I remember people on the internet (not necessarily here) complaining when Picard had an episode that "barely advanced the plot" and therefore was a complete waste of time. For some reason it seems those are the ones studio executives listen to.
Except that's a consequence of the style of the show, not the other way around. When you structure your show to be a continuous narrative, then people will complain when nothing is happening. If you structure your show such that random plot-of-the-week episodes are perfectly normal, the audience is far more likely to just roll with it. Especially if nothing pressing is going on in the larger plotlines.
They decided to make a show that is just one plot divided over 8 episodes, which was the style at the time. And then they had episodes that just didn't do much of anything. Which sticks out like a sore thumb in those kind of shows.
Picard and Discovery are joyless reflections on misery and despair. utter trash.
Gonna have to hard disagree there. Both shows are dark, but ultimately reflect the same optimism and humanity as every other Trek.
Discovery:
Burnham's actions in the premiere, and Lorca's whole character, represent the cynical realpolitik that dominates modern science fiction. The first season finale is a direct refutation of that philosophy, as Burnham and Discovery risk everything because they still believe in the ideals on which the Federation was founded--that war, barbarism, and violence are not the answer. Burnham's arc is explicitly one of redemption, wrapped in classic Trek philosophy.
Season 2 continues that trend from the start. Pike, literally original Captain, is stated in text to be the "best of Starfleet." The crew spends the whole season working to preserve life, explore, and find peaceful solutions to conflict. Section 31 is shown to be a reckless collection of fools that nearly doom the galaxy. The heroes only win in the end because of the connections they made with disparate, alien cultures--connections made at great risk to themselves.
Picard:
Every dark element in the story is explicitly tied to Starfleet's failure to uphold its ideals. Every good thing that happens stems from Picard's efforts to keep those ideals alive. At the climax Starfleet, which occupies an antagonistic role in the first act, redeems itself by defending people who cannot defend themselves. Picard, embodying the "best of Starfleet," is literally given a new lease on life.
You can argue whether New Trek is well-crafted, but labeling it "joyless reflections on misery and despair" doesn't hold up to what's actually shown on screen.
Any pissed off synth being able to send an email to summon the CLEANSING TENTACLES makes me think the Romulan hotties have a point, actually. The intent of the ending is clearly positive, but it's a bit of the "stop discriminating against superheroes" problem.
+2
Options
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
I have one comfort in my annoyance at how frequently "this isn't Star Trek" gets bemoaned at the current crop of new Star Trek series, and that is that in 20 years all the people who grew up with that Trek will be calling it the "real" Trek, and whatever new stuff comes out (that probably most closely resembles TNG) will be called "fake." As a result all of the "not real trek" people today will have to listen to the ocean of 30yr-olds complain about exactly the kind of series they always wanted while they grumble in their old and withered husks where nobody cares about what they like anymore.
lol, you think new young people who didn't watch star trek are watching this new CBS trek?
oh Cambiata!
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I have one comfort in my annoyance at how frequently "this isn't Star Trek" gets bemoaned at the current crop of new Star Trek series, and that is that in 20 years all the people who grew up with that Trek will be calling it the "real" Trek, and whatever new stuff comes out (that probably most closely resembles TNG) will be called "fake." As a result all of the "not real trek" people today will have to listen to the ocean of 30yr-olds complain about exactly the kind of series they always wanted while they grumble in their old and withered husks where nobody cares about what they like anymore.
lol, you think new young people who didn't watch star trek are watching this new CBS trek?
oh Cambiata!
Yep! You're damn right they are!
This is one of those, "just wait" things, the punchline which will only occur in 20 years. People who are not in their 40s right now are unlikely to believe it because it seems incomprehensible and unlikely. But oh, my child. OH.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Kids love subscribing to CBS All Access, it's like the Fortnite battle pass except you get several episodes of Touched by an Angel.
There's this obscure concept where adults subscribe to things and then their kids get access. Fairly often when said adults have nostalgia for a specific property they'll even watch their favorite thing with their child in the room, hoping to make their child a fan, too.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Any pissed off synth being able to send an email to summon the CLEANSING TENTACLES makes me think the Romulan hotties have a point, actually. The intent of the ending is clearly positive, but it's a bit of the "stop discriminating against superheroes" problem.
The snyths aren't Skynet. They didn't decide to call the Reapers because they felt like; they only called out because the Zhat Vash had a hard-on for genocide. And they stopped once the threat passed, when Starfleet decided to be Starfleet again.
As for the "any pissed off synth" bit, that cuts both ways, doesn't it? What's to stop any pissed off organic from glassing the synths from orbit? Does that mean the synth hotties have a point?
When two factions have the ability to destroy each other, the only way out is trust. That's the Trek optimism at Picard's heart.
Any pissed off synth being able to send an email to summon the CLEANSING TENTACLES makes me think the Romulan hotties have a point, actually. The intent of the ending is clearly positive, but it's a bit of the "stop discriminating against superheroes" problem.
