• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 3x03 - "Seventeen Seconds"

Engage!

  • Total voters
    264
eschaton said:
Guys, Beverly doesn't have to be in the right here, she just has to believe she's in the right.
Click to expand...
Yeah - fundamentally, she didn't trust him to make good choices. She might have been mistaken, but there it is.

I think you have to give Picard's friends at least three years before it's clear that this incredibly uncharacteristic retirement is going to stick? So by now the kid is 8, and rumor has it his danger-loving father is... picking grapes in a bucolic vineyard with his Tal Shiar(?) spouses (?). You have to admit it's probably not something many of us have faced. :lol:
 
Pubert said:
Welcome to modern trek for people who can't relate to anyone unless they act like people in present times. No more "humans evolving for the better" stuff for the new fans. Lol
Click to expand...
So, TOS?

And there is nothing "laugh out loud" about it. Several fans have stated that newer Trek has impacted them emotionally and helped them managed stuff. Why take that away from them just because it doesn't resonate with you personally?
 
eschaton said:
I don't think there's any possible explanation - short of like falling through a wormhole for 25 years - which would have been defensible.

Beverly made a bad decision in the heat of the moment when she became pregnant, and then doubled down on being avoidant because she didn't want to have to face Jean Luc and say she kept it a secret for X number of years. The longer she went, the harder it was to break from this.
Click to expand...
Yeah she then shifted the burden of that onto her teenage kid (Ed Speelers' age aside Jack's at most 22) saying she "encouraged" him to visit Jean-Luc, i.e. told him to do something she herself wouldn't do. Real heroic there Beverly, they should give you the Christopher Pike Medal of Valor for that. :rolleyes:
 
Farscape One said:
She said that in the same breath as losing Jack, her husband. She didn't outright say it, but the blame is clearly being put on Picard.
Click to expand...
She wan't blaming Picard. Her line was something to the effect that she was afraid of losing Jack to the "same stars" that took her husband, Wesley, and Picard. (IE - they all went to space in some form or another, and either died, went to a higher plane, or choose going back to said stars to save the Universe instead of being with her.)
 
Pubert said:
Welcome to modern trek for people who can't relate to anyone unless they act like people in present times. No more "humans evolving for the better" stuff for the new fans. Lol
Click to expand...

That shit was most prevalent in the first few years of TNG only, after which it began being toned down immediately. See TNG introducing Ro Laran in Season 5 of TNG. She was explicitly put in there because they wanted a recurring character to butt heads with everyone else, who had gotten too congenial. Or hell, look at Barclay, who introduced conflict in a different way. Even in the first few seasons, the characters people enjoyed the most tended to have notable flaws, like Picard and Worf.

All stories are fundamentally based on conflict. The most emotionally moving conflict is generally when two individuals come into conflict, or someone is experiencing internal conflict. The latter is the most powerful when done right, but it's hard to pull off in filmed media, because unlike in a book you don't have access to the character's inner thoughts, though the best episodes of Trek (like In the Pale Moonlight, The City on the Edge of Forever, or The Visitor) pulled it off in spades.
 
Noname Given said:
She wan't blaming Picard. Her line was something to the effect that she was afraid of losing Jack to the "same stars" that took her husband, Wesley, and Picard. (IE - they all went to space in some form or another, and either died, went to a higher plane, or choose going back to said stars to save the Universe instead of being with her.)
Click to expand...

To be fair, that line would have been a lot more defensible if she actually had settled down somewhere quiet and isolated with Jack in semi-retirement, instead of galivanting outside of Federation space and dealing with outlaws.
 
eschaton said:
To be fair, that line would have been a lot more defensible if she actually had settled down somewhere quiet and isolated with Jack in semi-retirement, instead of galivanting outside of Federation space and dealing with outlaws.
Click to expand...
And the fact that Picard didn't call her out on exactly that shows some restraint on his part.
 
eschaton said:
That shit was most prevalent in the first few years of TNG only, after which it began being toned down immediately. See TNG introducing Ro Laran in Season 5 of TNG. She was explicitly put in there because they wanted a recurring character to butt heads with everyone else, who had gotten too congenial. Or hell, look at Barclay, who introduced conflict in a different way. Even in the first few seasons, the characters people enjoyed the most tended to have notable flaws, like Picard and Worf.

All stories are fundamentally based on conflict. The most emotionally moving conflict is generally when two individuals come into conflict, or someone is experiencing internal conflict. The latter is the most powerful when done right, but it's hard to pull off in filmed media, because unlike in a book you don't have access to the character's inner thoughts, though the best episodes of Trek (like In the Pale Moonlight, The City on the Edge of Forever, or The Visitor) pulled it off in spades.
Click to expand...
That was ro. I liked the way the characters had less conflict with each other. The conflict was supposed to come from alien species but writers can never get that.
 
Nerys Myk said:
I think she preferred Jack’s danger to be of his own making and not as collateral to Picard.
Click to expand...
People underestimate how important it is for a person to feel in control, even if the decisions seem poor from our point of view. "It's my decision to make!" sounds very selfish, until you realize that we all do that based upon our desire to have control. I think the conflict over Beverly's decision isn't that it's out of character but that many viewers disagree with it, even though they likely rationalize choices in a similar way.
Pubert said:
That was ro. I liked the way the characters had less conflict with each other. The conflict was supposed to come from alien species but writers can never get that.
Click to expand...
Nope. Not since TOS, really. And DS9 which is considered the greatest Trek.
 
eschaton said:
All stories are fundamentally based on conflict.
Click to expand...
The problem in recent years is that writers have increasingly conflated conflict with characters acting out of character. No one is saying a Mission Impossible movie shouldn't have conflict. People are saying that there's no way Jim Phelps would've done... what he did.
 
eschaton said:
To be fair, that line would have been a lot more defensible if she actually had settled down somewhere quiet and isolated with Jack in semi-retirement, instead of galivanting outside of Federation space and dealing with outlaws.
Click to expand...
Not really. The difference is: In her mind, Jack decided to stay with her and this is something they decided to do together.

Again, not saying it's 'right or wrong' - it only shows that Beverly Crusher is an actual fully formed human being with good points, bad points, and flaws like the rest of humanity.
 
Pubert said:
That was ro. I liked the way the characters had less conflict with each other. The conflict was supposed to come from alien species but writers can never get that.
Click to expand...

Why is the conflict supposed to come from alien species only? What does that show?

I mean, I hope for a better future than today. I hope that we'll transition into a post-scarcity, post-capitalist world where people can stop worrying about survival and instead focus their time on what they want to do, even if it's not economically productive. But even in such a world, people are still going to get mad at their neighbors over perceived slights, people are still going to have affairs, friendships are still going to fall apart. Our systems of economics and governance may change, but the fundamental nature of humanity will not, unless we go fully transhuman/posthuman, and I don't think that's something most people want (and posthuman SF tends to be pretty bad when it comes to relatable characters).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top