Discussion in 'Star Trek: Picard' started by pst, Jan 9, 2020.
Nope, it was in the TNG Manual, which as we know was never "hard canon".
Weak pansy shit like that can, and in fact already has, been rejected.
Look at how Book reacted wheb his entire homeworld was destroyed. I'd call that mourning. And Tarka seemed very affected by his lover's death as well. So even in the far future of DSC, you're damn right people mourn.
I suppose that I should ignore TNG then, eh?
They were built for longer missions than 5 years which is why families were allowed. 10 years was something early articles talked about before the show aired. Supposedly less was also focused on tech advancement and more on family life.
Yet another of GR's entirely inhuman ideas.
Ignore that part, hell yeah!
I mean, if nothing else, Gene's dead, so it's not like anybody ELSE is gonna keep to that "utopia" shit.
Hell, after Gene passed, not even TNG kept it going.
Where do you get that TNG doesn't show people mourning deaths?
I love this selective editing. Fascinating insight in to the viewers perspectives
I do believe the term for it is but it's canon.
There was that one Season 3 ep where a kid's mother died and he was expected not to mourn her.
Good luck with that.
As I said, that so called "evolution" died right along with Gene. Look at how Picard reacted in GEN when Robert and René died. Anybody tells Picard he's not supposed to mourn his family, is gonna wish they hadn't.
Yet has been completely and entirely proven to be the outlier in all of Star Trek. In TNG we saw characters dealing with grief, loss, PTSD even.
GR thought that "children in the 24th century should be more accepting of death" doesn't mean a damn thing if his own show contradicts it in spades.
Canon is canon my friend.
Can't be ignored because it's inconvenient can it?
Just use Picard's own words against him:
DATA: Captain, ...I cannot continue with this investigation. I wish to be deactivated until Doctor Crusher can remove the emotion chip.
PICARD: Are you having some kind of malfunction?
DATA: No sir. I simply do not have the ability to control these emotions.
PICARD: Data, I have nothing but sympathy for what you are feeling, but right now I need you to...
DATA: Sir! I no longer want these emotions! Deactivating me is the only viable solution.
PICARD: Part of having feelings is learning to integrate them into your life, Data, ...learning to live with them. No matter what the circumstances...
DATA: No, I cannot...
PICARD: You will not be deactivated! You're an officer on board this ship and I require you to perform your duty. That is an order, Commander!
I do believe emotions are regarded as something to be regulated in Trek, correct? That's what has been presented as why Picard is a paragon of virtue all these years, yes?
That is precisely why it CAN be ignored.
And even PIC has ignored it as well. Last season, do you seriously think Musiker wasn't mourning Elnor's death? That hit her way fucking hard. She didn't just go "oh, meh, whatevers". It made her mad enough to try and kill Q! I'd definitely call that mourning.
Also, more recently, look at how overprotective Geordi was of his family (i.e. why he was so mad at Picard for putting Sidney in danger). That is also indicative of basic human emotion. If Sidney had died, Geordi damn well would have mourned her.
Yet that canon is contradicted by other canon.
So which canon is the superior canon.
I do believe that Raffi is considered an unevolved, poorly placed, 21st century avatar of a human. Perhaps we should ignore her as unenlightened.
I don't know. I believe the more enlightened fans among us can tell us that Picard is superior when he does his duty.
Okay, that's it. I am now convinced that you are, as my brother-in-law might say, "taking the mickey".
Slug what now?
I thought humans in 24th century were evolved. That's what people say. Are you telling me that's wrong? O_o
Yet Picard showed profound mourning both for his own family when Robert and Rene were killed *and* he suffered both long term PTSD and mourning from Datas death.
What Fireproof is suggesting, through his normal sarcasm, is if you can ignore that part of TNG, other parts can be easily ignored as well.
Which Picard is the more noble then?
The point of my question is why do people put this character on a pedestal as more noble avatar of human evolution, and the complaints against Season 1 Picard was that people were not evolved enough. I'm confused, genuinely confused, as to what is to be evolved humanity? I thought that was the appeal of Star Trek to many? So, again, I'm confused as to why some things are so important and others can get tossed out on their ass?
Ah, faithful Tuskin. You see to the heart of the matter quite well.
Separate names with a comma.