The snyths aren't Skynet. They didn't decide to call the Reapers because they felt like; they only called out because the Zhat Vash had a hard-on for genocide. And they stopped once the threat passed, when Starfleet decided to be Starfleet again.
As for the "any pissed off synth" bit, that cuts both ways, doesn't it? What's to stop any pissed off organic from glassing the synths from orbit? Does that mean the synth hotties have a point?
When two factions have the ability to destroy each other, the only way out is trust. That's the Trek optimism at Picard's heart.
Also the Doctor's heart(s). (Clip from "The Zygon Inversion" goes here.)
How accurate would you say transporters are? Inches? Millimeters? Could you perform a heart transplant by teleporting out the bad heart and immediately teleporting in the fresh heart?
Picard and Discovery are joyless reflections on misery and despair. utter trash.
Gonna have to hard disagree there. Both shows are dark, but ultimately reflect the same optimism and humanity as every other Trek.
Discovery:
Burnham's actions in the premiere, and Lorca's whole character, represent the cynical realpolitik that dominates modern science fiction. The first season finale is a direct refutation of that philosophy, as Burnham and Discovery risk everything because they still believe in the ideals on which the Federation was founded--that war, barbarism, and violence are not the answer. Burnham's arc is explicitly one of redemption, wrapped in classic Trek philosophy.
Season 2 continues that trend from the start. Pike, literally original Captain, is stated in text to be the "best of Starfleet." The crew spends the whole season working to preserve life, explore, and find peaceful solutions to conflict. Section 31 is shown to be a reckless collection of fools that nearly doom the galaxy. The heroes only win in the end because of the connections they made with disparate, alien cultures--connections made at great risk to themselves.
Picard:
Every dark element in the story is explicitly tied to Starfleet's failure to uphold its ideals. Every good thing that happens stems from Picard's efforts to keep those ideals alive. At the climax Starfleet, which occupies an antagonistic role in the first act, redeems itself by defending people who cannot defend themselves. Picard, embodying the "best of Starfleet," is literally given a new lease on life.
You can argue whether New Trek is well-crafted, but labeling it "joyless reflections on misery and despair" doesn't hold up to what's actually shown on screen.
But, at least for Picard since I can't speak for Discovery, you point out exactly why this doesn't really work in your own explanation.
Picard explicitly frames Starfleet and the Federation as the villain. On basically every level. At every turn Picard finds Starfleet and Federation society in his way. Even at the end it's not Starfleet, but Will Riker, Picard's buddy who we spend a whole episode reconnecting with that saves the day. And it's not just Picard either, as we see with Seven's story. The show is full of outcasts.
Picard wants to frame Picard as the Big Moral Centre of the story. He's the one that saves the day by standing up for what's right. But in order to elevate him, they story reframes everything else about the Star Trek setting in a negative light.
More then anything I'd say it's a conflict between Star Trek as a franchise, even when it was TNG, being about more then just Picard. But ST: Picard, fairly obviously from the title, wants to be all about Picard. And if the audience is invested in more then just Picard the character, or at best the TNG cast, then the whole thing comes off as pretty negative.
How accurate would you say transporters are? Inches? Millimeters? Could you perform a heart transplant by teleporting out the bad heart and immediately teleporting in the fresh heart?
Transporters are precise to the atomic level. I couldn't cite a source right now, but I recall characters saying they transform every atom to energy to move them and reconstruct them. The specs even have Heisenberg Compensators to deal with the problems that come with precisely measuring the position and velocity of every atom in your body (and they work just fine, thank you).
For medical use, in Voyager we've seen the Doctor deliver a baby by beaming it out of the mother's uterus. In principle they could also do surgery by beaming out an organ and beaming in a replacement, it's precise enough for it. Hell, it'd be precise enough to run detox by beaming toxins out of your bloodstream.
How accurate would you say transporters are? Inches? Millimeters? Could you perform a heart transplant by teleporting out the bad heart and immediately teleporting in the fresh heart?
Transporters are precise to the atomic level. I couldn't cite a source right now, but I recall characters saying they transform every atom to energy to move them and reconstruct them. The specs even have Heisenberg Compensators to deal with the problems that come with precisely measuring the position and velocity of every atom in your body (and they work just fine, thank you).
For medical use, in Voyager we've seen the Doctor deliver a baby by beaming it out of the mother's uterus. In principle they could also do surgery by beaming out an organ and beaming in a replacement, it's precise enough for it. Hell, it'd be precise enough to run detox by beaming toxins out of your bloodstream.
Didn't they replace Worf's spine via teleporter after he was jumped by that dishonorable barrel?
How accurate would you say transporters are? Inches? Millimeters? Could you perform a heart transplant by teleporting out the bad heart and immediately teleporting in the fresh heart?
i mean, that's like the thing that Vidiians do all day and night.
Picard and Discovery are joyless reflections on misery and despair. utter trash.
