Star Trek: Picard

“Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2”

3 stars.

Air date: 3/26/2020
Teleplay by Michael Chabon
Story by Michael Chabon & Akiva Goldsman
Directed by Akiva Goldsman

Review Text

So, now that I see the full picture, I realize what season one of Star Trek: Picard is actually about.

It's not about the Romulan refugee crisis. It's not about the reclamation project going on in the derelict Borg cube. It's not about the Zhat Vash or the Tal Shiar or undercover Romulan commodores, or the attack on Mars or the synth ban. It's not about catching up with Hugh or Riker or Troi or Seven, or about Soji learning her true identity, or Raffi drinking and vaping all the time, or Rios and his holograms, or everyone trying to track down Bruce Maddox only so that Agnes could kill him, or about the robot apocalypse.

Oh, sure, it was sometimes very much about all those things. But, ultimately, it wasn't about them. Thematically, emotionally, spiritually — nah. I see now that all those things were basically very elaborate and prolonged MacGuffins. The means to an end. They don't matter, except to fill 10 episodes of screen time, to distract us, to misdirect us, and hopefully entertain us along the way (with variable degrees of success).

No, what this season of Star Trek: Picard is actually about is Picard saying goodbye to Data.

I've gotta say, the fact we came all this way to learn this is what it's actually about is, to me, nothing short of a total writer's coup. This is audacious. It's heartfelt and sincere. It turns the plot on its head and makes everything about this one personal moment. It reveals something about this show's writers that my cynicism just last week would not have thought was possible, given how mechanical everything was shaping up to be. Credit where credit is due. I did not see this coming in quite this way.

There is plot, and then there is story. I think Roger Ebert once said something along the lines of: Plots are about things that happen; stories are about people who behave. This season had a lot of plot. The story essentially provides the bookends, where Picard gets, and provides, closure for Data.

In retrospect, it was all there in full display from the very first scene of the very first episode, where Picard plays poker with Data in Ten-Forward. We've come full circle. The season begins with a dream, and ends with … well, a "simulation." It's fascinating stuff. Because in addition to being about Picard saying goodbye to Data, it's about death (both Picard's and Data's) and what that might mean when advanced artificial intelligence provides a very significant twist.

The final scenes of "Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2" are very, very good. They are so good, in fact, they almost make me want to wave away all the ham-fisted silliness of the many scenes that precede those final scenes. Because as much as the story ends up paying off here, the plot is frequently a disjointed mess with no shortage of idiocy. It fortunately has the benefit of also being entertaining, even exciting at times. But the whole race against the clock to stop a would-be robot apocalypse is as dumb as a box of rocks. Fortunately we have those final scenes to provide the insight and wisdom.

I will discuss but not belabor the plot, seeing as it's the placeholder wind-up toy to the final scenes' actual character insights. Narek joins the crew of La Sirena in their attempt to storm the synth compound and stop the broadcast of a beacon that also opens a portal to an advanced unknown AI society that lives in some other dimension. (This AI "society" is represented not by any kind of intriguing advanced machine intelligence, but by a collection of threatening metallic monster tentacles that are even dumber than I'd feared.)

Meanwhile, Narissa attempts to take control of the Borg cube, presumably so she can join the fight alongside Oh and her already-excessive Romulan fleet, but mostly so she can get into an Epic Girlfight with Seven of Nine. Having these two on the ship at the same time made this fight all but inevitable, but I was surprised at how lacking it was in cleverness and basic action competence. Seven has a phaser drawn on Narissa and could just stun her, but no. She stupidly gets close enough to have the gun knocked out of her hand so we can go through the motions. (What if, instead of this obligatory half-assed fight, we just had Seven stunning Narissa immediately and uttering some witty line — sort of an homage to Indiana Jones shooting the swordfighter?)

What was perhaps unexpected was that Sutra would be so easily dealt with (Soong disables her when he realizes she murdered her synth sister), and that this would be about convincing Soji to surrender. While I appreciate that this comes down to Picard making a personal plea using his connection to Soji (and the approach overall of seeing these synths as "children" who have limited understanding of human nature), I do feel like Soji is depicted as too blind to the consequences of her actions (and far too willing to uncork a robot apocalypse that would unleash untold death) considering she used to identify as human herself just days ago.

Faring better as cinema, there's a big, busy battle between space orchids and Romulan warbirds, which even manages to incorporate the Picard Maneuver into the proceedings. And I very much enjoyed the arrival of the Federation fleet, with an unretired Captain Riker in command, who awesomely stares Oh down and gives her the non-choice to surrender.

Meanwhile, Picard's terminal illness ticks down to zero just as all the plot is wrapping up. (The timing of Picard's illness — how it has virtually no symptoms until the very moment it's about to kill him, which is coincidentally right when the story resolves itself — is one of the most conveniently timed negative illness outcomes of all time.) Picard dies right there in front of his new makeshift crew. And everyone is very sad, and it's all laid on very thick with everyone crying, and my thought was: "Really? This is how they kill off a legendary character?"

But then we get the coda.

Picard finds himself sitting in a room. It's a dark, stark, metallic gray living room with bookshelves and a stone fireplace. It somehow feels like purgatory itself. Data is there, wearing the uniform he died in. He informs Picard that, yes, you have in fact died, and that this is a "very complex quantum simulation." And in this room, Picard and Data talk about what's happening, what has happened, how they both died, and what that means to them. This scene runs the gamut of moods and meanings, both intellectual and emotional. It's fascinating, eerie, serene, wondrous, haunting, heartbreaking, and special.

This scene deals with the big ideas the franchise has striven for in its best moments, pondering the nature of the human experience, and life and death. The dialogue unfolds in a straightforward, forthcoming, and yet not dumbed-down way that's rooted in the TNG analytical style and so perfectly represented by these two specific characters. It's a true work of art that's the stuff of Star Trek greatness, and I would put it up there with some of the best scenes in the history of the franchise. In this place, Picard is finally able to make peace with Data's death. It ironically happens after Picard himself has died.

Similarly, the scene where Picard learns his memories have been transferred into Soong's "golem" — a synthetic yet organic body which looks and feels exactly like his own, with a human life expectancy — is also allowed to unfold with great interest and discussion. (On a show that has had a tendency to skip over details, these closing scenes don't.) This transformation has implications large and small; Picard has essentially survived the death of his body by having his mind transferred to a second body. (This happens in a way I'd say is more like cloning than robotics.) This sci-fi idea is not a new one, but by applying it to an iconic character, it's given more weight and reality. I just hope the second season follows up on the implications and what the man actually thinks about this. (Are you still "you" with your own "soul," or a facsimile with that person's memories who merely thinks so? Is there a difference?)

And then we get the scene where Picard keeps his promise to Data, allowing Data's memories in the "simulation" to be terminated, effectively allowing a forever-suspended virtual Data to finally die, providing Data the meaning of mortality. This is also a lovely scene, using "Blue Skies" to wonderful effect in a way that bookends the season (and ties back to Nemesis), and just really hits the right emotional notes as we see a virtual Data aging into an old man and dying. Great stuff.

And then we get the final scene on the bridge of La Sirena, which hits the classic "and the adventure continues" notes. Picard wryly notes that it's a good thing the synth ban has been lifted, since now he is one. The motley crew looks more like a family, with everyone taking their spot on the bridge. It's a nice, light note to cap off all the substantive stuff preceding it.

That this season can end on so many of these notes gives me great hope. That we had to first sit through 40 minutes of watchable B-movie mediocrity is, I guess, the price of doing business — but a price I will gladly pay, granted with a score that must land on three stars rather than four. But if you're going to send your audience out for the year, this is the way to do it. This season of Picard took a while to get going, faced some major stumbles, then a fairly strong run leading up to a middling climax. But it's redeemed with its amazing final scenes, which are smart enough to know what Star Trek is about while committing to being about them, gracefully, artfully, and with real feeling.

Some closing thoughts:

  • Seeing how well the episode closes things out, amid a lot of other things that are, in retrospect, way less important, it got me thinking that maybe this would've been better and tighter with fewer episodes (or even as a movie) rather than a 10-episode season. The economics of it probably made that impossible, however.
  • I said this about the premiere and will say it again here: This gives so much more weight and meaning to Data's death in Nemesis, which felt like a pointless trick at the time but is now made retroactively worthwhile.
  • Maybe Picard didn't have Irumodic Syndrome after all. It's never mentioned by name, and he suffers no dementia-type symptoms before it abruptly kills him.
  • I don't like the visual arrangement of the fleets during the big standoff. The way the ships warp in and stop on a dime, and the way the ships are crammed comically close to each other, makes this feel like an over-the-top CGI cartoon. There's no weight or dimension to starships anymore. They have unfortunately become video game avatars that look like they were cloned with copy and paste.
  • The synth ban is quickly reversed here. Considering it was put in place as a result of the Mars androids being hacked by a foreign power, the Federation policymakers should be declared incompetent, since they apparently can't mount a useful investigation.
  • It seems unfathomable to me that the same people who wrote the Picard/Data scenes also wrote the alien synths as metallic tentacles trying to evilly claw their way through a portal. It's like they didn't even care and put in the lamest, most perfunctory effort possible. Maybe their eye was on the real ball of Picard/Data.
  • I guess Jurati just goes free for Maddox's murder? Just kind of handling it as an internal La Sirena matter, never to be spoken of again? Chalked up to Romulan/Vulcan brainwashing?
  • Seven and Raffi are totally gonna hook up.
  • The third season of Discovery still doesn't have a premiere date beyond "soon." I intend to be back for that (though I myself hope for a break of at least a couple of months, but I'm not sure if that's going to happen), but as always, we'll see what's going on at that time.
  • As I close out this season, I wanted to properly observe the 25th anniversary of Jammer's Reviews with this post. It turned out a little more serious than I probably had originally imagined, but we are living in some serious times. Be safe out there. I hope to see you here again soon. Thanks for reading.

Previous episode: Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 1
Next episode: The Star Gazer

Like this site? Support it by buying Jammer a coffee.

◄ Season Index

Comment Section

1132 comments on this post

    While the ending of this overall good series may seem to cheapen Picard’s sacrifice by extending the reprieve of death, I think this episode showed Picard at his best and I look forward to his continuing adventures with a great crew.

    Also the Admonition was totally a trap set by Control to get back into our timeline, those robot arm things were exactly what infected Airiam.

    The space battle itself was luckily a red herring and this ended in the most TNG-like way possible with the sharing of ideas. I was worried a battle would eliminate time for explaining things, but thankfully they took the smart route and well...actually explained things.

    It’s curious this ends with Data’s life being terminated and, while interesting conceptually, I think there could have been more weight given to that story thread.

    Finally, Seven and Raffi were rather intimately holding hands in that last scene, were they not? It looks like they’re trying to explore same gender relationships through Seven (and Raffi) after all.

    "Life is both a responsibility and a right," is one heck of an accidentally timely quote.

    Glad the Admonition synthetics stuff ended where it did--I loved the episode, but it was starting to veer into Avengers - Chitauri territory (especially since the Chitauri are cybernetic organisms).

    Only real niggle--I know that the uniform Data was wearing was probably one of those recreations, since they sold off the original uniforms at that massive Christie's auction, but couldn't they tuck away the zipper pull for the dickie? Echoes of Commodore Oh's mis-aligned Starfleet pips.

    Liked the theme song reprise at the end credits. I read somewhere that the original variant of the main title was of that sort and the composer was asked to re-arrange it to the version we hear at the opening credits. I wonder if this was the original version of the theme.

    Well, Picard has a new body, but I'm really hoping Sir Patrick stays safe and healthy--this human malware thing will definitely delay production for a long while.

    As far as endings go, this was better than either of Disco's thus far. I still have a ton of issues with it, especially with Commodore Oh's painfully tedious cliched villain nonsense and the by-now boring-as-hell visual trope of a blue beam shooting into the sky opening a Portal Of Doom. And after promising hell, the most creative thing we get are some... metal tentacles? Yawn.

    But! The rest of it was decent, and better than part one... to an extent. I always figured that this season would end with some variation of Picard convincing Soji about a good vs. evil decision; I just didn't know how it would get there, or if the writers would try to pull the rug out from under us with a "shock" betrayal. I am glad that Picard stuck with what he's been doing this entire season: leading by example, regardless of whether he knows others will follow him.

    I have bullet point thoughts in no particular order:

    * What happened to Narek? Did they just let him go?

    * Good riddance to Rizzo.

    * When Seven talks about not having a home, it would have been really nice to hear why she seems to be estranged from her Voyager crewmates.

    * Why the hell is everybody so sad for dead Picard while they're busily whipping him up a new body and they've already saved him to a flash drive? Did Agnes and Soji decide it would be a fun surprise to let everyone grieve for a bit before the reveal?

    * The can of worms that this opens up is gigantic. The synths now have the key to eternal life, "Altered Carbon" style, for anyone who wants it. It wouldn't be the first time Star Trek has instantly forgotten about universe-shattering technology, but gee it would still be annoying if they did.

    * I guess Agnes is *not* going to turn herself in for murder now, and everyone's decided to forgive her? Uh...

    3 stars for "Et In Arcadia Ego, Part 2" and 3 stars for season 1 of Picard. I feel it's come out of the gate as a more focussed show than Discovery and is the better for it, but there's plenty of room for improvement.

    And one more...

    * They're just gonna leave that Borg cube down there, huh? I take it the synths are gonna look after the XB's now? Seven just figured "nah, too much commitment, cya!" ??

    Well, they saved the best for last.

    I figured that this positronic blah, blah technology would save Picard, but I didn't know I would be so satisfied with how they accomplished it.

    Some loose threads? Sure...

    But I don't care right now.

    Engage!!

    @Tim C

    I think the Borg XBs are actually in the best place they could be--out of the jurisdiction of the Romulans, and within walking distance to a community of synths aspiring to be Human, and a genius, if not a little strange, cyberneticist providing technical guidance. At least in this era/timeline, Seven wasn't much for nurturing--she's a little too hardened for that, and it was Hugh's job when he was alive.


    "But what could a Soong do with Borg tech?"
    [To be explored in the season 3 finale cliffhanger - 'Best of Many Worlds']

    [Deleted Scenes / Back on Earth]

    Picard goes in for a medical consult with Dr. Benayoun.

    Not because he needed to; more as a prank. As one would do to an old friend, if he had a few decades left to live.

    Sure Daniel, it does seem like a great place for a Borg rehab facility. But the way the script just blasts straight past it feels a little strange, especially after it was seeming to be presented to us as "Seven is going to take up Hugh's mantle and finds new purpose" as recently as one episode ago...

    Still a good episode, but the amount of loose ends makes it look positively ragged. Fortunately, the primary story of the season as set up by the pilot managed to come through intact, and rather nicely: Picard did right by Data's sacrifice and saved his "children", and reclaimed his own title as champion of new life. This is a far cry from Disco's original Klingon War story which wrapped up so fast and so easily I got whiplash just sitting in my chair, and then the "seven signals/evil AI" story which just turned out to be complete and utter nonsense in the end.

    The seven signals thing--I could never even get past the basic science fact that they ignored such inconvenient things as the speed of light and frame of references let alone the other stuff. This the result of not having an on-staff science advisor, like they did on every other Trek series. (They finally brought one on for Picard S2 and Discovery moving forward.)

    With Picard, I think part of it was that they were hamstrung by the fact that they needed to keep filling in backstory of eighteen years of history (hence all of the exposition and flashbacks), and that they originally intended to do a nine episode season--course corrected and expanded the first act to three episodes and added the Riker and Troi encounter. The other part was they wanted to give themselves some runway to fill-in what happens later down the line. Jeri Ryan has a contract option for a second season--if either party chose not to exercise that option, they could explain her absence by saying she went back to help out the XBs. Not the cleanest way, but a window to explain if necessary. I'd also probably add that a good chunk of the episode was changed in the edit (last minute post-production had to be done remotely from homes).

    Moving forward, they don't need to bend backward as much to fill in the post-Nemesis history, nor do they need to spend episodes introducing main characters, so narratively it's got to be more freeing.

    What also gives me hope about the second season is that while Michael Chabon is stepping down from showrunner duties, he's still an EP, he helped break the season storyline and committed to writing two of the episodes. Discovery (like early TNG) suffered from a revolving door of showrunners and writers--explains some (but not all) of the disjointedness of the show.

    I did not like the epilogue. I really hate the trope about immortality being a bad thing.

    But I thought the main part of the episode was well done in a middling classic Trek kind of way, and in fact all of it — good and bad — was very representative of the sort of median level of Trek over the years. Even if it didn’t approach the level of the best episodes or movies, it was also significantly better than the worst ones, and it just seemed much more recognizably *of* the franchise than virtually anything we have seen for the past decade or more.

    2.5 stars, and I look forward to next season not quite eagerly but amiably.

    I agree with you that narratively speaking, the need to fill in the gaps since "Nemesis" and "Star Trek '09" was a bit of an anchor around this season's neck. Hopefully the next time around can knuckle down further.

    Honestly though, one of the things this show really made me want was "Star Trek: Firefly". It's lovely to have Picard back and all that, but the episode of this season I enjoyed the most was "Stardust City Rag". I want more one-off adventures about the crew of La Sirena getting about the galaxy and making ends meet and delving into the unexplored, grimier corners of the quadrant. Part of the problem with old Trek at the end was that it was just getting too familiar. Disco is attacking that problem by just cranking the volume up to 11, with varying levels of success. For as much as it was a better-told story than either of Disco's efforts, PIC has not felt as fresh to me thus far, and that feels dangerous going forward.

    This episode starts silly: Narek runs up to a Borg cube and conveniently enters through a crack in the wall. Then he meets his Incest Sister, who spouts more bad Evil Villain dialogue. Then out the crack he walks, Elnor casually following close behind.

    A good moment then follows, in which Picard tells Soji that "saying one has no choice is a failure of imagination". This echoes countless TNG episodes, where Picard refuses to be boxed in by the little false binaries thrown at him. The Picard Way is to find a Another Way; a higher path that best untangles a situation for all parties involved.

    The next scene works as a kind of smug meta-comment on technobattle. Here Rios and Raffi use a piece of technology which "inexplicably fixes stuff" by "ditching common sense" and "using your imagination".

    Narek and Elnor then show up, Elnor magically now knowing that Narek is Narissa's Incest Brother. They then talk - as lightning storms brew, settling questions raised last episode (where's the lightning?) - about Prophecies and Armageddon, which might sound ominous as written, but comes across as obvious/cheesy as filmed/acted.

    Agnes then has a scene, rife with bad dialogue. She uses "cool" references to 1990s hacker culture (Maddox's "kung fu" etc), talks to herself ("You don't have to do this! You don't have to do this!") and drops some smack talk ("I'm not their mother, a**hole!"). Later she talks about "uber synths". It's so cringey.

    Meanwhile, Rios and the gang leave La Sirena and infiltrate the Synth Homestead while Picard and Agnes break out of the Synth Homestead and break into La Sirena. The way Kurtzman-Trek handles distance and geography has always been terrible, but usually this stuff happens in space. Here characters are quickly covering miles of distance on land, and magically appearing at Plot Points in the blink of an eye.

    Picard and Ages then have a conversation about the "Uber Synths", and Picard drops a RIGHTEOUS MONOLOGUE which falls completely flat. Picard knows absolutely nothing about this race of synths, knows nothing about their history or culture or if they even exist, and yet this scene is rife with assumptions and certainty. It's totally phony and presumptuous, and only exists because the writers (not Picard), know where this is heading.

    Picard then flies away on La Sirena (he reclaims the pilot's chair and so ends his emasculation!) as Agnes tells him to "make it so!" Meanwhile Raffi blows a whistle, Rios jumps over a wall, Narek drops from the roof and Elnor punches out a guard. Firmly in B-movie territory, Rios throws a football-bomb at Soji, Soji throws it into the sky and Seven gets the jump on Narissa, who's using the Borg cube to shoot at Picard, but Seven stops her, because Seven has a gun, but oh no, Narissa kicks the gun away! Then the Romulan Fleet Arrives, over 200+ hacky, lazily designed CGI models, all in ridiculous formation. We're in 1930s Flash Gordon territory now, only executed with even less skill and imagination.

    The episode's second good scene involves giant CGI flowers battling the Romulan fleet, spoiled somewhat by Agnes' commentary, a bit of Joss Whedonesque snark that kills all tension. You're surrounded by death and destruction, drop the wisecracks Agnes!

    As Seven and Narissa fight ("This is for Hugh!"), Picard and Agnes use a Deus Ex Magical I-phone to "simulate" a fleet of 200 La Sirenas. This fails, and so a Deus Ex Starfleet armada turns up. The scene's cool for a second, until the ridiculous size of the Fed fleet - all these ships in tightly compact formation, and led by Riker, previously chilling at his logwood cabin - becomes apparent. Kurtzman-Trek has no respect for size, scale, time or geography. It's mostly just cocaine and spam.

    Why the Romulan fleet would cease their targeting of the Synth Beacon and target Starfleet instead, is never addressed (Blow it up, stupid!). The idea of a giant Federation armada warping between a planet and an orbiting Romulan fleet, while facing the Romulan fleet, is similarly silly.

    Luckily we get the episode's first great scene. Picard talks to Soji on an open channel, and sells her a speech filled with warm, gooey, Picardian/Federation values. Haters of Kurtzman-Trek breath a collective sign of relief. Riker's megawatt smile and one liners ("Really it's no trouble at all") warms their heart. Haters and fanboys join hands in triumph. Soji shuts down the Synth Beacon.

    Incidentally, the Synth Beacon opens a sort of wormhole, through which slashing tentacle arms flail and briefly appear. This echoes similar footage in "Discovery" of far-future Control, and throughout this series, the Admonition vision reuses imagery from Spock's nightmare vision of the future.

    Anyway, the Federation fleet inexplicably vanishes once the Romulans leave (why not hang around a bit? Offer some medical help to Picard, or the Borg Cube survivors? Investigate the Beacon Wormhole Region?), a really stupid bit of writing.

    A decent scene follows, Picard dying amidst his friends. The scene relies on nostalgia and the legwork done by TNG, but is affecting all the same. But it's also a bad piece of writing, Picard's neurological disease kicking in at the precise moment he saves the day. Everyone cries. Seven, looking like Sarah Connor in a tank top, makes amends for her vengeful ways. Raffi hugs Elnor. Elnor rains tears. Seven and Raffi may be lesbians.

    And then the show pulls a 180 and Picard is resurrected, plopped into a new pseudo-synethetic body. It's all very silly and pointless. The way this show whip-lashes all over the place, is annoying. One senses Chabon loving the irony of a once-Borg guy living the last years of his life in a semi-synth body, becoming Data as Data becomes human, but the cynic in me sees the producers leaving a door open for using machine-learning algorithms and deep fakes to run a "Picard" series even if Patrick Stewart dies in real life.

    Still, Picard's wacky resurrection does lead to two good scenes, one in which Data and Picard do their own version of "The Good Place's" finale, and one in which Data is given a funeral, Blue Skies on the soundtrack. The show's last moment, mercifully free of the click-bait logic of past episodes, and Kurtzman-Trek as a whole, does not have Control showing up, or Q, or any segues into "Season 2" or "Discovery". It's a straightforward, and sweet moment, our heroes gathering on La Sirena.

    And so "Picard" ends, as it began. A wildly inconsistent, frustrating show, schizophrenic, easily distracted, and capable of bouncing from the interesting to the moronic in the space of a second.

    I think it was the Deadline podcast for E9 where Chabon said that at the end of the season finale, the various "chess pieces" that needed to be arranged will have been arranged. So, without having the "fourteen years ago" anchor around the neck, I'm optimistic about the next season. The fact that they're still on La Sirena and not some Starfleet vessel, the fact that they have Seven and Elnor on crew... lends me to think that we'll get some of the rag-tag crew adventure treatment. So many really interesting things they can explore with any of the characters.

    I think it'll also take pressure off of Discovery, Section 31, Starfleet Academy, and (hopefully) a Captain Pike/Enterprise series from trying to do everything.

    I agree, dangerous going forward--a high wire act to keep people happy, but I'm optimistic. They were able to stick the landing with this one.

    One thing that confuses me: why does the beacon matter? The super synths now know where everyone is. They can just come anyway. The fact that the beacon is shut down, should even make the super synths come even faster, as it implies synths are in trouble.

    And why would the Zhat Vash leave? They are a fundamentalist sect that hates synths and killed 900 million Romulans and countless Federation people so they could find this planet...and yet at the final hurdle they chicken out?

    My expectations of this being an improved version of the TNG movies were mostly met.
    Much better than Discovery season 2, but that's hardly a compliment.

    [Deleted Scene 2 / Back on Earth]

    Picard goes in for a medical consult with his cardiologist. The cardiologist, thinking that he [Picard] still has an artificial heart, has a momentary freak-out moment when the tricorder fails to lock onto the customary telemetry and diagnostic information, let alone a duratanium signature.

    This episode confuses the hell out of me, because elements of it were kinda meh, and elements of it were among the absolute finest I've ever, ever seen in Star Trek.

    As for the "plot" side of things, this episode is full of holes and kinda collapses upon further examination. Why did the advanced synths just up and leave as soon as the beacon was turned off? Why did Oh's fleet hesitate for so long. Where the heck did that mysterious fixing machine that RIos used actually come from? Everything is contrived to be railroaded to the exact point we end up at. Mind you, I don't think the railroading is any worse than Trek has done historically, but it's there. The plotting - while better than last week - simply isn't brilliant.

    In the early part of the episode, I felt like things were building to a very predictable point. However, along the way there were tons of legitimately great character moments, things like the "fireside chat" between Rios, Raffi, Elnor, and Narek, that I wish were done more throughout the season. Narissa was given a tiny bit more development as an antagonist, which was welcome. I can't say the same about Oh - every single scene with her was awful, and felt ported in from another show.

    The episode began its grand inflection point when it became clear the plan wasn't to end on a giant battle - that they were going to take the very TNG standpoint that the whole point is to avoid the battle whenever possible. I always maintained the only proper way for the season to end was if the stupid prophecy of the Zhat Vash was in error, and it looks like I was right. Those advanced synths may have been malevolent (they sure looked it anyway) but they are just one of many advanced races in Trek (with varying moral compasses), and the season ultimately made it clear that conflict between organic and synthetic is not inevitable - that we have a choice to make and do not need to relive the past.

    And then, the epilogue - PIcard's death and resurrection - took an episode which was just average and made it so much more. Particularly the unexpected brief re-introduction to the real Data. It was emotionally manipulative as hell, but it worked in all the right ways, tied back in to the first episode, and allowed Picard's initial arc some sort of closure. While I have some issue with the railroading of the idea that mortality is an intrinsic good in and of itself, it was all scripted and acted so beautifully that I could forget it in the moment. Probably the most feels an episode of Trek has given me since The Visitor.

    In Jammer's ratings, three out of four stars.

    One final note: Why was Riker wearing a hairpiece when he was an acting captain?

    Daniel wrote:

    "Also, Captain Riker, fuck yeah!"

    It's amazing that Frakes could steal the show with a single scene.

    Trent wrote:

    "And why would the Zhat Vash leave? They are a fundamentalist sect that hates synths and killed 900 million Romulans and countless Federation people so they could find this planet...and yet at the final hurdle they chicken out?"

    It's pretty typical for the Romulans to disengage once they have a real fight or get exposed. Pretty much every TNG episode with them ends like that. They just prefer working behind the scenes with intrigue. It might have something to do with Romulans having Cold War roots. Compare them to Russia, who likes to mess with US all the time (and vice versa) but doesn't want to get into an arms war with it.

    - Why can't Romulans be assimilated?
    - Why is Soji shown to have Borg knowledge she can't explain in "The End Is The Beginning" and "The Impossible Box"?
    - Why is Soji in the ancient Zhat Vash prophecy, if the Admonition is a message from the distant past?

    Among everything else, I think one of the messiest things here is the way the Soji character has been treated (particularly in the final third of the season). Isa Briones is good, with better writing she could have been the breakout character. Her actions in the final episodes seem poorly motivated. In the show's chronology, she spends an episode with Kestra, the Riker-Trois and Picard being treated with kindness and learning to trust again, then *subsequently* makes her decision to construct the beacon and eradicate #allorganiclife. It would have worked much better if Sutra had been the prophesized "Destroyer" and Soji the one who makes the decision to stop her because of what she'd learned and experienced with Picard, Kestra and the others.

    I think the entire Borg side of the plot is a leftover from an earlier version of the show before they retooled it. There's a clear break between E1-6 and E8-10, with Nepenthe as an interstitial non-plot-driven episode.

    The whole thing feels like "OK, we want two leads who kinda look like Jim Holden and Naomi from The Expanse... people seem to like that show. And a ship that's like the Rocinante or Serenity... let's call it La Sirena. Plus an elf from LOTR, and maybe a ditzy science girl like on Discovery. Except, twist, she's actually a murderer! And throw in the Borg, people like the Borg. We can bring that chick from Voyager back and make her a bad-ass killer... throw in some hinted lesbianism - not as a meaningful development of the character or a serious exploration of her life and relationships since Voyager, but for edginess points. Everyone loves a cool bad-ass lesbian. Plus we can bring back that Borg kid Hugh from Next Gen and the Borg kid from Voyager and kill them gruesomely - no-one will be expecting that, it'll really drive online discussion of the show! Oh yeah, Picard. Get this: What if Picard... but robot?"

    For me it's actually worse than Discovery. Discovery has Saru, who was an anchor of Starfleet values throughout (as well as being brilliantly played), and it handled Pike, Spock and Number One relatively well. Discovery also had the excuse of the repeated changes in showrunners for its messiness, as well as the fact it was the first new Trek show in 15 years. And because it feels like its own universe unrelated to the rest of Trek, it can kind of be mentally siloed - even before everything that happens in the first 2 seasons is literally siloed. Discovery is not a good show. Until now it was the worst of the Trek series. But my god, this Picard thing is a clusterfuck.

    Captain Riker back was awesome. I guess Starfleet gave up and went with one design for their starships like every other race.

    All is forgiven for Agnes regarding murder, I guess. And Narek just sorta disappeared. Maybe he’s back on the trashed Borg cube they just left there with the survivors.

    Ballsy move to ice Data for good.

    Odd editing at the end having characters pair off to mourn Picard’s death while the whole time Soong and Agnes were doing the ol’ drag and drop with his mind. Drinking & crying then next thing ya know on the bridge without missing a beat. And how bad would Riker have felt when he took off if he’d found out later Picard died? It’s like the script said, “Don’t worry. He’s gonna die then get a new body.”

    The new body deal seemed a little like Simpson’s Judge Effect: “Everything is as it was before. And furthermore, we’ll never speak of this again.” They wrote a program that ages him and will kill him at an appropriate time as if he didn’t have the brain disease? Okay. Well, I’m the bright side, he seemed less like Feeble Picard so maybe next season we’ll see more of a “Captain Picard” air of authority. I did not know he was 94—-he looks pretty damn good.

    Curious if next season will be him and his wacky crew? Seems like it, but I wonder if the show wouldn’t be better served with a Starfleet adventure? Helping them find their way while on the bridge of a big, new ship? I suppose that would go against everything Sir Patrick said about not wanting to redo TNG. I mean, it could still be serialized and edgy; but I digress, I looked forward to this show every week and it’s been I awhile since I’ve felt that way about any TV. Bring it on, next season!

    Chrome said: "It's pretty typical for the Romulans to disengage once they have a real fight or get exposed."

    I buy that, but at the same time, this is a doomsday cult. And one that brazenly attacked Picard and Daj on Federation soil, and killed millions of fellow Romulans. You'd expect them to be hell bent on firing torpedoes at that Synth Homestead. And you'd expect them to become more entrenched and violent the more their prophecies and worldviews are challenged.

    wolfster said: "Why is Soji shown to have Borg knowledge she can't explain in "The End Is The Beginning" and "The Impossible Box"?"

    I was just going to ask this. Soji knew about the space trajector and how to access the Borg transwarp network. How do synths have this knowledge?

    And how and why do the Federation reverse the synth ban so fast? Do we actually see Picard give the Federation any information that would lead to them considering a reversal of the law?

    And why are the Federation and Romulans not now at war? The Romulans launched a strike at a major Federation planet.

    And doesn't the Federation now have IMMORTALITY TECHNOLOGY? Every dying person will, like Picard, be begging for access to a golem to upload their consciousness. This is a major major, universe shattering piece of technology.

    Kurtzman-Trek just can't seem to stop opening cans of worms that it never addresses.

    A mixed bag. Not great, not terrible. The melodrama of everyone is crying is a little cringey. Reminds me of the terrible first half of DISCO's season 2 finale, where everyone was just crying the whole episode.

    Some thoughts....

    What a great way to send off Data. He deserved much better than in Nemesis and we got it.

    Was really hoping to see Captain Worf on the Enterprise E. But Riker was still just as good.... oh well maybe next season.

    I almost thought instead of Data talking to Picard it was going to be Q.

    Seven of Nine/Raffi lovers now? A little fast/strange, but Seven always kinda came off as butch.

    @Trent

    It could be said that they discovered immortality in the episode Rascals. A transporter malfunction transforms Picard e al into children, but with their memories intact.

    TNG is my favorite Trek series and I was ready to return to the 24th century for a long time after years of TOS redux by imagine less writers. So when first heard of Star Trek Picard I was excited but my excitement was also tempered by the fact that I knew the writers and producers behind the series weren’t great

    But I went into it with an open mind avoiding spoilers and messageboards until last night's finale. And I must say sadly that I pretty much got what I was expecting even though was hoping for much better

    The whole season was uneven and a mixed bag which has always been my experience with these Mystery Box type shows. Some intriguing beginnings and mysteries that usually end up ultimately not having the imagination or satisfying payoff I envision. Sad when writers who get paid big bucks to do this professionally because in theory they’re suppose to be at the top of their craft can’t come up with something more intriguing or cooler than the rank and file fan can

    So was the case this season on Picard I thought. I mean if you step back there were several good ideas here. Things like picking up on the recurring thread from TNG of Data and Maddox trying to create more Soong androids like Data and Data feeling a sense of isolation by being the only one of his kind. That seems an appropriate thing to revisit and seeing the culmination of a thriving culture of human like synthetics with a world of their own seems like a worthwhile payoff

    But then You have the things that didn’t work but actually had potential to work in the right hands

    Top of my list easily was the inclusion of the Borg. I was surprised by the writers including the Borg but excited. There was plenty to initially be excited about in the beginning—the return of Jonathan Del Arco as Hugh, free reign on a disabled cube set for a full season, Seven of Nine but then writers botched all that big time

    No interesting insight into Hugh’s last 25 years since Descent. Hugh was barely used and ended up being killed off in a way lacking any emotional resonance

    Then Seven shows up but initially in a lame standalone story until finally she is brought onboard the cube lare in the season. But by that time Hugh’s dead so no potentially interesting interaction between the two most iconic former Borg

    And If there was one story left in the Borg I figured it was an origin story. Here was a chance for the writers using the study and investigation of a deactivated Borg cube where they have free reign on without fear of the Borg coming to retrieve it because of the submatrix collapse coupled with the cube setting being a season long thread —to give the audience some new interesting revelations and insights into the Borg Collective, their ship, their Queen(an element fans have been debating about ever since her debut)and their history and the writers don’t do any of that.

    Instead we get shit like the floors of a cube are so slick you can slide barefoot across them. Or we get moments where it seems like we are on the verge of getting that cool new insight and having new layers explored on a cube or about the queen and instead the writers vis the characters like Seven basically say, “ do you want me to tell you more about the queen cell or do you want me to retake the ship?”

    Then there were moments where okay I started to
    Accept I wasn’t going to get new insight to add to the Borg mythology and was settling g into some exciting developments such as Seven taking control of the drones and powering back up the cube for a battle with the Romulans only to have the drones jettisoned and things to fizzle like they did in “Broken Pieces”. Then same thing happened in part I last week of season finale where cube shows up only to promptly crash before anything interesting was allowed to even begin

    Frankly with how the Borg part of the story played out in full I would have been happier with the Borg not being tacked onto the season. Even though it seemed initially it would at some point dovetail with the Romulan and android pieces it never did. And sadly it could have by tying the Borg to the ancient aliens and admonition in some way perhaps offering a Borg Origin story given the timeframes would match up.

    Up until last nights season finale I actually thought that was where they were heading. What with the Borg being synthetics, the Romulans operation on the cube and the fact the writers kept referring to the cube as the Artifact—a term that for me has a meaning signifying something unique about this cube, a sense that it was very old. Could it have been one of the earliest or one of the very first Borg cubes? And that the Romulans/zhat vash were studying it to help them
    Unlock secrets and have more knowledge in their mission. Could they have even deliberately set out to capture it and cause a submatrix collapse intentionally knowing full well by assimilating Ramda the cube would be theirs ? But I’m the final analysis it seems Borg werent tied to Destroyers story. Ramda wasn’t sent on purpose to capture cube as part of a well executed devious daring plan but instead was just serendipity a zhat vash shuttle just so happened to encounter a cube.

    And that trend of exciting ideas that ended before that even had a chance to develop into something interesting continued last night in the finale where just as it seemed the writers were going to pull the trigger and bring into the canvas the alliance of synthetics setting them up as story material for season two the writers close the book on them land send them
    Back from wherever they came

    Another missed opportunity was when Soong showed up. I thought at first it was Data. Afterall they had his neuron they could reconstitute all his memories and put him In a synthetic body and would have been the fulfillment of what he always wanted which was to be human. Instead it turned out to be Soong. Data could have spent the remainder of his days teaching his children all that he knew about humans to avoid what almost happened here from again

    Another example of the frustrating knack of this season to seem to be building up to something satisfying only to fizzle in mere seconds was the romulans confrontation with the synthetics and starfleet. Not for one minute did I buy Oh who devoted her life to a group who spent literally centuries trying to prevent the second coming of the destroyers to withdraw and move on simply because Soji reactivated beacon. What about the other synthetics? What about the beacon that could be restarted at a later date ?

    Well, that was fun! Not classic, but fun, and it sets us up for Star Trek: Firefly.

    Where even are they setting course to in the end? Second star to the right, and straight on till morning? This crew deciding to stay together feels underwritten. Who's funding them now?

    We get a true TNG ending, but not before some of the bad guys have crept in. Truthfully, I hope the writers forget about them and maybe spend one episode resolving them at most. I'm much more interested in the Romulan refugee crisis or other political or moral questions than in evil AI eels from another dimension.

    It's weird that the so-called uber-synths need our side to hold the door open, but whatever.

    It's weird that Jurati et al didn't tell Picard's friends that he's actually fine, but whatever.

    It's weird that... look, a lot of things are weird here. And most of them amount to "meh" because the basic premises of the story hold together even if some details need smoothing. This far outstrips Discovery's first season and slightly beats its second.

    I cried at the scenes at the end with Data. TNG, and not Picard, earned most of that, but after the failure to treat Data's death with emotional impact in Nemesis, it's good to see it given the weight it deserves here.

    Three stars for the finale, and three stars for the season. Both barely--but if I think about whether I'd tell my Trek-fan friends to watch the show, the answer is definitely yes, and that feels like the metric for a three-star rating for me.

    The point they were trying to make with Data's death was that his mortality was the ultimate realization of what it was to be human--something he aspired to his entire life. He could have been kept in suspended quantum animation, or downloaded into another host body with a positronic net. Neither one would have been human.

    Picard spent his post-Starfleet years haunted by the fact that Data,someone he loved sacrificed his life for him. For him to be unshackled so he can live his life, he had to accept Data's death as well. He got to say goodbye.

    To me, that was beautifully written and acted.

    I was also disappointed the writers didn’t do more to provide insight into the state of the Alpha Quadrant this season. Afterall it’s been twenty years since visited this time frame. It might have been nice to do some namedropping which these writers love to do and flesh things out a bit by say suggesting part of the reason the Federation has withdrawn and become so isolationist and not quite so gung ho on being explorers like they did during TNG was due partially to
    The war with Dominion and repeated confrontations with Powerful alien threats like the Borg and Dominion leaving the Federation believing it’s better to focus on rebuilding and focusing their energies at home rather than sending ships further out into the galaxy with the possibility of encountering more hostile groups like the Borg and the dominion

    This kind of applies to Seven too. I was disappointed we didn’t get any interesting backstory of Seven and her last twenty years. I also think a more interesting role for her instead of vigilante would have been serving as part of the reclamation team. Or Perhaps going around liberating drones from the collective helping them regain their individuality. Would have also loved to hear some namedropping of her voyager crew members to satisfy the nostalgia

    And if I were the writers I would have totally ignored the whole nova destroying Romulus but from JJ trek. Watching Picard this season wouldn’t have known Romulans suffered such a devastating setback. Or if writers wanted to devastate Romulan Empire and have it tie with season arc as well as the cube thread they should have just gone with Maurice Hurley’s original plan for Borg to destroy/assimilate the Romulans from
    TNG season two.

    The few things that did work this season were Picard and Patrick Stewart; the time spent on Earth in the first three episodes be it on the vineyard or Starfleet or Daystrom, the Romulan couple who worked for Picard, Number One, Riker, Troi, Kestra, Soji and the Android mythology

    I liked how the writers chose to draw on The Android mythology and develop it. How all that unfolded by starting out with Dajhe and then soji and slowly peeling back the layers with the ban and then late in the season eventually revealing that there’s a culture of androids with different models with an actual homeworld

    @Daniel.

    I agree with what you are saying and I thought the goodbye scene between Data and picard was the best part of and most poignant thing in the finale. I just think if they wanted that message then not even a part of data consciousness should have been a possibility and that Data was completely gone in nemesis and Picard would just have to live with unresolved feelings of regret like we all do who lose someone. As humans we don’t get the chance to resolve these things the way the writers let Picard do. But yes the way the scene was filmed wirh blue skies playing in a drab grey setting and Seeing Data gradually decompose before our eyes was impactful and well done

    That’s why I felt if they want that don’t open door to possibility for resurrection by saying part of Data exists up until last night cause then the obvious question is if you resurrect Picard why not resurrect Data, give him a. Ticking clock like they did Picard

    The unanswered question: who were those future-uber synths? What will happen? If those are future synths, won't the future be endangered still? I think Discovered will answer this question.

    I am not happy with the lingering question of who these future synths are. The threat is still looming. If any synth still make a beacon, those future uber synths will still come.

    If I recall Soji and Dahj were effectively Data re-constructed from a single postronic neuron from Data — (though I still have no idea where the human DNA for these twins was procured ... Jurati, perhaps?) — but Data's also on three thumbdrives, running in a simulation. Picard's been transferred into the "golem". So, I take it, that Data and Picard have, in a sense, now merged. Fascinating.

    PIcard was Borg, now he is 'borg.

    I'll say it again: Alton Soong, as a character, really reminds me of Arik Soong. And I'm fine with that. That 3-parter in Star Trek: Enterprise was one of my favorite moments in the Star Trek franchise.

    Of course Elnor would be dear to Picard. Memories of Rene, I'd think.

    Anyway, the conclusion was adequate, though there are many, many loose ends. Far too many for my liking, certainly. Too many things were dropped. The Synth Rebellion, the Borg, the state of the Romulan state (is it now just the Romulan Free State, or is that state one of many, a fragment of the Star Empire). Who knows? Who cares? Oh, well.

    Episode rating: 4 stars. Series rating: 2 stars (rounded down from 2.3) And that's good enough to bring me back to watch Season Two.

    Another thing I didn’t much care for Was the fact the writers didn’t mine Picard’s irumodic syndrome arc of his decline over couple seasons which I thought they were doing. There was no reason it had to be resolved by the end of this season It could have hung over the series always in the background informing things
    Oh and I’d give the finale 2 stars. It’s watchable and there are times when suspenseful and entertaining but overall it wasn’t as satisfying as could have been. Which also applies to the season itself which I’d give a C

    The writers didn’t have enough material to sustain the ten episodes and the times the writers attempted to tell standalone type stories they were bad like “ Absolure Candor” and “Stardust City Rag”.

    The writers could have condensed the season by keeping the first three episodes getting to free cloud and Maddox in episode four and focusing that hour to Maddox, agnes Picard catching up etc. since the Borg thread was extraneous and went over well trodden ground(we have seen liberated Borg before with Hugh, four seasons of Seven on VOYAGER, Unity Borg, descent Borg and STP didn’t do anything interesting with them here) the next episode could have been set on some sort of Romulan facility instead of a cube where Soji was located so picard could rescue her, keep Nepenthe then Jump to the season finale two parter. Something like that rather than lot of pointless romantic trysts, long drawn out scenes involving holograms etc

    A couple more things about the season that bothered me :

    The season was structured that each episode started with flashback in teaser. In “impossible Box” a Borg heavy episode where Picard arrived to Artifact I think it would have been better for flashback to have been to the encounter between Ramda’s ship the Shaenor and the cube. That way rather than spending the whole season with Borg being static threats we would at least get to see Borg full on in collective assimilation mode and would have been cool seeing the collapse as Romulans have been assimilated starting to spread and drones and cube going haywire before being disabled and severed from the collective

    And for all the talk by make up artists working on Trek now about working on Borg we didn’t get one full on updated drone just people after their implants and tech removed

    3 out of 4. Better than last week's and had many great moments. Picard's meaning of life speech and Data's desire to die being standout scenes. The season as a whole turned out pretty solid.

    But the Romulan political situation is a narrative disaster. Are they still a superpower or not? Where is Donatra and why didn't Picard saving Romulus from Shinzon and Donatra being grateful enough to allow peace talks factor in to the refugee plot?

    ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    Brent Spiner had story credit in Nemesis, namely his involvement was the part in Data's death. His main concern is that as an android that wasn't necessarily designed to age, it was becoming more and more difficult to portray him into his 50's when he was in his mid 30's when he originated the role. The fact that they made him look as good as they did in the finale given the fact that he's 71, was no small feat.

    I think the way that Nemesis finally came together kinda cheated the impact and effectiveness of that death, so part of the intent in Picard was to "fix" the death. They could have left well enough alone and not have Picard haunted by the death, but they made a literary decision to use Data as a "device" to reopen Picard's story.

    Part of the problem with bringing Data back is that he's too major a character to not do anything with if he was brought back. It would eclipse all the new main characters we'd been introduced to all season. The writers are going to have enough to not keep being tempted to bring back Riker and Deanna for Season 2, and too much fan service would, in my humble opinion, rob the opportunity to tell new stories with the new cast.

    Yes, since Nemesis, the Marvel movies have shown us that de-aging CGI is very feasible today, albeit a bit expensive, and this is Star Trek, so never say never.

    Re: the Borg, in one of the interviews, one of the creators said that the directive was that if a people/species/creature was to be brought back, they needed to show them in a different context. Not changed, like TOS Klingons vs TNG+ Klingons, but another dimension. That's why the Romulans were more fleshed out and made a dynamic race with diverse subcultures.

    With the Borg, the theme was that the individual drones, not the collective per se, were actually victims. Victims of their own assimilation, victims of being tainted with the association of being evil assimilators and destroyers of mass populations, stateless victims--used by Romulans, unwanted by the Federation, marked with the scars of the implants for the rest of their lives. To bring them back to power would have instantly made them the terrifying power without any agency. That's why they didn't go any farther with Borg Queen Annika than they did.

    @Startrekwatcher--I'm not trying to discount anything that you've been saying--I had fan tendencies like yours, but I'm working off of the the interviews of the showrunners and writers to try to fill in the intent and missing details. (Look at today's Hollywood Reporter for an interview with Chabon and another interview with Sir Patrick)

    *Also I don't think it was the fact that "Romulans" were assimilated that caused the cube collective to collapse. It was that they happened to assimilate a Romulan who happened to have the Admonition (targeted message towards synthetic or cybernetic minds) that did it. Romulans had a shared genetic history with Vulcans, and we've already witnessed Vulcans assimilated in the past.

    Years ago I played a D&D video game titled Tactics. I don’t really remember the plot behind its campaign, but I remember that there was a significant quest-line that involved retrieving a staff of sorts which was supposed to be crucial to the story. By the end of the campaign, the story resolved itself without ever mentioning the staff again. Like I said, I have no idea what the conclusion was supposed to be but I remember feeling utterly baffled by how what was supposed to be a crucial element was just dropped and never mentioned again. This is what much of this show feels like. It is abundant in a lot of disjointed elements and its numerous ideas ultimately lead nowhere.

    Now that the season has reached its end, I can safely conclude that the entire problematic with the Romulan refugee crisis led nowhere in particular, Icheb got gruesomely tortured and killed for nothing more than passing shock-value, murderer-Jurati strode happily into season two and, most notably, the character of Elnor and the business of taking the Borg cube to the synth-planet were utterly pointless. A whole episode was spent on introducing Elnor and creating somewhat of a backstory for a character that does nothing for the show and had he not been there the plot would’ve carried on in exactly the same manner. At the same time he offered no reflection, thought or substance or anything else of value. The sequence where Seven connects with the cube was impressive, yet the huge opportunity to explore the effects that might have on her get completely dropped. The same goes for the cube appearing in front of the synth-world – what could’ve been a great change of perspective to have our protagonists pilot one of those monstrosities is quickly dismissed and never mentioned again. Finally, as much as it saddens me to say that, other than being a nostalgia factor Seven’s role in these final two episodes escapes me. Mid-season I came across a rumor that the show had been recut and many of its scenes reshot numerous times and that the script suffered major changes and that as a result we got a collage of multiple stories that oftentimes had very little to do with each other. Whether that is true or not I do not know, but judging by what we’ve seen this season I wouldn’t put it out of the realm of possibility. Finally, Seven departs with the others on board La Sirena with the cube and the XBs never to be mentioned again.
    Another hugely problematic element comes down to the world-building of the show, something I have discussed in my previous comments. There is a whole lot of info dumping and exposition involved, a lot of things are hinted at and yet some important questions aren’t addressed at all. Contrast, for example, how the series treats the Zhat Vash and the overall state of the Romulan society. The former is explained in great detail through relentless exposition while the latter, something of arguably much greater interest to a Trekkie, is just hinted at and never truly discussed. We have no idea what the current military status of the Empire is, nor do we know their political situation. We can’t even begin to guess since the show itself offer contradictory information on the subject – it is highly improbable that an interstellar empire such as the Romulans would be crippled by a loss of one system, even if it is their homeworld, yet they seemed all too reliant on Federation help. On the other hand, this society has successfully infiltrated the impenetrable Starfleet and is able to muster more than 200 state of the art warbirds while a significant community of their own is still living in a rundown refugee camp 15 years after the crisis. A different approach, however, would require significantly more effort.

    The reason behind the one employed here is simple – it directly services the plot, the other does not. As I have discussed in the first season of Discovery, the imagined plot of a given show is of the utmost importance in the minds behind modern Trek. A lot of people don’t seem to have a problem with this, however I find that it doesn’t make particularly good fiction of any sort. It creates a paper thin world where anything can happen in order to see the show arrive to its originally imagined conclusion, yet once it arrives there it has no real meaning and feels utterly cheap. If you couple that with the disjointed manner in which the show is put together, the drama the show aims to create is extremely weak. Take for example the relationship between Picard and Raffi. I do not know the character of Raffi nor what her relationship with Picard prior to the show was and secondly, the voyage between the meltdown she has in front of him when she is first introduced and their exchange of love for one another a couple of episodes later doesn’t do nearly enough to justify this change of heart. The same formula then applies to Elnor and his relationship with Picard. It seems as if the writers of this show have a set formula of what they think the audiences want to see in a given situation and then just go crossing items off a list without giving them much thought. Take the characterization of Raffi for example – a tortured soul, therefore she has problems with substance abuse and an estranged son? Check and check. And forgotten. The same formula is applied to its elements regarding the plot - once they have fulfilled their role they are quickly crossed off, which is why both Maddox and Hugh are brutally murdered once their usefulness has run its course. That is the extent of world-building on this show which is thoroughly present with almost every single of its elements and that is why I don’t think it is any good.

    There has been a significant discussion on one of the previous threads as to why people who don’t like this show keep watching it. I personally hold TNG and DS9 very close to my heart and given how I grew up with Picard, Riker and co. it has shaped me in more ways than I probably realize. I kept watching this in hopes it would get better, looking for the tiniest ties to those great shows of old. Unfortunately, if there were any, they were few and far between. What is even more unfortunate is that I noticed that a lot of people complaining about those critiquing the show usually do not offer any vision of their own regarding the show, nor do they contest any of the critiques in a rational manner. Instead they are quick to dismiss those who would make them as anhedonic haters and end up offering no insights to the discussion. I assure you, I genuinely wanted to like this show yet I cannot keep a blind eye to its many faults no matter how significant the old material is to me.
    I want to conclude this with a comment on the final episode. The small device they use to fix La Sirena and then later to create its multiple images perfectly epitomizes the issue where the plot is paramount. The ship is magically repaired and the Romulan fleet fooled. The writers part with any semblance of meaning behind it in such a manner that I was left absolutely perplexed as to which show I was watching. Another comment said that this is a meta-commentary on all the technobabble of the previous shows, however if that is the case it is grossly out of place since employing your meta-commentary as a plot device at the same time absolutely ruins the credibility behind the show which is already strained to begin with. Another issue is that I see it more as arrogance than meta-commentary as previous shows at least tried to create a veneer of scientific explanations whereas this one dispenses with it entirely, leading to concepts such as android mind-melds or cloning from a single positron.

    Finally, it was wonderful seeing Riker in uniform and modern Starfleet ships and the dialogue between Picard and Data is surprisingly good. However, and this is a huge however, the premise behind is utterly absurd. It implies that since Data’s consciousness was reconstructed he was actually alive all this time and trapped in a box for the last 20 years on a planet that is literally a factory of synthetic-bodies. Data’s wish to be terminated in the end is nothing more than another example of the plot getting primacy over common sense. Data always strived to be human, yes, but he was never suicidal and that is exactly what it looks like here as there is no other reason to extinguish him other than having the writers cross one more item from that damned list (to quote Sisko).

    Normally a finale of a good show brings about feelings of sadness and closure, a bitter-sweet appreciation for being a part of something special. Given the nature of this show and all of the issues discussed not only in this entry but in my other comments as well, having Data die a second time only left me with a huge pocket of sadness in my heart and believe me when I tell you there is nothing sweet about it.

    I was more impressed with this part than part one for sure. Riker showing up was awesome. I would say that this one gets 3.5 stars.

    Data finally getting to rest was a good move. Data had this to say in Time’s Arrow:

    I have often wondered about my own mortality, as I have seen others around me age. Until now, it has been theoretically possible that I would live an unlimited period of time. And although some might find this attractive, to me it only reinforces the fact that I am... artificial.

    Farewell Data.

    Enjoyable season. I’m glad it’s here, unlike some here, TRENT for sure, who obviously need to go watch other shows. Let’s be grateful we have Patrick Stewart and company giving us a follow up to TNG after 26 years.

    Take care guys!

    “stardust city rag” could have in hindsight been more of a relevant show to the season if they had tied icheb’s death to the fact that Byjazel was procuring Borg parts for Maddox’s efforts to circumvent the the thousand years Agnes said it would take to be able to create an organic synth. All the pieces were there had writers chose to use them.

    Maddox mentioned not being able to repay Byjazel, I thought he was referring to her procuring Borg parts for his research and byjazel should have been killed by Seven when she found this out

    On Daniel's point about the Borg. There are hints of a good story in there. Reclaiming a Borg cube and its victims has a lot of potential. So make that the story of season 2. It is nothing but padding here that only touches on the subject. It wrecks the flow of the primary narrative and really is only there because BORG! What a waste.

    Filip touches on a point about the creative process ever since the reboot. It is all writing by checklist. It is all about beats or moments they want to hit and the plot is just an excuse to hit them, no matter how disjointed it ends up being. The beats could be stock like action scenes, emotional scenes or Trek specific things to endear itself to fans like bringing back the Borg or bringing back beloved characters or giving Picard a moment to talk all Picard-like.

    I had to laugh a bit at the giant starfleet armada showing up and then zapping out of there again so abruptly and nonchalantly the moment the Romulans stood down. A fleet this size could be thought of in real-life terms as, say, amassing a 100,000+ army to a conflict zone, then deciding "never mind, it's cool" and only leaving a retired service member to sort out any details.

    Didn't starfleet just vow to protect the planet? Could they not leave, like, one ship? Of course that would undercut the importance of La Sirena etc.

    Overall I do enjoy the show, but 'convenient' stuff happens all too often.

    Do you guys think or know if the Borg will be back next season and we will learn more abiut the Queen and their origins as some have suggested in this thread and maybe Uninatrix Zero and maybe Species 8472?? I hooe so..i hope someone can tell me..thanks and finally bring back other Voyaver characters and new aliens and develio a new advanced race of synths that develioed sonewhow naturally but differently than biological beings?

    My thoughts:

    The Riker moment almost single-handedly redeemed the entire series for me. Almost.

    The Data death scene was pretty great too.

    Soji's betrayal was so late in the game it didn't feel real and you knew she wouldn't go through with it. It wasn't true to the character, and that whole drama was unearned.

    Why would they choose to kill Picard by putting a limit on his life? If he wants to die, he can just kill himself at any time.

    Those synth super-creatures were halfway out and then went back in. Seemed kind of contrived.

    It looks like they did do some CGI on Data's chin in the after-death conversation scene - why oh why couldn't they also do it to his face to make him look younger?

    The Romulan villains in this series were well acted, especially Narek and Ramda.

    Didn't like any of the Jurati-Picard interaction in the ship, especially the 'Make it so' line. That was so forced.

    Didn't like the 'that's for Hugh' moment either for similar reasons.

    Overall the series is a mixed bag, it has some great visuals, the quality of direction is mixed, the quality of the writing and acting is similarly mixed. Even Patrick Stewart's performance is mixed, but that might be due to the writing. He doesn't feel sufficiently Picard-y, there's a bit too much old Patrick Stewart in the performance.

    I don't hate this series and I don't love it either. Overall I'm glad they did it, but it could have been much more.

    Trent wrote:

    "this is a doomsday cult. And one that brazenly attacked Picard and Daj on Federation soil, and killed millions of fellow Romulans. You'd expect them to be hell bent on firing torpedoes at that Synth Homestead. And you'd expect them to become more entrenched and violent the more their prophecies and worldviews are challenged."

    My understanding is once the prophecy Narrek described at the beginning of the episode was stopped, i.e. the portal was closed so no "demons" would come, the Zhat Vash's purpose in stopping the prophecy was already fulfilled. Now, I guess you might say they could've purged the planet to make doubly sure the prophecy will never come true, but that fleet of Starships and the treaty were probably enough to deter a hopeless fanatical attack on the planet.

    @Daniel

    I liked your description of Data's scenes, and I think it did resonate for a lot of people here. I guess I would've preferred they connected the dots for that particular climax along the way. I mean, "Time's Arrow" aside, we didn't really know Data was suffering from a lack of mortality. We didn't even know Data was conscious somehow through B4's memory. So, all-in-all I appreciate the attempt to close Data's arc from the mess that was Nemesis, but the arc needed some more meat on it.

    As for other complaints about the Romulan situation not be explained well enough, it's just as well for me that they save that for another season. At least they didn't try to keep us sucked in with a silhouette of Shinzon plotting his evil revenge in season two. The low-key ending leaving some open questions was a good way to go out, for me.

    Why wasn't it Soji who discovered the true nature of the Admonition?

    I understand on a plotting level why she didn't, because her position in the story would have made it odd if she hadn't uncovered it sooner than the finale, but on a character level it's clumsy. Soji was supposedly undercover to find out the true reason for the synth ban, and it ended up being Soji who took the lead on calling the ancient synths. It would make sense for her arc for her to be proactive in finding out what Agnes knew.

    I had assumed Sutra was added to the story because she would fill the role of the Destroyer and Soji would oppose her, but Sutra ended up being entirely redundant. She went down like a punk and Soji carried on without her.

    So...why wasn't it Soji who found out the truth about the Admonition?

    PIC has a real problem with the main characters being pushed around and maneuvered by secondary characters (who die as soon as they've served their purpose) and I don't understand it. Soji could have been active and making choices throughout all of this, but instead it played like she got sucked into some sort of cult for one episode before changing her mind based on the power of Yet Another Picard Speechâ„¢. It makes her look really inept, less like a fully-formed character and more like a plot contrivance who does whatever the writers need her to do that week.

    Can anyone see this going on for another season? The entire conflict of the show has been resolved now. What's left? More Romulan conspiracies for the insane? The return of the Borg? There's no set-up at all for another season. I half-expected the Enterprise-F(?) to show up at the end like the Discovery season one finale. Oy vey.

    "- Why can't Romulans be assimilated?" this is actually quite well explained, though not explicitly stated. The Borg assimilated "auntie" (I don't remember her real name) who went insane after seeing the "prophecy". The cube "went insane" too and the Borg cut it off from the collective to prevent this from spreading.

    Mark said: " A fleet this size could be thought of in real-life terms as, say, amassing a 100,000+ army to a conflict zone, then deciding "never mind, it's cool" and only leaving a retired service member to sort out any details."

    And why hand such a huge and important fleet to a reserve officer like Riker? Were there no admirals around? What about the active captains of other ships, or anyone else that outranks him?

    And that's that.

    Overall, STP was more watchable than STD, but really ... that's no expression of excellence. There were some good moments in this show, and some exceptionally bad ones ('Stardust Cuty Rag'). This episode was a complete mixed bag of good and utter shit, really weird.

    A few stray thoughts of my own:

    • I could take Elnor much more seriously this episode, if for no other reason than the actor really conveying grief well, when he lost it with Raffi;

    • Seven and Raffi are a thing, now? When did that happen? Did I miss some hints? This feels as awkward and forced as Seven and Chakotay, or Worf and Troi, or Bashir and Ezri. Sometimes I think ST needs to leave romance alone, it doesn't do it well at all;

    • Rios and Jurati are still a thing? Urgh. See comment above about Star Trek and believable romance;

    • If the final scene is to be taken at face value, I guess Seven is now part of the crew, which is cool. I like this;

    • My god, but there are loose ends in this episodes, and characterisation holes so big, you could fly Excelsior-class starships through them. Really, really sloppy.

    • Data's final passing was actually pure class. This was top-drawer, it did the character a great deal more respect than in Nemesis;

    • I'm grateful to the showrunners for not making Soong turn out to be Lore.

    Like I said, STP was more or less watchable, but still not great, by any means. Will I come back for S02? Yeah.

    A magic problem solving handheld device.

    Killing Data AGAIN in a disturbing fashion.

    Killing Picard and replacing him with a clone.

    Ugly new ship designs.

    Ridiculous fight scenes.

    Killing Romulan incest sister by copying a famous Star Wars .

    Agnes gets off scot free.

    Seven leaves the cube to join the crew .... why?

    Are 7 and Raffi girlfriends now?

    Why wasn't Picard upset they copied him without consent?

    Why wouldn't he try to talk Data into living longer? Surely being trapped by himself in a quantum simulation wasn't good for his mental health.

    What happened to Narek?

    The galactic synth ban is now over just like ... that? Three Romulans face no consequences?!

    I just ... yeah, I didn't really like the narrative choices at all.

    The acting was good, that was it. Very anticlimactic!!!!

    1.5 stars

    One other editing choice I wish they directors would stop doing:

    The hyperkinetic camera angle changes are really annoying. It makes me wonder if they are splicing and stitching together different takes.... I end up looking for continuity goofs and sound mixing clues instead of focusing on the overall presentation.

    I will be brief, and will using Jammers analogy at the end of Discovery 2nd. While the two-parter finale was wobbly at times, it did "STICK THE LANDING" (emphasis mine). It is not "The best of Both worlds" cliffhanger of TNG season 3 (nigh impossible), but it let me ...satisfied.

    I'll watch next year, and hope the will go to a less serialized and more episodic series. Hope springs eternal.

    Too short...
    Anyone besides me cried a few tears when Data died for good?
    I felt really old right there and then...

    @Filip

    A quick word about "plot is paramount." I'm dating someone 10 years my junior and she can barely make it through shows produced in the 90's. I'm a little older, and I notice this when I watch movies from the 40's. Thirty minutes in and I'm wondering when something's going to happen. Picard's not that great, but it's possible age is also a huge factor when it comes to finding this show palatable.

    Truth is, there are far better sci-fi shows out there right now with broader appeal that aren't as dumbed down. If this is the type of schlock CBS is going to drive their online brand with, they should be worried.

    So Picard ended up being a multi-million dollar, VFX-driven, integalactic trial about the humanity of androids. And yet at no point did it stack up to the emotional tension present in the paltry courtroom in "The Measure of a Man."

    Great to see Riker in the chair again. Unfortunately not nearly as great as they did it in "All Good Things."

    What happened to the compelling human drama of Star Trek? Stories like "Duet" from Ds9, that made you understand the horror and meaning behind genocide. Or like "Darmok," that have unspeakably beautiful moments about the wonder and awe of encountering new species, like when Picard recounts mythology to the alien in an attempt to use his language and metaphor. Science fiction, at its best, about the sublimity of discovery. I wanted this series to exemplify these principles, because Picard, at his core, values curiosity, patience, and exploration. For so many people, Picard has been a role model in these virtues - something our society needs - especially when we fail to find these same values in our leaders. This series has done none of that. Where it should be quiet, it is brash; where it should have been patient, it rushes through stories pointlessly; where it should have demonstrated sincerity, it is silly. The writers are not treating the characters with any sense of grace or respect. I had heard an alternate story had been Picard in his vineyard. How much more relevant drama would we have had if we had seen Beverly come over for dinner with - say - her husband and seen the regret in Picard's eyes? Or if we watched Picard struggling about whether to go off into space and leaving his caretakers behind? There is so much lost potential, so much power in Picard's story that is squandered here. What a disappointment. I hope the writers are more thoughtful in the following season. Look to current dramas like Better Call Saul who show great respect and humanity in their characters. Look back to DS9 or TNG - not to recycle those plots - but to see how much love the writers had for the characters they created.

    js82 said: "What happened to the compelling human drama of Star Trek?"

    There's something perversely funny about this show. It started off as a serious character study and deep dive into Romulan politics and refugee crises, and ended up with Picard as a robot.

    You remember Captain Picard? He's a robot now.

    The whole show becomes sillier the more you think about it.

    Data's drawing room in the simulation was a nice callback to his drawing room at Cambridge University in "All Good Things". Would've benefited from the presence of more cats, though.

    Speaking of cats, Elnor really should've met Spot II.

    The magic tool Rios and Jurati used reminds me of the tool from the episode "When the Bough Breaks". As I recall, the tool was used to fashion a dolphin sculpture.

    The whole Admonition business doesn't make much sense to me. What civilization gathered the eight stars? Were they destroyed by the Synth Federation at the same time the Iconians were transporting from planet to planet? Or were the Synths the gatherers of the eight stars? I'd say the latter, but I just don't know.

    Would've been interesting if the first time the Synths were called from the other universe that they destroyed the offending civilizations thereabout the galaxy, but the second time they were called, they transformed the offenders, making the Borg. First time tragedy, second time farce. Third time around they might have shared a nice cup of tea with Picard and discussed their evolving ethics.

    Finally, the entire concept of biological androids is as clear as milk. I was hoping for answers and got none.

    So the series is over and I’m reflecting on stp. Is it better than Discovery? Yes I would say so. There were even some episodes that were very good. But something is off. I can’t exactly put my finger on it but there was never a time where I felt like I was watching something special. I don’t want to bash it because it could have been much worse but overall it is certainly Discovery-esque. The finale episode itself was not one of the seasons better episodes but it wasn’t the worst either.

    How many deus ex machinas does it take to finish a season? How many frigging reset buttons?

    —that tool that fixes La Sirena and conjures multiple La Sirenas to distract the Romulans? Why not use this tool in Season 2 to save the day in every episode?

    —great, Starfleet comes in the nick of time. But not a true deus ex machina because they were unnecessary due to:

    —I guess it really does just take a speech from Picard to reset everything. At least this is probably the closest we get to TNG Picard speeches. Notwithstanding it negates Soji’s motivations from the last episode. Starfleet risking themselves to defend Soji is enough to change her mind? Starfleet doesn’t represent the organic threat to synths.

    —last but not least, the Golem saves Picard. We saw this coming though. Why did Soong give this up? I guess he can make more? As a reviewer stated, now every character can live forever? What’s the danger now in Season 2?

    I’m sure I left off other resets. I won’t comment on the melodrama and cheap deaths (Narissa) and large plot holes so eloquently listed by Trent and Karl, above. But it really boils down to did this justify 10 episodes/10 hours? This was middling for Trek (again I haven’t watch Discovery and won’t based on how bad it’s been reviewed and people saying PIC is actually better!) but atrocious when compared to other pay to watch shows such as Westworld. Even Altered Carbon for all its faults and cheap thrills had a semblance of plot.

    @marvin

    Stp is only marginally better than discovery. Mostly bc it has the cheat of having built in characters you already care about and want to see. As far as writing and aesthetic it’s very similar

    @Dahj's Synthetic Ghost

    The Admonition builders were an intergalactic alliance of synths. They destroyed the people on that planet Aia where the Admonition relic was placed. It was placed there by the ancient synths as a message to artificial lifeforms, telling them how to contact the ancient synths for protection against organic lifeforms. The eightfold star system was constructed by those ancient synths as an easily visible landmark that would draw attention to that spot for the purposes of viewing the Admonition.

    Not a great two-parter by any means, but again, had some shining moments. In the end though, we get what we actually wanted, Picard as the captain of a new crew looking for a new adventure. Sure it was incredibly contrived, sure they let Agnes ge away with murdering her mentor, but at least there's that. Now lets just hope they don't try to reset the table again season 2 and embrace the world they have already created. 2 out 4 for me with a hopefully outlook on season 2.

    @ Quincy

    See, that's the problem, you say the Synth Federation destroyed the people on the planet Aia, but it looked to me that they utterly destroyed a planet where somebody, at some time, created synthetic life, and then oppressed it. Instead, it looks to me that they created a synthetic solar system with eight stars and placed a warning/means-to-summon message on a planet — apparently named Aia, the Grief World, by the Romulans — which was neatly set in the resulting gravitational web. This happened approximately 200,000 years ago. But the Iconians and other space-faring civilizations were around at that same time. So, the message I would take from that is: The Synth Federation does not destroy all organic life, merely that which is oppressing and killing new synthetic beings.

    That's why I'm at a loss here. The screw has been cross-thread, so to say, and It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

    * * *

    I've got to say further that I'm sad MIchael Chabon will not be Season Two's show runner. The episodes listing him as the sole teleplay credit were the best of the season. I'm afraid with him being on only in a semi-active role, the S2 will have even less direction than this one had.

    Nevertheless, I'm still looking forward to S2. Especially because Annika Hansen will be returning for more! Maybe we'll see more of the TNG cast, and Voyager's. Jake Sisko interviewing PIcard for a biography he's writing would be a nice nod to DS9.

    Oh, by the way, La Sirena still needs to drop by DS12 and drop Agnes Jurati off to face her trial and punishment for the murder of Maddox. Sure, reasonably she was mentally incapacitated by that forced mind-meld, but the UFP functions according to the rule of law. It's an issue the writer's must address next season.

    Throwing ideas out there.

    Might have been more interesting to have an arc about Romulans displaced by supernova plotting to return and reclaim their ancestral homeland of Vulcan

    Might have been more interesting if doing an arc about banning synthetics and synthetic rights might start season out with revelation in the time of PICARD all artificial life banned and androids, holograms like The Doctor and former Borg have banded together to fight the injustice

    Might have been more interesting if a group
    Of Romulan refugees stumbled upon the disabled cube and used it as a place to live and in the process of being there created a religion or cult seeing something in the Borg that would provide a path forward and rebirth of their devastated society from the supernova

    Can someone explain the point of a tear jerking death scene that is reversed by the Magic Reset Button 15 minutes later?

    Like what did that whole subplot add to this production? The chat at King’s Cross (err, in the “simulation”) with Dumbledore (err, Data)??? That could have been done on a Holodeck with the death scene and whole “frontal lobe abnormality” plot.

    Ups and downs in the season, on balance I liked much of it, but this is the ending?

    Agree with the previous comments that this is an middling entry into the Star Trek ethos. Seemingly unlimited budget for SFX, some of the best actors Star Trek has ever seen, lots of cool callbacks and Easter eggs for the fans, but the overarching story? 2.5/4 stars IMHO.

    "Can someone explain the point of a tear jerking death scene that is reversed by the Magic Reset Button 15 minutes later?"

    Is it magic? It's not the first time mind transfer from man to android has been done, as TNG already did it in "The Schizoid Man". It was also fairly heavily foreshadowed it would happen to *someone* in the previous episode. As for the resurrection aspect of it, I can think of a number of Star Trek episodes where something similar happens. The Best of Both Worlds wants us to think Picard is completely Borg and about to be killed by Riker only for Picard to get de-assimilated by the end of story. "Time's Arrow" teases us by making us think Data will die only for his death to not really affect the character.

    Granted, it's offsetting to think about how a beloved character is no longer biological now but an android (albeit one who is nearly indistinguishable as biological). I guess you could read that as a "cheat", but it also feels earned in the sense that Picard would have died *for certain* and perhaps alone if he hadn't mustered up his strength to go on this last mission. It's a sort of trial by fire where Picard has to embrace androids by learning about them and how to protect their race. The final product of this quest for the knowledge of synths is that he's rewarded by being accepted as a synth himself. Sure, it's a little rough around the edges as presented by the show's speeding to the conclusion, but it's not inherently a bad Sci-Fi concept.

    Oh dear, that was..not the best. I respect the posters who enjoyed it, but overall the season fell very flat. It felt out if character for Picard to accept 'cheating' death without consent and a so readily be accepting of a robot body given his locutus experience. The data scenes I'm not sure about, I like the sentiment of a send off but it didn't feel totally like that was 'our' data. I'd echo startrekwatchers first post points which have been my bugbear throughout. Lots of promising avenues for the writers to use, but disappointing that this was the best they could come up with. Oh and I didn't like the warp jumping effect and too many ships just looked a bit too busy for the screen. I like the crew though so if there is a S2 also hope they use a more episodic format.

    The Borg didn't have much to do with the plot, did it? You could've excised that whole part of the season and it would've had no effect on the conclusion.

    GET AWAY FROM THAT LAUNCHER

    ...

    1. Narek failed as a Zhat Vash. This was the big giant detail they saved till the last second.

    2. Picard is now a (basically human, with a human lifespan and abilities) android. No further comment.

    3. Seven of Nine is now a regular in this series. Sold.

    4. I really REALLY like that Riker and the Romulans were able to reach a solution that did not involve blowing each other the f*** up. Thank you writers!

    5, AND YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION HERE...

    DATA GOT A FUNERAL. This was the turning point, in Nemesis, if you remember. Data was offed to save Picard and the ensuing scenes felt hollow and stupid. This now allows me to watch Nemesis again and feel like it went somewhere. By this episode's treatment of Data's consciousness being terminated by Picard, it validates the character in ways that Nemesis didn't give a F*** about! It REPAIRED DAMAGE to the Star Trek Canon! Can you argue with that, Jammer's Reviews Commenters?

    I loved it all. I loved it. Also, die Narissa. For Hugh. YEAAHHHHHHHHHHH

    -The grieving scenes between Raffi and Elnor and Seven and Rios really don't have much emotional impact. There's not much emotional connection to these characters or to Picard.

    -Social justice/obligatory contemporary gender politics mandates that Seven is a lesbian. Apparently she has no contact these days from anyone on Voyager.

    - Is Narek a good guy? Bad guy? Somewhere in between? What happened to him at the end?

    - Not clear what the status or what the strength of the Romulan Empire is now. Were those all just Zhat Vash ships? Either way, it looks like the Romulans still have some teeth.

    - They couldn't give us a look at the Enterprise E? I was hoping to see it that fleet.

    I just read an article in I09 that Isa Briones is the one singing Blue Skies at the end where Data leaves us. It also states that she was in Hamilton.

    Underwhelmed.

    I have no idea what season 2 will be like. Perhaps it will be episodic. I hope it will be better. Can we please have a stronger, more assertive Picard?

    My favorite part was Picard saying, "Goodbye, Commander" to Data.

    WOW!!! what a finale. Picards new life was unexpected. I was totally thinking J'rati was destined for synth life but as soon as Picard started stroking out evading the Romulans I knew it would be him instead. Data's "final" death was beautifully done. Not overly sappy but sweet enough to stir up a bit of sentiment.

