Fabulous is probably the last word anyone would use to describe me but sure lol.
Was pretty excited for this show.. but ultimately underwhelmed...
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
Fabulous is probably the last word anyone would use to describe me but sure lol.
same here to be honest
I did not say she's not the only person of color; I said she's the only black person, and that there aren't enough black people on the show. Black people make up 30% of the world's population; all other things being equal, something in the area of 30% of the cast ought to be black, too, but it's around half of that.
I would suggest that while diversity needs to be more than just meeting quotas, quotas are a good place to begin exploring how egalitarian a show's depictions of race are. A show whose cast demographics vary widely from the demographics of the larger community can be an indication of the presence of structural racism in its production or of subconscious racism in its creators' conception (unless there are other mitigating factors [e.g., a show specifically about the black community]).
With PIC, there's no real reason Raffi has to be the only black person in the primary cast, and no reason that three out of seven main characters have to be white.
I'm not saying throw the whole thing out. But I hope that as the show goes on and new cast members are added, that they continue a largely admirable effort at diversity, and that they make a special effort to avoid having a disproportionately small number of black people in the cast and to avoid accidentally perpetuating anti-black stereotypes.
I do. It perpetuates harmful anti-black stereotypes relating to the health of black families and drug usage. I don't think that was intentional in any way, but these stereotypes permeate the larger American culture, and I think that subconsciously influenced the creators of PIC (who are mostly white).
Of course.
I think there are ways to write black characters who are realistic and flawed without depicting those black characters in ways that perpetuate anti-black stereotypes.
Of course. But I've also run into black people who objected to the fact that the only black person on PIC was depicted as having a substance abuse problem and had a bad relationship with her son. So in my anecdotal experience so far, this is a topic where there's not a strong consensus among viewers of color.
His "this show needs more black people" comment made me cringe. The same as when people saying killing off a gay character was "problematic".
It was problematic. "Bury Your Gays" is a very real trope, and its over-saturation among depictions of same-sex couples causes psychological harm to LGBT people.
Its extreme prevalence in gay-themed films is exactly why Star Trek: Discovery really should have avoided using the "Bury Your Gays" trope, and why I'm glad the writers listened to the criticism they received for killing off Culber and found a way to bring him back that was dramatically engaging and which made him a more interesting character to boot.
Last edited:
It sure isn’t a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant name either.
There are 5 gay characters in the two main crews of Discovery and Picard, out of a total of 13. Stamets, Culber, Reno, Seven, Raffi. 38% of both casts are gay. I guarantee you, and I say this as a gay man myself, that is not the percentage of gay people in the real world. Does that mean you think there should be fewer gay characters too?
And yet you looking at skin colour as a determining factor for hiring actors, isn't?
Modern SJW society in a nutshell. There's no reason there needs to be two nacelles on the Enterprise either. Or that Romulan ships are green. Or Troi likes chocolate. They're creative decisions that were made. The same with the casting of a series. Once you start bringing in quotas, it becomes less about creative vision and more about box-ticking, and the slippery slope that follows.
Have you seen Discovery? Burnham, Owo, Dr Pollard, Culber, Craft from Short Treks, Book from season 3, the guy from the church in season 2.
So you're saying black characters should be given special treatment? They should be perfect with no issues?
He couldn't get any less interesting before they brought him back, so making him more interesting after coming back from the dead wasn't hard. We'll agree to disagree that his return was dramatic and engaging. I saw it as pandering to the outrage culture loudmouths who had a problem that a gay character was killed off. He certainly wasn't the only person killed in Discovery, and he should be treated no differently.
First off, it would be better to use the initialism LGBT or LGBTQIA+.
Secondly, you are conflating two different productions with two different casts.
Thirdly, you're including recurring actors rather than restricting yourself to principle cast members.
If you look at the principle cast members, the percentage isn't so large. Star Trek: Discovery has had 9 main cast members in total (not all of them at the same time), but of that 9, only 2 characters are LGBT -- 22.22%. At various points, Stamets was the only main cast member who was LGBT, so at those points the percentage drops to 11.11%. Star Trek: Picard has a main cast of seven, of which only one is implicitly (not yet explicitly) LGBT -- 14.28%.
There have, in addition, never been any canonical transgender characters in any Star Trek, nor any canonical nonbinary characters, nor any canonical genderqueer characters.
Of course not. But the numbers aren't as disproportionate as you're making them sound.
Kpnuts said:
It depends on the context. Racial justice is not a mere numbers game -- that's why I said quotas are a good place to start, not that they're the whole picture.
The real issue is whether the casting and hiring choices perpetuate or fight white supremacy. White supremacy is the default practice in the Anglosphere; history has shown that when white producers don't make conscious efforts to cast and hire people of color, those white producers will tend to make TV shows whose casts and crew are all-white or majority-white. Simply put, Hollywood defaults to whiteness if it doesn't make a special effort not to, because white supremacist culture programs us white folk to think of ourselves as the default setting for humanity. And when you imagine your own racial group as the default setting for humanity, you inevitably end up not including other communities or only including them in ways that don't reflect their actual prevalence in the world.