Gonna have to hard disagree there. Both shows are dark, but ultimately reflect the same optimism and humanity as every other Trek.
Discovery:
Burnham's actions in the premiere, and Lorca's whole character, represent the cynical realpolitik that dominates modern science fiction. The first season finale is a direct refutation of that philosophy, as Burnham and Discovery risk everything because they still believe in the ideals on which the Federation was founded--that war, barbarism, and violence are not the answer. Burnham's arc is explicitly one of redemption, wrapped in classic Trek philosophy.
Season 2 continues that trend from the start. Pike, literally original Captain, is stated in text to be the "best of Starfleet." The crew spends the whole season working to preserve life, explore, and find peaceful solutions to conflict. Section 31 is shown to be a reckless collection of fools that nearly doom the galaxy. The heroes only win in the end because of the connections they made with disparate, alien cultures--connections made at great risk to themselves.
Picard:
Every dark element in the story is explicitly tied to Starfleet's failure to uphold its ideals. Every good thing that happens stems from Picard's efforts to keep those ideals alive. At the climax Starfleet, which occupies an antagonistic role in the first act, redeems itself by defending people who cannot defend themselves. Picard, embodying the "best of Starfleet," is literally given a new lease on life.
You can argue whether New Trek is well-crafted, but labeling it "joyless reflections on misery and despair" doesn't hold up to what's actually shown on screen.
But, at least for Picard since I can't speak for Discovery, you point out exactly why this doesn't really work in your own explanation.
Picard explicitly frames Starfleet and the Federation as the villain. On basically every level. At every turn Picard finds Starfleet and Federation society in his way. Even at the end it's not Starfleet, but Will Riker, Picard's buddy who we spend a whole episode reconnecting with that saves the day. And it's not just Picard either, as we see with Seven's story. The show is full of outcasts.
Picard wants to frame Picard as the Big Moral Centre of the story. He's the one that saves the day by standing up for what's right. But in order to elevate him, they story reframes everything else about the Star Trek setting in a negative light.
More then anything I'd say it's a conflict between Star Trek as a franchise, even when it was TNG, being about more then just Picard. But ST: Picard, fairly obviously from the title, wants to be all about Picard. And if the audience is invested in more then just Picard the character, or at best the TNG cast, then the whole thing comes off as pretty negative.
You’re forgetting a couple of things.
1. Starfleet and the Federation only play a negative role because they abandoned their ideals—and were led astray by a traitor in the form of Oh. At the end, when Oh is expelled, they reclaim their moral stance and save the day.
It’s important that Picard defenses the synths by invoking Federation law.
2. Sure, Riker leads the fleet—but it’s only there in the first place because of Admiral Clancy. She castigated Picard in the opening of the story but, when presented with evidence that Picard is right, immediately does the right thing. If the story intended for Starfleet to remain antagonistic, Clancy would’ve rebuffed Picard regardless of the facts—or worse, joined forces with Oh.
3. Yes, Picard is the lead character—and his purpose is to lead the other characters back to who they are meant to be. Raffi, Rios, Seven, and Elnor become better people due to Picard’s presence, their choice to follow his quest. Picard’s influence, as the embodiment of Starfleet, literally saved the universe.
+2
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
How accurate would you say transporters are? Inches? Millimeters? Could you perform a heart transplant by teleporting out the bad heart and immediately teleporting in the fresh heart?
Transporters are precise to the atomic level. I couldn't cite a source right now, but I recall characters saying they transform every atom to energy to move them and reconstruct them. The specs even have Heisenberg Compensators to deal with the problems that come with precisely measuring the position and velocity of every atom in your body (and they work just fine, thank you).
For medical use, in Voyager we've seen the Doctor deliver a baby by beaming it out of the mother's uterus. In principle they could also do surgery by beaming out an organ and beaming in a replacement, it's precise enough for it. Hell, it'd be precise enough to run detox by beaming toxins out of your bloodstream.
Didn't they replace Worf's spine via teleporter after he was jumped by that dishonorable barrel?
The transporters also have filters built in to not only identify hazardous materials in a body (such as viruses, which can be extremely small even compared to cells), but allow the separation of said materials into a separate container from the individual they were found in.
I would expect range to have a big impact, though. On the transporting ship and inside its protective fields and warp bubble with the transporter equipment just down the hall, margin of error would be nonexistent. On a planetary surface a couple hundred miles away, you probably don't want to try and toss a new liver into Captain Kirk so he celebrate the signing of an interstellar treaty. As you get out to the limits of teleporter range, just getting somebody within several feet of a target without putting them halfway through a bulkhead is the best you can expect.
Doesn't convince me, but it's a good retrospective on the show anyway. The video points out a lot of the show's redeeming qualities, and he doesn't shy away from criticism of the show's shortcomings, either. Also he does some clever editing tricks in some the transitions from part to part.
Only really early season TNG was mostly bad. It's a meme at this point. Season one and 2 of DS9 are great.
