The Multiple Layers of PIC's Opening Scenes

Wrong again. This was the post I was referring to:

As for characters waking up from dreams... that's commonplace. All I was saying is I very much doubt that half the symbolism the OP talked was intentional.

Sure, when you're making an original piece of art or entertainment with no history to build off of. Chabon is perfectly entitled to make whatever he wants but a man with a bit of integrity would look at the rich universe he should be honoured at being asked to add to and respect it.

You're right, I don't have an interview quote saying that the designers chose a yellow font in the opening credits because it looked nice. Mostly because it was an example how people can make up anything they want about every second of footage, but that doesn't mean it is intentional.

More importantly, as someone who has called me out on needing to present evidence, do you have any for this...

 

Hold on. You claimed, "No, I want to tell some guy on a message board that there's nothing there when he says that Chabon and co included the Romulans in Star Trek Picard because one of the opening scenes of First Contact had an admiral tell Picard to patrol the Neutral Zone."

Which is absolutely not what @Lord Garth is saying in that quote.

Lord Garth is pointing out that a mirrored contrast exists between Picard waking up to be told to patrol the Neutral Zone, and Picard waking up to the friendship of two Romulans living on Earth.

Now, your milage may vary as to how relevant that mirrored contrast is. But the contrast is objectively present. And at no point does Lord Garth claim that Chabon only put Romulans into the show for that contrast.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that Chabon was not intentionally mirroring FC by having PIC start with Picard waking up into a new setting.

Who's talking about symbolism? The use of a dream as an introductory device for a new setting, and the contrast of the hostility towards Romulans after waking up in FC vs the friendliness towards Romulans after waking up in PIC, are not examples of symbolism. They're examples of allusion and contrast. Symbolism is an entirely different literary device.

Nope. An artist's only obligation is to tell the story her muse compels her to tell. Period. You are not owed the content you want to see. You are perfectly entitled to decide that what's on offer isn't to your subjective tastes, but the artist had no obligation whatsoever to cater to you.

Accusing Chabon of lacking integrity or respect because he did not tell the kind of story you personally wanted to see -- or, rather, because he did not include the kind of minutiae you personally wanted to see -- is the height of entitled, narcissistic entitlement. It is genuinely toxic behavior.

Glad you conceded that you have no evidence to back up your assumption that artists must be as thoughtless as you are.

 

I don't think Chabon had the Romulans in PIC to contrast how things had changed since FC. I think the Romulans Picard lived with are there to show how much things had changed since the Old Days when the Romulans were The Enemy. FC is just one example of the Old Days.

And Michael Chabon isn't the whole kit and kabootle. Film, or TV in this case, isn't just the showrunner or the producer. Some of this could've also come down to Hanelle M. Culpepper's direction and choices she made.

Sci pretty much summed up everything else in his last post, but those are two things I wanted to weigh in on. I'm not interested in arguing with Kpnuts. "Because you can't!" No, because I don't want to. I don't think there's any point to it.

 

Yes. I literally just said that.

I never said he had an obligation to. He's catering to himself, and he's within his right to do that. And I'm perfectly within my right to criticise when he ignores a part of Star Trek that a big proportion of fans enjoy. Especially when his "vision" is so deeply rooted in nostalgia.

Wrong. That's not what I said or even suggested. You really like putting words in people's mouths don't you, a desperate attempt to win an argument.

So you make an assertion on behalf of Chabon, that you "promise, PROMISE" me that he meant to do something an internet theory is suggesting.

And then accuse ME of having no evidence to backup a hypothetical claim about the font colour in the opening credits.

You're not very good at this debating thing are you?

 

You called him "selfish" for not including more starship porn. This is the same thing as claiming he has an obligation to include content you want.

In response to my pointing out that Chabon had no obligation to include starship porn, you said, "Chabon is perfectly entitled to make whatever he wants but a man with a bit of integrity would look at the rich universe he should be honoured at being asked to add to and respect it." The use of the word "but" means you are contrasting what Chabon actually did (refrain from including starship porn) with what you assess he should have done (include starship porn) in order to be evaluated as having integrity and respect. You therefore used weasel words to imply that he does not have integrity or respect because he did not include starship porn.

Take responsibility for your statements, thanks.

What "hysterical claim?" The only person who made any claims about the font color was you.

 

No it isn't.

Learn to read, I said hypothetical, thanks.

I know you're fully aware of how hypocritical you're being, and are just trying to weasel out of it by pretending to be obtuse, but I'll explain it one last time.

You told me that you "promise, PROMISE" that Chabon was thinking the same as the OP and did the things the OP talked about knowingly.

Then you accused me having no evidence to back up a point I only made the prove a separate point.

Stop being hypocritical, thanks.

 

That was my understanding as well.

If that was not the intent then it came across as poorly for calling Chabon "selfish."

 

Yes, it is. You accused him of having a character flaw for not featuring a particular type of content you enjoy. To accuse someone of having a character flaw for not doing X is the same thing as asserting they have an obligation to do X.

