's future is now in the 32nd century so the focus should be after that, any roads they take unless a severe retcon happens is gonna lead to The Burn.

 

[fireproof78]

Anything happens we still know the Burn is gonna happen, that's why I personally don't like prequel stuff.
Trek's future is now in the 32nd century so the focus should be after that, any roads they take unless a severe retcon happens is gonna lead to The Burn.

I don't see this as a downside.

We know a lot of historical things now yet people still enjoy WORLD WAR II movies or stories set in ancient Rome.

Not sure why Trek is different.

 

[Quantum21]

Inspired by the Poll thread around Season 1 vs. 3 and responses to those seasons. A thread to say all we enjoyed, disliked or found utterly bonkers in each season, or the series as a whole.

I do want to lay out a couple of guidelines to help the conversation. One, no Legacy talk. We have threads for that. Two, no BTS drama; only what's on screen. Prefer no scaling to avoid just a bunch of numbers and no qualitative discussion

On to my thoughts.

Season 1:

• The Good: Picard feels like there are consequences to a lot of his actions. He really offers a unique view of the aging process, and finding his place in a much different Starfleet world that he didn't grow up with. Love having more Romulans and the fallout from kind of my favorite Trek films. Elnor is great, Riker's family is a nice movement forward and they all like story appropriate consequences to the crew.
• The bad: the Borg. It's lacking the punch because it feels layered in top of a already convoluted plot. Hugh's inclusion was not additive. It took away from the Romulans.
• The Ugly: Data's death. I am probably one of the few (maybe?) who felt Data's death worked in Nemesis. So the whole "pull the plug" felt repetitive.

Season 2:

• The Good: the Confederation timeline is great. The history feels dynamic, much like the Mirror Universe. Picard's family host offered such a huge insight in to the character that I really appreciated. Many of the character beats landed well. Jurati's Borg was a fun take on a stale concept.
• The Bad: Q and the whole time travel set up. It tries to carry a heavy personal stake for Picard but it's way feels tacked on vs. more organic too Picard. Q is not a guiding force like in previous stories.
• The Ugly: Rios' death.

Season 3:

• The Good: Worf! Him and Raffi work so well, play off of each other really well and create a fun dynamic. Their being Starfleet Intelligence assets and dealing in the fringes is a great callback to Stardust City Rag and the fringes of the Federation. This season really uses the consequences of past Seasons and shows quite well, much like season 1. It has some beautiful moments for Riker and Troi, Geordi and Picard, and picking up the theme of family from both All Good Things and Season 2.
• The Bad: Shaw is not an enjoyable character. He has a point but then becomes a hindrance to actual progress. The portal weapon needed way more screentime. Or even use as opening the transwarp conduit or something.
• The Ugly: the Borg plan and the way there is nothing but mistrust for anyone outside of the Family. It's hard to really invest because outsiders are usually wrong. Jack is not an interesting character, and this season's over reliance on the mystery box is frustrating.

Other thoughts are welcome!

Season 1:

The Borg were there to make a point, not to be a villain. The xBs were an underclass, and seen as a commodity. It was different and strange seeing them helpless.

This also brings up the moral question of killing Borg, because we know they can be reclaimed.

I thought Data's death in Nemesis was fine, but in terms of AI, there were some loose ends about his "consciousness". I thought they did a fine job with his death.

Picard season 3 undid this dramatic moment. I find that sad, but also enjoyed the virtual battle with Lore. Season 3 is like that for me, good and bad mixed in.

Season 2: I like 80% of it. I wish they explained Q better. I'm happy it makes bigots angry. That's the value of it.

Season 3: Like I mentioned, it's often something great followed by bad.

Shaw is a sore point with me. He never redeems himself despite the effort to do so at the end. He should not be on a starship period.

This problem with fans is similar to Lorca in Discovery or Dukat in DS9. He's performed so well people like the character.

 

[Will_Carter]

I'm happy it makes bigots angry. That's the value of it.