So, yes, I do indeed assert that the entertainment industry needs to make a special effort to create POC characters and cast POC actors and hire POC staff. Because when they don't make that special effort, they end up marginalizing persons of color.
In addition -- there can indeed be legitimate story reasons to cast people according to their racial identity. Black Panther is explicitly a story about an African nation that escaped colonization and embraced a futuristic technology base; you can't do Afro-Futurism with "color-blind" casting. The musical Hamilton is explicitly designed to cast persons of color as the Founding Fathers in order to make a metatextual commentary on the relationship between white supremacy and the idolization of those politicians. 12 Years A Slave absolutely would not work if white actors did not play the slavers and black actors did not play the victims of slavery. Etc.
Kpnuts said:
The people who use that term, "SJW," are mostly racists. I would strongly urge you not to use that term if you don't want to be confused with them.
Kpnuts said:
Does it become "less about the creative vision," or does it just challenge you to wonder why does the creative vision almost always end up focusing on white people first, even though most human beings are not white?
Like, seriously -- why are three out of seven actors in PIC white? Yes, it is the creative decision that was made, but why was that creative decision made? Why did TNG only include two black guys, and both of them have to wear stuff on their faces to boot? Why was there only one black guy on VOY? Why was there only one black guy on ENT, and why was he almost always ignored? Why were there no East Asian main characters on TNG or DS9? Why was there only one Asian character each on VOY and ENT? Why did we never have a Latino main character on Star Trek until DIS's Wilson Cruz and PIC's Santiago Cabrera? Why have we only ever had a single Arab main cast actor in Siddig El Fadil (who had to adopt a stage name of "Alexander Siddig" midway through DS9)? Why have we only had a single Central Asian principle character in Shazad Latif?
Most of the time, these kinds of disparities are not intentional. But they're very clearly present when you look at it. They're usually not motivated by anything in particular, other than the creators' mental blind spots. That's part of why "quotas," however much you despise them, can be good things -- they can prompt white creators to stop centering white characters, and to start imagining a humanity that reflects real life.
1) Star Trek: Discovery is not Star Trek: Picard. They are separate television programs.
2) Star Trek: Picard deserves credit for being fairly diverse. But that doesn't mean it can't do better.
3) Owo and Pollard are not main cast members. "That guy from the church?" Citing a minor guest star whose character name you cannot recall is not a good argument about the strength of black representation.
4) However, DIS is generally good on black representation! The last time Star Trek had three black people in the main cast was DS9 Seasons 4-7, and one of them had to wear a rubber mask the whole time.
5) DIS's strength in black representation is not a pass to PIC to continue having Raffi be the only black woman in the universe. By the same token, PIC's stronger East Asian representation is not a pass for the notable lack of East Asian primary characters on DIS. TV shows can be good shows with good diversity choices and still have room for improvement.
I explicitly said, "I think there are ways to write black characters who are realistic and flawed without depicting those black characters in ways that perpetuate anti-black stereotypes."
He should be treated differently if his death causes psychological harm to LGBT people (especially vulnerable LGBT kids) in need of representation in media.
No that's ok thanks. Give it a few years and there'll be another 9 letters and symbols added. Rather just say gay people.
Yes, I am. And?
Reno?
How do you know if Saru is gay or not? Or Tilly? You don't. So in actual fact, you should remove them from the equation and only concentrate on characters we legit know are interested in same sex. And even if you didn't, 22% is still a large percentage than reality.
I'd respond to this but that'd mean looking up what on earth genderqueer means.
You have one black/gay poster (agony_booth) and one non-white gay poster (myself) telling you that this sort of quota system is patronising and condescending. I can only speak for myself here, but I don't want special treatment. I don't want to see gay characters come back from the dead because a handful of people will complain about gay characters dying in a tv series, and I don't want to see 5 gay characters in 12 main crew members over two shows because it just across as pandering.
Thank you for the advice, I don't subscribe to either polar opposites, I'm not racist and I'm not an SJW, I want people to be treated equally, that's all. And I don't want CBSTrek to continue to sledgehammer their identity politics into both shows, so forcibly.
You're right, they're not. Unfortunately CBSTrek overcompensates in the other direction and that most certainly is intentional. The pendulum has swung so far the other way it's just as egregious as those old shows. There was a grand total of one straight white male on the Discovery crew in season 2, why is there only one you could ask?
How many other non Discovery/Section 31 characters were there in season 2? I'm struggling to think of any apart from that guy from the second episode.
Suggest something? A couple of negative character traits that you wouldn't have found "problematic".
So he's exempt from being killed or having negative traits? The message should be that he should be treated THE EXACT SAME as everyone else. That's a far more positive message than throwing a secutity blanket over "that poor gay man".