    My biggest question is, how will the revelation of a high ranking Starfleet officer being a radical Romulan dictator affect Federation-Romulan relations?

    Why couldn't they just let Picard die? That was a good and fitting death for a titan of the franchise. Then they cheapened it by resurrecting him.

    And yes, I know the show is called Star Trek: Picard and he pulls in the ratings but that was a really good death and it feels wasted now. Oh well.

    Very mixed season but the second half was at least better than the first half. And I am warming to some of the crew finally.

    I think there is a lot to be disappointed about this series but what I ended up being disappointed with the most, were the designs of Starfleet ships in this episode.

    So I finally finished this episode. I didn't hate it, but also found it wildly inconsistent. The scenes of Patrick Stewart talking and pontificating generally worked, as has been the case throughout the show. The writing at times - especially around Picard's "death" - was almost poetic. Unfortunately, knowing that there is a Season 2 and knowing that Picard probably wouldn't die really undermined the dramatic tension. I knew the episode was trying to manipulate my emotions with a fakeout, so I couldn't get invested in it. I also really resented seeing a bunch of new characters mourn Picard's death, but not getting any reaction or even mention of the TNG crew. If Picard is going to have a death scene, I don't care about reaction shots from people who knew him for 5 minutes. Even so, I'd be lying if I didn't choke up for a minute or two.

    As for the rest... It was pretty rote. I couldn't even get excited about the big space battle because it was just a bunch of CGI thrown onto the screen. There was no rhyme or reason, no sense of flow to the battle. As we all learned in The Rise of Skywalker, adding hundreds of ships to a scene doesn't increase the stakes. It just creates clutter. The standoffs between the Enterprise-D and the two Romulan Warbirds in "The Defector" was much more tense because it was a battle of will as much as it was about firepower.

    Overall, I can't say I hate this show or that I regret watching it, but I'd never recommend it to anyone. If I had to rate it, I'd probably give it 2/4 stars overall. I don't know if I'll watch the eventual second season. I know I wouldn't if this show didn't have "Picard" in it.

    Did anyone else see that Seven and Raffi were playing Kal-toh? I just love little tidbits like that.

    @Mark, I hate to sound like a curmudgeon, but I think a lot of those problems with the fleet come down to CGI. When TNG and DS9 had to use models, they had to think carefully about how ships would actually move. Now, you can make your ships move with the click of a mouse. There's no weight to any of it.

    Also, the golem and AI tech are now the new Khan blood. Did this episode really just gloss over the fact that they cured death? It basically made possible exactly what we see in Altered Carbon, except that show at least acknowledged the implications of "curing" death in that way.

    Just disappointed at the amount of suspension of disbelief required to digest this season finale, which felt like a series finale given the feel-good moments at the end -- but I guess PIC was never certain of getting a 2nd season until much later... And there's no way Picard would actually die, so there's a bit of a cheap reset here.

    The writers aren't very competent and they left a ton of stuff to sort out in this 10th PIC episode. They went for the homerun and hit a single. They went for the melodrama of Picard dying and giving Data closure -- more stuff about being human which didn't move the needle for me.

    I will say it's nice to have had a bit of an epilogue after the big conflict, which was a major disappointment on its own. But the epilogue itself is highly contrived -- just not sure of the timing of when Soji/Jurati/Soong decide to use the golum for Picard vs. Elnor crying and Raffi consoling him and 7/Rios reflecting -- did the mourners not believe the technique could revive Picard?

    My major gripes with the episode have to do with suspension of disbelief: Jurati all of a sudden being able to be competent on La Sirena, being able to pull off the old trick of replicating the ship all over the place. And then Riker who looked totally washed up in "Nepenthe" is able to summon a massive Federation fleet and arrive exactly when Oh gives the Romulans the order to "sterilize" the synth settlement. This was just too much to let pass for me. And don't even get me started on that imagination tool used to fix La Sirena and enable Jurati to make dozens of replicas of the ship to confuse the Romulans...

    I suppose Picard should finally be written as the big-time hero after mostly being criticized and diminished in the prior 9 episodes. So now he convinces Soji to turn off the beacon -- she somehow listens to him -- I would have actually liked to see what this super-synth race could do! It looked like it could be quite over the top. At least the writers didn't let the Irumodic syndrome be a loose end -- it acts up as it should, I suppose. The warnings were there -- way back from Picard's old doctor from the Stargazer.

    Some loose ends: What was the deal with Soji's mom? What was the point of showing Raffi's estranged son and pregnant wife? How did the synth ban get lifted so quickly? Did the Federation suddenly believe Picard -- and when? How many times did Jurati flip-flop allegiances and flip-flop from being PIC's version of Tilly to being all fucked up to being Tilly again? And what is this "quantum simulation" after Picard dies that he meets with Data? I just think there's too much nonsense built up over the course of 10 episodes. These writers Chabon etc. can't write proper sci-fi compared to the brilliant writers TOS had, for example.

    Anyhow, I knew this is how things would end up -- plenty of early expository episodes that raised interesting ideas and characters, but ultimately the story is an unoriginal house of cards and lacks intelligence.

    2.5 stars for "Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 2" -- more like a 6/10 than a 6.5/10 for me. Lots of contrivances here to get Picard to be heroic. Attempts at generating tugs at the heart strings as Picard dies when we know he can't possibly really die. One cool dynamic was the tenuous allegiance formed with Narek, who is a good character played by a good actor -- but the 1-dimensional Elnor character really sucked. PIC S1 finale had a nearly impossible task to fulfill and it got a half-assed job done.

    This was one of the worst, most poorly written seasons of TV alive ever witnessed. Other than a few bright moments, utter and complete trash.

    I will watch whatever Trek they throw at me, but I gotta say I was sad that Jean Luc Picard DIED and we weren't really allowed to mourn that beyond a few over-the-top scenes of people we don't know that well crying over him. I realize and am on board with the idea of him taking on a new form of life, but I also think it is ok and very human to want to show respect and sadness about the loss of his (first) corporeal form. Also, Data straight up died as well and Geordi was nowhere to be found? It should have been him holding Data's hand.

    Style over substance, for the large part. That's about how I would characterize this series.

    Plenty of loose holes, which will likely never get tied up. Then again, it's all fantasy. Not really even science fiction, or clever mystery case. Just fantasy.

    That said, there was a bit more emotional resonance to the story than I thought there would be, and this troupe of actors has come together in a sense as a more or less coherent team.

    I do like the tenacity of Picard's convictions, as he stuck up for the synths all the way to the end, acknowledging their right to exist as sentient, free beings. After the synths began their own revolt and put Picard under house arrest, and then began their own plans to wipe out all organic life in the galaxy (?) by opening a portal to the "uber-synths," one would think that Picard's resolve would have vanished, that his convictions would have melted. Instead, he saw the hope in the situation. I think that's very appropriate for his character, and for the franchise as a whole.

    @Mark

    That's not quite what happened. It's not like they left to go home. Riker told the Romulans to leave Federation territory and that the fleet would escort them out. Commodore Oh said that wouldn't be necessary. Riker then says it would be no trouble at all, indicating that the fleet will indeed escort them out of Federation space. The Romulans leave. Riker says farewell to Picard and the fleet leaves to immediately to make sure the Romulans leave their space. Yes, I do think they should've left some ships behind, but considering the situation it could've been considered a hostile act. Not really a satisfying conclusion to the season, but whatever.

    So....to everyone claiming Picard isn't "Star Trek" or "Real Star Trek" or whatever...what exactly is Star Trek? Is it Mirror, Mirror or Spock's Brain? Is it Star Trek IV or V? How about the TNG episode Justice v. Yesterday's Enterprise?

    Star Trek is whatever anyone wants it to be...people whining about Picard not being "Star Trek" sound like kids screaming cause they couldn't have ice cream for dessert. Don't like it? Don't watch it.

    Wow it's been awhile since I posted on this site.

    For me, this series was weird. Like, it spent the first 8-9 episodes convincing me that it was a tricksy mystery show with a terribly anti-StarTrek perspective, and then in the finale it reversed to a nice (if hokey) StarTrek perspective via ignoring its own tricks and mysteries. Overall I didn't like it, and most of this post will be negative I'm afraid. But I'll put some positives in another post.

    First, the StarTrek perspective. One of the worst things about the first 75% of the show or so was that, any time Picard would finally manage to try to open a constructive dialogue to navigate a crisis, the show immediately contradicted him and portrayed violence as the actual solution. Even as simple as him wanting to protect Dahj, but no, she'll protect herself by kicking ass, great thanks (even if that doesn't work either). The confrontation with the senator, words, words, Picard throwing down sword is cool, wait nope beheading. 7of9 at the casino, Picard talks her down, wait nope LIE to him and go back and murder (that sequence was the absolute rock bottom of the show for me). Even getting permission to go to Borg cube was a jerk move... not violent, but without any positive connotation (compare Picard "conning" Worf in the future era of All Good Things, when he's really just convincing him to follow his own personal code).

    I have to say that after all of that, I really dreaded this finale. However, the show managed to finally put the violent asshole (sexy robot girl) in the wrong and win the day by avoiding a battle. Even if it was partly accomplished via a military standoff, it was a serious relief and made for a genuinely heartfelt conclusion.

    BUT

    Then we get to the logic/plot side of things, and the situation is reversed. The show spent so much time bringing up various complications and mysteries that started out seeming potentially cool. In almost every case, the answers were some combination of underwhelming, pointless, or non-existent. Oh boy, here we go. The big "mysteries" first.

    Why the Mars Attack during a Romulan recovery mission? It really looks like just coincidence by the end.

    What was Maddox's plan for the twins? Like, Dahj was about to go to Daystrom at the start, where Agnes surely would have recognized her. Is that what Maddox wanted? And why send Soji to Borg cube? Actually, why was the Borg cube part of this plot at all?

    So the vision was interpreted as a warning for the organics to stop AI or else, but surprise it was really an offer to the AI to kill the organics... so interpreting it wrong was, for all intents and purposes, actually equivalent to interpreting it correctly.

    Next some little plot details just in these last two episodes that I'm sure everyone else has already complained about, but now its my turn why not. Why in the world would Sutra let Narek live?? Why not just kill him and the nice robot both, then blame him? Why would you include a line about "it'll take forever to search the Borg cube" and then have them find their friends in like 5 seconds? Actually, why go check on the Borg cube at all? Why was Narissa hiding on the Borg cube after Soji and everyone had gone? Did she EXPECT 7of9 to fly it to Soji-land?

    I couldn't decide if this next bit was a big or small plot item. Are the Romulans in dire straits or not? On the one hand, we see a bunch of them in need, whether working as caretakers for Picard or moping about in "Romulans only" bars. On the other hand, Big Shot Oh shows up with a giant fleet seemingly at will. What reasoning did she give, anyways? Aren't her beliefs about the AI secret even from the majority of Romulans?

    Man, this is a lot of whining, I know. I was going to make another huge list about character-related problems, but maybe it's not worth it. I'm guessing everyone's talked about Agnes' confession being cheapened, 7of9's decision to risk Queening herself being cheapened, and also Picard's emotional sacrifice being undone. By the way, did Soji or someone not tell the others about the plan to clone Picard? Did she think of it only after everyone else decided to go grieve on their own?

    Whatever, that's enough negativity. I want to talk about positives, with a fresh new post.

    Todd, I don't think that's the main fault that many find with the series - it's bad drama. It's not that it's "not Star Trek", it's that it's very poor drama in its own right. I guarantee you that if it was still non-Trekkian in its values, sensibility and aesthetic but as good as, say, BSG, Firefly, Farscape, The Expanse, Westworld etc. (all shows it has cribbed elements from), it would have been pretty rapturously received. People want good storytelling.

    No, just no.

    Sorry guys, I just couldn’t like this. In fact I disliked it with a passion once we got to the part where Picard says bye to Riker and doesn’t tell him he’s dying because he wants to share his last moments with the randos he just met or reconnected with over the last week. There were some good moments in the episode, like Picard being a stronger protagonist, and Riker as acting captain (even though it was totally contrived...I guess one thing I’m grateful to this show for is making me realize how great he is, and always was, as Riker).

    Picard-robot is super upsetting to me. The way it was done and what it means...no.

    The whole Data thing did nothing for me. But I’m glad it was helpful for other people. It just seemed way too contrived and the aging issue made it seem cringey. I think there may have been some good dialogue in that part, but I was too upset by the bizarre Picard pseudo-resurrection looming.

    I think today’s TV just isn’t for me. I couldn’t do Disco past S1 and not sure I can hang in for S2 of PIC either. Honestly probably the best part of this experience is coming on this site week after week and reading comments from really thoughful and intelligent people, lots of them. The posts of Trent and Dave in MN on this episode were my thoughts exactly. Thanks to all! Be safe and good health to you.

    Watching this episode was the first thing in 2 weeks that made me feel like things are going to be ok.

    I think it was a Star Trek story in the end, but perhaps not one of the best ones.

    We've had characters die and come back before - most notably Spock in the second and third Star Trek films. (The prime universe ones, of course.) This was... meh, I dunno. I mean inasmuch as you need Leonard Nimoy and Patrick Stewart to continue the roles, you've got some constraints. (Doctor Who is smart to eliminate these.) But the Spock return made sense, as the Genesis Planet was making his growth and aging go at super-speed anyway. With Picard it's more like... um, really? Why make a synthetic replacement body that of an old man? Now I'm still very young of course, but if I were a copy of an older person, like let's say a friend of mine who's 38, I would want to be in a younger body, and be quite willing to deal with any necessary awkwardness if the alternative is being older and having fewer years in hand.

    While I would say Picard 2 is a copy, like the consciousness of Lise in The Winter Market, or the people living in servers on that episode of Black Mirror, "San Junipero". in a sense you could argue that when people are beamed from one place to another they are essentially "killed" and then reassembled, and then the reassembled person has all the memories and thinks everything is normal, so I dunno. Some really hardcore people think this type of discontinuity applies to *any* loss of consciousness, including sleeping! I don't go that far, but I suppose it doesn't matter whether I do or not.

    Maybe I should have a cup of coffee.

    Ok, the ships. They all looked the same. They all looked weird and cheap. And CGI cheap is worse than real cheap. And there were hundreds of them on both sides. It defied all reason. Weren't the Romulans and the Federation torn almost to shreds? And they're out in the boonies! Why didn't they just put a D'deridex-class against a Galaxy-class? (Do the 3-nacelle version like the Enterprise-D from the anti-time future if you must!) That's all the drama you need.

    Also, "Planetary Sterilization Sweep Number Five?" How many of those do you *have*?

    And why the heck did Riker's task force just leave everything to Picard? Some Starfleet presence should have stayed by to secure the area and investigate.

    And, you know, I thought Borg cubes were *big*. Like bigger than the Enterprise-D kinda big. It seems awfully funny that you can just *walk* wherever you need to go and find who and what you need to find so easily when it's crashed.

    And what happens to Narek? Is Harry Treadaway signed up for Season 2? I can't find a straight answer. His name comes up in a bunch of "articles" but it's all guesswork.

    And did Soong kill Sutra or just deactivate her? Are there going to be any consequences for that? If you're going to consider synths to be people, to the point where before you found out Sutra killed Saga, you were willing to go along with the extermination of organic intelligent life to protect them, how can you just unilaterally decide to end Sutra? I mean, not that you've got a legal system on your idyllic little colony, but still.

    And are these synthetic exterminator beings not sophisticated enough to trace where the partially-open portal went? I mean, I guess a follow-up visit from them leaves something for Season 2.

    And what about everything with Commodore Oh and Jurati? Incredibly convenient that Riker's fleet just took off - otherwise, Jurati would have a chance to spill everything to Riker and something would be done about Oh for putting Jurati up to murder. Are we just going to forget about all this shit and go off on another space adventure?

    And why did Seven find it so hard to fit in somewhere, anyway? Heck, in the alternate future for Voyager, didn't she marry Chakotay? Hah, now there's a character to bring back! Or how about Ensign Kim? He's probably a Lieutenant Junior Grade by now.

    Sigh.

    I'm starting to think, if I want to watch Star Trek, I should watch The Orville. I haven't seen any of its Season 2 yet, and I found the first season rather enjoyable. But I will tune in for Season 2 of Picard, because there's no reason this show can't get better, and it offers just enough of a real Star Trek feeling to make me want to come back.

    Can someone tell me WHY DIDNT PICARD ASK RIKER FOR HELP WITH HIS MEDICAL CONDITION while he was there...that seemed beyond obvious..and that Riker and Troi and Geordi and Worf and Crusher ahiuldve been there tonsay goodbye to Data when he finally "died"? Didnt this seem like a massive oversight to anyone else?? And os amyone else horrificallynl disappointed we didnt learn anything about the advanced race of synths other then see some buocybermechanoid tendrils..i wanyed to lmeet and expmore them..i wiuldve rather the whole episode had been about them original and interesting..isnt that what everyone else was expecting and hoping for?

    Has anybody seen Narek? We can’t find him anywhere...

    My previous post was a rambling wall of negatives. How about the positives?

    Just to reiterate - I'm so glad the resolution to the conflict was to avoid the conflict. Even if it took a million contrivances to make it work. Picard had several great monologues throughout the series, but the prior ones were all undercut by assholery. Here, his explanation that the synths were just children, and needed a better role-model, really worked for me. Especially after the Riker likened Soji to a teenager, and the great (and I really mean great) scenes of Soji kind of bonding with Riker and Troi's daughter. Soji going from ready to KILL ALL to ready to forgive and trust is a bit sudden, but this is precisely the sort of narrative/character short-cutting I am always willing to grant Star Trek. Like the asshole admiral who goes from wanting to take Lal away to wanting to help save her. Or a kazillion other examples. Because these kinds of shortcuts are less about portraying real people (or "real" androids) and more about portraying an ideal. Most people are not assholes deep down. Most people, if given enough of a chance, will choose to do the right thing. Or at least, will opt against genocide. And in my opinion, we saw enough of Soji to know that, regardless of her fears, deep down she was never an asshole.

    There were a few other positives in the story for me as well. Another big one was pretty much everything to do with Hugh. What a great idea for this character, trying to help other Borg return. He was so genuine and warm while onscreen. His abrupt death made me sad, but it didn't make me angry as a storytelling device. Maybe a bit lazy, but the entire Narissa characterization was lazy for the most part, this was just another part of that. I wish he could've had more scenes with more characters (imagine 7of9 being forced to reevaluate herself after just meeting and talking to Hugh??), but I still approve of how his character was handled on the whole.

    Finally, even if I hate that her confession is barely followed up upon, I did like many aspects of the Agnes character. A person trying to do the right thing, failing at first, but eventually pulling through to the point where she's willing to potentially kill herself (I think?) to try to help. Sure the tone gets muddied a lot, and the writing is uneven, but at her core this is a great character for a show which should have emphasized the good people (Picard, Agnes, Soji) who make mistakes in their times of weakness (pre-show, mid-show, late-show), but with help overcome these mistakes and do the right thing in the end. Furthermore, her character manages this without breaking faith with Trek-values, as opposed to someone like Raffi.

    If we move away from the storytelling, there are a lot more positives to discuss. The production values were, of course, excellent. I didn't always like some of the direction, but it was rarely bland or boring. And a lot of the acting was excellent.

    We all knew Sir Patrick would be great. Count me in as an Isa lover. Felt super natural even with some questionable writing at times. And sure the intensity of the scene helped, but holy hell her panicking sequence when Soji starts checking the dates on her possessions had me riveted. Including when she tries to tell Narek - that poor dude got the short end of the writing stick in many ways (well, not as short as his sister), but I think he did an admirable job. Actually, I think all of the principal actors were pretty solid top to bottom, except maybe the Elnor kid. But I'm not sure what that actor was supposed to do with that nothing-character.

    Since I complained about Raffi as a character earlier, let me at least say here that I thought that actress was another stand-out among a great cast. I could similarly complain about Rios and 7of9 (!) as characters, but the actor and actress were still pretty great. And of course, when Frakes and Sirtis showed up it was so nice and comfy - it's hard to pin down just what it is that Frakes manages to bring that makes some of those scenes work so nicely, but they did work.

    Oh shoot, I almost forgot the kid! Here's proof that this "isn't real StarTrek" - they managed to find someone to play a child (Riker and Troi's daughter) who was actually pretty great! Man, Isa was great in those scenes too. The balance in that episode was great - doubling down on Soji's doubts, but not allowing it to be all negative by creating the bond with the kid. I know people will say that episode only worked because of the nostalgia, but I think there was more to it than that.

    The only nitpick I'm going to mention and a very unimportant one.

    YOU CANNOT SEE SHIPS IN SPACE FROM THE SURFACE OF A PLANET.

    Most of this was terrible with a few very bright moments. Honestly we did not need this much buildup for this. Could have been done in an hour. These characters do not know one another well enough to be best buds the way they are here.

    I don't know. I kind of enjoy watching this show (In that "something is better than nothing" way) but it was completely unnecessary to sully the legacy of TNG with this slop. I just sat there not believing they wrote this and made it believing they were making good stuff.

    @msw188
    "For me, this series was weird. Like, it spent the first 8-9 episodes convincing me that it was a tricksy mystery show with a terribly anti-StarTrek perspective, and then in the finale it reversed to a nice (if hokey) StarTrek perspective via ignoring its own tricks and mysteries."

    So once again, we're getting a finale that basically tells us to ignore the entire season that came before it.

    Have you noticed that this is how every single season of NuTrek ended?

    DSC S1:

    The Federation commits war crimes and everybody is behaving like little children. The show's attitude is as anti-Trek as possible. And then, in the season finale, Burnham suddenly gives this lofty Trekkian speech and the episode ends with the arrival of the Enterprise. It felt so out-of-place that it isn't even funny.

    DSC S2:

    The most blatant example of all. In the finale, everybody involved literally agrees to never ever speak of the previous events.

    And now PIC S1 is doing the same thing. Suddenly giving us a more-or-less Trek-like ending while willfully ignoring 99% of what happened earlier - both in terms of storytelling and in tone.

    This cheap trick is becoming quite tiresome.

    @Wolfstar

    "Todd, I don't think that's the main fault that many find with the series - it's bad drama. It's not that it's "not Star Trek", it's that it's very poor drama in its own right."

    Different people have different reasons to like or dislike a show.

    Todd was specifically talking about people (like myself) who say that Picard (and the newer shows in general) "isn't Star Trek". I suppose good storytelling is part of the equation, but it's not the main issue here.

    @Todd
    "So....to everyone claiming Picard isn't 'Star Trek' or 'Real Star Trek' or whatever...what exactly is Star Trek? Is it Mirror, Mirror or Spock's Brain? Is it Star Trek IV or V? How about the TNG episode Justice v. Yesterday's Enterprise?"

    You can't really compare a single episode with an entire season.

    Also, there's a difference between quality and tone. As badly written as Star Trek V was, it's still one of the most Trekkish stories every made. TNG season 1 was pretty bad, but it still had all the elements that make Trek what it is.

    For a more thorough answer, feel free to browse through the earlier comments that were made on this topic. We've discussed it to death a dozen times already, and I doubt repeating those points of the 13th time is going to clarify anything.

    "Star Trek is whatever anyone wants it to be...people whining about Picard not being 'Star Trek' sound like kids screaming cause they couldn't have ice cream for dessert. Don't like it? Don't watch it."

    You're being rude, you know that?

    As for your final quip:

    Enjoying this show and saying "this isn't Star Trek" aren't mutually exclusive.

    @William Matheson
    "I'm starting to think, if I want to watch Star Trek, I should watch The Orville. I haven't seen any of its Season 2 yet, and I found the first season rather enjoyable."

    You should.

    The general consensus is that season 2 is better than season 1.

    Matheson said: "I'm starting to think, if I want to watch Star Trek, I should watch The Orville."

    It's worth remembering that Seth approached CBS to make a Trek series. They turned him down and went with Fuller and Kurtzman instead. "The Orville" is obviously Seth's backdoor attempt to make a Trek show under a different title.

    It would be interesting to see if "Orville" can financially survive. It's working from the George Lucas/Spielberg/Roddenberry/Rod Serling template of SF.

    Kurtzman-Trek is pulling from trashier, Michael Bay-esque influences, but that stuff sells. The masses love this stuff and this aesthetic. Those crappy Kurtzman/Bay Transformers movies made zillions of dollars.

    @ Dom

    “ I couldn't even get excited about the big space battle because it was just a bunch of CGI thrown onto the screen. There was no rhyme or reason, no sense of flow to the battle. As we all learned in The Rise of Skywalker, adding hundreds of ships to a scene doesn't increase the stakes. It just creates clutter. The standoffs between the Enterprise-D and the two Romulan Warbirds in "The Defector" was much more tense because it was a battle of will as much as it was about firepower. ”

    I’ve long said the same thing about the DS9 Dominion War arc. Watching the USS Odyssey get taken down was an emotional gut punch. Watching huge ass CGI fleets manned by characters we don’t know or care about duke it out? Yawn.

    I still think the Battle of Wolf 359 was the biggest emotional gut punch in the history of Star Trek and aside from the brief communication with Admiral Hansen we didn’t see any of it! Just the results thereof and the reaction from our heroes. Would BoBW have been improved if we had actually seen Hansen’s fleet getting destroyed on screen? I don’t think so.

    Also +1 for mentioning The Defector, one of my Top 10 TNG episodes, and my “to go” scene for anyone that questions Picard’s willingness to fight. Watch how casually he threatens mutually assured destruction in that scene and the grudging respect Tomalak has for him. Way better than any CGI battle.

    @msw188

    "Count me in as an Isa lover. Felt super natural even with some questionable writing at times. And sure the intensity of the scene helped, but holy hell her panicking sequence when Soji starts checking the dates on her possessions had me riveted."

    Same here. For whatever faults I see in the finale, Isa Briones was a really nice casting choice as she brought some necessary youthful energy to the android role. After PIC's conclusion, I actually followed Briones on Twitter just to see if I can catch her in another upcoming show.

    @ Trent
    It is true that Michael Bay movies (some of them written by Kurtzman) make a lot of money but think about the ST2009 movie and so on, they weren't successful. I think the Star Trek brand is too specific (in other words NERDy) to appeal to the dumb action demographic.

    @Tim, Yep, the emotional reactions to Wolf 359 sold the battle. First Contact did a battle against a Borg cube well and so I think it's possible, but even there the number of ships on the screen at any time was only a handful and the battle was short.

    The Dominion war battles were getting close to too much, but it was a bigger war and needed to show a sense of scale. Some episodes handled it better than others. If you watch "The Die is Cast," there's still a clear narrative to the battle scenes. The camera tracks individual ships, they move in clear ways, and there's enough empty space on the screen to not make it feel cluttered. Also, even in the later Dominion war episodes, ships still felt like they had weight. They didn't just zip in and out of the scene.

    @Trent

    "It's worth remembering that Seth approached CBS to make a Trek series. They turned him down and went with Fuller and Kurtzman instead. 'The Orville' is obviously Seth's backdoor attempt to make a Trek show under a different title."

    To be honest, I don't think that making an actual Trek show would have been a good match for McFarlane. It's just not his style.

    With the Orville, Seth got the opportunity to create the kind of Trek-like show he really wanted.

    "It would be interesting to see if 'Orville' can financially survive. It's working from the George Lucas/Spielberg/Roddenberry/Rod Serling template of SF.

    Kurtzman-Trek is pulling from trashier, Michael Bay-esque influences, but that stuff sells. The masses love this stuff and this aesthetic. Those crappy Kurtzman/Bay Transformers movies made zillions of dollars."

    The Orville did alright on Fox. The ratings weren't a great success, but it wasn't a failure either. It would have probably been renewed on Fox, if the whole Disney deal didn't happen. The market for such a show most certainly exists.

    And I'm not sure at all that Kurtzman-Trek sells. The masses may love the style, but the masses have no reason to subscribe to a streaming service just to watch a new Star Trek series, when they have similar content that they can get for free.

    It would be interesting to look at the actual statistics here. Did CBS ever publish their numbers?

    Look, I love Jammer, I love reading his reviews, but I really hope after this experience he turns his attention to a TV show worthy of his time. is reviews of nuTrek spend a lot of time pointing out the problems in the shows, which is understandable because there are so many problems. By contrast, his best reviews, like those for BSG, focused on the themes and ideas of each episode. I'd love for him to tackle something like "The Expanse."

    I would just like to remind everyone (including myself) who has complained about this series that season 1 of Picard with all its many faults is still much better than season 1 of TNG. It took them a couple of seasons to figure it out.

    @Dom

    Why stop at The Expanse for reviews? Westworld is winning awards and I'd argue is one of the best shows dealing with AI consciousness and human cloning. And there's a lot to dissect in that show.

    @Jor-El, you're probably right, but that's a pretty low bar. Also, TV has evolved a lot during the past 30 years. Back then, it was actually more common for TV shows to get approved, have a rough first season, and then find its footing. Now, it's actually much more common for TV shows to start off strong and then lose their way as writers run out of ideas. So there's no guarantee this show will get better.

    @Jor-El @Omicron

    I think TNG Season 1 was better than PIC, and still has rewatchability. Encounter at Farpoint I thought was good. Even the "bad episodes" (the one where Wesley trips over the white blocks in that paradise world and goes on trial, and the other episode with the parasites coming out of people's necks) have rewatchability for pure camp.

    Now for PIC, I can say now that I'd never rewatch Season 1 again. Would that change if later seasons were good? Maybe. But unlikely.

    Could it be? Denise Crosby speaking the first line of the latest episode? 'Previously on Star Trek Picard'.

    @Marvin, sure, anything with some actual substance. I'm not as big a fan of Westworld (I'm not a fan of mystery box shows in general), but it'd be nice to see be able to talk about something other than how bad the writing is. I chose Expanse because it's a well-regarded show that seems to be along the lines of what Jammer likes, but there are many other options.

    Picard solving the problem by Picard-speeching Soji down is a good thing to do in principle. However, it is undercut by the OTT situation that led to it. Soji is trying to commit the genocide of trillions of people. That is seconds away from happening. Picard insisting on trying to solve the problem by telling Soji he believes in her just looks reckless. Someone fire a phaser at that thing, even if Soji is collateral damage! The disappointment of having to take the life of the genocidal maniac doesn't trump the trillions seconds away from death.

    If the writers had resisted their compulsion to make it all about the galaxy 'sploding, the scene could have worked really well. Picard is idealistic, but he wasn't a naive idiot and applauded for it on TNG. This was avoided by not creating situations where his idealism would appear to be naive idiocy.

    When seeing the great banter between Picard and Data at the end, and Data's emotional send-off by Picard into death (by unplugging a couple of USB's, it seems...?) it made me feel like this thread should not have dropped in the final episode after first appearing in episode 1. It should've been carefully woven throughout, building on Measure of a Man. Then we could have had a great series about the meaning and rights and importance of artificial life, and what it means to Picard.

    Instead we got some half-baked plot about some secret Romulan cult who wants to destroy synthetic life forms because of some prophecy. This inane plot ran for the entire show, culminating in the most anti-climactic way possible, with a ridiculous non-stand off between 1 million Starfleet ships and 1 million Zhat Vash ships. All it took to convince Soji to not destroy The Entire Organics Population of the Galaxy was a few words from Picard. Hey, I wouldn't trust this babe with anything now, sorry. She took her side. But here she is back on the La Sirena, with all the gang, everything's forgotten, together with Jurati who apparently now is back to being the comic relief of the show after murdering a person in cold blood earlier in the season. But hey, at least she got to say to Picard "Make it so", right? (how would she know he used to say that. Did she watch TNG in her spare time?)

    The Romulan threat is dispatched with so haphazardly it's almost funny. Nareesa is thrown into a pit by the killer MVP of the season, Seven or Nine. Narek betrays his sister but then has no further scenes with Soji (wasn't their relationship a big part of the story? I guess we can forget about closure), and actually, he is never seen again after the infiltration of the camp.

    And speaking about the camp, apparently all it took to dispatch of Evil Sutra was Soong's car remote.

    The melodrama and crying buckets of tears over Picard's "death" falls flat, just as the hackneyed melodrama at Discovery's season 2 finale fell flat. Once again, the characters did not earn this, and even if they did, the plot reveals seconds later that there was a plan to save Picard, so this is nothing but naked emotional manipulation.

    I liked:

    - Riker in uniform on a starship bridge, even though his dialogue was awful. We get it. Picard is his best friend in the world. What about some subtlety, writers?

    - Data and Picard. Finally somebody's talking about something meaningful. But put a gun to my head and I can't tell you where this meeting took place, and how. Some quantum matrix chamber? Whatever. So in episode 1 it WAS dream and now it wasn't?

    - The Romulans fleet destroying the orchids (the orchids are silly, but it was a cool visual).

    At the end of the day, it's so-so conclusion to a so-so series, the epitome of mediocrity. We deserve, and should demand, better, more thoughtful and cohesive storytelling from one of the most beloved and groundbreaking science fiction franchises in the world.

    Honestly, a better and more cohesive finale than I was expecting. I’m happy they didn’t go the Big Space Battle route and instead had an ending worthy of TNG. Glad Picard’s not dead (his transformation to a Synth was was unsettlingly quick and easy, but it wasn’t out of left field; dude’s name is in the title so he wasn’t going to stay dead). I’m also glad his resurrection wasn’t a question to be answered in S2. Like all Treks before it the first season had its issues but I was left entertained and at times moved, and even the bad bits were at least amusing.

    The whole Picard thing was pretty obvious. Patrick Stewart is old and very rich, maybe in a year he doesn't want to dance around in alien bars with and eyepatch doing silly accents. Then they can just say, uh Picard your golem is failing we need to put you in a new golem. Would you look like a young you? Boing.

    And they can do the same with Data. If ratings are dipping they will just come up with something and puff Data is back.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNTLC_uiGFA

    This whole series rates as a PASS for me.

    It had some interesting moments, but overall was pretty weak with a lot of boring spots and a lot of stuff that just doesn't pay off in any meaningful way. It also just doesn't seem like Jean Luc Picard at all. More Patrick Stewart in space. Crusher was the character Picard was attached to in TNG and she was never mentioned. Picard's Vineyard burnt to the ground and his brother and nephew died but that is never mentioned, yet discussing his antique furniture (which anyone should be able to replicate) is. Rehashing Data's death from the end of Nemesis was all pretty weak. CBS continues to poke the Star Trek corpse but I just can't remain interested in it.

    @ Dom

    "The Dominion war battles were getting close to too much, but it was a bigger war and needed to show a sense of scale. Some episodes handled it better than others. If you watch "The Die is Cast," there's still a clear narrative to the battle scenes. The camera tracks individual ships, they move in clear ways, and there's enough empty space on the screen to not make it feel cluttered. Also, even in the later Dominion war episodes, ships still felt like they had weight. They didn't just zip in and out of the scene."

    The Die is Cast had an amazing battle scene. So did Call to Arms and Way of the Warrior. My issue is with the later fleet actions, Sacrifice of Angels and What You Leave Behind both come to mind. It's just hard to get that excited about a bunch of CGI ships manned by unnamed redshirts we never met or even saw in the background.

    I also think they went a little overboard on the scale. The Enterprise-D was special because there were only six Galaxy Class Starships (per the series bible and tech manual; obviously they never stated this on-screen, but she was supposed to be the rough equivalent of a supercarrier, of which the USN currently has 10) but in DS9 they've apparently started churning them out like sausages. It cheapens it, IMHO, it was a gut punch when the Odyssey was destroyed but that was before we saw dozens of Galaxy Class Starships in a single scene.

    Moving into real nitpicking now, but I'm a military historian and I could also never get past the whole Captain Sisko making sweeping decisions that affect the entire galaxy thing. They should have made him an Admiral and shaken up the status quo a bit more than they did. The notion that an O-6 would command a fleet of 600+ ships (that's a quarter of a million people, assuming an average crew size around 400) with the survival of our very way of life on the line is absurd. The writers stole a lot of the war arc from WW2 -- Sisko even does his best Dugout Doug impression at one point -- but couldn't be bothered to create an Admiral Halsey or Spruance character to actually command these huge fleets.

    Sisko getting promoted high up in the admiralty very fast would have made sense, he had the most experience dealing with the Dominion and Cardassians, and there's a historical precedent for rapid promotion during times of war (Eisenhower was a Colonel in 1941), but that would have meant shaking up the status quo too much, and for all the praise DS9 gets for serialization and long term plotting they still had their share of Reset Button moments.

    @Booming

    They'll probably put him in a female golem. That's how show biz works these days. We already have a female Dr. Watson and a female Dr. Who and a female 007... So why not a female Picard?

    And don't you dare say anything bad about that idea. If you do, then you're a misogynist piece of ****.

    Because that's how show biz works these days.

    @Tim, again, I don't disagree with that, but given the context of 90s T V shows it didn't bother me much. DS9 did create the character of Admiral Ross to be the higher up and it was clear that Sisko was something more than your average captain. Yeah, he probably should have been promoted to at least commodore, but it didn't strike me as crazy that he'd be a leader in the war effort.

    As for the battles, again I don't disagree, but those later battles were never the focus of the episodes. You'd see a handful of shots, a few seconds, and then it would cut back to the characters. In this last episode of Picard, and in TROS, I felt like the battles dragged on and became ridiculous in scale. Rios' ship had some magic tech that made it look like there were hundreds of ships and then hundreds of Romulan ships kept firing and I just stopped caring. It makes me thankful in retrospect that in the 90s we didn't have the CGI tech to create such big space battles. Sometimes limitations really do help art to thrive.

    @Omicron
    After this I would actually not have a problem with that. They had the original actors, a giant pile of money and could do what they want and they still produced this... thing. Who cares anymore. And about the Doctor Who show. They had done anything else. So why not the gender swap. People went really crazy over that one even though they had broken every rule the show ever had. But a female doctor was apparently one bridge too far. Doctor Who's adversary swapped gender and it worked for me. In the end Doctor Who is nonsense, entertaining nonsense but still nonsense. The same goes for James Bond and female M aka Judi Dench worked really well, I thought. In the end it is just companies trying make a safe bet and coked up writers who are out of ideas. Again who cares.

    Tim, I have gotten a lot of that in recent rewatchings of Deep Space Nine. Particularly in The Way of the Warrior when Sisko defies the Federation Council to intervene in the conflict, thereby dragging the whole Federation into it. A base commander shouldn't be running their own foreign policy.

    It was the problem with the series telling bigger stories about the interplay of the great powers. These are decisions for Presidents, but the story still needs to turn on the decisions of our lead captain.

    @Tim and @Glom, not to be too much of an apologist, I think DS9 and even TOS and TNG make more sense if you look at pre-20th century history as the appropriate analogy. Back then, communication was more difficult and field commanders had to make decisions on their own. The history of European colonization in Latin America and Asia especially was often privateers and commanders conquering territory or starting small wars on behalf of the crown, sometimes without direct orders. I know the analogy doesn't exactly work because the Federation has better communications tech, but given the vast distances in space it's also not crazy to assume field commanders had more leeway.

    I get tired of how often someone throws "F***ing" into the dialogue. Can the producers not show some class and clean up the language?

    Some things ill never get over with this show:

    1) So the Romulans have these visions of the past, that are so horrific that people literally bash their fucking brains in with a brick, the visions that are so horrific that were going to send a fleet of 218 ships to wipe out a planet of 20 androids, visions so bad that weve established secret police forces over, murdered tens of thousands (maybe millions?) of martian colonists over, the thing some people have devoted their entire lives to, were just gonna turn around and never come back because the head android decided to be nice for a moment???

    2) Where are all the scientists, doctors, guards, random personnel on the Borg cube while its flying and crashing into this random planet? Dead? Assimilated? Shot out the airlock?

    3) What was the point of any of this?

    4) Lesbian seven of nine and Raffi? GTFO

    This show was an insult and a disgrace.

    That was actually handled well in Balance of Terror. Kirk made the decision to enter the Neutral Zone, which would have severe consequences, but the relay time from Starfleet Command was too long he had to make a decision and the burden of making that decision was shown. At the end of the episode, they receive a belated message from Command giving him permission to act on his judgement, which provides resolution.

    @Glom, I agree, that's a reason why I think Balance of Terror still holds up so well. More moments like that would probably have improved DS9. But again, compared to something like Picard, DS9 is a masterclass in television, so I feel dirty for even criticizing it.

    Not really all that up on military structure, but couldn't they have made Sisko a Commodore? Don't commodores run fleets? And it doesn't seem all that strange to me for a Commodore to man a station that's the main access point to and from Dominion space.

    @Dom @Glom

    In DS9, I always found it disjointed how the Defiant and Sisko & Company became the Federation flagship/crew during the time of the Federation's greatest threat. Where was the Enterprise? Obviously I know they were making TNG movies while DS9 was fighting the Dominion and you were never going to get any cross over due to a variety of reasons, but still, I really found it strange back then how Sisko became the most prominent Captain in Star Trek history.

    @Dexter Morgan, he was the commander in charge of the station closest to the frontlines for the war, close to Cardassia and the wormhole. His station also controlled access to the wormhole, so it was an extremely strategic location. It makes sense that he'd be given a lead role. It would be like how General MacArthur led the Pacific War against Japan rather than Eisenhower because he was in charge of US troops in the Philippines and in that theater of war when Japan attacked. There's no reason why the Enterprise should have been the lead ship.

    @Angela - "I will watch whatever Trek they throw at me, but I gotta say I was sad that Jean Luc Picard DIED and we weren't really allowed to mourn that beyond a few over-the-top scenes of people we don't know that well crying over him."

    Angela, I totally agree! If characters we don't care about and who don't really know Picard all that well are reacting like that over his "death" then people like Worf, Riker, Geordi would have rip their clothes and committed seppuku.

    Well, no matter how sloppy or unlikely this season finale (and, overall, this series) was, it made my cry a bit.

    I would definitely prefer to re-watch TNG season 1 than this show. But then again I actually like season 1; I like it's enthusiasm and wide eyed sense of awe, and I don't mind it's cheesiness. Also season 1 was back when TNG's soundtrack was at it's best.

    The worst season of TNG to me is definitely season 7, which has a lot of weak episodes. But I would still much rather re-watch that season than season 1 of Picard. I just really don't like the Micheal Bay tone of the new shows, sorry.

    Hit and miss. Mostly miss. Still no one asks ‘Hey, anyone seen Dahj?’. They seem to magically know she’s not alive.

    Loose ends... wow loads aren’t there. Not explained why Picard has dreams, why Dahj went to see him - ok she saw an image, but er, who put it there, Data? What?

    ‘Found the synths?’
    ‘Yes’
    ‘Fucked any yet?’
    This isn’t ST. Who writes that?

    The magical tool that fixes with your imagination - come on please.

    No world building, Seven’s regrets/world view still isn’t clear.

    So many lost opportunities. Raffi can do one as well.

    Jurati - yes I murdered a guy but I picked the right side so that’s fine. No way would TNG Picard let her away with that.

    Where’s Crusher now?

    Choice of name for ship was weird. Come on why not the Enterprise E or F?

    Too many ships can’t tell what’s going on. Boring space battle. Where did the orchids come from? Who built them?

    The writers of this show seem to write any old crap and then stand around saying ‘look at his magnificence!’ And can’t understand the backlash.

    Things have to change immediately. It lacks heart, intelligence, character development, subtlety...

    I’ll never watch an episode twice that’s for sure. Whereas I’m sure like many of you I’ve rewatched TNG many times.

    All very disappointing.

    Regarding the comments above about Sisko and DS9: I'm a big fan of DS9 and like the character of Sisko very much but I agree that it was odd that he was given so much authority during the Dominion War. It would have made sense if he was promoted to Commodore or Admiral during that time. He was treated as such. But it really doesn't bother me. It was a good series.

    I wish Picard, the series, did a better job of explaining the post-Dominion War political dynamics between the Federation and the Romulans. I'm also curious about the status between the Dominion and the Alpha Quadrant. Maybe we'll learn a little about this next season.

    @Angela & @Ian, agreed. Throughout that whole montage, I kept thinking, "If Picard is going to die, at least give the crew who became his family a chance to mourn. It really bothered me while I was watching that scene (which I otherwise thought was well done).

    Here is how I would "cut" the season for a special edition release:

    -- Part 1: Take most of episode 1 up to the point that Picard and Dahj are attacked. Instead of Dahj dying, Picard has a portable, spacial trajector that he fashioned w/ Geordi's help and his residual knowledge from his time as Locutus. Picard and Dahj disappear through the gate.

    -- Part 2: Basically, the Nepenthe episode. Edit the episode so Soji is called Dahj. Make a few other adjustments. Add a sequence where Picard collapses b/c of his condition at the end.

    -- Part 3: Data visits Picard in his mind, after he's collapsed. Tells Picard how to find the synth planet. They go there with Riker and Troi's help. They meet Soong. Picard's mind is uploaded to the quantum blah-blah-blah server and he speaks poignantly with Data. Life, death, existence, meaning, women. Whatever. They both agree to continue "the adventure," whatever the hell that means. Fade to black.

    -- Epilogue: Kurtzman is tied to a chair and is forced to watch Keiko scenes on an endless loop with his eyelids stapled open.

    The End

    Again with the Keiko jokes. I see we've hit a new low in the comedy department.

    I'm looking forward to Jammer's review.

    Well Robert, Keiko is a woman who tells her husband, the sympathetic Miles, to be respectful, rational and... eat healthy. I mean what a whore!

    (It is the classic nagging wife reaction. Seen it a million times. Breaking bad was another prime example. Nag, nag, nag. Just let Walter White murder Latinos, you bitch.)

    James White, I like Keiko.

    Better punishment. He watches Duet on loop. He'll either have an allergic reaction to the quality or actually learn something.

    I like the Keiko jokes. It's humorous that someone just randomly hates Keiko and makes a point to trash her in every post!

    I don't hate Keiko, but she certainly was a weak link in the original cast. Which was probably why her character wasn't that prominent.

    I didn't realize there was so much Keiko infatuation here. :)

    Breaking Bad reference is pure awesome. So too is Harris Yulin. My 137th complaint for this show is, therefore, a lack of solid guest stars. Riker and Troi don't count.

    @James White

    The actor that played Picard's doctor in ep1 or ep2 was good.

    He's played several roles in films, my favorite being the Very Unimportant Person in Ocean's Thirteen.

    Well that was underwhelming. The data sendoff and riker and 7-with-rios moments were nice and thankfully the space battle was short, yet they still couldnt help throwing everything at the screen just like disco. But otherwise we get the usual plot and character sloppiness that has plagued all 3 seasons of kurtrek.

    I knew we were getting a different trek given stewarts comments and after the pilot, which was intriguing and I was onboard seeing where writers could take us, but all that potential was steadily squandered week after week until the finale landed with a thud.
    We at least got Nepenthe out of it, and 7 as part of the crew, so not a total loss.

    And good grief at that quick disco teaser, Burnham just saved the galaxy, now she is the lone vanguard in saving the Federation, she is so awesome.

    He was very good, Marvin. That short, little scene between he and Picard is one of the best of the whole season.

    Very fitting and dignified how they ended Data's overall story arch - specially so, that there is now no way that a future season becomes a "in search for a way to bring back Data" kinda of story. And it was more enjoyable and touching than Picard's own death, which was a given ever since that "golem" appeared.

    Is Data drinking cognac or something as he awaits his death? Weird and cool.

    So Jurati can indeed get away with murder then! Not only nobody seems to mind anymore, she now appears to be a regular on next's season motley crew. Maybe there was not enough time, but the fact that everybody understood she was under Oh's influence shoukd have been more played out, so that it felt more real.

    Curious how the borg cube landed catastrophicly on a hard surface, cracked right open, and the internal floor and the outside dirt are perfectly level! No step, no nothing! How convenient.

    Just saw the Discovery teaser... it looks exactly like the other seasons of NuTrek.

    Fool me once. Shame on you
    Fool me twice. Well... whatever
    Fool me thrice. Ok ok I'm an idiot!
    Fool me quadruply...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tleSnj4OD0g
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7XW6WgSKB0

    This madness has to stop!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAdGhMRBbzY

    I fast forwarded through most of this episode. I didnt buy Picard dying story for a second, nor did I feel anything when the crew were crying their eyes out.
    No chemistry, no backstory, it just feels artificial, forced.
    And Picard just feels a different character. He is without strength, without charisma, without authority. Every single one of his speeches came out wrong and missed targeted notes. Im sorry, but where is the Drumhead Picard, where is Tomalak's nemesis, Data's hero who saved him from Bruce Maddox back in the days?
    His speeches dont sound inspiring, they dont sound authoritative, but they leave a bitter taste instead - of a desperate old man begging and asking for favours.

    Seven and Riker still do carry the charisma, especially him. But unfortunately new regulars are terrible.
    Remember your first tng episodes. You had Riker, you had Data, Worf, all breakthrough characters, you had silent authority of Royal Shakespear Company in the captains chair...
    Producers nowadays think its enough to give character a sword, spanish accent, ocd, or a bottle of whiskey, and there you go.
    I enjoyed few of the episodes, especially Nepenthe, but everything else was... I dont know, terrible STD's attempt to disguise itself, imitate and rejuvenate TNG.

    @Omnicron
    "So once again, we're getting a finale that basically tells us to ignore the entire season that came before it. Have you noticed that this is how every single season of NuTrek ended?"

    Indeed, this is the first series I've watched since Voyager. I'm glad I didn't subject myself to Discovery based on everything I've seen and heard. Maybe one day I'll watch Enterprise, could be cool.

    @Chrome
    "For whatever faults I see in the finale, Isa Briones was a really nice casting choice as she brought some necessary youthful energy to the android role."

    I'm glad you, and many others it seems, agree. Sure she was handed an inherently likable character, but she nailed it for sure.

    @Philadlj
    "Honestly, a better and more cohesive finale than I was expecting. I’m happy they didn’t go the Big Space Battle route and instead had an ending worthy of TNG."

    I agree with this overall, but we still have:

    @Glom
    "If the writers had resisted their compulsion to make it all about the galaxy 'sploding, the scene could have worked really well. Picard is idealistic, but he wasn't a naive idiot and applauded for it on TNG. This was avoided by not creating situations where his idealism would appear to be naive idiocy."

    Indeed, maybe the fundamental problem with the very conception of this show.

    @Quincy

    “Not really all that up on military structure, but couldn't they have made Sisko a Commodore? Don't commodores run fleets?”

    The best analogy is the Third and Fifth Fleets (actually the same group of ships, the name just changed depending on whom was in overall command, Spruance or Halsey; one of the two would be running the fleet while the other planned for the next major operation) in WW2.

    Overall command was a four star admiral. Major commands underneath that (the battle line and fast carrier task force) were commanded by a three star. Task forces within each of those groups were commanded by two stars.

    So Halsey (four stars) commanded the Third Fleet, Marc Mitcher and Willis Lee (three stars) commanded the Fast Carrier Task Force and Battleships, then each of those were divided into smaller task forces which were commanded by two star admirals.

    Captains could command other ships, destroyer squadrons for instance were commonly lead by a Captain while the individual ships were commanded by a Lt. Commander or Commander, but they’d never be in charge of a major fleet with hundreds of thousands of sailors under them.

    Like the two STD season finales before it, ST:Picard saved the worst for last. This was the least coherent, least satisfying episode of the series.

    Before I complain too much, I have to confess that my favorite part of the episode was Picard's robo-resurrection. Mind-energy transfer is a common Trek trope that we've seen in virtually every Trek series including TOS ("What Are Little Girls Made Of?", "Return to Tomorrow"), TNG ("Lonely Among Us", "The Schizoid Man", "Inheritance"), DS9 ("Our Man Bashir"), and perhaps most famously in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. As far as cheating death goes, Picard's solution is much more palatable than Khan's magic blood in ST(i)D.

    As mentioned by others, the magical handgrip that can do literally anything is the laziest plot device we've ever seen on Star Trek. I suppose we should be grateful that they didn't use it to resurrect Picard, too (though why wouldn't they?).

    Characters drift in and out of the episode for no good reason other than setting up necessary plot points. After a full season of manipulations and intrigue, Narek gets tackled by synths and then just disappears completely and no one comments on his fate. Similarly, Sutra (by far the most interesting character on the synth planet) is quickly deactivated and vanishes from existence once she is no longer useful to the plot. For a series that is supposed to be "character-driven", character development is consistently sacrificed to high concept plot mechanisms.

    Narissa pops up out of nowhere for the sole purpose of giving Jeri Ryan something to do other than sitting on the Borg ship waiting for the episode to end. Her casual vulgarity and incesty innuendo were there to... alienate the audience, I guess? Is this what Michael Chabon meant when he said "Sometimes you’re motivated to have things simply because it’s possibly going to piss off or provoke people"?

    I'm curious what the original ending to the season was supposed to be, because the reshoots were more apparent in this episode than it any previous entry. Characters jump back and forth between the La Sirena and the synth settlement with no rhyme or reason. Jonathan Frakes claims that he was originally brought in to direct, not act, which suggests that Riker wasn't added to the show until reshoots. This would explain why Riker and the Starfleet armada comically disappear as soon as the Romulan threat subsides. Wouldn't it have been nice to have a Starfleet doctor beam down to offer palliative care to the terminally ill Picard? Or have someone who actually knew him by his side when he died?

    The fact that Data has existed, conscious and alone, in a "quantum simulation" for the past 15 years or so is probably the darkest twist in the entire series. And it's bizarre that this astounding discovery is only revealed in the last ten minutes of the season finale. Wouldn't it have been more interesting if Picard had learned that Data was still alive back in the pilot, and then spent the rest of the season looking for him only to discover the quantum simulation at the very end? That would have been far more interesting that what we got.

    At least we didn't get any dune buggy chases, but there's always season 2...

    @ Booming

    "Just saw the Discovery teaser... it looks exactly like the other seasons of NuTrek."

    I think as long as the creative teams stay roughly unchanged, NuTrek is going to stay mediocre. There is an essential problem here that the people shepherding the franchise into the future are simply not a good fit for this material. They want action, melodrama, and science fantasy a-la Star Wars, and are less interested in heady sci fi. It's movie Trek on the small screen.

    I am actually intrigued by the next season of Discovery simply because it's the first time NuTrek is heading into a place where it will mostly divorced from relying on old characters and storylines. But on the other hand, I'm not expecting much. There are so many ways they can screw it up.

    This new iteration of Trek is really heartbreaking to a degree because while I'm not a fan of the widescreen and the erratic camera, the shows do look good production-wise. They look great, actually. It's the writing that sinks it each and every time.

    You need someone with a strong vision at the helm who understands the franchise and can steer it to the right place.

    I think Picard looks better than Discovery overall. Something about the way Discovery is shot makes the picture look murky. It's just a bit too stylised. Makes me think of early web 1.0 websites that would use all the visual tricks imaginable like flashing headings and such to make their site look "cool" but it just ended up being obnoxious and painful to read.

    Otoh, the production design is excellent. The sets look great and those uniforms are my favourite after the TOS movie uniforms. Also, the way they did the Enterprise bridge was very impressive. Unlike the Abrams movies, it was a credible modernisation of the classic design.

    The Enterprise bridge at the end of Discovery S2 looked stunning. It was genuinely a beautiful thing to behold. I wanted a series on that space ship with this crew. Heck, just remake TOS with Pike and Spock.

    But Discovery and Picard are shows that suffer from attention-deficit, both in the filming - the camera can't stop moving. The music can't stop playing. It doesn't matter who directs - and in the writing. Threads are left dangling, details are left obscure , character development is shallow- it's all about creating momentum so that you won't have to stop and ask too many questions.

    So for me it's just a shame that all that money, all that talent in VFX and production design, is ultimately wasted. Just imagine the writers were as talented as those production designers and those VFX people.

    But if a guy like Micheal Chabon can't make it work., then I dunno anymore. I dunno who's the guy who can make Trek great again.

    [B] Picard "Et in Arcadia ego" 2nd part [/ B] [SPOILER]

    Come on, double ration this week and surely my last contribution on this series.
    Ouch, is that bad? How to say...

    Well, at the start of this conclusion, Picard is held prisoner and the synths set up a transmitter to call the civ synth. How will he get out of it?
    Before that, return to the Borg cube, where the incestuous brothers and sisters meet, with the sister who decides to take control of the cube's weapons. Well, the sister is still as naughty as a cartoon [/ SPOILER].
    [SPOILER] Jurati decides to release Picard, pretending to help Soong in his work, tears out the eye of the dead synth (gore again) which serves as a pass. Snapshot of action movies, again. Back on the Serena, Picard decides to sacrifice himself in front of the Romulans to encourage Soji to stop the emitter. Don Quixote. We are therefore entitled to a very nice battle between the Orchids and the Romulan fleet, led by Ho, still just as bad (Kill the touuuuusss !!!). Picard, by a sleight of hand, delays the deadline while on the Borg cube, Seven gets rid of the incestuous sister. Champagne! : trollface :.
    At the same time, the cavalry arrives, led by Captain Riker. Summary: go or we kick your ass. Nice! : wub [/ SPOILER]:
    From there, everything goes to town and the evil forces of Kurtzman will prevail: vomits:

    [SPOILER] Soji opened an interdimensional portal to the Synth civ and ... Metallic tentacles begin to escape. These same tentacles seen in Discovery and Sent by .. Control !!!! : wacko: I feared it, the junction is indeed fault with Discovery ...
     Soji finally decides to close the signal, portal closed, phew! Convinced (Huh?), The Romulans are leaving, Star fleet too. We're headed for a happy end Except that
    Picard collapses on the bridge and dies ...: wtf: Farpaitement. [/ SPOILER]
    What follows is a disgusting litany of tears and moans, worthy of a Brazilian telenovela. I specify that almost everyone has known each other for 10 episodes. : | I'm about to smash my Oled 4k with 3000 balls with high kicks when ...
    The most beautiful scene in the series comes ...: mellow:
    [SPOILER] Picard, dead, wakes up in an elongated room and in front of him, a smiling Data in his last death suits.
    Then follows a wonderful conversation full of warmth and affection between the two friends on the mortality of human life. Data finally asks Picard to go away and unplug it permanently. What? You will tell me, how can an organic dead man argue with a saved cybernetic consciousness and how could he return to life?
    Do you remember the golem of Dr Soong from the first part? Do you have it now? : trollface:

    And there, under my horrified eyes, Picard wakes up, under the benevolent gaze of Jurati and Soong. A 94-year-old Synthetic Picard, smiling, joking and asking if they made him eternal. Hahaha: vomits: and Jurati announces that she would never have allowed it without her authorization and that it is equipped with a cell degeneration system. Phew! :throws up:
    How can we boast the preciousness of a finite life in a magnificent scene and the second after, to impose on an unconscious man, without his consent, a resurrection, in violation of any individual right? A rape, no more, no less!
    The worst part is that the writers are aware of it because the Picard Synth is deadly. They knew it was contrary to the humanistic philosophy of Star Trek and hypocritically attenuated their bullshit by making it deadly.
    Awful.
    Happy end of course, with this new Picard, in his ship, with his new crew, to bodly go where no man was before ... [/ SPOILER]
    It will be without me.
    CONGRATULATIONS, Alex, Star Trek is officially dead.

    2/10

    The disappointing thing about Pic is that, of the many trek shows in dev, this is probably the series they gave the most care, thought, and planning given its legacy. There wasnt the constant bts writer turmoil disco suffered. If this is the best creative force cbs could muster, things do not look promising.

    Still have fingers crossed that one of the 2 unnamed shows kurtz mentioned will end up being more episodic with any arc (every non-anthology streaming show must have some type of season arc now it seems) just laying in the background rather than constantly at the fore - he did it with fringe so it's not foreign to him.

    @Lynos: "The Enterprise bridge at the end of Discovery S2 looked stunning. It was genuinely a beautiful thing to behold. I wanted a series on that space ship with this crew. Heck, just remake TOS with Pike and Spock."

    I wish we had a Christopher Pike series instead of STD. Anson Mount did a fine job in that role.

    @Cletus: "And good grief at that quick disco teaser, Burnham just saved the galaxy, now she is the lone vanguard in saving the Federation, she is so awesome."

    Agreed. They should just get it over with and rename the series, "Michael Burnham" because everything just revolves around her.

    Chabon is surely an excellent writer, but like a showrunner, he is not worth a tripod. Picard's rare good times come from his discussions with his former crew. Not Seven or Hugh, His old crew! All the new characters are traveling pictures, the fault does not lie with the actors. The only references in the series are the video game Mass Effect, Terminator and Firefly, which speaks volumes about the general level of culture of the writing team.
    It's been a long time since I fired the screenwriters to choose more talented ones.
    It is Clear that Kurtzman wants to set up a Star trek universe, like a Marvel universe, to infinitely decline series, films and derivative products.
    I have nothing against comics, which have their place in popular culture but the humanist philosophy of Star Trek is far from the universe of comics. However, an excellent film like Logan, with the same Patrick Stewart, could serve as a matrix for Picard's intrigue, testifying to the ravages of time.
    Picard, like Discovery, are complete artistic failures, of a poverty of distressing writing at the time of the golden age of TV series and that Patrick Stewart, Shakespearian actor by training, condones this mediocrity, I am sorry.
    The JJ abrahms / Kurtzman era will come to an end anyway, but I gladly work on his burial in
    stopping all viewing of their Star Trek productions, past or future.
    I can't wait for someone more talented to take up the torch!
    Until then, Live Long and Prosper!

    I get the message they were driving at in the end and I see why Patrick Stewart was drawn to it, but it just didn't work. They could have pulled the same thing with half as many characters and half as many episodes, which also would have forced them to tighten up the scripts. We've come a long way, baby.

    I like the comment to the effect that “screaming This is Not Star Trek sounds like a child not being given his cereal.”

    I believe there was no substantive response.

    I think there is also an issue as to what constitutes “science fiction.” Once we accept (as people implicitly have) the existence of warp drive, inertial dampeners, and other “fiction” in science fiction, where can the line be drawn, beyond which one must conclude, “This is too silly!”

    The whole premise of Star Trek requires dollops of suspension of disbelief. To nitpick a scene for not being scientifically accurate when the entire premise is, is one some level a futile task.

    As far as the issue of What Is Star Trek, the Potter Stewart “I know what isn’t Star Trel when I see it” crowd will never give an answer. That would prevent them from changing the goalposts whenever it suited them. Funny how many complaints about the show’s “dubious” cohesiveness themselves are incohesive or bereft of reasoning.

    Part of reaction depends upon the predisposition of the viewer. To paraphrase Guinan, someone who hated episodes 1-9 will probably go in to episode 10 with a jaundiced view and come out of it with confirmation bias. I don’t know when it became Scripture to automatically “know” all post-2005 (2001? 2009?) Trek is terrible, so I don’t go in with that bias.

    I try to watch episodes, seasons, etc., without preconceived beliefs to the effect they will be good or bad. And I try to look for what a Star Trek episode gives me in terms of entertainment value, because Trek is first and foremost entertainment. The last episode of Season 1 of Picard had problems galore but on balance It was entertaining given the constraints I mentioned above. Trek at its best is MORE than entertainment. But, to savage someone simply because that person got some entertainment from the show, or the show brightened that person’s day a little bit...
    It is unfortunate that some are so certain in their opinions that they resort to doing this.

    One person observed that if Michael Chabon can’t make Trek work, no one can. It takes a a small inferential leap to realize that some people will never be satisfied with anything - or will never admit to it , lest they be thought to be part of the lumpen masses - those vulgar, inferior Philistines! - that get enjoyment from entertainment.

    @Daniel

    "One person observed that if Michael Chabon can’t make Trek work, no one can. It takes a a small inferential leap to realize that some people will never be satisfied with anything - or will never admit to it , lest they be thought to be part of the lumpen masses - those vulgar, inferior Philistines! - that get enjoyment from entertainment."

    It's very telling that the same people who hate this show come here the very day any new Trek airs to tell us just how much they hate it. Clearly they enjoy it, even if their enjoyment value is taking potshots at it. Get ready for season two with all these people back here again like clockwork. CBS doesn't care as long as they get their subscription.

    The imagination device that repaired the ship can be perceived as another example of high tech as warp drive, holodecks, transporters etc...As the great SF author Arthur C. Clarke said “any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.

    I actually met Dr. Clarke in Sri Lanka many years ago. I worked on a research vessel and a friend and myself took a taxi to his house. I gave his assistant my business card, he let us in and he entertained us for almost an hour.

    I liked this episode, which tied up the season effectively. I'd been worried it might flounder, and go out in a mess of special effects and space battles, but it didn't. A fair number of plot holes, but that doesn't matter, the whole episode worked well. The series is a vehicle for Patrick Stewart for me, and he rose to the occasion in the end, He's better than ever. I'm looking forward to the next season - and crossing my finger we'll get it, even if a bit late.

    And now I'll get back up the thread and read the comments. I hope Jammer manages to get his review done earlier this time, the comments tend to be more focused after he chips in. (But early or late I'm grateful to him, for the reviews and for the whole site. Take your time Jammer.)

    “A fair number of plot holes, but that doesn't matter, the whole episode worked well.”

    That is a wild sentence...

    @Other Other Cris

    Of course as I said, there are some rare good scenes in Picard or Discovery, but it is the case of all the bad series existing.
    That watching a series of science fiction requires disregarding a certain logic, I fully agree ... but for the scientific part, and not for the development of the plot or the characters.
    Take for example the stealth plan at the end of the episode where we see Raffi hold Seven's hand, didn't that shock you?
    Not because of her obvious lesbian nature, but because it comes from nowhere! Ditto for the romantic relationship between Rios and Jurati or the friendship relationship between Seven and Picard.
    Come on, tell me about the warning signs of these relationships, I'm waiting for you ...
    The explanation for The Raffi / Seven relationship is simple, it is economical. We were treated to Stamets / Culber in Discovery, quite well constructed.
    For Raffi / Seven, the producers said to themselves: well, there is a buzz not possible at the moment on #metoo and feminism. It can be a potential market ...
    The openness to the social reality of the moment is in the genes of Star Trek and it is very good like that ... provided that this is argued Scriptwriting.
    Just like contemporary references to vaping, soccer, vinyls ... it's pure economic opportunism!
    Some seem to be annoyed by critics against a TV show they like (and it's respectable) .But if it was written as well as they think, this annoyance has no place to be.
    By the way, I canceled my Netflix subscription taken for Discovery. I keep Amazon Prime for manga and other series including Justified.
    And yes I admit, I will be the first to take out a subscription for Star trek ... when the Kurtzman team is gone.
    And for those who love good, well-written space opera, The Expanse stretches your arms. Cheers.

    I would be the first to fully admit, there were problems with this season. I thought there were a lot of interesting things (XB's, The admonition, the attack on Mars) that were never fully realized. Some things felt rushed. I didn't love all the characters.

    However, I just don't care.

    I grew up loving TNG, and Data (much like Mr. Spock) was my favorite character. To see him get a proper send off, conversing one last time with Picard, was more than I could have ever hoped for after Nemesis. If this happens to be the only season, I'd be grateful just for those last 10 minutes.

    I don't begrudge anyone who didn't care for this. Thats okay. But I'll be honest and say I could never allow that much cynicism to get in the way of my enjoyment of these shows. And I mean that beyond Picard. Discovery, The Orville, Westworld, The Expanse etc. I find them all enjoyable, even if I think they range from mediocre to very good. As a Trek fan, I would have thought other Trek fans would be the most used to Star Trek being anywhere from downright bad to excellent, and finding enjoyment in it all the same.

    I’m really disappointed. At this point, I don’t know if I’ll be back for S2.

    As others have also said, I thought the scenes with Data were the best part. They also harkened back to the pilot which remains my favorite episode.

    Pretty much everything else just felt like a plot machine grinding its gears. As has been the case before, the characters just feel like plot devices to me. There were also so many different parts that just made me cringe. The two things combined meant I ended up feeling very little overall.

    I don’t hate the show or the people making it. I just really don’t understand why they chose to tell this particular story in this way. I honestly don’t. It’s baffling to me. I’m not angry, I’m just disappointed.

    I’m curious to see where Jammer lands on this one and the show as a whole.

    As a lifelong Trek fan who was active on the message boards twenty years ago, it always astounds me the fans who professionally hate every aspect of every scene, without exception, and extend that to label #NuTrek all trash, every last bit of it, but who watch every episode, and will be back with the Season 2 Picard premiere to keep trashing over it.

    I’ve had episodes of series I’ve hated, and vowed never to watch again.

    I never watched again. That was it.

    There is no possible way any episode, under any showrunner, director or actors, would satisfy you, under any circumstances.

    Be healthy, and try to find joy.

    @Ryan Don't you think you're being a bit narrow minded and overly negative about the fans? I'm sure a lot of people who didn't like Discovery were lured back by Picard and the promise of something different. And of course there are Star Trek fans who will keep watching no matter how bad the shows get in the hope that the shows will improve, right?

    There's also a variety of negative leaning people here, too. Including some who liked some of the episodes but were overall disappointed, and others who hated every minute of it.

    If you liked the show, I don't think anyone disliking the show is stopping you from liking it.

    The people complaining about "Picard" never actually complain that "Picard is not Star Trek", and yet those complaining about the people who complain about "Picard", keep imagining that they do.

    It's like a sneaky trick to distract from the fact that this episode has a GIANT ROMULAN FLEET FOOLED BY A MAGICAL WALKIE TALKIE, and ends with PICARD AS A ROBOT.

    Wait, are we sure Narissa is dead? On the SDMB, someone pointed out that she was shown throughout the season to have a personal transporter to get her out of jams. Seven/Annika should have used the disintegration method she employed earlier in the season!

    Soji sang her father to sleep.

    Isa Briones sang that cover of "Blue Skies." Soji's gathered along with Jurati and Soong when Picard euthanizes Data. Data starts this specific record playing before he lies down: the music is diegetic. And it's Soji's voice.

    Soji recorded it for her father to hear in his death.

    That gorgeous detail gets the show forgiven for not showing us, the viewers, a dialogue between Data and Soji. It also implies that Data's existed in a place where others can't visit him directly, and where Picard only could briefly because of the unprecedented circumstance of a mind transferred into the simulation for the short term. Messages can go in, but not out, or else Data would have requested euthanasia earlier. It's a bit underwritten, but it's the interpretation that's most consistent with the rest of the story.

    But think of it: this gentle being who had wanted to parent, who lost his only child and did not want to risk having another if she would die the same way, gets to hear his daughter sing him to peace.

    It's really, genuinely lovely.

    I knew Isa Briones sang the cover of "Blue Skies", I just never thought of it that way.

    Awesome.

    The scene with Data proves what I have been saying since Episode 1: This should have been Picard introspection land. Take his illness seriously. Have him come to terms with his past. And if you absolutely must, let him die in the final episode. A bittersweet ending, after he came to find peace of mind. That scene was the only one kind of interesting in all this. Just have those dream-sequences in between showing his real life as an aging, ill man, and voilla, instant TV-Show.

    Instead, just with Discovery season one, we are left with a bomb, a button, and people maybe willing to press it in the same place: Android 2995 decides that today he will call the reapers, boom, universe kaputt. Or the Tal Shiar flew ten lightyears away, cloaked, came back, sterilized the place, threat eliminated.

    Final rating: It's over out of It began some time ago.

    @Drea
    Holy shit that's pretty awesome! Yeah, Isa is the best.

    All that said, this is a meta point at best. There's no sense in which the show portrays that Soji (or any android) has any connection to this song, does it? In fact, while I was watching, I remember thinking two things:
    1. This is a nice vocal.
    2. Why the hell would Data choose this song? I don't remember seeing him explore anything similar. He plays classical pieces on the violin. He never asks Riker about jazz. Or anyone else about any other sort of music, I don't think...?

    Hmm, I don't believe anyone critical of Pic has found no redeeming qualities to it, many freely point out nice moments or cool ideas it brought forth. Same with disco - I think Pike got universal acclaim from everyone for example. So I think most critics watch with an open mind to see if this time the showrunners can knock it out of the park, or at least give us those nice scattered moments here and there - I do not think anyone is actively rooting for trek to fail.

    Its now been 3 seasons though - do any big fans of these shows think their best eps compare to the best eps of prior trek?

    Msw,
    Data sings blue skies in nemesis - that movie is almost required viewing for this show.

    @msw188
    Data sang this song at Riker and Troi's wedding in Star Trek Nemesis, the last time the crew gathered before Data's death. B4 sang a line of it at the end of the movie, which gave Picard hope that some part of his friend lived on. That's why it echoes through Picard's dreams of Data.

    Data would also remember the song as the last thing he performed for the crew, since these memories went into B4. Picard would know this and inform Soji.

    It's not a meta point at all. It's dramatically extremely poignant. But the show doesn't connect the dots for the audience. Then again, maybe it would be pretty laborious to explain all that if you're not an avid Trek fan with the whole series and movies memorized. If you're in on it, it means something, and if you're not, it's just a pretty song.

    @Drea, @ Cletus
    Ah, it was from one of the movies? Yes, I never saw Star Trek Nemesis either. That's pretty cool, thanks for letting me know!

    This does help put the use of the song both here and earlier into much better perspective. I still don't think the show makes it clear that Soji is the singer. I thought Picard disconnected Data right away more or less. No time to go and tell Soji to record a song.

    Even so, I appreciate this inclusion way more now that you guys let me know some of the reasons. Thanks!

    It had some nice character moments (finally), but the nail in the coffin for me was the "magic device" which is able to create an entire fleet of ships with warp signatures at precisely the moment the plot requires, to give Picard enough time to give his pep talk to Soji. They literally hinged the entire plot and resolution of the season on a magic device that is hand-waived away. I literally burst into laughter and was done with the show in that moment. It was like the writers were subliminally telling us "just use your imagination, pretend this is a good show, just smile and nod."

    I also hate what they did to 7of9. Turning her into a confused old lesbian alcoholic vigilante is just asinine, and worse than that is how the writers cannot even figure out how to use her. They just copy-paste her into the script whenever the plot demands it.

    All the build up on the borg cube felt like a waste of time they could've used to develop more important characters.

    Retconning in a new Soong at the last minute makes it seem like the writers were desperate.

    And finally, the division between synths and humans is academic at this point. Soji is basically a human. And now Picard is a synth. And the real synths are a race of extra-dimensional space worms ala Stephen King's "The Langoliers".

    Sorry, I'm just not into it. Give me a show where Seven becomes a house-wife in suburbia with kids and then suddenly gets activated again. Give me a show where Picard becomes a xeno-archaeology professor who is obsessed with returning to the dyson sphere and he drags his graduate students into an epic indiana jones style adventure. Give me a show where ANYTHING, PLEASE ANYTHING happens except a retread of the same old science fiction tropes we've been wearing out for decades now.

    @Lynos
    I think I'm reaching acceptance. I really, really hoped that some of this would be good but I find most of it flat out bad and the conclusion to all three seasons were terrible. This is just not something I'm interested in. Chabon said in an interview that “shadow defines light”, that “if nothing can rock the Federation’s perfection, then it’s just a magical land” The thing with that statement is that we, during the last 10 years, only had depressing or dark science fiction, apart from the Orville (with which I have different problems. It is also dark in some ways). It is easier to write drama in a dark universe, I get that but did we really need another dark sci-fi show? The Federation was also never perfect.

    @ Drea
    "It's not a meta point at all. It's dramatically extremely poignant."
    Is it? Data and Soji never met. Maddox created her. She is very different from Data being flesh and blood and having emotions. In what way is Data connected to her? Because Maddox created her after a picture Data painted 30 years ago? Why would she record this particular song for Data? It's memberberries nothing else.

    So ok. In my opinion the last episode and with that the entire season is a clusterfuck. Many reshoots which make many things pointless.

    Let's look at the message for a change.

    Two big themes were xenophobia and isolationism.

    Let's look at xenopobia. The episode at the end makes a comment about how the synth ban was lifted but we are never shown how that came about. Why? Because Soji in the last moment decided to not wipe out every organic life in the galaxy? An option the synth still have. So every organic in the galaxy now has effectively a gun to his/her/they head all the time. Does an existential threat create acceptance? These 50 synth now control the galaxy. What is the message here? If we aren't nice to what is different then these beings will murder every last one of us? Will anybody think racism is wrong after watching this?

