Discussion in 'Star Trek: Picard' started by Forever94, Feb 25, 2020.
or TNG possibly.
No, and the idea of being "more evolved" is patent nonsense. It's like saying someone is more breathed than us -- that's not how evolution works. Humanity is not better than it is today; its culture has changed to emphasize empathy and compassion and to meet everyone's needs. But these differences are cultural, not biological, and even TNG made it clear that Humans might fail to live up to them. Picard even says as much in "The Drumhead:" "We think we've come so far. The torture of heretics, the burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then, before you can blink an eye, it suddenly threatens to start all over again."
I can't remember anyone defending the Federation's abandonment of the Romulans.
Saying that we understand why she feels insulted by Picard and his arrogance is not the same thing as saying we think she's in the right.
Flat-out false. As far as I'm concerned, the Federation President who decided to betray the Romulans probably ought to be brought before an interstellar court for crimes against sentience, and be sentenced to rot in the 24th Century equivalent of the Hague.
I never took their evolution to mean anything biological. ...although, I wonder. If sociopathy is biological, then maybe too is compassion. Maybe their evolved society makes it easier for more compassionate people to flourish.
Without going in circles...actually, yes, going in circles, her naysayers are fewer and less vocal than his. Write a show with a complex villain and we lose a sense of scale.
Agreed. Along with his enablers. Credit and blame where due. No one gets off.
Honestly, I don't take the thread title too seriously. I adore the show, but I do find it troublesome how difficult it can be for fans to see each other's points of view. The OP wanted something more uplifting. That doesn't mean less sophisticated, and, in fact, may be more: it's hard to pull off uplifting in an intelligent worldly way.
Because we don't know Clancy's role in the evacuation. Her saying no to Picard made sense based on what she knew.
Trek fans. Hating changes in style since "Where No Man Has Gone Before".
Those black collars are an affront to Star Trek's original vision!
Cheeseburgers are NOT real burgers
Hot Dogs are tacos.
Hit play on the video before reading the rest of the post, and read to the music.
I'm here to preach the Holy Gospel of Gene Roddenberry. Gene! He had, HE HAD a Vision! A Holy Vision! Why, Mankind Himself would ascend to The Heavens and evolve to become more than The Universe. More than the Multiverse! A future far holier than that of Primitive 20th Century Man! Far holier.
Then Kirk bit into the apple in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and it was all over. Thy Star Trek hath sinned! THY STAR TREK HATH SINNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Star Trek turned EVIL!!!! And it's punishment, decreed from the Great Bird of the Galaxy Himself is that it should be forever divided! For all of Eternity and into Hell and Beyond!
Hallelujah, Brother Garth!
Sacrilege! What are you? Vegan?
We were told it would be different. Anyone expecting the same exact thing (I think every time new trek is announced people expect a fan film like ST: Continues to be made..sigh) was always going to be disappointed.
As with Discovery, contemporary Trek can be positive, or at least optimistic, it just takes a different direction than previous ST did...the no-conflict rule amongst the crew is gone.
New Trek argues it's points from a developmental POV: We grow and learn along with the crew rather than being preached to, or guided along in the story. We no longer can predict every outcome.
I think a lot of fans are uncomfortable with the uncertainty of the story, but Season 1 of DSC for example came around to what we would expect: A positive outlook, it was just a little bit darker than fans are used to.
Picard was a modern adult story for many Trekkies who didn't want an adult story.
Pretty much. This is what I've wanted to say for months now, but haven't largely because I didn't want to deal with people who would then try to deny it.
My own take on it in January (cutting and pasting):
How do I put this? This is Star Trek as a prestige drama. Even if you don't like Discovery, I still recommend Picard as these two shows are very different from each other.
Let me get one question out of the way: which one do I like better so far Discovery or Picard? I like them both for very different reasons. But Picard is most definitely in a class of its own. Give it a chance. To certain others I want to say: I mean give it a serious chance, not one where you're watching but you already made up your mind. Actually give it a chance. If you do, you won't be disappointed.
Ultimately the turning point where Soji learned something, was Picard calling and preaching to her.
More adult vs less adult I think depends on the individual episode content doesn't it? The romulan bro and sister laying out their evil schemes like a cartoon isn't more adult because it's over 5 eps instead of 1.
When we look at BOBW + Family, the ep where the alien wipes out an entire civilization and Picard and crew dont know how to deal with it, or how the crew responds in The High Ground. Some eps wrapped with a simple moral but many eps in it that I wouldn't call less adult just because they are episodic.
The romulan issues in Picard could have been in one ep of TNG format and debated to this day like any of the widely discussed TNG issues. I love both these shows and what they offer in their own style.
That's been gone since Gene died.
I'm not really sure what makes Picard a uniquely modern and distinctly adult story versus some of the better Trek episodes of years past. I certainly don't feel like there were any deep ideas being explored in an especially nuanced or unique way. If anything I found it all peculiarly superficial for something that was hyped to be modern, topical and not your daddy's Trek.
I don't know how to tell someone how to find depth in a work of art when they refuse to see it.
Eh, you get used to it. Saw it all the time with the Abrams films.
To quote a Heinlein novel, "You can lead a child to knowledge but you can't make him think!"
Separate names with a comma.