Anyway, you and I are never going to agree. You think "representation" is the be all and end all, characters should be created based on a checklist, and I don't. I think having gay, black, asian, whatever cheracters is great, but not to the extent of fulfiling a quota like you seem to be suggesting.
Last edited:
That's why some people use the word "queer" as a generalized term for sexual identity minorities.
So, conflating two separate shows with two separate casts is inaccurate, and ignores the fact that separate productions should be evaluated separately.
Jett is a recurring guest character, not a member of the principle cast.
No, because the goal is not to measure what percentage of characters are definitely hetero; the goal is to measure what percentage of characters are definitely LGBT.
That's a really hurtful thing to say to a genderqueer person. I am friends with a couple; if you can't be respectful of them, please refrain from saying mocking or hurtful things about them.
And there's an army of black people and LGBT people on Twitter and Facebook who will argue that pointing out that a show has a disproportionately small number of members of various communities is a perfectly legitimate critique, and who often level that critique themselves against various TV shows and films -- because looking at it in terms of percentages mathematically demonstrates how unequal depictions of communities often are.
Because we need to be clear about something: If Hollywood producers (who are overwhelmingly white) are not called upon to make a special effort to be inclusive, they will erase people of color and LGBT people. This is a pattern they have engaged in throughout the 20th and 21st Centuries. Without special efforts to increase representation, they will engage in erasure. They will create universes where hetero white guys are the center of the universe.
"Bury Your Gays" is special treatment -- special negative treatment.
And an army of LGBT people vehemently disagree with you and prevailed upon the producers of DIS not to indulge in the harmful, marginalizing "Bury Your Gays" trope.
But you're advocating for things that would lead to people being treated un-equally.
They're not. They're just depicting a world that's more realistic and acknowledges that straight white guys are not the center of the universe.
Edited to add: And besides, you're still not recognizing the ways in which all of Star Trek still imposes a tendency to center white people over other communities on its audiences; the ways in which every ST before DIS imposed cisheteronominative sexual identity politics on its audience; and the ways in which every ST before DIS (except for DS9) imposed patriarchal values upon its audiences. End edit.
This is factually inaccurate along racial, gender, and sexual orientation axes.
Race: Of 9 main cast characters in total (a number which includes David Ajala from S3 even though it hasn't aired yet), 5 have been white 55% of the cast. White people, for the record, make up somewhere between 6.8% to 8% of the world's population, depending on how you define "whiteness" -- so DIS, while representing a meaningful improvement over previous ST shows in terms of accurately representing humanity, still portrays white people as representing much more of humanity than they do in real life.
Of the 7 main characters on PIC, 3 are fully white, and 2 are biracial with white ancestry. This means PIC's cast is between 42.8%, grossly over-representing white people's role in the human species.
Gender: Of the DIS 9, only 2 have been women -- and I'm sure you have noticed that significantly more than 22% of the world are women. Similarly, only 3 out of 7 main cast members of PIC are women, significantly under-representing women's role in the human race.
Sexual Orientation: On DIS, 2 main characters are confirmed to be LGBT, equaling 22.2% of the cast. This might be an over-representation -- it's difficult to accurately measure the demographics of sexual orientation. However, on PIC, only 1 out of 7 -- 14.28% -- of the cast have been implied to be LGBT.
By no reasonable standard are these examples of "overcompensation," especially with so few women on both programs.
The fact that the particular axes of race, gender, and orientation only intersected in the white/male/hetero direction in the person of one character in DIS S2, is not a strong indication that straight white guys are being treated unfairly. If white people make up 8% of the population, that means white guys only make up about 4% of the population. One straight white guy seems perfectly fair to me. Honestly I didn't even notice Pike was the only straight white guy in DIS S2's main cast. And Pike was still, y'know, the captain.
Kpnuts said:
I'm not submitting my fucking writing CV for a staff position on the show. I have no obligation to enumerate which particular character flaws are not harmful anti-black stereotypes; people are full of flaws, and I'm sure everyone reading this can think of a few that aren't stereotypes.
Please stop lying about what I've advocated for.
If he were being treated "the exact same" as everyone else, he wouldn't have been killed. The entire reason the "Bury Your Gays" trope exists is that producers inflict death upon LGBT characters at much higher rates than straight characters.
I never said that. I said that it is important, and that without representation minorities will be erased by a white ethnocentric and racist system.
The unavoidable consequence of that mindset is that minorities will be erased. I for one do not want ever ST to end up like ENT, with nearly-ignored minority characters like Travis "Stepin Fetchit" and the nearly-invisible Hoshi being the only non-white people on the show. This may not be intentional, but it is racist because it places white people at the center of the story and marginalizes everyone else.
Why is it inaccurate? What difference does it make?
Both shows: 5 out of 13 - 38%
Discovery: 3 out of 7 - 43%
Picard: 2 out of 6 - 33%
If you don't want to combine them then take your pick, 43% or 33%, either way it's a greater proportion than real life. Like I said, over-compensating and pandering.
I disagree.