    Ok let's look at isolationism: That topic was effectively dropped somewhere in the season. The Federation stopped helping the Romulans because of the destruction of the shipyard which also somehow destroyed the rescue fleet and that was bad but considering that we find out that it was the Romulans who destroyed the shipyard and the rescue fleet under the command of Commodore Oh who was also a traitor/double agent. Romulans stand for refugees in this show. But again does this actually make the Romulans sympathetic or could it change the views of people about refugees? The Romulans that we see, not counting Elnor and the nuns, are all bad guys/gals. The Romulans are mass murderers, they are xenophobes, they corrupted at least Federation intelligence, they almost commit genocide at the end while almost forcing synth into committing gigantic galactic wide genocide and they are what turned the Federation isolationist and xenophobic in the first place. Plus the Romulans were xenophobic, expansionistic imperialists before Romulus exploded. Considering all this it almost seems as if the message of the show is that isolationism is the right choice.

    I certainly don’t want to trash discovery or stp and overall I get enjoyment from them. But in an age where there are more critically acclaimed shows available than ever, Discovery and Picard just aren’t up there with the best. In fact I was thinking about how if STPicard was original characters and was not under the Star Trek banner, just some new sci fi show, I doubt I would have stayed for every episode. The writing from episode to episode is just so neurotic. Plots aren’t finished before 5 more begin, Classic characters are just thrown in (or killed) at will. And I can’t say I love that shiny lens flair aesthetic. Anyway. It could have been worse. Here’s to season 2.

    Regarding the often heard sentiment that people who dislike the show should stop bitching about it and stop watching it and move on:

    I think (and hope) we can all agree that most people coming here are not casual Trek fans. Casual Trek fans will usually not bother reading hundreds of comments, not to mention writing essay length comments of their own.

    I want to believe that what we do here, both those of us who praise or detract, is discussing the current state of the franchise and its current strengths and weaknesses. That discussion can never be one-sided. It must allow different viewpoints, as long as they are well thought out and not just pure troll hyperbole. The same criticism leveled at people who dislike the show ("why do you bother commenting here?") can be leveled at the people who read those comments ("why do you bother reading the comments?")

    We don't want to live in a bubble. I am always interested in reading opinions other than my own. I might disagree with most of them, but some of them on occasion give me insights into things I didn't notice or overlooked or simply mis-remembered. Some of the people who comment more more positively on Trek are for sure people with vast knowledge of the franchise, more that I can ever hope to have, and I always respect their opinions even if I don't always agree.

    I watch Star Trek because I care about the franchise and I want it to be good, to tell meaningful stories, to provoke the mind and the heart, to give us insights into ourselves and human nature and into the place of mankind in the cosmos. You know, all the things it always used to do in its best iterations. In that regard I watch it with a more critical eye, yes. Personally, throughout this season I always tried to judge STP on its own merits, and most of my criticism being just on the level of its own storytelling and not as a comparison to previous Trek, although that could not always be avoided, since this IS a continuation of previous Trek. It's not a show in a vacuum.

    I would lie if I'd say I did not toy with the idea of not watching these shows anymore. I was actually late in starting to watch Picard, but then people who know me and know I'm a Trek fan started asking me what I thought about the show, and increasingly you feel like you are being left out of the conversation.

    The bottom line is that we watch these shows because they are official Star Trek. And we care about Star Trek. We criticize these shows when we feel the need, because somewhere in the primitive back of our minds we feel that if we make our voices heard, then perhaps it would affect some change and the writing will get better and we get something that is worthy of the name it represents.

    Because if the people who watch the new Star Trek are only people who like the new star Trek, then it's just a bubble of people congratulating each other on job well done. Criticism in media, unless it's just mean-spirited, is often geared towards bettering said media by highlighting what doesn't work.

    And yes, I think it IS possible to find the man or the woman who will help Trek find its voice again. Right now it seems like the person most influencing the shape of current Trek is Alex Kurtzman, and so I think as long as he's steering this boat nothing much will change, but hey... hope springs eternal.

    Would trekkies, if this was their first show, really ever become trekkies?
    This is a parody. Some of you you keep mentioning Riker moment. Yeah, it was great to see him in the chair, butwe all knew since Nepenthe that this would happen at the end. That Riker would lead promised Federation fleet showing up at the last moment. Was anyone really surprised to see him there?
    Awful, awful show. What a waste of talent and resources.

    //Let's look at xenopobia. The episode at the end makes a comment about how the synth ban was lifted but we are never shown how that came about. Why? Because Soji in the last moment decided to not wipe out every organic life in the galaxy? An option the synth still have. So every organic in the galaxy now has effectively a gun to his/her/they head all the time. Does an existential threat create acceptance? These 50 synth now control the galaxy. What is the message here? If we aren't nice to what is different then these beings will murder every last one of us? Will anybody think racism is wrong after watching this?//

    Remember it was Commander Oh who was the leader of the Zhat Vash (sp?) Once she was found out, they lifted the ban

    That quick lifting of the ban was indeed a weak part of the plot. Felt like they just wanted to get it off the table so that Soji can walk around the galaxy next season unrestricted. A bit lazy. In fact, a slow, bureocratic, procedure-heavy lift of the ban could be a good arch for next season. Guess they have something better in mind.

    @Flip,

    I was referring to a subset of fans. Some love it unconditionally, some enjoyed it but had some issues, some didn’t like it overall but had constructive criticism and some likes, and others thought it was complete trash.

    That last group had two subgroups. Those who think it was terrible and are moving on, and those who hated every word, every line, flame the producers, and wouldn’t miss the next episode for the world. They hated 90s Trek, complained every week on AOL message boards, or at least their parents did, and will return in a few weeks to flame on Discovery despite hating the first two seasons.

    At least they’re consistent.

    We are all looking at Picard through a TNG lense.

    “But he’s not Picard! He’s different!”

    Well, yeah. He’s 94 and had a falling out with Starfleet.

    “Some of the writing wasn’t great or things were rushed!”

    Well, sure. Seven and Raffi happened off screen and is likely foreshadowing for next season. Both have difficult pasts they’re trying to overcome, and Episode 5 showed that Seven is bisexual, if that’s even a label in the 25th century.

    The ban lifting happened offscreen. Somewhere there’s a short where Kirsten Clancy can’t find Oh or Rizzo anywhere and figures out she’s been had, it’s all a big conspiracy, and the Federation Council, all apparently dealing with angry phone calls about the ban for 15 years, are happy to do the right thing.

    I forget who posted since last night but...blanking on her name...Soji’s bronze sister there had the frequency to hail Control or whatever those things were...presumably Data’s brother will remove that information before reactivating her.

    Agnes? Seemed happy. Was under Oh duress when she pulled the trigger. We’ll see what happens in season two. It’s the biggest qualm with the season for me, but easily fixable.

    @ Eric
    "Remember it was Commander Oh who was the leader of the Zhat Vash (sp?) Once she was found out, they lifted the ban"
    Better not to think about that because that reveals only more nonsense like why did Oh command the fleet? She revealed herself to be a Romulan agent. Wouldn't it have been more useful for her to remain being the head of all Federation intelligence?!
    But alright, the Federation did not declare war on the Romulans immediately for completely compromising Federation intelligence but still recognized who Oh was and then what? Oh sent a message to the Federation telling everybody that the Romulans destroyed the most important Federation shipyard and killed 70000 people (Mars is still burning)?

    @Drea

    Thanks for that. I didn't know Briones was actually singing Blue Skies. It doesn't really matter for the story's sake that it's her, it's just kind of a nice Easter Egg.

    "In fact, a slow, bureocratic, procedure-heavy lift of the ban could be a good arch for next season."

    Yeah, that sounds fun...

    I'm just curious, is there a single episode from the two seasons of DSC or the recent season of PIC that anyone would put in their top 25 or top 30 list of all-time Trek episodes?

    @Cody B, with all due respect, aren't you - and many of us - part of the problem? If you don't think the show is good enough to watch on its own merits but are mostly sticking with it because of the franchise name, then you're basically giving Star Trek a license to be mediocre because of nostalgia. I'm not trying to single you out - I'm guilty of this as well. I've told people I probably would have stopped watching after episode 5 if not for Picard himself. But collectively I just worry Star Trek fandom is encouraging mediocrity.

    @James White

    No, not quite. "Nepenthe" and "If Memory Serves" are the 2 best episodes of PIC and DSC respectively for me. Both are 8.5/10 for me. Terrific episodes but not good enough for top 25 or top 30 all-time Star Trek episodes.

    The Data scenes show exactly why Soji was such a terrible character. We were meant to care for Soji simply because we were 1) she’s an android, 2) in old trek you cared about Androids and 3) she’s connected to Data because the writers said so. She was given no real character arc other than having some sort of job and then suddenly realizing she was synthetic. Right.

    We cared for Data because he was a more fully fleshed out person than Soji was given the chance to be. Yes, to be fair, he had 7 seasons and a bunch of movies to flesh him out sure. But from the earliest days, Data’s lack of humanity and his struggle to be human made him more human than Soji ever was on Pic.

    Some of this has to do with the actor. Lets face it, Brent Spiner is amazing. He so seamlessly went back into playing Data that I’d forgotten just how NOT human Data was - and in so doing imbued him with more life and humanity than Soji was given the chance to be. His processing of Picard’s “love”, so remote so distant and so cold, but yet so uniquely Data, was the only brilliance in this series. Data’s humanity was in the trying. Rather than brushing it aside, he tried his best to understand what Jean Luc’s love meant, and actively tried to overcome his programming limitations to make it meaningful.

    It’s a stark reminder that a perfectly synthetic person can never lead to as much drama as a nearly perfect one. Data’s flaws and limits made him human. This is what Brent Spiner always brought to the character. It’s a shame that Soji wasn’t given the same material because she could have been a lot more intriguing.

    @Eamon, agreed, I've said for a while that I'm not even sure why they made Soji a synth. She looks, sounds, acts, and thinks like a human. I think the writers were going for something more like Blade Runner, but there the replicants had a certain pathos and were fighting to stave off death. Soji has to struggle briefly with the revelation that she's a synth, which had potential, which had potential. But her arc seems to be more about maturity and accepting responsibility, which I don't quite buy because when we first see her she seems quite mature and self-assured. I don't buy that she's some child who needs guidance.

    @Eamon

    The differences are there, it's just more subtle. I like how Soji falls in love but doesn't really get it. I like how she's very curious and can solve mysteries faster than a human being. I like how she has the same desires for family and friendship that humans have, but she doesn't have them as a given. Unlike humans, androids are vulnerable and really need people who accept them. There's a lot of rich content there that can be explored in future seasons.

    @Chrome, to Eamon's point though none of what you mentioned seems particular to androids. In fact, what you're describing sounds more like a human child or teenager than an artificially created being. Lots of teens don't understand the difference between love and infatuation. Lots of teens don't have come family. The sense I got from Soji is that she's the equivalent of a book smart but emotionally immature teenager, which isn't exactly breaking new dramatic ground. She'll presumably grow out of this after a year or two, just like most teens do.

    Yeah I have to agree that part of the problem is that Soji is just too human. Those "subtle" differences that chrome described are maybe just reading something into her that isn't there, because humans can be curious, not get love, have desire for family / friends, and be vulnerable. If we weren't told she was a synth, I doubt anyone would know she was anything different.

    If you're gonna have synths that act basically just like humans, then the narrative needs to treat them like humans. They can't be treated the same as Data. So perhaps a narrative about a "synth ban" was a bad direction to go in the first place.

    One can always make analogies between Trek's alien species and an existing part of humanity. I see that as more of a feature than a bug. I know some people who as greedy as Ferengis but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy Ferengi stories.

    Right, but you have to ask yourself "what's interesting about Soji as a character"? Data was recognizably a computer, yet he admired humans and wanted to learn from them. Right from episode 1 of TNG, that's a compelling character. What actually makes Soji compelling?

    @Chrome, the difference is that Trek aliens usually took certain human stereotypes or characteristics to an extreme that was ultimately alien to 20th and 21st century humans. Ferengi look and sound and act alien, even though greed is something humans experience. With Soji, there's nothing to my mind that made her distinctly "other," except for her super-strength and reading speed. If anything, she resembles a human superhero more than an android.

    I suspect the writers were taking a BSG approach to the synths in Picard. In that show, the differences between Cyclons and humans were deliberately downplayed and the conclusion of the series was that obviously any such differences were ultimately trivial. I don't think that's a bad way to go. But Picard also seemed to want to emphasize Soji's self-awakening and sense of discovery, which I don't think works as well if she is for all intents and purposes human. Or maybe Soji's journey was just too quick.

    I listed a few reasons above. Of course, your mileage may vary. I never got into The Doctor that much drom Voyager, especially not in season one, but I can appreciate why people might like him. Please try to understand that because of differing tastes, some of us will gravitate to one character or race over another.

    @Eamon

    One of the biggest failures of this episode and of STP in general is the complete disconnect between Soji and Data. The had not a single shared scene, not a line of dialogue passed between them. When they all arrive to synth planet, it was a given that Soji will meet her father.

    Nope.

    Picard and Data's scenes in the episode are good, but only as stand-alone scenes. In the larger picture they make no sense. Everybody is on a planet where there are synthetic bodies either ready to go or can be manufactured. Why did Data have to die? Why couldn't his positronic matrix be downloaded into another artificial body, thus giving him a new lease on life? They friggin's did it for Picard. I'll tell you why, because the writers wanted a heartfelt scene where Data talks about how meaningful it is to be mortal and then have a scene where Picard is basically euthanizing his friend, because that's how they can make us feel something. And yes, I almost teared up on that scene because it's well-done, but at the same time it's completely and utterly unnecessary.

    @Trent
    "The people complaining about "Picard" never actually complain that "Picard is not Star Trek", and yet those complaining about the people who complain about "Picard", keep imagining that they do" - I think we must have been reading a completely different set of comments. I've seen a great number of posts saying precisely that, sometimes in so many words. I don't complain about them doing so, it's a way of expressing a reasonable point of view, though it's one I don't agree with.

    I don't dislike disagreements. I enjoy discussions where disagreements can be examined and analysed, so you sort out the things on which there is commonality, shared values, shared opinions, and the things that where there is disagreement.

    Obviously when we say something that is our subjective opinion, but inevitably we tend to find ourselves writing as if we were saying something that is an objective fact.
    "This is a terrible show" rather than "for me that was a terrible show" (or the other way. And the implication of that way of putting is that anyone seeing it that way is unreasonable, and the enemy. And it gets taken that way, and the exchanges get nasty.
    ......
    Anyway, while far from perfect, this season was ok for me, and offers reason to anticipate it could get better next time round. I am inclined to disregard the holes in the plot which have been pointed out (along with a number of suggested holes where I disagree).

    But plot as such is secondary, though of course it matters. The same goes tor the lazy shortcuts - "with one bound he was free", such as the magic knuckleduster for mending ships, and producing a phantom fleet to fool the enemy.

    I put up with that gladly for the chance to see Patricj Stewart back in the driving seat putting the world to rights. And of course I totally disagree with those who see him as diminished in this series. But of course, that's just my opinion.

    @Gerontius "Obviously when we say something that is our subjective opinion, but inevitably we tend to find ourselves writing as if we were saying something that is an objective fact."

    That's just people expressing their opinions strongly and passionately. It's okay to have strong, passionate opinions, it's good for discourse. I think it's unreasonable to expect everyone to put a "for me," or "IMO" in front of every statement. Wouldn't it make more sense to just take that as a given?

    That magical ship fixy hologram projector thingie could come in handy elsewhere. They should probably keep it.

    WTF on the campfire on the ship?

    Lie-detecting robots stop lie-detecting when it’s convenient for the plot.

    They sure like pulling out eyeballs on this show

    Data’s brother showing everyone that sexybad Soji killed the other robot may have helped regular Soji make an informed decision earlier

    Incest twins, Activate! Incest sister, Die! Incest brother, disappear like a loose end.

    Who knew you could see tiny ships in orbit from the planet?

    Once again, ships is 3D space don’t know how to go around something directly in front of them.

    Picard’s pretty loosey goosey with his own life when it comes to sacrifice, but big whoop. He’s got space Parkinson’s. What about Tilly? She’s still young.

    Having that beacon around is a nice backup for the robots in case the humans get uppity again.

    Riker just leaves instead of waiting around to make sure the Romulans don’t come back or if Picard's OK?

    Picard’s death scene failed to induce any emotion, because we all knew he’d be back as a robot.

    Picard gets a new body and they give him his old-man body and man boobs and an expiration date? Also, who drew the short stick to put the cloth on his privates?

    How did Data get old and fat in his own simulation? But, anyway. Data’s alive!! Don’t get used to it. He’s suicidal and gets murdered by Picard. Stupid.

    Yet, Keiko lives.

    Would Picard really have wanted this? I remember an episode of TNG where he lectured someone for cheating death and now he's gone and done the same thing. They should have saved his dying for the end of the series instead of this pointless reset button of making him an android when it doesn't really change anything apparently other than he's no longer dying. The whole illness thing could have been completely left out altogether since it wouldn't really have changed the story much at all.

    What is it with CBS and the stupid "Last time on" flashbacks for their shows? They aren't even flashbacks from the last episode but random snippets from the entire season. It's so annoying to have to skip past them every time I watch a new episode.

    "Would Picard really have wanted this?"

    It's a fair question. I think one arc of this series wants us to understand that synthetics really aren't that different from "us". Part of Picard's quest helps him to accept that the nature of synthetic and organic life is comparable. Thus, some taboos he might have had towards the procedure would naturally melt away as he learns about how human Data and Soji are. I think the story is a tad sloppy and missing details as presented, but the overall drive of the arc is good.

    If you're comparing this to "The Schizoid Man", let's examine the dialogue there:

    PICARD: Graves, every man has his time. Every man, without exception. But you've cheated. You have extended your life at the expense of another. Graves, give Data back. Give him back.
    DATA: Data is dead.
    PICARD: No. He must not be lost. He's not simply an android. He's a life form, entirely unique.
    DATA: Data is not human! He is
    PICARD: He is different, yes. But that does not make him expendable, or any less significant. No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another. Now set him free!

    Picard's making two points here. One is that there's a natural conclusion for someone and they should die when that conclusion comes. Picard is still concerned about that in this episode and makes sure his time will come. The other point Picard is making is that Ira Graves is stealing Data's life, essentially thinking of Data as a lesser lifeform who Graves can usurp at will. That's a different case than the golem, whose only apparent purpose is to be a vessel for an organic lifeform.

    @Tommy D.
    "As a Trek fan, I would have thought other Trek fans would be the most used to Star Trek being anywhere from downright bad to excellent, and finding enjoyment in it all the same."

    I would agree.

    And I can definitely enjoy bad Trek... as long as the showrunners have their heart in the right place and are genuinely trying to create something that is worthy of the Star Trek name.

    What I cannot enjoy, is the cynical use of the Star Trek IP by a mega-corporation who doesn't give a f*** about its legacy. Star Trek used to be something wonderful and inspiring. Right now it is not, and that's simply because TPTB are not trying anymore.

    So you are telling me that we should shut up and support this sh*t just because it has "Star Trek" in its title?

    No sir. I refuse to be manipulated in this manner. And I gotta say that it's quite amazing how many Classic Trek fans are falling for this cheap marketing trick. Seriously, guys. What's the matter with you?

    @ Lynos

    "Picard and Data's scenes in the episode are good, but only as stand-alone scenes. In the larger picture they make no sense."

    This.

    As soon as that "Golem" was introduced my immediate fear was they'd reincarnate and recast Data. I'm glad they didn't do that but the whole tear-jerking death scene with Picard and reincarnation makes no sense at all. It feels like a cheap trick to play to the emotions of the audience.

    I loved the final face to face with Data but that could have done in any number of different ways (holodeck, Q's intervention, some sort of subspace induced dream state, pick your method, it's Star Trek, anything is possible) than a Reset Button death.

    It's also weird to me that with show runners and production staff that so obviously care about Star Trek (I lost count of the number of Easter eggs and callbacks in this season) they seemingly forgot about Data's relationship with Geordi. Or Tasha Yar/Sela for that matter. If you're going to tell a story about the Romulans that seems like a good excuse to bring Denise Crosby back. Maybe she and LeVar weren't available, though I find it hard to believe they couldn't have convinced them to come back for at least scene or two, they managed to talk Sir Patrick and Jeri Ryan into it after all......

    I liked Seven's arc, loved Picard's Romulan housekeepers (lamentable we never saw them again after the beginning of the season), and I could even get behind Starfleet and the Federation looking inward (allegory for our times), but the overarching plot line about the synths and Romulans all of a sudden hating all artificial life? I'd rather have seen the whole season spent on the plight of the XBs, something I suspect we'll never hear about again. :(

    Also, lazy writing, two characters interpret this "admonition" and all of a sudden everyone (including Picard! Who is supposed to be a skeptic!) believes that it's the death of all organic life in the galaxy? Where was this actually established with real evidence?

    It reminds me of Scorpion and the whole "Let's ally ourselves with the Borg based off Kes' interpretation of an alien consciousness and them taking a potshot at us when we wandered into an active conflict zone" story, which also struck me as very lazy cliched writing, and was ultimately undermined with a later episode ("In The Flesh") that proved 8472 never had any intention of destroying all life in the Milky Way, they were defending themselves against the existential threat of the Borg.

    Side note: I'd totally re-up my All Access subscription to watch a production about Janeway's court martial upon their return to the Alpha Quadrant. Wouldn't that bring Voyager full circle? We first met her when she went to the penal colony to recruit Paris after all. Maybe he could even tell her which barracks to request, like Ensign Ro did for Evil Admiral of the Week dude.

    Tim wrote:

    "I'd totally re-up my All Access subscription to watch a production about Janeway's court martial upon their return to the Alpha Quadrant."

    I don't know why, but this got me laughing. There must indeed be an interesting story for Janeway going from dangerously pragmatic castaway to Admiral.

    The comments here seem overly negative, I’m not sure everyone here was a fan of TNG, or remembers it properly. Overall I think STP is a good successor to TNG. Clearly the show is trying to bring back the idealistic themes of TNG in a darker backdrop that might be more relatable to the modern day. In this vein I think it mostly succeeds due to the strength of the actors. Overall I found this episode interesting and engaging throughout, though some areas do fall apart if you think about it too much. Take for example Riker leading the rescue fleet, from a realism standpoint it makes no sense, but from a story telling standpoint it makes perfect sense. Frakes stole that scene, and it would have been not nearly as good if it was some random admiral instead. I’m generally willing to overlook such plot holes if it makes for a more entertaining show.

    Overall I think the first season was a bit unevenly paced, there were certain areas that could have been fleshed out a bit more and vice versa. But overall I think it was a good first season that had a satisfying conclusion. It’s also been setup well for season 2. Given that the scope of this story was very narrow, there is a lot left to explore. I also like the cast of characters, and in particular I’m thrilled that Jeri Ryan will (presumably) be a regular in season 2. That’s a great move. Looking forward to the next season

    @Nick, you seem to misunderstand the nature of the criticism. People here are criticizing STP BECAUSE they are fans of TNG. I'm not as critical of this show as OmicronThetaDeltaPhi, but I think he captures the concern, which is that the corporate powers that be are using the Trek IP to sell a show rather than earning that success. As I've noted here, I and many other Trek fans probably would have stopped watching after a few episodes but gave the show the benefit of the doubt BECAUSE it's Star Trek. Without the Star Trek name, this show probably would have gone the way as those generic SyFy channel shows like "Black Matter" or "Killjoys."

    @ John White

    "I'm just curious, is there a single episode from the two seasons of DSC or the recent season of PIC that anyone would put in their top 25 or top 30 list of all-time Trek episodes?"

    "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" and "Nepenthe"

    I'd almost put "Magic" in the Top 10 of Trek. Easily the most "Star Trek" thing Discovery ever did and quite possibly the only part of the first season I didn't dislike.

    This is just my opinion

    I can't imagine "Nepenthe" or "Magic etc" beating out the best out of the 726 Trek episodes pre STP-STD.

    Personally, I wouldn't put any episodes from either new series anywhere in my top 20. Actually,I probably wouldn't put anything STP/STD-related in my top THREE HUNDRED episodes.

    @Rahul

    I'm in a similar camp. Couple of at least noteworthy episodes. None crack the top 40 or 50 of Trek for me.

    You might be right, but I wonder if some are judging this against some idealized version Star Trek in their minds instead of what it actually was. I loved TNG overall, but individual episodes were notoriously inconsistent in their quality and some were downright terrible. In general Star Trek shows didn’t have strong first seasons so in that context I thought this season was good.

    In terms of your comments on corporations cashing in on Trek IP, I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say. If your point is that they are trying to make money, I agree, but it’s also the only way Star Trek comes back, I’m not sure what the alternative is? If your point is that they are not respecting Trek history or canon, I couldn’t disagree more. The show runners are clearly trying very hard to respect canon, there are more Easter eggs and fan service than I can count. I think it even goes beyond that in that entire show seems designed solely for Trek fans, as opposed to a greater audience. Take the Picard / Data scene, this was clearly designed to provide better closure on the events of Nemesis and right some wrongs in that movie. The scene isn’t nearly as effective without that context. The show doesn’t make a strong effort to explain this to a newer audience, so I think you really have to know the history to get the full impact.

    So in that sense I think the show runners are trying very hard to earn their place in Trek.

    Two other things that I hated about the last episode upon rewatch:

    #1. Raffi saying Picard's M.O. is to "always interfere". Since when?

    #2. Gamadan sure sounds an awful lot like Ramadan. Lazy writing.

    I am a little surprised more people here aren't annoyed by such a similarity: if the destruction of the universe by synthetic life was called "Gristmas", I believe the response would be vociferous.

    @OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
    "So you are telling me that we should shut up and support this sh*t just because it has "Star Trek" in its title?"

    I never wrote nor implied this.

    No sir. I refuse to be manipulated in this manner. And I gotta say that it's quite amazing how many Classic Trek fans are falling for this cheap marketing trick. Seriously, guys. What's the matter with you? "

    I don't get cynical and angry about things I have no control over. I'd say in Trek tradition, I feel fine.

    Nick - with respect, you really are missing what everyone is saying. The "fan service" you mention isn't a plus. It's one of the problems. You may disagree with the opinions re the show's quality. But you're cherry picking what you're reading in these threads if you honestly don't know, by now, what people feel are the real problems with this show, with Kurtzman, and so forth. There are dozens and dozens of well written posts. Again, you can disagree with them. What you can't do is mischaracterize them or pretend they don't exist.

    @Nick I just rewatched all of TNG last year, so I'm certainly not judging anything against some "idealized version." What I watched as a classic show that deserves it's status. If anything I think it holds up better than some people say. Even the worst episodes of TNG are not what I would call "downright terrible" TV, they still have a certain something that elevates them over most other sci-fi shows.

    @ Nick

    "You might be right, but I wonder if some are judging this against some idealized version Star Trek in their minds instead of what it actually was."

    Fair enough.

    Let's judge the show as an actual scripted science fiction show. I am not going to mention old Trek whatsoever in below.

    So let's see:

    - Why were Soji and Dahj introduced as Data's daughter if this fact had almost zero effect on the story starting from episode 2 forward. It's a failure to implement what is called "setup" and "payoff". A basic screenwriting technique. The series as a whole has a huge problems with this aspect.

    - Why was the Borg cube introduced as a major part of the story if it served as nothing more than the evil Romulans secret base? Please recall that the arrival of the Borg cube at the synth planet was totally superfluous to the story except for bringing Seven and Elnor with it.
    - Why was Soji on the Borg cube?
    - Why was Dahj on Earth?
    - Who is Dahj and Soji's "mother" seen briefly in the earlier episodes.
    - Why is there no stun setting to anyone's weapons on this show? Why is there no use of detecting warp signatures (to call Picard's bluff in this episode)? Why is the technology of the established universe the story takes place in ignored?
    - Why is Jurati not answering for her crime?
    - How did the synths came to proliferate Federation space? What makes them tick? How do they differ from each other?
    - Why did Data have to die when you can just download his consciousness to another android or even a to a mobile computer such as a starship?
    - Why is Picard flying the La Sirena if it was established there are multiple holograms that are able to do it?
    - Why is nobody concerned there is a working beacon in the middle of a presumably at least semi-hostile android colony capable of summoning aliens that will destroy all organic life? Why is Soji invited aboard when five minutes before she was about to murder all the organic races in the galaxy and never really showed any kind of regret or self-doubt?

    I could go on. I have listed what I find as serious script problems and tried to avoid nitpicks and comparisons to old Trek.

    Maybe your right that I just don’t get it. I think the general theme of these complaints is very valid with Discovery, which is in many ways a perversion of classic Trek. I just don’t see the same in STP. I’m not saying the show is amazing, but I think it’s trying very hard to continue the themes of TNG and overall seems to cater solely to Trek fans which seems overly evident in everything about the show, including the title.

    @Flip

    "That's just people expressing their opinions strongly and passionately. It's okay to have strong, passionate opinions, it's good for discourse. I think it's unreasonable to expect everyone to put a "for me," or "IMO" in front of every statement. Wouldn't it make more sense to just take that as a given?"

    Precisely. The implication of this is that we should always treat such statements as being expressions of opinion, and intended ss such, rather than as personal affronts. And equally important, we need to recognise that of what we say ourselves. It is very easy to slip into the way of taking our own opinion as objective facts, just because that is the way we talk.

    I don't mean that there are no objective facts, but our views about TV shows or other works of fiction are not.
    .........
    I share the hope of many that the next series will be a bit more episodic, rather than in a serial format, where a season demands to be treated as a whole. That way it is easier to explore a range of stories and topics. And if there is to be heavy serialisation I think it is a serious mistake to spread out the creative work of writing and direction widely. You wouldn't write a novel or indeed any work of fiction in that way. With only ten or so episodes in a season there is no justification for doing it that way.

    With a more episodic format it is different, and there can be a value in giving different hands a shot at varying the formula.
    ....
    While I don't worry too much about plot holes there was one which does niggle me - why did Maddox make the fatal mistake of turning up at Bajayz's establishment lamenting the destruction of his lab many years ago? Why wasn't he happily back at Copernicus constructing synthetic birds to go with his butterflies, among his little progeny?

    A couple of things I've gleaned from the post-finale run of interviews

    - The final crane shot that showed Seven and Raffi throw back shots and hold hands in front of a game of Kal-Toh was an improvised choice for one of the takes. In one of the previous interviews it was also suggested (I think it was Goldsman) that the Starfleet Captain (Emmy) that Raffi pressured into issuing diplomatic credentials possibly had a more-than-friends relationship in the past. (Nothing in the scene suggests that, but then again, nothing in the scene precludes it).

    - The reprise of Blue Skies playing as Data prepared to shuffle off the mortal coil was sung by Isa Briones (Dahj/Soji/Sutra/Jana), who, prior to her stint on Picard, was a cast member of Hamilton. It's more poignant, considering it's Data's daughter singing her father off. (https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-picard-finales-most-emotional-moment-hid-a-heartbre-1842512711) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QTKxGG3-4o) Here's the Behind-the-Scenes featurette on it (https://www.startrek.com/videos/star-trek-picard-and-the-return-of-blue-skies)

    - There is precedence in Trek for forgiving manslaughter when under some kind of external influence, like Jurati had with the Admonition-amped mind meld. In DS9 (Empok Nor), Garak kills fellow members of an away team on Empok Nor while under the influence of a psychoactive agent permeating the derilect station. He expresses remorse, but isn't charged with the deaths. (Nog keeps a wide berth from then on, though). Jurati will always have to contend with the knowledge that she killed someone, but considering that the Admonition was traumatic enough that it caused most organics who experienced it to kill themselves, I think some slack could be given.

    - The nature of being, and being human/not human, in a biosynthetic body is one of the themes that will be explored in Picard Season 2, according to the showrunners. Just because they copy-pasted the engrams, doesn't mean that the experience will be exactly the same.

    Finally, I was thinking a lot about the Raffi and Seven thing. There's something called the Overton Window--applied in sociological situations, it's the notion that there's a range of ideas/behaviors that are considered acceptable at any given time; the window will inevitably shift over time, as well as the corresponding range of ideas. When TOS was on the air, an interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura was considered both ground-breaking and controversial. The only way it was justifiable to the censors was that it happened because Kirk was under telekinetic influence. (He didn't do it voluntarily). DS9's Rejoined depicted the first same-sex kiss, and that was only justified by the producers because it was Dax kissing the successor host of a symbiont from when "she" was a "he". They got a torrent of hate mail and some stations pulled the episode. Garrett Wang (Harry Kim) tells of the story that the day after Voyager premiered, Paramount got hate mail and death threats because they deigned to depict a story where a 24th Century Starfleet ship is captained by a female.

    Decades later, the depiction of normal things that normal people do are more familiar to the population. Several main Trek cast members are themselves multi-racial, we now have female four-star generals and admirals in the armed forces. The head of the most valuable tech company (or 2nd most, depending on the stock market) is a gay man. We even had an openly gay presidential candidate who made considerable headway in the early primaries--and the main reason why he didn't make it wasn't because of his sexuality. I think we look back at these depictions in Trek, and aside from noting the historical aspect, the acts themselves aren't shocking or controversial. (Whoever gets angry today at the fact that DS9 had a black commander and Voyager had a female captain isn't a Trek fan and should GTFO)

    Raffi and Seven holding hands isn't a big, shocking thing. It isn't "in your face". In a series (and franchise) where people have hooked up with members of the other species--often only shortly after meeting, this is an extremely tame expression of affaction. What it is, is a possible avenue for character development and story building. I'm all for normal, and even subtle depictions instead of showpiece "in-your-face" or "to make a point" kind of depictions. Personally, I'm tickled at the thought of a former Starfleet officer who revels in conspiracy theories compare notes with a former borg drone who inadvertently wrapped herself into a web of theories (VOY: The Conspiracy Theory).

    @Dom, Eamon, Chrome, and some others who were discussing Soji vs Data a bit earlier:

    Indeed Soji is not as compelling as Data became over the course of TNG. But is it fair to say Data was immediately more compelling than her? See, here is a fundamental difference in the style of TNG versus STP (and maybe "old" vs "new"). Character flaws were never treated as a singular focus on TNG! So Data was interesting as an imperfect android who wished to become more human. This was rarely the source of drama! Very few episodes, especially early on, were structured around this as a point of tension of conflict! Some of the best were, but imagine how tedious it would have been to have Measure of a Man drawn out over a 10-episode arc, especially right out of the gate.

    The key point is that Data's weaknesses are more intellectual than they are emotional. They can make us feel on occasion (amazing episodes like Offspring), but the majority of the time they make us think instead even when emotions are supposed to be the 'point' (lesser episodes like In Theory). This is part of why Data was never the main character on TNG, and also part of why giving him an "emotion chip" in the films felt so cheap.

    "What actually makes Soji compelling?"
    For me, Soji is compelling as a person whose sense of self is upended, and whose trust is betrayed, and who needs to eventually rise above the resulting doubt and fear and learn trust and compassion again. The writing was uneven, but the actress sold me on it. The sci-fi aspect allows for the "sense of self" problem, but otherwise I agree it's completely tangential. The fact that she's an android and that she is connected to Data is so unrelated to her character that it might as well have been a case of memory-implanting, like Narek tries to tell her.

    In any case, it's the story about a teenager who finds out that her memories are lies. That her assumptions about her identity are a lie, allowing for a very literal identity crisis. This is emotional and dramatic, the opposite of Data's "story" in TNG. It's never about the differences between humanity and a fictional race (androids), as Data's "story" was. It's supposed to also be about genuine bigotry, which again Data's "story" was never really about. Emotional. Dramatic. Rooted in the problems of today. The scifi connection (banning synths) here was so clumsily handled, we might as well ignore it when trying to analyze Soji's character.

    All of this was supposed to say: I found Soji compelling, even with the uneven writing, but it had nothing to do with Data or Star Trek or scifi in general. In particular, comparing her character to Data's character sheds no insight for me onto Soji (or Data for that matter), despite the fact that the show seems to invite that comparison. Because the show is a sloppily written mess. But I still think Soji works as a character on her own.

    @Nick, as @James White said, fan service does not make for a good story. Yes, there are callbacks to TNG. Yes, the staff clearly likes easter eggs. Yes, they know how to use Memory Alpha to look up obscure Trek details. That's all well and good, and I'm glad the writers care about Trek lore, but at the end of the day I care about the story and the characters. That's where I think Picard doesn't work. It's not all bad, but it's mostly not great imo.

    When I expressed concern about the studio cashing in on the Trek IP, I meant that it seems like these new Trek shows are failing to capture what I and many others liked about older Trek. I liked Trek because of its exploration of big philosophical questions, its optimistic vision of the future, its celebration of geeks and intelligence, its sense of wonder and exploration. Of course, there were some - many - bad episodes, but the shows generally stayed true to this spirit and sensibility. Modern Trek meanwhile feels extremely cynical and dark. Aside from Picard's speeches in this show, which generally I think worked well, the Picard show came across as generic sci-fi with no interest in bigger ideas and no sense of wonder. Take out the name Picard and this could have been any other sci-fi show on the SyFy channel.

    I think an appropriate analogy is the Star Wars Sequel films. The Force Awakens and Rise of Skywalker both had a bunch of easter eggs, call backs to previous films, cameos, etc. However, that fan service often got distracting, if anything. It felt like the films were trying to get audiences invested using tricks. Now, there's a lot I really do like about the Sequel Trilogy and the newer characters generally work better than the new characters in Picard, but it's still this mashup of old and new that never quite finds its footing.

    @Daniel
    "Garak kills fellow members of an away team on Empok Nor while under the influence of a psychoactive agent permeating the derilect station. He expresses remorse, but isn't charged with the deaths."
    Actually Miles informs Garak at the end of the episode that there will be an inquiry. People also say that Jurati was somehow not in control of herself. Chabon said about her reasons that she was "when she killed her former boyfriend convinced it was for the greater good". So she is absolutely guilty.

    @Daniel
    "Raffi and Seven holding hands isn't a big, shocking thing. It isn't "in your face". In a series (and franchise) where people have hooked up with members of the other species--often only shortly after meeting, this is an extremely tame expression of affaction. What it is, is a possible avenue for character development and story building. I'm all for normal, and even subtle depictions instead of showpiece "in-your-face" or "to make a point" kind of depictions."

    well here's the problem, it's a token "relationship" thrown in with absolutely no background, no buildup, essentially no story. It's probably the most cliche and lazy thing they could have done. "Hey audience, LOOK at THIS! This is where the former borg who desperately wanted to be normal and human instead turns into a vengeful, murdering alcoholic, and finds solace in another bitter substance user who abandoned her family, and now they can HOLD HANDS. LOOK at them holding hands. Isn't TRUE LOVE so beautiful? Aren't we a great writing team? Look how awesome we are."

    They did the same thing with Jurati and Rios. Another "relationship" launched after a random sexual encounter that makes literally no sense, with no buildup, no story, and really, no chemistry between the actors (and how could there be when they had no time to build any).

    Look, your missing the point. What the writers are doing, is thinking that they can get away with tossing a relationship up on the screen in the laziest way possible. Any TV series where relationships just "start" at random without any explanation or backstory, comes off like the writers are just lazy, or very young, or both. It's tailor-made for a generation of young people who swipe faces on Tinder. "Relationships" appear and disappear at random, depending on the situation. "Stuck on La Sirena for a few weeks? Aw shucks, I guess we should hold hands."

    "It's so deep".

    Please...it's not.

    @Dave "Gamadan sure sounds an awful lot like Ramadan. Lazy writing"

    I thought that too but my association was not "Ramadan" but "Armageddon". Note that when Rizzo compares Gamadan to familiar human terms he uses "Ragnarok" and "Jugdement Day". Most of us would probably first think of Armageddon before coming up with Ragnarok.

    Regarding the top 30 Episodes: no, i don't think that any of the episodes of Picard qualify, but neither did any of those from season one of TNG or VOY. In Season one of DS9 we have "Duet". And if we all would try to compile a list of our top 30 episodes we would find that quite a few other seasons wouldn't contribute either because with a total of 28 seasons to choose from thats an average of one per season. It simply is a very high bar to cross.

    @msw188, that's an interesting take. I will say I think Data's quest for humanity does become a source of both dramatic tension and intellectual stimulation (although you're right perhaps more the latter). For me, the drama came not from the actor or character visibly emoting, but from the audience knowing that he was coming so close to emoting but never quite making it. Episodes like "The Most Toys" actually do use Data's quest for humanity for dramatic tension. I don't know if 10 straight episodes of that would have worked, which speaks to a point about the benefits of episodic TV, which allows you to tell a tight, focused story like "Measure of a Man." I could see a better written version of Soji's story written as a two parter.

    Speaking of Soji, I think another reason I didn't find her arc compelling is that we've seen this same thing so many times in Blade Runner, etc. AI/alien finds out her true nature, is shocked, considers lashing out against humanity, decides against it in the end. It's time for new takes on AIs. I predicted most of Soji's arc from the very first episode. That's not to say I "hated" the character or the arc, I just felt like it wasn't anything that grabbed me.

    And yes we should all be careful about judging a character like Soji against one like Data with decades of history. But as you said unfortunately the show does juxtapose them.

    The episode spent its last 12 minutes fixing Nemesis' mistake (killing yet not killing Data) while at the same time making the same mistake yet again (killing yet not killing Picard). Plus, if someone didn't catch the butterfly metaphor, it's spelled out in dialogue for you. That's not really the level of writing I was expecting behind all this money, talent, and limited number of episodes. I did enjoy many moments of Picard, plus two or three episodes were really great. And yeah, I liked it considerably more than Disco's 1st season. But my wish is that we could compare STP to other great TV today, not just to the other Trek shows. Instead we have to live with magical thingies that fix the ship and distract a whole Romulan fleet.

    @Walding,

    Re. the top 30 Trek episodes of all time, I think "Prime Factors" from VOY's 1st season just barely makes it for me. I think VOY's first season was its best. It is notably shorter though. It also benefited from 90s Trek being a well-oiled machine when it first aired while TNG had to find its footing.

    Interesting that I have 4 TOS S1 episodes in my top 30 -- but I truly and objectively think it is the best season Trek ever produced.

    With 700+ Trek episodes, to be top-30 is pretty special.

    I agree with Booming's assessment of Jurati's culpability. You must have an enquiry to make a threshold determination of mental capacity. You don't just assume it, one way or the other. A psychologist assesses whether, under the circumstances, you acted of your own volition. That you knew what you were doing. Related to this, you ask whether Jurati understood right from wrong at the time she took Maddox's life.

    Given what we know, the most likely conclusion is she was aware and was acting of her own volition. It's possible that someone could conclude she was so overwhelmed by the Admonition that she was basically carrying out orders to kill. That she had no real control. I just don't think the facts, as we see them, support this. Similarly, we must ask whether her concept of right and wrong was compromised by the Admonition, such that she honestly did not know that killing Maddox was wrong under the law. This, by the way, is different from whether she believed the act itself was morally justified. I think she was aware that killing Maddox was illegal. Her comments to Picard later are pretty revealing of her state of mind.

    So, she's probably guilty under the law. However, the presence of the Admonition and her belief that Maddox is some agent of death could reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter or something similar. Moreover, on sentencing several of these factors could be used to significantly "mitigate" a prison term.

    However, her belief that killing Maddox served a greater good would probably be viewed as vigilante justice and not accepted. It might also contravene or muddy the mitigation arguments.

    2 years in a mid-level prison sounds about right.

    @Dom

    I think it's a fair point you raise, but I think some of what you say "capturing the sense of wonder and exploration, etc." is an impossibly high bar in a sense. If I think back to TNG, I do agree that series did a great job, but I was also 10 years old when the first season aired, and between now and then I've watched a lot of TV that has collectively explored a lot of different themes from a lot of different angles. I think it's a lot harder to recapture that "sense of wonder" these days in a way that still feels original and fresh because everything has already been done in one form or another.

    That being said, I do still think your points are very valid, but I guess I interpreted STP as starting out in the cynicism and darkness, but ultimately trying (and maybe coming short) to pivot away from that and back into the optimism of classic Trek. I guess we will have to see how this plays out in future seasons though.

    Why did she kill Maddox? In what way could that hinder the plan of the synth? If she had not killed him they would have found the synth planet immediately. Killing him actually made finding the synth harder.

    @Lynos

    I tried to respond to each of your points:

    - Why was the Borg cube introduced as a major part of the story if it served as nothing more than the evil Romulans secret base? Please recall that the arrival of the Borg cube at the synth planet was totally superfluous to the story except for bringing Seven and Elnor with it.

    I thought the cube was an effective way to tie together some of the threads in the overall plot but you might be right that it was a missed opportunity by the writers.

    - Why was Soji on the Borg cube?
    - Why was Dahj on Earth?
    While this is certainly an unanswered question, I didn’t find to be a hindrance to the overall story or that unreasonable of a situation. I assume they were there to gather intelligence and/or steal technology.

    - Who is Dahj and Soji's "mother" seen briefly in the earlier episodes.
    The show established that this was an AI designed to prevent them from realizing what they really were.

    - Why is there no stun setting to anyone's weapons on this show? Why is there no use of detecting warp signatures (to call Picard's bluff in this episode)? Why is the technology of the established universe the story takes place in ignored?
    The warp signature thing was addressed in the episode. I don’t think Romulan weapons have stun settings and/or the person firing the weapon didn’t want to stun. Not sure what ignored technology you are referring to.

    - Why is Jurati not answering for her crime?
    I mean, she probably should but you could say she was under the influence of Oh and not in the right state of mind. I assume this will be re-visited later in the series.

    - How did the synths came to proliferate Federation space? What makes them tick? How do they differ from each other?
    I agree all that was pretty underdeveloped and definitely a weak part of the overall story.

    - Why did Data have to die when you can just download his consciousness to another android or even a to a mobile computer such as a starship?
    He asked to die. The show didn’t delve too deep into his reasons but those were his wishes and they respected them.

    - Why is Picard flying the La Sirena if it was established there are multiple holograms that are able to do it?
    It’s possible that the holograms would only take orders from Rios for something like that and maybe Picard wanted to fly it himself.

    - Why is nobody concerned there is a working beacon in the middle of a presumably at least semi-hostile android colony capable of summoning aliens that will destroy all organic life?

    The beacon got destroyed. Certainly, the knowledge to create one is still there (though that knowledge is probably also on the sensor logs of all those ships as well). I assume people are concerned but what you going to do at this point? The colony has no reason to create the beacon again so long as Starfleet continues to protect it. Though I would assume both Starfleet and the Romulans will be keeping a close eye on the colony going forward.

    Why is Soji invited aboard when five minutes before she was about to murder all the organic races in the galaxy and never really showed any kind of regret or self-doubt?
    She proved herself when she destroyed the beacon. I think it plays into the overall theme of the episode of optimism and trusting each other.

    @Dom
    "For me, the drama came not from the actor or character visibly emoting, but from the audience knowing that he was coming so close to emoting but never quite making it"
    Yeah, some of the best emotional Data episodes do make great use of this. The whole "somehow the fact that Data can't be sad makes us feel even sadder for him" idea. It is, however, fair to ask if a story like this could've had the same impact early on in the show's run.

    "Speaking of Soji, I think another reason I didn't find her arc compelling is that we've seen this same thing so many times in Blade Runner, etc. AI/alien finds out her true nature, is shocked, considers lashing out against humanity, decides against it in the end."
    Yeah, I'll agree that the scifi angle on Soji is not only clumsy writing-wise, it's also unoriginal and somewhat uninspired concept-wise. For me it worked out okay for a couple of reasons. One, I almost always bought what the actress was selling. Even including her sometimes shittily written scenes with Narek. Two, the teenager angle of the writing (and performance) worked for me. Like we've both been saying (and maybe some others, Flip?), its closer in writing to a teenager coming-of-age story. Not super-original, but the subject is timeless and the execution was good enough (not great) for me.

    I keep bringing it up, but the Soji scenes on Nepenthe really worked for me. Mainly those with the kid, but even the tomato scene. These are the kind of heavy-handed dialogues (Troi-Soji: the "real" tomato is somehow inherently better, but no all types of people belong) that I'll consistently allow in Trek. Ditto Picard spelling out the role-model issue to Jurati in this last episode.

    If you look at the scifi AI angle as just a construct to have these kinds of human issues, I think it works out pretty well. Unfortunately, the show didn't just do that. It tied the scifi angle into all sorts of ridiculous bullshit in order to push the "stakes" beyond believability, which in turn pushes the plot beyond believability, and leaves the character of Soji borderline illogical in her own universe. As we've all said plenty enough, it's beyond bonkers that Soji has the power to ERADICATE LIFE, is about to, then changes her mind, and then we go straight to reviving Picard and happily ever after.

    Here's another weird plothole. If Soji calls the robot worms, won't they kill Picard and everybody else? Why is she, or any of the robots, worried about keeping Picard on house arrest, or keeping Narek captive, or anything? If you've made up your mind to set up the beacon, just kill whatever organics you've got lying around who are bothering you! Why not?

    Our judgement of these things is indeed subjective. While I loved the Original Star Treck when it was broadcast i never saw it as in the same. League as the Next Generation. Which doesn't stop me still loving it. When I decided this lock-in was a good time to rewatch the whole thing (700 or so episodes - I'm not expecting things to be back to normal soon...) I instinctively started with the Picard Enterprise. (And while the first series is much shakier than Picard I am finding it very enjoyable.)

    @ Dave in MN

    "I can't imagine "Nepenthe" or "Magic etc" beating out the best out of the 726 Trek episodes pre STP-STD. "

    The dude I was replying to said Top 25 or 30 episodes. Name 30 episodes that are better than them? I could probably name ten that beats them out but I genuinely enjoyed both of those episodes and I would think they'd belong in the Top 25, for me at least, YMMV.

    @ Chrome

    "I don't know why, but this got me laughing. There must indeed be an interesting story for Janeway going from dangerously pragmatic castaway to Admiral."

    My head-canon is they promoted her to some meaningless desk job to get her out of the way. Can't court martial her because she's a bloody hero for getting her ship home but you can't give her another command because she's obviously a loose cannon, so you shuffle her off to a desk job somewhere where she can't do any additional damage.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Board_of_the_United_States_Navy

    I could see Starfleet having something similar and "promoting" her to it.

    @ Nick

    "In general Star Trek shows didn’t have strong first seasons so in that context I thought this season was good."

    My first exposure to Trek was a late night syndicated viewing of DS9's Duet, which stands the test of time and ranks in the Top 5 episodes of all Star Trek series, IMHO.

    Not totally disagreeing with you, but I gotta stand up for the first season of the shows, even TNG's panned first season had some good moments, and I don't really regard Voyager or DS9's first seasons as below average. Enterprise's was weird, but that's a whole separate discussion!

    @ Everybody Else

    Reading a lot of argument back and forth about the pros and cons of this season. One thing that sticks out in my mind is how Patrick Stewart said the show would tackle modern day themes. They started to do that, with the Romulan refugee crisis and XBs, but both storylines were ultimately abandoned in favor of the Data/synth story. I'm not unhappy we got to see Data get a proper sendoff but it occurs to me that could have happened without the whole synth story and a focus on the Romulans and XBs might have held more lessons (TNG was always at its best when teaching a lesson) relevant to today's times.

    IDK.

    Maybe they'll pick back up on the Romulans and XBs in the next season and it won't be a missed opportunity after all. I just fear that it will be quickly forgotten in favor of new adventures and galaxy ending threats that hook the audience but have no real relevance for today's world.

    If you were to pare down to just the 1st 10 episodes of each respective series 1st season of Trek, I think only TOS might have any in the top 30.

    Here's a fun way to give at least some closure to some of the many issues left unresolved. First off, eliminate a large chunk of episodes 2-5 to make room for one more episode at the end. Picard-bot is back, so now time to resolve some issues.

    1. Spend some time on conditions for lifting the synth-ban. Who actually knew how to build the beacon? Sutra was the one who did the mind-meld. Rewrite however it worked so that only Sutra and Soji knew how, Sutra is dead, and Soji's trust in the Federation is rewarded when they trust her to never tell anyone or do this again.

    2. Put Jurati on trial. Yes she committed murder, but the Admonition clouded her judgment, AND make it clear that Admiral Oh demanded that if they found Maddox, Jurati was under orders to kill him (although this makes no sense at all, it's no worse than what we got). Riker can be the judge, why not, more fan service. Can make it a semi-triumphant moment when he finds a good (story-wise, not logic-wise) compromise: Jurati is expelled from the Daystrom Institute. This gives her an extra reason to travel with Picard even though the synth ban has been lifted and presumably she would want to study robots again.

    3. Put Oh on trial. She was also under the Admonition influence, but her crimes were much more heinous and she would openly still believe in her cause. Life imprisonment, and the potential to return to her character later.

    4. Put Narek on trial. Similar to Oh, but never experienced the Admonition himself. Could actually be an interesting case - does seeing Soji (whom he apparently actually loved) change her mind let him change his beliefs? If so, does Soji choose to vouch for him? There's lots of potential for some fun writing choices here. What do people think? Is he imprisoned? Allowed to find and bury his sister? Become the pro-synth spokesman to the Romulans after Soji persuades the court to allow him to live? Become the anti-synth baddie after Soji and the Federation condemns him to life imprisonment, only to be busted out by Tal Shiar assholes next season?

    5. Something (anything) to gradually show 7of9 and Raffi connecting, if that's what they want. But 7of9 was so written so poorly in this series, I'm not sure what you do here.

    @ Lynos

    "Why is there no stun setting to anyone's weapons on this show?"

    Watch the SFX in Seven's scenes in "Stardust City Rag"; she stuns the first two guards (blue bolts), kills Bjayzl (red bolts), then switches back to stun (blue bolts again) to shoot her way out.

    The Romulan disruptor rifles are stated not to have a stun setting (glad they qualified this with "rifle", because Ensign Ro is brought down by a presumed stun setting from a Romulan pistol in a TNG episode, with no lasting injury, hell, she has the strength to get back up and engage in a fisticuffs right after being shot.....) but Federation weapons still appear to have it.

    And yes, I've argued this point before, some people think it's stupid that the color of the bolts would change, but that's been established in the JJVerse movies and Discovery, and they seem to have carried the concept forward to Picard's SFX. It may seem silly and counterintuitive, but it's not without precedent, recall the dialog from TNG's "Too Short A Season":

    Data: Their phasers sir, set to kill.
    Picard: Thank you Mr. Data, I have heard the sound before.

    If you can identify a kill setting from sound it's not a huge leap to imagine the bolts/beams changing colors. The behavior of the characters in the scenes also jives with the SFX.

    Let's be honest. Nothing in recent Trek is even remotely within the ballpark of the best from BSG, The Expanse, and Black Mirror. There was a time Trek was dominant in sci fi. Some of the best TOS, TNG and DS9 episodes are high watermarks for television, writ large. More than that, they inspired us to wonder, and dream, and move future sci fi writers to create grand new symphonies themselves.

    Black Mirror has some extraordinary episodes. The worldbuilding in The Expanse is probably the best we've ever seen in science fiction television. Certainly in the top 2 or 3. BSG is a monumental accomplishment. Ronald Moore is a hundred times the talent of Kurtzman. Hell, the new Lost in Space runs laps around this bland, stupid, nostalgia-reliant deck.

    Are there a few shows and a few moments that are genuinely solid in DSC and PIC? Yes, no denying that. Is there anything that really moves any of us in the way Trek used to. No damn way. Maybe these shows will get better. But, honestly, who cares. They just don't matter much anymore.

    When you "flatten" Trek, even when you succeed financially it doesn't matter. You miss the whole point of the extraordinary voyage that Roddenberry set in motion all those years ago.

    Flip asked, "What actually makes Soji compelling?"

    A few things come to mind:
    - the actress and the character are very winsome. She's an engaging character even if you look at her as a human rather than an android.
    - she is Data's legacy, and in part, Picard's too.
    - Soji has super powers, but not so much as to make her invincible (as seen with Dahj's last stand). In fact, one of my disappointments with the season was that we didn't get to see her kick tail like Dahj. I bet we will if we get another season.
    - her status (and Picard's) as an android open up some metaphysical/philosophical possibilities to explore.
    - Kestra said it best, "You can have Picard and he can have you". They also set this up with him talking about the androids as children and needing someone to teach them how to live. Picard has never been very close to anyone (apart from in the Inner Light), and this angle as him as father figure deeply invested in his "daughter" (and vice versa) could be a very enjoyable angle to explore.

    The hyper-critics throughout this season look only as far as the episode that has last played rather than to what they are also trying to set up for future episodes/seasons. This has been tiresome, especially as some of the points people have harped on have been addressed in subsequent episodes. (How much did we hear a flood of complaints about the EMH and its witness of the murder, and how it was glossed over - then in a later episode it ratted her out! Many such examples could be produced).

    @Tim, Agree with your point about the social commentary. far from complaining about "politics in my Star Trek," I was looking forward to Trek dealing with contemporary issues. The scene with the Romulan refugees and Picard's interview in the first episode seemed very on point, but as you said it just didn't go anywhere. I think the worst part of it is that it really mangles any commentary. If you take the show at face value, it seems to be saying that refugees present a massive security threat and that we're right to be suspicious of foreigners. The Romulans ended up being the mustache-twirling villains who infiltrated Starfleet and were behind the attack on Mars. Raffi's prejudice against the Romulans is vindicated. Picard only stops the Zhat Vash cabal by calling in a large fleet. Surely that's not the message Patrick Stewart and the writers intended. Right?

    @James White, is Lost in Space any good? I watched the first episode but it didn't grab me.

    @James White

    I get your point that Star Trek used to be synonymous with the best sci fi that TV had to offer and that is no longer the case. STP will probably never be as good as BSG but for me it doesn’t have to. I can watch a good (albeit not great) series about my favorite Trek characters and still find it enjoyable and entertaining. I don’t it’s wrong to hold Trek to a high standard, but I also think it still has value when it inevitably fails to live up to that standard. I would rather an attempt like STP then nothing at all.

    @Nick, I get what you're saying. I probably would have been in the same boat 15 years ago. During the 90s, Trek was the only high quality sci-fi on TV (aside from Babylon 5, which had much lower production quality). Now though there are just too many other good shows on TV, video games to play, movies to watch, and books to read. If a new Trek show's not great, then why bother? It's not like we don't have other options.

    Some points on Nick's points.

    Assuming that Jurati's crime will be revisited in later seasons is very generous. The way the episode played out, the actual murderer and the almost genocidal maniac are all smiling part of the crew and best friends. No hint they have any intention of making them facing consequences for their actions. They might pull a Rogue One and retcon consequences in the face of much outrage from viewers, but many of us won't buy that it was the plan all along.

    The issue of showing trust in Soji being a theme is undermined by the ridiculous scale of her crime. As I said above, if they could have resisted their urge to make this about the destruction of all life in the galaxy, it could have worked.

    Why were Dahj and Soji where they were? Maddox said something about sending them out to monitor anti-synth activity. Why then send Soji to a derelict Borg cube. More importantly, why were they sleepers? That is never addressed and as it stands makes no sense. YMMV whether these supermassive plot holes affect the overall experience, but to many of us, when the narrative is geared around the mystery these things matter.

    @Glom

    "Why were Dahj and Soji where they were? Maddox said something about sending them out to monitor anti-synth activity. Why then send Soji to a derelict Borg cube. More importantly, why were they sleepers? That is never addressed and as it stands makes no sense. YMMV whether these supermassive plot holes affect the overall experience, but to many of us, when the narrative is geared around the mystery these things matter."

    Maddox said he knew there was sort of Romulan conspiracy that was targeting his work with synthetics and he wanted to know the truth about it. He knew that the conspiracy had penetrated the Federation, so it seems that he sent Dahj off to gather intel in the Federation while Soji did something similar with the Romulans. We can assume they're "sleepers" because if they both know they were androids and started behaving like androids, they'd likely blow their cover and Maddox would get nothing.

    Agnes getting off the hook for murder 1 with no discussion is a prime example of the bizarre and perversely warped ethics of the Kurtzman shows.

    Previous Trek series had moments of questionable ethics; Picard was chastised by Starfleet brass for not enacting genocide on the Borg and ordered to carry it out if he got another chance, and Starfleet was perfectly happy to do the same to the Dominion. That's kinda fucked, but in both cases we got pushback from the characters. Picard accepts his rebuke from Starfleet in a way that makes it clear that he would never actually carry out that order, and Odo goes out of his way to find a different solution. It was clear that even when the world around the characters demanded morally questionable acts, the characters considered them, rejected them and found a better way. Or when they couldn't, like Sisko in "In the Pale Moonlight", the show made a point of showing the characters grappling with such dilemmas, and made it clear how conflicted they were in compromising their values.

    Compare that to STP and STD. Starfleet plants a bomb on the Klingon planet and puts the detonator in the hand of a sockpuppet leader. Then Micheal Burnham gives a big "we are Starfleet, we have values" speech and there is no further discussion on this course of action. Everyone is fine with it.

    Jurati has a vision forced on her that by the show's own admission she can never really make sense of. Instead of seeking help from literally anyone (including Picard), she makes the choice to murder her ex. She feels bad and is told she must turn herself in but once the quest ramps up everyone just kinda forgets about it. At one point she asks "Am I still under arrest?" and no one answers. The season ends with her and Rios holding hands and smiling at each other. Apparently we the audience are supposed to be happy for her and never mind the murder. Again, bizarre.

    In both cases (threatening genocide and letting a murderer go scot-free) the shows just blow past these glaring issues with none of the characters raising any real objections. Neither STP and STD have any interest in exploring ethical issues to any real extent; instead, everything the characters do is essentially fine by default, because they are Our Characters.

    And in lieu of working through moral dilemmas we get what? Soppy melodrama and unearned schmaltz? Booooooo.

    There are so many things I could say about this omnishambles of a show... but I am simply going to just keep it to one single nitpick for this episode, or I'll be here all night. As far as I can tell it's only been mentioned by one other person:

    All those federation ships are the same class? When have you ever seen a taskforce made up of just one type of ship? And the most advanced ship in the fleet and there happen to be that many of them all in one group? And they're a bit on the small side too. And they're far, far too close together.

    Cheap CGI, that's what it is. Think about all the effort that went into building the starship graveyard in Best of Both worlds and then compare it to this!

    Well I've said my piece now.

    Couple of problems there.

    First, that really backfired didn't it? I mean it could not possibly have gone worse. The Zhat Vash were not fooled for a second (how did they find out about either of them anyway?) and they exploited Soji to get sensitive information that she didn't know she needed to protect.

    Second, if he can program them to behave as perfectly passable humans, then he can program them to act like perfectly passable humans while knowing their true identity.

    Third, still doesn't explain why Soji was on a Borg cube of all places (other than to shoehorn the Borg into this for no reason) or why Dahj was wasting time with uni applications and having a boyfriend. Why are they not at places that matter more to respective government policy?

    "First, that really backfired didn't it?"

    Maddox was not aware of how sophisticated the Zhat Vash was. Really though, how could he know that? In Maddox's defense, it appears as if the androids could defend themselves when needed and even seek out help like Picard (I think Dahj even knew Picard specifically could be trusted).

    "Second, if he can program them to behave as perfectly passable humans, then he can program them to act like perfectly passable humans while knowing their true identity."

    That's a big assumption to make. What would he even have to gain by having them know they are androids? Presumably, he can already activate them when it suits his purposes.

    "Third, still doesn't explain why Soji was on a Borg cube of all places"

    A Borg cube where Romulans are doing research on synthetic technology in a joint operation with the Federation, you mean. It sounds like the perfect opportunity to gain intel on the Romulans.

    @James Taylor

    "Let's be honest"

    You've fallen into the trap of thinking that your opinion is objectively the right opinion, and that anyone who disagrees with you is not being honest, and is insincere. That is a fallacy, as it would be a fallacy if anyone else were to say the same thing to you.

    Commodore Oh putting a mental block on Jurati regarding the vision she showed her in the meld is in the story, which is why she didn't seek any outside help. Whether thats a satisfactory or reasonable explanation, ymmv.

    "Why are they not at places that matter more to respective government policy?"

    I thought being accepted to The Daystrom Institute would be the perfect place to infiltrate Starfleet.

    I cannot wait for redlightmedia's two hour evisceration of this puke of a show. Its going to be glorious.l

    @Glom

    You are probably right on Jurati. It would have been better if she left with Riker's fleet in custody and have the plot pick up from there in season 2. I suppose I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, but to your point it sure does feel like lazy writing. If they don't seriously address this in season 2 its a huge problem.

    I still think it works with Soji though. Picard alluded to how the Synths are basically children that haven't had any good guidance. It's also interesting that while everyone on the show behaved as if those advanced Synths were going to wipe out all life in the galaxy, nobody really knew what was going to happen. While those tentacle things did look pretty evil, they could have been benevolent. There's no reason to think that a race that advanced would care at all about life in the galaxy and doesn't already have the ability to wipe out all life in the galaxy if it wanted to.

    Maybe the point is that Soji was willing to accept the risk of all life in the galaxy being wiped out and that by itself is pretty bad, but up until Starfleet arrived they didn't have a choice other than to get wiped out themselves. It's maybe a little more understandable when you are facing extinction and have the mental maturity of a child / teenager. When Starfleet arrived and she had a better option, she took it (albeit with a little nudging from Picard). Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't see a huge issue with it.

    I can't believe that you are giving this higher ratings that Voyager.

    This series was terrible.

    @Dom

    What else is there to do? You are correct, I watch this show and discovery because they are under the Star Trek name. And I don’t think they are BAD shows, simply mediocre. Like I said, I most likely would have stopped watching or never started if these were original sci fi shows with no relation to Star Trek. But again, what is there to do? I have a connection with the characters and franchise going back years and I like the show enough to continue. It’s not going to get better without a rehaul of the showrunners and writers. It’s sad because I’m pretty sure Ira Steven Behr would take the job of showrunner if offered. But it seems CBS wants to create “the future” of Trek even when it’s not what the vast majority of the fan base is looking for. Talented proven writers that are older can still take Trek to “the future”

    @Nick, I think what you're saying about Soji could make sense, but these are issues that probably should play out in the show. I'd be fine if there was some ambiguity about the evil intent of those AIs. But that doesn't quite absolve Soji, who was going to call to them in order to kill all life. Even then, a story about forgiveness could work, but I think we'd have to see some atonement. Maybe even a few more scenes after the climax of her expressing remorse for her actions, showing that she had grown, etc. I had a similar problem with The Rise of Skywalker. We see Kylo Ren murder people in cold blood, but then a few scenes later he wakes up, becomes a good guy, and kisses Rey. To be fair, the problems with Ben Solo are greater than for Soji because at least she didn't go through with her threat and didn't actually kill anyone in cold blood.

    @Cody B, I'm not blaming you. I get it. I'm just pointing out a broader dilemma we all face.

    “I'm just pointing out a broader dilemma we all face.”

    Ah yes, the royal we at work again. Don’t presume you speak for all of us. Or any of us. We can think for ourselves.

    Truly don’t understand all the fixation on Jurati “getting away” with murder.

    Data hijacked the Enterprise (“Brothers”) and was never held to account. He betrayed everyone (“Descent”) and was also never held to account.

    O’Brian, Data, and Tori attempted to hijack the Enterprise (“Power Play”) and were never held to account.

    Others pointed out Garek’s murder of the redshirt and kidnapping of Nog (“Empok Nor”)

    Keiko attempted to murder the Prophets (“The Assignment”)

    The list of Star Trek characters getting away with heinous crimes under duress is literally limitless. And don’t forget the people (Sisko and Janeway come to mind with numerous examples) that violate orders/commit crimes with full command of their facilities without being held to account.

    For what it's worth, a quote from an interview with the showrunners that suggests this issue will be addressed in season 2:

    Q: Does Jurati get away scot-free for the Bruce Maddox murder? Seems like she was going to get arrested.
    A: Well, I mean, in fairness she hasn’t had a chance to turn herself in, yet.

    Q: Will Jurati face legal punishment for the murder of Maddox?
    A: She will put herself in the hands of the law.

    On Soji:
    Q: Did Soji grasp that she was summoning the genocide of billions?
    A: I think she struggled to. Her true consciousness is new and unformed; while she is in some ways incredibly sophisticated, in others she has far to go,;’ and she has undergone recent, painful trauma.

    Q: Does Jurati get away scot-free for the Bruce Maddox murder? Seems like she was going to get arrested.
    A: Well, I mean, in fairness she hasn’t had a chance to turn herself in, yet.

    Gross. Alison Pill is going to be back next season then.....

    Much better episode than I expected considering how average Part 1 was... And as a series, I felt this was the best first season of any Trek series. I found myself looking forward to the next episode each week much more enthusiastically than I did back during each of the previous first seasons of Trek series dating all the way back to TNG and the Original Series. I would not put it above the second season of Discovery though, which did a better job of balancing the long arc and self-contained stories in each episode than PIC did. PIC seemed to depend too much, 100%, on the single long-story arc.

    There are several things that this finale does well on the other hand, and yet leaves some loose ends plot holes in others. The biggest case of "missing the boat" of the series in my opinion is Narek. Showrunners neither exploited the actor's talent nor explored his character well. Even in this finale, an intriguing question is put forth about Narek feeling insecure about being considered a "failed Zhat Vash" which taps into the idea of him trying to prove himself, which would have been a great angle to explore to add depth to his character, but it gets brought up only in the series' finale and gets dropped as soon as it's brought up. We don't even know where Narek is by the end of the show. He is kinda forgotten.
    I also believe they made an error in killing Hugh, it seems he would have fit perfectly into the idea of leaving the Borg cube behind under his leadership to pick itself back up in the AI planet.

    Riker in the uniform was awesome, I yelled when he showed up and had a big smile on my face with each of his lines. Soji and Rios are great characters to continue onto the second season, as well as Raffi who probably has the most interesting background (but did not get explored enough). I really really enjoyed Picard's one-on-one's with Soji (Isa Briones, great casting choice). FInally, Data gets a much nicer farewell here than he ever did in Nemesis. I cannot say that my eyes did not tear up.

    Overall, like I said above, solid first season, the pilot and the finale were tow of the better episodes, which helps. Welcome back Sir Patrick and see you in the second season.

    I assume that Data's choice to reject android immortality was inspired by the similar choice made by the protagonist of Asimov's story "Bicentennial Man" which was ultimately made into a not entirely successful film with Robin Williams as the would-be human ribot. In both cases the motivation was that having a life destined to end is an essential aspect of being human, which for both characters was their abiding wish.

    Of course there could in principle have been the option of giving him the same deal as Picard - a synth body with inbuilt limited lifespan, perhaps set to the same initial age as Picard. But I suspect Brent Spiner might have preferred not to soldier on, and it made for a good scene. It would have been more elegant artistically if Picard had done the same - but I'm glad he didn't.

    Incidentally I was curious why they decided to give Picard the age of 94, when Patrick Stewart is only a pretty sprightly 79. Perhaps it was a nod in the direction of respecting 24th century medicine - in Farpoint Bones was still getting round and slagging off Vulcans at 137.
    ............
    It strikes me there's a need for at any rate one extra member for the crew. There's always been at least one outsider in a Startrek crew - Spock in TOS, Data, in TNG Odo and Worf in DS9, the Doctor and later 7 of 9, in Voyager, Dr Phlox in Enterprise...I don't think having two humanised synths aboard really fills that spot. They need someone who's genuinely alien. Though at a pinch I suppose Elnor might do.

    It is amazing, and somewhat comforting, to see how much mileage Star Trek can wring out of two of the worst narrative missteps (Hobus and Data's death) in the franchise's history.

    Kurtzman in 2032: Have you been pining for an epic four-season Jonathan Archer series somehow stemming from the removal of Icheb's eyeball? Have we got a show for you!!!

    @Tim

    Most of the examples you cited were cases of straight-up bodily possession, or in Data's case, programming. The example most analogous to Jurati's situation is Data's programming being influenced by Lore in "Descent". And yea, he got off too easy. I'd argue that that is slightly less jarring in a more episodic format than a serialized one, but point taken.

    IMO Jurati killing Maddox was portrayed as different than something like Geordi being turned into a Manchurian candidate to kill a senator or Troi and Myles being posessed. As Maddox was dying she said "I wish I didn't know what I know", as in "I wish I didn't have to do this but I have to" which implies she was lucid enough to make the decision to kill.

    If they follow up with a trial/inquiry in season 2 I will be satisfied, even if she gets off easy from being "under duress". Someone mentioned the "mental block" that Oh installed which I agree is relevant. Following up on this plot will give Picard a chance to shine in a classic Trek courtroom episode, which I would love to see from newer Trek.

    That said, in the last few episodes there was zero implication from anybody that Agnes will have to face consequences next season. The fact that the show just blows by her killing Maddox to focus on her and Rios as a happy couple was pretty off-putting.

    James, take care and hopefully it's not health-related?
    See you next time.

    @ James White

    “Tim - you really don't understand how the criminal justice system works.”

    Spare me the Internet put down; it’s entertainment, not reality.

    @ Sen-Sors

    “Most of the examples you cited were cases of straight-up bodily possession, or in Data's case, programming.”

    Sisko took it upon himself to violate orders and commit the Federation to a war on behalf of the Cardassians (“Way of the Warrior”) without ever being held accountable.

    He violated orders again in an earlier episode (“The Die is Cast”) without consequence, risking the safety of an entire planet just to save one crew member.

    He poisoned an entire planet (“For the Uniform”) once and it was quickly forgotten about by the end of the episode.

    Janeway threatened to murder prisoners (“Equinox”) and actually murdered Tuvix. She formed an alliance with the Borg and nearly dragged the Federation into a war it most certainly would have lost against species 8472 (“Scorpion” and “In the Flesh”).

    None of these instances had alien possession, brain washing, or any other sort of mitigating circumstances that would present a defense of justification under any 21st Century legal system. An American service member that did any of these things would spend the rest of their life in prison and perhaps even face the death penalty.

    Point being, as I said to the other guy, it’s entertainment, not reality. The list of Star Trek characters getting away with criminal actions is nearly limitless and only rarely (Star Trek III and IV) have the characters actually had to answer for their actions.

    Tim, I agree that there is too much being made of it (plus we do not know what may come of it next season). Similar offenses have been done before, some of which you list accurately.

    Some of the criticism is done for the sake of criticizing Kurtzman (because, you know, ALL hell broke loose with Kurtzman, he is the evil of it all, the devil with trident coming after all classic Trek values maaaan, ggghhh...), but some of it is genuine in the sense that people have the expectation that nothing like this should go severely unpunished. It has to do more with people's belief systems in my opinion.

    It is not a stretch for me to consider either that Picard and crew understood the complexities of Surati's situation and what she believed at the time, and feels deeply ashamed of it, and thus do not believe she should be seen as any ordinary murderer. Circumstances were quite singular. Just like I did not have a problem with Janeway and Sisko in your examples above. I would like to nonetheless hope that the writers will address this issue in the second season and not totally let it drop to the records of history.

    @Tim

    I'd argue that the biggest difference between Jurati's arguably cold-blooded murder and your excellent list of Trek characters getting away scot-free is that PIC is styled as a serial and prior Treks were episodic.

    Episodic Trek has shown to extensively use the reset button for all matter of situations, and as applicable here, in "breaking the law" by Trek characters.

    However, PIC, as a serial, arguably can't just sweep away events under the rug; it has to address them head on, otherwise how do we get invested in a continuous narrative story (with beginning, middle, end) if we expect a reset? There's no risk for the characters for any action they take in that situation. This is currently the situation with Jurati, pending Season 2 addressing it.

    That being said, my argument is weak in PIC's case because the producers/writers did decide to use resets all over the place (not just for Jurati). Season 2 can still address Jurati, however, but narratively Season 1 has left a crapload of loose ends to address.

    I believe someone asked they made Picard 94. As I recall Roddenberry envisioned Picard as being around age 60 when TNG began. I vaguely recall this also being mentioned in the Encounter at Farpoint novelization. Patrick Stewart’s age has no impact on the character’s age and him being gray and bald was a benefit. Hey, it’s better than casting someone who was 60 and really would’ve been in their 90s by now!

    So I just rewatched Epi's 6 and 7 before cancelling my subscription. And I have to admit, I came away with a pretty positive feeling. Not every scene is great, but there is a lot of good stuff in there. Essentially, these two episodes make up the "Second Act" for Soji (maybe Epi8 as well, but that one is scattered between all of the other characters and attempts at plot "answers"). It's too bad that her "First Act" was so shoddy (establishing her and Narek) and somehow got spread over four episodes (she wasn't in Epi1, was she?). But I still like this Second Act, and despite the logic problems, I can appreciate her character conclusion and how it intertwined with Picard's.

