It's like -- when I was 14, I read The Grapes of Wrath. And well, I was just not able to see the depth of that novel. I wasn't able to see all the meanings beneath the surface. That's not a sign The Grapes of Wrath lacks depth. That's not on John Steinbeck. That's on me as a reader, for not having read it generously and with an eye out for meanings beneath the surface.
So then you're taking the position that your particular interpretation of a work of art is the only valid one and that anyone who doesn't share it must be an obtuse clod? Given your respective abilities to appreciate nuance I will point out that the claim was not that there were no ideas in play - rather that those ideas were not treated or evolved in a way that could be said to be nuanced or even all that interesting. There is a difference between a work that can be reexamined multiple times to find layers of meaning versus one where those who view it project their own meaning into it without there necessarily being any underlying foundation on which to place that meaning. In my view Picard is of the latter kind of work. There is little depth to treatment of the issues that are purported to be addressed in this series, IMO.
No one said clod. Simply offering another point of view. Declaring something to be without nuance pretty much shuts down debate so that is the source of frustration. Couple that with it being the same litany I heard regarding Abrams Trek and it wears thin. IMO, Picard, for all its failing, invites both discussion and exploration of mortality and transhumanism. I think it has nuance because it works in shades of grey.
I don't think claiming a lack of nuance in the story is even half as caustic to debate as intimating that someone's perspective on the matter is evocative of or comparable to the state of being an ignorant child. If you disagree or don't care for my opinion that's fine but engage with the discussion or not. If I'm retreading a worn out path for you then simply ignore what I say - why attempt to disparage it? Moreover, why should it be a source of frustration in the first place? If it is as much a worn out path with a specific 'litany' as you say then certainly it could have some merit given that common reaction, no? To your point about Picard inviting discussion about mortality and trans-humanism - I suppose in some sense that is true in that they are ostensibly featuring these topics as elements of the overall story. But it seems to me to be more like someone just asking the random question "hey what do you think about transhumanism/mortality/Artifical Intelligence/etc?" rather than bringing up an idea in a thought provoking way as a springboard for discussion.
No. But your stance basically means you're denying it's even possible to have an interpretation of Star Trek: Picard. "Interesting" is a matter of subjective aesthetic preference, but to deny that there's nuance is just inaccurate. For example, PIC is full of thoughtful examination of who Jean-Luc Picard is as a person, from his arrogance to his heroism, to his self-destruction to his altruism, and about the ways in which all of those traits bleed into each other. Whether or not you find it interesting, there is clear nuance. If you don't see greater depth to PIC's treatment of mortality and trans-humanism than "Hey, what about that?", then, again, this is willful blindness.
I think the issue is that you can't find anything worthwhile in Picard and can't understand why anyone finds anything worthwhile in it. It comes across as a biased hater mentality I dislike pretty much all of Christopher Nolan's films barring the first two batman films he did, but I can still appreciate why people like his films. It is possible to dislike something and still see how it can have merit.
I simply stated that it reminded me of a quote from a book. If offense was taken then I do apologize. Random things tend to remind me of quotes from other media. Why do I disparage what is said? Largely because it has been said a lot without the appearance of appreciating a different perspective. I could totally understand why people do not like Picard-I could probably make successful arguments against the show. The show has a crap ton of flaws. But, insisting that there is no nuance and then doubly insisting doesn't feel discussion oriented either. At this point, I can honestly say so. I personally feel like it is a surface level reaction to Star Trek that some do not like and an easy way to dismiss it as, well, "not Star Trek." Agree to disagree at this point. I genuinely think that Picard has invited that discussion in a natural way, that it has allowed people to share opinions and disagreements about the nature of transhumanism and mortality. I think these are questions that don't have easy answers and Picard doesn't try to answer them in a quick way. I think that Season 2 offers a substantial amount of opportunity to explore these themes again. Maybe it will. I hope so. Mileage will vary.
I watch Picard simply to be entertained, and for the most part that goal is accomplished. I couldn't give two shits whether or not it has anything profound to say about life, the universe, anything.
You're feeling so upset? You think you'll have another cigarette? And curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get?
That's when he wasn't trying to beat you over the head with his attempts at profundity ("Critical Care").
In fairness, there are some people who I'd like to see end up like Chellik. Just to get a taste of their own medicine. Pun intended. Though really that's because I got ripped off once for a medical bill my insurance wouldn't cover. Then had to get into a whole fight over it. I swear whoever wrote that episode knew a Chellik IRL.
I'm not even that old, I love DS9. But when I was a kid, it took me 5-6 years to start watching Trek again after TNG aired because I felt betrayed. When I was 10 years old, I genuinely felt a hatred towards DS9 and its "new frontier" cause it wasn't Picard, it was a strange angry man, his middle class English Doctor and his alien friends. Thankfully. I'm self aware enough to watch the newer shows on their own merits cause, seemingly, I had the feelings 40 year old men did about ficitional television when I was 10.
Let's think for a minute: 1) Picard turning our Borg views on their head and fashioning them into a social underclass? We see them as victims instead of monolithic bad guys? Showing the cruelty against the XBs? That's Trek 2) Showing us AIs are and synths are more than meets the eye. Uploading a beloved character and making him the very object of what he's strived over the years to state, but indirectly till now. That's Trek 3. Showing us more levels to the Romulans and expanding our knowledge of them? That's Trek 4. Redeeming characters who were damaged, lost or misunderstood? That's Trek
I didn't feel betrayed by the newer shows, but I totally stopped watching DS9 for the most part after the very beginning. I felt a lot of the episodes were "boring," in large part due to them generally being stuck in one place instead of on a ship. While I still think that the Defiant was introduced to help with this aspect, I now have a lot more interest in DS9 as a whole. I still have a warm place in my heart for TNG that will never totally go away (even though there are some episodes which I really don't like watching anymore, either because they just aren't good, or that I've seen them a billion times), but I have to say DS9 is probably now my favorite series.
I legit teared up when stodgy old Picard admitted he loved Raffi and Data. That's character development.