Sir? You have a phone call... someone called "Move Along Home"
DS9 S1/2 were both incredibly hit and miss. They had some VERY VERY good early episodes (Duet for instance) but a lot of weak fluff at best. It took them a while to find their footing.
1. Starfleet and the Federation only play a negative role because they abandoned their ideals—and were led astray by a traitor in the form of Oh. At the end, when Oh is expelled, they reclaim their moral stance and save the day.
It’s important that Picard defenses the synths by invoking Federation law.
2. Sure, Riker leads the fleet—but it’s only there in the first place because of Admiral Clancy. She castigated Picard in the opening of the story but, when presented with evidence that Picard is right, immediately does the right thing. If the story intended for Starfleet to remain antagonistic, Clancy would’ve rebuffed Picard regardless of the facts—or worse, joined forces with Oh.
3. Yes, Picard is the lead character—and his purpose is to lead the other characters back to who they are meant to be. Raffi, Rios, Seven, and Elnor become better people due to Picard’s presence, their choice to follow his quest. Picard’s influence, as the embodiment of Starfleet, literally saved the universe.
Absolutely, in addition:
If you want to see this played off straight, especially in light of "this isn't real trek", it was Insurrection that tried to play this straight with Star Fleet as the baddies in terms of going along with forced relocation of a species just for their "mineral rights". Sure, it MIGHT have just been the Admiral in question, but the actions of the crew sure didn't play it off that way.
Only really early season TNG was mostly bad. It's a meme at this point. Season one and 2 of DS9 are great.
Sir? You have a phone call... someone called "Move Along Home"
DS9 S1/2 were both incredibly hit and miss. They had some VERY VERY good early episodes (Duet for instance) but a lot of weak fluff at best. It took them a while to find their footing.
I would also submit ”If Wishes Were Horses” as evidence for the prosecution. Some of it was pretty good! Some was...not. The back end of S3 onwards has a consistency of quality (with a few real clangers) which elevates the series as a whole.
1. Starfleet and the Federation only play a negative role because they abandoned their ideals—and were led astray by a traitor in the form of Oh. At the end, when Oh is expelled, they reclaim their moral stance and save the day.
It’s important that Picard defenses the synths by invoking Federation law.
2. Sure, Riker leads the fleet—but it’s only there in the first place because of Admiral Clancy. She castigated Picard in the opening of the story but, when presented with evidence that Picard is right, immediately does the right thing. If the story intended for Starfleet to remain antagonistic, Clancy would’ve rebuffed Picard regardless of the facts—or worse, joined forces with Oh.
3. Yes, Picard is the lead character—and his purpose is to lead the other characters back to who they are meant to be. Raffi, Rios, Seven, and Elnor become better people due to Picard’s presence, their choice to follow his quest. Picard’s influence, as the embodiment of Starfleet, literally saved the universe.
Absolutely, in addition:
If you want to see this played off straight, especially in light of "this isn't real trek", it was Insurrection that tried to play this straight with Star Fleet as the baddies in terms of going along with forced relocation of a species just for their "mineral rights". Sure, it MIGHT have just been the Admiral in question, but the actions of the crew sure didn't play it off that way.
No, Insurrection's Admiral made it clear his orders came from on high. Which is why Picard & co. took off their Starfleet badges and "insurrected" to protect the greedy immortal luddites who banished their own children to a lifetime of suffering and deformity as punishment for questioning their oppressive way of life.
Picard and Discovery are joyless reflections on misery and despair. utter trash.
Gonna have to hard disagree there. Both shows are dark, but ultimately reflect the same optimism and humanity as every other Trek.
Discovery:
Burnham's actions in the premiere, and Lorca's whole character, represent the cynical realpolitik that dominates modern science fiction. The first season finale is a direct refutation of that philosophy, as Burnham and Discovery risk everything because they still believe in the ideals on which the Federation was founded--that war, barbarism, and violence are not the answer. Burnham's arc is explicitly one of redemption, wrapped in classic Trek philosophy.
Season 2 continues that trend from the start. Pike, literally original Captain, is stated in text to be the "best of Starfleet." The crew spends the whole season working to preserve life, explore, and find peaceful solutions to conflict. Section 31 is shown to be a reckless collection of fools that nearly doom the galaxy. The heroes only win in the end because of the connections they made with disparate, alien cultures--connections made at great risk to themselves.
Picard:
Every dark element in the story is explicitly tied to Starfleet's failure to uphold its ideals. Every good thing that happens stems from Picard's efforts to keep those ideals alive. At the climax Starfleet, which occupies an antagonistic role in the first act, redeems itself by defending people who cannot defend themselves. Picard, embodying the "best of Starfleet," is literally given a new lease on life.
You can argue whether New Trek is well-crafted, but labeling it "joyless reflections on misery and despair" doesn't hold up to what's actually shown on screen.