    Maybe part of the problem with the show as a whole is that the narrative structure for Picard himself feels substantially weaker. Meeting Dahj and then seeing her die is a pretty good event to get the ball rolling, but then it takes so long before he manages to get off Earth. We have the regrettable diversion to stop and grab Elnor, and then the downright silly plot to get Maddox. Boy was Epi5 terrible. These should have been challenges for Picard to overcome that help us root for him. Instead they're excuses to show his problems getting solved by other people using violence. The closest Picard himself has to a true buildup towards the climax of the story is also in Epi's 6 and 7, where it is unclear first how he will manage to find Soji in time, and then how he will convince her to trust him. It's not bad (again, I like a lot of things about 6 and 7), but it's not exactly riveting stuff.

    Classic Trek doesn't always have amazing dramatic narrative structure either, but it's easier to swallow when the concepts are thoughtful and interesting and when you know you'll restart a new narrative in the following episode. Here, where the concepts are so wrought with logical problems and you're strapped into one narrative for ten hours, it's harder for me to deal with perhaps.

    A serviceable hour of TV. Not great. Not terrible. None of what makes Trek amazing. Just your typically B-grade action hour.

    Why are people drawn to fiction? Because sometimes you can tell a story that is more real if you aren’t held down by facts. Romeo & Juliet shows the intensity of young love ( https://youtu.be/NV7xJ73_eeM ) more acutely than a teenage reality show ever could. Othello tells us more about jealously than the Real Housewives.

    And with fiction, why in particular science fiction? Because great scifi explores ideas more radical and revolutionary than any other genre.

    Gene was a particular genius in scifi. But he wasn’t the only one.

    Asimov, a scientist in his own right, asked not how to make a robot, but rather, if we did make robots, what should we let it do? And more importantly, what should we prevent them from doing? Asimov's fiction set up a few rules - three rules ( https://youtu.be/2z7a8MTYrDE ) of robotics. Then he explored through entertaining thought experiments, how those three rules would work when they hit up against the real world.

    Asimov’s scifi *fictional* rules of robotics are a bedrock of how people think about AI ethics even today. His scifi mattered. His fiction was important work.

    Asimov was a particular genius. But he wasn’t the only one.

    James Cameron, with the help of Arnold Schwarzenegger, created an iconic cautionary tale of machines that were not bound by Asimov’s three rules of robotics. In The Terminator, robots not only destroy our future, they come back in time ( https://youtu.be/XPtVZ69lomk ) to destroy our past.

    The Terminator’s *fictional* note of caution is a bedrock of how people thing about AI run wild even today. His scifi mattered. His fiction was important work.

    James Cameron is a particular genius. But he wasn’t the only one.

    Gene, dear Gene, with Data - and especially the episode Measure of a Man - explored the idea that a man-made being, a ROBOT, a word which literally means "serf labor," could be a free man. It is no accident that the writer of that episode, Melinda Snodgrass, was a lawyer, and that that iconic hour of TV defined sentient rights - organic or artificial - though a courtroom drama - in a way that still shapes our thinking today. The Offspring ( https://youtu.be/mbVKLfmCDxg ) took it one step further still.

    Gene was a particular genius. But he wasn’t the only one.

    Nobel prize winning novelist Kazuo Ishiguro, in his incredible book Never Let Me Go, explores what it might be like for an artificially created life to be used, and then thrown away. Ishiguro explores the same questions another genius, Ridley Scott, did years earlier in Blade Runner ("I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.”). To some extent that’s also the case with Westworld and the “Humans” ( https://youtu.be/8sm23e0a5_w ) series.

    Even Voyager had an interesting arc ( https://youtu.be/m6Bi7tJK-j8 ) with a hologram bill of rights.

    We could talk about nBSG, and how the real question that artificial life raises is what it means to be human. Or The Matrix, and whether peaceful coexistence between human and sentient AI ( https://youtu.be/L0K6Cb1ZoG4 ) is even possible. Or the Daleks, and what kind of freakish results are possible when you merge artificial and organic life - the same question raised in a different way by the Borg.

    But ST:Picard? And entire show structured around artificial life, contributes… nothing.

    Well, at least they didn’t fuck it up.

    Pointless.

    Pointless characters: Elnor just exists, Narissa is only there to snarl evilly. Soong Son. Basically the new crew are still very thin.

    Pointless plots. Introducing a fatal brain defect that then gets undone. The entirety of the Borg Cube plotting. Seven momentarily becoming a Borg Queen. For no reason as it turns out. Absolute Candor Nuns (what happened to them?) The Romulan Refugee situation - that just disappeared, right around when the Romulans needed 218 Warbird pulled outta their...

    Pointless deaths: Icheb, Hugh, Picard! Riker's Son. Icheb, because even though we had a whole movie about the folly of single-minded revenge (Khan) we have to get a main character to want it because it's "edgy." Hugh, well he just had the misfortune of running out of purpose while under the pen of incompetence. Picard, because emotional manipulation, PSYCH! Riker's kid because of course that's tied into the one-note series backstory (Also, they retired to a planet with regenerative soil in the hopes it'd save their son even though they know about the freaking BRIAR PATCH?)

    Pointless music. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Berman moratorium of music during his tenure. There were some great, tense scores in the early years of TNG, and some that crept in and I'd have loved to get more. But my goodness the shmaltzy, sad piano tinkle that played throughout this series to tell the audience to be sad has got to go. I'm already feeling distance from these wafer characters, don't try to get me to emphasize with them by trying the emotionally manipulative music card. This isn't Full House guys, it's *supposed* to be Star Trek.

    Pointless swearing. Because even though "just because we *can* do a thing, does not mean we *should* do a thing" is apparently the mindset of the childish, we have to prove how edgy and adult our show is by exercising the privilege bestowed upon us by streaming TV. Even if it doesn't track with pre-established ethos of the franchise.

    Pointless deconstruction. Picard, like Disco, rips apart established Trek in a poor attempt at deconstruction but only as a means to serve flimsy plot. There is no wonder in things like synths/Romulans mindmelding or Seven being a Borg Queen. They just happen with no exploration of the ideas just to get to an arbitrary, underwhelming end point. It not just bad Trek, it's shoddy writing. They upended the world, broke out past the rules, or boundaries that establish what Trek is, not for a purpose, but simply because they didn't care to pay attention. That there is now labour and class divides at the heart of the Federation is shown, but not for any reason. That drug use and 20th century slang are back in wide use is used, but only as lazy writing or quick and dirty "characterization." And like, I get Patrick Stewart wanting a "Logan" scenario where he can send off his character on a high note and repeat that success with Trek, but people at the top just aren't talented enough to really pull that off.

    Pointless "fanservice": Hey, did ya see that reference we made? See how we know what we're talking about? Yeah I saw. I also saw how you used that reference as a lazy narrative bridge to move your plot along, or as a patch over a plot hole you couldn't be bothered to truely address.

    Pointless magical tech: This universe is now full of sh!t that goes unexplained and just works because it just does. Trek existed in a pseudo-rational state before 09 hit. Now we are presented with visually noisy, fatastical tech that exists as spectacle and nothing more. Yeah, Clark's law, sufficiently advanced blah, blah... Still doesn't explain why no one is awed by any of the seemingly magical tech going on around them. Picard who marvelled at Space jellyfish just lets telepathic robots pass him by as ho-hum. No spirit of adventure. In Trek the adventure is to see that magical technology and then *explore* it, and get an *understanding* of it. Whole episodes would be devoted to these things, and it'd make the universe feel more cohesive. Why? Because unexplained magical fantasy tech was always more Star Wars than Trek. In Trek, things didn't just "happen."

    Pointlessly making me dread the announcement of new Star Trek. I was always hoping Trek would come back as I watched the world delve into polarization, paranoia and fear. Where people valued their own opinions above merely extending them in debate to reach understanding and cohesion with those they disagree with. Star Trek was all about that, aspirational more that relatable, warning against man's follies with allegorical alien while we arbitrated as those that grew past such things and could now guide others along the path. Theatrical morality plays rather than realistic dramatics. Instead Trek has become typical sci-fi adventure shlock with cheaps twists, flat, argumentative, flawed characters, mystery box writing and rote lip service to anything more substansive. Sneer all you want at "This is not Star Trek", but Trek was always about upholding one's principles and standards, even in trying times, and as a Trek fan, I hold it to a higher standard than the majority of television today can reach, because that is what the show taught me, so when I see it floundering, trying to be like what else is on TV nowadays, I'm gonna speak up and hold it to the higher standard I know it could reach.

    There were moments throughout the show I liked. But they're far outweighed by the bad. Star Trek Picard does not reach that Trek standard. It exists. It is pointless.

    Really agree with Nolan’s well written post.

    Would love to see someone who likes PIC or at least tolerated it to write a thoughtful response.

    Some of what Nolan wrote got me thinking. A lot of things in Picard SOUNDS good if you were to just tell a fan of TNG who hasn’t watched Picard. Seven of Nine is in the show and she becomes a Borg Queen! Data has a daughter! Riker shows up at the end and saves the day! Hugh is in the series and gets killed! Icham to! Data gets a funeral! But then when you actually watch the series none of these things feel earned and have emotional weight. It’s like the writers are trying to throw out a bunch of greatest hits or something but they are hollow. It’s sad that the greatest moment of the season is Picard and Riker being given time to reflect and speak to each other. Everything else is flash with little to no substance

    @Glom

    Soji was on the Artifact to gain intel on the Admonition. Watch episode 3, especially the conversation with the nut job Zhat Vash Borg reclaimees.

    @Sen-Sors

    Interesting. I don't recall Sisko being all that troubled about poisoning the atmosphere of that Maquis colony in retaliation for Eddington's terrorist attacks, in order to force his surrender. Been awhile though. Maybe I just forgot.

    Pretty sure any competent attorney could get Jurati off. Not only was she under the influence of the Admonition, which all by its lonesome took out a Borg cube and generally drives people bat$# insane. She was also under the influence of Oh's mind meld. Mind melds all by their lonesome are harsh mistresses. Oh gave her not only the Admonition, but her fanatical mindset regarding the Admonition. Who knows? Season 2 episode 1 might open with the great great great great grandson of Samuel T. Cogley getting her off with probation.

    I'm tempted to go check how many of the people complaining about a still unresolved plot point in Picard, most likely dropped due to time constraints, also complained about The Orville's casual murder of a number of prison guards, during a botched prison break, which was never even mentioned afterwards in the episode, “All the World is Birthday Cake.”

    @Marvin

    Aw, thanks. Though going back I see a number of typos that slipped by me. Not grest for a post talking about upholding standards.

    Also I fear that a post supporting PIC in opposion to mine may reveal a hypocrite in me. As much as I can say we should extend our opinions in debate with the aim of understanding, I'd be lying if I said that I'm not also partially hopeful that my words would cause some to switch their stance and agree with me. I'll also cop to feeling a bit of pride from your praise and Cody B's response - though that could just be chalked to some mild imposter syndrome on my part. Cheers all the same.

    @ Cody B

    Exactly. They've marked out the dots. They may have even narratively connected them, but the picture is so abstract so as to not carry any meaning. It's all very flat. And I'll admit, once this show lost me, I was going to be critical of it, and any attempts to win me back. I will say, Nepethe *was* the closest this show got to Trek. Reflection, meaningful dialogue, a removale from the world of the show back to the familiar one we had, though it was still changed - for one the characters spoke like they were in Star Trek and not a Joss Whedon show from next week (though that *does* have a place on TV, just not in Trek. Sorry everyone who wants Firefly Trek)

    That said, I still prefer the book series Titan version of their daughter being Natasha (after Tasha) and they still had some loss from ptevious unsuccessful pregnacies due to events of "The Child" (although the book's origin and resolution of the Borg... ehhh)

    But at the end of the day, it's all very flat. After Nepenthe there were two other less bad episodes, but they were still only rising above the mire. I didn't bother commenting those weeks because I felt no joy in it. And I guess the show didn't frusterate me enough those weeks to require the catharsis of ripping them apart for not living up to their predecessors.

    Also, I lol when someone (forget who and I'm not scrolling this Great Wall of Text to find out) claimed that the people who don't like Picard never claimed it wasn't Star Trek. What's the purpose of the term NuTrek? Use the search function at the top of the page and search for "NuTrek" or for "Picard" and "not Star Trek"/"isn't Star Trek" and see how many people are making this claim. In fact, we have two people on this very page, who have expressed exactly that point of view. Use your browser "Find" function to take you right to it. So the notion that detractors aren't saying this is quite simply an erroneous claim.

    @Nolan: Concerning pointless characters: I agree that there is little reason for Elnor to exists in season one.

    But there is a good reason why a character like him should be on the crew. One of the things that made Star Trek great was its debate of important issues, when characters asked the question „why are we doing it this way“ and argued both sides of an argument even when the answer seemed obvious. In TOS it were Spock and McCoy doing the arguing, in TNG it was mostly Data asking Picard the questions, DS9 had Kira whose viewpoint differed significantly from the Federation crewmembers and in ENT the task of debating fell to Archer and T’Pol. Early VOY was notably lacking in this area until Seven of Nine came on board and that what one reason why her addition made VOY that much better (somehow Kes and Neelix were either not used or didn’t work out in that role).

    So if you build a crew for a Star Trek series be sure you have somebody on board who can asked the question „why“ and forces the characters to explain themselves or the universe. Unfortunately Elnor is not used this way. I think Picard would have been better if there were some scenes where e.g. Picard has to explain to him (and the audience) why the Federation took the synth-ban to such extremes that children are dying of curable diseases. Even if the answer is only like „It is stupid. You see people sometimes tend to do stupid things.“

    Four things I find interesting reading all this. People really like the Nepenthe episode. I didn't care for it because I saw it as manipulative and pointless. It is also the episode that has almost nothing to do with the overall story. Ok, Riker reappears as commander of the fleet which is nonsense for several reasons (being reinstated, getting off the planet, reaching the fleet, convince a bunch of admirals to let him command it.) This all happens in one day, I think? Who knows how time works in this show.
    In conclusion Sex may sell but nostalgia certainly does.

    The second thing and the far more concerning element is that now many people say: "You have to watch season 2 for this to make sense." So now one has to watch season 2 for the first one to make sense or be satisfying?! And if season two also makes no sense or explains anything then you just have to continue until that season that finally breaks you.

    The third thing is that nobody really seems to mind the sadness of everybody. What I really dislike about NuTrek is that everybody is broken, bitter and/or sad which is also the main motivation. Not any higher calling or ethical reasons maybe even goddamn curiosity.No, in the end it is all motivated by some personal problem. It's like the upside down Star Trek.

    The gayclusion. I'm all for including every flower out of the human/alien bouquet but here it is really shitty. The show includes LGBT but goes for the most timid way imaginable. So first there were the lesbian innuendos between 7 and crime lady and then we get another innuendo of lesbianism at the very end through Raffi's and 7's hand holding. As I mentioned in other posts. Lesbians are always the way to go if you want to include LGBT but also want to piss off the least amount of people (heterosexual men are more used to the concept of lesbian sex because of porn and women in general have less of a problem with LGBT stuff; women's higher tolerance towards LGBT is more or less culturally universal). The show has three explicit heterosexual relationships (people kiss, have sex) but the gays get a little hand snuggling at the end between still super attractive seven and Raffi. Also LGBT people are still less normal than the rest. Raffi is a neurotic drug addict who messed up her family so badly that they rather avoid contact, seven is an asocial, bitter alcoholic hellbent on revenge and the crime lady was a mass murdering psychopath. Inclusion! Yeah??

    These writers come from the Abrams/Kurtzman/lindelof school of tv writing. They get hung up structure and playing games with the audience that they can’t sit still and craft a well thought out story be it an episode long or a season long one

    I don’t care if they do a serialized show or episodic. Just be fresh and entertaining. The writers seem to think viewers require everything including the kitchen sink thrown in and constantly jumping from one plot point to the next to be happy. Maybe that’s true for some audiences maybe that’s true of the majority. I don’t have a pulse on tv viewers these days

    if the writers would just work with fewer concepts and ideas and develop them rather than cramming things in and giving them shirt shrift that would help and they could focus on giving better payoffs

    And they can still do a serialized season arc but be more Hill Street Blues and less Lost in that approach.

    @ Nick

    Thanks for taking on the points.

    "The show established that this was an AI designed to prevent them from realizing what they really were."

    Where? I'd like to go back and watch it in case I missed it.

    "The warp signature thing was addressed in the episode."

    Ditto.

    "I mean, she probably should but you could say she was under the influence of Oh and not in the right state of mind. I assume this will be re-visited later in the series."

    Nothing in the show suggested Jurati was under the influence of Oh when she committed the murder. Actually, the episode takes great pains to show this is a conscious decision by Jurati and that she is struggling with it as she's doing it. Yes, Oh showed her a vision, but that was a few days before and the decision to murder Maddox is solely on Jurati. I can't tell you how off-putting it is to see her cracking jokes with the crew and especially with Picard - a character who is supposed to have a rock solid moral center and still does NOTHING about Jurati.

    "He asked to die. The show didn’t delve too deep into his reasons but those were his wishes and they respected them."

    Yes, they certainly didn't delve into the reasons. Maybe if they did it would come off as less manipulative and nonsensical.

    "The beacon got destroyed. Certainly, the knowledge to create one is still there (though that knowledge is probably also on the sensor logs of all those ships as well). I assume people are concerned but what you going to do at this point? The colony has no reason to create the beacon again so long as Starfleet continues to protect it. Though I would assume both Starfleet and the Romulans will be keeping a close eye on the colony going forward."

    Yes, but it's still technically there, and the tentacle organic-destroying dudes presumably know where it came from. Just because you hung up doesn't mean that an uber-advanced alien race don't have your IP address. And the episode doesn't show any action by starfleet to secure the place. Actually, the entire starfleet armada simply vanishes once Oh retreats. You would think they would leave at least one vessel there, but nope. This place, which contained this highly dangerous device, is simply left unsecured, with the knowledge still in the possession of the synths. The writers must think we're idiots.

    The funniest thing about this show is that the bad guys were right all along. And if Picard hasn't intervened, they would've simply destroyed the device and the synths and saved the galaxy. Good on them I say!

    @ Tim

    Fair enough regarding the no-stun on the Romulan weapons. When I think about it, most of the weapons fired on the show were indeed Romulan. The level of carnage still seems excessive for a Star Trek show, but I guess they found a good excuse for it.

    Finally saw the finale, and I liked it. I had serious misgivings about the concept of being given a synth/Replicant/LMD Picard, but I thought it was handled well, and to take a phrase with Jammer, "they stuck the landing." In the end, it's not any more contrived than Spock's katra being transferred into the new body that appears on the Genesis planet (Was how that happened every *really* explained? Nah.). I agree that there were some plot loose-ends and the writers seemed to cram a lot of exposition into these last two episodes and could have benefited from pacing the whole season arc a bit better (ENT did this well with the Xindi arc for S3). The closure for Data was beautifully done.

    Some other thoughts.
    -Captain Riker showing up to kick ass and chew bubble gum? Hell yes.
    -The Rios/Jurati and Seven/Raffi(?) romances are all kinda blah, up there with Troi/Worf (ugh) and Seven/Chakotay (double ugh).
    -Really wanted a scene at Starfleet Command with Picard bitch-slapping Admiral Clancy before she's demoted to captain of a garbage scow.
    -Narek really annoyed me and I hope we never see him again. Narizzo's death was needed, though a part of me will miss the evil dominatrix vibe she brought (don't judge me).

    @Startrekwatcher Just as with Discovery, the writers spend their time layering mystery boxes upon an already creaking foundation of mystery boxes and then with a few minutes left, elect to tear them all open at once. A lone, random box in the pile will contain a flashbang grenade that blinds you and leaves your brain smarting in a concerted effort to distract you from the fact that the rest of the boxes were either empty or at best released a small asthmatic wheeze.

    I recall one of The Expanse S4 B-plots which stretched over quite literally half that season, and consisted of *MINOR SPOILER* a portion of the crew of the Rocinante solving the problem of a decaying orbit in order to attempt a rescue of 3 people. That's it. All the high-concept sci-fi stuff was left to the A-plot and it WORKED. It was focused, meaningful and entertained us without damaging that world.

    In Picard, there came that moment when Kurtzman and co. realised they didn't have any ideas about how to manage the hundreds/thousands of Borg on the cube awaiting reclamation; so their solution? Jettison them all into space! (presumably to slowly and painfully deteriorate as we know Borg can survive in a vacuum). They seem to expect us to marvel at this scene of countless living beings being tossed away as refuse, when a little while earlier we were invited to empathise with them as victims of a great crime, now being righted. "NOO" yells Seven in her super awesome, distorted Borg Queen voice. Cognitive dissonance for mine.

    I didn't love everything Chabon said in that Variety interview and I'm by no means convinced he is built for TV writing, but one of his answers made me wish he had full creative control from the outset of this show.

    "You know, personally speaking, my own tastes and inclination, I always said when we were in the earliest versions of the room for this show, if we could have just done a whole show about Picard and the dog on the vineyard in France, with no starships, no phasers, the only Romulans would be those two Romulans who work for him on the vineyard, and no politics — just, like, there’s a funfair down in the village and they all go, and maybe Picard solves a very low stakes mystery in the village, like, someone has stolen the antique bell out of the bell tower, or something like that? I would have loved to write that show."

    I think I would have been into that, actually. As it is this is where I'll completely sign off from Trek, at least while it's in the hands of Kurtzman. Should have done so earlier, but it's hard to tear yourself away from something culturally significant to you I guess.

    Stay safe everyone!

    @Booming
    I mean, yeah, ditto to pretty much everything you said. I'd have ssaid it too, but did you *see* text wall comment I left? I was bound to leave something out. Haha. Plus critiques that deviate close to "virtue signalling" is a dangerous place to go as it can conjure certain... connotations of it's own if improperly conveyed. But yes, I'll add that to the tally:

    Pointless gayness: Seven's bisexuality (I'm assuming) serves no purpose beyond itself. It's not needed for her revenge plot, nor is there any significance to it's invokation in the finale. It is there to be there. And muddles that even by presenting it in tandem with stories about broken people hung up on base emotions like revenge. Raffi's bisexuality is also poorly established and out of left field.

    As for Nepenthe. I did describe it more favorably myself, but any praise for it should not be removed from the context of the series. If it seems like it's a good episode, it's only because it stands just that little bit above the garbage surrounding it. Suffice to say, I did not hate it. Nor would I say I liked it. (Riker, Troi, you know of a planet the regrows EYES... and given that their son was apparently 15 at the time of his death, according to background info it would've worked on him. Way to let your son die guys.)

    I thought the season was off to a good start then took a left turn somewhere. The Romulans were right, there is a synthetic race out there ready to destroy all organics, and Soji almost ended up being the prophesied destroyer. The ending was silly, what is to stop the synths from building another beacon and calling the bad guys again, how did no one in Starfleet notice their Director of security was missing, where is Narak, when did mind control become an excuse to ignore murder, one the orchids were destroyed why did the Romulans take so long to fire on the settlement? And why resurrect Picard 10 minutes after his death? (Inspired by Into darkness perhaps?). The best new characters were Picard Romulans friends at the winery and the nuns, hope they return next season.

    @Wainscotting
    "I think I would have been into that, actually. As it is this is where I'll completely sign off from Trek, at least while it's in the hands of Kurtzman."
    It was actually my hope that they would do an intimate Picard story somewhat like Chabon describes. I understand why they didn't do something deep or cerebral. He himself explains it. Instead they went for another doomsday plot #5000. *sigh* I'm out, too. This gives me nothing. It actually spoils the rest a little because if Star Trek could become this soulless action nonsense melodrama then everything that was good about Star Trek was maybe just, as Bob Ross would put it, happy little accidents.

    @Nolan
    "Seven's bisexuality (I'm assuming) serves no purpose beyond itself. It's not needed for her revenge plot, nor is there any significance to it's invokation in the finale."
    I don't think that the sexuality of a character has to have a purpose, gay or straight but I get your point. It almost seems like a side teaser for next season: "Do you want to see seven having hot passionate lesbian sex. Then tune in for season 2."
    Or maybe it's just there to keep people talking. There will be the usual "Why are gay people included in my xyz anti sjw crowd" and then the anti anti sjw crowd jumps in... and Gal Gadot sings a song. *sigh*

    Seven and Raffi were written into being bi sexual so that Kurtzman can save the world. It has taught us all tolerance and to love one another.

    Just an endorsement of @Mal's post about science fiction and artificial intelligence/robots. It's well written and I recommend everyone read it.

    I didn't want to break this thing down right after I saw it. I just wanted to enjoy the greatness that was in this episode. Because the ending made me feel so damn good.

    I just watched it again.

    I enjoyed Agnes in this one. She has had her moments throughout this season, but a valid reason has never has been revealed to kill Maddox let alone any punishment for murder. It appears she doesn't have to turn herself in and all is forgotten. I guess we'll see if anything comes of this during season two.

    Elnor is an interesting one. You could completely remove him from this show and nothing of merit changes... but I like the kid and am glad he's a part of the crew. Silly I guess, but that's the way it is. I would have preferred he ended Narik in hand to hand combat.

    Rios... enjoyed him. Didn't really care for all his holograms. I understand he likes soccer, but that was one wing-ding soccer ball he took with him to destroy the beacon. I guess he had a remote-controlled opening ball laying around. Kind of a dumb way to address destroying the beacon, being how he has a repaired ship with quantum torpedoes at his disposal...

    Rizzo... competent badass I guess. I'm not surprised at all that she met her demise. The sensual sister stuff was puzzling, not sure what they were going for there, or why, although she seemed to display some genuine love for her brother in this episode.

    Narek... I thought Harry Treadaway did a great job with the part. I guess we could have learned more about the Talshiar flunky part of it. Missing that made his bringing it up seem like a spoiled child whining...

    Seven kicking the crap out of Rizzo was refreshing. I still believe they totally underused her in this season. She enhanced every episode/scene she was in and Jeri did an outstanding job giving us this seasoned/hardened new Seven. I just wish her nanoprobes could have saved Hugh. The second best part of the final scene with all the crew on the bridge of the (still don't know the name) was that she was there. I seriously hope she ends up being a permanent part of the crew as we head into season 2. Her current mission as part of the Fenris Rangers might not be a bad mission for this rag-tag crew to take up. That could be the perfect mission for this ship and crew, especially with the talent they've amassed.

    Raffi... her character has been all over the place. Is she a druggie or not? ... or only when the script might call for it? Early in the season, I was not too fond of Hurd's acting or the character, but I think she has grown into this character and I quite liked her as the season came to a close. Still questions about her... why did she lose her security clearance and get booted from Star Fleet? ... because she knew Picard? .... because of her conspiracy investigations? Maybe I missed something.

    Riker and Troi... aside from seeing them once again, they were a wonderful addition to this series. Troi knocking Picard back a notch was needed and Frakes' screen presence is always top-tier and I thoroughly enjoyed seeing him lead the fleet to help his old Captain.

    Commander Oh... I never once questioned her resolve and dedication to her quest. I tip my hat to Tamlyn Tomita; she nailed her part. At the end, she was given some pretty cartoonish stuff, but she delivered it expertly. I'm pretty certain her character won't be a part of the series going forward and that's a sad thing IMO.

    Soji... Isa Briones was fantastic. I really enjoyed the relationship she developed with Picard and the season progressed. I was also impressed when I heard that she was the vocalist for 'Blue Skies' in the final episode. Talented gal. There are some pretty serious gaps in the development of her character though... how did she know the stuff she knew about the borg etc.? Why is SHE the destroyer? ... if her sister was alive, would they both be Destroyers? I thought she was great in the final episode and not only was happy to see her turn off the beacon, but I was glad to see her do it for the reasons she did. She had some really touching moments in this season and I was excited to see she will be "wandering" with us in season 2. They could have just left her on that planet.

    And last but not least, Picard. Tough one here. I go from hating the way they brought him to us... a quitter, just living out his years, in some deep depression over losing Data. That's just crap IMO and totally out of character. Many times during the season I was distracted by Stewart's acting... I know he's old, but a few times it appeared he was REALLY struggling to get the lines out. I suppose we should chalk that up to bad directing? Then the last few episodes we saw the Picard we all knew and loved. He was outstanding in this last episode. I was wrong, I thought they would cure his "syndrome" by some sort of positronic blah, blah that Troi referenced. But they chose the golom(sp?) route. I guess that's OK, I guess it doesn't matter. He is now cured, and while they say he'll age as he normally would have he certainly won't be bogged down by illness etc. But all that being what it may be, the pinnacle of this entire series so far was the Picard's relationship with Data and the finale scene we got in this episode. It was so damn good. On par with epic Trek scenes as Kirk losing Spock in TWoK, Trip/T'Pol realizing they will lose Elizabeth in Terra Prime and Data losing Lal to name a few. Both were completely in character. Data, as always, is striving to be more human and he needs to finish his quest by realizing the finality of mortality. I was a mess as Picard walked out of that "extremely detailed quantum blah, blah" when he, struggling to hold back his emotion, said "Goodbye Commander" and Data unemotionally replied "Goodbye Captain". This is going to be a scene I well up every time I watch it.

    To the ending, when Picard is coming back to life in the golum, the best part of the whole scene was the wonderful smile Soji gave us (him). I'm a sap, I know. I enjoy the bond these two have developed.

    Then, of course, Picard has a promise to fulfill. I'm losing it again. Blue Skies, Picard's wonderful words, and some tremendous CG depicting a dying Data. Whew, incredibly powerful there. I can only hope he reunites with Lal.

    So to wrap up this season, it was a rollercoaster for me. Loved the first episode, but then it started a downward trend, never getting really bad, just kind of coasting... trodding along until the closing episodes. Could the writing had been better? .. sure. I'm no writer, but there are some seriously gaping holes that even I could plainly see that could have easily been filled. But I'm glad we got this series and am looking forward to more seasons in the future. Notice I didn't compare this to Discovery. I'm not sure how that solves anything or is beneficial. Talk about apples and oranges.

    I like the rag-tag bunch we have now and look forward to future adventures. Maybe sometime I'll be able to remember the name of Rios' ship. :-)

    3.5 stars.

    @ Nolan

    “ Pointless gayness: Seven's bisexuality (I'm assuming) serves no purpose beyond itself. It's not needed for her revenge plot, nor is there any significance to it's invokation in the finale. It is there to be there.”

    What point does your sexuality serve?

    I’m heterosexual but have no offspring, so I guess mine is pointless too?

    And no significance? Both Seven and Raffi are psychologically damaged loners. Their finding a connection with another human being shows character evolution from when we first met them.

    Really feel like people are just reaching for things to be upset about. I see quite a few missed opportunities in this season but I’m not upset enough to pen walls and walls of text about them. I’ll watch Season 2. I don’t expect it to reach the heights of classic Trek (though, please writers, prove me wrong!) but I can enjoy it for what it is.

    Really kind of feel like people are reaching for things to be upset about at this point.

    @ Lynos

    “ The level of carnage still seems excessive for a Star Trek show, but I guess they found a good excuse for it.”

    If there’s one bit of major criticism I would make it would be this.

    I was super psyched to share this show with my Mom, we watched TNG together when I was a kid, she’s a huge Patrick Stewart fan, and I thought I could talk her into this.....

    ..... and by the end of the second episode she’d abandoned it because it was too dark for her tastes. She didn’t even make it to the Icheb scene. It really sucks, we don’t have much in common, and there are extenuating circumstances (my Mom suffered a TBI a few years ago) that make it impossible to convince her to just ride it out, the Icheb scene would have had her literally throwing up, Hugh’s murder would have broken her heart, and neither one of them were necessary to tell a good Picard story. Hell, “All Good Things” told a story with similar outsized stakes (future of the galaxy), focused on Picard, and did it without being dark and killing anyone (I guess Alyssa had a miscarriage, that’s the darkest moment I can remember, but they didn’t make us watch it happen, it was just mentioned in dialogue), it was a cheerful uplifting story that capped a cheerful and uplifting television series.

    I really really really wish I didn’t have to turn to The Orville for optimistic storylines. Don’t get me wrong, I love The Orville, but Star Trek should be filling that hole in our lives.

    @ Tim

    I can't speak for others, but as for myself:

    I have no issue with any kind of relationship being portrayed on any show as long as both participants are sentient willing adults.

    But these developments weren't shown (OR told) to the viewer whatsoever.

    Suddenly Seven is a part of the crew and is dating someone? How was there enough time for these things to happen? Furthermore, how did we get from Point A to Point B?

    It comes across as implausible .... and as a bungled attempt to score "woke" points (not to be political, just my opinion).

    @ Tim

    I forgot to address your last point.

    Imagine if The Orville didn't exist and this was all we had Trek-wise (a scary thought, I know).

    It's sad the Trek showrunners are so tone-deaf, but sinking a franchise is their cross to bear. Besides, it doesn't erase the legacy of everything that came before.

    Anyways, I'll take my Trek-done-right anywhere I can get it and The Orville gets the job done.

    @Tim wrote:
    “ It's also weird to me that with show runners and production staff that so obviously care about Star Trek (I lost count of the number of Easter eggs and callbacks in this season) they seemingly forgot about Data's relationship with Geordi.”

    Dont confuse memberberries nostalgia bait with caring.

    We might care. Cast and production crews rarely care as much as we do. MAYBE the firefly and Expanse cast and crews, but by and large, actors and producers dont get as invested in this stuff as fans. TBH, most actors think pop-culture fans are weird, obsessed and kind of pathetic. Given how we react to space wizards, laser swords, pew pew guns, and how giddy we get when we hear “make it so” again after 30 years its hard not to blame them.

    Wainscoting said: "I didn't love everything Chabon said in that Variety interview and I'm by no means convinced he is built for TV writing, but one of his answers made me wish he had full creative control from the outset of this show.

    "You know, personally speaking, my own tastes and inclination, I always said when we were in the earliest versions of the room for this show, if we could have just done a whole show about Picard and the dog on the vineyard in France, with no starships, no phasers, the only Romulans would be those two Romulans who work for him on the vineyard, and no politics — just, like, there’s a funfair down in the village and they all go, and maybe Picard solves a very low stakes mystery in the village, like, someone has stolen the antique bell out of the bell tower, or something like that? I would have loved to write that show.""

    Reading all but one of Chabon's novels prior to "Picard", I knew exactly where a Trek story written by Chabon would go. It was obvious. He'd written a final Picard tale already with "The Final Solution", his short fiction had delineated his favorite aspects of early pulp science and detective fiction, and his novels (overly wordy and often veering into pretentiousness) favored simply watching people speak as they grappled with historical identity and their ages.

    Left to his own devices, we know what Chabon-Trek would be. Chabon would not lobby for a climax involving a cheesy fist fight on a ledge, demon tentacles, Picard becoming a robot, or even yet another corny Data resurrection/killing. He would not even have Seven appear. I doubt he'd have any interest in literally depicting the Borg. I doubt he'd have Picard leave earth. Left up to his own devices, Chabon would certainly not write this two-parter's quartet of deus ex machinas, and would steer well clear of virtually every generic plot point in this show. A good writer, and a good artist, would not write a series this way. A stable of disconnected writers, however, presided over by two hacks with idiotic tastes, and forced to fit their scripts in with those of other writers, will always produce something like this.

    Which goes to show how much influence Kurtzman wields, and how much Patrick Stewart pushed for this.

    What you have with "Picard" is Kurtzman/AkivaTrek, with Chabon inserting little subversive scribbles where he can. But this "subversive" stuff, comes from Chabon's worst trait: his fondness for 1930s, Robert E. Howard-esque pulp fiction, 1940s comic books, and their wacky heroes. His fiction usually consigned this stuff to a meta-level, a fictional writer called August Van Zorn, but here it leaks into Picard in the form of real characters like Elnor and some of the (admittedly good) "detective flourishes" in the pilot.

    The show has too many writers pulling in their own personal directions. It's biggest problem may be Kirsten Beyer, who likes all this dumb Borg/Seven stuff, a direction Kurtzman and Akiva obviously thought would cut a good trailer.

    @Dave in MN

    “I have no issue with any kind of relationship being portrayed on any show as long as both participants are sentient willing adults.

    But these developments weren't shown (OR told) to the viewer whatsoever.

    Suddenly Seven is a part of the crew and is dating someone?“

    Who said they’re dating? I saw that scene as them forming the beginnings of a connection. That’s how real human relationships (sexual and otherwise) work. We didn’t need an extended exploration of Raffi and Seven, just a scene that shows them connecting on some level. I thought it was perfectly handled.

    Seven as a part of the crew (if that’s indeed what it is, she could’ve just been hitching a ride somewhere) came out of left field a bit, the writers clearly forgot about the XBs and if Seven was going to leave them there should’ve been some sort of goodbye scene (this reinforces the stupidity of killing Hugh off, because with him still around Seven leaving the XBs behind would make more sense), but I really don’t see the issue with the Raffi/Secen scene.

    Supposedly, Seven's sexuality is brought up originally with the Byazl character where she said something ambiguous about a relationship the two women shared. When the episode aired, people here did bring up that Seven might be at least bisexual, so it must've resonated with some viewers.

    The studio's in an awkward position where it wants to portray more homosexuals but it knows it will get push back no matter how its done. To be sure, this show isn't expressly about sexuality, so there's no reason why they should go in depth about anyone's sex life. They chose to do play lesbian characters subtly. Yes, they could have gone at the topic from another angle, but at least they're moving.

    @Eamon

    “ Dont confuse memberberries nostalgia bait with caring”

    I refuse to subscribe to that level of cynicism. Look at how they painstakingly matched the LCARS interface for the projected computer consoles. That wasn’t necessary. It’s not going to be noticed by anyone except hard core/long term Trek fans, half of whom are seemingly on the internet griping about how terrible the show was.

    I’d encourage anyone who hasn’t watched it to go through The Ready Room. There’s a fair bit about Picard I wish they had done differently but if someone with the geek and Star Trek cred of Wil Wheaton can get excited about this production surely the rest of you can at least something redeeming about it?

    Side note: I’d love to see him brought back for an episode next season, hopefully as (and/or with) The Traveler, not a generic Starfleet Lieutenant, as he was portrayed in the cut scene in Nemesis. Nemesis (arguably all the TNG movies, but that’s a longer discussion) is proof that even long established Star Trek alums (Rick Berman) can miss the mark, so maybe we should give the new show runners a chance and just accept the fact that it’s not going the be the same as it was in the 90s?

    @Tim I think the issue with Raffi / Seven is very simple, people don't like to be pandered too. If their relationship rises organically out of the plot, I doubt many people would complain. But when it's just sort of tacked on, it feels cheap and unearned. People don't like that.

    They also don't seem to like it when it's Rios / Jurati, either. I think people would be more inclined to give leeway to that sort of thing if the writers did a better job of characterization.

    @ Tim

    Yup, the show is tonally way off if you compare it to other Trek shows (even Discovery wasn't that bad). I mean, this episode had a character ask another character if he fucked some androids. So it's definitely not a show for kids or anyone looking for clean entertainment. Not that all entertainment should be clean, of course, but Star Trek was a kind of a rare place where you can enjoy genre storytelling relatively free of excessive violence and profanity.

    And the sad thing is there is not need for any of it. It's not an integral part of the story STP is trying to tell. It's simply there to be "adult" and drive the ratings.

    I think your story about your mom's distaste of the show is the best example of why this decision by the show runners is flawed. Nobody watches this show and says "man, the violence and F bombs are so cool!"

    I'm gay, and the Seven thing just feels like a shallow box-tick to me. And she's one of my all-time favorite Trek characters (or was on Voyager). I would love nothing more than a serious, well-written exploration of her life and relationships since arriving in the Alpha Quadrant. The Picard version of the character is dreadful. I would be up for Seven having a relationship with any gender or species if it was maturely, sensitively and realistically written - like, say, Sisko and Kasidy, Picard and Neela Daren, Jadzia and Lenara, Kira and Bareil, B'Elanna and Tom etc. I don't think these modern incarnations of Star Trek are interested in writing relationships like that though, or that the writers are able to. These shows aren't about people or ideas.

    But I don't think the Seven/Raffi thing is even in the top 10 or top 20 things wrong with STP. It's just one more thing that's indicative of how nothing in these shows develops naturally. And I think some of the "they made Seven a lesbian!" backlash that I've seen on other sites is a distraction, and is getting the wrong end of the stick. (Let's bear in mind that the Seven/Chakotay thing at the end of Voyager also had no development and came out of nowhere, and was rightly criticized for that; I see this a similar way.) I'm more concerned about everything else they made her - a hard-bitten murderer and vigilante who talks in mock-Whedon snark like most of the other characters on the show, because the writers don't have the skill to give different characters distinct voices and authentic dialog. And they don't have the craft or patience to actually build up, grow and explore relationships - it's just suddenly "Rios and Jurati are sleeping together" or "Raffi loves Picard" or "Data loved Picard"; relationship developments don't emerge organically from the characters or situation, instead we're directly told them out of the blue as pieces of information. The same as how on Discovery we hardly saw any character development in the gay relationship or spent much time with them as people. The show just wanted to go "look, some gays" without wanting to put any of the work in of showing an actual relationship. That applies to all the straight characters too.

    @ Robert

    “The studio's in an awkward position where it wants to portray more homosexuals but it knows it will get push back no matter how its done. To be sure, this show isn't expressly about sexuality, so there's no reason why they should go in depth about anyone's sex life.”

    They got pushback for the heterosexual coupling too! There were pages and pages of comments here complaining about Jurati and Rios. Some called it a pander to the primal instincts of the audience (interesting that they didn’t show anything other than a kiss and her leading him to the bedroom if that was the intent) and others said it made no sense, as if every act of sexual intercourse has to have some motivation behind it besides “This feels good” (Juradi even explicitly says she wants to feel better “for a few hours anyway”)

    Side note: I’ll vent a little bit about American sensibilities, as someone who spent a few years in the EU and has that perspective; In a European production you may actually have seen something more explicit than a kiss between Juradi and Rios, but you’d be very unlikely to see Icheb getting his eyeball ripped out. Why Americans are such prudes about sex while openly embracing violence is beyond me. Sex is natural, fun, and healthy. I’d rather explain a sex scene to a child than explain what happened to Icheb.

    So, I gave up on this show after “Stardust City Rag”. Now I can watch the rest for free if I want to, but not sure I’ll bother. Watched season one of The Expanse yesterday. i’ll echo what someone else said in a previous episode’s thread… If this show were as good as a show like The Expanse, we wouldn’t be arguing over whether or not it’s Trek. Until different people are put in charge, I’m not eager to see anything else along the lines of Discovery season one or what I’ve seen of this show.

    @ Flip

    "Tim I think the issue with Raffi / Seven is very simple, people don't like to be pandered too. If their relationship rises organically out of the plot, I doubt many people would complain. But when it's just sort of tacked on, it feels cheap and unearned. People don't like that."

    Again, why is it pandering? It just shows them forming the beginnings of a connection. That's it. This is how real human relationships work. You don't immediately have perfect chemistry and become lifelong soulmates (well, that does occasionally happen, but it's bloody rare). You find something in common and you build on it from there.

    The pander here would have been Seven and Raffi actually being in a relationship. That would have come out of left field and been completely unearned. The writers didn't do that though. They planted a seed for next season. That scene wasn't even a date between the two of them, they were playing a game together and learned that they have some level of chemistry/connection.

    Again, this is how real human relationships work, unless you want to hold up online dating (a very very very recent development in human history, literally the blink of an eye when you remember we've been around for 200,000 years or so) as the example of how relationships develop. You meet someone in the real world, talk to them, discover that there's some sort of mutual connection, and you explore it from there.

    That's where Seven and Raffi are.

    What's the problem???

    "They also don't seem to like it when it's Rios / Jurati, either. I think people would be more inclined to give leeway to that sort of thing if the writers did a better job of characterization."

    That scene was perfectly characterized. Jurati wanted to forget about her troubles for a few hours and Rios wanted to get laid. What more motivation do two people need to have sex? Has anyone else in this discussion ever had sex for any reason other than "I love you?"

    Maybe those two will actually find out that they've got more than physical chemistry (my best long term relationship started out as FWBs) and maybe they won't, either way is fine, but in that precise moment I really don't see why either of them needed more motivation than they had.

    How many guest characters did Riker hook up with? Or Kirk? How about Jadzia Dax? Even Wesley got to have a short term fling with someone (random trivia: Wil Wheaton was Ashley Judd's first on-screen kiss) in an episode.

    Star Trek has always been open about sex for reasons other than love.

    My "problem" with Riorati was that they became a couple, not the sex. They can have orgies and that wouldn't bother me. Well, at least Rios knows what happened to Jurati's ex. No awkward encounters (apart from the freezer, of course). What did they do with Maddox? Was he torpedoed?

    By the way, was I the only one who thought that Picard is gay/bi. It sounded to me that Picard not only loves Data but is in love with him? He dreams of him every night, he came out of his exile for his daughter. He didn't give a shit about anybody else apparently. He hasn't visited Rikoi... or Troker (yes only powercouple names now)for almost a decade, didn't give Raffi a call. Picard a carefree bachelor, eh?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1b6ko1I00A

    I think better writers would have set up the Seven-Raffi relationship earlier in the show. I don't remember them as being particularly close in episode 5, the only other time they would have interacted. Raffi seemed obsessed with her grief and barely came out of her room after she visited her son.

    @Tim I don't want to disect your post bit by bit. The broad point that I think you get wrong is that you keep saying "this is how real human relationships work." I think that's missing the point. A narrative is not the same as real life, and what's narratively satisfying goes beyond simple plausibility. People generally like proper setup for things and they like character development to feel earned. That's part of the writer's job in painting a portrait of a character that feels real. When character developments seem to come out of left field, it doesn't "feel" real, even if it may be "plausible in real life."

    @ Flip

    "People generally like proper setup for things and they like character development to feel earned."

    What I think you (and a lot of other people) are missing is that scene _was_ setup.

    That's it. No more, no less.

    I would expect it to be more fully explored in Season 2 -- assuming Ryan and Hurd sign on for Season 2 -- so again I'll ask, what's the problem?

    "When character developments seem to come out of left field"

    I didn't view it as coming out of left field. Everybody (just not just Seven and Raffi) in that final scene had just gone through a fairly trying ordeal together. Shared adversity tends to bring people together. It might have been nice to have spent an episode exploring this (like "Family" did after "Best of Both Worlds") but that's not how modern television works and they were never going to end the season that way.

    @Flip

    "A narrative is not the same as real life, and what's narratively satisfying goes beyond simple plausibility."

    They aren't setting up a narrative. At least, not yet. It's a small scene that will almost certainly be followed up next season. The comparison to Chakotay/Seven was given already, but this is actually better than that because there's time to write a Seven/Raffi story still.

    Generally I agree with you all that it was out of the blue, but it's hardly important for this episode and maybe that's just the way it should be.

    @Tim:

    "They got pushback for the heterosexual coupling too! There were pages and pages of comments here complaining about Jurati and Rios. Some called it a pander to the primal instincts of the audience"

    One thing is for certain, even in the off-chance that some writer from the show is reading such comments, they wouldn't take such criticism seriously. Trek's always been bad at setting up romantic relationships, but I think DISCO at least got that right. Hopefully, Jurati/Rios will get some more relationship time together next season, but I won't be upset if they just move on and find other people. Not everything has to be huge episode-long or arc-long story, There just wouldn't be time.

    @Tim - "Really kind of feel like people are reaching for things to be upset about at this point."

    I get that feeling too. I tend to scroll past the extended posts like that after a paragraph or two. (Or in some cases there aren't any paragraphs - which makes it very hard to read a post.)
    ...........
    I wonder why it is that so many visual media productions on film and TV do go in for having teams of writers "pulling in their own personal directions", as Trent comments. If I think of the most outstanding creations in those media, as in other fields, these have almost all, in my experience been the work of individuals, or occasionally of a team of two. There must be some reason for doing it the other way, but I can't imagine why. "Too many cooks spoil the broth".
    ............
    One thing that Seven and Raffi have in common is that they have lost their son, or in the case of Seven, their pseudo-son Ichab; and the other related one is that both of them seem to have been adopted by Elnor as sort of mothers. Which considering that Picard seems to be Elnor's adoptive father, sets up an interesting sort of family group that could be explored in the next season.

    And I look forward to maybe seeing Rios set up a game of football with his holograms. Maybe against a team of Vulcans, who'd have tactical skills to make them formidable in the beautiful game. Klingons would to better to stick to Rugby - or maybe American Football, though of course without the body armour, which they would despise.
    .......
    Maybe they will address the question of Agnes in the next series, though if there's a court hearing I'd guess it would be referred to rather than shown. I can't see any fair court finding her guilty.

    Aside from the fact that she acted under the influence of an illegal mind meld, involving the Admonition, which has been shown to cause lethal insanity, she is acting under the strict orders of the head of Star Fleet security. The fact that she expresses bitter revulsion at carrying out the post-hypnotic command she has been given, there is no reason to think that she has any power to stop herself carrying it out.

    @ Robert

    "One thing is for certain, even in the off-chance that some writer from the show is reading such comments, they wouldn't take such criticism seriously."

    The serious criticism that I would offer is that I really really really wish they didn't have to make everything so bloody dark in the hopes of attracting the masses.

    I also wish they'd get away from the 10 episode novel concept, or, if they insist on doing it that they release them all at once like Netflix does. On my second re-watch of Picard (just completed a few hours ago) I found it a lot less annoying, because I could binge them all, but if you're going to stick to a traditional release schedule you should consider sticking to a traditional writing/production style.

    That doesn't mean you can't have a season long story -- The Mandalorian did -- but it does mean that story can't be the sole focus of every single episode. Outside of the first and final two episodes, most of the The Mandalorian told self-contained stories, the overarching story was always there in the background but it didn't demand 100% of the run time.

    I truly would love to see that approach taken with the Star Trek universe. It's not a novel concept, NCIS has worked this way since its inception and until recently was one of the highest rated shows on broadcast television. Nearly every season has a season long story/villain, but for the most part the individual episodes are self-contained and the season long story is advanced in bits and pieces, a few minutes tops in each episode and sometimes not mentioned at all.

    @ Gerontius

    "Maybe they will address the question of Agnes in the next series, though if there's a court hearing I'd guess it would be referred to rather than shown. I can't see any fair court finding her guilty."

    I could really live without a whole episode (or even a whole scene) devoted to Law & Order: Alpha Quadrant

    "In the criminal justice system, the citizens of the Federation are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups: Starfleet Security, who investigate crimes, and Random Admiral of the Week, who adjudicates them. These are their stories."

    Unless we're going back to an old school 24 episode season I just don't think there's enough running time to waste on this story, particularly given Trek's history of hand-waving away heinous crimes on the part of lead characters, both with and without extenuating circumstances.

    Jurati killed Maddox and feels like shit about it even though she clearly wasn't herself and was acting under duress. End of story.

    Tim said: "Why Americans are such prudes about sex while openly embracing violence is beyond me. Sex is natural, fun, and healthy."

    Nobody cares about characters being gay or having sex. Heck, I always viewed Riker as a pan-sexual. And nobody batted an eyelid at Jadzia's sexual appetites.

    But bad writing is bad writing. Jurati's character, already buckling under the weight of mountains of half-sketched plot, needs a hastily shoed-in relationship with Rios as much as Rios needs a hastily thrown in relationship with his magically relevant former captain. All this stuff should be massively streamlined or omitted.

    And Seven's potential lesbianism is clearly a tip-of-the-hat to her 90s female fans, who have been shipping her with women since she popped onto screens. Does it matter that she's gay or bi? No.

    But it's obviously a bit of click-bait thrown in to keep people chattering, and something which a show, too impatient for its refugee, Borg and Synth storylines, and busy plucking a Data-resurrection one out of thin air, doesn't need. After-all, Raffi and Seven have shared no meaningful moments throughout the show.

    @Mal, To your list about great science fiction and Artificial Intelligence, I'd add Mass Effect, which added the idea of breaking out of a cyclical conflict between humans and AIs. (sound familiar?)

    Trent wrote:

    "And nobody batted an eyelid at Jadzia's sexual appetites."

    But a small amount of research says:

    'Due to its inclusion of a kiss between two characters of the same gender, this is one of the most controversial episodes in the history of Star Trek. The episode was broadcast at a time when it was highly controversial to feature homosexual relationships on television. According to Ronald D. Moore, "Some felt betrayed, didn't want to see this in their homes. An affiliate down south cut the kiss from their broadcast."

    Terry Farrell agreed, "There were quite a few people that were upset, that had thought there should be a warning, because they were upset that they couldn't have a conversation with their children about what the episode was about."

    René Echevarria said, "My mother was absolutely scandalized by the episode. Shocked and dismayed. She told me 'I can't believe you did that. There should have been a parental guidance warning.'"

    Steve Oster recollected that a man called the show and complained, "You're ruining my kids by making them watch two women kiss like that." It was a production assistant who took the call. After hearing the man's complaint, the PA asked if the man would've been okay with his kids seeing one woman shoot the other. When the man said he would be okay with that, the PA said, "You should reconsider who's messing up your kids."'

    Sources: (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion and What We Left Behind)

    @Nolan and many others, starting from the "Pointless" post

    I also agree on the whole with pretty much everything Nolan brings up, but I think it's worth saying that just because the show had a lot of pointless things, it also had some positives. Mainly, Soji's character journey and the overall attempt at a good Star Trek message by the end.

    I think a lot of us agree that even these positives are undermined by various aspects of the show. And they aren't enough to make the show actually feel like Star Trek. But they are there. In a less serialized show, it might even be possible to pry them out and appreciate them more while managing to ignore the bad, kind of like how we can appreciate some of S1 and S2 TNG while ignoring the bad. It's not the same I know, because even bad TNG embodies the Star Trek ethos (or tries to). But as I said above, I rewatched Epi6-7 in isolation, and there's a decent story being told there. Even a genuinely Star Trek idea with Hugh on the cube. Knowing that Epi9-10 will blow the stakes out of proportion dampens the enjoyment a bit, but I'll claim there's still a strong "Act 2" being built here between Soji and Picard. And that Nepenthe does a genuinely good Trek-ish job of building on that narrative of working through betrayal and identity crisis.

    I bring it up (again) because, after watching it again, I want to make sure I give the show its due here. My enjoyment here is not hinging on nostalgia. The fact that it is Riker/Troi is nice, but not crucial. The fact that Soji is Data's "daughter" is also helpful, but again not crucial. This is a story *about* Soji, and how good people (including our protagonist) try to help her through a difficult time which may or may not lead to her moral and ethical downfall in Act 3. To me, this is good Star Trek. Like, sure there are still contrivances and illogical bullshit, but when the story being told is good enough and likable characters are going through real struggles together, I'm willing to look past this. I think I had a harder time enjoying it fully the first time around because the show had spent so much time (pretty much all five first episodes, but especially the fifth) crushing my sense of good will towards the show.

    If you go into Epi6 and especially Epi7 already feeling cynical (which I think lots of us were given the first five episodes), it's easy to focus on the negatives:
    -dumb action sequences with non-characters
    -questionable attempts at character building on La Sirena
    -the tenuous logic underlying whole swaths of the setup, which we now know won't be satisfactorily handled by the end either
    -seemingly 'cheap' attempts to cash in on nostalgia
    -lack of actual plot in Epi7, especially after so many other earlier episodes also had almost no plot

    But I'd like to claim that, for me, the positives briefly outweigh the negatives for these two episodes.

    @msw188, I really appreciate your perspective. You're fair, probably fairer than I'm being. Episodes 6-8 were genuinely pretty decent to good (as reflected in Jammer's reviews). I've said it before and I'll say it again, this show is a great argument for episodic or less serialized TV. Serialized TV raises the stakes such that there's a tendency to either say it's all good or all bad. Look at the reactions to Game of Thrones - people who followed that series for years have disavowed it because they're disappointed in the final episode. Episodic TV is more forgiving. It lets the show have some lows so long as it has some highs.

    I just had another fun thought following up on my silly fan-fic-y post earlier, where I fantasized about cutting material from episodes 2-5 to make a new "courtroom" episode at the end, after reading some other replies here. What if the choice to revive Picard was framed as a part of all of this? Like, new episode starts with Picard in a coma on Soji-world.

    1. An initial scene with Data where he explains that they're both being kept alive in some kind of matrix-world (???), but that Data's sad because Picard will eventually get to die and Data won't.

    2. Riker and other admirals beam down, explain that lots of people are going to have to be put on trial, including Soji, and the terms of reversing the ban are going to be complicated.

    3. Some typical asshole admiral points out that there are almost no credible witnesses to large aspects of the story (bullshit I know, but no worse than the show's current bullshit levels), and even if they reverse the ban, they will need a spokesman to champion the cause to many planets in the Federation

    4. Someone (Riker?) realizes the answer - revive Picard. Soong can have an emotional scene where he agrees to let Picard have the body and he will work towards another one, but possibly die before it is finished.

    5. But does Picard want to be revived? Maybe Soji can somehow tap into Data's consciousness, and we can have a great Trekkian conversation between Picard and Data about this choice. This conversation could also more naturally lead to Data's request for Picard to pull Data's plug when he goes back.

    6. All of the trials I described before.

    Sorry for the ridiculous fantasy-writing, just having fun while I can't leave my house.

    @Dom
    Thank you for the kind words! You're right, episodic TV has some benefits here. Maybe especially for sci-fi like Trek? Someone else brought up Asimov earlier. The I Robot stories were short stories! Even the Foundation novels were essentially a sequence of short stories. Not about inter-character drama, but instead about ideas and their ramifications, problem-solving, etc.

    @Dom

    Totally agree with the benefits of episodic TV, just look at Mandalorian as a prime example of this at its finest. I also think Star Trek has always been at its best when there isn't a overarching narrative. It really only worked for me for the Dominion war arc. I would actually like to see them try story arcs that are 2-3 episodes long. Basically a season of miniseries. Enterprise started doing this right before it got cancelled and those were some of the best episodes of that series. It's not something that's being done too much in TV right now, so the format might feel a little more fresh and it's kind of like the best of both worlds. A longer format to further develop the story beyond a typical 1 episode story but not so long that pacing, stakes, etc. become an issue.

    @msw188, @Nick, Star Wars: The Clone Wars is structured as a series of 3-4 episode arcs and it generally works well. Some arcs are amazing, some are lousy, but the net effect is positive. I love the show for its willingness to experiment, but a few episodes aimed at a younger audience don't ruin the experience for me because they're usually self-contained.

    It was all right. It wrapped everything up but it wasn't anything special. No one will be talking about it, on mass, in a week from now. Yet, everyone is still after that Pike / Spock spin-off show.

    Couldn't they have put Data's consciousness into a synthetic body?

    @ Dom

    "Look at the reactions to Game of Thrones - people who followed that series for years have disavowed it because they're disappointed in the final episode."

    The ending is allegedly true to GRRM's outline of how the books will end. I would posit that most people would have been fine with the ultimate ending, if the show runners had taken their time in getting there, rather than rushing to tidy it all up so they could move onto their next project. The last two seasons should have been ten episodes, as with the preceding six seasons, HBO is on record as saying they would have keep it going for many more seasons if the show runners and cast had been interested in it, but they weren't, and that's that.

    It's interesting though, because the online reaction to Season 8 was a large part of the reason why I disavowed Internet discussions, something that I've largely kept to this day, though I do allow myself to take part in the discussions here because I've been coming to this site ever since Jammer first put it online. There are whole sites (/r/freefolk on Reddit being the most obnoxious, IMHO) devoted to nothing more than bitching about Season 8 of Game of Thrones, a self-reinforcing circle jerk of toxicity, IMHO.

    I was _heavily_ invested in Game of Thrones, too long of a story to tell here, but suffice it to say it got my immediate circle of meatspace friends through some very trying times and we were all disappointed in how it ended, but we haven't obsessed over it for months and months on end while eviscerating anyone that dares to find something redeeming in the final season (and it did have some redeeming moments, IMHO)

    People went so far as to create an online petition demanding a remake of the last season, which I found patently absurd and offensive to the legions of people that worked tirelessly on the production. No wonder the show runners and actors don't take them seriously, you're going to tell someone who pulled 18+ hour days for months on end that the final product sucked when you have zero experience in their industry and haven't written anything yourself other than snide comments on the Internet? It's the ultimate armchair quarterbacking.

    @wolfstar
    "The show just wanted to go "look, some gays" without wanting to put any of the work in of showing an actual relationship. That applies to all the straight characters too."

    And, sadly, it also applies to everything else in the show as well:
    "Look a borg cube."
    "Look a murder."
    "Look a horrible future event."
    "Look a head getting sliced off with a sword."
    "Look someone saying fuck."

    They treat the audience like an infant, trying to get them to look in the camera. Snap your fingers, make a funny face, maybe they'll look for a few seconds.

    I don't find the idea of a Pike/Spock show to exciting. The ghost of what for me was the dreadful pilot for TOS hangs over it... Recasting Spock for me is a non-starter (that did for the 2009 + films so far as I was concerned)

    No, I'll be looking forward to seing Picard, and The Orville in good time. (Probably not for quite some time I suspect. Not much making new seasons this year I'm afraid...) And making my way through the old series on Netflix in the meantime. Some of the episodes are stinkers alright, but I love them for all that.
    .........
    The more I think of it the more I find myself disagreeing with the notion that this series represented a departure from the essential Star Trek ethos. Sure enough, the Federation and Star Fleet might have fallen away, with the idea that there was something inevitable about the future bringing progress - but that inevitability wasn't what it was about.

    What was essential was the idea that a decent world was indeed achievable. The future could get rid of some of the things that has made it harder to achieve it, but it still costs - and that was what Picard's mission was, to be the single neurone used to restore things.

    It's no secret I haven't been a fan of Star Trek Picard, but in fairness this episode does the best job I've come across of making a positive case for the show and explaining some of the themes. Darren Mooney is one of the smartest Trek reviewers out there.

    https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/17-star-trek-picard-1x10-et-in-arcadia-ego-2/id1473851833?i=1000469808956

    @Tim, I don't disagree. My reaction to the Game of Thrones finale is that what happened was fine, but how it happened felt very contrived and disappointing. Which I think supports my point about the risks of serialized shows.

    Speaking of fan reactions, I'm actually quite relieved that so far I haven't seen any personal attacks against Chabon or any of the people involved in Picard in these forums. Sure, some of us are disappointed, but that's never acceptable.

    @ Nick

    "I also think Star Trek has always been at its best when there isn't a overarching narrative. It really only worked for me for the Dominion war arc."

    I feel the Dominion War arc went on for far too long and had too many twists to remain plausible by the end. I could never get invested in the huge CGI battles, they were nothing more than eye candy for me, the standout episodes in my mind were the character pieces ("Rocks and Shoals" and "In The Pale Moonlight" being my two personal favorites) that used the war as a backdrop to tell a good story.

    I wish they had stuck to those sorts of character pieces and resisted the urge to put our heroes at the front and center of everything. The war should have bypassed DS9 once the station was retaken, Guadalcanal was a pretty exciting place in late 1942/early 1943, but by 1944 it was a backwater assignment with no real relevance to the war effort, and so it should have been with Deep Space Nine.

    Maybe I know too much about the economics of war for my own good, but I can't help but feel that the whole war arc was written by people with a High School level understanding of World War II, which is what they clearly based the whole arc on, but WWII was essentially over once the United States entered the war, the economic/manpower/technological disparity was simply too great for the Axis Powers to overcome and there was no plausible scenario where the Allies lost the war after that point.

    If WWII had gone the way of the Dominion War Germany would have been unstoppable, until a plucky American O-6 and his crew of misfits handed them a decisive defeat, except we're still losing because they outproduce us, but wait, we brought in a new ally and now we're going to win, except oh fuck, they got a new ally with an unstoppable weapon, but we reverse engineered it in only a few weeks time and developed a defense against it, now the Germans are screwed, we've got them bottled up in Berlin, except we can't just leave them there to wither on the vine because they're somehow still a threat to the entire planet even though they only have the resources of one city at their disposal.......

    I just can't get as invested in DS9 as a lot of people. It was my first introduction to Trek ("Duet", still a Top 5 episode after all these years), it had some of the most compelling characters (Garek, Odo, Kira, O'Brian, Dukat....) out of any Trek series, but I really don't feel like the war arc has aged well at all, I really really really hate the whole Sisko as the Messiah (he's even divinely conceived!) of the Bajorian people plot line, and they completely fucking forgot about the whole premise of the series, which was to get Bajor into the Federation, we didn't even get a throwaway line about Bajor joining in the final episode, but we spent half of it on Sisko and Dukat's divine battle between good and evil? Ugh.

    More than anything that plot line is why I believe there's some merit to the claim that Paramount ripped a lot of DS9 off of the Babylon 5 series bible -- which JMS pitched to them before he went with WB -- because Babylon 5 had the same storyline with Sheridan (my least favorite part of an otherwise excellent show) and it was completely out of left field for Star Trek.

    @ Dom

    "Speaking of fan reactions, I'm actually quite relieved that so far I haven't seen any personal attacks against Chabon or any of the people involved in Picard in these forums. Sure, some of us are disappointed, but that's never acceptable."

    I found the attacks against D&D extremely disheartening. You can call them lazy writers, because they clearly were ("Well, you see, Dany kind of forgot about the Iron Fleet.....") but the personal attacks and sheer enjoyment some quarters of the Internet got out of watching their subsequent downfall was extremely off-putting to me.

    The Internet really brings out the worst of humanity. :(

    A thing I noted ages ago was how two people can absolutely agree on the positives and negatives of something and yet come to wildly different conclusions overall. It's down to the balance of how the positives and negatives weigh and that will be subjective.

    So with Picard, for some, the themes it touches on are embraced as valuable while the plot holes are dismissed as niggles that aren't worth obsessing over, but for others, the slapdash nature of the connective tissue tanks the value of the themes trying desperately to get out.

    @Tim, I don't disagree with you there. There are lots of jerks out there. I do think some of the attacks have a deeper rooted frustration, which is the frustration with how our society is structured such that some people can succeed wildly while others fail, not due to talent or smarts but due to dumb luck or connections. There's a lot of (largely justifiable) anger in the world right now about how the meritocracy we were all promised is no longer there (if it ever was). So when people see D&D being lazy writers and getting hundred million dollar deals, I get why it angers people. Now, that NEVER justifies personal attacks or harassment. There's a line people just shouldn't cross.

    @Tim

    Really agree with you on DS9. I felt the best seasons were actually the first 2, before the Dominion War arc(s) started. Granted, the couple seasons after season 2 had the Dominion plot on mini arcs, with the non-Dominion episodes pretty good, but the show started to get boring and contrived (contrived for the reasons you stated in relation to WW2) when going onto full Dominion mode.

    I think you're right re ripping off Babylon 5, way too many parallels, including the introduction of the Defiant to move events off-station (similar to the introduction of the Whitestar in B5, but Bablylon 5 the station still retained importance). I think DS9 wrote itself into a corner by the setting; i.e., having it set on a station constrained the normal Trek ship setting to "boldly go", yet I think the setting was ripe for character development and Bajoran, Cardassian, and Gamma Quadrant development. However, the Dominion War arc(s) pretty much hemmed in further Gamma Quadrant narratives. In addition, there weren't enough Maquis episodes, and I think there could have been interesting themes about loyalty and new alliances vis-a-vis Bajor, Cardassia, the Maquis, and other alien races.

    @ Tim
    In your description is one mistake. Without the prophets the Federation, the entire alpha quadrant, would have been overrun. Then there was the problem of the white production which severely limited the Dominions capacity to produce Jem Hadar.
    But I agree that the war, at least with the entry of the Breen, started to go off the rails. The whole "we have to conquer Cardassia Prime because something " is very stupid indeed. So was Sisko fighting Dukat in the firecaves.

    "The Internet really brings out the worst of humanity. :("
    No it doesn't. It just brings the worst together. 5 people fight about toilet paper, 500 do not. What do we notice? There are times when people are more frustrated and times when they are less. If people are constantly in a bad mood they will find a way to let the world know. Internet or not.

    @Glom said "So with Picard, for some, the themes it touches on are embraced as valuable while the plot holes are dismissed as niggles that aren't worth obsessing over, but for others, the slapdash nature of the connective tissue tanks the value of the themes trying desperately to get out."

    Agreed. I think a well written plot that is well acted and casted is way more difficult to achieve than themes. Not to offend those more focused on the achievement of the theme, but I think thematic storytelling to the exclusion of poor writing is really an appeal to emotion. There's a lot of TV out there to get me emotional, but not a lot of TV with tight acting, writing, and plot. Of course, to have both is great TV.

    @ Startrekwatcher

    "And If there was one story left in the Borg I figured it was an origin story."

    I really thought from reading the few interviews and watching the trailer that they were going to do away with the Borg altogether (fallout from future Janeway's virus in Endgame?), The Collective has been destroyed, and all that's left are refugees who (in Hugh's words) are the most despised people in the galaxy.

    That would have made for a pretty compelling story, IMHO, one that would be relevant to modern times, and why not kill The Collective off altogether? You can't really use them for the future stories, there's only so many times our heroes can defeat the unstoppable enemy before they lose their fear factor. Voyager was definitely guilty of this, by the end of that series a Federation scout ship/light cruiser could apparently go toe-to-toe with a "Tactical Cube," when just years earlier it took a Cube about 15 seconds to render the flagship Enterprise-D completely helpless....

    Apparently The Collective is still a thing in this universe though and it was only this one particular cube that failed, so I'm kind of dreading their inevitable return, because let's be real, how long are the writers going to be able to resist that temptation? You'll never outdo The Best of Both Worlds, but that won't stop them from trying. :(

    @ Tim
    Haven't responded because a lot of what I would've said has been covered by others and I didn't want to pile on. Though I now see I should've labelled it "Pointless relationships" rather than what I did. They are there, they exist. But they do very little beyond that. They don't feel organic.
    Honestly, Seven/Raffi would've been better served by some sidelong glances suggesting an interest rather than "We're holding hands now." It suggests the possibility and potential development rather than something that developed out of the seeming blue. It's not quite as bad as Seven and Chakotay suddenly being three dates in, but it's rhe same playbook.

    Additionally, making Seven bi is a great idea, that like most in this show goes unexplored. Seven would have been perfect for showing what coming out to one's self looks like in a more accepting future. Especially later in life as Seven has always be a character about self-discovery. What does it mean to be gay to her, since for so long her world view was shaped by the practical? How would she cope with her burgeoning feelings not reconciling with her scientific view of sex as a biological, reproductive act and therefore homosexual relations not seeming to her to serve a purpose. These are all questions our society is struggling with as more conservative groups are faced with homosexuality in everyday society. It would also be the perfect catalyst for her more human growth we see in the series, way more than gruesome eyegouging.

    As for Rios and Jurati, I'll be honest, I forgot abot them, such little an impact their coupling made on me, or the narrative.

    @Nolan

    I suspect coming out doesn't mean a damn thing in the future of STP. The Seven/Raffi relationship actually makes a great deal of sense to me, as they are both broken people who are very much alone. That has nothing to do with any particular sexual orientation, just the specific choice of partners. Those particular characters just fit together.

    @ Booming

    "Without the prophets the Federation, the entire alpha quadrant, would have been overrun."

    That's another deus ex machina I never forgave the DS9 writers for.

    The Prophets weren't Gods. DS9 itself established that they could be killed by mortal technology ("The Assignment" and "The Reckoning"), but the Dominion just lets them wipe out their fleet and never retaliates?

    That was a huge missed opportunity in my mind. When Sisko is begging them to intervene one of them tells him "A penance must be exacted." You know what I would have done with that storyline? The Prophets stop the Dominion fleet, as happened, but the Dominion retaliates and wipes them out. You've saved the Alpha Quadrant, but the price is the destruction of the Bajorian Gods, their religion, and now you can explore the major societal upheaval that would ensue on Bajor, Kira having to come to terms with what Sisko did, the resurgence of the Pah Wraith cult, and maybe even the Pah Wraiths themselves......

    If you've watched Babylon 5 recall Kosh's reluctance to intervene in the war when Sheridan is begging him for help, because he knew the Shadows would retaliate and he would die, that was the "price" that had to be paid for his help at a critical time.

    But no, it was a true deus ex machina in DS9, and that's something I was never able to look past.

    "Then there was the problem of the white production which severely limited the Dominions capacity to produce Jem Hadar. "

    The Jem Hadar lost all of their fear factor (and let's be candid, they were scary AF in the episodes prior to the war, possibly the scariest Star Trek villains outside of the Borg) in the war. "The Siege of AR-558" comes to mind, we're supposed to get emotionally invested in that battle, but I just sat there thinking, "Two crew served machine guns from World War I would be enough to stop this assault dead in its tracks." They literally just marched into the teeth of Starfleet's defenses, no plan, no strategy, and it's only Federation stupidity (Seriously, nobody has thought of making the phaser equivalent of a crew served machine gun? What happened to the photon grenades Kirk once used against the Gorn?) that allowed them to get as far as they did.

    Star Wars does the whole "War" thing way better than Star Trek ever could. Watch Chapter 4 of The Mandalorian; the ground battle in that episode is infinitely more plausible than anything that came out of DS9's war arc, to the point that the tactics and strategy depicted therein were praised by actual military officers and historians.

    AR-559 says: "But a small amount of research says:"

    I was referring to Jadzia's sex drive. She was constantly humping aliens, flirting with non-humans and banging holo babes.

    @ Booming

    "No it doesn't. It just brings the worst together. 5 people fight about toilet paper, 500 do not."

    I hear what you're saying and I don't entirely disagree but I stand by my comment that the Internet brings out the worst in people.

    Are you on Facebook? I'm not, any longer, but when I was I watched people I know and respect in the real world arguing about politics with language they would NEVER use in a face-to-face discussion. That's on a platform that requires you to use your real name and can come with real world consequences (loss of employment) for what you say and do, but people still run wild with it.

    Then there's the platforms that permit people anonymity and all you need to know about them can be summarized by The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. (Google it if you're unfamiliar, it's a thing, lol)

    @Trent

    Well whatever the particular host's gender, the Dax symbiot seemed decidedly male. ;)

    I'll admit the only reason I know about Raffi/Seven is because it has been discussed here. I missed it in the episode itself.

    But it seems that some of the arguments in favour of this are missing the point of the criticism. It seems that the criticism isn't that the two wouldn't make a good pairing, but that they have been paired up out of the blue.

    Have these two characters ever exchanged dialogue? They can't have shared more than a couple of scenes since in episode 5 Raffi buggered off early and when Seven returned, she's spent almost the entire time in the Borg cube. If they have exchanged dialogue, has it been anything other than purely plot related?

    It's no good saying they'll depict the relationship next season, because if they are already displaying public affection then clearly something has already happened that we missed. And that's disappointing that we won't be able to see them connecting unless they do it in flashback.

    re: "Trek being at it's best with episodic stories"

    This partially true, but also a little false. TNG played with ongoing plots; Kligon politis and Worf (which ran over two shows), Romulan intrigue (sadly not ever fully realized, and certainly not in this show); the Borg threat, dealings with Q; Soong and Lore, the Chrystalline Entity, the lives and deaths of Tasha and her daughter (also not fully realized), Riker and Troi's on again-off again relationship, Geordi and Leah Brahms, Ro's redemption and fall, Wesley and the Traveller. The Cardassians. So many on-going plots that carried throught the show. But these are not, for the most part, contiguous plot lines. They are story threads, peppered throughout the series, not continuing on one after the other, each chaper of them providing a whole narrative experience.

    The same is true for DS9 and Enterprise when it comes to both of their longer story arcs, regardless of their successes or failings. Each episode by and large, functions as it's own entity, but with a place in the context of the on-going plot.

    The Trek formula never really hurt when it came to ongoing plot threads or overarching narratives, beyond perhaps balance issues between wholly episodic tales and ones that picked up a thread. What people craved back then I think, in talking about stronger serialization and continuity was not a fundamental reorganization of how Trek told stories, but better character continuity over episodes. To avoid situations where Geordi can spend an episode being brainwashed, than fine next week, or Picard being tortured and it being fogotten about. (Although watching DS9's "Emissary" right after "Chain of Command" makes that conference rooms scene between Sisko and Picard sting that much more - "Dammit, I just got out of a Cardassian gulag and now this jerk throws Wolf 359 at me...") Or even O'Brien's 20 year prison stint and near suicide being brushed aside by the next episode. Those were all great episodes, marred only by their lack of impact.

    Early reimagined Battlestar had the right idea in terms of narrative structure. Each episode had it's own plot, had some carry over into the next without affecting the episodic story and let the characters cope with fall out, and it was a very bingeable show. It wasn't until the show hit big turning points or was nearing it's end that the plot threads got tied off, or together into a more serialized format, much like DS9. That kept the shows fresh week to week, rather than dumping the audience in the deep end of an on going narrative that runs the risk of going stale.

