Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 3x10 - "The Last Generation"

[Bad Thoughts]

It's written to be her choice.

Of course. The whole season used a lot of exposition. What I am pointing out of something clunky in the writing. The writers wanted there to be tension between Seven and Shaw. How do they show it? Shaw dead names Seven. It sets up a narrative that is commonly seen, when people choose to leave behind old identities, but find those who won't accept them using their old name. This is a rather hamfisted way of creating tension, IMO. By choosing one narrative, they ignored one of equal importance: reclaiming old names that reflect the traditions of ancestors that have been stolen by enslavement, represented by the slave name. Imagine Burton on the whipping post, saying, "My name is Toby." In essence, one history of resistance is not being acknoledged in order to shoehorn the Seven-Shaw conflict into another. t's not that I somehow disapprove of people being called by the name they choose. It's the writers who didn't do their homework.

 

[Bea Jonas]

As a member of that generation - who made "whatever" an all purpose word - I hadn't thought of it that way before, but I think you're right. Also, so many of us came from broken and/or deeply dysfunctional homes, we loved seeing characters who didn't fight with each other.

But I also think it also comes from Gene's generation, which was stoic and private to a fault. Gene had also been in WWII and had been a cop, so the longing for a hopeful and peaceful future makes a lot of sense to me.

I think there's a general misunderstanding of how Gene wanted to tell stories with TNG.

Picard and his "perfect" crew were aspirational characters—the way Gene wanted humans to be—while the various alien cultures they encountered each week were meant to represent different facets of modern humanity, with all our foibles, prejudices, & shortcomings.

Gene wanted the TNG stories to be morality plays about us—who we really are vs. who we could be. Picard and his crew were always supposed to represent the very best in us.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Of course. The whole season used a lot of exposition. What I am pointing out of something clunky in the writing. The writers wanted there to be tension between Seven and Shaw. How do they show it? Shaw dead names Seven. It sets up a narrative that is commonly seen, when people choose to leave behind old identities, but find those who won't accept them using their old name. This is a rather hamfisted way of creating tension, IMO. By choosing one narrative, they ignored one of equal importance: reclaiming old names that reflect the traditions of ancestors that have been stolen by enslavement, represented by the slave name. Imagine Burton on the whipping post, saying, "My name is Toby." In essence, a history of resistance that is not being acknoledged in order to shoehorn the Seven-Shaw conflict into another. t's not that I somehow disapprove of people being called by the name they choose. It's the writers who didn't do their homework.

Well, I'm pretty sure she'll never be "Annika Hansen" for marketing reasons.
Probably right about the writers not factoring the "slave name" aspect of the name.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Well, I'm pretty sure she'll never be "Annika Hansen" for marketing reasons.
Probably right about the writers not factoring the "slave name" aspect of the name.

And I wouldn't want them to change it.

 

[Racefuel]

Biologically, I would agree.

But 17th century humans lived comfortably with child labor, women being excluded from property rights & politics, the African slave trade, and witch trials where people were burned alive & hung for communicating with the Devil.

By the 21st century, human society evolved to reject all of that. We are light-years ahead of our 17th century cousins in terms of society, not to mention technology.

It seems silly to think that humans 300 years from now—the TNG era—wouldn't be as far ahead of us as we are now to those from over 300 years in our past.

Have we really rejected all those things? Or are you speaking from a Western ethnocentric perspective?

In this world, right now, this 21st century earth child labor is still common, people are still executed for things like heresy and apostacy in many cultures, women forbade from owning property and engaging in civic government, etc.

*Western* Society may have evolved, but as a whole..no, humans have barely progressed in the last 500 years

 

[Citiprime]

Biologically, I would agree.

But 17th century humans lived comfortably with child labor, women being excluded from property rights & politics, the African slave trade, and witch trials where people were burned alive & hung for communicating with the Devil.

By the 21st century, human society evolved to reject all of that. We are light-years ahead of our 17th century cousins in terms of society, not to mention technology.

It seems silly to think that humans 300 years from now—the TNG era—wouldn't be as far ahead of us as we are now to those from over 300 years in our past.

Yes and no.

All of the horrors you mention from the 17th century still exist to some degree, just the names and reasons have shifted some. There are more slaves on this planet today than at any point in human history. The people that built the iPhones people use, the people who sow the clothes they buy from department stores, the people that picked the produce they eat, all of that has a degree of suffering and quasi-to-full-on slave labor that most put to the back of their head when they buy it.

Human society is better. But maybe not "light-years" better.

 

[Sci]

Have we really rejected all those things? Or are you speaking from a Western ethnocentric perspective?

In this world, right now, this 21st century earth child labor is still common, people are still executed for things like heresy and apostacy in many cultures, women forbade from owning property and engaging in civic government, etc.

*Western* Society may have evolved, but as a whole..no, humans have barely progressed in the last 500 years

And Western society hasn't really evolved beyond those abuses as much as it wants to pretend to itself. All of those abuses are either continuing under different manifestations today or are threatening to do so.

 

[Bea Jonas]

Have we really rejected all those things? Or are you speaking from a Western ethnocentric perspective?

In this world, right now, this 21st century earth child labor is still common, people are still executed for things like heresy and apostacy in many cultures, women forbade from owning property and engaging in civic government, etc.