But, at least for Picard since I can't speak for Discovery, you point out exactly why this doesn't really work in your own explanation.
Picard explicitly frames Starfleet and the Federation as the villain. On basically every level. At every turn Picard finds Starfleet and Federation society in his way. Even at the end it's not Starfleet, but Will Riker, Picard's buddy who we spend a whole episode reconnecting with that saves the day. And it's not just Picard either, as we see with Seven's story. The show is full of outcasts.
Picard wants to frame Picard as the Big Moral Centre of the story. He's the one that saves the day by standing up for what's right. But in order to elevate him, they story reframes everything else about the Star Trek setting in a negative light.
More then anything I'd say it's a conflict between Star Trek as a franchise, even when it was TNG, being about more then just Picard. But ST: Picard, fairly obviously from the title, wants to be all about Picard. And if the audience is invested in more then just Picard the character, or at best the TNG cast, then the whole thing comes off as pretty negative.
You’re forgetting a couple of things.
1. Starfleet and the Federation only play a negative role because they abandoned their ideals—and were led astray by a traitor in the form of Oh. At the end, when Oh is expelled, they reclaim their moral stance and save the day.
It’s important that Picard defenses the synths by invoking Federation law.
2. Sure, Riker leads the fleet—but it’s only there in the first place because of Admiral Clancy. She castigated Picard in the opening of the story but, when presented with evidence that Picard is right, immediately does the right thing. If the story intended for Starfleet to remain antagonistic, Clancy would’ve rebuffed Picard regardless of the facts—or worse, joined forces with Oh.
3. Yes, Picard is the lead character—and his purpose is to lead the other characters back to who they are meant to be. Raffi, Rios, Seven, and Elnor become better people due to Picard’s presence, their choice to follow his quest. Picard’s influence, as the embodiment of Starfleet, literally saved the universe.
Except that's not how it plays out.
Picard is right, Starfleet and the Federation are wrong. Like, the very idea that they abandoned their ideals is the entire point. And in the end it's Riker who comes to save him. Riker, who he basically convinces out of retirement, comes to bail his ass out. There's no feeling of grand reversal here from the fundamental shift in tone the series has shown for the Federation on multiple occasions at multiple levels. It's not just about them not giving Picard a ship.
As I said, I'm pretty sure this is entirely because the series was spawned from an idea of making this series about Picard as the absolute moral centre of the story. And the consequence of that is it ends up painting everything around him in a bad light in order to make that happen. As I mentioned after first watching the series, Picard often feels like one of those "dark future" flash-forward episodes from sci-fi series. And people notice that. Because for a lot of people attached to the franchise, Star Trek isn't about Picard being better, it's about a ton of things and people and characters being better.
Basically, you can't make a show centred around how the Federation fucked everything up, abandoned it's ideals in really fundamental ways at multiple points throughout the show and literally yells in your main character's face at every turn and then wonder why people find it a downer. That's the show you made man. People feel it. They notice the tone.
1. Starfleet and the Federation only play a negative role because they abandoned their ideals—and were led astray by a traitor in the form of Oh. At the end, when Oh is expelled, they reclaim their moral stance and save the day.
It’s important that Picard defenses the synths by invoking Federation law.
2. Sure, Riker leads the fleet—but it’s only there in the first place because of Admiral Clancy. She castigated Picard in the opening of the story but, when presented with evidence that Picard is right, immediately does the right thing. If the story intended for Starfleet to remain antagonistic, Clancy would’ve rebuffed Picard regardless of the facts—or worse, joined forces with Oh.
3. Yes, Picard is the lead character—and his purpose is to lead the other characters back to who they are meant to be. Raffi, Rios, Seven, and Elnor become better people due to Picard’s presence, their choice to follow his quest. Picard’s influence, as the embodiment of Starfleet, literally saved the universe.
Absolutely, in addition:
If you want to see this played off straight, especially in light of "this isn't real trek", it was Insurrection that tried to play this straight with Star Fleet as the baddies in terms of going along with forced relocation of a species just for their "mineral rights". Sure, it MIGHT have just been the Admiral in question, but the actions of the crew sure didn't play it off that way.
No, Insurrection's Admiral made it clear his orders came from on high. Which is why Picard & co. took off their Starfleet badges and "insurrected" to protect the greedy immortal luddites who banished their own children to a lifetime of suffering and deformity as punishment for questioning their oppressive way of life.
I mean, right? I guess what I was getting at is
There was no redemption of Star Fleet Command moment like there was in Picard.
As a nit, I thought the suffering/deformity were only due to trying to extend their lives in... methods other than the planet they were from? The movie overall was pretty weak, so I'm cool with staying fuzzy on some of the details as long as my overall point holds up.
Only really early season TNG was mostly bad. It's a meme at this point. Season one and 2 of DS9 are great.
Sir? You have a phone call... someone called "Move Along Home"
DS9 S1/2 were both incredibly hit and miss. They had some VERY VERY good early episodes (Duet for instance) but a lot of weak fluff at best. It took them a while to find their footing.