    Alas, TV largely seems to lack that nuance today.

    @Tim

    "I could really live without a whole episode (or even a whole scene) devoted to Law & Order: Alpha Quadrant"

    Really? I mean, to each their own, but courtroom stories have turned out to be some of the highest rated Trek episodes as well as some of the best Picard stories. "Measure of a Man" and "The Drumhead" for example.

    Not sure why we keep bringing up examples of Sisko being shady to excuse Jurati's actions. Sisko's actions were a person in power making impossible choices that compromised his values; the difficulty he had in doing that and the toll it took on his character were major themes of the show. Jurati is being let off the hook for murder because... She's quirky, I guess?

    It's true that we did not see a court-martial episode after Sisko gassed that planet, and there are a few other examples like that in Trek. The "reset button" is generally recognized as a weakness with episodic storytelling and Trek in particular, but that alone does not make Jurati getting off for murder acceptable. I'd argue that in serialized storytelling, where character actions generally have more weight and carry over into subsequent episodes, pulling that kind of "welp, nevermind" maneuver is even more problematic.

    Look, all I'm saying is Jurati deliberately killed a guy and whether or not she was in her right mind is an open question at best. They really ought to follow up on that in season 2, but given how her character was treated in the final episodes and Kurtzman Trek's habit of abandoning half-finished plots I have serious doubts they will. And if they expect the audience to just forget about Maddox's murder because Jurati is quirky and feels bad about it, then that's garbage writing as well as being pretty fucked-up.

    I'll happily eat crow if I'm wrong.

    @Chris Lopez

    Please note, my comment was less about Seven coming out to society and friends, but to herself.

    I'm no authourity on this, but I do suspect that realizing one is gay would still involve a bit of personal disconsertion, even in the 24th century. It's a big moment of self discovery, and does require a change of any childhood preconcieved notions of family life and having children (Even if same-sex couples in the future are able to have children composed of their own and partners DNA, the method would probably be different) Surely it would not be as traumatic as today, especially for any youths on that path, but for those that realize it when they're older I would guess that'd still be personally difficult.

    Especially for Seven, who for all of Voyager's run viewed things in very concrete, scientific, analytical ways. I doubt anyone in Seven's life would bat an eye at her coming out as bisexual, but I can see it as being a period of intense personal questioning and introspection for her, as she is still recovering from the abuse of the Borg. It's alegorically rife for commenting on attitudes of today. Even if she has the comfort of an accepting society.

    (I really hope none of this offends anyone, I'm just speculating about what sexuality would, um, look like for lack of a better term, in a future that embraces all forms of it)

    @ Glom

    "Have these two characters ever exchanged dialogue? They can't have shared more than a couple of scenes since in episode 5 Raffi buggered off early and when Seven returned, she's spent almost the entire time in the Borg cube. If they have exchanged dialogue, has it been anything other than purely plot related?"

    Why does everything need to be spelled out for people to be happy?

    They shared a pretty intense life and death struggle together. They both have a common friend/mentor (Picard). They're on a ship afterwards playing some sort of game together. One of them accidentally brushes the other one's hand and chemistry ensues. I really don't think it needs to be viewed as anything more complicated than that.

    (*) And yes, I can already predict people saying "Picard is Seven's mentor????" because folks here were previously annoyed that they seemingly had a relationship out of nowhere, but do recall that Seven was a Borg Drone during the time that Picard was Locutus and in every scene of Star Trek filmed since then has made it apparent that EVERY current and former Borg Drone retains a special connection to him.

    Also, remember those Romulan housekeepers from the start of the season? The former Tal Shiar operatives with extensive combat abilities as well as knowledge of the Zhat Vash, the organization trying to kill Daj, Soji and Picard himself?

    Remember when we left them behind so Picard could recruit a Romulan child who was good at swinging a sword? Good times.

    @ Sen-Sors

    "Really? I mean, to each their own, but courtroom stories have turned out to be some of the highest rated Trek episodes as well as some of the best Picard stories. "Measure of a Man" and "The Drumhead" for example."

    Do you really think a procedural courtroom drama about a manslaughter case and Jurati's defense of justification and/or temporary insanity could rise to the level of either of those two episodes?

    The Measure of a Man was about individual liberty, freedom, the right to choose, and the rights of a newly created race that stood to be enslaved if the court had ruled the other way. The Drumhead was about paranoia in times of crisis and was freakishly prescient given the events of modern times, that episode was at least 10 years ahead of its time.......

    How would you write a Jurati courtroom scene to be any different than a random Law & Order episode? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious, if you can convince me that it could be done in a compelling manner that would justify an entire episode or even a significant portion of one I'd be willing to entertain it, but if we're only going to get ten episode seasons out of Modern Star Trek I just can't see using one for this.

    I think Tim's summary of world war two rather misses out the Russian involvement - without that I'd question whether there would have been any inevitability about Allied victory. (And its been reasonably argued that the moment when eventual German defeat became inevitable was when Hitler invaded Russia.)
    .........
    "Displaying public affection" writes Glob. What's "public affection" about clasping hands while playing a game in private? I didn't notice it on first viewing either, like Glob - and none of the other characters were in a position even to see it.

    That kind of sudden awareness of a link, especially in the wake of a time of great peril, frequently happens, as Tim pointed out, anit doesn't need any particular build up in advance - and as I wrote earlier, they have some powerful things in common.

    @ Gerontius

    "I think Tim's summary of world war two rather misses out the Russian involvement - without that I'd question whether there would have been any inevitability about Allied victory."

    The US/UK alliance would have beaten Germany without Soviet help, read the Plan Dog memo, which was written _before_ the Soviet Union was invaded, we just would have paid a huge butcher's bill to win the war. As it was the US and UK got off comparatively cheap, we had the luxury of fighting with money (tanks, planes, ships, etc.) rather than lives, which was the only choice the Soviets had. That said, I have to address this:

    "And its been reasonably argued that the moment when eventual German defeat became inevitable was when Hitler invaded Russia"

    That argument is flawed because the entire point of the war from Germany's perspective was to obtain "living space" (Lebensraum) in the East. Germany was _ALWAYS_ going to invade the Soviet Union. It was no secret, Hitler spelled it out in Mein Kampf, which was widely available and surely known to the Soviet intelligence apparatus. Stalin apparently didn't believe Hitler's own words, or he did and opted to throw the West under the bus to buy time, who can say, but it was all there, telegraphed out in the open more than a decade before the war started.

    Everything that happened prior to Operation Barbarossa was mere table dressing. France had to be dealt with so Germany didn't have to fight another two front war. Poland had to be invaded because it was to be the first part of the "living space" for the Reich. The Balkens were conquered to secure Germany's oil supply and Southern Flank. The list goes on and on....

    @ Nolan

    After reading your comment, I'll second that an episode/ scene of Seven grappling with her sexuality (as you describe) would have been powerful.

    I hope the Powers That Be are paying attention.

    Good lord, Raffi/7 is the union LBGTQ check in the box. EVERY show HAS to have it now.

    I saw it as a preview of what is to come. We've seen sexual changes before in Trek. Sulu is now gay.

    @sc never a good idea to claim your opinion is the voice of everyone.. anyway..

    Finallt got around to it: Damn fine finale. Brought a sentimental and sometime nostaligic tear to my eye a few times.

    I'm SO glad they didn't end with a 30 minute space battle like DSC S2 did (a finale that "everyone" except me apparently loved). That may have ruined what was on the whole a damn fine season.

    I mean the show isn't on an Expanse level of brilliance but with the exception of MAYBE the odd patch of DS9 and a handful of TNG realistically Star Trek never has been. Much as I love it. Thoroughly enjoyable. They could do with squeezing in the odd morale dilema a bit or some original high brow idea (which is tough given the vast amount tv these days tbh)...but whatever.. thoroughly enjoyable.

    I agree with some of the above poster's... very nice send off for Data complete the song he sang at the wedding.

    Hopefully Jammer can do a better effort than last weeks childish "I call BS" review but with everything that's going on it's probably understand if they're delay or not his usual standard.

    Hmm I guess I have to sit through S3 of DSC. If I find myself ranting at the screen every 5 minutes after 2 or 3 episodes I fear I may have to give up on it.. and not come on here and rip into it every week with 1000 words either. Life is way too short.

    Looking forward to s2 greatly.

    Keep well and stay safe everyone.

    @geekgarious "If this show were as good as a show like The Expanse, we wouldn’t be arguing over whether or not it’s Trek."

    Oh we so would.. It's everyone's favourite topic.

    I don't see the what's so great about The Mandalorian. It's pretty but full of soap opera quality acting and bad/sloppy writing. I'm not a SW fan I guess. The Expanse deserves all the praise it gets however.

    @ Yanks

    Here's my perspective as a 40 year old guy who happens to be gay.

    I went the first 20 years without any gay characters in genre fiction. I saw no one like me dealing with the unique aspects of gay existence as well as whatever difficulties the plot presented.

    If there WAS a gay character, it would be either be a villian (mirror-Kira), a psychopath (The Kid in The Stand), a Queen (The Birdcage) or an saintly AIDS victim.

    Yes, I'll agree that Hollywood is over-correcting somewhat (especially since infidelity seems to be the most common plot development gay characters encounter), but I'm happy that kids today (that are watching intelligent programming like "The Society" or "The Orville" or what-have-you) get to have someone they can see themselves it.

    It's a lot better than the way I felt when I younger: that the only like-minded characters I saw were either damaged, diseased or comic relief.

    @Nolan

    Point taken. 7's personal acceptance of who she is would require some work to explore. On Voyager (outside of the thing with Chakotay, that no one bought) 7 didn't really explore that part of her humanity. She's been on her own for quite a while since then, so there is no telling what kind of exploration she's been doing. While watching her deal with the discovery of her sexuality might interesting, that discovery likely happened years ago. The same goes for Raffi.

    @skye francis-maidstone

    "I'm SO glad they didn't end with a 30 minute space battle like DSC S2 did (a finale that "everyone" except me apparently loved). That may have ruined what was on the whole a damn fine season."

    I mean, it looked cool but it didn't really cap off the season in a way that meaningfully closed any arcs of the season (except for guest character Pike's, I suppose). And then the show comes up with the most inelegant solution in fiction by having everyone "forget what happened" in first two seasons of DISCO. I'm curious about what will happen in season 3 of DISCO, but I'm not excited about it at all.

    Say what you will about this show, but at least it followed through with Picard being the optimistic hero and brings everyone into the light. Yes, they left many details hanging, but the main story arcs were more or less resolved in a plausibly Trekkian way. That plus the acting puts this leagues ahead of DISCO.

    Set in a course for season 2, maximum warp. Engage!

    @ skye francis-maidstone

    "I don't see the what's so great about The Mandalorian. It's pretty but full of soap opera quality acting and bad/sloppy writing. I'm not a SW fan I guess. The Expanse deserves all the praise it gets, however."

    #1, glad you liked the closer. I really enjoyed it as well.

    I also enjoy 'The Expanse' although I don't think it deserves quite the level of hype it gets.

    As to 'The Mandalorian', I really enjoyed it. I think maybe because it's not trying to be anything it's not. It's been true to itself so far. I think it's better than the last 2 mainstream Star Wars movies. Hell, it makes fun of how bad the Stormtroopers aim is, gotta gove them credit for that :-)

    That and I LOVE the theme song. I wish I could say the same for 'Picard'.

    Dave in MN,

    I hear ya and can empathize. If they "go there" with Raffi/7 I hope they make it meaningful. I don't want either character to end up like Culver in 'Discovery'. Such a waste of great acting talent.

    Back to this episode, there is one thing I wish we could have seen. It would have been really meaningful had Data had a conversation with Soji. Especially with how he lost Lal.

    OK, let's all cry now...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QTKxGG3-4o

    Law & Order: Trials of Trek

    There are supposedly two as of yet announced Trek shows... I do agree that some of the best episodes and scenes in Star Trek are of the trial variety (Undiscovered Country is my personal favorite), I just am not sure in another 10 episode season if I want to see a full episode dedicated to the Trial of Agnes.

    I think Raffi/7 makes sense for the characters involved (including Elnor, who was raised by women), but doesn't make sense from just what we were shown.

    I also felt that there was a passage of time between Picards death and resurrection in the golem. I don't think it happened right away, but that also could be my headcanon. Soong had finished the golem, but Agnes would have had to oversee the mind transfer, which im assuming isn't a quick turnaround.

    So....thoughts.

    Upon first viewing, I was underwhelmed. I felt the Picard death/resurrection to be unearned with its emotion. To all those who said Picard would become an android last week, kudos, you got it.

    I get Raffi being emotional. I get Elnor being emotional. They had established personal histories with Picard. But I don't buy that level of emotion from the rest of the supporting cast.

    I liked the scene with Picard and Data in Picard's post-death vision/dream/complex simulation thing. That's the kind of sendoff Data deserved. That was well-earned emotion, mostly from TNG, but also from Picard's journey as we saw during the season.

    The trouble with Star Trek main character deaths is that I inevitably compare it to Spock's death and resurrection in The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock. That still remains the gold standard for any main Trek character's death. The characters really made significant sacrifices to bring Spock back: their careers, their freedom, the Enterprise, and of course, Kirk's son. By comparison, Picard's death paled.

    I agree that Jurati needs to stand trial for her crimes. Romulan influence or not, she still killed a man. This isn't some cultural differences thing, like when Worf claimed right of vengeance against Duras.

    I would have liked to have seen Q back in the finale, picking up where he left off near the end of All Good Things.

    Heck, maybe my disappointment in this episode comes from what I wanted to see.

    So, now I'll catch up on Discovery and Short Treks.

    Stay safe, all. LLAP.

    @ msw188, I love it - a great outline. I’ve been spending the lockdown watching old TNG, and there are just so many great courtroom episodes.

    I never thought of Ensigns of Command as a legal drama, but of course Picard pulls some contractual loophole out of the treaty to defeat the Sheliak.

    I never thought of A Matter of Perspective as a legal drama, but of course what we watch are each person’s “depositions” fed into the holodeck computer.

    I never thought of Sins of the Father as a legal drama, but of course Worf’s family is on trial, and he cuts a plea bargain deal at the end.

    It’s not just classic legal drama episodes like Measure of a Man or Drumhead, but when you think about it, all of TNG, starting right from the trial of humanity in Encounter at Farpoint, all the way through Q’s admonition (!!!!) in All Good Things… that the trial never ends - the whole thing is in some ways a legal drama judging what humans are and what humanity might become.

    So by all means, @msw188, your idea of a Dr. Jurati trial down on the planet could have been a perfect denouement to the the season.

    @Dom, my apologies that I’m not familiar with video games to add them to the list. But from what I understand, Mass Effect (even if I have no idea what that is - and this is my own limitation, not having played video games since Super Mario Brothers and TMNT the Arcade version, back in the 80’s), that ME is a huge influence on Picard. For more on breaking the human/AI cycle of conflict, see also nBSG. All this has happened before, but maybe all this doesn’t have to happen again.

    @Tim, I agree with you completely on GOT, though I actually liked that the ending was true to the spirit of the books, most of which I had read long before the TV show ever came out. The end is true to the spirit of what GRRM seems to be setting up. It is anyone’s guess if GRRM will actually get around to writing the end. But your point is 100% correct: people would have been far more understanding if the show runners had taken their time getting there. And what is true of Game of Thrones and their show runners, is equally true of nuTrek and its show runners.

    These people are too much in a hurry to get to their “clever” story points, and don’t give the show and the characters - and the audience - time to come along and enjoy the ride.

    Remember The Wire, that epitome of good serial story telling? Each season started off slow. Allowed time for the characters to get established. And then, when faced with the major situation of the season, those characters could react naturally to those situations. The plot progression flowed naturally from the characters, rather than the characters being dragged along from plot point to plot point. But that takes excellence. And the hacks that are running nuTrek aren’t up to the job.

    Discovery’s cardinal sin was not retconning a sister for Spock. Star Trek V retconned in a brother, but the movie was bad for completely different reasons. Discovery was too much in a hurry to get Michael established as the show lead. It took Picard almost two seasons - almost 50 episodes - before he was accepted by a wide swath of fandom as our captain. It took John Snow almost two seasons - almost 20 episodes - before he became our hero.

    But with Michael, Discovery rushed through her trial. They didn’t even have a single episode of her serving time in jail. Heck, O’Brien had more jail time in DS9 than Michael did in Discovery - even though she was evidently convicted of one of the greatest crimes in Federation history. Even poor Cassidy Yates went away for more episodes than Michael. But the writers on Discovery were in a hurry. They cut too many corners. And as a result, the show sucks.

    And don’t say cutting corners is just due to the short seasons that nuTrek has versus old Star Trek seasons.

    Voyager suffered the same cardinal sin even with full length seasons.

    Instead of taking a season to show the conflict between Janeway’s Federation crew and Chakotay’s Maquis crew, TPTB wrapped it all up in a few hours, put everyone in Starfleet uniforms, and called it a day. Compare that to how it could have been - should have been - in nBSG, where Adama and Roslin spent seasons taking pot shots at each other before they finally came to some workable power-sharing arrangement. That’s what it means to take your time. That’s what good writers do in serialised shows.

    Not the hacks that run nuTrek.

    So @msw188, I 100% endorse your idea of a courtroom drama. What a trial of Jurati might have done in the right hands - like all great Trek legal dramas (think back to TOS's The Menagerie), is take time. Take stock. Allow the grand changes that are happening in the ‘verse time to sink in.

    Adding synths back to the fabric of the Federation is a big step.

    No need to short circuit the change in 30 seconds of dialogue about what happened off-screen - WTF! Let it simmer like the changing of generations in Game of Thrones. Ned Stark was arrested in Episode 8, but not executed till the end of Episode 10. It takes time for the baton to pass. Think of the two trials of Tyrion - one in at the Eryie, one at Winterfell, and how much they fleshed out the show - a show that like Picard, only had 10 episodes in a season.

    Unless these hacks running nuTrek learn to write - learn to structure an episode like the Mandalorian, and learn to structure a season like The Wire (or Mad Men or House of Cards), we’re going to be stuck for a long time with this drek.

    @Mal
    Thanks for the reply! While I do think that the season would have been improved by a separate ending episode involving some legal-ish proceedings, I actually also agree with some other posters who think that an entire episode devoted to Jurati's trial is probably too much. Especially if it were a final episode (or a starting episode for next season, say). The focus of a season finale should definitely be on Picard and Soji, and I'm glad ours was. I just think it could have been fun and interesting to have a finale involving some details about the ban, and the Federation being willing to trust Soji to never build another beacon. In addition to covering Jurati's trial (and some others too).

    You bring up an interesting point that, from a certain point of view, all of TNG is one gigantic courtroom drama for humanity. This simplifies things of course, but it was certainly no accident that the opener and closer were written the way they were.

    @Nolan regarding episodic vs serialized
    I agree with pretty much all of this.

    @ Tim (if you are not Tim you can skip this until @ everybody:)
    I'm not sure that the disappearance of the Dominion fleet qualifies as a deus ex machina. There were several episodes were it was established that the wormhole aliens could disable, destroy or repair ships that fly through the wormhole and that pleading with them can make them react. I could accept that but I understand that you have problems with it.

    "but the Dominion just lets them wipe out their fleet and never retaliates?"
    Ok sure but what would they achieve by doing that? They would lose contact with their alpha quadrant part and make it impossible to ever sent ships there at a later point. An episode about the Dominion trying to deal with the prophets would have been nice. Weyoun and the Wormhole Aliens. Bajorans dealing with the destruction of their gods would have been interesting, though. True.

    Never watched Babylon 5

    About the AR-558 episode. I have problems with that one too. But more because it is too pro military for my Star Trek taste. Nog admiring the hardened soldiers, Quark in the end giving up his anti-violence stance. If you have read "All Quiet on the Western Front." Then you know that the episode is not a very good depiction of people in a WWI type of situation. What bothered you, didn't bother me (the technicalities of war). Even in STP they don't have machine pistols or something that fires very fast. Why? I don't know. But the fact that the Dominion was using these phase mines was clever, I thought, and to me the last attack always seemed like an violent overreaction by the Jem Hadar after seeing half their units being ripped to shreds.

    I will probably not get Disney+. Certainly not for a SW show. I have a very low opinion of Star Wars. I watched the third one Rise of Skywalker (people dragged me there) and I thought that it was very similar in several ways to STP.

    And about your believe that the internet brings out the worst. I'm a German social scientist so let me guarantee you (Ok, guarantee is far too much; I think I read a study about it once; if you have studies that support your views (qualitative or quantitative), please tell me) the internet does not bring out the worst. It's just a place where people with very different/similar opinions can meet. Take ten leftists to a right wing bar and let them talk politics. I recommend putting the number of the police on speed dial. Also let's not forget that the internet often used for very positive things. To you personally, probably not very political, it is of course odd to see these forms of disagreements. When did apolitical or conflict averse people had to deal with political/societal conflict before the internet? During a revolution maybe or in the bar/church when somebody annoyed people by rambling about this or that. You could go years without ever encountering these kinds of conflict. My hypothesis is that you confuse frequency and intensity with personal exposure which the internet certainly facilitates. If this sounds very arrogant or smug then just picture me like this:https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Solok_(Vulcan)?file=Solok.jpg :)
    Sorry for OT everybody.

    @everybody

    About the 7/raffi flingading. It would have been nice to see how it reached intimate hand holding. The smiles, the glances, the soft innocent touches on arms and shoulders, the short hugs, the slightly awkward conversations. Did we ever see that?? Did I miss that?

    @skye francis-maidstone You're still upset about Jammer's review from last week and because he doesn't agree with you, you're saying it was badly written. It wasn't and he was right. Picard isn't terrible by any means but it's largely, mediocre and forgettable television, after the first watch.

    @Booming, please don't judge Star Wars by The Rise of Skywalker. There's a broad consensus that it wasn't a very good film. There are 10 other Star Wars films and TV shows and more, all of which are much better.

    I agree with you about the similarities between Picard and TROS. The way they both play fast and loose with plot contrivances and unearned character beats. It's not a surprise because Abrams directed TROS and Picard is overseen by his protege Kurtzman.

    @Dom
    I only liked the original trilogy. The rest was bad or uninteresting. It is aimed at teenage boys mostly. Space knights fighting other space knights and saving the princess. Rebels and evil empire. The original trilogy is good but I'm puzzled how these fairly basic adventure movies became a borderline religion. If the pandemic causes societal downfall I'm certain that in a hundred years there will be a few places where people kill you for not believing in the force. I'm also hesitant to throw any more money down Disney's always hungry throat. That company is far to big for my taste.

    Booming,

    Seriously dude, you HAVE to watch BAB5!!

    Q: So what did 5 queens in the opener represent? Did they ever officially make that distinction?

    Here's my ranking of the 1st seasons of each Star Trek show:

    1. TOS - Really hard to beat this one.
    2. DS9 - Though one of the weaker seasons of the series, still a pretty good 1st season with some very strong episodes.
    3. Discovery - This one is harder to rank with the others because it's not really Trek. I liked the mirror universe story line but the season as a whole was undermined by the finale which made no sense and really exposed the flaws of the serialized format. I struggled with ranking this one because the finale was one of the worst Trek episodes I've ever seen, but I also really enjoyed some of the episodes.
    4. Picard - The season suffered throughout from pacing issues resulting from the serialized format, but the cast of characters is good and the strength of the acting gives it a lift. I also liked the pivot back into the themes of classic Trek.
    5. TNG - A couple of gems in the 1st season, but I found it overly campy. TNG didn't really find it's footing until later seasons.
    6. Voyager - I never really liked the whole Kazon arc or the entire series pre- 7 of 9
    7. Enterprise - This will always be the worst Star Trek series ever

    @Nick

    That is a very peculiar list. I'd put PIC and DSC below ENT, but to each his own.

    @nick just for fun here's mine for season 1s

    1. ToS
    2. PIC
    3. VOY
    4. DS9
    5. ENT
    6. TNG
    7. DSC

    It's nothing like my ranking of series as a whole of course.

    @sc i'm not upset about anything. I respect that Jammer's review doesn't align with my opinion but I just found his actual review to be not up to his usual standard (ie "I call BS" repeatedly). The actual review itself wasn't well written. Which is what I already said actually.

    You saying he was right doesn't actually make him right, it just means you agree with him.

    @ Burke,

    Yeah I really wasn't impressed by most of the 1st seasons of the series. TNG and VOY in particular were really bad (though TNG is my favorite series by far and VOY got a lot better after season 3). I suspect Discovery will end up ranking pretty low as a series overall once it's all said and done, but I think its first season is pretty competitive with the first seasons of the other series.

    Picard is kind of interesting because I do see a lot of potential in future seasons depending on which direction it goes in.

    I don't quite get Nick's ranking of 1st seasons of the various Trek series, but yes as Burke says, to each his own.

    Based on my evaluation, I'd rank them as follows:

    1. TOS -- and it's not even close as I think this is the best season of any Trek series
    2. VOY -- really felt fresh, no real stinkers, introduces the Kazon, Vidiians; pretty solid
    Those are what I'd call the only 2 good 1st seasons.
    3. DS9 -- worst season of DS9 but it did give us the magnificent "Duet" (top-5 all-time Trek episode for me)
    4. ENT -- couple of bright spots depending how you feel about "Dear Doctor" and the initial Temporal Cold War episodes but mostly mediocre/weak
    5. PIC -- tons of holes/flaws in S1 arc with 1 terrific episode in "Nepenthe"
    6. DSC -- Nu-Trek without anything really terrific
    7. TNG -- just way too many weak episodes, poor writing, acting. Worst season Trek ever produced.

    I find it difficult comparing a 10 episode show with a 20+ episode show in terms of quality. I think if I paired TNG's first season down to the ten best episodes, I'd rate it ahead of PIC. As it is, there's so many mediocre TNG episodes in season one, they really weigh down the good ones. TNG is also the only Star Trek that wasn't backed by a network (or another Trek show), so it's a minor miracle it turned out so well.

    @Chrome,

    For me, what makes TNG so good is that, upon re-watches, you can skip all the crap and still enjoy the numerous terrific episodes. That's what the problem will be with DSC, PIC where it's all generally the same quality + or - and very rarely reaches the exceptional. Can't see myself rewatching DSC, PIC to the extent I rewatch TNG (or even VOY, which I don't like near as much as I like TNG).

    But even with TNG's 1st season, boiling it down to the top-10, for me, you get a bunch of 2.5* episodes -- so in terms of quality it winds up looking like episodic DSC. Still not good.

    @Rahul

    Good points. The old shows like TNG (and especially TOS, for me) also have the advantage of being vintage Star Trek so even at their worst we can probably find something we like about them.

    I will say on DISC and PIC's behalf that although the shows are serialized, it's not really that hard to jump into a solo episode and just enjoy that. I've rewatched "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" without any refresher courses in the series and I'm sure I could watch "If Memory Serves" or "An Obol for Charon" and feel right at home with them.

    Fun... Here is my ranking for first seasons:

    1) TOS
    2) PIC
    3) VOY
    4) DS9
    5) DSC
    6) TNG
    7) ENT

    Just noticed, mine is quite similar to skye-francis (top 4 the same).

    @Chrome, I don't know that it's really fair to boil TNG to its 10 best episodes and then compare that to Picard. That method hugely favors TNG cause you get to cherrypick and ignore the worst 60% of the episodes. I'm not really sure the best way to do an apples to apples tho.

    Mine is similar to a couple others.

    1) TOS
    2) DS9
    3) PIC
    4) VOY
    5) DSC
    6) TNG
    7) ENT

    Let's just remember that TOS' first season is TWENTY NINE EPISODES. And only one - "The Alternative Factor" - is regarded as bad. Most of the others are outright classics. That's a staggering string of hits.

    I would say TNG's first season has 3 great episodes, "11001001", the underrated "We'll Always Have Paris" and possibly, if you're charitable, "Heart of Glory".

    IMO "Farpoint", "Last Outpost", "Where No one has Gone Before", "Justice", "Hide and Q", "Angel One", "Home Soil", "Coming of Age", "Skin of Evil", "Conspiracy", "Neutral Zone" are decent too, or have little great passages and/or cool bits of worldbuilding. "Code of Honor" is also a personal favorite of mine, but I'm not allowed to say that in public.

    I think if you pretend TNG's season 1 is TOS season 4, it plays well and is fun.

    IMO "DS9's" first season great episodes are "Duet" and "In the Hands of the Prophets". "Emissary", "Past Prologue", "Dax" and "Progress" are also very good, and probably "The Nagus", "Storyteller" and "Vortext".

    While it's bad episodes are almost unwatchably dull, DS9's first season is doing lots of interesting things. Tonally, it's real interesting. A kind of mundane, slice-of-slice look at the Federation's frontier.

    IMO "Voyager's" first season is underrated, and blends well episodic tales and serialized character building. It's great episodes are arguably "Eye of the Needle" and "Prime Factors", but "Parallax", "Time and Again", "The Cloud", "Jetrel", "State of Flux", "Heroes and Demons", "Faces" and "Learning Curve" are pretty good too.

    If you skip all the crappy Kazon episodes, you get some good character development across this season.

    I would say neither "Discovery" or "Picard's" first seasons have great episodes. Some episodes, especially the pilots, are cool in the sense that they're "suggestive" of something good brewing, but of course the good stuff never comes. And the funny thing is, the climaxes, the resolutions, the destinations, of these shows' little arcs are so bad, that they retroactively destroy everything that came before. How can you take "Disco" and "Picard" seriously when you know it ends up with a torpedo in a room, Michael as Ironman and Picard as a robot?

    Nick said: "That method hugely favors TNG cause you get to cherrypick and ignore the worst 60% of the episodes"

    IMO it's the other way around.

    Kurtzman-Trek does not have to write for huge seasons, has access to modern sets, budgets and FX, is freed from the realities of syndicated TV (Old Trek might be broadcast out of order, and episodes had to understandable in isolation) and has access to better actors (in the past, people were hesitant to sign up to 20+ long seasons). Modern writers also have more access to science articles, science fiction prose, and a back-catalogue of Trek episodes which provide pretty clear lessons on what works and doesn't, and what pitfalls to avoid.

    Given all this, one would expect a modern, serialized season of Trek to be a refined, well structured and written, carefully honed thing.

    Something like TOS and TNG exceeded the limitations of their times. Something like Kurtzman-Trek falls well below what passes for contemporary competency.

    Go watch Chabon's other TV series, "Unbelievable", and watch how masterfully structured, shot, paced, acted and written it is. There is a precision to it. Kurtzman-Trek, meanwhile, has Chabon flailing about like a madman, desperately ticking Kurtzman's long list of boxes ("We must have maximum market penetration!", "Gimme some Borg!", "Work Seven of Nine in there...and can we make her gay?").

    I wouldn't be surprised that the sheer idea of Picard becoming a robot was itself mandated by economic realities: Patrick Stewart is old and might die! We need to leave a window open for Stewart to download his brain into a computer!

    @skye francis-maidstone

    Well, of course, because it's just an opinion. You deciding his review wasn't well written is just your opinion. I think it was very well written.

    Yeah, Voyager hits the ground running more than any other Trek series post-TOS - there are no episodes as good as In The Hands Of The Prophets, Duet and Emissary, but none as bad as The Naked Now, Haven, Symbiosis etc.

    I actually like TNG S1 more than S2 though. S2 only has 8 episodes I like, whereas S1 has 13, mostly in the latter half (it really kind of turns a corner halfway through). I adore Conspiracy and Skin Of Evil, they have a rawness and unique tone that has only been occasionally present in Trek before or since. The Neutral Zone and Coming Of Age are strong, ditto The Arsenal Of Freedom and Heart Of Glory; We'll Always Have Paris and Too Short A Season are engaging and ultimately work despite flaws and production limitations along the way. Where No One Has Gone Before, Lonely Among Us and The Battle are the series's first three halfway competent episodes. Datalore is good, and 11001001 is enjoyable and engaging throughout. I find all of the above eps rewatchable. The characters are enjoyable to spend time with and you know where you stand with them all.

    DS9's first season has a lot of eps that feel like modified leftover TNG scripts, but there are only about 7 duds out of 20. I think the first 6 episodes of DS9 are an excellent run - Babel and Captive Pursuit are underrated. Babel uses the nascent ensemble really well and has some great Odo-Quark stuff, and Captive Pursuit is stronger still, a meaty O'Brien episode with a fascinating guest star. Vortex is a really good Odo ep, and The Forsaken does more for Lwaxana's character than any TNG ep did hitherto. Of the duds (The Passenger, If Wishes Were Horses, Dramatis Personae), I don't even mind the lightweight ones like Move Along Home so much, it's Battle Lines that I consider the season's worst misfire on many fronts. But it's a good season and at least have of the characters - Sisko, Kira, Odo, Quark and O'Brien - totally work straight out of the gate and have fantastic interplay with each other. One thing I like about early DS9 is it uses the Kira-O'Brien character pairing slightly more (as well as Kira-Sisko, Sisko-O'Brien and Kira-Jadzia).

    @Trent, That's exactly why I come down so hard on Discovery and Picard. I don't really, truly believe that the first season of Picard is worse than the first season of TNG. But the older Trek shows were innovators. TOS was the first sci-fi show to do something more interesting than have a random monsters of the week. TNG showed TV science fiction could have serious character drama. DS9 - along with B5 - showed that audiences would stick around for (semi)serialized storytelling and longer character arcs. Yes, the acting and special effects and dialogue in TNG Season 1 weren't great. Yes, quite a few early DS9 episodes are outright awful. But the first seasons of these Trek shows were charting the path for science fiction on TV. The couldn't look to see how anyone else had done solved the problems of bringing space battles to life on a small budget.

    Fast-forward to 2020. It's been nearly 35 years since TNG Season 1 first aired. TV channels (and streaming services) are much more willing to air bizarre sci-fi shows. They're more willing to invest large amounts in special effects. It's not unheard of for these shows to be able to recruit some of the best acting talent available. TV writers have had decades of experience with serialized storytelling. We've had several very successful sci-fi TV shows not named "Star Trek." We've got plenty of examples of these shows starting extremely strong. That's the context in which we're evaluating Picard.

    People who follow my comments (but why would you?) might notice that I'm less likely to compare Picard to the best of TNG or DS9 and more likely to compare it to The Expanse or Battlestar Galactica. I think that's a fairer comparison than my nostalgic memories of my favorite show as a kid. But in many ways it's also a more damning one. These newer Trek shows have the money, the actors, the experience, and everything they should need to succeed in a way that their predecessors didn't. By contrast, BSG and Expanse - and Westworld and Altered Carbon etc - didn't have the benefit of a popular brand name like "Star Trek."

    So is Picard Season 1 better than TNG Season 1? Who cares? That's like asking if the cheap Chinese knockoff cell phones are better than the landline telephones we used back in the 1980s. Of course they are, but they're nowhere near as good as the latest iPhone.

    I think the first season of TNG is too easily dismissed

    It did a great job of feeling like a successor to TOS in terms of the ship design, uniforms, tech like holodeck, having a klingon serving etc.

    It gave insight into the geopolitical state 24th century and what advances had been made. It felt very futuristic with ideas like cured common cold and cancer

    It utilized familiar TOS aliens like Klingons and Romulans while creating new interesting aliens of its own with the Bynars, Harada, Conspiracy aliens, Q, Ferengi

    It had a wonderful sense of awe and imagination really embracing cool sci fi ideas and fun action adventure

    I realize I’m in the minority but I thought there were a lot of good entertaining episodes to be found like Naked Now, Code of Honor, The Last Outpost, 1100101, the Battle, Lonely Among Us, Datalore, Arsenal of Freedom, Conspiracy, Neutral Zone, When the Bough Breaks to name a few. Even the weaker offerings weren’t awful like Angel One, HomeSoil. True TNG didn’t strive to do some epic season long arc. It just set out to tell fun entertaining hour long standalones but bottom line I found them more entertaining

    I also thought ENT for all the missteps it would have its first season was pretty solid. I thought pretty much its first 11 episodes were decent along with Dear Doctor and shuttlepod one if not good to great doing a good job conveying a more realistic touch to space exploration

    It did wobble in the middle but picked up towards the end with episodes like Detained and Fallen Hero

    DS9 relies too much on TNG in season one. The standalones are hit or miss but mostly miss with crap like The Storyteller, Move Along Home,Q-Less, battle lines, if wishes were horses, the forsaken, dramatis personae

    There were some good TNG like episodes— Past Prologue, Babel, Dax, , The Passenger, in the hands of the prophets

    Then a mediocre stuff like Vortex, The Nagus. That werent bad but just not very engrossing

    VOY has the best pilot but then as a series it was pretty much downhill from there. Season ine was definitely a mix bag. The good was most definitely Kate Mulgrew and Janeway. There were some decent outings like Time and Again, Cathexis, Faces, Phage, State of Flux. I enjoyed Seska and the kazon

    But there were a lot of underwhelming episodes—Jetrel, learning curve, parallax, ex post facto, the Beowulf Holodeck episode,

    The problem with PIC is it had a good start with the first three episodes and introducing plot elements but once they left Earth they left behind the most interesting characters and started dragging things out and when they finally started to get somewhere the payoffs were pretty much bad from theBorg cube Mystery to the alliance of synthetics to the zhat vash resolution. The La Sirena crew did Nothing for me

    The sad thing is the shoe has interesting ideas but these writers didn’t know what to do with them in an interesting way

    DIS was so bad I couldn’t finish the first season and haven’t watched it since with no regrets only trek series that ever happened with

    And for all the talk about shorter seasons making better television and serialization is better storytelling shows like DIS, PIC and non Trek examples—Manifest, Helix, V 2.0, The Event, Life on Mars, the 4400,Daybreak to name a few show that to be demonstrably to be hogwash I’m sure there are others I’m glossing over that can be added to that list

    So for all the talk of more time to write and less grueling production schedules I find that 26 episode seasons and episodic shows under a fast paced schedule worked better and that speaks more to the taker of the writers and show runners back then like Michael Piller

    As far as these MysteryBox seasons go the best ones imo were
    Heroes S1 which was pretty much a near perfect example of this storytelling format and I might add did so doing 24 episodes
    Lost S4/5 again excellent examples of how to do well Mystery Box seasons if you’re absolutely determined to do them

    And while the third season of ENT itself was too drawn out and the arc itself could have been told in probably 12 episodes rather than drawing it out to24, id argue the xindi arc was much more interesting, entertaining and compelling as well as creating a much better mythology surrounding the Xindi and sphere builders than the one on PIC with theBorg, Romulans, synthetic alliance. It also resolved its mysteries and threads with pretty strong payoffs and resolutions

    @ Booming

    "Ok sure but what would they achieve by doing that? They would lose contact with their alpha quadrant part and make it impossible to ever sent ships there at a later point. An episode about the Dominion trying to deal with the prophets would have been nice. Weyoun and the Wormhole Aliens. Bajorans dealing with the destruction of their gods would have been interesting, though. True. "

    You're assuming that the Dominion retaliating and wiping out the Prophets would destroy the wormhole. That is not necessarily the case. Not going to argue the physics of the wormhole or anything, just saying that the results of Prophet genocide would be entirely up to the writers of the episode(s) where it happened, and my main gripe remains that there was no real consequence for that intervention. Only a vague statement that "The Sisko" would find "no peace" on Bajor, which never really happened because apparently it was always his destiny to stop Dukat in the fire caves. Yawn.

    I really hate the whole overarching plot line if I'm being honest, but it could have done better if they insisted on having it, that's all I'm saying.

    @Dom and @Trent sum the expectations I think quite well with regard to serialization and the decades of television to draw from to create a quality show.

    It really begs the question then what the “excuse”, if there is one, for PIC not to even come close to the requisite high bar set. Too many writers in the kitchen? Too many producers? Chabon himself mentioned in a recent interview that he wanted to “provoke” a reaction. Sounds like a political agenda?

    I think it’s fair to say the writers have reached back into Trek canon to bring in many Trek references, so there’s an attempt to stay true to Trek. It could simply be that CBS is merely cashing in on the Trek franchise by dosing enough nostalgia to keep the Trek fans at bay but to attract a larger audience with a darker, more “melodramatic”, less plot-focused product. One would say that is what Disney is doing with Star Wars (to be fair, Rogue One and the Mandalorian are quite good diamonds in the post-Lucas rough).

    @ Trent

    "Modern writers also have more access to science articles, science fiction prose, and a back-catalogue of Trek episodes which provide pretty clear lessons on what works and doesn't, and what pitfalls to avoid."

    They might have access to them (science articles) but they damn sure don't use them.

    In fairness, neither did 90s Trek. TNG maintained the illusion through the first four seasons or so, generally trying to at least pay lip service to real world scientific principles, but by the 6th and 7th seasons they were every bit as guilty of the "magic particle of the week" nonsense that made Voyager's technobabble so bloody painful to listen to. DS9 was probably the best in this regard, if you set aside the first season, they generally ignored technobabble or used it as an in-joke (self sealing stem bolts)

    I don't actually care if Star Trek remains grounded in real world science but they do need to remain consistent to the rules of their own universe (Voyager failed miserably at this) and not make a total mockery of science, the biggest two examples of which would be Generations with the instantly killed sun (speed of light what?) and JJVerse Trek with the supernova that was going to destroy the entire galaxy (say what you will about Picard but at least they retconned this nonsense to one solar system)

    @Tim
    The wormhole was constructed, probably by the prophets. I'd assume it would not be stable without them. But they could make up stuff. Sure. I must agree that the story about Sisko, him being a prophet and all, was not good. The same goes for Dukat who in the last seasons became mustache twirling evil guy.

    I think the first overarching plot about Bajor worked pretty well. The war went off the rails at some point. It is questionable that they used a huge war because our protagonists have to be forced in more and more situations of importance where they shouldn't be present. For the Bajor arc it made sense that many thing revolved around the crew/Sisko and DS9 because DS9 was the most important installation in the system and Sisko the highest officer, effectively the most powerful non Bajoran.

    @ Booming

    "About the AR-558 episode. I have problems with that one too. But more because it is too pro military for my Star Trek taste. Nog admiring the hardened soldiers, Quark in the end giving up his anti-violence stance."

    Those were actually the redeeming parts of the episode for me, which I guess goes to show that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, lol. :)

    Nog's words and actions in that episode felt completely in character for a Young Cadet (or was he an Ensign by this point?) whose head is filled with words like "duty" and "honor" (paraphrasing Riker here)

    Quark was always at his best as the outside observer of humanity and his monologue in this episode was probably my favorite moment of his in the entire series, perhaps only equaled by his discussion with Garak in "Way of the Warrior"

    @ Tim
    What bothers me on a deeper level about Kurtzman/JJTrek is that they do not even respect basic scientific facts. The super nova was an example and in the last episode you could see the Romulan ships from the planet. That is just nonsense. Again and again there are scenes where, if you have a basic understanding of science, you will notice stupid stuff that is only there for the wow effect.

    @ Booming

    "The wormhole was constructed, probably by the prophets. I'd assume it would not be stable without them. But they could make up stuff. Sure."

    The wormhole does whatever the writers say it does. Sisko decided to wear brown shoes today and that caused the wormhole to implode. Whoops. (Yes, that would be pretty stupid, but they could have written it if they were so inclined)

    Point being, there should have been some sort of consequence for the Prophet's intervention. I outlined one idea but by no means is that the only way it could have gone. What they did though, ugh, it cheapened the whole thing to me, it was a true deus ex machina in my mind, only ever referenced once again in the episode where Jake and Kira are possessed by demons and angels fighting to bring hell/paradise to the galaxy, and ugh, just writing that sentence makes me roll my eyes.

    "The same goes for Dukat who in the last seasons became mustache twirling evil guy."

    Ugh, I'd blocked that out of my mind. Yes, they took the person who was arguably the more complicated villain in Star Trek history and turned him into a one dimensional mustache twirling bad guy. Why? Just why?

    "The war went off the rails at some point. It is questionable that they used a huge war because our protagonists have to be forced in more and more situations of importance where they shouldn't be present. For the Bajor arc it made sense that many thing revolved around the crew/Sisko and DS9 because DS9 was the most important installation in the system and Sisko the highest officer, effectively the most powerful non Bajoran."

    The war should have lasted one season -- tops -- and the seventh season should been devoted to the exploration of Bajor, which (aside from the religious nonsense I hate so much) was seemingly forgotten about by the end of the series, even though Bajor was the whole point of the series in the first place!

    @Marvin, Honestly the answer could be more mundane and just that for whatever reason the ingredients that went into Picard didn't gel correctly. I get the sense that both for Picard and the Star Wars Sequels the studio decided it wanted a franchise story first and the writers didn't quite know what to do. The SW Sequels were infamously not planned out - Disney was in such a rush to make them that they didn't stop to figure out if the story was any good. Picard feels similar. It doesn't quite feel like it knows what it wants to be. By contrast, a successful show like BSG feels very confident. It's got a clear tone, aesthetic, sense of direction.

    @Tim, the consequence for the Prophets helping Sisko was that Sisko "died" at the end of the series. It's not an immediate consequence, but it's sure a steep price to pay.

    @ Dom

    "the consequence for the Prophets helping Sisko was that Sisko "died" at the end of the series. It's not an immediate consequence, but it's sure a steep price to pay."

    Except that "sacrifice" was apparently pre-ordinated from the time Sisko was immaculately conceived by the Prophets.

    @ Tim
    Sorry didn't see your other post in time
    "Those were actually the redeeming parts of the episode for me, which I guess goes to show that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, lol. :)"
    I not only meant Nog but everybody there. If you have read accounts of people during WWI a far worse and longer lasting situation then what the these officers went through you will find the characters not very realistic. It may sound crazy but in such a situation people adapt fairly quickly. German soldiers weren't wearing parts of French gear around their necks or where all like crazy motherfucker. It is no surprise that the episode borrowed from US war movies about WWII like Hell Is for Heroes. Also in the end the Federation wins and fresh soldiers arrive and we are served some Jingoistic line from Sisko: "We held." to which the neckless guy says: "That was the order." *eyeroll* It would have had a stronger message if the Dominion had won and the Federation had to retreat.

    @Tim, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. I can't remember offhand when that was made apparent. I think it might have been the Reckoning episode or the Season 6 finale, but I do remember the show drawing more of a link between Sisko's fate and the Prophets intervened.

    @Dom

    "By contrast, BSG and Expanse - and Westworld and Altered Carbon etc - didn't have the benefit of a popular brand name like "Star Trek.""

    I think you can argue thats actually a blessing for those shows. They have a little more freedom to take their show in certain directions if they choose, without the looming shadow of what came before.

    Also, I rate TNG low, not because every episode is bad, but because I didn't find the cast any fun to watch at that point.

    "How would you write a Jurati courtroom scene to be any different than a random Law & Order episode?"

    I dunno, I'm not a high-falutin' teevee writer. Maybe have Maddox's daughter be the hotshot prosecutor and argue against Picard's insanity defense. After the opening statements the judge winks out of existence and is replaced by Q. Oh shit!

    "Well well, what have we here? Please proceed, Jean-Luc, and tell me all about how murder is acceptable when it's one of YOUR crew."

    If the writers can't think of a way to make it interesting, then just drop her off at Deep Space Twelve and say buh-bye. Have her come back in season 3 if they haven't already found another Tilly to replace her with.

    --------
    "By contrast, BSG and Expanse - and Westworld and Altered Carbon etc - didn't have the benefit of a popular brand name like "Star Trek.""

    I think you can argue thats actually a blessing for those shows. They have a little more freedom to take their show in certain directions if they choose, without the looming shadow of what came before.
    --------

    Good point Tommy. It's much easier to see the grass greener on the other side when shows do not have Star Trek tag to them. Altered Carbon, for one example, often resembles blood-squirt city meets porno-fest town and I can hardly imagine it would be talked of highly if it had Star Trek tag. The show called Altered Carbon, as it's known today, would not exist. (I do like Altered Carbon by the way, nothing spectacular, but a decent show to watch for what it is)

    @Tommy D., sure, there's some truth to that. The Star Trek name comes with certain expectations. It's definitely harder to suspend disbelief when you as a viewer think you know what the show should be. But Trek also comes with a built-in fanbase. Many people here have been honest about the fact that they probably wouldn't have given a show of the quality of Picard as much of their time but for the Trek name. There's a whole discussion about whether or not Picard adheres to the values of the Trek franchise, etc, etc, but most of the negative comments here, and much of Jammer's reviews, have just focused on basic issues with the writing. You can argue about nostalgia and the optimistic values of Trek all you want, but this is a show that arguably can't even do a proper setup and payoff.

    Tim said: "They might have access to them (science articles) but they damn sure don't use them. In fairness, neither did 90s Trek. TNG maintained the illusion through the first four seasons or so, generally trying to at least pay lip service to real world scientific principles."

    A writer of Trek styled SF (as opposed to hard SF) should read as much science stuff as possible, not to get the physics right, but to constantly fuel outlandish ideas. The more novel things you are exposed to, the more novel your writing is. Sometimes the slightest piece of weird information can spark an entire story or concept.

    Remember, Trek has always been a bit closer to Weird Fiction than "actual science". It's literary ancestors primarily wanted to indulge in formal experimentation. To find new ways of telling stories. To play games with narratives. To do weird, cool stuff. Making one's story "scientifically plausible" was often an afterthought, something sorted out at the last hurdle.

    Which is not to say that Trek can't also do "hard SF", but I don't think it ever has. It mostly bounces from pulpy action to sociological tales to little fables/allegories, or in most cases, if we're being honest, a kind junky mishmash.

    From the other shows mentioned here BSG is the best. A good show, not great even though sometimes it was the very best of TV.

    The Expanse is a not as good as BSG. BSG was very efficient in creating a believable world and the Expanse sometimes has the "everything happens in three to five rooms problem" and like DS9 in later seasons it suffers a little from the need to insert the characters of the Rocinante into anything that happens. It also had a very weak lead (the captain of the Roci; he is not a good actor, like a walking xanax)

    Westworld is an okish show. Visually probably the best of the four mentioned and an interesting setting. The three main problems for me were that they wanted to say violence/exploitation against/of robots is bad but they also somewhat used these very scenes in a way that either bordered on torture porn or voyeurism (TITTIES!!!). Another problem was the squeeze out the narrative. The walking dead, once a good show, is the worst perpetrator of that. At some point I just notice that a show is purposefully constructed in way that it could go on forever. And the biggest problem is that Westworld is the most pretentious show I have ever seen. I jumped ship in season 2.

    Altered Carbon is a bad show. Admittedly, I only watched 2 episodes. I was bored all way through. Cliched, boring, sloppy, manipulative. Nope. It is the one of the now many subpar netflix shows. Where you just wonder: How does this stuff get the green light???

    In that list STP would be between Westworld and Altered Carbon. STP looks good for the most part, it has a warmer color palette than Discovery which is mostly because a lot less of it happens in space. The acting is sometimes good sometimes bad. The soundtrack is at the same time obnoxious and bland, which is quite an accomplishment. The characters are often flat out bad or if not then they are inconsistent (Raffi bad, Raffi good; Jurati murders, Jurati cures) or cliched (Latino=football). The story is an utter mess. It tries to make a statement about refugees and beings who are different but botches that so badly that it kind of makes the opposite point.

    Having Picard die, let everybody cry about it, and then immediately bring him back as a robot so that if Stewart doesn't want to or can't continue they can just use another actor is such a cynical corporate move. I could not believe it at first. And bringing back Data so that somebody would actually die because it is the end of the season felt manipulative. Discovery for the most part did it's own thing (in season 2 less so) but STP is like a tank driving through the Star Trek archives.

    Patrick Stewart demanded that every aspect of Star Trek had to be changed or he wouldn't come back (So yeah it is Star Trek, just completely changed) and apparently Chabon wanted to do something else entirely but had to do a doomsday plot. Never good to force a highly talented artist to do stupid. No wonder Chabon left after season 1.

    If people enjoy the show. Fine, but a part of me died somewhere in season 1 of STP. I have finally accepted that NuTrek will never be for me.

    Oh, as a show B5 is better than BSG. And while BSG isn't among my favorites I could agree it comes in among the best and better than any of the Trek series. If we're talking about shows as a cohesive whole and not a collection of episodes.

    @ Karl, if

    - Ronald D. Moore did a reboot of Babylon 5 like he did for nBSG
    - with Joss Whedon in charge of casting,
    - and The Expanse showrunner Naren Shanker in charge of the sci part of scifi

    Then indeed, Babylon 5 would be the greatest show ever made :-)

    Booming, try to get a cheap copy of Kim Stanley Robinson's "Aurora", "Green Earth" and "Red Mars", for good SF novels with a sociological/ecological bent. With your occupational background, I think you'd like them. For a great first contact story, and mind-bending aliens, check out Peter Watts' amazing "Blindsight".

    I too am disappointed by all the highly touted SF shows on TV. But prose science fiction still has a few auteurs doing great work.

    Also start back reviewing Orville. Season 2 is much better.

    A few more words now that the series is over that I couldn't fit in anywhere else:

    1) STP is proof to me that actors don't always understand their characters as well as we might think they do. Just because Stewart played Picard 20 years ago doesn't mean he has a handle on the character or on the way it should be portrayed and in which context it needs to operate. Not only actors, sometimes creators themselves, especially as they get older, lose sight of what made their creation special. Prime example for this would be George Lucas with Star Wars.

    2) I feel really sorry for those guys who now need to add the claptrap of STP season 1 as official canon to the Trek Wiki pages, the same way I pitied those who needed to add Discovery's "contributions" to the lore. I've been trying to think if there is a comparable example of a beloved franchise that was repeatedly bombarded with canon inanity as Star Trek is in the last couple of years. I sincerely feel that these new Trek show diminish Star Trek as a franchise with regards to its themes and history. The people who handle these shows have a responsibility, but being the hacks they are they botching it over and over again. It's like watching a bunch of thugs beat down on a helpless animal. You want to avert your eyes, but you keep watching because you really hope that the animal can get back up and kick them in the face.

    Check out The Critical Drinker's YouTube video about why Star Trek Picard failed. I often find him overcritical but he makes a lot of good points. I can't deny anything he's saying and it shows why this show pales in comparison to TNG.

    @Booming

    "Patrick Stewart demanded that every aspect of Star Trek had to be changed or he wouldn't come back (So yeah it is Star Trek, just completely changed) and apparently Chabon wanted to do something else entirely but had to do a doomsday plot. Never good to force a highly talented artist to do stupid. No wonder Chabon left after season 1."

    Where is the proof of this? Because according to The Critical Drinker on YouTube it went quite differently, with the writers shoehorning Stewart in to an already existing plot, to sell the Trek idea they already had.

    @Booming
    "What bothers me on a deeper level about Kurtzman/JJTrek is that they do not even respect basic scientific facts."

    Star Trek always did that to a degree.

    The difference is that Classic Trek usually maintained an *illusion* of making sense. They cared enough about the science to keep a good front (usually).

    KurtzmanTrek has simply degraded to comic book physics, to match their comic book plots and comic book characters.

    @Geekgarious
    "If this show were as good as a show like The Expanse, we wouldn’t be arguing over whether or not it’s Trek."

    You're probably right.

    Because any writer that can create an Expanse-level show would understand the importance of world-building and having a consistent universe. Also, such a writer won't rush into doing Star Trek unless they seriously and genuinely want to write Star Trek.

    These two problems (bad writing and "non-Trekiness") are mostly two sides of the same coin.

    @Tommy D.
    "I think you can argue thats actually a blessing for those shows. They have a little more freedom to take their show in certain directions if they choose, without the looming shadow of what came before."

    How do they have more freedom?

    CBS has made it clear that the words "Star Trek" pose them no limitations at all. Kurtzman is doing whatever the hell he wants, and the fandom (with a few pesky exceptions like yours truly) is accepting this without any problem. Heck, many fans are actually PAYING MONEY for this to happen.

    Let me ask you this:

    Are there ANY circumstances at all, which will cause you to say "Nope. They've crossed the line this time. I cannot accept this as Star Trek"?

    I'm seriously asking. And if your answer is "yes", then I'd love to hear a concrete example of what would cross that line in your view.

    For what it's worth, my opinions on non-Trek sci-fi shows:

    The Battlestar Galactica reboot is easily the best of all the shows mentioned. It got memorable characters, social commentary, and good production values. I wouldn't say it's perfect (some of the later Cylon reveals come out of nowhere), but it generally stays interesting throughout.

    Babylon 5 he a good script, but really bad production values. I love a lot of what the show does, but the war with the Shadows ends a bit too abruptly and the show loses steam after that.

    The Expanse is very good on world-building and has some great plot threads. The characters aren't bad, but aren't imo as memorable (except for a few like Avasarala and Bobbie). I agree with Booming the lead actor is weak, but he gets better over time. What I really appreciate about the show is how it can just spend a lot of time showing the crew trying to resolve relatively minor problems (like Star Trek used to do). Also its commitment to realistic physics makes it stick out .

    Westworld is style over substance. Great acting, directive, etc. But it's the ultimate mystery box show. If that's your thing, great. I found myself not caring after a season.

    Farscape is fun and goofy. The final season gets a bit too convoluted for its own good. Sometimes the humor is a bit too juvenile and the episodes a bit too wacky. But I respect its creativity.

    Firefly is probably the best sci-fi show about a band of rogues. The dialogue is consistently funny and clever. The production has held up pretty well. It's not high-brow philosophy, but it is very enjoyable.

    Altered Carbon has a great premise (what if technology allowed people to transfer to new bodies). It's sometimes a bit too violent and "grim" for my tastes, but - unlike nuTrek - that darkness serves a clear thematic point about the disposability of life.

    I only saw the first season of Defiance. I liked it, but not enough to really hook me. I liked some of the characters, but the bad CGI and some of the other plot threads made me check out.

    I've only seen a few episodes of The Orville. I know everyone says it's the true heir to TNG, but the wildly inconsistent tone and joke attitude are throwing me off. I might try to go back and watch more.

    Overall, despite the failure of nuTrek shows to take off, there's plenty of good science fiction on TV.

    The useful thing about a forum like this is that it brings it home that there are enormous differences to what different people see when they are looking at precisely the same thing, what they hear when they listen to the very same sound.

    For me this series, while it had its flaws, was enjoyable, and a good beginning, with a standout performance by Patrick Stewart, adding additional complexities to the character he developed in previous outings, in a throughly convincing way, and effectively reinforcing the humane ethos of Startrek - which in our present emergency just happens to be particularly relevant.

    But obviously to others the whole series has been a disaster, and Patrick Stewart's
    portrayal of Picard a travesty. It's the same way that two people will look at the same painting, and one sees a daub and the other a masterpiece. Or the same meal is delicious or repellant.

    Again, I look at people extolling The Expanse as an example of what a scifi series should be, and others saying The Mandalorian is thoroughly enjoyable and really worth watching, and I find those things incredible from the limited exposure I have had to both series.

    However I'd never say they are wrong, just because they see something different from me. I think we should always be ready to accept that where people see something of value in where we cannot, the balance should be tipped provisionally in favour of the positive view rather than the negative.

    @SC
    It is from a Chabon interview:
    " It’s all in keeping with the mandate Chabon says Stewart gave him and his team, to make “Picard” as different from the actor’s first “Trek” series as possible."
    "So now, we have this clear mandate from Patrick for “Picard”: Anything we’re going to do on this show, whether it’s bringing back another legacy character or a key plot element from “TNG,” whatever it is, it can’t be the same as it was"

    If you want to read it yourself: https://variety.com/2020/tv/features/michael-chabon-star-trek-picard-1203544717/

    If that's the case then Stewart was wrong. You should go and watch The Critical Drinker's video on why Picard failed. Everything he says makes sense.

    @Booming

    That's just Chabon trying to lay the blame for this disaster on Stewart.

    If you look at the interviews from the beginning of the season, you'll see a very different story.

    @Lynos
    "I've been trying to think if there is a comparable example of a beloved franchise that was repeatedly bombarded with canon inanity as Star Trek is in the last couple of years."

    Star Wars?


    "It's like watching a bunch of thugs beat down on a helpless animal. You want to avert your eyes, but you keep watching because you really hope that the animal can get back up and kick them in the face."

    It's worse than that.

    It's like watching a bunch of thugs who are beating down a helpless animal on youtube, and are getting all their ad-revenue from animal lovers who can't avert their eyes.

    @Trent
    "I've only seen a few episodes of The Orville. I know everyone says it's the true heir to TNG, but the wildly inconsistent tone and joke attitude are throwing me
    off."

    Well, it's easy to be called "the heir to TNG" when there isn't any competition.

    There's nothing currently on TV that remotely resembles the Star Trek of old, except the Orville. And the tone - indeed - isn't for everyone. I personally love it, but i can see why many Trekkies would hate it.

    Hopefully, we'll have more options in the future.

    @SC
    No my cup of tea. I prefer the RedLetterMedia reviews. Can't wait for their final one about STP

    @SC

    I saw Critical Drinker's review and while he made a powerful point that if your season is one story, it had better be a good one, he, as usual, got too wrapped up in the myth of a conservative-friendly Star Trek of old.

    Noteworthy how he and others who say that previously Star Trek was always previously even handed and "let you make up your mind", never actually cite any episodes to demonstrate this. I can do it. 'A Private Little War', 'The High Ground', 'Sanctuary'. But they never seem to be able to. I will of course also cite episodes like 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield', 'The Last Outpost', 'The Neutral Zone', 'Bar Association', 'Far Beyond the Stars', 'The Drumhead', 'Forces of Nature', which were just plain preachy.

    I really think those seeing this show as some sort of leftist propaganda are probably messages in the colour of the point. Stewart gets 80 seconds to make a message about refugees then the show moves on, and even outright contradicts him. Really, this show would be so much more improved if it actually did tell a political message. But it's far too incoherent for that.

    @Glom, absolutely. I'm convinced the "politics" around Picard and Discovery are less about the contents of the show and more about the marketing. Classic and 90s Trek were pretty objectively progressive, yet the writers and actors didn't spend as much time advertising that fact. By contrast, Chabon, Stewart, and others have gone on record as saying Picard would partly be a response to right-wing populism. That means now many liberals feel compelled to defend the show no matter what, while many conservatives attack it no matter what. Regardless of the fact that the show itself does very little with those themes. The cynic in me thinks triggering political reactions is all part of CBS' marketing strategy. Ironically, the people I know best who were disappointed with the show are progressives who mourn the fact that the show muddled its themes.

    @ Dom

    I admit I have not watched a lot of modern Sci Fi shows. I quit on BSG after season 2 because it became too convoluted for my tastes and I lost interest. I never made it past the first few episodes of Babillon 5, it looked like a cheap rip-off of Star Trek (people tell me I missed out). I have no watched any of the shows you mentioned except for Altered Carbon, which I ditched half-way through season 1 because I grew tired the constant grimness and violence and lack of appealing characters (I read the novel it's based on, though, which is much better).

    I do like The Orville quite a bit, but as you mentioned, it still haven't found it's tone, even though season 2 showed improvement. I would of course take The Orville over any of Kurtzman's horrible Trek shows.

    For me the best Sci Fi series of recent years is The Mandalorian. It's everything that STP isn't. It's scaled back, simple, imaginative, and its faceless protagonist elicits more sympathy than the entire crew of the La Sirena times two. If not for the very last episode of the season which falters a bit, it would be a perfect show.

    @Lynos, I love The Mandalorian but I'd put it more in the "space fantasy" category than science fiction. I otherwise agree. It's a pretty simple show, but it knows what it wants to be and does it well.

    I guess you're right.
    I do want to watch The Expanse at some point, though. The positive feedback I've been hearing about it is reaching critical mass.

    I would probably not make it very far into Discovery or Picard if it didn't have the name Star Trek attached to them.

    @Dom

    Writing by triggers is a subset of writing by checklist. That is good or bad triggers. Like having Riker have a badass moment. Doesn't matter if it's stupid, the fans will love it. And having provocative political content will get the right wing snowflakes frothing and watching so they can complain about it for longer than the actual political content lasts.

    At the other hand of the horseshoe, you have Steve Shives who is virulently partisan, and something about his mid-season review made me think that he wasn't just saying he enjoyed it, but saying it with defiance as if to preach, because if anyone was going to see liking this as part of the culture wars, it would be him.

    It's probably also worth noting that back in the day, the availability of information from the writers and show runners isn't what it is today. It may be that had the Internet and social media been like today back then, the show runners would have come off just the same. Rewatch the scene in Caretaker where Kim and Paris first report to Janeway. The first of many moments of discomfort for Harry Kim comes from self-consciously lampshading the gender of the captain.

    @ Dom, I agree with your analysis (except where you imply that anything might have been better than Firefly ;)

    I'll just add that some shows - including Gene's shows - actually suffered because they went on for too long. Had they been cancelled after 1 season, they would have been considered pretty awesome.

    Certainly better than season 1 of Picard.

    Take Andromeda, which @ Jammer has reviewed. Season 1 of DROM is better than Picard.

    Take Earth: Final Conflict, which had a great season 1 - certainly better than Picard season 1.

    Take Space: Above and Beyond, which had an incredible run, but was cancelled after season 1. Way better than Picard. Is anyone on Picard half as amazing as Col. T.C. McQueen??

    Even the short-lived nBSG spinoff called Caprica was fresh when you compare it to Picard. Caprica's cast was amazing, and the AI girl there, Zoe Graystone, could run circles around Dahj/Soji.

    So whether you take the miniseries that started nBSG, or the first season crazy madness that was Farscape, or frankly the uneven run of season 1 of DS9 and B5 - each show showed so much more potential than Picard has.

    When you watch season 1 of the Expanse, even when it is slow, you can sense it is something unlike anything you've seen before. Under-Secretary Avasarala is truly one of the great scifi characters of all time!! And certainly she is the greatest female authority figure in any show. Way more command presence than Janeway.

    Same with The Man in the High Castle season 1. The cast is incredible. The premise is mind-blowing.

    I don't know what is wrong with Star Trek?!?!

    But Picard, Discovery, and Enterprise before that - even in season 1, everything feels old and tired and pointless. There is no wonder. Nothing is fresh.

    Say what you will about season 1 of TNG, and you can say a lot. But every moment was wondrous. Back then the sky was the limit.

    There was still hope.

    Picard is... hopeless.

    @Glom, I agree. I think though there's a difference in how writers and show runners in interviews address these topics. We as a country are just more polarized and are quicker to interpret everything through the lens of politics. There's a lot of political psychology research showing that if you tell people a particular idea is affiliated with a particular political party, that will actually shape their attitudes towards the idea. Democrats were less likely to want a mission to Mars when Bush proposed it. Republicans hate Russia - until Trump cozies up to Putin.

    I think we're just seeing the same phenomenon in pop culture. Stewart says Picard will deal with refugees, and so people start forming their opinions of the show based on that rather than the content. To my recollection, we didn't have Berman and Braga doing hundreds of interviews saying that Voyager was going to depict the sexism women in the workplace face, etc, etc. They just depcited it in the story.

    @Mal, I forgot to mention Man in the High Castle and Caprica. The first season of MitHC was some of the best TV I've ever seen. Unfortunately, I think the show kind of lost itself in getting too convoluted and bombastic. Caprica is an underappreciated gem. Really clever take on the Cylons. The show dragged a bit in the middle, but I'm so disappointed it was canceled.

    I haven't seen those other shows so I can't comment on them.

    I don't wanna put everybody down (at least not those who dislike this show), and I brought this topic before, but really, the mainstream media is loving this show. If you just go by mainstream media outlets, the new Trek shows are... fine. They're fine. And sometimes they're great, not fine. I mean, we can bitch and moan on Jammer's website an in YT comments, but at end of the day, what counts is the ratings and the mass media response to these shows. STP is right now at 87% (!) on Rotten Tomatoes (audience score of 61%, which is interesting). But Discovery was slammed by so many Trek fans and more casual viewers and it is heading into its third season and at this point can be counted as success for CBS. CBS would not pour so much money and renew the show if they didn't think there is an audience for it.

    Quite depressing.

    Oh goodie!!

    Ranking Star Trek series first seasons!

    We should all preface this by being thankful we have so many to rank.

    I love and have watched them all at least 4 times (minus Discovery and Picard), but rank we must!

    Here is mine. I've rated all of them here except TNG and Star Trek.

    1. Star Trek - Not even debatable. 26 episodes and only 2 or 3 are "not good". Laid the foundation for 60 years if syndication, 13 movies, and 6 spin-off series.
    2. Voyager - Grossly underrated season.
    3. Enterprise - Almost rated as high as VOY. Suffers from "not what I wanted" syndrome but includes some great trek.
    4. Discovery - My highest-rated season 1, but I don't think I can really compare it to a 20+ episode season.
    5. Picard - Saved by a great opener and closer.
    6. The Next Generation - Any series that can include "Code of Honor" can't be higher. Just not good at all. It was just kind of there. Remember, TNG benefitted greatly from not having any competition early in it's run.
    7. Deep Space Nine - Folks forget how bad this was early on. I rated it WAY lower than the others. I almost stopped watching it.

    The idea of Man in the high castle was interesting but I found the two leads maybe worse than Jim Jimerson or whatever the name of the Captain from the Expanse is. He (the doubel agent?) isn't good but she (Bambi) is a complete flatline. Somebody who should be in telenovelas at best. She started as a model like so many mediocre female actors. She is very pretty. I guess that is something.
    Apart from these miscasts I thought the secondary characters were actually far superior. The evil Nazi, the Japanese minister and so on.

    @ Lynos
    I only read a Guardian review which was far from positive which wasn't included in the rotten rating. So who knows what gets included form critics
    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/mar/27/star-trek-picard-is-the-dark-reboot-that-boldly-goes-where-nobody-wanted-it-to

    And let's not forget that a tomato means that the reviewer found it be above average to best. Quite a few of the reviewers give it a B, 3/5 or 3/4. A movie with a 100 rotten score can still be an ok movie. Also many reviewers get 4 review episodes and write their review based on that. And if you look at the ratings for individual episodes for the last three episodes (Nepenthe has 100%) it is: 76%, 75, and 63% for the last.

    It is also difficult to compare user and critics rating because the critics use individual scales or none at all (they just say liked it or not?; who knows how rotten counts) while the audience has the same scale for everybody. Also audiences can only rate the entire season.

    So probably not a big mainstream conspiracy. :)

    I've started to think that, in general, the proliferation of reviews and opinions on virtually everything has sucked the joy out of TV and movie-watching. People need space to form their own opinions--after all, whether *you* like a show or movie is the most important thing, IMHO--without being smothered by everyone else's comments.

    @Boomer
    I've stopped putting high value on audience reviews on RottenTomatoes since the incident of losers trolling Captain Marvel before it was even released. People with an axe to grind like to weaponize online comments and it's a sad commentary on the state of our society, IMHO.

    I of course find it encouraging if most people do like the series. Not because I see that as confirming my judgement, but because I think it deserves to be appreciated.
    .......
    Thinking back on earlier episodes It occurs to me that perhaps both ways of understanding the nature of the Admonition may have been wrong. Perhaps it was neither a warning to organics nor a promise to synths, but rather, a trap for both.

    I suspect that the invaders, if invited in, might well have treated the synths no different from the organics. After all, the last time they were here it didn't end in a galaxy full of happy synths. In fact it didn't seem to make any particular difference to the evolving humans and Klingons and Vulcans and so forth, there was clearly no galaxy wide wipe-out of organic life.

    I'd suspect that there is no multi galaxy wide federation of those lads, but rather a much smaller operation, unable to get into the galaxy without a path being opened from inside (rather analogous really to the way vampires have to be invited in, but with a different mechanism which any sf writer could knock up easily enough.) They are basically con-merchants, using the synths who naively believed the craftily constructed Admonition. As did the equally naive Tal Shiar, who put the synths in the
    mood to fall into the trap.

    Omicron said: "Booming is already reviewing season 2 of the Orville. He doesn't seem to like it any more than season 1. "

    lol, I just read his opinions. In my mind, Booming's an angry German sociologist professor ("Nein, I do not buy zis, Macfarlane!").

    Surprised he didn't like some of those episodes at the tail end of S1, or even the low-key S2 opener. I hope he enjoys "Home"; I found that to be a really sweet but simple episode.

    Mocking fellow commenters based on personal information they devulged in their past comments is rude. Can you please stop doing that?

    @Omicron
    Do you mean me? I don't mind. In Germany they train feelings out of us in kindergarten. :) As my always measured and logical responses have proven.

    @Trent
    Professor... that would be great. Good pay, a nice office and no need to do anything but read and write a little. German heaven.

    And about my views on the Orville so far. As stated I like it more than STP. Not a high bar but still. The problem is that Macfarlane pitched this thing as a comedy but probably wants to make TNG: today. It often feels disjointed. I did not dislike it and I bought season 2. Ok, that's 50% on Corona but still.

    I'm also not angry. Germans just state their opinion very openly. This is probably not true but that's how we like to see ourselves: Nobody likes us because we are too honest.

    They say the problem between the Italians and the Germans is that the Italians respect the Germans but don't love them and the Germans love the Italians but don't respect them. Why do I mention this somewhat interesting little info that seems to have no real connection to what I was saying and will never be mentioned again because this is the STP forum!

    @Booming
    I always felt the Dutch also have a charming--and at times hilarious--directness as well.

    "In Germany they train feelings out of us in kindergarten" Don't you mean on Vulcan?

    Actually they used do that in England too at a later stage of education. But only for the men, which means that having mixed schools these days has rather disrupted things.

    But of course there's no question of "just state their opinion very openly." The Way of Absolute Candour would never have a chance in England. Or indeed anywhere in the British Isles.

    Thirdspace

    Some special tech opens a gate and is the only way some evil species can come in and destory us all. These destroyers seem about that and the synths are being conned to do what it takes to let them in.

    @Gerontius
    I wasn't serious about the train out emotions thing. :)

    About your con hypothesis
    Doesn't make sense. If some evil alien just wants to be notified/have a portal then why not just say: "Built this thing and candy will rain from the sky and there will be much rejoicing" and address this all to organics who in almost all instances will likely reach your green glowy thing before synthetics will.

    Also shooting a beam into the sky to somehow destroy everything is like any marvel movie ever.

    These aliens must be extremely powerful considering that they can move stars around. Another explanation would be that it all has no meaning and they write it as they go along. Like lost...

    @Booming
    "The problem is that Macfarlane pitched this thing as a comedy but probably wants to make TNG: today."

    Not exactly.

    It's more of McFarlane's personal take on the optimistic space opera genre. He was obviously inspired by Star Trek, but he is also doing many things differently and he is doing that on purpose.

    Perhaps if you stop expecting it to become TNG, you'll enjoy the show more?

    The Orville feels more like late Voyager than TNG in terms of its tone and sensibility. I enjoyed season 2 a lot, it was much more character-driven and there were only 3-4 bad eps. I felt in season 1 that the human characters didn't work as well as the alien characters, but by S2 the whole ensemble is an enjoyable group of people to spend time with. Gordon irritated me in S1 but I mostly loved him in S2 - they rounded his character out a lot more.

    While we're discussing other sci-fi
    - Love B5, but it's only really solid for a year and a half: from halfway through S3 to the end of S4. Seasons 1 and 5 are a write-off, and season 2 is good but inessential.
    - BSG... though I liked many individual episodes and watched it avidly through to the end, I don't like it as much as most people seem to. I think the first half of S2 was its high point. I enjoyed the increased experimentation in S3, but really, this is a show that presaged the modern tendency for constant Big Twists for twists' sake. The show pulled the rug out from under itself three times - at the end of S2, the end of S3 and the end of S4. S4 had a lot of strong individual episodes, and I adored Katee Sackhoff's performances and Starbuck's plotlines throughout the series (Maelstrom speaks to me hugely to this day), but by the final season the arc writing was all over the place. I haven't rewatched it since it finished. Another thing about it was the tendency to have characters constantly pull guns on each other, and it sometimes felt like the show was written from a perspective of "what's the most shocking thing that could happen in this situation?". The cast was AWESOME, though, across the board.
    - Farscape: I saw most of the first season as a teenager and never got past it because it was really bad. I'm told it gets better later? Certainly lots of people I respect seem to love it.
    - The Expanse: I loved seasons 1 and 2 but lost interest during season 3. Part of the reason for this is, as others have pointed out, the weak main character. The worldbuilding and plotting was so engrossing and well-done in seasons 1 and 2 that it didn't bother me that none of the Rocinante characters were that strong. And Alex and Amos are more compelling (and better performed) than Jim and Naomi, the two leads. The second half of season 3 fell flat for me in terms of the plot and characters, and got worse when they brought a season 1 character back as a head-character like Six in BSG. I missed characters like Avasarala and Fred Johnson. I haven't watched S4 because I don't have Amazon Prime anymore.
    - Earth: Final Conflict is indeed great. After that I believe it gets very choppy; only seen a handful of episodes from S2-5.
    - I haven't seen Westworld, Altered Carbon or The Man In The High Castle.
    - Firefly is another sacred cow I'm happy to slaughter. I though the characters were fantastic, all of them. The concept was pretty good too. But season 1 was two-thirds filler, which was a terrible choice. It has a great pilot, a couple of good episodes in the middle, and a good finale. But there are a ton of fluff episodes padding the rest of the season out which sank the show for me. The "Mrs Reynolds" episodes in particular are diabolical. I'm continually surprised people rate it so highly. And I thought the film was a mess.
    - I haven't watched all of The Mandalorian yet but I really like its economy and grace. It tells a story in a classic filmic way that I thought modern shows had forgotten how to do. The score and editing are great, the whole thing just feels sincere and cohesive, and like there's an actual consistent creative vision behind it.