I'm simply stating a fact: You have cited no evidence to support your assertion that there was no consideration given to how people might interpret the color scheme of the opening credits.

 

See now you're changing the argument. I've been saying he has a wider responsibility in the Star Trek universe to broadly respect and live up to it's history and tradition. Very different to your accusation that I was "calling him selfish because he doesn't make the content that I want".

You're terrible at this.

 

Wow...the amount of effort someone will put into rationalizing and making their own personal viewpoints stick will never cease to amaze me.

I know everything I need to know about a poster and the value of debating with them when their approach contains any one of the following:
1. Unilateral declarations that someone else's argument / debate skills are inferior
2. Any time someone victoriously writes "Wrong!!" as part of their response to someone else
3. Specific to creative decisions, anyone who spouts off rhetoric about "needing to respect the sacred body of work " because, you know, since they personally don't like it, it was clear and intentional disrespect to the franchise, fans, and creative talents who all came before.

Any ONE of these is a red flag for time not worth spent.

Kpnuts hit the whole trifecta pretty quick.

"Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full"

 

Any time I hear this I cringe. It just is such an artificial limitation on Star Trek, which started out as a multistory variety platform within its own framework.

 

Another thing is, I don't think it's some wild leap to think Michael Chabon, Hanelle Culpepper, and other key people probably re-watched some key TNG episodes and some of the movies before putting "Remembrance" together. I'd be shocked if they didn't re-watch "All Good Things", First Contact (generally considered the best TNG movie), and Nemesis beforehand. And while they were re-watching, and taking notes, there were probably things that jumped out to them where they thought, "Hey! I like that!"

And this was Star Trek's first return to the 24th Century in a long time. They'd want to start it off right. So it's also not much of a leap to think they probably would've put more thought into how to open it than usual.

 

No, it is the same argument I have been making: You have claimed that an artist had an obligation to provide you with content you wished to see, and that is false. And yes, if you claim that someone has a character flaw for not doing X, then that means you are claiming they have an obligation to do X. Therefore, if you claim someone has a character flaw for not giving you starship porn, you are claiming he has an obligation to give you starship porn.

And you have made this claim as a rebuttal to people saying he had no obligation to provide you with starship porn. A rebuttal is by definition an attempt to refute the other person's statement; you were insinuating he lacks respect and is not fulfilling his artistic obligations by asserting that he has such obligations. You were, therefore, attempting to argue that he had an obligation to give you starship porn and that he has character flaws if he does not.

Your entire line of argumentation has been a very long and tedious claim that an artist has an obligation to provide you with content you want, and your every reply has been an attempt to rebut the simple statement of fact that Chabon didn't owe you shit and does not have character flaws just because he didn't give you the content you wanted (i.e., starship porn).

 

Anyway, I think the creative team did a good job in the opening of the series to immediately call back to the key TNG stories that were going to factor into the first season off PIC.

That's my opinion.

 

You can keep saying the same thing over and over and over again, but it won't be true.

Kindly stop putting words in my mouth, thank you.

I've never once made claims that he should do something because of MY wishes, or because of what "I" want. I've always talked about either the legacy of Trek as a whole, or the sizeable contingent of fans that likes starship porn. They were finally, after 10 episodes thrown a bone, and it was poorly executed.

 

I was actually weirdly surprised at how they followed up on some storylines from TNG.

 

I'm not at all interested in getting into whether or not this was intentional, like some of the other petty bickering in this thread, but I will say there's a lot in your post that hadn't occurred to me and is really cool - and I might have one more here. Bing Crosby was the grandfather of the actress who played Tasha Yar, Denise Crosby. And since Tasha's loss was especially meaningful in different ways to both Picard and Data, that choice of song and version is a bit melancholy on a meta level, too.

 

You have claimed on several occasions that Chabon was selfish for not doing starship porn. Your words, not mine. If this were true of Chabon, how could he be selfish for not doing something unless he has an obligation to do it? If Chabon does not have an obligation to provide starship porn, then his lack of starship porn cannot be evidence of selfishness.

To say, "[Chabon] [is selfish] for not providing [starship porn]" is to say, "[Person] [has a character flaw] for not providing [preferred content.]" The words in brackets equate one-another as equivalent meanings: "Chabon"="Person," "is selfish"="has a character flaw," "starship porn"="preferred content."

This boils down to a simple syllogism: "X has a character flaw for not doing Y."

To say that X has a character flaw for not doing Y is to say that X has an obligation to do Y.

If X does not have an obligation to do Y, then refusal to do Y is not a vice.

Either you are being dishonest about your intended meaning or you were thoughtless about what the statements you made actually meant.

To say that Chabon is selfish for not doing starship porn is the same thing as claiming he has an obligation to do starship porn. You cannot ascribe a vice to someone for refraining from doing something they have no obligation to do.

 

Because Trek is about more than just the parts he's interested in. He has a responsibility to that 50 year legacy.

You're one to talk about being dishonest and thoughtless given the following string of posts...

...