No, you should remove characters who's sexuality is unknown from the equation. We have no idea about Tilly or Saru therefore shouldn't include them. But hey let's pretend Tilly and Saru aren't gay anyway, and yet it's still 3 out of 7 Discovery crew members who are.
An army of attention-seeking loudmouths, yes. And there's another army, such as myself and Agony_Booth, who don't kick up a fuss at ever opportunity, whom you don't notice on Twitter. (Hopefully I'm not correct in my assessment of A_B)
No, YOU ARE. You're the one suggesting we pick people based on skin colour. You're the one saying you can't kill this person off because they're gay. That is the definition of not treating people equally.
5 gay characters in 12 senior crew members is not 'realistic'.
I'm fed up with the vilification of the straight white male. It's gotten pathetic lately.
You lost me, but I'm unsure if I actually want to know what this means...
5 gay characters in 12 senior crew members IS over-compensating.
As for gender... let's consider the non main cast of Discovery season 2:
Female:
Georgiou
Admr. Cornwell
Detmer
Owo
Airiam
Nhan
L’Rell
Amanda
Doctor Pollard
May
Admiral Patar
75% of the Enterprise bridge
Male:
Leland
Sarek
Try and find other men (who do more than yell out "Aye sir" like Bryce) in season 2. You won't be able to. Another example of over-compensating.
That's a ridiculous thing to say in a world where Discovery exists. Seriously, count the above. The ratio outside the main crew is 11:2 in favour of women. And if like you say Reno isn't part of the main crew, then make it 12:2.
I suspect you would have found any negative traits of Raffi "problematic". Because she deserves to be treated with extra respect and protection right, because she's black? And you honestly don't think that's condescending or discriminatory?
That's literally what you said. You suggested Culber shouldn't be killed because he's gay. Therefore, exempt from negative traits = "special treatment".
WTF? Cornwell was killed. Landry was killed. Connolly was killed. Lorca was killed. T'kuvma was killed. Kol was killed. Georgiou was killed. Plenty of characters are killed and all characters are at risk of being killed. Culber should be treated exactly the same as all characters.
EDIT: @The Old Mixer, I won't post again on this matter here. I was typing all that before seeing your post.
Locking the thread so everyone has a chance to see my previous post before they jump in.
Reopened; and if the recent debate between Sci and Kpnuts is continued by anyone, a formal Warning will be issued.
Cold re-start.
I felt the opposite of the OP. I wouldn't go so far as to say I wasn't looking forward to it, but I will say I wasn't that interested in Picard. I had Discovery. What would I need with Picard for?
I saw the teaser in May 2019, with someone asking Picard, "Why did you leave Starfleet, Admiral?" and I thought it felt very dour. Despite how great the cinematography was, it wasn't enough to rope me in.
Then in July 2019, two months later, I saw the first full actual trailer...
... and it won me over. I was looking forward to it now. I thought I was just back for Discovery. After I saw that trailer, I realized I thought wrong. I thought it was over. But I was back. And now I know "the end is just the beginning."
Then after I saw "Remembrance" (PIC), I had to tell everyone here and IRL, "Watch this show!" And, not being a TNGer, I knew this would have more weight coming from me. Picard had won over someone, such as myself, who was not predisposed to be won over, given the premise and setting. Yet they did. If that's not pulling a rabbit out of the hat, I don't know what is.
I felt the opposite of the OP. I wouldn't go so far as to say I wasn't looking forward to it, but I will say I wasn't that interested in Picard. I had Discovery. What would I need with Picard for?
I saw the teaser in May 2019, with someone asking Picard, "Why did you leave Starfleet, Admiral?" and I thought it felt very dour. Despite how great the cinematography was, it wasn't enough to rope me in.
Then in July 2019, two months later, I saw the first full actual trailer...
... and it won me over. I was looking forward to it now. I thought I was just back for Discovery. After I saw that trailer, I realized I thought wrong. I thought it was over. But I was back. And now I know "the end is just the beginning."
Then after I saw "Remembrance" (PIC), I had to tell everyone here and IRL, "Watch this show!" And, not being a TNGer, I knew this would have more weight coming from me. Picard had won over someone, such as myself, who was not predisposed to be won over, given the premise and setting. Yet they did. If that's not pulling a rabbit out of the hat, I don't know what is.
Last edited:
Well it's explicitly the same Picard unless you have a problem with Spock being resurrected by Genesis.
I feel the same about the new Star Trek: Picard show. I was an avid fan of the original Star Trek: The Next Generation TV show. Truth is, I have many vivid memories growing up watching the original ST:TNG, Encounter at Farpoint at a church event with my family in elementary school. Then, watching the show throughout middle school and high school.
Later on in high school, I had followed Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and upon starting college watching the movies.
My father was the first person who told me about the then up and coming Star Trek: Picard show in December, following the unexpected death of my mother from rheumatoid arthritis. I have to say it was really exciting to hear about a new Star Trek show, after watching the perplexing finale of the second season of Discovery.