    Actually there's no way of knowing whether the people who moved those stars around were the ones who left the Admonition. Actually in the first season The Last Generation there's a long gone species who evidently was able to move stars around. It could be that they took advantage of something that was already there for some other reason.

    My point essentially was, there is no reason to assume that everything or indeed anything the Admonition contained was true, or that those who planted had any intention to protect synthetics. "The idea devil is the father of lies". The suggestion of a gigantic trap planted to gain access to the galaxy is just that, a hypothesis. It would be easy enough to imagine other reasons for the Admonition.
    ..........
    The Orville is tongue in cheek a lot of the time, but the same has always been true of much of Star Trek. In fact that presence of touches of humour, even in episodes which are quite serious, is one reason who The Orville does feel like a Star Trek series. It's not just the decor on the spaceships and the uniforms that make it seem o, it's the tone.

    @Gerontius

    I quite like your twist idea for the Reapers. That would be quite at home on TOS.

    Still, it's telling how head canon people are having to add to address the storytelling shortfalls. Honestly, I think you're putting more effort into this than the actual writers.

    Omicron said: "Mocking fellow commenters..."

    Booming knows I'm not mocking him. Booming is my spirit animal, like Chakotay and his pokattah.

    @Glom "Honestly, I think you're putting more effort into this than the actual writers."

    Not really - I've started watching old Star Trek episodes as part of my lockdown regime, and I'd watched that episode only the other day. The reference to a star moving civilisation leapt out at me. I doubt if the writers of Picard had it in mind - the idea had been used by Arthur C Clarke a few years earlier, and probably by other writers too.

    Just finished watching an old episode of TNG season 1 on Netflix and it just drove home how much STP sucks.

    Hate-watching STP while downloading it off torrent and not paying for CBS All Access has been fun and all, but give me a good TNG episode with a skinny data and skinny Riker in their prime instead of these fat tubs of lard doing cameos for fan service any day. Give me Picard's sanctimonious monologues in his prime instead of his feeble old-man speeches. Give me Wesley and the pedo time traveler over Tilly in this dumpster fire. Shit, I'll even take a Keiko character episode in DS9.

    Don't get me wrong. I'll definitely pirate season 2 of STP and enjoy hating every minute of it. As long as Netflix continues to carry TNG, I'll have something to come back to for recalibration.

    What else am I going to watch? The new Fran Drescher show, "Indebted," airing on my local NBC station Thursdays at 9:30/8:30c, in which young parents Dave and Rebecca, who are ready to reclaim their lives after years of diapers and sleepless nights, take on the unexpected challenge of taking in Dave's parents, who show up unannounced and broke, leaving Dave with no choice but to open the door to the two people who gave him everything. But these boomerang parents aren't great with boundaries, and the question of who's parenting whom quickly becomes blurred. That show?

    @ Gooz

    I hope you're kidding.

    I might not be a big fan of Keiko, but I'd watch her nag Miles for a whole episode rather than a sitcom starring Fran Drescher.

    "feeble old-man speeches.".....

    I imagine the first season Next Generation episode that might have appealed to Gooz would have been Code of Honour...

    @Gooz

    I have commented on this topic in previous episode threads but will do so again here since it has been brought up in such a nasty manner. Disparaging someone for their weight is inappropriate and mean-spirited, not to mention counter to the spirit and message of Star Trek, especially TNG. Say what you will about the acting, the writing, directing, having to pay (or in your case illegally download) to watch these shows. But attacking someone’s body and appearance is wrong and only contributes to what I view as the decline of our society.

    I applaud these aging actors for appearing as they are, save Brent Spiner who’s character required de-aging. None of them went on unhealthy diets to slim down or got work or Botox to look younger. They presented themselves as they are. None of them appear the same as TNG season one. Hell, they all ages by season 5! But that’s how we all are! We all change and age over time.

    So criticize the production of this show all you want, Gooz. But making personal attacks is uncalled for and only makes you out to be a sad, nasty person.

    @OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

    Are there ANY circumstances at all, which will cause you to say "Nope. They've crossed the line this time. I cannot accept this as Star Trek"?

    I'm seriously asking. And if your answer is "yes", then I'd love to hear a concrete example of what would cross that line in your view."

    Interesting question. The best answer might be, I don't know. I never finished watching Voyager or Enterprise during their original runs (I finished them much later). But that was more due to personal taste and timing rather than crossing a line.

    Does anyone have a line? Perhaps you do, but then, even amid all the criticism we all know everyone will be watching Discovery S3 and Picard S2 for whatever reason suits them.

    As for writing for the show, I don't know how much freedom Kurtzman and CBS give them. Maybe I'm looking at it through the lens of the fanbase and not as a writer would. Consider that I watch Westworld, and in 2+ seasons I don't think I've read once that the writers are desecrating Michael Crichton's vision or what have you. And that show has its own issues at times. It just doesn't come with the kind of constraint that Trek does.

    While people are talking about it, I find The Orville to be a manipulative derivative of 90's Trek. Its familiar, comfortable, and even smart at times. And I enjoy it for the most part. But in my mind, thats not Star Trek either.

    ^^^
    " And I enjoy it for the most part. But in my mind, thats not Star Trek either"

    That should read " Its not Star Trek either"

    Thank you Jammer for your excellent reviews, as always! I think I disagree that the 'point' was to send off Data, or at least, if that was the point, I think the writers didn't manage to focus on this theme very well. Still, it's an interesting take, and maybe I'd feel differently if I had seen Nemesis.

    I read that both Riker's and Data's appearances in the finale were part of the reshoots.

    I wonder what the test screened version was like.

    I agree with a lot of things Jammer says in his review. The Picard/Data scene is four stars. But I’m not willing to cut the show and writers the kind of slack he is for the poor pacing and uninspired writing in the rest of the hour or the rest of the season.

    The Picard/Data scene is just a few minutes long. Kudos for the writers being able to be good writers long enough to script that but the idea that as long as they give us one good scene that it’s okay to meander and provide half-realized ideas and falter on payoffs by giving us one good scene then I strongly strongly disagree.

    Good writers should be able to do it all and give us the Picard/Data scene. I’m never going to budge on expecting more from the show

    There’s no excuse with the budget they have, the salaries they receive, the prep time they get that they can’t come up with better writing. If the season arc is just a MacGuffin then jettison it and do episodic shows

    If the arc has too many elements to do justice to them trim it down and focus only a few and do them justice

    I don’t buy this notion it’s alright to have the audience invest in these mysteries or plot threads only to at the 11th hour do and about-face and say it really wasn’t about those things it was always just about this one scene.

    I've been avoiding posting on this episode because I didn't really know what to make of it. It's like a Frankenstein's monster of seemingly unrelated parts all linked together, and crowned with a totally out-of-tone ending (jn a good way). Reading Jammer's review heartened me a bit to post something, because having read how he framed it the episode is actually not as difficult as I thought to summarize. Basically it's 40 minutes or so of typical ST: PIC, fragmented, perfunctory, large-seeming arc threads and characters brushed aside in an instant, with some of it being frankly - in Jammer's words - dumb as rocks. But then the ending brings it back to a real storyline that gets us back to something I could care about. So basically I agree with Jammer's review, but with one significant proviso.

    While I did like the Picard/Data scene much more than all the scenes preceding it combined, and while I do think this was a worthy thematic topic to explore, there are two things that I feel stopped me getting swept up in enthusiasm:

    1) The convoluted and mostly irrelevant plot hurtling us, or somethings sluggishly dragging us, through 10 episodes seems not to logically conclude with this scene with Data. Oh, sure, it's most welcome, but it does not in any way feel like the inevitable conclusion that follows from the rest. Rather, it feels like another random emotionally charged excursion into one of countless threads that had been opened - this one in the pilot. It's not that it was illogical or out of nowhere, but likewise it wasn't quite out of somewhere either. They could have done maybe 20 different ending scenes, each of which would have made us go "oh, *that's* what it was all about." And that's the thing about the mystery box: unless it's masterfully crafted it's really little more than a shaggy dog story; one which can end in literally any way and seem like it might as well have been that as anything else. This was a *good* choice for that ending, but not a necessary one, and that's a problem. I'm not saying I needed to be able to guess the ending in advance, but even looking back in hindsight I really can't see how *this* is what we were building towards during all of these side-stints into conspiracy theories, ancient prophecies, and impending doom. So I got no sense of finality from the scene, since it wasn't really the 'finish' to most of what we'd been watching. I should reiterate that this isn't an armchair analysis; I really didn't feel that connection to our main plotlines.

    2) Although this is a 'classic' TNG-type scene where two people speak intelligently about something important to them, where I disagree with Jammer is that I don't exactly feel that this is a top-notch one. It's quite good, and I did have some feelings of pain and warmth during it, but at the same time it had a bit of that PIC feel of overstating things that in TNG were oft implied or let to sit more subtly. I do like that this had the chance to be Data's final act of trying to be human; for that I'm grateful at least.

    But here's an example of what I mean about brevity sometimes having more power than a long conversation: In Deja Q, an otherwise fun romp, Data does the selfless act of saving Q from the Calamarain. Still damaged in sickbay, Data has the experience of being unable to speak while Q tells him that while he's 'missing nothing' by lacking human emotions, Data is still a better human than he is. Data's only possible response to this is silence, and to look over (presumably at Crusher) to share his powerlessness to answer. This is so strong, it gets me every time! Here we have a machine knowing he did the right thing but truly not understanding the gravity of having nearly sacrificed himself for a galactic troublemaker, and having no answer to the charge of being the better human even while having no feelings. It's a most curious scenario, and one that's uplifting at the same time as very sad, and it goes by so quickly. It's the *situation between them* that makes the contrast between them so striking: Q can be anything, and Data cannot be except what he is, and yet Data somehow has the ability for the more expansive human experience. Another episode that kills me is the end of The Offspring, when we see that Data is incapable of emotion at the death of his daughter - or is he? If he can grieve, it's in no way we know of. Maybe a tiny "save file" somewhere has her memory, which seems so tiny that it feels like not enough for her - and yet maybe for Data it's everything. Maybe it's a sad thing to have so much memory capacity.

    Anyhow these are situations where a moment in a scene can create immense emotional content using such simple exchanges, few words, and sometimes just looks, and they come out of the episode's context and the lead-up, but also to knowing that less can be more. So while this Picard/Data exchance is just what we had been hoping for - something intelligent finally - it's not just that it's too late, but it's also too coming out of nowhere. I don't have strong feelings about Soji, I don't have strong feelings about Picard being made immortal, I don't have strong feelings about android suicide exactly; so when the stakes become about a friend fulfilling another friend's request for death, in order to experience the final human condition (something already brought up, I believe, in Time's Arrow), these are interesting questions, but not ones I'd been primed to care about in any kind of context. If this scene had been filmed and shown as a 5 minute short, not part of the season, it would have had just as much relevance and impact on me. In a way that's good, because it was a good scene, but in a way bad, because it should have been great and instead lacked any lead-up to contextualize that punch. So yes, euthanasia: difficult topic. But in this case one that existed for us to care about only as long as this scene lasted, so structurally speaking it was another out-of-left-field thing charged with emotion (like the killing of Maddox, like Icheb's torture, like Juranti breaking down, like Raffi told by her son to leave) that is thrown at us for the sake of emotion rather than narrative drive. And personally where I differ from Jammer is that it's not the one good scene that justifies the plot leading up to it: it's the good plot that can justify the scene. Otherwise the scene just floats there and serves no real purpose in terms of story. And I do think everything should come down to the cohesion of the story.

    So basically I agree completely with Jammer that the Picard/Data scene would have to make the episode all on its own for this to be any better than a dumb-as-rocks episode. I just don't really feel it could or did rise to that level. It rose enough to make me care, but not enough to make me accept what had come before. This episode is pretty bad.

    PS - both space fleets looked only marginally better than the packed-in alien fleet in Space Invaders. They were copy-paste copies of a single crappy-looking model, arranged preposterously, that warped in just to sit there and basically not move, just so that we could get Riker leading the fleet of a lifetime. In fact I believe the writers outright knew they were cheaping out on the FX because they actually put into Riker's mouth that it was an entire fleet of one exact model of battleship. Let's please ignore the logic of why Starfleet would mass-produce exactly one ship, or having nothing but that model to send to DS12, or why they are producing warships in the first place; but it's just the sheer horrible lack of concern with the details that bothers me, because I think that image right there, of that cheap-looking fleet, speaks volumes about the care in general for the details on this show. "There's a fleet, yeah, yeah, you get it, anyhow RIKER RULEZ!!!" That's how all the episodes feel to me; blah blah details and plot, and BIG PAYOFF EMOTIONAL SCENE!

    I guess I will never again see fleet combat looking as clean and exciting as in DS9's 5th-7th seasons. I haven't seen anything in either TV or film to match it, and I guess maybe I never will...

    Rewatched this Sunday night with my wife. My opinion of this episode has improved a lot.

    Picard's death was impactful. I can see why the others reacted as they did, even knowing him a short time. They didn't know at the time that Picard would be reborn in a synth body.

    Jurati had her great hero moment. A little convenient, but what the hell. I enjoyed the banter between her and Picard.

    I agree with Jammer that the Blue Skies reprise retroactively made Nemesis better. Nice touch to bring Data's story to a close.

    I'm not usually one to watch show discussions, but Wil Wheaton is fantastic on The Ready Room. His love and enthusiasm for Trek is infectious. His interviews with the cast and crew reveal some nice details. And the other clips with guys like Kurtzman and Chabon show that yes, they get it. I may not always like the choices they make, but they know Trek, and they explain why they chose to move the story the way they did.

    I'm not sure if Kurtzman always understood Trek. I'm positive that he does now. And this is coming from someone who didn't like the 2009 reboot.

    Yes, this was a job for them, but it was a labor of love.

    Time for me to catch up on Discovery and Short Treks. Stay safe and healthy, all.

    @ Jammer
    As a proposal. Maybe you should think about adding a season rating for the new shows. Because of the structure of these shows your review of the last episode is effectively a reflection on the season and the episode. I think separating them would give a clearer picture.

    Oh (the word, not the character) and about your review. An interesting view. I disagree with most of it. :)
    To paraphrase: 40 min of garbage and one and a half good scenes = 3 stars?

    Jammer, yet another great review. Thanks for all ten reviews in fact.

    I echo Tim and The Chronek for their praise of The Ready Room and Wil Wheaton's enthusiasm (I mentioned it in my Nepenthe comment too). I found myself looking forward to his 25 minutes or so more and more each week, almost as much as the episodes themselves.

    Christ those Federation ships Riker brought were ugly. They looked like a hideous cross between Voyager and the Enterprise-E (both beautiful ships on their own). And since when are identical galaxy class ships being churned out in a production line like shuttlecraft? It just cheapens it, and you'd think a Dominion war-depleted Federation wouldn't have the resources - or at least that's what the show's been telling us.

    Actually, it's not just the design of the ships but the way they're done in CGI. Murky, dull, and indistinct. Reminds me of a videogame. We don't get a good look at them, and that's no surprise given how awful they look. What a shift from the glorious, epic shots of the ships we got in series past. I can't understand it.

    I was of course eager to finally read Jammer's take on this. I agree with some of it but not all. The series starts with a good scene between Data and Picard and ends with a good scene between Data and Picard. Those scenes are about 10 minutes all put together.
    Why did we have to go through the other 9 hours and 50 minutes is beyond me. This could've been an amazing movie if done right. But setting your sights on this Data/Picard thing and then proceeding to bombard us with inanities for most of the runtime of the show does not make for good TV or storytelling. In other words, I'm not giving the show the slack that Jammer seems to give it.

    I also think there was missed opportunity with Picard's resurrection. Imagine if there was a moral dilemma there. If Picard would be facing this option and deliberating it. The fact it was done against his will is completely brushed over. And as long as you're putting him in a synthetic body, why give him only 10 years... so silly.

    I agree with what Peter G. and Startrekwatcher said. It was a missed opportunity for some fascinating drama. Also, this show retroactively turns Nemesis from a relatively obscure Star Trek film to essential companion piece. I disliked Nemesis when I first saw it but my opinion changed with subsequent viewing and I now consider it underrated. If only this show was executed better it would've been a fascinating continuation. Recall that Nemesis also dealt with the Romulans...

    I find myself agreeing with most of what Jammer said, yet unable to give the Picard-Data scene the weight he does. As Peter G, Lynos, & Startrekwatcher already said, this show doesn't feel like it's "about" Picard and Data saying goodbye so much as scenes about Picard and Data bookending a whole bunch of other stuff. In addition to the issues they mentioned, here are three more things that limited the impact of the final scene for me:

    First, we knew Picard wasn't going to die, so the scene kind of felt emotionally manipulative. CBS had already announced Picard Season 2, so we knew Patrick Stewart's Picard wasn't going to die. The last episode had also prominently mentioned the golem and so anyone familiar with Chekov's gun would have realized it would be used for something. Putting two and two together, it seemed pretty clear they were either going to resurrect Picard or Data. Until Picard died, I thought it would be the latter.

    Second, there was no cost to Picard's resurrection. Soong essentially cured death and nobody seems to notice. In most of the great stories about mortality, the hero usually faces some cost for coming back from the dead, either the loss of a loved one or some physical deformity. The point being that resurrection shouldn't be cheap because humans have to learn to accept death. Instead, we get a lovely scene in which we hear Data and Picard talk about the importance of accepting death, and then Picard gets a "get out of jail" free card while he leaves Data to die. Golem!Picard is the exact same as the Picard who just died (Soji even makes a point that they programmed all of his elderly infirmities). Why not instead limit the technology in some way? Perhaps, like Data, the skin color isn't exactly right, so this new Picard looks somewhat less than human. It would have been fascinating if Picard had been resurrected, only for him to resemble his Borg self, Locutus. Is that a tradeoff he would be comfortable with?

    Also, as long as we have golems and as long as we have Data's memories, why not create another golem and resurrect Data?

    Finally, Data in this scene just looked... different somehow. The contact lenses look very fake and his pupils abnormally small. His face looks puffy (perhaps a result of the "de-aging tech" they surely used). It was distracting. He was clearly wearing a wig and it didn't look like the hairline was properly aligned. I realize Brent Spiner has aged and perhaps there was no alternative, but the overall effect was very distracting.

    This review feels a lot like what I felt about the episode and wrote about in an earlier post... except for one small difference.

    The scene between Picard and data was brilliant and yes, it was up there with the some of the best of Star Trek. It is hard to believe these writers (who blatantly ripped off video games for their main plot) were capable of It.

    No, what really sold it were the performances, particularly, Brent Spiner. To so easily drop into character after such a long hiatus, and to do so in the same episode that he played another version of another character for whom he derives showcases what skill the man has as an actor. It was not just how he delivered his lines, it was that he recaptured with seemingly no effort all the very same mannerisms that made data so memorable in the first place.

    I’d forgotten just how robotic data really was. How cold and distant ( for lack of better words) but not in the strictest sense of the terms. There was always this separation between us as and him. You can see it in his reactional non- reactions. The way he tilts his chin to process the things we process emotionally so fluidly and instantaneously. The way he makes it seem like he has to crunch the numbers to understand the things we process so easily, the signals we send an receive so readily. It’s the way Data lifts his head as he’s BC about to make a point and then tilts it down or to the side to give it emphasis. So not quite human... and yet so very human.

    In being so self aware, so cognizant of his limitations, and yet so unwilling to accept them... in using the only tools he had available (the power of his mind calculate as a computer would, The power of curiosity and inquiry and study).... in his failure and successes and failures to grow not grow and grow...THATis what made data human. That is what Brent Spiner imbued the character with. That not quite so human humanity that elevated him to the most human of characters. That is what the scene captured so well.

    Where I diverge from Jammer is my forgiveness for the rest of the mess of the show. What he calls plots, I call tropes. This was a show that rarely cared about being interesting, and hardly ever became thoughtful. It borrowed every potential trope possible and stuffed them in all while assuming that nostalgia bait would make us not notice. Sadly, reading many of these comments, they were probably right.

    How you get there is as important as what happens when you’re there. This wasn’t a journey with a payoff. This as random trope set pieces built by committee, or lazy producers, who didn’t think anyone would notice or were too dumb to care because as long as it says Star Trek and tugs on our 90s nostalgia, we’ll pay for it.

    The reason the journey matters is because it should lead to the end. None of what happens in Picard leads him to that moment with Data. Picard was in a place where he would have wanted to “say good bye and give data a meaningful death” before this series started. That entire scene could stand alone as a 6 minute web short without losing any of its meaning or power...and honestly, might be better for it.

    If you’re going to create a character driven show based on the exploration of a character, 1) actually do that and 2) that character should finish in a different place from where he started based on what he or she learned along he way. Closure is fine as a working theme. But Picard could have had that closure without every single thing that happened along the way. Plot matters not because it supersedes story, but because it underpins and serves it.

    Great review, Jammer. You've zeroed in on the same feeling I had (far more eloquently): the central storyline of this season was always about Picard honouring Data's sacrifice. The pilot made it abundantly clear that Picard's primary motivations going in were a combination of survivor guilt, and needing to regain his lost self-confidence. Viewing the last ten episodes through that lens, I consider the story to be quite a success.

    Yes, as a lot of commenters here and elsewhere have noted, the show also spun out a *lot* of other story threads and most were not concluded satisfactorily. But stepping back from the frustrations of not being told a complete story (which, with a second season coming, may yet be resolved), a different question emerges: was I entertained by the ride? And will I buy another ticket?

    The answer for me is yes, on both counts.

    @Tim C, the way you phrased that final question I think might help illuminate some of the differences of opinion here. You ask "was I entertained by the ride?" As critical as I have been of this show, I'd probably answer yes, for the most part I was. However, the question I tend to ask myself is: "was this show worth my time?" Given that there are many, many other TV shows I'd like to watch before I die (I'm middle-aged), do I want to invest another 10 hours in this one? I think the answer to that is most assuredly no. If I have a choice between watching 10 hours of Season 2 of Picard and catching up on The Expanse, rewatching Battlestar Galactica, or even starting a new show, I'd do the latter. I increasingly find myself not looking for entertainment but rather faced with deciding between too many entertainment options. I don't think there's any right or wrong answer to which question you ask or how you answer, but I perhaps this might help illuminate where others are coming from.

    I also take umbrage against the series' attempt to retcon what happened in Nemesis as saddling Picard with guilt for 20 years,. Watch Data's death again:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GOumoL4MIQ

    Data beamed himself to Shinzon's ship and made an act of self-sacrifice to save his captain. Sure, I would get why Picard would be sad about it, but guilty? Why? He's an experienced starship captain. He knew the risks. He has respect for Data and i'm sure Data's sacrifice touched him deeply, but he's a professional military man. He lost men and women under his command. He lost Tasha Yar. Why isn't he guilt-ridden about her 20 years later?

    So as much as the scenes between Data and Picard that close out STP are well-written and well-preformed, they all revolve around a faulty premise that makes little sense character-wise. And again, at least if the writers made something interesting with the connection to Nemesis (after all, Shinzon's was Picard's clone, and Picard is now a clone of himself...) But it's just done on the most superficial and manipulative level to make you feel something.

    And also, I much prefer Data's death in Nemesis. He went out in an honorable way doing his duty as a starfleet officer, instead of having his USB's pulled out of the computer. If only this depressing scene meant something in the context of the show, if only the show did a proper set-up and then paid it off. If only pigs could fly (maybe in season 2).

    That the whole scene with Data happens made no sense. Let's think about what had to happen for this scene. Picards mushy brain gives up right in time, then they extract his "personality" into the thing in which Data's chamber of blandness exists and then they took him out of that machine and put him into the Golem. That seems unnecessarily complicated.

    Let's look at all this reasonably. Some have mentioned that the Data and Riker scenes were reshoots. Don't know if that is true but think about it, what would have happened without Data's death (sad, nostalgia) and Riker's arrival (audience cheer moment). Picard would have convinced Soji to not wipe out organic life then died, being resurrected and then they all stand on the bridge of La Sirena. Effectively nothing would have happened. The UberSnyth didn't come and Picard is the same. Only green Soji was disabled and Narissa fell into a dark nothingness (can come back). That is why these scenes are in there. So that something big happens: Data's death and Riker's fuck yeah moment.

    And people apparently love it. I personally found the scene ok but also disturbing. That Picard just decides after a short communication with somebody who lived in there for very long, who was probably alone for years or decades even, that sure Data is in his right mind. Let's euthanize him. For example the Netherlands have very liberal euthanasia laws.

    It specifies several things a doctor (not just some friend) has to take into account

    1. "The doctor must be convinced that the patient does it willingly and has thought about it long and deeply." We can assume that this is true for Data.
    2. "The doctor must be convinced that the situation of the patient is without hope and further existing would only mean suffering." Nope
    3. "The doctor has informed the patient extensively what his decision means." Nope
    4. "The doctor together with the patient agreed that there is no acceptable alternative." Nope
    5. "An independent doctor has to check the patient as well and then agreed with points 1-4." There is no medical personal involved. No medical doctor, no psychiatrist.

    So even in the country with the most liberal euthanasia laws on our planet Data's assisted suicide would be murder. But hey murder doesn't seem to be a problem in this crew, am I right?! :D

    Data just wants to commit suicide because he feels like it. Why not talk it over a few times maybe?! No! Pull the plug. Season one has to end with something big.

    I don't understand why Data's "data" is on a usb on the planet, if he exploded on the ship in Nemesis.

    But then it's clear the writers don't understand it either. At one stage Soong says something about "consciousness" being downloaded to or from a body. Which is just ridiculous. Thoughts and memories, perhaps, but not consciousness itself.

    @booming

    Your post, while a bit cynical, I think is ultimately correct. Remove the data scene ( well acted If not well written- let’s settle on well intentioned) and the Riker scene, you’re left with exactly as you described. A bunch of sloppy plots leading to a nothing of a confrontation and A deus ex machina ressurection. That sounds exactly like a Kurtzman inspired story if left to its own devices.

    Ultimately someone slightly (but not much more) thoughtful stepped in to add something. The data scene made up for in emotional weight (to a degree) what it lacked in intellectual. You’d assume a more thoughtful writer or set of writers would have allowed picard to react more viscerally to data being essentially isolated and imprisoned in the matrix of one for two decades. How brutal and sad that would be! If data is a conscious person, that kind of isolation would someone profoundly - even an android with a mind like Data.

    Unfortunately, the writers here are only a few steps above Kurtzman in their ability to think thematically. They go for the 2nd or 3rd lowest hanging fruit they can and they mostly succeed.

    @Booming, I was thinking something similar. I'm fine with euthanasia, but maybe spend more than 1 minute making that decision. Especially when, with golem tech, there was a way to bring Data back and give him a new body.

    Also, @Lyons, yeah Nemesis is a bad movie, but I never felt like I - or Picard - needed closure on Data's death. It was sad, but his death wasn't pointless. Unlike, say Icheb and Hugh's deaths, but that's another story...

    jammer's review really are pretty good, consistently so. I agree with his essential point that what matters are the scenes when Star Trek really delivers. That's always been the case - and I'm sure there's no consensus about what they all are. The rest varies between the very good and the pretty bad, but that's not what really matters.

    @Lynos
    Why give reanimated Picard only ten years? They didn't - lifespan is longer in the 24th century. They showed Bones getting around grumpy as ever aged 137... (and Patrick Stewart is a healthy 79, with two older brothers).

    Anyway, thank you Jammer for giving us this site.

    Here's my alternative pitchlet (it's not really a full pitch so it's a pitchlet).

    First episode. Picard is still in a funk over Data's death (yes their relationship has been ridiculously flanderised but that's true of all relationships on this show so just roll with it).

    He learns somehow that Data exists in a quantum simulation. He knows this at the beginning to avoid the absurdity of expecting us to invest in the death of a character we already thought was dead up until two minutes before the new death.

    He also learns that Data's consciousness is breaking down due to tech tech because tech tech isn't perfect and it's impressive he's lasted this long. Having the death be of "natural causes" avoids the photon mine of having Picard euthanise Data because Data thought it would be a laugh (get passed the earnestness of the scene and that is basically what happened).

    Data's location is currently unknown or at least difficult to reach.

    Picard must embark on a quest to search for Data before he dies for reals this time (rather than pulling out USB sticks that could maybe just be reinstalled?).

    Along the way, he has a few adventures that makes him reflect on stuff in a Picardish way.

    He finally finds Data before it's too late, but what he says and does when finally meeting him is different than what he thought he'd say and do at the start because of the stuff alluded to above. Incidentally, no need for Picard to die to enable this. This is a universe where androids exist, where mind melds exist and where androids can do mind melds. Coming up with an excuse to get Picard into the similation is not hard.

    Data passes away as depicted and it's a more powerful moment because it is actually paying off a personal story about Picard and no stupid AIpocalypse plot.

    Picard gets to say goodbye this time and gets closure.

    Picard returns home and gets killed by a grieving Geordi in a crime of passion because Geordi is angry that Picard didn't think to take him along.

    @Tommy D.
    "Does anyone have a line? Perhaps you do, but then, even amid all the criticism we all know everyone will be watching Discovery S3 and Picard S2 for whatever reason suits them."

    Everyone? No.

    I most certainly ain't going to watch it. There are others here who already stated that they've dropped out mid-season and/or they won't be watching any further.

    Besides, what kind of madness is declaring in advance that you'll watch something regardless of its content? That sounds awfully like a cult member speaking, rather than an intelligent consumer of entertainment.

    "Consider that I watch Westworld, and in 2+ seasons I don't think I've read once that the writers are desecrating Michael Crichton's vision or what have you. And that show has its own issues at times. It just doesn't come with the kind of constraint that Trek does."

    In theory that is correct.

    In practice, the Trekkies who say this are (unfortunately) such a tiny minority that the whole thing becomes irrelevant.

    The writers can do whatever they want and the junkies... I mean *fans* will gobble it up regardless of the actual content being served. Hence my statement that there are no actual constraints.

    "While people are talking about it, I find The Orville to be a manipulative derivative of 90's Trek."

    Why "manipulative"?

    Seth McFarlane is a hard-core Trekkie. Did you know that he made a Trek fan-film when he was a teenager?

    The Orville is a show created by a Trekkie for like-minded people. How on earth is that "manipulative"?


    "But in my mind, [the Orville] not Star Trek either."

    That was... unexpected.

    DIdn't you just say that no kind of content will make you say "this isn't Star Trek"? Are you now telling me that THE ORVILLE, of all things, is the series that managed to be the exception that crossed that line?

    The Orville is a million times Trekkier than ST:P or Discovery. How can anybody say that the latter two shows are Star Trek while the Orville isn't? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

    Unless we are - once again - resorting to classifying shows by their name while ignoring their content?

    @ Gerontius

    "Why give reanimated Picard only ten years? They didn't - lifespan is longer in the 24th century. "

    I guess so. But I still find it silly that you transfer a human being's... consciousness? (echoes of Altered Carbon here, even though in STP it's never really explained or is there any effort being made to establish it as part of the universe)... and then just slap an extra tenner on it just for kicks.

    I mean, in Altered Carbon you are essentially immortal unless your "sleeve" is destroyed alonh with your "stack" (your consciousness). As much as I find Altered Carbon problematic, at least it sets up a consistent universe with consistent rules which are explored in a consistent way.
    That's what's so maddening about STP. They toy around with these interesting ideas but are not doing anything worthwhile with them. They just slap them on and expect us to accept it. So now you can download consciousness in Star Trek into artificial bodies? This is huge! It's a friggin's Pandora's Box. It's like in Rise of Skywalker you can now resurrect people from the dead using the Force. Big Ideas demand serious consideration, not this kind of slipshod treatment.

    Now you might argue this will be explored in season 2, and that may be the case, but having it be the end game of season 1 without any proper set-up and worse, no character development on the part of Picard with relation to it... it's written as a plot twist when it should've been the moral core of the story.

    So much potential in this show, so many interesting ideas that were raised, and they did nothing with it.

    Very intriguing review and take from Jammer that this whole season was about Picard and Data death closure (so to speak). It does make sense; however, what a bizarre way to go about it with 99% subterfuge for 1% of the objective. Is that good writing? I'm not so sure it's advisable to put the viewer through 10 hours of up and down tertiary stuff to entertain for 5 mins. of a nice, meaningfgul coda.

    Yes, the final scenes between Picard and Data were the best part of this middling season finale but I feel Jammer overrates them -- but to each his own and I respect his opinion obviously. "It's a true work of art that's the stuff of Star Trek greatness, and I would put it up there with some of the best scenes in the history of the franchise." I don't thin these scenes compare with the ending of "The Inner Light" or when Picard says "We have engaged the Borg" or when he gets tortured and doesn't give in to Madred in CoC II etc.

    For me there was too much silliness in this finale, as I've already mentioned, but the final scenes with Picard and Data were touching but as for my viewing experienced, I was already slightly pissed off with what I had to get through to reach this stage, so as I said it didn't really move the needle for me.

    Take an episode like "Cogenitor" as an example -- mostly easy-going but there's something afoot building. And then we get an incredible climax when the cogenitor commits suicide and Archer rips into Trip. That is what the point of that episode was but it built beautifully to that clincher. This PIC finale did not do that and so the payoff for me didn't achieve the effect the writers went for.

    Nice, touching ending for PIC S1 but largely unsatisfactory for me.

    I'm bowing out, I can't take Star Trek seriously anymore. The reason Kurtzman gets a bad rap is because he's a marketing man, he's hired to get viewers on board by using previously loved characters along with a bunch of new ones to establish the potential for a new series. The goal was never to tell a great story, that much is obvious. One sliver of a good scene between Picard and Data out of 10 wasted hours isn't enough for me to stick around. The rest of it was an utter mess and absolutely pointless.

    Some are of the opinion that 100% of the writing of the show is bad. Given some people (I speak of no one in particular) cannot brook disagreement with eve 1% of their own opinions, the notion (seized on by several commentators) that just perhaps those 6 minutes, roughly 1% of Picard season 1, were great, might literally not compute.

    If you're 100% sure something is 100% bad, how do you factor that 1% into your reasoning? Hopefully, you are generous enough to recognize differing opinions as valid.

    Not to mention, it never works the other way around. People who have already criticized Jammer for giving 3 stars to an episode that is 1/9th great and the rest so-so, I have a question for you. When you see a movie with a really horrible ending or one stand-out bad scene, surrounded by greatness, do you not give that scene mathematically disproportionate weight in your mental review? Of course you, and millions of people who saw Thelma and Louise, Signs, and The Sixth Sense, and many other movies, do. Just as there is no one correct definition of "What is Star Trek," there is no correct definition for how to evaluate an uneven piece of entertainment.

    At any rate, I agree with Jammer that the coda with stands with any of Star Trek's finest moments, in terms of its ambition and its execution. Most of the rest of this episode had lazy ambition and sloppy execution. There have been enough fitful really good moments in season 1 to make me hopeful for the future. (I wonder if people who assured us Season 1 would end with an intergalactic synth apocalypse, can admit to themselves their prediction was wrong? Don't bet on it).

    What really matters when assessing the "whole is or is not the sum of its parts" issue is what Jammer posted about ratings. Words of wisdom, that continue to ring true even after 25 years (Happy Anniversary, Jammer!):

    "The star ratings are not meant to be absolute, especially not between different series (and sometimes not even between different seasons of the same series). It's a relative scale with a certain amount of built-in uncertainty. I try to be consistent, but that's probably impossible given the wide range of tones and intentions behind the different series/seasons/episodes/movies — not to mention my own changing feelings and attitudes spanning some 25 years, and the different circumstances surrounding when and how the reviews were written. It's an art, not a science. Rating scales are overrated anyway."

    Everyone's feelings change, as do tones and intentions and attitudes. These changes confirm that we are flawed humans, and allow for legitimate differences in expression of opinion.

    I hope everyone stays safe during this dangerous time.

    After reading Jammer's review I totally agree on the lameness of the evil tentacles coming out of the wormhole. Totally cheesy and unnecessary. I don't know how much it would have improved the overall story but it would have been better if nothing at all happened, or something happened that a little more ambiguous or ominous (changes to the lighting, inexplicable sensor readings, etc.) I ultimately don't think it served the story very well and it would have been more interesting if it was left more as an open question. I mean, you can still argue that we don't know what those tentacles were but they were clearly designed to look Evil and just looked cheesy.

    Great review, Jammer. I like that quote you use from Roger Ebert, about plots versus stories. I always thought that Nemesis, for example, had a decent plot but it was severely lacking in the story department. Conversely, TMP had a good story but its plot was a banausic series of events before the ending.

    I also agree with you that the decision to make this story revitalize Nemesis instead of retconning it out of existence is a huge coup. Another company like Disney would likely spin-off a show from already popular TNG properties such as "The Best of Both Worlds" or "First Contact" or even just do a straight story from "All Good Things" and bring Q back. It was a daring decision to choose a quiet and thoughtful episode like "The Measure of a Man" and spin that into an arc while fixing an unpopular part of the franchise's legacy. Whether you think the writers were successful with this risk, you have to admit the writers have stones to make a gamble like that.

    @doritera
    "Not to mention, it never works the other way around. People who have already criticized Jammer for giving 3 stars to an episode that is 1/9th great and the rest so-so, I have a question for you. When you see a movie with a really horrible ending or one stand-out bad scene, surrounded by greatness, do you not give that scene mathematically disproportionate weight in your mental review? "
    Yeah well, a good movie with a bad ending is obviously almost always preferable over a bad movie with a good ending.

    "I wonder if people who assured us Season 1 would end with an intergalactic synth apocalypse, can admit to themselves their prediction was wrong?"
    Literally nobody thought that because if that had happened then the show would be over. Some thought that there might be some big space battle at the end which there kind of was. Orchids attacking the Romulans. By the way for people who didn't notice the names Dajh and Soji are named after orchids and the great attack things were also orchids. Get it?! Yeah me neither.
    Well it wasn't like the ending of Discovery season 2. Good job Alex.

    @doritera

    (I wonder if people who assured us Season 1 would end with an intergalactic synth apocalypse, can admit to themselves their prediction was wrong? Don't bet on it).

    Erm, it did end with intergalactic synth apocalypse. That's what those things that were a cross between Matrix sentinels and the flying things in Thunderhead in Skyward Sword were.

    @Doritera
    "Not to mention, it never works the other way around. People who have already criticized Jammer for giving 3 stars to an episode that is 1/9th great and the rest so-so, I have a question for you. When you see a movie with a really horrible ending or one stand-out bad scene, surrounded by greatness, do you not give that scene mathematically disproportionate weight in your mental review?"

    Mathematics has nothing to do with it.

    A rating needs to address the quality of the whole story. The effect of one good/bad scene on the overall rating should depend on the impact of that scene on the story.

    I'll say that the Picard/Data scenes, as good as they may be on their own, actually damage the story. We had all these threads and mysteries and plots, but in the end the show tells us "Ha ha! None of that even matters. We were just keeping you occupied with nonsense because we had only 5 minutes worth of good material".

    That's not good storytelling. In fact, that's terrible storytelling. So yes, people are baffled by how such a disjointed mess (and Jammer fully admits that the entire season was a disjointed mess) can earn a 3-star rating.

    @Chrome, I take your point about spinoffs, but in a lot of ways I came to the opposite conclusion. "Measure of a Man" and "Offspring" are very popular TNG episodes. Also, this past season of Picard couldn't help dip into the Borg, and at least as much a spinoff of "Best of Both Worlds" and "I, Borg." I'd argue despite the fact that the Borg really serve very little function in the overall story. Soji could have been stationed on pretty much any research station.

    I'm not complaining that the Borg were involved. Having a giant Borg artifact was kind of a neat bit of "unexplained lore" and makes for a more interesting setting than a generic starbase. But I can't help but see it as fixating on the more popular aspects of TNG for the sake of fan service. You mentioned Disney, but one thing I give Star Wars TV shows credit for is not indulging in too much fan service during their first seasons. Mandalorian didn't have a bunch of cameos from characters from the films, and I respect it for that.

    I will say this: the attention to TNG lore in the show is amazing. Naming Troi's daughter after her hidden sister, etc. The writers took a lot of TNG lore, even from unpopular episodes, and made it all seem like part of the galaxy. The writers do deserve kudos for that.

    @OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

    "Everyone? No.

    I most certainly ain't going to watch it. There are others here who already stated that they've dropped out mid-season and/or they won't be watching any further.

    Besides, what kind of madness is declaring in advance that you'll watch something regardless of its content? That sounds awfully like a cult member speaking, rather than an intelligent consumer of entertainment."

    Perhaps thats why I observed that you may have a line that has been crossed. But we'll see of course. Time and time again folks will say they won't watch anymore, only to return, if only to have their opinion heard.

    "Why "manipulative"?

    Seth McFarlane is a hard-core Trekkie. Did you know that he made a Trek fan-film when he was a teenager?

    The Orville is a show created by a Trekkie for like-minded people. How on earth is that "manipulative"?"

    You're right. Manipulative was a harsh choice of a description and perhaps an incorrect one. Yes, I know these things about Seth. I find that the show tugs on a lot of the strings of the nostalgia of 90's Trek, which is part of the draw, but I find it unoriginal. Again, thats not to say I don't enjoy it, because I have.

    "DIdn't you just say that no kind of content will make you say "this isn't Star Trek"? Are you now telling me that THE ORVILLE, of all things, is the series that managed to be the exception that crossed that line?

    Please direct me to where I made that statement. This is now twice you've done that.

    "The Orville is a million times Trekkier than ST:P or Discovery. How can anybody say that the latter two shows are Star Trek while the Orville isn't? Sounds like a contradiction to me."

    The contradiction there is fueled by your own statement, not mine.

    Unless we are - once again - resorting to classifying shows by their name while ignoring their content?"

    I probably should not have written that to be honest. The What is Trek argument isn't a particularly meaningful one. As I've said before, I do enjoy The Orville, and I guess in part because it does riff on so many of the Trek elements from the past, and at times does it well. Does that make it Trek? Perhaps its something I should reconsider.

    So, Jammer: Animated Series and Short Trek reviews coming up next? You know this site is incomplete without those.

    Jammer essentially excuses an episode (and by extension, the series) that wastes the audiences' time for 9/10 of its running, while rendering 9/10 of the series nugatory, for the sake of one worthwhile scene at the end.

    As predicted, pretty much the entire story thus far ended up in the garbage. Why did Soji have amnesia? What was her mission? Why was Maddox "on the run" when he could have lived on the synth colony in safety? What the hell is up with the Romulans? (the helpless refugees of one episode have a ginormous Dominion War level armada in the next?!)

    Best not to dwell on such minutia. Plots don't have to make complete sense , or some sense or errr... any sense at all whatsoever.

    I will say this: Data's death was well-done. Like everything else in the story it disintegrates under the slightest inspection but the emotional core was satisfying and the performance by Spiner and Stewart was nice so I'll take whatever scrap I can from what was otherwise a garbage fire of a series.

    Jammer,

    It seems we both felt the same watching this season.

    In short, I thought the first episode was really well done, and the last one was. As you so eloquently put, that's all that really mattered.

    Great review as always. Stay home and may you and yours stay CV free!!

    @Glom (pitchlet)
    I definitely laughed at the ending, nice! I'm not sure how serious you were about the rest, but I do think there was a conscious effort to make the new show about the new crew. I guess your "extra adventures" could fit that bill.

    @others
    I've gone on record claiming the show managed a pretty good 2nd Act for Soji (and to some extent Picard himself) in Epi's 6-7. I'm now trying to imagine, what if her 3rd Act could somehow be tied to "letting go of Data" more explicitly?

    A satisfactory version would probably require extensive rewriting, but maybe even something as simple as, her positronic matrix is required to enter Data's weird netherworld. Maybe it has to be an android "made from Data". It's revealed that they tried this with B4, and something went wrong and B4 "died". Sutra wasn't willing to risk it, because she's an asshole. Soji also isn't willing to risk it at the start - still the displaced teen, can't view Data as an actual father worth this sort of risk. But after Picard has risked all for her people, she's willing to risk herself to reach out to find Picard's consciousness and Data in his weird netherworld. There could also be some sense in which Data, after seeing that his progeny can carry on his legacy, feels ready to pass on. Would tie into his quest for humanity, I think.

    I don't know, probably lots of holes in all of this and would require cutting some earlier schlock, but maybe it could have been nice.

    The climactic Data scenes didn't wow me, mostly because a part of me is always aware that scenes like this only exist due a kind of logistical necessity; Spiner can't play a robot who doesn't age, and no longer wants to anyway.

    Also, Picard's lost countless crewmen, witnessed the deaths of whole planets, and his friendship with Data always seemed to have a professional and somewhat distant air. I don't see Data's sacrifice in "Nemesis" as being something that would overly traumatize Picard, and certainly not decades later. Indeed, Picard would have celebrated Data's death; it's a very Federation, very loving and noble thing for Data to have done.

    Similarly, upon finding Data alive in a USB, I don't believe Picard would have so readily let Data commit suicide. Yes, Picard would not violate Data's personal wishes. But Data informs Picard of the existence of "golems" and "body transfers". Picard would have argued with Data a bit, and tried to get him shunted into a new body.

    (incidentally, Data's knowledge of Jurati, the golems etc, seems unbelievable. Is the show implying that Jurati and Soong are communicating with Data and telling him what's going on outside?)

    To the show's credit, Data already seems to calculate ahead to these arguments. Data wants to die, he explains, because dying makes his "Nemesis" sacrifice special. It also makes relationships, friendships and love special. Data sees dying as a very "human" thing to "achieve". I don't agree with this argument - and surely a resurrected Data still has plenty of opportunities to die - but the show anticipates arguments for resurrection, and makes a point to knock (or appear to knock) them down.

    Meanwhile, it's odd how Riker, who seemed a closer friend to Picard than Data was, gets shunted aside when Picard dies. This is your ex captain, and he has major health problems, and just took on a huge Romulan fleet and killer synths, and he's your close friend and you obviously love him, and you just warp away 10 seconds before his death? Surely this episode is committing the same sin it professes to be fixing; Riker discards a dying Picard as Picard discards Data.

    Picard's failure to help the Romulan refugees, meanwhile, seems like something that would actually traumatize Picard far deeper than Data's loss. A personal failure to help people, to keep a promise, and a failure by the Federation to stick to its professed values, strikes me as something that Picard would find far more injurious. I see Picard as possessing a streak of sanctimony that would rationalize Data's death, and be unforgiving toward the treatment of the Romulans. The latter should be the focus of a show, not the former.

    Finally, the Data scene requires you to buy a heap of contrivances. I just can't buy Data's memories being stolen, or being on this planet, I can't buy this planet being tied to Romulan Legends, I can't buy Picard getting sick at just the right time, I can't buy Riker leaving, I can't buy Riker appearing, I can't buy Romulans not torpedoing that planet, I can't buy 200 hologram La Sirenas, I can't buy this show's potential connection to "Discovery" season 3 etc etc.

    By the time you get to Data and Picard in a room, it just all becomes too incredulous. And the notion that the show is "covertly thematically about Picard's failure to handle the loss of Data" seems insulting to the Romulan refugees and the victims of Mars. After all, as Data literally tells us, their deaths allows Picard's righteousness to have meaning.

    What should have happened is this: Data informs Picard that Jurati has a golem, and tells him that Jurati wants to know if Picard wishes to continue to live. Picard, rather than passively acquiring a body, actively chooses resurrection. And he chooses it so he can help people. Because the reduction of unnecessary suffering is the Picard ethos.

    Why is Data in a recreation of a room he only saw in an alternate future that he never experienced?

    There are just SO many plot holes in EVERY scene (even the sporadic "good" scenes) that I don't see how anyone can suspend disbelief enough to immerse themselves in this program.

    The scene with Picard and Data did NOT actually take place. It is all in Picard's mind. It wasn't actually Data's consciousness...

    Also, it is like Professor X transferring his mind to another body... very superhero-y feel

    No one has mentioned Professor X... wow, I went to the search function and no one mentions Professor X and transferring his mind...

    It's a bit problematic Eric. I think most would agree that a mind that survives after death of the body delves into the realms of the spiritual. Where is it located? An unseen subtler realm apart from and co-existent with observable physical reality, well, religious scriptures have been describing that for millehnia. Science hasn't. Does that mean it can't be shown on Trek? Not in my book, but it's still inconsistent with a series which has always said consciousness can be created with matter/energy (androids, holograms).

    I have freely admitted before: I liked the season, overall. Not great, but enough to make me plan to watch next season (If I am still alive. At 63, that needs to be considered, given the news out there...). Do I agree with Jammer's review? Mostly yes. There are some clunkers in the season, but between the First Episode "Remebrance", "The impossible Box", "Nepenthe" and "Broken Pieces", we had some strong moments. The scene with Data at the end? I shed a tears the first time, and choked up the second.
    Few Trek episodes have done that.
    Wrath of Kan, Inner Light, DS9 "Duet.
    Did that scene redeemed the episode? I say yes.
    I don't know if I the writer planned it all along that way (I am a bit more skeptical than Jam Man :) ) , but serendipity sometime is your friend and if it happens, one takes it and run. Now, if only they would make a series with Anson Mount as Pike, Ethan Peck as Spock and Rebecca Romijn as Number One...

    Marco
    P.S. Now, what do I watch on Thursday?

    @ Eric Jensen

    Having Data's second death be a figment of Picard's imagination would make a lot more sense than Data's entire consciousness and memories being preserved in one molecule (before he was regenerated in the simulation).

    Unfortunately, the actual death scene (when the USBs were removed) was shown after Picard had left the "quantum simulation".

    @ Eric Jensen
    Nothing took place. At the end of the last season of STP we will see a shot of a bed. In it lies a sleeping Alex Kurtzman. He opens his eyes and says: "Honey I just had a wonderful dream."

    The Federation never existed, everything in Star Trek never existed. It was all just in his imagination.

    The End.

    @ Chrome

    I said it before, but I wish they did something interesting with "Measure of a Man". That would've been a worthwhile Star Trek show. What was the point of having Maddox in this series? He appears at the beginning of an episode, has a few lines, and is killed at the end by Jurati. His character is so unimportant to the story that his murderer doesn't even get punished. Heck, she hardly even get scolded.
    And Maddox doesn't even have scenes with any synths or with Data. What a waste of opportunity. So did absolutely nothing with Measure of a Man.

    @ Dom

    Using TNG lore or name-checking Star Trek Trivia (Like that Borg weapon that originated in a Voyager episode, was used for that one plot contrivance, and then was never heard from again) is just that: name-checking. It doesn't mean the writers understand Star Trek thematically. It's fan service with a very low nutritional value.

    There is one good thing that came out of this show, though. All this name-checking sent me to re-watch some of these old episodes. For example, I watched Prime Factors from Voyager following STP's The Impossible Box, and wow, what a humdinger of an episode!

    I don't know whether this has been discussed here before, but a friend is saying STP is ripped off from this Star Trek short story:

    https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Brave_New_World
    https://them0vieblog.com/2014/01/06/star-trek-myriad-universes-echoes-and-refractions-brave-new-world-by-chris-roberson-review/

    Plot description: "Picard struggles to resolve a crisis including a rogue colony of androids and an aggressive Romulan Empire in a way that will prevent full-scale war."

    Has anyone read it?

    UNSOLVED MYSTERY ALERT..I hope someone can please respond to ke on this. We never learn Soji's mysterious connection to the Borg hinted at with her knowledge of the Artifact aka the cube's history predating when Rahmda was first assimilated and how she recognized the Queen cell and it was for when she was therenwith High and Picard..didnt it seem like this was set up forna major revelation and new sci fi insight? Does anyone have an explanation who can enlighten me..don't tell me it's just because Maddox somehow transferred Data's menories to Soji through B4 and those memories include Data's knowledge of the Borg gained in First Contact through the Queen because that seems like a cop out answer..Did anyone else notice this oversight?

    The other problem, as some people have pointed out, is the lack of connection between Soji and the Borg oe this connection left unresolved means the Borg amd the cube and ex Bs are disconnected from the rest of the story.that would be fine if the writers had NOT so obviously set up Soji having some connection with her special knowledge ofnthe Borg artifacts history...i was also wanted some tie in to Voyager...To all my Viyager fans, was i the only one who thought that cube was the one in the Beta Quadrant Harry Kim stole the temporal transmitter from in Timless? Remember we know the artifact is in the Beta Quadrant..Maybe this will be resovled next season since thertifact is still intact on Copellius right and Seven is now a permanent member of the crew? I hope so.

    If it's contended that only 1 per cent of the series was really good, that's consistent with Sturgeon's Law "99% of everything is crap". We should value the one per cent even more.

    3 out of 4 stars for this garbage? Is this a sick April fools joke? I was pretty numb to the last 20 minutes because you knew they were just going to bring back Picard at the clone. Its complete garbage. And no, even if the final 20 minutes moved me, it doesnt negate the bullshit that was the previous 9 episodes (with the exception of a few nice scenes and moments). The entire show was a waste of time.

    Dexter Morgan:
    "3 out of 4 stars for this garbage? Is this a sick April fools joke? I was pretty numb to the last 20 minutes because you knew they were just going to bring back Picard at the clone. Its complete garbage. And no, even if the final 20 minutes moved me, it doesnt negate the bullshit that was the previous 9 episodes (with the exception of a few nice scenes and moments). The entire show was a waste of time."

    --------------

    This is from the same guy who made the following comment in an earlier post:

    "I cannot wait for redlightmedia's two hour evisceration of this puke of a show. Its going to be glorious."

    --------------

    So sorry that Jammer's review does not fulfill your intense addiction to hate-orgasm that some feel.

    But feel free to spend hours of your weekly life on the pleasure that you get from watching a show you loathe with a passion, spewing your hatred about it, and pleasuring yourself to the hatred of others on it. That show must really have a permanent space in your mind.

    "So sorry that Jammer's review does not fulfill your intense addiction to hate-orgasm that some feel."

    No need to apologize, you didnt write the review.

    "But feel free to spend hours of your weekly life on the pleasure that you get from watching a show you loathe with a passion, spewing your hatred about it, and pleasuring yourself to the hatred of others on it. That show must really have a permanent space in your mind."

    I only spent 45-55 minutes of my weekly life on this show, and I dont need to feel free to do it anymore as it is over for the foreseeable future.

    I can see from your previous comments that you are a simple person who is easily manipulated and entertained. The perfect demographic for this show!

    Your 10 or so comments here have zero contribution in terms of feedback, do nothing but throw insults at the show, one actually consists of you announcing the intense pleasure you will get from another review "eviscerating" this "puke" of a show. That is outside of reading other reviews (which one is two hours long by your admission), and watching the show itself. Suuuure, that amounts to 45 minutes, riiiiiight.

    Now see if you can stop telling fairy tales and have something deep, useful to contribute.

    "I can see from your previous comments that you are a simple person who is easily manipulated and entertained. The perfect demographic for this show"

    I am glad to hear that. I would hate to be in any way appreciated by someone like you who depends on expressing his loathe for a show, spends time on it, and gets so excited that he makes a single post just to announce his upcoming deep pleasure from reading a two-hour review consisting of hatred on a show (that he chooses to continue to watch)

    This review really set the cat among the pigeons, huh? 🤣 (I feel the same way about the review of Nemesis, team.)

    It's interesting reading the more critical comments, because in some ways they seem to be echoing my feelings about Disco season 2. I've always accepted that in a franchise with such a deep bench of stories about one-shot, amazing technologies being tossed out on a whim by writers as an excuse to explore the human condition, suspension of disbelief and audience participation is the price of entry if you're actually looking to be entertained.

    (Otherwise, you will just drive yourself insane going down the rabbit hole of "But why didn't they just...")

    I think the most important distinction is the one that Jammer (with help from the dearly departed Ebert) points out in the review: plot vs story. Disco season 2 fell apart for me because when I step back from it, the plot *was* the story. Burnham's estrangement from Spock, arguably the most easily identifiable story thread of the season, was effectively concluded with "If Memory Serves" (notably, a pretty universally well-liked episode), leaving us with little but plot machinations to endlessly nitpick going forward. The entire season suffered as a result, despite having a generally better quality of one-off episodes than season 1.

    When I step back from PIC, though, I don't have the same empty, dissatisfied feeling about the story. Going in, I was promised a story about *Picard* coming back to life, and that's exactly what was delivered in a mostly satisfying way. People asking "but what was the point of the Borg cube?" or "what's the deal with Romulan refugees?" are, I feel, missing the point. Those are all background to the story about *Picard*. The Borg cube is there so Picard has fears to confront. The Romulans are there so he has regrets to consider. Etc etc.

    Some people demand a watertight, swiss-watch plot, and I totally get that, but I feel like you're cheating yourselves out of something nice by doing so. Unlike (again) Disco season 2, which had nothing to offer but plot at the end.

    Some direct replies:

    @Dom: like you, I've become pretty hard-nosed about what TV I spend my time with nowadays, with the streaming era making so much top-shelf content it's impossible to see everything worth seeing. Aside from new Star Trek (because I will *always* set aside an hour a week to watch new Star Trek... unless it's ENT, which I gave up on in frustration very early), right now I make time for Westworld (great!), Homeland (fun!), Better Call Saul (amazing!), The Expanse (excellent!).

    When it comes to re-watching shows, it's interesting. I'm far more likely to chuck on an old classic episode of a show I love that's completely self-contained than I'm ever going to say "gee, I'd like to binge an entire season again". It's a real reflection of the changed business models of our time, I think.

    When the old Trek shows were geared for sale into syndication, it was also enshrining their rewatchability essentially forever. The new ones are now pumped out to keep you subscribed to a specific streaming service; they can hyper-focus on telling longer stories to an audience that's paying to be there, and there's always new content coming if you're willing to pay. It's early days, but I think this Third Age of Star Trek is not going to be as rewatchable as the First and Second were, just because people don't have time to re-watch entire seasons.

    (Rewatching BSG is not on the cards for me, I think. Great show, but like new Trek it demands you keep watching to get a complete picture of the story, and I just don't have time for that anymore!)

    @Trent

    You point out that Picard's failure to help the Romulan refugees would traumatize him far more deeply than Data's loss. You're right - but the show showed us that! Data's loss is something that sat with Picard for years, but the conclusion of the Romulan evacuation actually led to him quitting his lifelong career and spending a decade in semi-isolation stewing over it. So much of his identity was built on his own idea that he was inseperable from Starfleet, and when it became clear that wasn't true it left him shellshocked for a long time. The refugee situation is the kind of state-level thing that one man can't effectively deal with without the backing of an institution, and this story was partially about Picard forging himself a new path outside of said institutions.

    I agree that an interesting show could be built around the political situation the Federation and the Romulans find themselves in, but I don't think I agree that that is the story this first season should have told. Disco's first season failed in part because the show immediately jumped into a high-stakes political plot - a huge war! - without first setting the stage. (In contrast, DS9's Dominion War plot was far more effective because we had multiple seasons of plot chess pieces being put into place first.)

    Many people have come out and said that Data's death is a case of euthanasia.

    Is it? Or is there a nuance here?

    Data is essentially hooked up to a machine that is sustaining his life, but he has no option to repair his actual body. There is no hope of his body winning the fight. He cannot return to life without the life-support machine and in his own body. If the life-support machine is discontinued, Data just naturally fades away quickly.

    Some people refer to this as 'passive euthanasia', but I think we normally treat 'pulling the plug' on critical life support as having different moral and legal requirements than 'active euthanasia'. For instance, Booming quoted some 'very liberal' laws. Those are almost certainly for active euthanasia (not passive euthanasia or pulling the plug), because far less liberal states have less stringent requirement for 'pulling the plug' on life support.

    Perhaps, in good Trekkian style, some nuance is in order, even if the whole time we're dealing with an analogy for non-organic lifeforms.

    "his upcoming deep pleasure from reading a two-hour review consisting of hatred on a show (that he chooses to continue to watch"

    No. The finale had already aired when I said that, so no, I will not be "continuing to watch". And I recommend everyone to watch Redlettermedia, they are hilarious and Mike Stoklasa is a diehard Trek fan, so I appreciate his take on the subject matter, whether he likes it or not. I just know they will thrash this show like the simple minded trash that it is.

    "No, what this season of Star Trek: Picard is actually about is Picard saying goodbye to Data."

    Well, no it wasnt, because they shot that all after the fact because the original story they had was even worse than what they put on TV. This statement is giving way way too much credit to the writers.

    @Dave in WN

    "I read that both Riker's and Data's appearances in the finale were part of the reshoots. "

    I thought I had read that Riker's episode "Nepenthe" was the thing that was added after the fact which would make sense because his appearance as Captain of the Jeng He makes sense in terms of the story being told, but absolutely no sense from where we left Troi and company on Nepenthe.

    Did anyone else notice the recurring theme of eye injuries? In a short season, two characters have their eyes plucked out, one of them is murdered by being stabbed in the eye, and the protagonist disguises himself by pretending to be missing an eye. Eye don't know what to make of it.

    @Tim C

    I hear ya and Jammer on the story vs. plot. However, *if* this is the story of Picard (series name notwithstanding), then that story was essentially told in the first episode, Picard's doctor's scene in the 2nd episode, and the last episode. And if you really look at it, it was more likely the first half of the first episode and the last 20 minutes of the last episode.

    What frustrates me and a lot of people on the plot was that everything in between the first and last episodes could be eliminated and you would still have Picard's story. That's 9+ hours of extremely poor writing and plot threads.

    Even with Picard's story, the choice of putting to bed Data's story was totally unnecessary. That would require a viewer to rewatch Nemesis, which I thought was a poor movie. Not sure why Nemesis was chosen as a foundation for the first season of PIC. As others have said, Geordi's relationship with Data was much stronger, as was Riker's to Picard's. Hell, Crusher and Q had stronger relationships with Picard.

    Did not watch the show. Did watch some of the last Picard Data scenes on youtube. They didnt show what happened to Picard after his deadscene and the whole thing was quite redundant and it feels wrong. We have almost eternal life now but dont give it. Aha. And Picard isnt at all shocked what they did to him. And for what reason? Put an old man in an old replicant so he still has to die a second time but in a synthetic way? What kind of androids are these? Clones seems more like it.

    Anyway why didnt they put Data back i a new body? Why he had to stay in eternal limbo? And why he was aware it was a simulation? Did he find out himself?

    @Marvin
    If this is Picard's story in relation to Data, then indeed it is only portrayed in the first and last episodes. If it is Picard's story as a whole, then there is something more there. A fair amount of it is pretty bad, but I still think there's some okay-ish stuff dealing with Picard learning how to connect with Soji, and in the end, realizing the "lesson" that a parent shouldn't tell, a parent should show / lead by example. This, at least, would be something relatively new-ish for Picard, who was always uncomfortable with children and used to giving commands.

    Okay-ish. Not amazing. And not related to sending off Data. But not a complete tire-fire either. Just not enough to overshadow the actual tire-fires throughout the show.

    Also, if you want a genuine answer to your last paragraph, Dexter's buddies at RedLetterMedia made it pretty clear, if it wasn't clear already. The show is trying to maximize viewership. The goal is to have just the right amount of TNG stuff that is familiar to 'everybody', but very little else from actual TNG. So, what do random people (like Jay at RLM) know about TNG?
    1. Picard
    2. Data
    3. The Borg

    Okay, focus on Picard+Borg was a movie, don't do that. Focus on Data+Borg, well wait, Spiner doesn't want to be too involved as Data. Focus on Picard+Data without actually focusing on Data, and throw in Borg haphazardly? Profit. But how to focus on Picard+Data without actually using Data very much? Well, first off, exaggerate Picard+Data, add emotional weight to it. Just do it - it'll be easy! Data sacrificed himeself! In any case, this allows Picard to be emotionally affected by Data even when Spiner is not onscreen. Next, involve Data's daughter instead. Not actually Lal, too few people know who that is for it to be worthwhile. Just invent a new daughter, build an emotional storyline around her and Picard, and make sure the actress is great.

    I just want to say quickly, it's not necessarily the worst thing ever to have such a shallow mindset when creating a show. You need to guarantee a greenlight from the studio, which is to say, you need to guarantee money. Sometimes restrictions can lead to great artistic choices. The key is being thoughtful/clever enough to make something genuine and meaningful out of it all in the end. And I think a lot of us agree, they didn't manage to pull that off very well.

    "Anyway why didnt they put Data back in a new body?"

    That's no doubt the biggest problem here. Data's reason for wanting Picard to pull the plug was to experience the humanness of a temporal existence. But with the Golem they could have actually made him essentially human, as Picard's new body is, with the bonus of dying after he's lived a fully human life. Surely he would have preferred this to actual instant death?

    Marvin, you can also put me in the camp that agrees this season should have been a different length. Either much shorter, with less fat, or much longer, so we could actually deal with those additional stories that came out of it and were left unresolved.

    But! I don't entirely agree that everything between the bookends was filler. The opening three episodes could definitely have been condensed to two. After that, though, each one had some important moments for Picard. Consider:

    • "Absolute Candor" showed us how deep his regret over the refugee situation on Vashti runs. Elnor turned out to be a totally inessential character (albeit entertaining, I thought), and the show failed to properly inform us how things got to this point*. But as a showcase for Picard, I found it pretty effective. He doesn't just regret walking away from the Romulans, he's also downright *angry* that they don't appreciate the effort that he *did* put in. It's a pleasingly complex emotional portrayal, I thought.

    • "Stardust City Rag" was pretty intensely disliked it seems (although it's my favourite episode of the season), but I think (?) most people agree the Picard & Seven scenes were exactly the sort of thing they'd hoped for were these two characters to ever meet.

    • "The Impossible Box", of course, showed us just how far Picard's willing to go on his new quest. We had those great scenes with him and Hugh and some great demonstration of how his assimilation will never stop haunting him.

    • "Nepenthe" - would anyone really want to lose any part of this episode? I think it was kind of essential to have Picard run into his old crew at some point; it's one of those plot things you can't ignore. I mean, if your main character is really up against it and we all know he has an intensely loyal group of friends, you pretty much *have* to include them in the story at some point and explain why they're not a part of this new quest.

    • "Broken Pieces" - here's where we really start to see the old Captain really coming back to the fore. The way he sternly puts Raffi and Jurati back in their places, the renewed empathy he shows Soji, his reminiscing on what Data actually meant to him.

    You could certainly rewrite this story in many ways to be shorter, in order to focus more intently on Picard, or longer to give the plot more time to wrap up. I think that definitely would have been a better show. But I don't think the show ever took its eye off the ball completely; every episode had some important moments for Picard.

    * The backstory for Vashti is effectively told in the prequel novel, "The Last Best Hope", but you can't really count that as part of the show.

    @Leif
    As far as I could see, Soji's only connection to the Borg was that she was doing research on the Artifact due to the fact that it was completely disabled when it assimilated Rahmda and got a spliff of the Admonition. That's why all those Borg in the one wing were so damaged and out of it and reacted so negatively to Soji. They were all hopped up on the Admonition. That's what that entire scene was all about. She was there specifically to learn about the Admonition. The Synths didn't quite know exactly what they were looking for, but her programming had her gathering any and all information she could find on the cube that could even possibly lead her to the Admonition. She may indeed have gotten some information from the neuron of Data's that spawned the new line of completed androids. However, that was unclear though. Sorry if that doesn't answer your questions.

    @Jor-El
    I noticed that. You missed one I think. There was a Borg being "reclaimed" when Picard came aboard and Hugh showed him the Project. He was missing one of his eyes and the wound over the spot was healed using a dermal regenerator I think. He was still missing an eye, but it didn't look so horrendous afterwards.

    @J
    "'Anyway why didnt they put Data back in a new body?'

    That's no doubt the biggest problem here. Data's reason for wanting Picard to pull the plug was to experience the humanness of a temporal existence. But with the Golem they could have actually made him essentially human, as Picard's new body is, with the bonus of dying after he's lived a fully human life. Surely he would have preferred this to actual instant death?"

    You hit the nail on the head at what bothered me about an otherwise nice send off for Data. That could've been the culmination of Data's life long dream of becoming human. They could've left Picard in the simulation for later and put Data in the new body. Data could've been indistinguishably human with emotions and all, lived out the remainder of a natural lifespan, and then died, like every human who ever lived. The problem with that is Brent Spinner didn't want to keep playing that role as I understand it. Another problem is that Data would quickly take over the show, even from Picard.

    Even of Brent Spiner had no desire to play Data again they could have still had him be placed in the hole and look just like BrentSpiner sans Data makeup. He could have stayed behind on Coppelius to help his children learn from him all the insights he had about the human race from the years he was in Starfleet and aboard the Enterprise—similar to Odo rejoining the Great Link to help changelings stop fearing solids.

    I doubt the writers will ever revisit Coppelius and even if they did Brent could play Data as a human with no need to worry about how he looks

    The La Sirena could have flown off into the great depths of space. With Soji part of the crew the android representative sent by Coppelius the android characters is checked off the box

    And I still think it was a bad idea to have Pocards Irumodic Syndrome play out in one season. It screams to be one of those series spanning threads. I mean rumors are Patrick Stewart wants to do around three seasons. So gradually over the life of the series we could have witnessed the symptoms start and progress towards a steady decline near the end of the series. And each season in the background could be Picard getting out living checking off things on his Bucket List as far as adventures, planets to visit, old friends likeGeordi or Guinan he wants to see one last time

    But no the writers rushed it

    You guys (including Jammer) are making me feel really lonely here! I thought the epilogue with Data was the worst part of the episode and one of the worst parts of the whole season. Dull, maudlin, implausible, and morally bankrupt. But then I was never a huge fan of Data’s character to begin with. Give me Spock, Tuvok, or even Isaac from the Orville any day.

    @ben canuck
    "Is it? Or is there a nuance here?

    Data is essentially hooked up to a machine that is sustaining his life, but he has no option to repair his actual body. There is no hope of his body winning the fight. He cannot return to life without the life-support machine and in his own body. "

    I disagree. As other have pointed out why not put Data in another body. it doesn't even have to be the Golem, just put him in a Soji/Dash model. Wouldn't that already be very life like? What is even the difference between a golem and Soji??? If they can take Picard's personality out of his body and put it in the machine and then into another body without problems, then they obviously could do the same for Data. Add to that the fact that Picard had a pretty short conversation. Why did Soong go along with it so easily? Isn't Data closer to him than Picard? But when Picard comes out of that simulation everybody just accepts: 1. Picard actually talked to Data 2. Nobody asks to double check, just to be safe. 3. Why did nobody ever try to get Data out of that nightmare before?! Soong had time to make android butterflies (another not so subtle metaphor: butterfly effect *wink*wink*)but no time to safe his brother from that horrible existence for more than a decade? The same goes for Maddox! Why did none of these people ever try to help Data when they had all the tools to do so? It makes Maddox and Soong seem very cruel.

    @ bencanuck

    "Data is essentially hooked up to a machine that is sustaining his life, but he has no option to repair his actual body. There is no hope of his body winning the fight."

    Data is NOT his body. He is an artificial intelligence which can be preserved and downloaded to any body, and is only "dead" when his core consciousness is erased or destroyed, similar to the "stacks" in Altered Carbon (only in that universe it's digitized human consciousness).

    The writers are making the mistake of assuming that Data is his body. They show him in his old uniforms etc. Data would not have any attachment to any certain body. He would be fine being downloaded into a new body. Heck, it would even excite him. Showing him sitting all depressed in his "quantum simulation" is just... wrong. Data is supposed to be curious, not depressed. Now that the show has established digitizing consciousness and downloading it into synthetic bodies is possible in Trek, there is really no reason for Data to die other than him WANTING do die - and I could see that being a story point - but the script did not set his motivations for this radical act in any sort of convincing way. As it stands, it makes no sense for Data - a consciousness that was always looking to learn, was always looking for new experiences - to be euthanized in such a way. And it simply feels like the reasons for this story beat have more to do with external factors and not with any organic character development. So as much as the scenes are well put together and finely acted, they ring hollow and manipulative to me.

    Booming

    "I disagree. As others have pointed out why not put Data in another body."

    I think Data was beyond that point. He did "die" in Nemesis. I think he was "trapped" in this quantum blah, blah... I think he couldn't have been put in a new body. Also, even if he could have, I'm not sure he wouldn't have. It was clear his whole life he was striving to be more human, dying was the final step.

    My cut anyways...

    @Lynos

    "Data is NOT his body. He is an artificial intelligence which can be preserved and downloaded to any body, and is only "dead" when his core consciousness is erased or destroyed, similar to the "stacks" in Altered Carbon (only in that universe it's digitized human consciousness)."

    I have not watched 'Picard'. If 'Picard' has attempted a 'retcon' of sorts of Data's nature, I am unaware of it. Otherwise, Data is very much a function of his unique 'body' in TNG: more exactly, of his 'positronic brain'.

    The details of just what constitutes that positronic brain were deliberately kept vague in TNG. But there is no question that Soong's unique achievement was what made Data's *artificial consciousness* possible.

    (You speak of "artificial intelligence". That is a category mistake).

    This is what separates Data from the EMH in Voyager. Despite what the majority of fans (and I think even the writers of VOY) want to believe, the EMH possesses no artificial consciousness even if he is able to perfectly mimic it. He is but code, which, unlike that of Data, can be uploaded, downloaded, and changed at will, by multiple individuals to multiple platforms. Consider for example the following:

    TORRES: Look, Doc, I don't know anything about this woman or why she doesn't appreciate you, and I may not be an expert on music, but I'm a pretty good engineer. I can expand your musical subroutines all you like. I can even reprogramme you to be a whistling teapot. But, if I do that, it won't be you anymore.
    ('Virtuoso')

    Yes, Torres is a pretty good engineer. But she is no Soong, not even a Maddox as far as artificial consciousness is concerned. Yet even a regular, 'pretty good' engineer can shape the EMH at will. Could she do the same to Data?

    Data is a combination of unique software adapted to unique hardware, if not biological 'wetware' proper. It is that combination of programming and the medium that processes it—his positronic brain—that allows Data to function and grow independently and (for lack of a better word) organically:

    RIKER: The positronic brain. He promised it would do so much. When it failed completely, Doctor Soong disappeared. Now we know he went off somewhere to try a second time.
    ('Datalore')

    DATA: You have constructed a positronic brain?
    MADDOX: Yes.
    DATA: Have you determined how the [technobabble] is to be resolved?
    MADDOX: Not precisely.
    DATA: That would seem to be a necessary first step.
    ('The Measure of a Man')

    DATA: Lal has a positronic brain, one very similar to my own.
    ('The Offspring')

    DATA: The positronic matrix I designed for her was unstable. She only lived a short time.
    ('Inheritance')

    Indeed, Soong's positronic brain is what makes both Data and Lore unique:

    DATA: My brother's positronic brain had [technobabble]. Mine is [different technobabble].
    ('Time's Arrow, Pt I')

    … and so on, and so forth. Don't mistake the positronic brain for a mere computer, and forget about "artificial intelligence". Data's positronic brain is a true *artificial brain*. It is what gives him sentience, or properly *artificial consciousness*. And it seems to be that which Soong's entire programming—a fundamental part of Data's neural processes—depends on to work. Consider the following:

    Are we sure that Soong's specific programming could work on another platform? Do we even know what programming language Soong used? Could he not be using a programming language entirely sui generis? Indeed, is it not likely?

    We know that Lore can manipulate Data and the latter's programming, and that admittedly makes sense.