See. That's the problem I have. Not the making bigots angry. My point is ALL it seemed intended to do was make bigots angry rather than actually serve a grander point. This is an Opinion thus you're free to do as you will with it but it felt very much like 'I want to make myself feel better by kicking someone else in the shins for no reason other than to make them uncomfortable' rather than do the star trek thing and try reaching out and going 'we can be better if you kindly pull your heads out of your asses.'

You are right about the XB's, but the presentation just plain felt..... 'Bleak' isn't the right term so much as there was a sense of 'OK you made your point, yet you keep hammering me in the face with it like you have nothing else to say.'

 

[Quantum21]

See. That's the problem I have. Not the making bigots angry. My point is ALL it seemed intended to do was make bigots angry rather than actually serve a grander point. This is an Opinion thus you're free to do as you will with it but it felt very much like 'I want to make myself feel better by kicking someone else in the shins for no reason other than to make them uncomfortable' rather than do the star trek thing and try reaching out and going 'we can be better if you kindly pull your heads out of your asses.'

You are right about the XB's, but the presentation just plain felt..... 'Bleak' isn't the right term so much as there was a sense of 'OK you made your point, yet you keep hammering me in the face with it like you have nothing else to say.'

Agreed, I think the production of season 1 Picard had to make the xBs plight as bleak as possible to overcome the Borg bias by Trekkies. Personally, I think it worked. Others disagree.

 

[Santa Kang]

Agreed, I think the production of season 1 Picard had to make the xBs plight as bleak as possible to overcome the Borg bias by Trekkies. Personally, I think it worked. Others disagree.

PIC2 should have been an XB story.

 

[CoveSanta]

The Good: Season 3
The Bad: Season 2
The Ugly: Season 1

I'll be the contrarian here. Season 3 was damn near perfect. It was worth ditching most of the S1-S2 cast to get a TNG reunion. Shaw was great from beginning to end.

Season 2 was passable, although not spectacular. The Jurati Borg thing was it's weakest point. Well, that and not using Alice Krige as the queen.

Season 1 was an abomination. It was absolute garbage. It is virtually unwatchable. Michael Chabon should not he allowed within 1,000 yards of a Star Trek project.

I hope I wasn't unclear.

 

[fireproof78]

Season 1 was an abomination. It was absolute garbage. It is virtually unwatchable. Michael Chabon should not he allowed within 1,000 yards of a Star Trek project.

Don't hold back; tell us how you really feel.

 

[Will_Carter]

Season 1 was an abomination. It was absolute garbage. It is virtually unwatchable. Michael Chabon should not he allowed within 1,000 yards of a Star Trek project.

I hope I wasn't unclear.

I'm sparing everyone The Rant. I shall not share it as there is nothing positive to be taken from the unfiltered version.

On a more productive note.
I noticed, however, that the XBs trend towards 'not being able to pass.' For whatever reason not getting the full bore cosmetic surgery that can take someone all the way back to outwardly appearing baseline whatever their species is. Exploring why a post scarcity galaxy can let people fall through the gaps like that? Confuses me.

 

[StarTrek1701]

I don't see this as a downside.

We know a lot of historical things now yet people still enjoy WORLD WAR II movies or stories set in ancient Rome.

Not sure why Trek is different.

Cuz Trek is fiction. Fictional stories need to move >>forward>>.
The last 25 or so odd years of prequel mania is killing franchises.
Every show is a bloody prequel.
From Trek to Wars, from GoT to Dune, even Z-Nation and now NCIS got a prequel!

 

[fireproof78]

Cuz Trek is fiction. Fictional stories need to move >>forward>>.
The last 25 or so odd years of prequel mania is killing franchises.
Every show is a bloody prequel.
From Trek to Wars, from GoT to Dune, even Z-Nation and now NCIS got a prequel!

Guess I'm different. Fiction needs interesting characters and a story to tell.

Each of your examples have their ups and downs. I didn't like Enterprise but longed for a Pike series since I watched the Cage.

I've enjoyed Dune prequels, as well as have an interest in an NCIS prequel because of the characters. Even the Star Wars ones have a great performance in Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan and that is quite enjoyable.

I'll not dismiss any prequel out of hand. Characters and stories are my interest.