Normal people never do that...Rios and Jurati arent in a deep relationship they're kind of just passing the time, sooner or later they will be in splitsville
Normal people never do that...Rios and Jurati arent in a deep relationship they're kind of just passing the time, sooner or later they will be in splitsville
It feels cheap and more along the lines of soap opera.
"Normal people?" I'm supposing that people having one night stands after first meeting and kissing is not "normal?"
No. The point of the death was to get Picard to a point where he could speak to Data in the "Afterlife". Getting over Data's death was the main point of the entire season and Picard's "death" was the catalyst to get him there. It's not pointless, it's just a point you disagree with. There's a difference.
I like the show and I don't think that would be better. I'm OK with what we got.Cheaper than saying it once in episode 1, and then only mentioning it again in the finale when he does actually die? Having it be a background issue brought up over the next two or three seasons would have been better than that. It's ok to like a show and be able to say "but this would have been better".
I've seen it done. Every single relationship in these shows I've seen reminds me of something from real life. So, mileage will vary.You often just walk up to someone you've barely said two words to and kiss them? It was just so badly handled. Awkward, out of the blue and then barely mentioned again. The way these two shows do relationships is terrible and childish.
Even in episodic fiction, it's not unheard of for a series lead to be killed off and replaced by another character. An example that pops to mind for me is Twelve O'Clock High...when they wanted to replace Robert Lansing as lead, they killed him off (off-camera) in the first episode of the second season, and the character of the new series lead, Paul Burke, was promoted to fill his position.
For a more recent example on a serialized show, see Vikings.
Data was not alive. He was just software existing outside of a body. That's pretty clearly meant to represent a spirit outside of a body. That's what they were going for.If you're going to invent this ludicrous technobabble reason for Data to be alive, then you might as well just take one more step forward and invent some technobabble reason for Picard to speak to him. You didn't need to kill him then bring him back to life as an android.
Data did not feel complete. It felt very much like a spirit stuck in limbo, or trapped on this mortal plane waiting to move on. Unfinished business and all that jazz.Data was not alive. He was just software existing outside of a body. That's pretty cleary meant to represent a spirit outside of a body. That's what they were going for.
Data was not alive. He was just software existing outside of a body. That's pretty clearly meant to represent a spirit outside of a body. That's what they were going for.
HE'S 40 YEARS OLDYou know they missed an opportunity to put Picard in a younger Golem body, played by James McAvoy, so he can continue his career path in playing a younger Patrick Stewart.
![]()
theres a joke in here somewherethey just swapped out Dick York for Dick Sargent
Which is sill half of Stewart's age, rounding up.HE'S 40 YEARS OLD
That's the problem. They're relying on the same worn out tropes, like a crutch. Maybe they should try something different in order to get a strong emotional response from the viewer. We're supposed to be moving away from the reset-button style of storytelling but apparently not.
And that's another problem. It becomes predictable.
Yes, because it fits the character.the quick death and resurrection was common in TOS for Scotty and McCoy, did they need to go there
How does a less than 24 hour death fit the character?Yes, because it fits the character.
Its not about the death or how long they are dead but the choices made that lead to death.How does a less than 24 hour death fit the character?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.