Overall, I think the show had really good potential at first. Yet, I found the show to be somewhat confusing in that the show seemed to lack structure found in the more familiar ST:TNG show.
I realize that Picard was now retired and is living on the Vineyards in France. But it seemed like the Picard show would have flowed better if Picard held some sort of role in the Federation, like an Admiral or other high ranking position like in the original TOS Star Trek 2 movie. It just seemed that Picard was yearning to once again take command when Picard questioned him if really he wanted to take on another adventure. This is somewhat reminiscent of the Star Trek Generation movie
in which Scotty asks Captain Kirk if he was missing his chair when the new Captain John Harriman, played by
Ferris Bueller's Day off alumni Alan Ruck, of the Enterprise B emerges on the deck.
It just seems like the best part of the show was when PIcard was reunited with Picard, Counselor Troi, and even Data was subdued by the slow character development of Dahj, Data's daughter in the show. Yet, later on in the show Picard dies unexpectedly.
As in the Star Trek Generation movie, Kirk briefly reassumes command of the Enterprise but decides to go to engineering.
The cyber nexus ribbon hits the part of the hull where Kirk was working at. At this point, it is believed that Kirk had passed away but emerges within the Nexus.
I guess the finale of the show would made more sense that Picard had passed away and had been replaced by a robot
if Q would appeared. Q, would have symbolized the Nexus, a higher dimension as it was protrayed in the Star Trek Generations movie.
Yet, Picard would found himself once again in court for the crimes of humanity, as it was shown in the
ST:TNG, Encounter at Farpoint episodes.
>Finally watched the show during the lockdown. I haven't been posting much on the bbs for several years but every so often <something brings me around. Picard is one of those things.
>I did not hate the entire show. There was lots to like. I am glad that we have a forward moving trek again set in the prime >universe. I will start with what I did like.
>Favorite episode was NEPENTHE, not just because it had the Rikers. But it had so many great character moments like >what we got in TNG. It was very well done. I also like that Picard no longer works for Starfleet and has essentially become >part of a ragtag group of outcasts. I also love the design of the La sirena.
>Loved the return of Hugh and Seven. Seven has now gotten most of her humanity back and is no longer "robotic" in her >speech and actions. She is changed and I liked the change. Loved the dialogue between her and Picard about their >"shared" experience as part of the Borg.
><I have no issues with the crew of the La Sirena. Except maybe Agnes. Her reason for killing Maddox was very lame imo <and she should be in the brig...lol.
>So what I didnt like. Not too much in love with a 10 episode story arc. I would like to see that cut down to 5 eps at least. Ds9 >had a great balance between Arc and serialized episodes.
>But overall I enjoyed the show up until....yes...episode 10. Like many I just didnt like that Picard died and YES his conscious >was copied (per the dialogue IMPRINTS and than TRANSFERRED) so in my mind we are now watching a robot copy of >Picard. It was a little disheartening. The writers clearly thought it was a great unique idea. But other shows have done it b>etter. Killing off major Charcters but not Killing them off. My two favorite Examples....Voyagers Deadlock and Farscapes: <>Out of their Minds. Both well done episodes where everyone dies but dont die. On Voyagers you really dont know if they >are all originals or copies or just split and both originals like on Farscape. On Farscapes they were all equal and original. >Twined. >With Picard. It's different. He is just an android. No getting around that unless they write something to change that.. H>opefully we will get more info on what really happened and they will clarify. But my guess is we won't.
>The show also had pacing issues and some plot devices didnt sit well with me. The scanning device used at a crime scene >and the magic imagination device used on the last episode.
<Anyhow I hope the show gets better. I hope seven becomes a part of the crew. Which reminds me. They should not have >killed Hugh. He would have been another good addition to Picards new crew.[/QUOTE]
Later on in high school, I had followed Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and upon starting college watching the movies.
My father was the first person who told me about the then up and coming Star Trek: Picard show in December, following the unexpected death of my mother from rheumatoid arthritis. I have to say it was really exciting to hear about a new Star Trek show, after watching the perplexing finale of the second season of Discovery.
Overall, I think the show had really good potential at first. Yet, I found the show to be somewhat confusing in that the show seemed to lack structure found in the more familiar ST:TNG show.
I realize that Picard was now retired and is living on the Vineyards in France. But it seemed like the Picard show would have flowed better if Picard held some sort of role in the Federation, like an Admiral or other high ranking position like in the original TOS Star Trek 2 movie. It just seemed that Picard was yearning to once again take command when Picard questioned him if really he wanted to take on another adventure. This is somewhat reminiscent of the Star Trek Generation movie
in which Scotty asks Captain Kirk if he was missing his chair when the new Captain John Harriman, played by
Ferris Bueller's Day off alumni Alan Ruck, of the Enterprise B emerges on the deck.
It just seems like the best part of the show was when PIcard was reunited with Picard, Counselor Troi, and even Data was subdued by the slow character development of Dahj, Data's daughter in the show. Yet, later on in the show Picard dies unexpectedly.