The first few season of DS9 had a few really bad episodes but mostly it was just fine. It got better, sure, but it started off very much fine. With most of it's misses being more "Yeah, that was alright" then being like a Code of Honor or a Move Along Home.
It's really noticeable after watching TNG imo. DS9 comes in and feels like it's got a much better idea of how to be a Star Trek show. (which makes sense given that TNG had that nailed down by the time DS9 starter) They managed to not really hit the same kind of lows and be a lot more consistent.
1. Starfleet and the Federation only play a negative role because they abandoned their ideals—and were led astray by a traitor in the form of Oh. At the end, when Oh is expelled, they reclaim their moral stance and save the day.
It’s important that Picard defenses the synths by invoking Federation law.
2. Sure, Riker leads the fleet—but it’s only there in the first place because of Admiral Clancy. She castigated Picard in the opening of the story but, when presented with evidence that Picard is right, immediately does the right thing. If the story intended for Starfleet to remain antagonistic, Clancy would’ve rebuffed Picard regardless of the facts—or worse, joined forces with Oh.
3. Yes, Picard is the lead character—and his purpose is to lead the other characters back to who they are meant to be. Raffi, Rios, Seven, and Elnor become better people due to Picard’s presence, their choice to follow his quest. Picard’s influence, as the embodiment of Starfleet, literally saved the universe.
Absolutely, in addition:
If you want to see this played off straight, especially in light of "this isn't real trek", it was Insurrection that tried to play this straight with Star Fleet as the baddies in terms of going along with forced relocation of a species just for their "mineral rights". Sure, it MIGHT have just been the Admiral in question, but the actions of the crew sure didn't play it off that way.
Insurrection never feels as persistently negative towards Star Fleet and the Federation though. And the whole thing they do wrong is more of a dubious trade-off then an absolute "we aren't humanitarians anymore" of Picard. The tone of the entire film is just way more light. And that's really what it's about. That's what people feel and notice when watching these things.
DS9 in general had a better cast which carried it through the bad stuff better.
Voyager had weak characters from the start
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
DS9 did a better job establishing characters with hooks and conflicts from the beginning. Kira, Sisko, Colm Meaney probably had some idea of what he wanted with O'Brien. Dax was a little weak, but at least had the relationship with Sisko to go with at the start. Bashir and Odo were the only ones who sort of flailed, and at least Odo had attitude, which will work in a pinch. TNG started off with everyone as blank slates defined mostly by their jobs on the ship. That meant that the weaker episodes didn't have any cushion to fall back on.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
How accurate would you say transporters are? Inches? Millimeters? Could you perform a heart transplant by teleporting out the bad heart and immediately teleporting in the fresh heart?
Transporters are precise to the atomic level. I couldn't cite a source right now, but I recall characters saying they transform every atom to energy to move them and reconstruct them. The specs even have Heisenberg Compensators to deal with the problems that come with precisely measuring the position and velocity of every atom in your body (and they work just fine, thank you).
For medical use, in Voyager we've seen the Doctor deliver a baby by beaming it out of the mother's uterus. In principle they could also do surgery by beaming out an organ and beaming in a replacement, it's precise enough for it. Hell, it'd be precise enough to run detox by beaming toxins out of your bloodstream.
The transport-birth did have serious risks associated with it, I imagine like accidentally beaming out parts of other organs or missing the top of the baby's head or whatever, but still a lower % chance than our modern infant mortality
DS9 did a better job establishing characters with hooks and conflicts from the beginning. Kira, Sisko, Colm Meaney probably had some idea of what he wanted with O'Brien. Dax was a little weak, but at least had the relationship with Sisko to go with at the start. Bashir and Odo were the only ones who sort of flailed, and at least Odo had attitude, which will work in a pinch. TNG started off with everyone as blank slates defined mostly by their jobs on the ship. That meant that the weaker episodes didn't have any cushion to fall back on.
Hey now, let's not forget that three of TNG's bridge crew were orphans, and one came from a planet where rape gangs were a thing :rotate:
Seriously, though, what little initial background info we got of the TNG crew was almost uniformly terrible. It's amazing that the show became something special.
EDIT: I can envision an orphan support group meeting at ten forward every Thursday night at 1900. And like 1/3 of the crew is there.
How accurate would you say transporters are? Inches? Millimeters? Could you perform a heart transplant by teleporting out the bad heart and immediately teleporting in the fresh heart?
Transporters are precise to the atomic level. I couldn't cite a source right now, but I recall characters saying they transform every atom to energy to move them and reconstruct them. The specs even have Heisenberg Compensators to deal with the problems that come with precisely measuring the position and velocity of every atom in your body (and they work just fine, thank you).
For medical use, in Voyager we've seen the Doctor deliver a baby by beaming it out of the mother's uterus. In principle they could also do surgery by beaming out an organ and beaming in a replacement, it's precise enough for it. Hell, it'd be precise enough to run detox by beaming toxins out of your bloodstream.