    We also know that Dr Graves was able to upload himself into Data's framework. This he did using Starfleet technology, which Soong of course knew of, and evidently made Data reciprocally adaptive to. But is it not possible that Soong's programming will allow for no further reciprocal control in otherwise adaptive environments?

    In any case, it seems certain that Data's positronic brain is that which he—as Lal—cannot exist without.

    Please tell me, as I haven't been paying much attention: has 'Picard' attempted to change the nature of Data?

    @Andy's Friend

    I seem to recall having this debate some years ago with you. But it is necessary to accept that a "brain" does not necessarily denote a singular physical organ or artificial device. A brain could theoretically be housed a purely virtual space, which I suspect is the conceit with the EMH and other sentient holograms. That doesn't necessarily mean these two technologies are interchangeable, as androids and holograms have distinct advantages, but I don't understand this insistence that holograms cannot posses consciousness.

    At any rate, "Picard" doesn't retcon anything regarding the positronic brain. The virtual remains of Data are housed within a physical remnant of B4's brain.

    I agree with Andy's post. His distinction between an artificial *brain* versus artificial intelligence is exactly right although in Voyager undoubtedly this was muddled quite a bit (and also in TNG with the Moriarty character, admittedly).

    It comes down to the question of embodiment and what that means for the development of any general intelligence, artificial or otherwise. Much of scifi and mainstream cultural representations of AI have proceeded on the assumption that human intellect could be transferred or copied independently of the body, or that something equivalent to it could be constructed from scratch in a disembodied state. This dualistic notion that intellect can be neatly disentangled from physicality is almost certainly wrong. It's arguably one of the reasons why our quest for general or 'strong' AI has been so futile and most serious work has essentially abandoned the mission of recreating general intelligence in software.

    It is like imagining that if only we had an accurate enough camera with high enough resolution we could somehow recreate a real dog in a photograph where the photograph would be equivalent to the dog.

    One of the things about Data's portrayal, such as his inability to use contractions, or his difficulty with the Chinese Finger Trap, at least in my head canon, arises because unlike a computer program which is constructed to *mimic* intelligence (essentially in a top down way where you start from the end point and work backwards) Data was much like a real person where he learned from doing and being and therefore his intelligence needed to experience something physically in order to understand it.

    Reading this site. Doesn’t matter which twit types. Look at this crap from Jason R about AI.

    This site makes formerly potentially possible standard intelligence people into yammering idiots.

    @Yanks
    "I think he couldn't have been put in a new body. "
    The show doesn't give any indication that this is the case and, as others have argued, being put in a human like body could be seen as the fulfillment of his life long dream.

    @Elliot
    "but I don't understand this insistence that holograms cannot posses consciousness."
    You cannot understand it because there is nothing to understand. Of course a computer can harbor an artificial intelligence. Plus we don't know enough about this completely made up concept of a positronic brain to judge what influence it has even if we accept that such a thing exists in star trek. Obviously there are other working positronic brains in the synth colony. The problem is actually far bigger for a human brain. Considering that the human brain is made of several fairly different parts. I mean does a golem have a cerebellum? A brainstem?

    @Tommy D

    "Time and time again folks will say they won't watch anymore, only to return, if only to have their opinion heard."

    You are right. There are many people who do that. Far too many.

    And you know why? Because they are pressured to do so by their fellow fans. It has become "common knowledge" that you are not allowed to speak about the current state of Star Trek unless you agree to torture yourself in this manner.

    Does this strike you as a healthy situation for a fandom?

    Fortunately, not everybody is falling for this trap. There *are* fans who are beginning to realize how crazy the above situation is.

    There are also people here who have stopped watching Discovery/Picard mid-season, because THEY JUST COULDN'T STAND IT ANYMORE.

    And then there are those who decided that if THREE ENTIRE SEASONS of NuTrek left them cold, it's more then fair to say "I've given it at chance. I don't like it, and I'm bowing out".

    So no. Not "everyone" who says that he'll stop watching, comes back with his tail between his legs. And not "everyone" who is voicing their opinion here are still watching.

    "Please direct me to where I made that statement. This is now twice you've done that."

    Gladly.

    When I've asked you directly when there's anything that would cause you to say
    'Nope. They've crossed the line this time. I cannot accept this as Star Trek', your answer was:

    'Interesting question. The best answer might be, I don't know.'

    From which I deduced that such a thing has not happened yet. In other words, both Discovery and Picard did not cross that line for you.

    And then, IN THE VERY SAME COMMENT, you stated that the Orville has crossed that line.

    So yes, that's a contradiction. Unless you want to argue that ST:P is more Trekkish then the Orville, which I think we'd both agree to be a ridiculous statement.

    "The contradiction there is fueled by your own statement, not mine."

    See above.

    "I probably should not have written that to be honest. The What is Trek argument isn't a particularly meaningful one."

    Do you really believe that?

    The fact remains that you *did* write those things. It came to you naturally and it seemed to come from your heart.

    The problem is that "common wisdom", these days, states that the "What is Trek" question is meaningless. People repeat that statement enough times, and you start accepting it as an axiom that must not be questioned.

    Perhaps it is time to question that common wisdom?

    "Does that make [the Orville] Trek? Perhaps its something I should reconsider."

    Perhaps. But only if you find such questions to be of any relevance. :-)

    @Jason R.
    "It is like imagining that if only we had an accurate enough camera with high enough resolution we could somehow recreate a real dog in a photograph where the photograph would be equivalent to the dog."

    Such a perfect "photograph" would, indeed, be equivalent to the dog.

    Let's think about the physics of this example for a second: What would this "perfect photograph" be made of?

    Ordinary photos can be rendered on film (or projected on a screen) because they have limited resolution. Due to this limited resolution, it makes sense to seperate between the medium (your screen) and the information (the lit pixels).

    But when the resolution gets high enough, this is no longer possible. You can't "draw" a subatomic-level image on a piece of paper, because that paper is also made of atoms. The only way to get all these little subatomic fields exactly right, is to create an exact replica of the original object - atom by atom.

    So in essence, such a perfect "camera" would have to be perfect matter replicator. A perfect "photograph" would be physically identical to the real thing.

    @ Andy's Friend

    In episode 1 Jurati mentions that Data's neural pathways were downloaded into B4. She later mentions Maddox's theory that other sophisticated synths can be constructed from a single neuron originating from Data. (we see that come into fruition later on, and we know Soji/Dahj are Data's "daughters").

    In episode 10, Data mentions that his memory engrams were downloaded by Maddox, and also says "my memory engrams were constructed from a single neuron salvaged by Bruce Maddox, and then my consciousness was reconstructed by my brother, Dr Alton Soong".

    So while the show is murky on the details, it treats Data's cocnsiousness as something that can be downloaded and manipulated to certain ends and means. I do not disagree with you regarding TNG. When watching TNG I didn't think of Data as something else but Data, but STP is trying to rewrite the rules while without really fully explaining what the new rules are.

    I mean, of you can create other androids from Data's single neuron, why can't you recreate Data? Or at least a very close simile of Data? The fact that nobody in the episode, including Data, doesn't even entertain this idea is patently odd.

    @ Omicron,

    I think you're missing Jason R.'s point. He is saying that an analogous copy is not actually a copy but rather something different. A super-resolved *photo* of a dog cannot ever be a dog, not matter how 'realistic' it looks. You've bypassed the premise by claiming it's not actually a photo but just a 3-D print exact copy of a dog.

    The point being made is that a virtual copy of a human intelligence will *never* be a human intelligence. It may be some kind of intelligence, but never a human one. The reason being, if the brain and body aren't involved it literally isn't human; and moreover, the thoughts and individuality may exist in the physical structure, not the "thought engrams" or whatever sci-fi concept you want to use. Remove the hardware and you remove the person. For any sci-fi wanting to get into consciousness transfer (like Ira Graves did) obviously you're introducing the premise that somehow you can *completely* capture an intelligence virtually and restore it to a new body. Andy's Friend and Jason R. are simply claiming that this sci-fi premise will in fact prove to be incorrect, scientifically speaking, when we get far enough in our research.

    Omicron what you're describing would cease being a photograph and would just be a full on replication. Admittedly the analogy fails when you take it too far but you get my drift.

    It reminds me of a painting I studied in college where the artist rendered the image with such fine detail that you could magnify the image and find ridiculous details that would be invisible to the naked eye. And when you're a kid you imagine you could step into the painting and it would be real.

    Except it's all a mirage. Paint on canvass will never be 'real' anymore than bits on a magnetic tape will be 'intelligent'. It doesn't matter how fine the detail. Human intelligence is inseparable from the body that evolved it. You can try to mimic it like the painting bit that's all it is - mimicry.

    @ Booming

    "@Yanks
    "I think he couldn't have been put in a new body. "
    The show doesn't give any indication that this is the case and, as others have argued, being put in a human like body could be seen as the fulfillment of his life long dream."

    I think Data explained it while speaking with Picard in the final scene together.

    I don't have a transcript though.

    @ Yanks,

    "I think Data explained it while speaking with Picard in the final scene together.

    I don't have a transcript though."

    What Data said was essentially that dying was the ultimate way to experience humanity; that mortality is relevant to the human experience. Data did not, however, say that he was beyond saving in terms of giving his consciousness to a new body. Once we assume this could be done with a human then surely it could be done with an AI. The "body = self" argument would apply to a human even more than to an android, so if it can be done for a human then it can for an android. Since Data could be saved, the argument they are making is that he simply wanted to die to experience death; suicide as a means of experiencing being human.

    Tonally it did feel a bit like Data was implying that he didn't want to be suspended like this forever and that it was kind of like pulling the plug. And this is where the show proves that its own premises mattered to it practically not at all, and that it was all a joyride: if they really wanted to say something about what the self is, or consciousness, they would have had to explain why Data's consciousness needed to have its plug pulled, while Picard's could happily go to a new body. Maybe Data's neural net wasn't entirely captured in B4, and this is only partly-Data. Or maybe it experienced degradation over time. Or maybe these golems can actually only work on humans, and not on androids at all. Basically we don't know because they didn't say, because cybernetics technology and consciousness transfer is not what this show cared about. And so we get a critical plot point - that Data must die or else remain in limbo forever - offered to us without explanation so that for emotional reasons we need to accept Data's plea to die. But if Data had asked the same thing on the Enterprise one day, that he wanted to die just to die, then I believe he would have been treated as malfunctioning rather than taken seriously in this request.

    I feel that the show "Picard" is the Admonishen on The Grief World and the Star Trek fan base are the Zat Vash. We all placed our hands on the circle, "watched" Picard, and a select few felt the need to take action defending what they saw while the rest of us wanted to either rip our hair out, bash our brains in with a brick, or shoot ourselves with a phaser. That scene was almost the perfect metaphor for how this show has turned out.

    I'm confused. Do people say that you cannot recreate Human intelligence without a Human body or are you sayng that you cannot create higher intelligence, comparable to our own?

    @Jason/Peter

    "Except it's all a mirage. Paint on canvass will never be 'real' anymore than bits on a magnetic tape will be 'intelligent'. It doesn't matter how fine the detail."

    Nobody would claim that the bits themselves are intelligent. Raw information can't *do* anything without a device that processes and interprets that information.

    So if we copied the information alone, you'd get nothing. But if we also had a computer that processes this info in the same way that the brain does, then I don't see why it wouldn't posses intelligence.

    The notion that it has to be a perfect physical copy doesn't make much sense. It just needs to be capable of performing the same FUNCTION. On what basis are you claiming that only humanoid brains can perform this function?

    I also don't understand how it is possible to "mimic" intelligence without actually *being* intelligent. Intelligence is about having a certain set of cognitive abilities. Either a computer is capable of intelligently responding to its sorroundings, or it isn't. What does it even mean to "fake" or "mimic" such a thing?

    @msw @Tim C

    Appreciate the full replies.

    @msw I agree that PIC’s goal was audience expansion and throwing Trek references to keep the fan base at bay

    @Tim C Relatedly, although I agree to your cites of Picard’s story being more fleshed out in the middle of the season, the majority of these scenes were with TNG characters. I view this as nostalgia and fan service; you really have to slice through a ton of mediocrity to cobble together a fuller picture of Picard. Nepenthe, for example, was 30 minutes too long, and I thought the real add to the story dealt more with Soji’s acclimation to her new identity vs Picard’s story being flushed out.

    All this being said, I also agree a condensation of the season to 3 maybe 4 episodes would capture Picard’s story. In addition, so that the wool isn’t thrown over either the fan base or the new audience’s eyes, it would have been helpful to know within 2 episodes that this was a Picard character study. But then again, the conclusion is frustrating because now we have Picard in a golem, yet still mortal without Irumodic Sydrome (or whatever to infer he had). From a story:character study, what is the moral or lesson that we as the audience or Picard’s character to take away from this? Picard upheld his morals the entire season; he essentially did no wrong, right?

    So what was the point of the entire journey?

    @ Omicron,

    The argument being made is effectively that what you are saying is a false definition of intelligence. Or at least, a false rendering of what human intelligence is, and perhaps what Data's intelligence was. You are treating it like a series of digital processes that just happen to take place in our brain. But that is not a fact in evidence; at best we can theorize in sci-fi terms that it might be so. But it also might not. Andy's Friend has been arguing for some time that it is not so.

    @Peter

    While my specific example was of a digital process, my argument has a broader scope.

    My point is, quite simply, that whatever happens in the brain (digital or not) can also happen elsewhere.

    Jason's original argument was that an AI would be incapable of what a brain can do, because it doesn't have a body and can't interact with its surroundings.

    And my reply was that this dichotomy is imaginary. AI's are not abstract entities that float in a vacuum. They require some kind of hardware that serves as their bodies, and they need some kind I/O system that serves as their senses.

    None of this depends on the specifics of how such an AI might work. Whether this can be achieved by "digital" means is not important. We're dealing with fictional technology here anyway. Who said the Enterprise Computer is "digital"?

    I also stand by my statement that the notion of "mimicing intelligence" is a contradiction of terms. This, too, has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether "digital-based intelligence" is possible.

    "So if we copied the information alone, you'd get nothing. But if we also had a computer that processes this info in *the same way that the brain does*, then I don't see why it wouldn't posses intelligence." [emphasis added]

    I have put asterix around the key point here. A brain does not process information independent of a body within which the brain resides. The origin of the thing we call intelligence is stimulus received from our five senses through our bodies and a complex heuristic process of feedback. Think about how babies respond to stimulus, evolving incrementally as they interact with their physical world. A toddler cannot be taught to crawl or walk as some intellectual exercise - and this is not merely due to a lack of sophistication due to immaturity. In fact *no one* of any age could learn a task as complex as walking through the ingestion of raw information, even if the information could somehow be beamed into their minds independent of the five senses.

    Trying to create a general intelligence, artificial or otherwise, absent a physical body, is akin to trying to teach someone to walk as a pure intellectual exercise, only multiplied a million fold in difficulty.

    It is plausible that what we call "consciousness" or "self-awareness" which is the essence of human intelligence, is the culmination of millions of these understandings derived from the complex interaction between sensory information from our bodies and heuristic learning in our brains.

    Trying to teach a disembodied computer that through some binary code is ass backwards - like trying to recreate a cake by just throwing a bunch of chemicals you read off the back of the ingredient list from the bakery in a bowl and expecting the result to be a cake.

    "The notion that it has to be a perfect physical copy doesn't make much sense. It just needs to be capable of performing the same FUNCTION. On what basis are you claiming that only humanoid brains can perform this function?"

    I am not, although at present the technology to recreate what a human intelligence does simply doesn't exist. The premise that some who study AI have begun to accept is that the body and the senses aren't just some incidental thing in the development of intelligence but a necessary precondition. It is an essential catalyst for the "recipe" and without it it's just random chemicals in a bowl - no cake.

    "I also don't understand how it is possible to "mimic" intelligence without actually *being* intelligent. Intelligence is about having a certain set of cognitive abilities. Either a computer is capable of intelligently responding to its sorroundings, or it isn't. What does it even mean to "fake" or "mimic" such a thing?"

    Well anything from a Google search engine to good old Dr. Sbaitso can mimic intelligence without being intelligent. Conceivably, you could even develop an algorithm so sophisticated that it could carry on a natural seeming conversation flawlessly. And yet it would only be an algorithm not a conscious being. And if you somehow gave this algorithm command of a physical body, it wouldn't know how to walk *at all* even if it could explain the process in exacting manner. Because knowing *about* walking and knowing how to walk are distinctive things.

    As I see it, the holocharacters we see in Trek are hyper advanced algorithms that perfectly mimic intelligence but are no more intelligent in a general sense than Google. Data, however, through his positronic brain *and* physical body, is the real deal.

    This debate would require an actual computer scientist to remain meaningful.

    "This debate would require an actual computer scientist to remain meaningful."

    There are some interesting perspectives on the "mind body" problem in Possible Minds: 25 ways of looking at AI. This article reviews some of the challenges in addressing how to teach an AI to think like a child.

    https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/28/18239993/artificial-intelligence-children-machine-learning-alison-gopnik-psychology

    The broccoli example is an amusing illustration of how children can accomplish feats that no AI, however sophisticated, can do.

    Like with sublight interstellar travel, I feel the media and popular entertainment have underestimated the challenges of creating general AI - so much so that this technology may be as far beyond us as warp drive.

    @ Jason R.,

    "Like with sublight interstellar travel, I feel the media and popular entertainment have underestimated the challenges of creating general AI - so much so that this technology may be as far beyond us as warp drive."

    To be fair, you're arguing this point in context of a show where warp drive *has* been invented. So it's also fair to assume they have mastered real AI programming. However I think what you mean to be arguing is that creating transferable consciousness tech (like in Altered Carbon) isn't just a question of computing power and sophistication in circuitry, where getting advanced enough will allow us to put a person's mind in a golem. I think your point (and Andy's) is that it's non-transferable regardless of our tech level because new hardware = new person. So even if some part of us could be transferred it wouldn't be "us" in any intelligible sense. I suppose the 'hard version' of your position would be that no part at all is able to be segregated from our own wetware at all.

    Actually this brings us back to a philosophy issue going back to 1960's Trek, and was originally about transporter technology. Bones himself seems to have outright championed this position, that something is inherently wrong with deconstructing and reconstructing a person molecule by molecule. Even if it's 100% possible in terms of computing power, somehow it just won't be them any more. And this issue is a serious one in Trek: how can "you" be transported remotely at all? The computer buffer keeps your "pattern" intact, and reconstructs your body (3-D printing) and mind. But is that you, or a copy of you very much like you? Religious questions about whether it would have a soul are even another matter; but putting that aside I think there would be a lot of worry about that. For instance, what if I told you I would murder you outright, but not to worry, because after I did I'd active a perfect replica elsewhere that could take over your life? Would you agree, if that saved you a long commute? I doubt you would, and not just because of some superstitious mumbo jumbo. I suspect that you would see it as you dying and having your life taken over by a synth or something. And that is more or less what happens when transporters are used, studio budgets be damned.

    So in the case here of a golem, is it Picard in a new body, or is Picard truly dead and this is a golem in the original sense, something resembling a living person but actually not that at all? I find the idea chilling of being told my "mind" would be moved into a robot. Something might be moved in, but I would doubt that it would be me in any sense I could care about. At best it would be a Leah Brahms type copy that *might* mimic some of my behaviors, but probably not even that.

    @Dexter comparing Picard to the Admonition
    I don't hate this show nearly as much as some folks do, but I got a good laugh out of this.

    @Marvin, Tim C
    I think that in theory, the "point" of the entire journey for Picard (the character) was supposed to be some blending of the following three ideas:
    1. Letting go of past failures and focusing on doing the right thing right now
    2. Learning how to be a good father/grandfather figure for Soji
    3. Being able to say goodbye to Data

    (1) was muddled, but one could try to say that Picard arguing with the Romulan senator on the Wild West planet was the 'wrong' way to try to resolve the past, and helping Soji was the 'right' way. He even has the declaration that helping her is only partly about Data, and is more about his own rebirth as an active agent in the galaxy again.

    (2) was I think the closest to being handled well, but is almost entirely relegated to the last 4 episodes. Maybe there is a worthwhile comparison to his relationship with Elnor buried in the muck somewhere here.

    (3) was, as we've said, almost entirely relegated to epi1 and epi10. There's some aspect of this that colors (2) and his relationship with Soji, which maybe I haven't given enough credit to. The show does frame characters (including Picard) telling Soji about Data as "helping" her, I guess.

    For the show as a whole, we also had (again, in theory):
    4. Soji's journey of self-discovery and re-learning trust, compassion, etc
    5. Jurati making a terrible mistake and trying to make amends
    6. The crew bonding together
    7. Saving the universe from a bunch of robot tentacle monsters without committing genocide

    Unfortunately, items 5-7 were, hm, handled questionably at best.

    Funny. I feel that the season should have been longer. There were plenty of interesting themes and characters that were introduced but never developed beyond the introductory stage (of course, there's nothing stopping them from continuing that exploration in the second season, but there are events that I feel needed to wait until we knew the characters better).

    I'm definitely more satisfied with this season that I was with Discovery's first season, even though it sometimes had the same kinds of problems (narrative shortcuts, telling instead of showing, jumping from plot point to plot point with no chance to breathe). What we need to see is these characters just hanging around and having fun, relaxing. They haven't gotten a chance to do that because they've gone from one crisis to the next. Remember the dinner scene that opens DS9's "Equilibrium"? That's the kind of thing that will make me care about these characters (if done right).

    Wouldn't it have been much more interesting for the advanced AI race to be nonviolent? They come through the wormhole (or whatever it is) and just disable everyone's weapons (like the Organians in "Errand of Mercy") and that's how it ends? That would have been surprising, interesting and thematically meaningful. It also would have made the Zhat Vash more clearly wrong (as it is, you can kind of understand their actions, if not their ruthlessness).

    Picard's death strikes me as unnecessary, not just practically, but dramatically. It didn't have any effect on the season's plot, and I'm sure there would have been another way for him to be able to interact with Data's memories in the "quantum simulations". Creating a new body for Picard opens a can of worms I doubt the series is genuinely willing to explore. Everyone could do it now and become essentially immortal. Even Data's consciousness could be transferred to a human body. Wouldn't that be the culmination of everything he's always wanted? Stewart's and Spiner's performances were sublime, though.

    I completely agree with Jammer about the visual effects. How is it that the CGI ships in DS9 looked more realistic than these, even though they were created 20 years ago? Less is more, people.

    It strikes me that none of these characters actually have any reason to keep travelling the galaxy together now (and, yeah, what about Jurati's promise to turn herself over to Starfleet?) That wouldn't matter if I cared about them. Oh well, I expect I'll be back next season anyway. Onwards!

    @Jason R.
    "Trying to create a general intelligence, artificial or otherwise, absent a physical body, is akin to trying to teach someone to walk as a pure intellectual exercise, only multiplied a million fold in difficulty."

    "Well anything from a Google search engine to good old Dr. Sbaitso can mimic intelligence without being intelligent. Conceivably, you could even develop an algorithm so sophisticated that it could carry on a natural seeming conversation flawlessly. And yet it would only be an algorithm not a conscious being. And if you somehow gave this algorithm command of a physical body, it wouldn't know how to walk *at all* even if it could explain the process in exacting manner. Because knowing *about* walking and knowing how to walk are distinctive things. "


    Interesting pov, but most likely untrue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that a physical body learning to interact in an environment is the definitive method of producing intellect. Modern technology allows us currently to simulate both the physical body and the environment far better than we can simulate a human brain. So the objection you raised is actually the least of A.I. researcher's concerns.

    If you could create an A.I. with the potential to acquire sapience and all it lacked was a body to interact in an environment to learn from, we could achieve that right now with pure simulated virtual reality, let alone what's achievable with the tech in PIC where they have holodecks capable of fooling human senses. We don't actually need a body to build a functioning brain or an environment; we just need a Matrix to download our brand new brain into.

    Your argument also fails to take into account the nature of the environment and body that you claim are required for intelligence. In order to successfully make the claim you're making you'd have to know precisely the level of capability, complexity, detail, etc in both the body and the environment that is sufficient to generate intelligence. In other words, it may indeed turn out that an environment as simple as a billiard ball table would be all the environment required and a simple mobile toy to interact with the billiards all the body necessary to achieve the goal. The body can be something very simple, like something no more complex than an inchworm or a mollusk with a foot. Any of these things would be easily simulated.

    They've actually already simulated the brains of simple creatures. The bodies would be child's play. And they're already teaching robots to walk. They could easily do so completely inside a simulated environment, no actual body or tangible environment needed.

    Quincy we can't simulate a physical environment anymore than we can simulate an apple by photographing it.

    @Jason R.

    We can't simulate it exactly, but we can give a pretty damn good rendition of it. What exactly can you experience with your 5 senses that you believe can't be simulated?

    This isn't really Picard-related, but has anyone watched any of the Youtube channel Movies with Mikey? He's now done two episodes exploring the making of Star Trek. His videos are always great and refreshingly positive, and these two (entirely about the original series and its movies) may help put some things in perspective. Mainly, the idea that classic Star Trek as we know it was largely made in a ridiculously haphazard fashion where no one really knew what they were doing, and it was in many ways a genuine miracle that it managed to succeed at all, to the point where we can complain about writers here on Picard today.

    "We can't simulate it exactly, but we can give a pretty damn good rendition of it. What exactly can you experience with your 5 senses that you believe can't be simulated?"

    What of one's senses can be simulated? In the end a computer can only process things as digital information, 0s and 1s. Is a data stream meant to approximate a sight or a touch equivalent to actual sight and touch? Or are we back to the dog photo problem?

    @Jason R.

    That's just not true. There are many different types of computers. 0s and 1s are not even the tip of the iceberg. Assuming (and that's a big assumption) the human body requires analog information, computers are quite capable of producing the needed information. Analog computers are an actual thing. You're using the term, "data stream," as a pejorative. Just what do you think the cones and rods of your retinas are giving you RIGHT THIS MINUTE, but a data stream? Your inner ears are giving you data streams. Your nerve endings in your skin are giving you data streams. That's all it is.

    @ Jammer

    "There's no weight or dimension to starships anymore. They have unfortunately become video game avatars that look like they were cloned with copy and paste."

    This. One million times this. :(

    This may look like a tangent, but it's relevant to not only the current conversation, but to a prior conversation about what Soji and other Cylon style androids are and how they relate to human beings. As I was trying to say before (with the frog cell robot), it's the principle on which a computer (cell) or the basic components of a computer (cell) is designed.

    This guy, Rahul Sarpeshkar, states it far better than I ever could. If anyone is interested, this right here is one of the best Ted talks I've heard in awhile. Titled, "Analog Supercomputers: From Quantum Atom to Living Body," it's only 22 minutes of your life. I seriously doubt you'll want them back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZycidN_GYo0

    @Elliott
    Yes, I remember those days, chatting with you and a few other regulars. Better days, with better discussions inspired by better series. I hope you are well.

    @Lynos
    Thanks for the ‘synopsis’ of those episodes. So, Data’s memory engrams can be recreated from a single neuron of his, can they? To quote Lycan:

    “A neuron is just a simple little piece of insensate stuff that does nothing but let electrical current pass through it from one point in space to another; by merely stuffing an empty brainpan with neurons, you couldn’t produce qualia-immediate phenomenal feels!” (“Form, function, and feel”. The Journal of Philosophy, 78 (1981))

    Lycan may be slightly outdated. Still, I’m truly happy I never watched this.

    @All

    1990:

    “If the discussion regarding artificial intelligence were nothing more than a dispute over the ways in which language is or might be used, it would not be very interesting, since it would refer to nothing more than the way the word “intelligence” might be commonly employed. If, instead, we are interested in knowing whether or not computers actually think, or clocks really tell time, and mean that they have the kind of consciousness, inferential powers, imagination, sensitivity, responsibility, memory, and expectations that humans have, we must turn away from linguistic usage to ask whether it will ever be possible for machines, no matter how quick and adroit, to be conscious, to infer, imagine, be responsible, and so forth.”

    —Paul Weiss, “On the Impossibility of Artificial intelligence”. Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 44, No. 2 (1990), first page. (Presented at the 8th International Congress of Cybernetics and Systems, New York, 1990).


    2014:

    “I believe that if we are ever to also achieve true *artificial consciousness* ― what I gather we mean here by “sentience” ― we need also to create an artificial brain. As Haikonen wrote a decade ago:

    ‘The brain is definitely not a computer. Thinking is not an execution of programmed strings of commands. The brain is not a numerical calculator either. We do not think by numbers. (…).’ ”

    —Andy’s Friend, ‘Heroes and Demons’, here on Jammer’s, Oct 31, 2014. Haikonen was speaking of modern digital computers.


    2016:

    “This divide, of intelligence vs consciousness, is extremely important. Today, we have researchers in artificial intelligence, and we have researchers in artificial consciousness. The divide promises―if it hasn’t already―to become as great as that between archaeologists and historians, or anthropologists and psychologists: slightly related fields, and yet, fundamentally different. The problem is, that most people aren't aware of this. Most people, unknowingly, are still in 1988. They conflate the terms, and still speak of irrelevant AI (see this thread!). They still, unknowingly, speak of Deep Thought only.”

    —Andy’s Friend, ‘The Measure of a Man’, here on Jammer’s, Jun 27, 2016.


    2018:

    “1. INTRODUCTION
    (…) one of the main objectives of AI is to design a system that can be considered as a “machine with minds” in the full and literal sense. Further, it is obvious that if an entity consists of the mind in true sense then it must inevitably pose the attributes of consciousness. Indeed, the domain of AI reflects substantial interest towards consciousness. (…) The term “intelligence” is closely related to “consciousness” and in the last ten years there has been a growing interest towards the field of Artificial Consciousness (AC). Several researchers from traditional AI addressed the hypothesis of designing and implementing models for AC. It is sometimes referred to as machine consciousness or synthetic consciousness. (…) Indeed, the goal of AI is to enable the artificial agent to display the characteristics of mental properties or exhibit characteristic aspects of systems that have such properties. It is obvious that intelligence is not the only characteristic of mental property. (…) mental property also encompasses many other characteristics, e.g., action, creativity, perception, emotion and consciousness. The term “consciousness” has persistently been a matter of great interest at the philosophical level of human being but it is not formidably addressed within the purview of AI. (…).”

    2.2 AC
    (…) Generally, researchers consider three strands pertaining to AC. They are interactive empiricism, synthetic phenomenology, and ontologically conservative hetero-phenomenology. At first glance it seems easy to distinguish the AI and AC. In general, AI endeavours to create an intelligent machine whereas AC attempts to create machines that are conscious. However, the subject matter of consciousness and intelligence is quite complicated and distinction between these two aspects requires philosophical foundation.
    (…) ‘‘Most roboticists are more than happy to leave these debates on consciousness to those with more philosophical leanings’’. Contrary to this, many researchers give sound consideration on the possibility that human beings’ consciousness is more than the epiphenomenal by-product. These researchers have hypothesized that consciousness may be the expression of some fundamental architectural principle exploited by our brain. (…)

    5. CONCLUSION
    Body, mind, intelligence and consciousness are mutually interrelated entities. However, consciousness is subtler than intelligence, mind, senses and body. AC is mainly concerned with the consciousness possessed by an artificial agent (…). AC attempts to explain different phenomena pertaining to it, including limitations of consciousness. There are two sub-domains of AC. They are the “weak AC” and “strong AC”. It is difficult to categorize these two subdomains due to the fact that they are not related with the dichotomy of true conscious agent and “seems to be” conscious agents. Further, researchers have given few computational models of consciousness. However, it is not possible to replicate the consciousness by computations, algorithms, processing and functions of AI method. In fact, however vehemently we say that the computer is conscious, it is ridiculous to imbibe that sensor data can create consciousness in a true sense. Indeed, consciousness is not a substance and is independent of sense object contact and cannot be produced by the element. (…) Furthermore, consciousness cannot depend on what function a machine computes. (…)”

    —Subhash Pandey, “Can Artificially Intelligent Agents Really be Conscious?”. Sādhanā (2018), first and last page.


    Last year, 2019:

    “INTRODUCTION
    One of the most painful issues of creating Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the problem of creating a hardware or software analogue of the phenomenal consciousness and/or a system of global access to cognitive information (…).
    Wherein, presumable consciousness of so-called “strong” Artificial Intelligence is often regarded as a kind of analogue of human consciousness, albeit more quantitatively developed. In this case, artificial intelligence has a wider “phenomenal field”, has richer content (qualae) and a much larger amount of RAM (necessary for the reconstruction of conscious experience), etc.
    (…)

    CONSCIOUSNESS AND UNCONSCIOUSNESS
    The “spotlight” of a conscious mind does not always work in the mode of voluntary attention. Certain processes independently “breakthrough” into consciousness without permission. They penetrate the global access space as if “demanding” our conscious attention. Most often, these are emotional-volitional impulses, intuitive insights and the like. Desires, emotions, and complicated cognitive phenomena come as if “from the outside” without arbitrary participation of the actor. (…)
    It seems that despite our common sense and familiar intuition, some aspects of our mental life are evolutionarily “programmed”. Therefore, for example, we have motivation and emotions, regardless of choice. We do not consciously choose our own desires or preferences. Needs and affects are given to us “as is”, in finished form. This, of course, does not prevent from making reflecting about them a posteriori (for example, in rationalization) or to influence them through awareness (in psychotherapy). The very intentionality of consciousness (or at least the potential possibility of intentionality) is predetermined.
    (…) To ensure our smooth functioning in both the physical and the social world, nature has dictated that many processes of perception, memory, attention, learning, and judgment are delegated to brain structures outside conscious awareness” (…) Now we understand that human memory management, automatic motion control, affective-volitional functions, attention management, mechanisms of associative thinking, mechanisms for forming judgments and logical consequences, operations with the sensory flow, creating a complete picture of the world, and the like are primarily unconscious.
    Thus, a significant part of our activity consists of mental facts that are transcendent in relation to consciousness. This feature is evolutionary due. However, hypothetical Artificial Intelligence can be free of the “dictate of the unconscious”, unlike human beings. The machine can have total global access to any “internal” processes. Thus, all information processes can be simultaneously “illuminated” (or accessible, as far as the hardware substrate allows), completely depriving the AI of the unconscious.

    THE PARADOX OF THE UNCONSCIOUS AND AI
    This leads to paradoxical conclusions. Awareness and self-awareness do not automatically lead to the emergence of motivation, desires or emotions. A conscious machine can be completely devoid of these processes, natural to humans. The intentionality of consciousness of Homo sapiens is due to evolution and is not obligatory for the machine.
    (…)
    There is a good reason to believe that the field of unconscious processes (within human psyche) is much larger than the field of phenomenal consciousness. (…) scientists have developed a hypothesis according to which even conscious and free will actions are nothing but fixation of unconscious processes a posteriori. This raises the difficult question: is the field of the unconscious nothing but the absolute basis for conscious processes? Is consciousness only an emergent feature of the unconscious (that is, a second-level process after neurophysiological processes)?
    Thus, we come to the “traditional” division into “strong” and “weak” Artificial Intelligence. According to modern theoretical concepts, “strong” Artificial Intelligence should have at least several distinctive characteristics, among which the most essential is an intelligent agent’s behavior from the “first person” perspective. Theoretically, this should be a “goal setting machine”. In this case, “strong” human-like AI is impossible without the synchronous work of the conscious and unconscious “minds”.
    When we argue about the human psyche, many of these questions have moved into the plane of the philosophy of consciousness or pure neuroscience. In the philosophy of consciousness, we are primarily interested in the ontological status of mental phenomena. Therefore, it is important for us to know whether the psyche is “something” or it is an “illusion” of the brain; whether there is an intentional agent or whether it is also an illusion. That is why it is also important for a person to determine what the ratio of conscious life to unconscious processes “in darkness” is.
    (…)

    SCENARIOS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MACHINE UNCONSCIOUS
    (…)
    In essence, the “weak” Artificial Intelligence is a kind of functional neural networks of various types (convolutional, spiking, deep stacking, etc.). They are the systems with multiple inputs, analytical subsystems, and one or n-number of outputs. Their widely known applying is pattern or speech recognition (what is called “machine perception”).
    Here we can use the neural-network metaphor of Alan Turing’s “probabilistic machine”, which evaluates information based on big data. For example, I recognize a face in dynamics, because I have a huge amount of incoming data that is interpreted in the same way as it happens in modern neural networks. In the end, I have a certain result. Based on big data, it is already possible to build predictive models, etc. However, for such a machine, an external interpreter is still needed. For the time being, he plays the role of an “external consciousness” for the “unconscious” neural networks.
    (…)
    (…) All of the above features of the natural unconscious, such as automaticity, inaccessibility and uncontrollability, can be fully accessible to Artificial Intelligence systems. Moreover, here there are several development scenarios of the machine “psyche.”
    1. A machine can arbitrarily form its conscious affective-volitional functions. In this case, a paradox arises: what exactly will induce the AI to choose motives and emotions? After all, the “second level unconscious” for the machine does not exist. (…)
    2. The unconscious of Artificial Intelligence may also develop evolutionarily. For example, modern evolutionary algorithms allow the machine to learn how to “walk” independently without the rules of walking prepared in advance. By analogy, nothing prevents the possibility of evolution of both the higher mental functions of Artificial Intelligence and its unconscious automatic processes. However, there is a danger that such an AI can develop in a completely unpredictable direction. This will lead us later to scenario 5.
    3. The unconscious AI may also be deliberately programmed. Thus, installation of the criteria for possible aesthetic, ethical and volitional prerequisites for the activities of the machine will be determined by its creators. In fact, this can become a psychic “insuperable force” for a conscious AI, transcendental to its “phenomenal field.” Therefore, the very intentionality of the consciousness of the machine will have to be artificially created.
    4. The consciousness of AI can be a program analogue of human consciousness. Probably, in the future, the disclosure of the mechanisms of formation of consciousness and cognitions may lead to the creation of their exact program model, including the model of the unconscious. In such a case, Artificial Intelligence essentially becomes a perfect copy of a human person. At the same time the problem of qualae, of course, does not go anywhere. Nevertheless, technically we can “remove it from the equation” as irrelevant in a practical sense [NOTE: THIS IS WHAT SOONG ATTEMPTED WITH DATA’S PROGRAMMING, INCLUDING HIS ‘POSITRONIC BRAIN’ AS A PHYSICAL COGNITIVE ARCHITECHTURE FOR FURTHER GROWTH OR ‘MECHANISMS OF FORMATION’].
    5. It may also happen that the consciousness of Artificial Intelligence as a kind of analogue of human consciousness is impossible in principle. Perhaps such phenomena as “consciousness” and “unconscious” will be absolutely inapplicable to AI. In this case, the machine “phenomena” (or lack thereof) will be absolutely incomprehensible to humans, and communication between man and machine will be questionable. (…)

    CONCLUSION.
    Probably, a machine (as we saw above) will be able to effectively imitate natural behavior, for example, to conduct a fully meaningful conversation. However, will this mean that Artificial Intelligence will have a phenomenal experience, or at least something remotely resembling it? In addition, is there a fundamental difference between the imitation of rational behavior and the rational behavior itself? This raises an interesting question. If the machine says that it has qualae, that it feels something, that it is conscious, etc., then can we doubt it? Will Artificial Intelligence be a “philosophical zombie” according to Chalmers? What if this AI does not have a phenomenal consciousness that we call “the inner world”? However, if at the same time this particular AI will fully pass all versions of the Turing test and we will not be able to distinguish the conversation with it and with a reasonable person? Will we consider such an AI reasonable?
    Let us try to look for answers from the other side. It is worth noting that such examples rather indicate that at this stage we are slowly creating an analog of the unconscious for Artificial Intelligence. BASED ON EXISTING TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AI, IT CAN BE NOTED THAT WE ARE MOVING ALONG THE PATH OF “QUANTITY TO QUALITY” [emphasis added]: i.e. improving the systems of “weak” AI (neural networks) and their further integration INTO THE META-SYSTEM OF NEURAL NETWORKS INTEGRATED LIKE HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS [emphasis added]. For example, according to the theory of Jerry Alan Fodor, the whole human psyche (both conscious and unconscious) operates on the basis of the so-called “modules” (“modular mind” theory) [Fodor, 1983]. IF IN THE FUTURE WE CREATE SUCH A NEURAL NETWORK CONFIGURATION THAT WILL AT LEAST MIMIC “SYNCHRONOUS OSCILLATION OF GROUPS OF NEURONS”, OR SOME OTHER SYSTEM THAT COMBINES INDIVIDUAL NEURAL NETWORKS THAT REPRESENT SCATTERED FUNCTIONAL “MODULES” INTO A HIGHER-LEVEL NEURAL NETWORK, THEN PERHAPS WE WILL GET “STRONG” ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [emphasis added. NOTE: IN OTHER WORDS, AN ‘ARTIFICIAL BRAIN’ LEADING TO ARTIFICIAL CONSCIOUSNESS: A ‘POSITRONIC BRAIN’ LEADING TO DATA]. Therefore, it seems that the development of AI proceeds simultaneously under scenarios 2, 4 and 5.
    (…).”

    — Eugene Piletsky, “Consciousness and Unconsciousness of Artificial Intelligence”. Future Human Image, Vol. 11, 2019.


    I hope these few examples clarify the significance of cognitive architecture. I find Pandey’s contribution for the Indian Academy of Sciences particularly interesting. As some will recall I have lived and worked in India; and in Chapter 4.1, which I have omitted here, Pandey explores the question of consciousness based not on Plato or Aristotle or later Western philosophers, but on classic Indian philosophy: the Upanishads, the Vedanta, and so forth. This explains his definition of 'ontologically conservative hetero-phenomenology', a nomenclature that is nothing but a euphemism for biological chauvinism, which Pandey himself is dangerously close to, based on said classic Indian philosophy. There are other schools of thought than ours, and it is always good to be reminded of that lest we become too convinced of our own moral superiority in the West or the Federation.

    I hope Piletsky's remarks on the necessity of the unconscious for consciousness isn't lost on readers.

    Leading scientists in the fields of AI and AC diverge. The former, the ‘roboticists’ necessarily care for software. As Pandey puts it elsewhere, “The main task of AI is to discover the optimum computational models to solve a given problem”, and this necessarily involves the programming also. The latter hardly speak of software, for software may accomplish the most basic only: it processes, it does not think. If we wish to go farther and speak not of computations, but of thoughts and emotions—if we wish to ask questions such as ‘Does the robot *think*?’ or ‘Does the android *dream*?’—it’s the hardware that matters.

    In Star Trek terms, this means that our good doctor on the Voyager, the EMH does not possess true consciousness. He (or more properly, it) is but a program: he mimics, or emulates, if perfectly, human behaviour only. Whereas Data is an artificial lifeform, endowed with neural networks that can emulate, or recreate, if imperfectly, genuine thought processes. He possesses artificial consciousness. He is truly alive.

    I have fortunately all but forgotten ‘Nemesis’, and I have never watched ‘Picard’, so I can’t talk about the ‘synths’.

    @Quincy
    @All

    Thanks for the video, Quincy. It is indeed worthwhile, presenting nothing fundamentally new at this point but presenting what it does well. I recommend it.

    I am however not sure that you have understood its implications, as you have systematically argued against its propositions, as late as this week. Have you changed your mind? What is Sarpeshkar arguing?

    Sarpeshkar here is doing precisely what my examples above speak of. He is talking of emulating the human body. He is talking about perfecting the artificial, analogue computers of yesteryear—not the digital computers of today—so that they can match the human, natural, biological analogue 'computer' at the quantum level. He is not talking about software at all: he is talking about a fusion of hardware and wetware. He is being the proverbial Dr Soong, talking about the attempt to build an artificial cognitive architecture. He is talking about the proverbial ‘positronic brain’.

    He gives numerous examples of this, from the micro to the macro-scale, as in:

    SARPESHKAR: ‘(…) but if I copied the clever exponentially tapered architecture of the cochlea, I could build a quantum cochlea (…)’ (19:30)

    SARPESHKAR: ‘(…) because of that we can do synthetic biology, which is the top piece where chemistry goes into biology with molecular reaction circuits; we can also build computers to emulate cells (…).’ (20:55)

    All this culminates in:

    SARPESHKAR: ‘(…) you can also be inspired by biology: you can take an architecture in the biology to do something in computer science you would never have imagined before (…) so what I’m telling you is that the wet and the dry are very deeply connected; we have to learn to be amphibians (…) so my paradigm shift is actually a very, very simple one: we need to go ‘back’ to the future, collective analogue computers like nature does, in physics, chemistry, and biology, and not be so mesmerised by the ones and zeroes that we think are so great (…).’ (21:15-22:15)

    This walks hand in hand with the views of the scientists in the field of artificial consciousness I have just quoted, and everything I have ever stated on the matter in this forum.

    A problem may be posed by an overly materialistic perspective. The challenge is to combine a physicalist ontology with metaphysics: not simply emulating, but indeed creating life. My proposition is and has always been that Soong's ‘positronic brain’/Sarpeshkar's ‘quantum analogue computer’ indeed manages this.

    So, in Star Trek terms, yes, Data is truly alive. The EMH, of course, is not. Sarpeshkar would surely agree.

    [Rahul Sarpeshkar, "Analog Supercomputers: From Quantum Atom to Living Body". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZycidN_GYo0. By courtesy of Quincy].

    @OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

    I think you are conflating two thoughts from the same comment. You asked if current Star Trek could cross a line to where I would say no more, and I said I don't know. This is in regards specifically to the Trek universe, Discovery, Picard, and whatever else is in the pipeline for the future. My second thought about The Orville is independent of that question, as The Orville doesn't fall under the Star Trek universe, so I didn't consider it under the premise of your original question.

    As far as making the distinction of Trek/Not Trek regarding The Orville, it is something I say I should have not have said because it does something I dislike, it implies that whatever is "not Trek" or what have you is either bad or not enjoyable. I think thats too binary an outcome for discussing Trek, and that can make those discussions meaningless. But by saying that I fell into the same trap I would usually avoid. So yes, I do feel that was a mistake on my part, because despite my criticisms of it, I do enjoy it for the most part, and its a mistake to imply otherwise.

    "Unless you want to argue that ST:P is more Trekkish then the Orville, which I think we'd both agree to be a ridiculous statement."

    I won't argue this point, I'll only say I'll be there for both shows 2nd and 3rd seasons, respectively. :)

    Again you have reached a point where your debate has become meaningless because none of you has an understanding of the topic that could lead to a deeper understanding for the rest.

    Andy's friend post is a good example

    It is not a good argument, in a scientific sense it is unacceptable and even if you apply less stringent standards it is not a very convincing one.
    - the main problem is certainly the complete lack of leading minds in the field in general.
    - Paul Weiss (a philosopher) writes from the "Review of Metaphysic" That name alone let's me go to yellow alert and knowing that it is mostly sponsored by the Catholic church doesn't boost my confidence. The focus of the the peer reviewed philosophy journal is education. - not a good source -

    - Pentti Haikonen is former engineer for Nokia and now at the philosophy department as an adjunct professor. He at least seems to have a background in the field but I would not call him a leading expert by any measure.

    - Dr. Subhash Chandra Pandey is an assistant professor of computer science at the Birla Insitute of Technology and Science. That is a university that does not make it into the first 1000 places in the THE (Times Higher Education). it is certainly a fine institution but nothing to brag about.

    - the last source is Eugene Piletsky: Ph.D., Associate Professor, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv . Another university that doesn't make the top 1000 universities world wide. Well, it is in the Ukraine. But I think we can agree that the people you have quoted are just five voices of people who are either not in the actual field of computer science or faaar away from being leading voices of that field.

    Give me Oxford or MIT, I would even accept the barely first rate losers of the ETH Zurich.

    @Andy's Friend

    Thank you for posting something intelligent on the subject of AI and consciousness. I still enjoy reading Chalmers, Dennett, Searle, Churchland, and others. The issue of strong and weak AI, and the hard vs easy problems relating to the same, have been around for a number of decades now. It's nice to see someone paying attention. It's also the sort of knowledge you need to differentiate older Trek, which ponders some of these questions albeit through sometimes incoherent or silly circumstances, and stuff like DSC and Picard which lack any essential desire to confront such subjects (on their own terms) or to recognize the inherent difficulties in even asking the right question (in the first place).

    One statement you made was interesting. You said:

    "I hope Piletsky's remarks on the necessity of the unconscious for consciousness isn't lost on readers."

    Isn't it the evolutionarily driven attributes, like desires and imagination, that at least partly dwell in the unconscious region that give rise to the synchronous cycle you mentioned? The point was that you need this synchronicity to make possible qualia, the internal instances of subjectively experienced consciousness.

    The consequence being that if you remove unconsciousness, as you mentioned, you remove that which provokes the mind's cycle toward experiential, subjective consciousness. Yet, at least one of your philosopher sources cited indicates that an adequate substitute for the desires, imaginative drivers, and so forth could be included in the development of a synthetic intelligence, even without an unconscious realm existing. Perhaps as a substrate mechanism or a feedback loop that facilitates the overall intelligence's development.

    The point is that a synthetic mind with the qualia Chalmers refers to, in distinguishing strong from weak AI, may not depend on a subconscious state. Maybe it ultimately will, since much of this is still speculative science, but we can't know this at this point. Moreover, and this is the larger point, maybe none of the speculation is warranted, either way, since it still remains unclear whether the conscious, subjective experience itself can be reduced to something that code X within hardware Y can achieve.

    In short, this may still be a "hard" philosophical problem, as Data's ambiguous "expression" upon Lal's death exemplifies.

    Anyone agree or disagree with this...

    I would have preferred if the big reveal of this super advanced AI that is awaiting a call was more like Lorien from B5 ; a cerebral answer of someone who has evolved beyond even the most advanced beings; than a faceless action figure bent on destroying the universe through a summoning portal.

    I think it would have been much more satisfying for it to be misunderstood and actually some advanced lifeform that can teach something and is not an actual threat (that was made from myth and fear).

    It ended up making the entire plot worthless to be something so faceless and just shut down so quickly like that.

    @dave
    "I would have preferred if the big reveal of this super advanced AI that is awaiting a call was more like Lorien from B5 ; a cerebral answer of someone who has evolved beyond even the most advanced beings; than a faceless action figure bent on destroying the universe through a summoning portal."

    Oh, agree x1000. But then, B5 was actual sci-fi and not action/adventure like PIC. And I find that sadly, it validates what Kurtzmann is doing that all we need to want to tune in each week is that it's new and is called Star Trek. Because despite all the crap we sat through for 10 hours, most of us WILL watch the next season.

    I agree that the "super-race" we got was "super-stupid". However, I'm not sure how much would be gained by making them interesting. It depends on what you wanted the show to be about.

    If you wanted it to be about scifi, then absolutely the AI should have been a revelation and something for both the audience and the characters to learn from. However, this would essentially make Picard's relationship with Soji irrelevant. In this scenario, Picard and Soji and Oh and everyone would end up on an even playing field where they were all wrong via misinformation. Picard's belief that Soji can be a good person is no longer what mattered - instead the real issue is that everyone needs to learn not to make assumptions based on stories/myths. Just a different, still Trekkian take.

    If you wanted the show to be about Picard and Soji as characters, then the actual AI are not very relevant. They're just plot devices to enforce (ludicrous) physical stakes which dovetail with the emotional and ideological ones. Soji needs to learn to overcome her fear due to her trauma and betrayals, learn to trust again, and, you know, not commit genocide (the ludicrous part). Picard needs to learn how to actually help her to see this by providing an example of trust and selflessness, rather than simply telling her what she must and mustn't do. I still think that's a reasonable Trekkian take which could have worked well if the stakes weren't so bonkers

    @Jacob

    I think the commenters that asked why people continued watching something they disliked becomes more relevant now that the season is over when deciding how to approach next season.

    I’ve been critical of the series all season but got invested halfway, so I needed to sit through just to see if I might get some satisfaction. Sorta like deciding whether to finish a new movie halfway thorough. Sometimes I will stop watching a new movie if I really don’t see any upside (I’m referring to non theater movies). (It’s rare for a movie to turn itself around in the last half in my experience.) PIC still had some upside halfway through the season.

    Now, if I start watching Season 2, I run the risk of getting invested again in a substandard series. I think my strategy for next season is to look at Jammers stars ranking next to each episode, and if there’s a large preponderance of 3+ star reviews, to only then consider investing again. Because this is a serial, it’s an almost all or nothing affair, compared to episodic where I can pick and choose.

    Too many shows on TV now to waste time and frustration. I’ve got a huge backlog to watch. Unfortunately can’t let the Trek brand draw me in either.

    Agree 100% with Jammer's review.

    This season had its flaws, but gets an overall thumbs-up from me.

    I'll definitely be tuning in for Season 2.

    @Andy's Friend

    Once again you've come to an overblown and erroneous conclusion. Your entire post had nothing to do with what I was talking about. Jason R. claimed that you needed a physical body to interact inside some vaguely specified environment and together that is perhaps the recipe for the emergence of intelligence. I questioned the assumptions inherent in those specifications and the vagueness thereof.

    I understood Sarpeshkar just fine. Did you? No, I didn't change my mind. No, I didn't argue against it's principles. I've stated them and you simply failed to understand what I was talking about. And instead of clarifying with me, you substituted your vague notion of what I was talking about and argued against that. A straw man by any other name is still a straw man.

    Sarpeshkar's talking about emulating the principles of biology and leveraging the massive parallelism and built in logic/calculations/computations available in the laws of physics and chemistry. I never once claimed that digital programming was either sufficient or necessary for intelligence. That's something you pulled out of your ass, as my prior comment about 0s and 1s to Jason R. indicates. He was the one who brought up digital, not me. The prototype device would probably be a hybrid device: digital for ease of programmability and analog for the raw power of computation. Call it a digalog computer.

    I don't know what you think software is. Software is just information embedded in some form. There is nothing called "software" floating around disembodied in some more delicate corner of space-time. It's an arrangement of particles in some structure. Sarpeshkar is suggesting we arrange those particles in a different fashion according to different principles, not get rid of them altogether. If you somehow believe that "software" will magically be exorcised from a world of analog computers you're delusional. The software will simply have most of its logic embedded in the laws of physics or chemistry, rather than trying to express it as a sequence of logic gates.

    When Sarpeshkar talks about building an analog device that electronically represents the functions of a kidney that's exactly what the hell I was talking to Jason R. about, simulating a body, rather than actually having a body. Sarpeshkar's not talking about actually building a god damned kidney. There's no wetware. You couldn't stick Sarpeshkar's analog device in your ass so you don't have to go to dialysis tomorrow. It's a programmable device (which yes includes software) capable of representing all of the functions in a kidney in terms of analog electrical signals. We could scale up Sarpeshkar's approach to represent an entire human body. There wouldn't be an actual human body walking around in any kind of real environment; there would be an analog representation of a body interacting with an analog representation of an environment inside a device or a stack of devices as Sarpeshkar described in his talk, which is EXACTLY what the hell I was talking about.

    Sarpeshkar even refers to his prototype concept chip as "Digitally Programmable Analog Cytomorphic Supercomputers." How the hell could you have missed that? He actually talks about placing a bunch of chips on a PC board and building multiple stacks of these boards as large as the room he was talking in. He then says that if they did just that "in five to ten years we could possibly SIMULATE the entire human body." If he calls it simulating, why the hell wouldn't I call it simulating? There would be no wetware anywhere in sight, despite your claims, only the simulation (there's that word again) of wetware with analog electronic signals. You don't need wetware; you only need something just as robust as wetware. And we have all of physics to search for that.

    All that crap attempting to draw a distinction between the EMH and Data is just nonsense. The EMH's software, whatever form it takes, is implemented on some type of computer. Someone pointed out above that none of the computers in question need even be digital. In Voyager's case that's the Bio-neural gel packs of which Voyager's computer system was composed of, OR, the magical mobile emitter, which we have no idea of what it's composed of. How you expect me to believe that either one of those things can't do what also magical positronic circuitry could do is ridiculous, especially in light of the source material (TNG, Voyager, etc) telling us otherwise.

    The use of contemporary slang ("pissing me off", "did you f**k any of them") is beyond tiresome.

    It;s 2399. It would be like people in 2020 still using jargon from the era of Jamestown and Plymouth.

    "I'll definitely be tuning in for Season 2. "

    Will be interesting to see how they bring Guinan into it.

    In current English, how many colloquialisms, metaphors and slang terms come from Shakespeare?

    How about Ben Franklin?

    Mark Twain?

    I'm assuming English won't be the same in 400 years, but I imagine that some modern phrases will still be in usage.

    @Quincy

    I didn’t respond to your conversation with Jason R. because that is uninteresting to me: I never defended the primacy of wetware. But surely men are allowed to take strands of conversations to initiate other conversations or return to old ones, don’t you think?

    But you must understand that if you subscribe to your own example, Sardeshkar, then we are actually in agreement, you and I.

    There have long existed two different and opposed views on the future of artificial consciousness:
    — i) It is all a matter of software. With sufficiently complex, sophisticated, adaptive, etc., etc. programming, we can endow artificial beings with consciousness. This faction traditionally has spoken of artificial ‘sentience’ as ‘strong Artificial Intelligence’;
    — ii) No amount of software will ever suffice. It is a matter of hardware. For beings to possess consciousness, they must possess cognitive architecture that replicates (‘duplicates’, ‘simulates’, ‘emulates’, ‘recreates’, let’s for a moment not delve on semantics) actual, natural, biological cognitive architecture. This growing faction, which Sardeshkar and my previous examples represent, speaks of artificial sentience as ‘Artificial Consciousness’;

    I have maintained position ii) here for the past six or seven years . The posts are all there and are quite lengthy at that.

    Note therefore that I have never defended the primacy of wetware over general hardware. I do *not* adhere to biological chauvinism. Or, to use Pandey’s euphemism, ‘ontologically conservative hetero-phenomenology’.

    Ten days ago, you wrote to Peter G.:

    “I just gave numerous examples of TNG demonstrating that androids can spontaneously start broadcasting emotions to Counselor Troi with no change in physical hardware. How is this possible? Shouldn't they lack the wetware to broadcast emotions? Unless... no such wetware is required. And *a mere software change in a sapient machine does the trick.*

    Data is a *learning computer*. For Data and his progeny *"learning" is most likely synonymous with upgrading or updating their software* (…).”
    ('Et In Arcadia Ego, Pt I', 21 Mar 2020, emphasis added.)

    Granted, you were talking about Star Trek, which as we know can be vague and inconsistent. And here and there, you also talk about hardware. But per quotes as the one above, I thought that you firmly adhered to position i) above. My mistake, it seems.

    For now you give us Sardeshkar, who is arguing for the opposite side in the debate. Sardeshkar insists that it is not the software that matters, ‘the ones and zeroes that we think are so great’. As he so well puts it and I quoted, we must understand how the wet and the dry are very deeply connected, and we must therefore 'learn to be amphibians'. This is why he advocates for us to abandon modern digital computers and binary code and return to analogue computers. Sentience, consciousness, awareness: it would seem that the artificial mind must evolve organically (for lack of a better word) thanks to artificial, cognitive architecture that emulates nature; he outright calls it ‘synthetic biology’.

    Ten days ago you were arguing that a mere software change in a machine does the trick, and that ‘learning’ for a machine is most likely synonymous with upgrading or updating the software. Now, you bring us Sardeshkar, who argues, as I have always maintained, the necessity of ‘synthetic biology’, those ‘analogue computers like nature does’, and imply that you agree with him. So you may perhaps understand my bewilderment.

    I hope you agree with the scientist you referred. For in that case, we would seem to be in agreement, too.

    @ Andy's Friend,

    "Ten days ago you were arguing that a mere software change in a machine does the trick, and that ‘learning’ for a machine is most likely synonymous with upgrading or updating the software. Now, you bring us Sardeshkar, who argues, as I have always maintained, the necessity of ‘synthetic biology’, those ‘analogue computers like nature does’, and imply that you agree with him. So you may perhaps understand my bewilderment."

    I believe Quincy's argument is something to do with the assumption (by the actual episodes in question) that Data's hardware is already sophisticated enough to support sentience, but that it was lacking the requisite software to activate it. The positions seems to be based on the notion that while "ones and zeroes" cannot be sentience itself, the correct software is still necessary (but not sufficient) for the hardware to function properly. In this context Quincy defines software as the correct configuration or alignment of the correct type of hardware (which can be wetware or not), which need not be binary, or at least exclusively binary.

    So while I can see why you were confused, I think the confusion originates from something that confused me too originally, which was that it sounded like Quincy was arguing that simply altering Data's programming ifso facto made him alive/sentient/conscious to the satisfaction of a telepath. Actually it appears to me now that the argument was that Data's brain was already sufficient but didn't have the right programming, so the change in programming got him the rest of the way. The "his hardware was already good enough" premise wasn't clear to me at the time, but I think that's what's causing the confusion.

    Incidentally I'll note, specifically about those episodes (for instance the one with Ira Graves) for what it's worth, that the only change we register in data (about Data) is that Troi couse sense Data's thoughts. But it's entirely possible that her abilities are limited to similarly constituted humanoids and that her senses can't recognize other types of thinking and feeling patterns. So it's possible that Data *already was* sentient but not in a way she could sense, and after some transformation appeared on her radar, being sentient but just thinking in a way more familiar to her.

    The worst season of Star Trek ever.

    Except the Data stuff which was good, all the rest was just atrocious. I won't go into details, it was described in the comments before me. The loose ends, the sloppy writing, the cliches.

    I forced myself to watch it like a week after the release, could barely get through it and will not be tuninv in for season 2.

    Orville is the only Star Trek left, Picard is just atrocious and i hate them for bastardazing a beloved character.
    What a disapointment of a season that was...

    @Peter G.

    I see, thanks for the clarification. An interesting proposition. If I understand it correctly, you believe that Quincy’s argument is that Soong’s original programming of Data wasn’t enough. In other words, that he was indeed a glorified toaster in TNG. I can see how the argument can be made to defend such a hypothesis based on TNG alone. And as you know I haven’t watched ‘Picard’, so I am naturally at a disadvantage discussing future events in that parallel reality that may involve TNG.

    Should that be Quincy’s proposition, it is of course a valid one. As I wrote here years ago, I defend the opposite view not only because I find that the TNG scripts make it more plausible, but also because of personal bias: *I want him to be alive*.

    Incidentally, I wrote that in a post to you and William B years ago which I may as well quote:

    “Also, and this is answering both of you now, it is true that we cannot know with absolute certainty that Data's "positronic" brain is an artificial brain. There are strong indications that it is, but we cannot know for sure; and it is true that Data, too, could simply be another Great Pretender.

    (…) Some people *want to believe* that strings of code, like lead, can turn into gold.

    But that of course is a bit like my belief that Data's positronic brain is an artificial brain, i.e., some sort of cognitive architecture affording him consciousness. I, too, *want to believe* that he has that artificial brain. Because to me, Data would lose his magic, and all his beauty, were it not so. As I wrote, there are very strong indications that this interpretation is a correct one; but as in religion, I have no proof, and I must admit that it is, ultimately, also an act of faith of sorts. I want Data to be alive.”
    (‘The Measure of a Man’, 27 Jun 2016)

    It's funny, isn’t it? We adapt so many scientific terms, use such scholarly style, attempt to make so ‘objective’ arguments. Sometimes we should just state our own biases and our personal preferences, for they guide our utterances much more than most of us are ready to admit. It would make conversations a lot easier, wouldn’t it?

    What do you think of 'Picard', now that it's over? The sort of debate it seems to inspire doesn't strike me as a recommendation of it, but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

    It seemed to me a little self-centered of Picard to constantly say that Data gave his life to save his. Data gave his life to save Picard *and* the lives of everyone on the Enterprise.

    @B: completely agree. I'm deep into DS9 for the first time, and, while I dislike the focus on war (rather than the utopian style of TNG), it still manages to have great acting, character arcs and TALKING about the 'action' in fight scenes rather than simply showing off bland, Star Wars/Marvel/generic spam of special effects and SOOO MANY THINGS.

    Orville, when it's not forcing comedy (Macfarlane probably had to put that in otherwise it's just "TNG" not "TNG but with family guy creator's humour"), is amazing. Especially the 'lost timeline' episode of the latest season, and the moral dilemmas it retells.

    The immortality (What about the TNG episode where that guy takes over Data's mind? No callback to that?). The "organic androids" (??? Aren't they just Augments at this point? Why do they have weird memories?). Why kill off characters?

    I hate it. Patrick Stewart doesn't care about the character. Roddenberry's dream is dead. "Consoomers"/rabid fanboys will just eat up anything with the logo of their favourite media. If this was NOT branded as Star Trek, ditched every character and reference, it would be great. A new IP, a new story to tell. A universe that's yet to be established.

    "It seemed to me a little self-centered of Picard to constantly say that Data gave his life to save his. Data gave his life to save Picard *and* the lives of everyone on the Enterprise."

    That's true, Data and Picard were working together to stop Nero and more broadly save the Enterprise (and the Earth!!). The key difference between Data's sacrifice and Spock's sacrifice in The Wrath of Khan, for instance, is that either Data or Picard could have made the sacrifice of their own life, but Data unilaterally decided that the best decision was for him to die and Picard to live. Naturally, the result is that the Enterprise is saved as you say, but Picard alone is understandably left with the feeling that it could have or should have been him who made the sacrifice instead of Data.

    Robert, Data and Picard were working to stop Shinzon, not Nero. Lol

    I’ll get in on ranking all of the first seasons on Star Trek series too:

    1. TOS
    2. DS9
    3. PIC
    4. VOY
    5. DSC
    6. TNG
    7. ENT

    Sorry, GarretH. The point still stands. I don't know where I'd rank all these Treks. I try to find something I like in all of them despite their shortcomings.

    @Booming

    "Give me Oxford or MIT, I would even accept the barely first rate losers of the ETH Zurich. "

    You shouldn't, really.

    That kind of thing is called "argument from authority" and it is logically invalid. It also results in a mind-stunningly boring debate, where people begin to argue whose sources are more "trustworthy" instead of actually discussing the issue at hand.

    At any rate, most (if not all) of the "anti-AI" arguments presented here can easily be refuted simply by watching what present-day computers can do. Claiming that a programmed computer cannot intelligently adapt and learn is simply laughable in this day and age. Computers are already doing this today and they're doing it on a massive scale.

    Granted, we don't yet have a General AI. But the arguments presented here would be just as effective against the things that already exist. The cliche that ordinary computers can't outgrow the sum of their original programming is just wrong.

    Another strange claim that is being thrown here often, is the notion that "software" and "hardware" can somehow be seperated. They cannot. A piece of sotware is simply a set of instructions for a SPECIFIC piece of hardware.

    Moreover, not all computers have the same kind of hardware in them. A present-day laptop would have a far more complicated architecture then a home computer from the 1980's. This is not just a quantitative difference, and it plays an important part in the way programming these devices has change over the years.

    So basically, this whole debate of whether "software alone would be sufficient" stems from a basic lack of understanding of how computers and computer programs work. It assumes that there exists some kind of "universal standard" for digital computer hardware, and that is simply not true.

    In short:

    people should really get the basics straights, before they begin debating this topic.

    @Omicron
    "That kind of thing is called "argument from authority" and it is logically invalid." In know but it would be nice to hear from a few leading minds. Not some guy from a backwater Indian university or Ukraine. Technically, quoting these guys is still an authority argument but not one that carries much weight.

    "instead of actually discussing the issue at hand."
    That is the general problem with these debates. The terminology of computer science is more or less it's own language and computer science is a very complicated scientific field. Here we have several people who basically try to communicate in a language that they barely speak about a topic that is very complex.

    It's like if you and me would have learned 3 weeks of Spanish and then tried to discuss our divergent views on quantum physics.

    If they really wanted to have a meaningful discussion then they should have agreed to meet in three month or so. In the meantime they would all study as intense as possible as to get some insight.

    It is questionable if this would be the right place for this debate. If they are really interested maybe find a good physics board.

    I have stuck my big toe into machine learning a while back and at some point you have to start reading studies and probably a few chapters out of books about methodology and other significant standard works. To get a good foundation on which one could have an actually meaningful debate.

    Or just stick to Star Trek and don't burden yourself with that crap. :)

    @ Omicron
    "and it is logically invalid"
    I don't think so there is a reason why Einstein first was what is now called Humboldt University and later went to Princeton and not to the University of Barbados.

    @James White

    lmao! Andy's Friend literally describes the straw man in his head that he's arguing with. Look no further than your nearest mirror for the fool in question.

    @Andy's Friend

    Peter G. stated my position correctly. (Thank you.)

    Meanwhile, you then twist what he stated into a notion that I might think Data was a toaster. That's asinine. Data was very clearly depicted as a sapient organism. All he lacked was emotion. While there's research to indicate that emotion compliments our reason, I seriously doubt the question is settled. It's quite reasonable for a work of fiction to present that as not being absolutely necessary. And that's certainly what TNG did.

    As far as trying " to take strands of conversations to initiate other conversations..." I find it difficult to even want to talk to someone who's forever arguing with the misunderstanding they have of what someone else is saying, so I doubt I'll be taking you up on that offer.

    Wow, over 600 comments. That’s more than the reviews for DS9’s and VOY’s finales combined.

    So, I just want to dip my toe into a couple of things. I’ve tried to read all comments but it’s WAY to expansive to provide proper responses to everyone.

    I think AI and AC (which I hadn’t hear before) are fascinating concepts. I know not nearly enough about either to add anything meaningful to that debate so I’ll limit it to the scope of the show.

    The question then simply becomes, does what we see within this fictional universe feel consistent with what came before and what the show portrayed? Do the outcomes feel like natural outcomes of the story being told? Can I easily suspend my disbelief or do I have to work for it?

    So, as an individual viewer, my feelings here are:

    - That Data would want to die seems in character to me, especially given how long he’s spent in limbo.

    - That Picard would turn him off so quickly, that nobody else would question it, that I don’t buy.

    - Again, given what we’ve seen on TNG as well as how little we actually know about the synths and the golem here, it feels to me as though it should be possible to transfer Data to the golem. Bear in mind, I say this not from a scientific point of view, just what feels right to me, in universe.

    - Overall, I feel like the foundation for Data’s existence in limbo as well as the reasoning that he basically has to die don’t flow naturally from the story. As others have said, I think it could have been set up from the start if Picard had been aware of Data’s state from the start. It could have been about why Data wanted to go, possibly arguing back and forth, so, in the end, it’s clear to Picard that can’t go on.


    As far as great Sci-Fi shows out there are concerned:

    - The Expanse is probably my favorite show out there right now. Love the characters, love the look and feel, love the music, love the world building, love how willing they are to shake up the show every season as they follow the books.

    - The Man in the High Castle I enjoyed immensely. I thought the world had a really strong PKD feel to it. The casting was great throughout, and I think the nailed the different look and feel for the East Coast vs. West Coast and Neutral zone. Loved the music, too. I think it went too much into Indiana Jones territory in its portrayal of the bad guys but I still thought it was worthwhile.

    - I’ve been watching The Orville S1 and I’m enjoying it. It’s not great but entertaining. The feeling I constantly get is that I wish it knew what it wanted to be. It seems to meander rather than fully embracing the idea of an homage to TNG or, instead, being Galaxy Quest The TV Show.

    - RDM’s BSG remains one of my favorite Sci-Fi shows of all time. The first episode I saw was “33”, and I fell in love with it the moment I saw that episode. I never looked back.

    - DS9 remains my favorite Trek show, followed by TNG. I immensely enjoy re-watching both of them to this day, for different reasons. I love DS9’s cast and massive extended cast. I thought they had some fantastic stories, but long and short form. Not a perfect show but close to my heart. TNG is just great fun to watch. I think my favorite type of TNG story is the one where they’re solving some kind of mystery, just slowly peeling back the layers. I also really like the feeling of ‘being’ aboard the Enterprise. Also, Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner. I like the others, too, but these two always come out on top for me.

    - Babylon 5 I recently re-watched and really enjoyed it. The best stuff is definitely somewhere between mid season 2 and mid season 4, roughly speaking. And when it’s strong, it’s really strong. Interesting, too, that it doesn’t matter that the SFX and the production in general can be lacking. I find even S1 is worthwhile, especially knowing what’s to come. The last episodes in S5 are also pretty good, after a weak first half. I could do without the movies, tbh. Somehow none of them clicked for me.


    Ranking first Trek seasons, hmm, tough one. Let me phrase it this way, this is how high each first season would be on my ‘would like to to re-watch’ list:
    1. DS9
    2. TNG
    3. TOS
    4. VOY
    5. ENT
    6. PIC
    7. DIS

    Also, it occurs to me that the order would be a bit different if I just wanted to re-watch specific episodes (e.g. I’m still sort of curious to go back and watch Picard’s pilot but I’m not interested in seeing the whole season again). One thing to note here is that I recently re-watched TNG S1 but haven’t seen TOS S1 in ages so that might be impacting this order. With that in mind:
    1. DS9
    2. TOS
    3. TNG
    4. PIC
    5. VOY
    6. ENT
    7. DIS

    Oh, also wanted to mention that I wonder what an RDM Picard show would have been like. I'd have loved to see what he would have done with it. Has he ever commented on the show? I assume not. Just curious.

    "In know but it would be nice to hear from a few leading minds. Not some guy from a backwater Indian university or Ukraine."

    I don't mean to interrupt, but it doesn't sound like you understand OmicronThetaDeltaPhi's point. He's saying that the statement "a conversation is not worth having without leading minds involved" is just appealing to authority because the implication is that no conversation of importance can originate on a subject unless experts are involved. If that's the case for you, then the simple answer is not to engage in such a discussion. For the others, however, there have been reasoned arguments that proliferated into linking interesting sources and citing data. They might not be experts, but that doesn't mean they can't learn from sharing expert opinion with each other.

    "Technically, quoting these guys is still an authority argument but not one that carries much weight."

    Not exactly, appealing to authority would be dropping names like Einstein but not explaining why Einstein was correct. If you cite an authority and explain the reasoning for the citation, you're not appealing to authority, you're giving your argument an added basis in published fact.

    Quincy - you still have no clue what you're talking about. Stick to film/tv show discussion.

    For the rest, I agree this is not the forum to discuss complex, philosophical ideas.

    @Patrick
    There is a rhetorical device called "authority argument" which means that you are trying to win an argument by quoting somebody who has a far deeper understanding or is an authority in his/her field without actually understanding the results. It is often used in science. For example when I write a paper then I cannot redo the entire statistical analysis or data mining process of every quoted study to be sure that there are no mistakes. So quoting these study is an authority argument. That is the reason for peer reviews.

    "Not exactly, appealing to authority would be dropping names like Einstein but not explaining why Einstein was correct."
    No. Even if the guys quoted here are often, I would say, third rate they still have degrees in the discussed fields which means that using quotes from them is still an argument by authority. Andy's friend used this form of argument and I just interjected that, if you wan to use an authority argument, at least use sources that are leading in their respective fields and not some guy who has probably a bigger shot at getting shot in eastern Ukraine than the Nobel Prize.

    "If you cite an authority and explain the reasoning for the citation"
    No. It just means. This scientist is right and therefore his/her work should not be questioned. The people here are not experts which means that if somebody quotes an associate professor even of Twiddledee University then the other people can either accept that argument or field their own authority arguments.

    My problem with these discussions is visible already. Because they lack a solid foundation on which to discuss the issue there have been quite a few "you are stupid, you don't understand this" posts or "my expert says this"

    They can do what they want, of course, but if they approached this logically then they would just share their individual knowledge and be done with it.

    I was surprised that during Picard's death scene, I felt absolutely nothing. The acting in it was fine and the passing of this iconic character that I'd loved for nearly three decades was certainly a big deal, but again...nothing. I eventually realized that I wasn't reacting because I knew that one way or another, Picard was coming back. The damn show bore his name, and Patrick Stewart would not have gone to extravagant lengths to invite his dear friend, Whoopi Goldberg, to guest star during the series' second season with knowledge that he wouldn't be in it. As for the characters mourning his loss, I honestly don't know any of them well enough to empathize with their pain. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that the end of the series, whenever that may be, will show "Picard's" death. Then, I definitely will shed a tear.

    @Booming
    "if you wan to use an authority argument, at least use sources that are leading in their respective fields and not some guy who has probably a bigger shot at getting shot in eastern Ukraine than the Nobel Prize. "

    You are a sociologist, no? In the hard sciences, it is the research work and only the research that is important, not the name of the scientist or the university. I suspect that might not be the case in the humanities, although it should be. Still, I agree that human bias means journals are probably more likely to take notice of work done at major universities.