As in the Star Trek Generation movie, Kirk briefly reassumes command of the Enterprise but decides to go to engineering.
The cyber nexus ribbon hits the part of the hull where Kirk was working at. At this point, it is believed that Kirk had passed away but emerges within the Nexus.
I guess the finale of the show would made more sense that Picard had passed away and had been replaced by a robot
if Q would appeared. Q, would have symbolized the Nexus, a higher dimension as it was protrayed in the Star Trek Generations movie.
Yet, Picard would found himself once again in court for the crimes of humanity, as it was shown in the
ST:TNG, Encounter at Farpoint episodes.
>Finally watched the show during the lockdown. I haven't been posting much on the bbs for several years but every so often <something brings me around. Picard is one of those things.
>I did not hate the entire show. There was lots to like. I am glad that we have a forward moving trek again set in the prime >universe. I will start with what I did like.
>Favorite episode was NEPENTHE, not just because it had the Rikers. But it had so many great character moments like >what we got in TNG. It was very well done. I also like that Picard no longer works for Starfleet and has essentially become >part of a ragtag group of outcasts. I also love the design of the La sirena.
>Loved the return of Hugh and Seven. Seven has now gotten most of her humanity back and is no longer "robotic" in her >speech and actions. She is changed and I liked the change. Loved the dialogue between her and Picard about their >"shared" experience as part of the Borg.
><I have no issues with the crew of the La Sirena. Except maybe Agnes. Her reason for killing Maddox was very lame imo <and she should be in the brig...lol.
>So what I didnt like. Not too much in love with a 10 episode story arc. I would like to see that cut down to 5 eps at least. Ds9 >had a great balance between Arc and serialized episodes.
>But overall I enjoyed the show up until....yes...episode 10. Like many I just didnt like that Picard died and YES his conscious >was copied (per the dialogue IMPRINTS and than TRANSFERRED) so in my mind we are now watching a robot copy of >Picard. It was a little disheartening. The writers clearly thought it was a great unique idea. But other shows have done it b>etter. Killing off major Charcters but not Killing them off. My two favorite Examples....Voyagers Deadlock and Farscapes: <>Out of their Minds. Both well done episodes where everyone dies but dont die. On Voyagers you really dont know if they >are all originals or copies or just split and both originals like on Farscape. On Farscapes they were all equal and original. >Twined. >With Picard. It's different. He is just an android. No getting around that unless they write something to change that.. H>opefully we will get more info on what really happened and they will clarify. But my guess is we won't.
>The show also had pacing issues and some plot devices didnt sit well with me. The scanning device used at a crime scene >and the magic imagination device used on the last episode.
<Anyhow I hope the show gets better. I hope seven becomes a part of the crew. Which reminds me. They should not have >killed Hugh. He would have been another good addition to Picards new crew.[/QUOTE]
Who is Data’s Daughter on ‘Star Trek: Picard’: All About Dahj, Lal, and Soji
https://decider.com/2020/01/23/star-trek-picard-who-is-datas-daughter-dahj-soji-lal/
https://decider.com/2020/01/23/star-trek-picard-who-is-datas-daughter-dahj-soji-lal/
No. I think an important point in PIC was that Picard had been betrayed by the institutions to which he had dedicated his life, and that is redemption needed to come from outside of institutions.
Slow development? C'mon, man, she goes from starting an exciting new job and falling in love, to being betrayed by the man she'd come to love, realizing that her entire life had been a lie, and then getting this cranky ersatz grandfather figure. She underwent a whirlwind of change in a very short number of episodes. By contrast, by episode 10 of TNG, Data was still a cardboard cutout who hadn't even met his brother Lore yet.
Kirk did not assume command of the Enterprise-B. He was offered command for a moment but insisted that Harriman stay in command.
I have no idea why you would make that connection.
*shrugs* "Compromised by mind control" seems to be an accepted legal defense in the world of Star Trek.
Oh goodness. They were barely able to fit everything into 10 episodes -- I'd hate to see how ridiculously compressed everything would have been in five!
I think it would be more accurate to say that DS9 was produced during a time when American television was transitioning from episodic structure to semi-serialized structures. Even the more serialized later episodes of DS9 are mostly episodic by modern standards. The writers of PIC did not want to tell a semi-episodic show; they wanted PIC S1 to tell a complete story with a beginning, middle, and end. Think of PIC S1 as a novel for television rather than as a traditional 90s-style semi-episodic season of ten different stories.
Your interpretation flat-out contradicts the show. It's the same Picard. He experienced continuity of consciousness. His mind was just transferred to a new body, just like Spock's was in TSFS, just like Kirk's was in "Turnabout Intruder."
There's nothing to clarify. Jean-Luc Picard spent the first 90-something years of his life as a Human, and then his mind was transferred into an android body. That's not something to "get around." The point of that development is that Picard is now a member of the same marginalized minority community whose rights he once defended.