*Western* Society may have evolved, but as a whole..no, humans have barely progressed in the last 500 years

*sigh*
"Ignore button, engage!"

 

[Racefuel]

...okay....

Not quite ready to have philosphical and societal discussions I guess

 

[fireproof78]

...okay....

Not quite ready to have philosphical and societal discussions I guess

We've evolved...we don't need know philosophical discussion. We are superior. Bow before the master race.

 

[Racefuel]

What I was going to say, which I'll say anyway, I do think humans, as a species can change. However as in Star Trek history, the "sins of this guilty land can only be purged with blood".

I just hope humans will make the right choice on the other side of that horror that are Star Trek examples made also

 

[Ssosmcin]

Exactly! And that's why Kira handed Bashir's ass to him and reminded him that what he thought of as the frontier, the edge of civilisation, was her home and the center of her world.

To be fair, someone's frontier will always be another's front yard. As we all know "the final frontier" is just a traditional Star Trek phrase, as much as "live long and prosper" since the original Star Trek was made when Westerns were a dominant genre in films and TV, not to mention the series was pitched by Roddenberry (inaccurately) as "Wagon Train to the stars."

Even Lost in Space used the term describing space as "man's newest frontier for colonization." Space is the final frontier for human kind. Not Bajoran kind. This was all about Earth folk.

But if you're looking at it with a different perspective, you can absolutely take it differently.

 

[Fateor]

Funny how Seven of Nine effectively identified with her "slave name."

Interestingly no.

If that were the case she would be calling herself 7 of 9, but Instead she made the name her own and is now Seven. I would even bet good money that she insists on spelling it as "Seven" instead of just putting the number.

 

[Danja]

To be fair, someone's frontier will always be another's front yard.

It can also be someone else's business opportunity.

I am a Cherokee Indian. My fourth great-grandparents were thrown off their land in Arkansas following the Indian Removal Act of 1830. My fourth great-uncle died in the Trail of Tears (all because a bunch of Washington politicians decided that white settlers needed gold more than the Indians who were living on top of it).

 

[Ovation]

No, not only does that not follow, but you're simply objectively wrong, here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity

Humans have not changed significantly in the last 50k years, and that's a fact. You go back in time, kidnap a human baby, raise it here, and you'd never tell the difference. What you're refering to has nothing to do with any change in our genetics, but changes in technology and society.

I never said it had to do with genetics (and earlier, in this thread or elsewhere, I concurred with a lack of physical (thus genetic) change, in any large scale sense). Behaviour, however, is NOT simply genetics. And while humanity has certainly not "evolved" out of woeful behaviours nearly to the degree that some might believe, it is also true that there have been changes in social acceptability for a number of actions that were routinely seen as "normal and natural", as well as a per capita diminution of significant behaviours, in particular violent behaviour. These are significant behavioural changes across history and across cultures--not evenly, not sufficiently to say "mission accomplished" and not without cyclical reversals. But to suggest humanity is entirely unchanged in the past 50,000 years is to deny historical reality. Moreover, "changes in technology and society" come from...humanity. Developing technology created significant changes to societies and the worldviews of those living in them. And that's the point. Change is ongoing and it influences behavioural norms. Also, "kidnapping a baby from the past" does not prove a lack of change in behaviour. Raise the baby to adulthood 50,000 years ago and then raise his twin today--behaviours will NOT be anywhere near identical.

Edit to add: I deliberately removed "biologically" from the original to emphasize the point that I was NOT speaking to physical/genetic changes. But I stand by my comments about behaviour.

 

[mattman8907]

hearing that the poker scene was a lot longer (an hour i believe was the run time or something) I wonder how long they spent playing before they switched over from their characters names to their real names.

 

[The Old Mixer]

So it looks like we're done discussing the episode...can I close the thread now?

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Danja

It wasn't gold. It was cotton. The lands the Cherokee inhabited had soil ideal for this cash crop.

 

[firehawk12]

I think what has made me become a bigger fan of Riker is because they've let Frakes imbue a bit of himself into the role. Within reason, I would like to see Wil do the same thing for Wesley. Then setup Wesley as bit of a antagonist to Q. But I would want the travelers to handle the Qs like experienced parents. They know the Qs can be difficult or chaotic. So rather than clash with them, the Travelers work subtly rather than make it harder on themselves

If "Legacy" or whatever happens, and it still needs to be full of TNG references, then I'd like to see Wesley as a recurring character who Jack has to deal with. Like he has this omnipotent brother who won't help with their 'mundane' concerns and they need to work that tension.

Although then again, you have Wesley randomly helping the Soji-clone (whatever her name was), so maybe there are no rules. lol

not really: remember that that set was originally built as the bridge of the Stsrgazer, a totally different ship, it could have represented the bridge of a new class easily.

Wouldn't have been the first time they rearranged the deck chairs to make a set a different ship.

I guess why even bother when you can just rename the Titan? You don't even need a set redress at that point and save a day. lol

 

[Commander Troi]

*Western* Society may have evolved, but as a whole..no, humans have barely progressed in the last 500 years

And some people here in the US are trying to take things *backwards*.