Spoilers Star Trek: Picard General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Then take the advice for Picard that I give to people about DIscovery. This ain't the show for you, so stop watching.
Yup.Then take the advice for Picard that I give to people about DIscovery. This ain't the show for you, so stop watching.
I'm calling it now: I think there will be a Crossover Event in 2026 for the 60th Anniversary.
People can quote me on this post in a few years. Hopefully to say I was right.
Hopefully, I'll remember this post when 2026 occurs.I'm calling it now: I think there will be a Crossover Event in 2026 for the 60th Anniversary.
People can quote me on this post in a few years. Hopefully to say I was right.
See you in the future =D
Naomi Wildman and Gabriel Bell in a dramatic adventure in time that will surprise you.
That's a lot of LCARS.
Last edited:
XL-LCARS.
And very Brown / Beige colored.
Which is a shade of Pallete colors I never expected to see on a LCARS interface.
https://trekmovie.com/2022/01/26/st...-time-travel-turns-season-2-into-a-wild-ride/
I can't wait for more destruction of the character of Picard. Oh, sorry I meant "deconstruction".
They are openly admitting it!
Picard is all about "deconstruction" and subversion. Postmodern bullshit.
Hard to imagine that you can destroy a character literally and figuratively even more than season one already did.
BTW: Matalas said "Captain Picard", like the character Captain Picard from TNG, not Admiral Picard from ST PIC. They are specifically deconstructing TNG Picard. These people hate Star Trek.
A) Why do the showrunners think these questions have not been answered yet? If showrunners think they haven't answered these questions, then why did they not try to do so in season 1?
But the reality is these questions have been answered. -> B
B) They wrote Picard as a broken man. That's why he is alone on his vineyard.
They turned Picard into a bitter old, depressed, decrepit, and broken man, who lives in self-imposed exile in a place he hated since childhood.
That's the answer from season one.
Are you fucking kidding me? Love transcends time?
A) That is stupid.
B) It doesn't sound facile. It sounds like the worst kind of new-age gibberish. Add some Deepak Chopra nonsense to it and it's perfect.
Just add "quantum" to it to make it sound even worse: "quantum love"
"Transcending time with multi-spatial quantum love tachyons"
C) That's the plot from Interstellar!
Through "love" Cooper could navigate through the tesseract.
I can't wait for more destruction of the character of Picard. Oh, sorry I meant "deconstruction".
They are openly admitting it!
Picard is all about "deconstruction" and subversion. Postmodern bullshit.
Hard to imagine that you can destroy a character literally and figuratively even more than season one already did.
BTW: Matalas said "Captain Picard", like the character Captain Picard from TNG, not Admiral Picard from ST PIC. They are specifically deconstructing TNG Picard. These people hate Star Trek.
A) Why do the showrunners think these questions have not been answered yet? If showrunners think they haven't answered these questions, then why did they not try to do so in season 1?
But the reality is these questions have been answered. -> B
B) They wrote Picard as a broken man. That's why he is alone on his vineyard.
They turned Picard into a bitter old, depressed, decrepit, and broken man, who lives in self-imposed exile in a place he hated since childhood.
That's the answer from season one.
Are you fucking kidding me? Love transcends time?
A) That is stupid.
B) It doesn't sound facile. It sounds like the worst kind of new-age gibberish. Add some Deepak Chopra nonsense to it and it's perfect.
Just add "quantum" to it to make it sound even worse: "quantum love"
"Transcending time with multi-spatial quantum love tachyons"
C) That's the plot from Interstellar!
Through "love" Cooper could navigate through the tesseract.
^^ Solution: don't watch season 2....it'll probably be better for your blood pressure that way.
I think you may not fully understand what deconstructionism means.
Deconstructionism in the context of fiction is about analyzing a character in order to fully understand their motivations and reveal a deeper truth about the character that may not be immediately apparent. It can come from a place of love and affirmation, rather than a place of spite or destruction.
A really good example is Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That movie is all about deconstructing the character of James T. Kirk. And it's done from a place of love for the character. We learn all sorts of things about him that were not immediately apparent in TOS -- that he had a child throughout all of TOS; that he cheated a test designed to make him confront his own mortality but did so in such an ingenious way that he got away with it; that his gifts as a leader mean he has avoided emotionally coping with the reality of death and his own mortality. Yet the events of TWOK -- confronting and then defeating the demons of his past, mourning Spock, reuniting with his son -- rejuvenate him. In spite of the loss of his friend, he ends the film with a renewed sense of hope and purpose. "I feel... young."
Deconstuctionism is not an inherently destructive thing to a character. It all depends on how it's done.
PIC S1, like TWOK, ended with Picard's emotional rejuvenation. He starts in a place of darkness but ends in a place of light; he goes from despair to the hope and purpose that has always defined him. That season climax is so beautiful -- it's pure Picard. "That's why we're here: to save each other."
I think that's quite a leap. People often refer to Picard and Kirk as though "Captain" were part of their name, the same way they often refer to Spock as "Mister Spock." It's a quirk of language, and not necessarily indicative of anything beyond that.
No, they just love it in a different way than you.
Because some of them weren't. We know why Picard retried to La Barre; we do not know why he and Beverly never married.
Because some of those questions deal with aspects of his personality that were not relevant to the story PIC S1 was telling.
Begging your pardon, but do you really not understand metaphorical language to describe how people heal from trauma? He's describing thematic content, not plot content.
If that's your idea of bad writing, I would hate to see your idea of good writing.
Honestly I find the general Trek conceit - that we have all of these 30something/40something (or older!) characters who are perpetually single with no identifiable family ties - somewhat unbelievable. Families are so ancillary to Trek at times you wonder how the human race didn't just die out due to lack of reproduction.
Well, if the delta is any indication, this ain't the original Stargazer. So, must be a contemporary or future ship.
Actually, on further reflection, this could almost be a re-imagining of the Ent-D bridge! Different colour chair, but the background could be Deanna's console, and there's a distinct horseshoe-like railing visible (albeit with blue trim lighting).
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