>I realize that Picard was now retired and is living on the Vineyards in France. But it seemed like the Picard show would have flowed better if Picard held some sort of role in the Federation, like an Admiral or other high ranking position like in the original TOS Star Trek 2 movie.
Maybe so. This seems to be a reoccurring theme among Vietnam veteran's, like it was protrayed in the movie Born of the 4th of July.
>No. I think an important point in PIC was that Picard had been betrayed by the institutions to which he had dedicated his life, >and that is redemption needed to come from outside of institutions.
It just seems like the best part of the show was when PIcard was reunited with Picard, Counselor Troi, and even Data was subdued by the slow character development of Dahj,
Yes, it was ok. I guess. But then again, Dahj got destroyed. It was Soji, Dahj's twin sister.
>Slow development? C'mon, man, she goes from starting an exciting new job and falling in love, to being betrayed by the man she'd come to love, realizing that her entire life had been a lie, and then getting this cranky ersatz grandfather figure. >She underwent a whirlwind of change in a very short number of episodes.
That is true. But I saw more as a matter that Data yearned to be human but he never really quite meet his goal or objectives.
>By contrast, by episode 10 of TNG, Data was >still a cardboard cutout who hadn't even met his brother Lore yet.
As in the Star Trek Generation movie, Kirk briefly re assumes command of the Enterprise but decides to go to engineering.
Kirk did not assume command of the Enterprise-B.
That is true. Yes, I was going to mention that.
>He was offered command for a moment but insisted that Harriman stay in command.
>I guess the finale of the show would made more sense that Picard had passed away and had been replaced by a robot if Q would appeared. Q, would have symbolized the Nexus, a higher dimension as it was protrayed in the Star Trek Generations movie.
Well, it would been kind of neat if the writers of Picard made connections to the previous ST:TNG show.
>I have no idea why you would make that connection.
have no issues with the crew of the La Sirena. Except maybe Agnes. Her reason for killing Maddox was very lame imo <and she should be in the brig...lol.
Ok.
>*shrugs* "Compromised by mind control" seems to be an accepted legal defense in the world of Star Trek.
>So what I didnt like. Not too much in love with a 10 episode story arc. I would like to see that cut down to 5 eps at least.
Oh goodness. They were barely able to fit everything into 10 episodes -- I'd hate to see how ridiculously compressed everything would have been in five!
Ds9 >had a great balance between Arc and serialized episodes.
I see. Ok.
>I think it would be more accurate to say that DS9 was produced during a time when American television was transitioning >from episodic structure to semi-serialized structures.
So, you are saying that Picard was written more like a Spanish novela then?
>Even the more serialized later episodes of DS9 are mostly episodic by modern standards. The writers of PIC did not want >to tell a semi-episodic show; they wanted PIC S1 to tell a complete story with a beginning, middle, and end.
I see. Ok. I understand now.
>Think of PIC S1 as a novel for television rather than as a traditional 90s-style semi-episodic season of ten different stories.
I see.
>But overall I enjoyed the show up until....yes...episode 10. Like many I just didnt like that Picard died and YES his conscious >was copied (per the dialogue IMPRINTS and than TRANSFERRED) so in my mind we are now watching a robot copy of >Picard.
Ok. I have to admit that while I was watching the show earlier in the year, I had other things going on like trying to find a job, working part time, and having a parent that passed away. So, I will have to watch the Picard show again.
>Your interpretation flat-out contradicts the show. It's the same Picard. He experienced continuity of consciousness.
I see. I don't think I recall that TOS episode that Kirk was in the Turnabout Intruder.
>His mind was just transferred to a new body, just like Spock's was in TSFS, just like Kirk's was in "Turnabout Intruder."
I see.
>With Picard. It's different. He is just an android. No getting around that unless they write something to change that..
Hopefully, soon.
>H>opefully we will get more info on what really happened and they will clarify.
Maybe so with the coronavirus pandemic hurting the production of TV shows and movie sets.
>But my guess is we won't.
There's nothing to clarify. Jean-Luc Picard spent the first 90-something years of his life as a Human, and then his mind was transferred into an android body. That's not something to "get around."
I see. This reminds me of the Defending the Man ST:TNG episode where Picard defends Data in a trial on board the Enterprise.
>The point of that development is that Picard is now a member of the same marginalized minority community whose rights >he once defended.
Democratic Socialists of America.
Maybe so. This seems to be a reoccurring theme among Vietnam veteran's, like it was protrayed in the movie Born of the 4th of July.
>No. I think an important point in PIC was that Picard had been betrayed by the institutions to which he had dedicated his life, >and that is redemption needed to come from outside of institutions.
It just seems like the best part of the show was when PIcard was reunited with Picard, Counselor Troi, and even Data was subdued by the slow character development of Dahj,
Yes, it was ok. I guess. But then again, Dahj got destroyed. It was Soji, Dahj's twin sister.
>Slow development? C'mon, man, she goes from starting an exciting new job and falling in love, to being betrayed by the man she'd come to love, realizing that her entire life had been a lie, and then getting this cranky ersatz grandfather figure. >She underwent a whirlwind of change in a very short number of episodes.