The transport-birth did have serious risks associated with it, I imagine like accidentally beaming out parts of other organs or missing the top of the baby's head or whatever, but still a lower % chance than our modern infant mortality
"Okay, I don't expect any of these options, but as your holographic medical professional I'm obligated to make you aware of the risk associated with this process. Major side effects may include but are not limited to visions of interdimensional bug things, random disintegration, mistargeting that welds the baby into a bulkhead, separation from the material plane, getting locked into a holodeck program, time travel, and interdimensional travel. Additionally, there is a risk that the process will produce a good version and an evil version of your child. On the upside, twinsies! On the downside, all human infants are miserable little bastards so we won't know for a few years which one is the evil one."
"Oh, unless one of the babies is born with a teeny little evil goatee. Then that is obviously the evil one. But still! Free twins! And don't worry about a Tuvix situation, we've already programmed the transporter to just deal with that quietly and tell us it was a random failure."
Ninja Snarl P on
+8
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Posts
Except that's a consequence of the style of the show, not the other way around. When you structure your show to be a continuous narrative, then people will complain when nothing is happening. If you structure your show such that random plot-of-the-week episodes are perfectly normal, the audience is far more likely to just roll with it. Especially if nothing pressing is going on in the larger plotlines.
They decided to make a show that is just one plot divided over 8 episodes, which was the style at the time. And then they had episodes that just didn't do much of anything. Which sticks out like a sore thumb in those kind of shows.
Gonna have to hard disagree there. Both shows are dark, but ultimately reflect the same optimism and humanity as every other Trek.
Discovery:
Season 2 continues that trend from the start. Pike, literally original Captain, is stated in text to be the "best of Starfleet." The crew spends the whole season working to preserve life, explore, and find peaceful solutions to conflict. Section 31 is shown to be a reckless collection of fools that nearly doom the galaxy. The heroes only win in the end because of the connections they made with disparate, alien cultures--connections made at great risk to themselves.
Picard:
You can argue whether New Trek is well-crafted, but labeling it "joyless reflections on misery and despair" doesn't hold up to what's actually shown on screen.
lol, you think new young people who didn't watch star trek are watching this new CBS trek?
oh Cambiata!
Yep! You're damn right they are!
This is one of those, "just wait" things, the punchline which will only occur in 20 years. People who are not in their 40s right now are unlikely to believe it because it seems incomprehensible and unlikely. But oh, my child. OH.
There's this obscure concept where adults subscribe to things and then their kids get access. Fairly often when said adults have nostalgia for a specific property they'll even watch their favorite thing with their child in the room, hoping to make their child a fan, too.
As for the "any pissed off synth" bit, that cuts both ways, doesn't it? What's to stop any pissed off organic from glassing the synths from orbit? Does that mean the synth hotties have a point?
When two factions have the ability to destroy each other, the only way out is trust. That's the Trek optimism at Picard's heart.
I was on mobile so I didn't notice that. Now I like it even more.
But, at least for Picard since I can't speak for Discovery, you point out exactly why this doesn't really work in your own explanation.
Picard wants to frame Picard as the Big Moral Centre of the story. He's the one that saves the day by standing up for what's right. But in order to elevate him, they story reframes everything else about the Star Trek setting in a negative light.
More then anything I'd say it's a conflict between Star Trek as a franchise, even when it was TNG, being about more then just Picard. But ST: Picard, fairly obviously from the title, wants to be all about Picard. And if the audience is invested in more then just Picard the character, or at best the TNG cast, then the whole thing comes off as pretty negative.
Transporters are precise to the atomic level. I couldn't cite a source right now, but I recall characters saying they transform every atom to energy to move them and reconstruct them. The specs even have Heisenberg Compensators to deal with the problems that come with precisely measuring the position and velocity of every atom in your body (and they work just fine, thank you).
For medical use, in Voyager we've seen the Doctor deliver a baby by beaming it out of the mother's uterus. In principle they could also do surgery by beaming out an organ and beaming in a replacement, it's precise enough for it. Hell, it'd be precise enough to run detox by beaming toxins out of your bloodstream.
Didn't they replace Worf's spine via teleporter after he was jumped by that dishonorable barrel?
i mean, that's like the thing that Vidiians do all day and night.
You’re forgetting a couple of things.
It’s important that Picard defenses the synths by invoking Federation law.
2. Sure, Riker leads the fleet—but it’s only there in the first place because of Admiral Clancy. She castigated Picard in the opening of the story but, when presented with evidence that Picard is right, immediately does the right thing. If the story intended for Starfleet to remain antagonistic, Clancy would’ve rebuffed Picard regardless of the facts—or worse, joined forces with Oh.