That is true. But I saw more as a matter that Data yearned to be human but he never really quite meet his goal or objectives.
>By contrast, by episode 10 of TNG, Data was >still a cardboard cutout who hadn't even met his brother Lore yet.
As in the Star Trek Generation movie, Kirk briefly re assumes command of the Enterprise but decides to go to engineering.
Kirk did not assume command of the Enterprise-B.
That is true. Yes, I was going to mention that.
>He was offered command for a moment but insisted that Harriman stay in command.
>I guess the finale of the show would made more sense that Picard had passed away and had been replaced by a robot if Q would appeared. Q, would have symbolized the Nexus, a higher dimension as it was protrayed in the Star Trek Generations movie.
Well, it would been kind of neat if the writers of Picard made connections to the previous ST:TNG show.
>I have no idea why you would make that connection.
have no issues with the crew of the La Sirena. Except maybe Agnes. Her reason for killing Maddox was very lame imo <and she should be in the brig...lol.
Ok.
>*shrugs* "Compromised by mind control" seems to be an accepted legal defense in the world of Star Trek.
>So what I didnt like. Not too much in love with a 10 episode story arc. I would like to see that cut down to 5 eps at least.
Oh goodness. They were barely able to fit everything into 10 episodes -- I'd hate to see how ridiculously compressed everything would have been in five!
Ds9 >had a great balance between Arc and serialized episodes.
I see. Ok.
>I think it would be more accurate to say that DS9 was produced during a time when American television was transitioning >from episodic structure to semi-serialized structures.
So, you are saying that Picard was written more like a Spanish novela then?
>Even the more serialized later episodes of DS9 are mostly episodic by modern standards. The writers of PIC did not want >to tell a semi-episodic show; they wanted PIC S1 to tell a complete story with a beginning, middle, and end.
I see. Ok. I understand now.
>Think of PIC S1 as a novel for television rather than as a traditional 90s-style semi-episodic season of ten different stories.
I see.
>But overall I enjoyed the show up until....yes...episode 10. Like many I just didnt like that Picard died and YES his conscious >was copied (per the dialogue IMPRINTS and than TRANSFERRED) so in my mind we are now watching a robot copy of >Picard.
Ok. I have to admit that while I was watching the show earlier in the year, I had other things going on like trying to find a job, working part time, and having a parent that passed away. So, I will have to watch the Picard show again.
>Your interpretation flat-out contradicts the show. It's the same Picard. He experienced continuity of consciousness.
I see. I don't think I recall that TOS episode that Kirk was in the Turnabout Intruder.
>His mind was just transferred to a new body, just like Spock's was in TSFS, just like Kirk's was in "Turnabout Intruder."
I see.
>With Picard. It's different. He is just an android. No getting around that unless they write something to change that..
Hopefully, soon.
>H>opefully we will get more info on what really happened and they will clarify.
Maybe so with the coronavirus pandemic hurting the production of TV shows and movie sets.
>But my guess is we won't.
There's nothing to clarify. Jean-Luc Picard spent the first 90-something years of his life as a Human, and then his mind was transferred into an android body. That's not something to "get around."
I see. This reminds me of the Defending the Man ST:TNG episode where Picard defends Data in a trial on board the Enterprise.
>The point of that development is that Picard is now a member of the same marginalized minority community whose rights >he once defended.
Democratic Socialists of America.
I wasnt talking about just a 5 episode story each season. But rather a couple. The 10 episodes we got have major pacing issues and didnt have to be 10 episode.
Spock's body wasnt new but regenerated by terraforming. Healed so to speak. It went from being de-aged back to its adult form.
We really dont know if that was all Kirk in turnabout intruder. If the Kirk Body had died with Lester's "consciousness" 100% of what makes Kirk's kirk would have been dead.
So only his memories and mannerisms would exist in a female body.
People try to use the same argument with the transporters. Many have tried to use the argument that when you are beamed you have a new body and they are not the same person. Just because of an episode that kinda implied you can make a new body. But I can name THREE times when people were conscious during beam out and actually moving IN THE BEAM.
Yet people have used that erroneapus reasoning to excuse away stuff like Picard Not being Picard.
Same with this. Just because Kirk's memory was downloaded into lester and vice versa does not mean they are 100% that person.
Anyhow. At 1:36. Sounds like a copy to me. The Real Picard is dead. And if the creators push the fact that hes not...its a plot hole imo.
Last edited:
Again, so what? The guy coming out the other end will make the exact same actions, choices, and decisions as the character we have been watching up until this point. The writers consider him the same guy, so they will write him to behave the same as if this process had never happened. The actor considers him the same guy, so he will play him the same as he has for 30 years. So who cares if it is a copy or not a copy? And their goal is accomplished: handwavium has been employed, Irumodic Syndrome is dealt with. They can have however many seasons they want with Picard because their character doesn't have to die of an illness conceived 30 years ago.
Similar threads