3. Yes, Picard is the lead character—and his purpose is to lead the other characters back to who they are meant to be. Raffi, Rios, Seven, and Elnor become better people due to Picard’s presence, their choice to follow his quest. Picard’s influence, as the embodiment of Starfleet, literally saved the universe.
The transporters also have filters built in to not only identify hazardous materials in a body (such as viruses, which can be extremely small even compared to cells), but allow the separation of said materials into a separate container from the individual they were found in.
I would expect range to have a big impact, though. On the transporting ship and inside its protective fields and warp bubble with the transporter equipment just down the hall, margin of error would be nonexistent. On a planetary surface a couple hundred miles away, you probably don't want to try and toss a new liver into Captain Kirk so he celebrate the signing of an interstellar treaty. As you get out to the limits of teleporter range, just getting somebody within several feet of a target without putting them halfway through a bulkhead is the best you can expect.
Hell yeah Leon
Doesn't convince me, but it's a good retrospective on the show anyway. The video points out a lot of the show's redeeming qualities, and he doesn't shy away from criticism of the show's shortcomings, either. Also he does some clever editing tricks in some the transitions from part to part.
Sir? You have a phone call... someone called "Move Along Home"
DS9 S1/2 were both incredibly hit and miss. They had some VERY VERY good early episodes (Duet for instance) but a lot of weak fluff at best. It took them a while to find their footing.
Absolutely, in addition:
I would also submit ”If Wishes Were Horses” as evidence for the prosecution. Some of it was pretty good! Some was...not. The back end of S3 onwards has a consistency of quality (with a few real clangers) which elevates the series as a whole.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
No, Insurrection's Admiral made it clear his orders came from on high. Which is why Picard & co. took off their Starfleet badges and "insurrected" to protect the greedy immortal luddites who banished their own children to a lifetime of suffering and deformity as punishment for questioning their oppressive way of life.
Except that's not how it plays out.
As I said, I'm pretty sure this is entirely because the series was spawned from an idea of making this series about Picard as the absolute moral centre of the story. And the consequence of that is it ends up painting everything around him in a bad light in order to make that happen. As I mentioned after first watching the series, Picard often feels like one of those "dark future" flash-forward episodes from sci-fi series. And people notice that. Because for a lot of people attached to the franchise, Star Trek isn't about Picard being better, it's about a ton of things and people and characters being better.
Basically, you can't make a show centred around how the Federation fucked everything up, abandoned it's ideals in really fundamental ways at multiple points throughout the show and literally yells in your main character's face at every turn and then wonder why people find it a downer. That's the show you made man. People feel it. They notice the tone.
I mean, right? I guess what I was getting at is
As a nit, I thought the suffering/deformity were only due to trying to extend their lives in... methods other than the planet they were from? The movie overall was pretty weak, so I'm cool with staying fuzzy on some of the details as long as my overall point holds up.
The first few season of DS9 had a few really bad episodes but mostly it was just fine. It got better, sure, but it started off very much fine. With most of it's misses being more "Yeah, that was alright" then being like a Code of Honor or a Move Along Home.
It's really noticeable after watching TNG imo. DS9 comes in and feels like it's got a much better idea of how to be a Star Trek show. (which makes sense given that TNG had that nailed down by the time DS9 starter) They managed to not really hit the same kind of lows and be a lot more consistent.
Insurrection never feels as persistently negative towards Star Fleet and the Federation though. And the whole thing they do wrong is more of a dubious trade-off then an absolute "we aren't humanitarians anymore" of Picard. The tone of the entire film is just way more light. And that's really what it's about. That's what people feel and notice when watching these things.
Voyager had weak characters from the start
The transport-birth did have serious risks associated with it, I imagine like accidentally beaming out parts of other organs or missing the top of the baby's head or whatever, but still a lower % chance than our modern infant mortality
Hey now, let's not forget that three of TNG's bridge crew were orphans, and one came from a planet where rape gangs were a thing :rotate:
Seriously, though, what little initial background info we got of the TNG crew was almost uniformly terrible. It's amazing that the show became something special.
EDIT: I can envision an orphan support group meeting at ten forward every Thursday night at 1900. And like 1/3 of the crew is there.
"Okay, I don't expect any of these options, but as your holographic medical professional I'm obligated to make you aware of the risk associated with this process. Major side effects may include but are not limited to visions of interdimensional bug things, random disintegration, mistargeting that welds the baby into a bulkhead, separation from the material plane, getting locked into a holodeck program, time travel, and interdimensional travel. Additionally, there is a risk that the process will produce a good version and an evil version of your child. On the upside, twinsies! On the downside, all human infants are miserable little bastards so we won't know for a few years which one is the evil one."
"Oh, unless one of the babies is born with a teeny little evil goatee. Then that is obviously the evil one. But still! Free twins! And don't worry about a Tuvix situation, we've already programmed the transporter to just deal with that quietly and tell us it was a random failure."
Weak characters yes, but I don't feel it's fair to blame the cast. The writing and directing are more to blame than the actors.