    I don't know if any of this is relevant anyway since we're talking about AI studies, which is a multidisciplinary field of which philosophy is a major part.

    @John
    Sociology and Political Science are not part of the humanities but the social sciences.

    " In the hard sciences, it is the research work and only the research that is important, not the name of the scientist or the university."
    That really made me chuckle. That is so obviously not true on so many levels. First in sociology and political science we follow the science approach of the natural sciences which means empirical research. This is done mostly through doing sample analysis with statistical methods. And even in what a layman would call hard science there is constant name dropping. Sure frauds and bad science is discovered sooner or later but sometimes it can take quite a while.

    "I suspect that might not be the case in the humanities, although it should be."
    What?! Like an empirical study of laws, philosophy, literature, history??? These fields are by their very nature not empirical. Maybe you now think: "Wait, you can study the impact of laws." but that would be in the realm of the social sciences again and not humanities.

    "I don't know if any of this is relevant anyway since we're talking about AI studies, which is a multidisciplinary field of which philosophy is a major part."
    I don't think that there is a field called AI studies. I guess you mean A.I. research/computer science and for that philosophy is very likely not that relevant.

    @Booming

    You could have debated the points made by the scholars I quoted.
    You could have quoted other scholars more to your liking.
    You preferred to simply question if not ridicule the scholars I quoted. This you did based on their philosophical leaning and their academic affiliation.

    I shouldn’t have to tell a pedant like yourself what kind of logical fallacy that is. But there is more.

    It is curious to say the least that you should question my selection of sources because they lean towards the philosophical or metaphysical side. As one of them states, that is precisely because the ‘roboticist’ side, more preoccupied with purely mechanical aspects, leave it to them to raise such questions.

    Moreover, Pandey’s ‘backwater Indian university’ to use your sorry expression is part of the point. As I stated, he specifically bases his argument not on Western, but on Indian philosophy. As I wrote, ‘There are other schools of thought than ours, and it is always good to be reminded of that lest we become too convinced of our own moral superiority in the West or the Federation.’

    This was apparently entirely lost on you. How ironic. What does that say of your cognitive capabilities?

    As for academic affiliation, I cannot emphasise enough how inadmissible your pitiful attitude is in our early twenty-first century. And I thought that I was the ‘arrogant’, ‘elitist’, ‘condescending’ prick around here.

    I’ll be blunt: you’re a sorry excuse for a scholar, Booming, and most likely an impostor. This especially that you write merits a comment, as it is indicative of your whole pitiful reasoning:

    “That is a university that does not make it into the first 1000 places in the THE (Times Higher Education). it is certainly a fine institution but nothing to brag about.”

    Academic rankings are a contradiction in terms. If you were a scholar, you would know that.

    How do you compare research in wildly different fields? How do you evaluate performance? How do you quantify innovation? Citations? Awards? Cost/benefit analysis? And so on, and so forth. Regardless of ranking methodology, ranking systems attempt to quantify the qualitative. They are more misleading than meaningful, other than to those bureaucratic minds who prefer deceptive statistics in order to possess an arsenal of numbers to throw at someone as argument.

    Statistics as rankings are the sort of tool used by bureaucratic administrations of universities to extort funds from politicians and magnates, in other words, financiers, public or private. This is the main reason they are conducted, and if you were a scholar you would know that.

    It is therefore highly ironic that you should refer to such rankings and use them as argument. That is the mentality of the bureaucrat, Booming. Not that of the scholar.

    Scholars know who and where their peers—friends and/or rivals—are, and usually also why. We are perfectly capable of evaluating the quality of scholarly output by a given individual, or the main universities in our field. We know how useless rankings are, and how outright misleading they can be.

    And we know better than to let the reputation or lack thereof of some higher learning institution affect our appreciation of scholarship. We read the scholarship, we make up our own minds. They call us scholars for a reason.

    If for whatever reason, professional or personal, some scholar chooses to accept a position in some obscure university in say, Mongolia, that’s his business. Nowadays, depending on his field of course, it mostly won't greatly affect the quality of his output anyway.

    You seem to have little idea of what globalisation has meant for academia, Booming. We don’t live in the Victorian or Edwardian era any longer. The differences between the traditional great powers and the many lesser powers is rapidly diminishing. This includes the academic world. Do you have any idea of how many universities have been established in the world in the past fifty years alone? The middle class of universities in the world today is huge.

    As is the number of outstanding academics working in departments in middle-class universities. Plenty of universities around the world today boast one or two outstanding scholars in their specific fields. Not everybody is working at Oxford and Cambridge. There are more outstanding scholars in the world than that, and recently created departments around the world often make it a point to hire one. If you were a scholar, you would know that.

    How many universities in the world today don’t enjoy powerful individual or corporate sponsorship (look at the Tatas in India), attempting sustained, long-term academic growth, perhaps by attracting foreign scholars in order to raise a single elite department to world-class excellence? Where along this long-term process is any given university? Do you think you can just look at a ranking and know these and other things?

    Five years ago, I wrote the following here, while discussing the character of Darren in ‘Lessons’:

    “I work at a major European university, and we see the exact same thing going on. Faculties competing for resources. And within each faculty―Humanities, in my case―various departments competing ferociously over the allocation of resources.

    This is what Darren basically represents. In the case of universities, and except for the very, very top universities, which will have very good departments across the board, most universities tend to specialize and have one elite department, so to speak. A typical case in the US―I presume you’re American―is Texas A&M University, a somewhat undistinguished university, which however has one of the best nautical archaeology departments in the world.

    (…) Darren is that department head who, in my world, will tell the faculty dean that her department has a good shot at entering the “Top5 in the World” with the allocation of a few more resources that will allow say, snatching two great scholars she’s been having talks with from other universities, and that strengthening her department further surely is worth more for the university than investing in some obscure other department.”
    (TNG 'Lessons', 25 Aug 2015)

    Note that I wrote of attempting to enter the “Top5 in the World”. Anything below the very top is irrelevant today, Booming: there may be very little difference between number 100 and number 800, depending on department, and only slightly more below that.

    My university ‘outranks’ Texas A&M by a wide margin overall in such rankings. That means *nothing* in real life. Rankings are a function of massive bias, sheer size, and economies of scale. Little else. Don’t let the fancy algorithms ranking methodologies purport to use to negate bias fool you. Bias exists. You are living proof.

    Nautical archaeology is not my field but I sometimes make use of their findings. Texas A&M outclasses most universities in that specific field, including your examples of Oxford and MIT. For my specific purposes, only two universities in the world rival them. I just checked: one is in the 400s, the other in the 1100s according to your precious rankings.

    You, with that sorry attitude of yours, would of course dismiss both those other little-known universities as you probably would Texas A&M, and you would be reading output by Oxford and MIT scholars inadequate for your purposes and making necessarily flawed adaptations to suit your purposes, instead of reading the relevant output from those 'backwater' universities. That is not how the scholar goes about his work, Booming.

    Summarising: would you rank Texas A&M lower than Oxford? Overall, perhaps. But for specific purposes, that may very well not be the case. It isn’t in nautical archaeology, for example.

    I can only be thankful for that as I have often found their output profitable for specific purposes in my own research. This is what matters to actual scholars, not silly rankings. And if you weren’t a fraud, you would know that.

    How often have you not benefitted from scholarship from some ‘obscure’ university in your own research? How many outstanding scholars don’t you know to be found in otherwise nondescript universities? If you haven't, and you don't, you are either not a very a good scholar, or not a scholar at all.

    What do you know of the strengths of university departments in the world? You don’t, because you are an impostor, Booming, likely a failed scholar or a bureaucrat at best. No scholar of merit would write what you write.

    "Give me Oxford or MIT, I would even accept the barely first rate losers of the ETH Zurich."

    I have no words for the idiocy of this comment. Stay well, Booming.

    Phew Andy's friend

    I guess I triggered you mightily considering all these ad hominem attacks and plain insults. For the most part I wanted you and your AI interested buddies to find a more appropriate forum because some of you have a tendency to post walls of text that are off topic.

    By the way, in India itself the Birla Institute of Technology doesn't make it into the top 10 (17 in QS and 37 (last place) in THE). If you are so focused on eastern philosophy then at least use better sources from east.

    Sorry that the thought that people at elite/prestigious universities tend to be there for a reason insults you.

    STAR TREK!

    pS:
    And yes Andy's friend I'm aware of the fact that quality in departments varies and that universities have different research foci.

    Booming this is a casual internet forum about Star Trek. In a debate about AI where you asked for some expert sources, you really thought it necessary to piss on Andy's citations because the universities weren't top notch?

    @Booming

    "I guess I triggered you mightily considering all these ad hominem attacks and plain insults."

    You kinda asked for it, though.

    You've contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion, and then proceeded to turn it into a pointless academic pissing war.

    How, exactly, did you expect that to go? Do you have any idea how condescending and disrespectful that looks?

    BTW it's not the first time you're doing this here. Please stop doing that. Or at the very least, if you insist on going that route, don't act surprised when the people you mock are mocking you back.

    "I don't think [that arguing from authority is invalid]. There is a reason why Einstein first was what is now called Humboldt University and later went to Princeton and not to the University of Barbados."

    Funny that you give Einstein as an example. The guy who revolutionized physics while being a mere patent clerk and was not affiliated with ANY university what-so-ever.

    It's even funnier when we look at Einstein's accuracy record after he became an authority. Pretty much everything he said as an "authority" turned out to be wrong, form his rejection of quantum mechanics to the cosmological constant.

    In short, Einstein is the most blatant and extreme example AGAINST arguing from authority. Moreover, Einstein was a physicist, which is about as hard and precise a science as you can get. Just imagine how worse the situation would be for the softer sciences, such as sociology or philosophy.

    And Patrick is correct, when he explained the difference between a mere citation an making an actual argument. Citations are not supposed to be a replacement to actually using our brains and thinking about the topic we are discussing.

    @James White
    "For the rest, I agree this is not the forum to discuss complex, philosophical ideas."

    Personally I have no problem with having such a discussion. Star Trek often raises interesting philosophical questions, so we shouldn't be afraid of discussing them here.

    I just wished people would actually make sure that they know what they're a talking about, before they started these discussions. Because it is pointless to philosophize when you don't get your basic facts straight.

    Seriously guys, before you throw yourself into such a discussion, do your homework. Learn the basics of how computers and computer programming works. Learn about the relation of hardware to software. Familiarize yourself with basic concepts like machine code, higher level computer languages, operating systems and emualtors. Learn about the various techniques used today to facilitate machine learning, including genetic algorithms. Learn what makes current SAI's as (relatively) intelligent as they are.

    There's no need to be an expert on any of this stuff. Just be aware that the topic is complex, and that SOME understanding of the technicalities is required to make a compelling argument.

    Oh, the usual group pointlessly pissing on a thread. I thought this was a bondage site which was why I originally started cumming here.

    I’ll be here all week. Ba dum dum

    @Jason R.

    "Booming this is a casual internet forum about Star Trek. In a debate about AI where you asked for some expert sources, you really thought it necessary to piss on Andy's citations because the universities weren't top notch? "

    Thanks Jason, but Booming isn’t pissing on anything but himself. There is nothing wrong with the universities.

    I already explained twice, including in the original message, why I quoted an Indian scholar with a classic Indian philosophy perspective. Had Booming been smart, he might have asked me: I would have told him that I don’t agree with Pandey on everything he writes. But I find that perspective interesting.

    The inclusion of a former Soviet bloc scholar should be obvious to anyone with genuine wish to debate. The former Soviet bloc has an extremely rich heritage of anything from science-fiction to serious scholarship on robotics, artificial intelligence, and so forth—hardly surprising for a polity that was once leading in the space race.

    The former Soviet bloc, however, is influenced also by that Russian tradition of introspective, philosophical questioning present in the great literary classics of their culture, and even in much Soviet science-fiction, more concerned with ethical and existential questions than with technological marvel. It is a cultural phenomenon that affects science also, and Piletsky is a good example of that existentialist query: what is consciousness (think 'Solaris', written by a Polish doctor, transported to film by a Russian), and can it be created artificially?

    Also this interests me, even if Piletsky’s paper is much too brief to allow for that cultural heritage to shine through. But I hope this clarifies that Booming’s charges are entirely unfounded. Some people may read only what comes out of Oxford, and Cambridge. I chose to offer two different, non-Anglosphere perspectives as food for thought. As some may remember, I have always made it a point here on Jammer's to avoid groupthink, and to consider other perspectives than our traditional ones in the West—and the Federation.

    I want to unequivocally declare that I will never again say anything bad about any kind of university or scientist. I haven't insulted anyone personally while others have called me stupid, lots of pissing metaphors (Freud anybody), idiotic, an imposter and quite a bit more.

    I only questioned his sources.
    While reading your emotional responses and insults I was thinking of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyEJZ9yODB8

    @Jor-El

    "Did anyone else notice the recurring theme of eye injuries?"

    Heh. Indeed, the writers for this season seemed to be heavily inspired by Italian film-maker Lucio Fulci, whose early 80s horror films were almost as atmospheric as they were gory, especially in regards to eyeballs. If you look up "Lucio Fulci eyeball scene" you will get plenty of results. None of them are particularly realistic but, uh... They definitely don't cut away from the action.

    Watching the Icheb scene in STP felt like I was watching a Fulci film, which is a connection I never thought I'd make to Star Trek. If you enjoyed season 1 of STP, I highly recommend the horror works of Lucio Fulci, specifically "Zombi" and my personal favorite, "The Beyond". I'm also partial to his adaptation of "The Black Cat" but that one is a little light on eyeball trauma so your mileage may vary.

    Booming said:

    "This debate would require an actual computer scientist to remain meaningful."

    Then, from what I can gather of the Negative Energy Ion Storm which followed, someone decided they were going to try to conquer the Internet because of this comment.

    I almost never agree with you, Booming. But you are entitled to your opinion as anyone else is, and to me, this sounds like you were trying to say you didn't want to continue having the debate, unless I'm wrong. When someone says they don't wanna talk about it, a person has to be pretty dense to continue talking about it ad infinitum.

    There is plenty of garbage going on in the world stressing everyone out. I think it would be just friggin' classic if people would put on their nice faces while we are all going through said garbage.

    In summary, what it Star Trek? A series of dramatic presentations.

    What are dramatic presentations? A form of entertainment.

    What is the purpose of entertainment? To have a good time.

    What is the Comment Section of Jammer's Reviews? Another form of entertainment.

    What is the purpose of entertainment? To have a good time.

    I think that this is an important point... When I was a kid and used to scream obscenities at my NES, my Dad would say "If you're not having a good time, why don't you shut it off?"

    Food for thought. Surely we as Trekkies can be a bit more civilized with each other than the drooling, mouth-breathing fanbases of less intellectual works, n'est-ce pas?

    Drama is just for entertainment? If so, then what the hell are any of us doing here discussing Star Trek? There are hundreds, thousands of more entertaining pieces of drama available on TV alone.

    ^ [JB]

    Quiet quiet Camus, one of the other labrats is about to discover there’s no purpose, shh shh. Let’s see how they handle it

    @Norris
    "this sounds like you were trying to say you didn't want to continue having the debate"
    I wasn't really part of the debate or had any real interest in it. I didn't read, for example, Andy's friends walls of text. I just wanted them to stop making longer and longer posts about stuff that had less and less to do with STP (They were also starting to insult each other). While doing that I noticed "the review on Metaphysics" which peaked my interest. That made me look into the other sources and then I made the fatal mistake of calling them not good for making an argument in the field of computer science. I'm sure these guys complain all the time that nowadays everybody is so easily offended while behaving exactly like that.

    @Booming

    "I wasn't really part of the debate or had any real interest in it. I didn't read, for example, Andy's friends walls of text. I just wanted them to stop making longer and longer posts about stuff that had less and less to do with STP”

    So you commented on things you didn’t even read, just because you wanted me to stop posting scholarship. Think for a moment, Booming. This is Star Trek. It’s supposed to inspire us to grander thoughts and larger debates. Tell me, just what do you want us to debate? The colours of the uniforms? Is red lovelier than blue? Is that your preferred level of discussion, and the kind of talk you will graciously allow us to engage in?

    “While doing that I noticed "the review on Metaphysics" which peaked my interest. That made me look into the other sources and then I made the fatal mistake of calling them not good for making an argument in the field of computer science.”

    But it was not about computer science, Booming: it was about consciousness, biological and artificial. It was the first of my three quotes and by far the oldest: as I specified, it was from 1990.

    I first mentioned 1988 and IBM’s Deep Thought, which, as I have mentioned elsewhere, beat International Grandmaster Bent Larsen in chess in Copenhagen that year, with me watching it.

    In 1989 Deep Thought also took on Kasparov, and lost. But it was becoming obvious that it was only a matter of time before an artificial intelligence would beat the best human minds.

    All this sparked off huge debate. In 1989, ‘The Measure of a Man’ aired.

    The first quote I offered was part of this debate. It is important in that context: it is the contemporary of Deep Blue, Deep Thought, and ‘The Measure of a Man.’ I find that at least a little bit relevant when discussing the nature of Data. This was unfortunately lost on you.

    As for ‘The Review on Metaphysics’, just what do you think metaphysics is, Booming? Do you believe it to be about ‘religion’, or the ‘supernatural’ in common parlance? Or is it fair to presume that a scholarly magazine chooses the scholarly, not any popular definitions for its very title? Metaphysics is about *reality*, Booming. Metaphysics asks: what is real? In this context, what is real life, real sentience, real consciousness?

    That was the context of that quote. How you manage to find that not relevant is beyond me.

    Look, Booming, if you don’t want to participate in any given debate, don’t. It's easy. Just scroll past the post. But it’s not up to you to decide what other commenters may wish to debate, and contribute.

    And please stop that silly ‘I am a sociologist’ persona of yours, and all that posturing of yours that ‘in sociology and political science we follow the science approach of the natural sciences which means empirical research’, which is the only thing you can ever say of academia. It’s frankly tiresome, and I increasingly suspect you keep repeating it because it is the only thing you ever learned. In any case, in every other post of yours you provide examples of just how little you understand the academic world.

    Take your “empirical study of laws, philosophy, literature, history??? These fields are by their very nature not empirical”. Sheer nonsense. Read Pierre Chaunu’s ‘Séville et l’Atlantique (1504-1650)’ (Paris, 12 vols., 1955-1960) and tell me that it isn’t as empirical as any study in sociology, and more empirical than most. Or read any piece of histoire serielle inspired by it, which you obviously are unaware of. And so on, and so forth. It’s amazing. You constantly find new ways to talk nonsense whenever you presume to lecture on academia.

    So please stop pretending, and please stop presuming to decide what others may or may not write. Try being a little humbler, and a little more charitable. And I shall then gladly hear your opinions, and read any input, scholarly or otherwise, you may wish to contribute.

    @ Andy's Friend,

    "In 1989 Deep Thought also took on Kasparov, and lost. But it was becoming obvious that it was only a matter of time before an artificial intelligence would beat the best human minds."

    Just a quibble, but I assume you're speaking casually here and meant something more like "an artificial chess player?" As far as I know there has never been an artificial intelligence so far, provided that by "intelligence" we mean something more than a very sophisticated app.

    @ Andy's friend
    Jammer asked us several times to keep the debates here at least about Star Trek and if possible about the episode.

    Why do you feel the need to insult me personally. Somebody questions your sources and because of that you react by insulting that person a dozen times in long winding posts. Is that how people form the Humanities act?

    And correct in parts of some of these fields (history for example) there is empirical study. It was hyperbole. Do you notice how I try to keep my Off-Topic posts as short as possible, even leave out stuff (like metaphysics)I would otherwise react to?

    @Peter G.

    No, Peter, I mean artificial intelligence in the strict sense. What you seem to be thinking of is precisely that which I always talk of, Artificial Consciousness. As research has improved we find that we already have plenty of artificial intelligence in the world today: the question now is, what of artificial 'sentience'? Therefore, scientists and scholars, depending on affiliation, devised the concepts of 'Weak/Strong AI' and AC (which again can be divided in various kinds). What the 'roboticist' side in the debate call 'strong AI' is usually what the 'philosopher' side calls 'AC'. A chess computer is 'weak AI', an artificial intelligence devoid of sentience.

    I'm off now to enjoy a beautiful day where I am. Have a nice day, everyone.

    Overall a satisfying end to an enjoyable series.

    Not perfect but it was not hard work to watch, I don't really felt any episodes dragged that much, no out and out stinkers. Wont be rushing to watch it again but I have the feeling I probably will.

    7.5/10

    Booming argues itself into a corner for the 46482746572874772657472rd time. Lovin it.

    They’ll be here all week to. Backpedaling.

    That is on purpose. When I'm in a corner then I'm at my most dangerous.

    And backpeddling what? That STP is a below average show and if STP would have been the first show in the franchise then there wouldn't be a franchise? Please be more specific.

    And who are they? The nagging Nancy's? The nervous Nelly's? Will they be here all week? Do you mean for more KurtzmanTrek?!

    @Booming
    "I wasn't really part of the debate or had any real interest in it. I didn't read, for example, Andy's friends walls of text. I just wanted them to stop making longer and longer posts about stuff that had less and less to do with STP (They were also starting to insult each other)"

    Yeah, about that... didn't work that well for you, did it?

    I too would have preferred if these people (a) remained on topic and (b) made an effort to make actual sense, but it's a free country and people are not bound by what either of us want (nor should they, really).

    If you look at the beginning of that discussion, I tried to participate in it. That was before I realized it was little more than walls-of-text mantras that are duelling with one another. A civilized duel mostly, but still a pointless one.

    Once I realized the futility of it, I backed out.

    You should do the same. Let them play it out. Either that discussion loses steam naturally, or - if it continues for hundreds of posts - Jammer might decide to intervene at some point.

    Either way there's no point in fussing about it. If those comments really annoy you that much, feel free to ignore them. And if even that isn't enough, you can always take a break.

    And please, for the love of the Great Bird of the Galaxy, learn from your past mistakes. I understand your frustration and your sense of extreme unfairness, but part of life is knowing how to deal with these things. We've known one another for quite a long time here, so I really hope that you'll take my advice seriously.

    (If you wonder why I even care, the answer is simple. It's the Star Trek way)

    @ Omicron
    I probably should have started by reminding them of Jammer's wishes and be done with it.
    Live and learn.

    And when I went off the deep end six? weeks ago I was in a high pressure situation.

    So are you planning on binging STP or are are you going to continue your NuTrek ban?

    @Booming

    Indeed.

    As for your question:

    It's not a "NuTrek ban".

    I simply have zero interest in watching this stuff. I also see no point in forcing myself to endure it for the sake of "brand loyalty" or anything of the sort.

    Life is short. It's better we spend it on stuff we enjoy and/or on making the world a better place.

    Speaking of which: How are you proceeding with the Orville? The next episode on your list is widely regarded as one of the best. On the other hand, it's an Alara-centered episode, and I've heard you don't like her much... So I'm really curious to hear your opinions about that one.

    JB said:

    "Drama is just for entertainment? If so, then what the hell are any of us doing here discussing Star Trek? There are hundreds, thousands of more entertaining pieces of drama available on TV alone."

    Un - I didn't say that drama was just for entertainment. I said dramatic presentations are a form of entertainment.

    Deux - There are thousands of more entertaining pieces of drama available on TV, in your opinion. I don't agree with you.

    Trois - Vous semblez être un maître de placer l'appât sur un hameçon. ;)

    This review added greatly to my enjoyment of this already-enjoyable episode.

    While there's a lot of good sci fi (and some bad) in this series filled with old beloved characters and some decent new ones, the notion of this essentially being the sad, inspiring and ultimately hopeful story of a man saying a 20-year-overdue proper goodbye to his dear friend is truly a study in "charting the unknown possibilities of existance"

    See you out there...

    This season was a surprise. The Romulans are portrayed as either religious zealots or plain bigots against synthetic lifeforms, and Picard views them, and anybody who speaks against synths as such. Surprise: the Romulans were right! The synths (some of them) were plotting to end organic life, and possibly had means (or at least what they thought were means) to achieve that.

    Jon-Luc Picard is thus stuck in a situation where both parties are right. The Romulans who say given a chance the synths will destroy the galaxy. The synths who say given a chance the Romulans (and possibly the Federation) will destroy the synths.

    This series is a return after a long time to the "thoughtful" tradition of Star Trek. In a world that views every suspicion as bigotry to be shamed, STP takes the route of saying 'even though your suspicion may be warranted ... believing that destructive outcomes are inevitable is a lack of imagination'.

    In not taking a holier-than-though attitude that a lot of contemporary politics and literature takes; in choosing to not depict a generic good / evil duality, STP goes where some good trek has gone before.

    Perhaps there should be a corollary to Jammer’s rules, as there was one for the Monroe Doctrine: constantly complaining that you have been “offended” by someone’s alleged rule-breaking (sometimes in the very same message in which YOU are breaking the rules or are otherwise acting rudely).... knock it off.

    I wouldn’t myself ban anyone from this group, but it is indeed a group. Not a Festivis airing-of-grievances-circle-jerk

    There are people who go to this site to express comments about episodes and themes of Star Trek with their fellow fans. These people have the right to be heard, too, without being called names or otherwise dragged in to the circle jerk.

    And don’t blame mental illness on your behavior. I am severely mentally ill as are many people I know, and being mentally ill does not give one license to engage in unsurceasing whining. Life is too short, anyway

    With the utmost respect, Jammer, I think you were far too charitable in your treatment of the writers making this series "about picard saying goodbye to data."
    It was one scene at the end of a very long, labored series, that, while superficially satisfying, I don't think really holds up under scrutiny. First of all, it makes the series over-stuffed. Not only did we have to wiz through a hundred other plot points to get here, to top it off they inject a very heavy-handed scene into the finale that really seems to come out of nowhere.

    "I always wished that I could have said I was sorry, that it was you and it wasn't me."

    Come on, really? The dialogue is clumsy, written in a strange tense that creates disconnection between the viewer and the events unfolding on screen. And it's fan service--basically, totally meaningless for someone who hasn't seen the TNG movies.

    "A butterfly that lives forever, is really not a butterfly at all."

    Again, wordy, clumsy dialogue. And, then of course they go ahead and turn picard into a synth. So the butterfly really is a butterfly after all, even if its synthetic. Oh the depth! The magnitude!

    Really? You would say this fan-servicey tacked-on finale made the show "about" something? You completely ignore how the writers left loose plot strings frayed all over the place, meandered incompetently all over the place? Relied on violence, gore, spectacle? And somehow one poorly scripted scene between Stewart and Spiner somehow fixes it all?

    You are one charitable Trek fan, and I salute you :)

    @Brian L

    "Not only did we have to wiz through a hundred other plot points to get here, to top it off they inject a very heavy-handed scene into the finale that really seems to come out of nowhere."

    A lonely voice on the wind whispers "reshoots..."

    Thank you for the insightful and well written review - a return to fine form after last episode's blip :)

    I'd rate it half a star higher personally but close enough. My main argument for that is that it's far better than either final of DSC. But the ratings across series don't necessarily carry across well.

    Why on earth are people writing novels in the comments?

    I need some more good sci-fi in this lockdown. I can't tolerate The Orville. Yet another Expanse rewatch required..

    @Brian L

    "Well? Did you fuck any of them?" - One Romulan to another Romulan

    That line of dialogue sums everything up for me. This was not some well thought out character piece of Data LOL.

    "The third season of Discovery still doesn't have a premiere date beyond "soon." I intend to be back for that."

    Not me. Gave the first two seasons a full and honest chance. I might be up for a Pike-led Enterprise but no way am I signing up for another STD.

    Picard S2? Ehhh...sure.

    Here's a question: What would people consider "essential" sci-fi TV? Would any of the newer shows (post-nuBSG) count? I know most people would say classic Trek, TNG, DS9, Babylon 5, first few Doctor Who seasons maybe.

    The reason I ask is because I wonder why I watch something as "inessential" as ST: Picard when I haven't seen much of classics like Twilight Zone, or Quantum Leap, The Outer Limits or classic BSG. I haven't watched all of X-Files. I haven't watched the Expanse, Westworld, Orphan Black. And if I'm going to watch television, then spending time on watching crap when I haven't seen something far better - even if it's older - is not a good use of my time. I'm hoping it's not just me, and I suspect it's not because Jammer hasn't reviewed most of these shows either.

    @Tom

    I think The Expanse is an incredible show backed by an even more incredible set of books.

    @ Tom.

    I am very sad to have to report that as a lifelong sci-fi fan who feels he's watched lots of memorable stuff, if I made myself reflect comprehensively I would have to admit (despite my adherence to the genre) that there actually isn't that much out there that I really thought was good. And that's saying something; I must really like sci-fi if I've not loved all that much of it. Even the half-decent stuff keeps me going :)

    I think horror as a genre is much the same. I can probably count the horror movies I love on one hand, even though I spent years watching the stuff (not anymore, though).

    For my money I'd just list Trek (TOS/TNG/DS9), B5, The Lexx (a guilty pleasure), and...can we count Stranger Things? If so that's my list. There pretty much isn't any other show I'd even consider rewatching, sad to say.

    @Dexter,

    With all due respect, the same was said about Firefly (which I don't hear anyone talk about these days). I didn't like that show much at all. My policy is now to wait until a good number of years have passed before watching a hyped-up show.

    Tom - with all due respect, comparing Firefly to the Expanse is ridiculous. Just watch it.

    Also, anyone who hasn't seen Black Mirror has missed the best anthology sci fi in decades. Especially the first couple of seasons.

    "Comparing Stargate to Firefly is ridiculous, just watch it".
    -Firefly fan in 2003.

    Do you get what I'm saying? How many sci-fi shows of the 60s, 70s 80s were hailed as "the best EVER" of "fucking amazing" and are now forgotten? Maybe they were never essential? Now, I'm not saying The Expanse is in that category, but I'm constantly being bombarded with music, movies and shows that are "fucking amazing". The best ones will stand the test of time, the worst won't. If people are still raving about it in 10, 20 years then maybe it's worth a look.

    For all the hype I hear about great sff in last two decades i found most of it convoluted garbage

    I’d much rather watch TOS/TNG/DS9 and evenVoyager and ENT, X-Files than a lot of what I’ve heard people talking about

    About the only things I would rewatch are Lost S1/4/5, Heroes season one, BSG s1 and some stretches of season three and four

    Most of what came out were uninspired convoluted Mystery box shows—vanished, surface, , helix, 12 monkeys, the event, manifest, daybreak, flash forward, fringe, sleepy hollow, the expanse, caprica, blindspot,

    I thought dr who was awful Star Gate Atlantis was awful.

    What would I consider "essential" sci-fi TV? Black Mirror series 1-3, and The OA.

    "Most of what came out were uninspired convoluted Mystery box shows—vanished, surface, , helix, 12 monkeys, the event, manifest, daybreak, flash forward, fringe, sleepy hollow, the expanse, caprica, blindspot,"

    Thank you - the last thing I want now is a mystery box show. I'll cross those off my watch list. (Caprica I've seen and it was pretty uninspiring)

    Hey Jammer, do you think you might go back to that short review idea you had last year after discovery was over? I’m still curious what it was going to be.

    Hey guys, now, now, what’s with all the Firefly hate :-) Best show ever made ;)

    @ Tom & especially @ James White, go easy on us browncoats, ok. We’ve suffered mightily, and that makes us special ;)


    https://i.redd.it/qhpwy7u01wm41.jpg


    I know there are like 677 comments on this thread already, but if you scroll up, you’ll see @ Dom and I had been discussing the “essential” scifi - and good modern scifi - up above. Obviously The Expanse came up again and again and again.

    @ Tom, in a way I agree with you - I usually only watch shows these days after they get cancelled. That way we can be sure the entire run was worth while. The days of following The Wire or Mad Men across years - blindly - and oblivious to how they might end; well, those days ended with the crash and burn of House of Cards and Game of Thrones.

    As the kids say: the trust is gone.

    But there is a pretty easy test to see if someone will like The Expanse. If you thought Intersteller was awesome, then watch the Expanse. If you thought Intersteller was ponderous and boring, then don’t.

    Me? I can’t get over how amazing this scene from Intersteller was:

    https://youtu.be/c4tPQYNpW9k

    The sound track. The technical precision. And Matthew McConaughey.

    Now everyone who has complained in the previous 677 comments, that the sexy lead on The Expanse is less that inspiring, is correct. But we’re folks who have watched Babylon 5 a dozen times because of the story, the ideas - despite the horrendous acting, horrendous sets, and horrendous dialogue. Scifi is about Ideas. And to its credit, The Expanse has some pretty fucking amazing ideas. I was not enamoured with Season 4 of The Expanse. But season 4 was a bonus. The show was cancelled after Season 3. And true to my rule, I watch shows that were good at the time they were cancelled :-)

    Back to the question of essential TV scifi. (Because if we go beyond TV, the universe immediately expands into giants like Isaac Asimov with books and The Matrix with movies).

    Obviously Star Trek (TOS) is essential. Without that, none of us would be having this conversation.

    And what TOS was to the 1960’s (and to people who are in their 60’s now), TNG was to the 80’s (and early nineties), and people who are in their 40’s (+/-) now.

    The problem was that 20 years after TNG, in the 2000’s, there was nothing essential coming out of Trek (VOY was in its last throws. And ENT??? Yeah right).

    That’s the time when a galaxy of niche shows burst onto the scene.

    A few are widely recognised, though not quite as widely loved as Star Trek is:
    - Farscape.
    - Andromeda ( https://www.jammersreviews.com/andr/ )
    - nBSG ( https://www.jammersreviews.com/bsg/ )
    - nuWho.

    A few died quiet deaths:
    - Century City (Ally McBeal in the year 2030!)
    - Defiance (Alien Nation in the wild west!)
    - Caprica (a nBSG prequel!)

    And in these last few years we saw a few shows that chugged along with a decent story, decent cast, widely enjoyed, but not quite “amazing”
    - Man in the High Castle.
    - Humans (Synths that are so much better than those in Picard)
    - Westworld (ditto)

    And I’m sure others could name more 21st century scifi shows like Stranger Things etc.

    But of all the 21st century shows, only two: Firefly - which died too young to know how things would end; and The Expanse - which is still going on so who knows how it will end - only two really stand apart. Now could The Expanse crash and burn at the end like GoT? Maybe. And might Joss Whedon have dropped the ball on Firefly rather than give us seasons and seasons of joy, like he did with Angel? Maybe.

    But those two - Firefly and The Expanse - really do stand apart (for very different reasons) as something special. And that’s so precious, in this era when we’ve now gone 20 years since Sisco leapt into the firecaves, and we’ve had nothing from Star Trek in that interregnum that truly stands out as essential.

    Many of the shows on Peter G. and others' lists such as Babylon 5 and (God help me) the Lexx are also on my list of favourites.

    However, I can't help but notice that with few exception they are 90s era shows or just scratching the edges / straddling the 90s like TNG or Firefly. (on both ends)

    I suspect that many of the people on this forum like me are late x'ers / early millenials, in other words, children of the 80s who came of age in the 90s.

    It could be that the 90s was just a golden age of scifi in television, or it could be that there is a window of time in which taste develops and once you leave that window it crystallizes.

    Mike

    Then you should Also avoid Alcatraz, Wayward Pines, the leftovers and twin peaks 2.0, life on mars, Star Trek
    discovery. True blood was a pretty crappy show too.

    A lot of these have in common Abrams or Lindelof or Kurtzman all students of the Mystery box and/or artsy pretentiousness—the Leftovers was really bad about this

    Supernatural was a pretty decent scary show in the beginning for the first few seasons with self contained overarching season long arcs with standalone format until it veered into meta overkill and camp

    V 2.0 is another one to avoid.

    A few months ago I tried B5 I thought it was garbage. Yes it has a well thought out mythology but the mythology itself is really corny. Bad VFX. Uninteresting characters

    Oh and just remembered some more crappy shows—invasion, the 4400, dollhouse

    Jericho and terminator the sarah Connor chronicles weren’t too bad

    Well, if my favorite show (B5) is garbage and you praise Lost (the one show the word "garbage" was made for) there's hope for the other shows you put in the trash. I guess the only way to find out is to watch instead of listening to conflicting opinions on the internet. I wasted 10 hours on Picard anyway and The Expanse can't be worse.

    I'm currently binging for the first time the Battlestar Galactica remake, and kicking myself after each episode for not having done it sooner. What an amazing show. Watching this righ after the Picard finale is such a big contrast, it made me realise that i should stop watching things i don't enjoy anymore just for the sake of the franchise.

    Also recently rewatched Lost, and i got to say, if you have you remote in your hand, and skip all the pointless flashbacks/forwards, the just is still pretty good, even the last couple of seasons (hey, even the time travel stuff is good).

    The Expanse i've only seen the first season so far, i will finish it once i'm done with BSG.

    @Tom

    “Here's a question: What would people consider "essential" sci-fi TV?”

    I am sad to say, but I agree with Peter G. There just isn’t that much science-fiction I would re-watch.

    I agree with James White and wolfstar in that the Black Mirror is—in my opinion by a very wide margin—the best and most relevant science-fiction produced in our present century. Even if, because of its very nature, the episodes are of uneven quality.

    I also though that of a handful episodes of BSG. Those are the only episodes of BSG I ever re-watch, though.

    For all the praise The Expanse receives, I found it to be binge-worthy only, with no profound ideas. It's much better than Discovery, yes, but everything is.

    I have grown considerably fonder of VOY over time. As it aired, I had a hard time with the unimaginative stories of many episodes; with the lack of world building in the Delta quadrant; with the Kazon, Neelix, and so on, and so forth. It was indeed, in many ways, a missed opportunity. Now, I appreciate that some episodes are indeed outstanding. But I appreciate especially how so many episodes have some few lines of dialogue, some small gesture towards the Other that is in the very best spirit of Star Trek. Keeping an open mind. Attempting to dialogue. Seeking cooperation. Daring to trust. It may be just a single scene, a single minute, a single line. And then I find it all worthwhile.

    One series I like is Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (1979). It's the kind of sci-fi that is 'essential' to children. For behind all the harmless, campy fun, there lies a reality full of stars.

    One series I find interesting that no-one has mentioned is Space: 1999 (1975). There is a world of difference between the first and the second season. The second was more a failed Buck Rogers in the 25th Century than anything, very erratic in tone, badly blending fun à la Buck Rogers with the dark themes often explored in the first season. The first season, once you accept the inane premise (a nuclear explosion causes the colonised moon to break orbit and be whirled across the galaxy at Ludicrous Speed, exposing the crew of Moonbase Alpha to the adventure/mystery of the week) is worthwhile to any serious science-fiction enthusiast. It is a much darker, slower, more serious—British—TOS, with a much eerier tone overall. Some episodes, today, feel almost like sci-fi horror, in a good way, but definitely not family-friendly. It has some very good ideas in the mix. One of them, in my opinion, is among the best episodes of science-fiction ever made.

    So I would say TOS-VOY, Buck Rogers (for children), Space: 1999 (first season only), and Black Mirror.

    @wolfstar

    You asked me some time ago what series I might recommend, but I never got back to you. It just occurred to me, one in an entirely different genre: Brideshead Revisited (1981). The first episode of which, incidentally, is also (but much more appropriately than here) titled ‘Et in Arcadia Ego’.

    @Startrekwatcher
    The Expanse is not a mystery box show. The mystery box approach means that you write mysteries into a story without knowing where it will go. The Expanse is based on books. It has a central mystery but that is planned out and then executed. It is actually the opposite of the mystery box approach.

    @ Startrekwatcher, I agree, Jericho is amazing!! But I'm not sure if it is scifi?

    Leftovers was well made, but let's be honest, it isn't for everyone.

    OTOH, Sarah Connor Chronicles is one of my favorites. It has the amazing Lena Headey as the lead, long before she won fame for GoT. And of course I only watched the show in the first place because it had River Tam from Firefly playing a T-1000.

    Plus, Sarah Connor Chronicles has one of the most epic scenes in all of scifi:

    https://youtu.be/EKIK5ei_Lhg

    It is almost like the opposite of Babylon 5's The Rock Called Out no Hiding Place.

    https://youtu.be/Zly_tL5mMc8?t=200

    Don't worry @ Mike, B5 is a show that is like one of Garibaldi's fine cigars. Some people are so anti-smoking, they miss the entire point. The show will always have an audience. Faith Manages.

    @ Jason R., I get what you're saying about 80's/90's kids, though just for the record, Firefly ran in 2002, so very much in the new millennium. But your point is well taken - there are golden ages.

    There was something in the air from the 40's (when Asimov wrote the Foundation series) through the 60's (when we got TOS).

    And then what do we have to show for scifi TV from the 70's??? Pretty much only the Tom Baker era of jelly babie Doctor Who.

    Even what we think of as "old" scifi television - say Max Headroom, or "V", or War of the Worlds - were actually 80's shows. In the 80's, Asimov wrote the Foundation sequels. Of course TNG premiered in the 80's.

    Whatever magic was lost at the end of the 60's, came back in the 80's and stayed with us through the 90's.

    And then the 2000's were a desert for scifi TV. (There were some great scifi movies, like Children of Men and District 8 and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but let’s stick to TV). That's why nBSG - which though very good, but by no means "essential" - still gets praised so much.

    There just wasn't anything playing at that level in TV scifi at the time.

    Farscape was dead.

    Space Above and Beyond had been struck down in its first season.

    Firefly was killed.

    Star Trek was on life-support with ENT.

    For whatever reason, the Sarah Connor Chronicles didn’t get the love it deserved and suffered the FOX cancellation curse just like Firefly before it.

    So what did we really have when nBSG provided us the TV scifi solace we desired? The nuWho reboot?

    For a while, we all basically had to branch out to scifi-adjecent shows like Sherlock or Jericho.

    That's part of why people are so grateful these days for The Expanse. Are there other shows? Maybe? Dark Matter fizzled. Man in the High Castle isn’t exactly scifi, or maybe it is. Who knows?

    The Expanse is real high quality scifi in a form we just haven't seen in a very long time. Maybe it isn't “essential" like TOS. Maybe it isn't ground-breaking like Babylon 5. Maybe it isn't a big-tent success like TNG. But right now, it's a light in the darkness that is Discovery and Picard. That, and The Mandalorian, is all we really have at tier 1 for the genre on TV.

    May the 20's be our salvation.

    So say we all.

    "A few months ago I tried B5 I thought it was garbage. Yes it has a well thought out mythology but the mythology itself is really corny. Bad VFX. Uninteresting characters"

    How old are you?

    I first watched B5 in my teens. I was very forgiving of many things then that I am not now.

    Alot of people here who love B5 watched it in their teens.

    Which isn't to say B5 is garbage, just that most adults wouldn't have given it a chance.

    @Mal

    "And then what do we have to show for scifi TV from the 70's??? Pretty much only the Tom Baker era of jelly babie Doctor Who."

    It would seem that you were writing while I was posting, and just missed my post :)

    The two series from the 1970s I recommended are at the extreme opposites of the Fun--------Serious spectrum. As such, I consider them the finest in each category, which is why I would recommend them as essential to children and adults, respectively.

    But there were many other science-fiction series being made in the 1970s; don't forget that both the fictional TOS and the real moon landings sparked off immense interest in the space genre. The original Battlestar Galactica is from 1978, for example, and in my opinion the first season was no worse than modern BSG.

    The problem is twofold. Young people today don't remember/never knew the old series; and more importantly, young people today are more impressed by appearance than by substance.

    Take The Expanse. It tells but three stories in thirty-odd episodes (S1-3). The original Battlestar Galactica managed to tell more stories in one season than The Expanse has done so far in three. And in my opinion, despite its family-friendly nature it managed to tell mostly better stories, too. But try telling that to people today who can't see past production values, and demand a GrimDark! tone before they can take anything seriously.

    I think the latter is truly the problem today. Many younger people apparently can't look past the superficial in our present day. My guess is, they are probably not used to having to search for meanings in narratives, as everything is made so blatantly obvious and explicit these days. So they can't see past the family-friendly tone to see the seriousness of the story and the themes being told: they seem to simply lack in imagination. It's that same old story: a train entering a tunnel in a 1950s Hitchcock film you can watch with your children isn't just a train entering a tunnel...

    @Andy's Friend

    As someone who's not among "younger people" these days, I find your blanket judgement of a whole generation to be pretty unfair and, quite frankly, inaccurate. They have to navigate a complex information and media landscape that is far beyond anything human society has ever had. They've got tons of tools to be creative, many of them online, and they're being used, massively. Growing up is hard, no matter the decade or era. But I imagine it's even more difficult to figure yourself out in times like these, where your every move and action is under the microscope via social media.

    And, yes, while some shows spell things out for you, TV, in particular, is a lot more complex and demanding than it used to be back in the 80's or 70's, for that matter. Most shows back then had one story per episode. That's really all you needed to keep track of. And while there are shows today just stretching things out, there are also those that are ambitious, complex and challenging.

    Another thing I'd like to point out is that many young people today are much more aware of diversity and equality. These are things that have always been important to me but I'm still shocked looking back at how tone deaf I was by comparison, just like many of my peers.

    The final thing I wanted to add is that I don't think it matters how many stories you tell. They have to be worth telling, well told, and the amount of time devoted to them needs to be appropriate. Plus, no matter how good the story, things still hinge on the characters.

    I'll throw out one more show that I do like, which is Killjoys. It's not 'great TV' but I've consistently liked it at least. It's sort of like Firefly in some ways, combining a light tone with some stark views of the future.

    This conversation makes me realize how little sci-fi television I've watched. If you're up to a challenge and want to go the book route, why not check out "Dune", "Hyperion", "2001", "Foundation's Edge" or even lighter stuff like "A Wrinkle in Time" or "Brave New World". If you liked any part of this show, Asimov's "The Complete Robot" - which was actually featured on screen - is a collection of good and short robot stories.

    @Bothing But the Tears

    “young people today are much more aware of diversity and equality. These are things that have always been important to me but I'm still shocked looking back at how tone deaf I was by comparison, just like many of my peers.”

    Very few of us cared back then. We simply tried to treat each other politely, most of us anyway, with no fear of calling people what they were. It is not the word spoken, it is the intent that matters. One may be scathingly offensive using the politest language, or the opposite using the most offensive language: it is all about intent. If you ask me, it was a much healthier society back then, when people didn’t let themselves be offended and their world torn apart every other minute by what is not offensive in itself, but (some) people insist on perceiving as such due to acute myopia. Which leads me to...

    “I don't think it matters how many stories you tell. They have to be worth telling, well told, and the amount of time devoted to them needs to be appropriate. Plus, no matter how good the story, things still hinge on the characters.”

    And you’re entirely right. The thing is, very often, in older series the characters weren’t really characters. They were more akin archetypes, or symbols: mouthpieces for a particular worldview, a particular philosophy, a particular age group, social class, and so forth. And the individual episodes therefore tended to be more akin myths: individual, primordial stories about right and wrong in the guise of foundation myths, coming of age myths, and so on.

    That was their power. That is why they resonate still: all good stories are primordial myths. And all myths are necessarily introspective. They are reflections of our (possible) selves and our (possible) fate. Moralistic in nature, they attempt to teach us a lesson: they are moral tales. TOS in particular excelled at telling this kind of stories. At their most simple, the best TOS episodes are reducible to fables.

    Stories, to use a necessary simplification, used to be more simply about Man, or Woman; about Father, or Mother; Son, or Daughter. They were about being Young, and being Old. About being Rich, and being Poor. And so on, and so forth. The challenge, to writers, was to find new ways to tell old stories. The challenge to viewers—of science-fiction in particular—was to recognise those innovate iterations of old tales. For the tales themselves were about every single one of us.

    What are they about now? They increasingly are but escapism, true escapism in its ugliest shape: in the form of voyeurism. They increasingly are about the lives of *others*. Very detailed lives of very detailed people that could not be you and I but can only exist as their very specific, fictional selves.

    That is what we have lost, as we increasingly focus on the micro-level of multiple strands of individual psychology instead of the macro-level of archetype and myth.

    “TV, in particular, is a lot more complex and demanding than it used to be back in the 80's or 70's, for that matter. Most shows back then had one story per episode. That's really all you needed to keep track of. And while there are shows today just stretching things out, there are also those that are ambitious, complex and challenging.”

    I am exaggerating for the sake of argument, of course. But tell me, do you think we are presented more these days? Or can it be that paradoxically, we are presented less in the more ‘complex’ stories of today? Can it be that the stories of old, focusing on just one story, presented us a proverbial forest, while the episodes of today can’t even see the proverbial tree for the branches?

    Ok ok back then everything broad and great, today everything specific and garbage.

    Noted.

    Why does Jurati have the Magic Iphone in this episode? Rios and Raffi use it, then leave for the synth compound, while Jurati and Picard walk to La Sirena. How does Jurati find this thing, figure out how to use this technology, and so quickly, and at such a crucial moment?

    Regardless, watching this episode again lowers it even further in my estimation. It really kills whatever good-will the series had managed to cling on to. The Romulan Refugee arc goes nowhere. The Borg cube stuff goes nowhere. Picard's illness pops up once and then is suddenly cured. The Federation/Admiral stuff goes nowhere. The synth attack on Mars goes nowhere (how were they hacked? Why are they no longer banned when they're clearly still vulnerable to hacking?). The Soji/Romulan romance goes nowhere. Every single plot thread in this show was botched - PaghWraith and Jesus Sisko level botching - with the exception of Soji's confrontation of her identity as a synth.

    And this episode sort of crystallises how throwaway everythiing that came before is. It retroactively destroys the whole season, and does so in a cartoonish way at odds with everything prior. Picard sacrificially flying a little "fighter jet" into the heart of an enemy fleet like Braveheart while trying to hold off space tentacles seems about the worst place a show about Picard should end up.

    @Trent
    "The Soji/Romulan romance goes nowhere."
    Not true! It was the classic girl meets boy, boy is spies on girl, boy uses implanted memories of girl to start genocide, boy tires to kill girl with red mist, girl punches her way through the floor to freedom story. What woman hasn't experienced that?!

    This may be just the balcony Mojito talking but I think STP is maybe the greatest Star Trek show of the decade.

    @Andy's Friend

    "Young people today don't remember/never knew the old series; and more importantly, young people today are more impressed by appearance than by substance."

    Oh man. Now That's What I Call Ageism!

    I mean, I'm 31, my favorite Trek is TOS and I think Kurtzman Trek is trash but feel free to lay the blame for Nu-Trek on my generation.

    "My guess is, they are probably not used to having to search for meanings in narratives, as everything is made so blatantly obvious and explicit these days. So they can't see past the family-friendly tone to see the seriousness of the story and the themes being told: they seem to simply lack in imagination."

    Really insightful stuff here. Let's continue with your logic. Considering how Kurtzman Trek is roughly 50% violence, mystery boxes and cuss words and 50% schmaltzy nostgalgia pandering to older fans who weep openly after Picard says "engage", don't you think your generation is at least partly responsible for the current state of Trek? Or is the whole idea of making blanket statements about an entire generation a dubious way to make a point about... Well, anything?

    @Sen-Sors
    10000 years ago old men were sitting around the fire and saying:"You know guys, when we hunted back then, we were hunting because we loved the hunt, our hearts were really in it but these young people today, they only do it for the pelts." Approving grunts.

    It is obviously nonsense. People get closer to death and that makes their outlook on life darker. So they start to tell themselves how awesome they as a group are to have a little comfort blanket. I AM STILL RELEVANT.

    And slowly the younger people get sick of whatever greatest generation preceded them and that leads to: Ok Boomer.

    TOS isn't super smart, for example. It's for the most part: crew approaches planet, something horrible happens, get out of something horrible, laugh. the end.

    Black Mirror is a smarter show, for example and if you want non fiction then the Wire is a brilliant show almost from start to finish.

    to quote from him?: "it was a much healthier society back then," That really says it all. "That is what we have lost, as we increasingly focus on the micro-level of multiple strands of individual psychology instead of the macro-level of archetype and myth." That is a very smart analysis considering that the most dominant genre right now is superheros. He is a scholar of the Humanities, you know.

    @Booming

    You wrote: ‘That is a very smart analysis considering that the most dominant genre right now is superheros.’

    The superhero genre as played out at present is but vacuous fantasy entertainment for teenagers. The mythical foundations that some of the superheroes possess are mostly completely obliterated by the pure fantasy elements. Many superheroes possess no archetypal foundations at all, and serve no archetypal function.

    Compare. In 1950s-1960s American television there were westerns. ‘Gunsmoke’. ‘Wagon Train’. ‘Rawhide’, and so forth. Episodes focused sometimes on entertainment, and sometimes dealt with realistic social issues in their respective settings in a moralistic way. But always solidly anchored in myth. Solidly anchored in archetypes. I trust you can see the difference.

    How do you punish a horse thief who stole to feed his children? How do you treat the good doctor who just happens to beat his wife and children every now and then? How can you help the poor Chinamen being exploited by the railroad company? These are the kinds of realistic, down to earth issues that such series often dealt with. And any young boy or man, and any young girl or woman in the audience could identify with the diverse male and female leads. For they were symbols, archetypes not burdened down by too complex psychological profiles.

    How can anyone identify with Colossus, or Cyclops? With the Hulk, the Human Torch, or the Thing? Only in escapist fantasies. More importantly, they serve no moral, archetypal function. But you *could* identify with Matt Dillon. Or, if you were of a different personality, you could identify with Rowdy Yates, who served another, different archetypal function. And so forth.

    Here we see an important distinction: archetypal function vs. ‘cool superpower’. Characters as in those older series seldom had special skills. What set them apart was, above all, their personality. As with ‘Angry Achilles’, ‘Cunning Odysseus’, and so forth in the Iliad: archetypes as old as the ages. Characters in such series all served an archetypal function each. Put together, they all represented the human race.

    Modern superheroes, however, are distinguished above all by their ‘cool superpowers’, not their archetypal function, which they often don’t serve at all. They do not represent the human race. Again, I trust you can see the difference.

    I’ll grant you that we find one very popular character who is an exception, very clearly modelled after the archetype of the angry, lone outsider—Angry Achilles. That is Wolverine. And his clear-cut archetypal function likely explains his popularity.

    Moving on. You wrote:

    ‘TOS isn't super smart, for example. It's for the most part: crew approaches planet, something horrible happens, get out of something horrible, laugh. the end.’
    You also wrote: ‘Black Mirror is a smarter show, for example (…)’

    And what did I write? ‘At their most simple, the best TOS episodes are reducible to fables.’
    And ‘I would say TOS (…) and Black Mirror.’

    You really should read before you write, Booming.

    But no, Black Mirror is not a smarter show than TOS. The themes explored in Black Mirror are more a product of its age than those of TOS were. They are more immediate to our own times and may therefore feel more relevant at present. But don't be duped into thinking that contemporaneity is 'smarter'. In the future, Black Mirror may very well hold historical interest only: ‘What were people concerned with in the early twenty-first century?’ Whereas TOS is likely to be more interesting to future generations for its own sake, because the themes explored in TOS, if you’ll forgive a generalisation, are more timeless.

    Finally, and most importantly, I wrote:

    ‘to use a necessary simplification (…)’
    ‘I am exaggerating for the sake of argument, of course.’

    Yes, this is called generalisation. Generalisation is a form of abstraction. Abstraction is necessary in any intelligent discourse—say, wishing to speak of sufficiently large populations. And you should know this, with that background in sociology you claim to have. What are many of your precious sociological models, if not statistical abstractions? What are your theories, if not generalisations, Booming?

    @Sen-Sors
    @OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

    Sen-sors said: “I'm 31, my favorite Trek is TOS and I think Kurtzman Trek is trash but feel free to lay the blame for Nu-Trek on my generation.”

    Oh no, don’t worry, I don’t. I think the main target audience for NuTrek is people younger than you are. But see below.

    “Considering how Kurtzman Trek is roughly 50% violence, mystery boxes and cuss words and 50% schmaltzy nostgalgia pandering to older fans who weep openly after Picard says "engage", don't you think your generation is at least partly responsible for the current state of Trek?”

    If I may use another generalisation, I think it fair to presume that the older you are, the more likely are you to dislike NuTrek. I personally have never watched this latest offering. Kurtzman Trek wasn’t primarily made for my generation, and I think its use of said nostalgia elements is mostly to legitimise the Star Trek brand name. Having said that, you certainly have a point.

    Here, I must entirely agree with OmicronThetaDeltaPhi. I don’t understand why so many people keep watching what they admit they would stop watching were it not for the Star Trek name. This is insane, and Omicron is quite right in saying that people should vote with their wallets and cancel their subscriptions instead of hoping for that improvement in quality that will never come. So you are partly right, Sen-Sors. I guess all generations are indeed partly responsible for this miserable state of affairs.

    Otherwise, I agree with you. I watched the first half of ‘Into Darkness’, and stopped. I later reluctantly saw the first half of 'Discovery', and stopped. It was some of the worst television I have ever watched.

    I also saw ‘Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines’ in the cinema, and never cared for any continuation. Later I saw ‘Prometheus’ in the cinema, and have seen no further. Most recently I saw ‘The Force Awakens’ in the cinema, and didn’t come back for more. Franchise upon franchise: the creative power is entirely gone. And frankly, so is my desire to see continuations of stories of beloved characters. I have never watched ‘Blade Runner 2049’, and never will. And so forth.

    So I also haven’t watched 'Picard', and never will. The consensus seems to be that it is better than 'Discovery' and I accept that, but that says precious little. After ten episodes and thousands of comments here, the kind of debates it inspires—or rather, fails to inspire—tells me everything I need to know of its qualities, or lack thereof.

    Ah well, we still have all those seasons of TOS and TNG and whatever classic Trek one happens to prefer. I am currently re-watching all TOS-VOY with my better half for the Nth time after a hiatus of a few years and we're having a ball. Curiously, we now both prefer VOY to DS9. Back when they aired, it was the opposite. But TNG remains our favourite, followed by your TOS.

    I'm curious, Omicron, as I don't remember: what is your personal favourite Trek?

    Sorry Andy Friend I mostly skim through your posts.
    To your mythical, identifiable broad strokes argument.

    Yeah, I looked into these western shows. They all have white heterosexual male STRONG leads/heroes, one of them is always the boss of something. Well, to be fair Gunsmoke had a woman in the main cast. She was a prostitute.

    Everybody can relate to those. Ok, not women (who aren't prostitutes), non- whites (as you mentioned there were Chinamen, certainly played in a very non racist way here for example at 4:40 to see how absolutely non racist the chinaman is portrayed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yofDT1hYYuU ) and LGBT people but everybody else.

    The 5 Most successful shows 2010-2020:
    - Game of Thrones
    - The Walking Dead
    - Breaking Bad
    - Mad Men
    - Stranger Things

    All of these shows have mythical or fantastical elements with fairly broadly written characters, and with smarter I meant the quality of the writing and directing in Black mirror. One could call it artistic quality.

    " with that background in sociology you claim to have."
    My social science department is actually in the Top 50 world wide and our Humanities department is in the top 20. Yours is certainly good as well. :)

    "What are many of your precious sociological models, if not statistical abstractions?"
    I will not explain the methodology of the social sciences now.

    By the way, do you have anything to say about STP or are just here to lament about the downfall of US culture?

    @ Andy's Friend

    I am curious, what episode of Space: 1999 do you consider as among the best episodes of science-fiction ever made? I watched its original run dubbed in French when I was around 10 years old.

    "Yeah, I looked into these western shows. They all have white heterosexual male STRONG leads/heroes, one of them is always the boss of something. Well, to be fair Gunsmoke had a woman in the main cast. She was a prostitute
    Everybody can relate to those. Ok, not women (who aren't prostitutes), non- whites (as you mentioned there were Chinamen, certainly played in a very non racist way here for example at 4:40 to see how absolutely non racist the chinaman is portrayed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yofDT1hYYuU ) and LGBT people but everybody else."

    TOS and TNG follow the same pattern of white heterosexual strong male leads and weak or non-existent female characters.

    Therefore, as a female, you must have found those characters impossible to relate to, and presumably disliked the shows intensely.

    You did dislike those shows Booming, didn't you?

    I haven’t watched it but have an opinion.

    I no nothing about it but have an opinion.

    It’s like Trump.

    Way too many trumps. And the world burns because of them and their insidious self righteousness.

    To be honest the stronger female leads in DS9 were one of the reasons I preferred it over TNG, same goes for BSG and I never really cared for TOS to be honest.

    Andy F brought these up as an example for better shows in a healthier society. I just disagree with that assessment.

    I prefer my heterosexual whites as a part of a colorful ensemble, not as the only voices. I hope you agree. :)

    Just my personal musing, but must everything be focused on the American President? The older comments on this site referring to politics are already hopelessly dated and partisan.

    If you don't like who holds the office, why do you let thoughts of this person infect every aspect of your life?

    I'd love to see the day where people can comment on the various arts and humanities without turning it into a soapbox to grandstand on current events.

    @Dave in MN In 713 comments, Trump is mentioned twice. In my comment he is mentioned for his personality traits. If that qualifies as everything to you, adjust your pad. If you can’t find them try amazon.

    @Dave in MN
    "Just my personal musing, but must everything be focused on the American President? The older comments on this site referring to politics are already hopelessly dated and partisan."

    Check that guy's earlier comments. Arbitrary Trump references are the least of his problems.

    @Andy's Friend
    "I'm curious, Omicron, as I don't remember: what is your personal favourite Trek?"

    You don't remember because I've never stated it. And I've never stated it because I don't really have an all-time favorite.

    I think DS9 is objectively the best TV series among the first five, with the best ensemble of actors and powerful dialogue moments. But it is also a bit too dark to my taste, and there were several story choices (like the pah-wraiths thing) which really damaged the series general arc.

    ST:Enterprise has the weakest execution, but it was also (contrary to popular belief) an excellent prequel. I also loved the portrayal of a humanity that's halfway between our present day situation and the one of TNG. In short, it was a story that really needed to be told, and I appreciated seeing it unfold onscreen.

    TNG, of-course, is an iconic piece of television. But looking back at it, I can't help but think that it is a little bit too naive at times. If they added, say, 5% of the attitude of DS9 into TNG, it would have been the perfect series for me.

    TOS is a relic from another era, which can't really be compared with the others in any way. I love it in the same way I love certain other shows from the 1960's (like "Get Smart"), and it also has a special place in my heart for being the first Star Trek.

    This leaves Voyager, which was at times great and a times downright terrible. When I did my great rewatch of all 700+ episodes, the middle of season 5 of Voyager was the only part where it actually felt like a chore to keep going. So I guess that if I had to choose a "least favorite" it would be Voyager. But I still liked it quite a bit (and that dragging feeling lasted only for a handful of episodes. The beginning of season 6 has many excellent gems, so it was totally worth it).

    Someone mentioned female leads, I wanted to say how awful i thought all the women were portrayed in this show. Right from the foul mouthed Admiral, to Raffi the drug addicted deadbeat Mom. There wasnt a single likeable female character, aside from Seven (an existing character, and even then.....) in this show. I wonder if Alex Kurtzman is Misogynistic

    @Booming
    "It is obviously nonsense. People get closer to death and that makes their outlook on life darker. So they start to tell themselves how awesome they as a group are to have a little comfort blanket. I AM STILL RELEVANT.

    TOS isn't super smart, for example."

    What?

    I really *really* hope that you were deliberately messing around with us when you wrote that.

    Because if you actually believe that's a legitimate explanation for why people are revering TOS, then you shouldn't be studying sociology. That's like a flat-earther trying to be an astrophysicist.

    @ Omicron
    I was messing a little with that guy/gal but to be !honest! I think it is not super smart from what I have seen. What is? Plus I haven't really seen enough to make any definitive judgement. Also I'm more in the political research realm. ;)

    @Dexter
    I don't think so. Sometimes when people see a show as misogynistic then I find it is more misanthropic. But here... there is Soji who, apart from her little misstep of wanting to wipe out all organic life, was portrayed as a sympathetic character. Then there is Troi, 7. Also in the other Kurtzman shows we have Cornwall (ok also a little genocidal misstep), Tilly, Georgiou and so on.

    @Dexter Morgan

    How true. Every female character is either broken (Raffi, Jurati, Seven) or evil (Clancy, Oh, Narissa). A portrayal of female empowerment this is not. Troi's okay, but then the focus for her character is being a mother and housewife.

    When we combine that with its broken aesops that if you fear those who are different are dangerous then you're probably right, and it's good to help someone in need as long as you find out she is the family of a close friend, and you have Star Trek at the most right wing it's ever been.

    When SPS said this show would be tackling the issues surrounding Trump, I didn't think that meant taking his side. Now that's a plot twist!

    @ Glom
    Well... who isn't broken?

    "but then the focus for her character is being a mother and housewife."
    change mother to father and housewife to househusband? and you have Riker.

    @Booming

    But Riker gets to break of out of his domestic box with his CMOA at the end (even though it was ridiculous).

    @ Janeway labrat

    I'm a regular user of this site and current American politics are often invoked. The outrage-of-the-week just dates the commentary .... while it also threatens to derail the conversation into unrelated arguments.

    (Case in pont: the dozens of comments from 2000-2012 about John McCain and Mitt Romney. Future readers of this forum likely won't even know who they are. )

    This is a science fiction review website, not TheHill or HuffPo or what-have-you.

    Surely you have another touchstone for comparison and contrast (other than the political axe you wish to grind).

    Oh, but thanks to those informed comments from 2000(?!) about Mitt Romney and McCain, those clowns weren't elected.

    Perhaps Janeway labrat is onto something. ;)

    @ Dexter, Booming, Glom on female characters

    Actually, I'm not sure if it's fair to call the writers misogynistic, whether intentional or otherwise. Like, you guys mentioned Raffi being a druggy, but she's clearly trying to do the right thing most of the time and doesn't actually want to hurt anybody. Is this so far off from Elnor being a mindless dummy who murders people, or Rios' terrible "backstory"?

    In fact there are some reasonable equivalences. I think Picard and Soji are both reasonable as leads. Both have flaws, but both ultimately do what's right despite some questionable writing choices. Early in the show, we have Picard's housekeepers, who are both decent people but it's the female who is portrayed as the more active agent for good. Riker and Troi are portrayed roughly equivalently as good people, in my estimation. Someone mentioned that Riker gets to get out of the house while Troi doesn't - is that so different from Jurati getting a chance at redemption (well, sort of) while Maddox just shows up and dies?

    The worst comparison male vs female for me comes from Narek vs Narissa. Even there it seems like they tried to introduce some depth to Narissa and their relationship once or twice, but failed miserably. Another poor one for me would be Seven vs Hugh. Seven has more screentime of course, and she's handled pretty terribly to me. Meanwhile Hugh isn't onscreen too much, but while he is, he breathes some of the only warmth in the series outside of Riker's pizza oven.

    As for tertiary characters (like the female admiral), yeah the women don't do so well. The admiral is a jerk, Oh is a jerk, while the male doctor who visits Picard seems like a decent chap. Oh but wait there's that stupid Romulan ex-senator, he's a jerk and an idiot.

    @Garth

    It's hilarious to me that you think a few comments here swung an election. They had literally no effect one way or the other.

    In another 10 or 20 years, those politicians will have as much name recognition as Tip O'Neill, George McGovern or Adlai Stevenson. I don't see the point in putting a shelf life on an opinion, but that's just me. Carry on.

    @msw188 @glom

    I actually liked Picard's Romulan butler even though she was an overbearing bitch but she was a well acted character that had some potential depth. You knew immediately that she had some meat on her character. It pissed me off to leave those two on Earth while we got Jurarti, Elron, and Raffi as the crew. I also liked Dahj (sp?) way more than I liked Soji for some reason.

    I dont feel like debating the male vs female aspect of this show (its absolutely horrendous), I just wanted to voice that I pretty much disliked every female character this show offered. I dont know if it was trying to be some form of female empowerment, but it didnt work for me.

    @Dave in MN clearly some are hit hard by COVID but loss of ability to detect sarcasm isn’t on cdc list. You should apologize to Garth for being a dunce?

    @msw188
    I didn't call the show misogynistic. I think that it is misanthropic. Also everybody seems to have forgotten the nice nuns and they had that awesomest of awesome lines: "Please choose to live." I say that all the time now when people block my way in the supermarket.

    @Dexter
    So you wonder if the show is misogynistic but call Picard's female housekeeper an overbearing bitch.

    @ Janeway abrat

    This is not the place to discuss politics or current events.

    Back to discussing the actual episode .....

    @Dave in MN

    Since ST is a means of addressing politics and current events through the medium of science fiction, I disagree that people should not also discuss the underlying politics and current events.

    I think you should reconsider your position.

    Garth said: "Oh, but thanks to those informed comments from 2000(?!) about Mitt Romney and McCain, those clowns weren't elected."

    Mitt Romney is many things, but a clown he is not. It's debatable whether Romney would have been a better president than Obama.

    Also, McCain (circa 2008) was a pretty mediocre candidate. McCain (circa 2000) was infinitely better than what we ultimately got.

    @ James White

    I'm not really sure what political allegory Romulan incest siblings and space flowers are supposed to represent, but sure, if you see a connection between this misfire of a season and current events, I can't prevent you from expressing that.

    @Dexter
    Of course you're free to continue or not continue any debate. I do find some of what you're saying interesting though, and I wonder if anyone else feels similarly. Like, did many people somehow 'prefer' Dahj to Soji? Is there some reason beyond simple personal preference? Maybe it's hard for Soji to recover from all of those early scenes of basically doing nothing. Maybe some people prefer this show's "superhero" version of being an android to its existential crisis version. And of course, back with Dahj the plot was still semi-believable. Well, maybe.

    @Booming
    Nice! Indeed I did forget about the nuns and their teachings, which would explain why my own grocery shopping trips lately have been stressful rather than enjoyable - definitely no other explanation exists!

    I also forgot about the nice hippie robot that got brutally stabbed in the eye. Prior to that though, she seemed like a nice girl. Better than the hippie-girls in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, even if some of them ended up with similar fates.

    @Dave in MN wow i can’t touch how stupid that comment is. But as you’ve said it’ll be here forever looking back at you.

    This is a science fiction review website. If you wish to attack someone personally, there's Yahoo and Reddit and Twitter etc.

    Stay healthy everyone!

    @Andy's Friend

    "I think the main target audience for NuTrek is people younger than you are."

    Oof, point taken. But you know, last night I watched First Contact for the first time and between pissed-off vengeance-driven Picard and the introduction of a horny Borg Queen it was clear that dumbing down Star Trek for the sake of the masses goes back way before STD. Considering how the 90s TNG films were the first to turn Trek into action schlock, perhaps you really should put the blame on my generation.

    These kinds of decisions are made by studios who are wary of creative risk and drawn to emulating what currently works for other successful properties. And the longer-running and more prestigious the franchise, the more control those people have. Right now those people have Kurtzman in charge because he's good at putting out derivative schmaltzy crap that apes Marvel, albeit very poorly.

    But I don't think it's fair to say that if you had a better-written show that did the themes of Trek justice (whatever that means to you) that Kids These Days would "lack the imagination" to appreciate it. I'm generally wary of blaming audiences for the short-sighted decision-making of major studios.

    < Seven has a phaser drawn on Narissa and could just stun her, but no. She stupidly gets close enough to have the gun knocked out of her hand so we can go through the motions.>

    "But before I kill you, Mr. Bond, I want to explain my evil plan in excruciating detail."

    It’s pure clowns like Dave in MN that make a site tedious. He can’t figure out how an entire series about refugees and illegal aliens literal, has nothing to do with the current political climate. He can’t figure that out. I’d be left incredulous if this wasn’t some porn site where it’s all been done. To cap off, he adds a “stay healthy” No that won’t work clown

    @ Janeway labrat
    Dave correctly points out that this season was all over the place when it comes to messaging. Sure it had refugees, even though I don't know what you mean with illegal aliens. There weren't any illegal aliens on the show.

    Two things: It may come as a shock to you but refugees have always been a problem richer, more stable societies had to deal with, from the Roman Empire until today. It is not like right wing radicals/extremist became xenophobic a few years ago or that the political right in general started to pursue policies that are against the interests of refugees only recently. Right wing populism is "popular" right now for various reasons I will not get into but that is nothing new as well. The more important question is, does the show make a good pro refugee case which leads me to.

    Second: The message of this show is so bad that I'm not sure that the pro refugee stance even comes across. I think you can watch this show and become even more intolerant towards refugees. The Romulans are the refugees on this show. That is an unfortunate choice because, while not at constant war with the Federation, they were a significant threat, especially in TNG. Ok, so the refugees come from a (former???) empire that was a threat. What other depictions of Romulans do we see. The Romulans are responsible for several terrorist attacks/covert operations in which they kill Federation citizens without hesitation. In one terrorist attack they even kill 80000 people and destroy the rescue fleet that was built just for them. In one episode we visit a refugee? camp in which bitter Romulans have created a racist community and in the end the giant fleet that these refugees?? can muster almost triggers the destruction of all organic life because they wanted to commit genocide. They also purposefully corrupted Federation institutions and used them to commit harmful acts against the Federation. Refugee Romulans are actually worse than TNG Romulans. That is all very negative. What is positive? The warrior nuns and Elnor. The warrior nuns are so vague and unimportant to the story, most people seem to have almost forgotten them. I cannot remember one conversation Picard had with them.

    In essence, big picture stuff is almost exclusively negative when it comes to Romulans/refugees. So let's look at cast members. Three are significant. The incest twins and Elnor. Narissa is a straight up psychopath who loves to kill. Narek is manipulative and tries to murder our female protagonist. They are bad people and sexually deviant in a way that is forbidden in all cultures. That leaves us with Elnor. He is a hired gun basically who also kills many people but for the right reasons. Almost a non character. Does he ever make a general point about how wrong the Federation was to abandon the refugees or how deep the scars of the refugees are after such a long time living in very poor conditions? No.

    These are so many terrible messages. Were they trying to appeal to pro and anti refugee people?

    And don't get me started on the "let's not flee but rather wipe out all organic life" synth.

    @ Jan ....

    Ok, I'll bite.

    What did this show present to us?

    The "refugees" we actually saw seemed to live in a pretty idyllic place without much current reason to complain.

    The Romulan Empire obviously have tons of ships (if the Tsl Shiar can have their own squadron) Why didn't their own leaders get it done? Couldn't they have called the Ferengi?

    Everyone we saw in a position of Romulan power were moustache-twirling villians or murderous spies or terrorists.

    STP is saying that they don't know how good they have it, they blame other people for their own problems and others have a right to fear them due to their duplicitous ways.

    That is not a very positive presentation.

    If you want to equate illegal immigration in North Americs with the illlogical Romulan reality presented on this show, then you'll have to square that circle.

    @Dave in NM
    Please don't feed the troll!
    Too many people are sitting at home right now with time on their hands.
    Stay safe everyone!

    Oh, and I forgot the cherry on top.

    Elinor, our main cast refugee, is a mass murderer.

    Booming - great write up on refugees. What do you think of their depiction in District 9?

    Dave in MN - I agree that STP is an inchoate mess, with political themes touched on, forgotten, misapplied, or just plain abused.

    My point isn't whether it's a good sci fi show to draw attention to today's political and cultural issues. My point is that it is illogical to restrict conversation on this board from delving into the issues themselves (regardless of the allegorical source).

    Besides, if STP sucks as bad as it does, and we're living in an extraordinary times, WHY WOULDN'T WE TALK ABOUT THE REAL WORLD?

    I'd speculate that someone wrote a story about Romulan refugees, someone else wrote one about the Romulan Empire persecuting synths and then someone else decided to mash the two together. This is how you end up with a story about resentful people scrabbling in resettlement camps after their society collapses (with ex Senators living in hovels) and then two episodes later, they're piloting vast armadas of hundreds of capital ships like some kind of D Day invasion force.

    @Booming and others commenting on the political themes in the show, I'd just add that this isn't a new problem for nuTrek:

    - Into Darkness started off with Spock questioning the wisdom of what was essentially and extrajudicial killing/drone strike against Khan, but by the end Khan commits a terrorist act, probably killing thousands of people, and Spock violently beats Khan up. The moral of the story seems to be all that damage could have been avoided if the Enterprise had just killed Khan earlier in the story.

    - Discovery Season 1 ends with the Federation giving a Klingon a WMD to hold the Klingon homeworld hostage as a way to end the war.

    I honestly don't know if the writers are secretly reactionary conservatives who believe in violence as a way to solve problems or just don't know how to write good social commentary.

    @ James White
    Watched that movie ages ago. I think I liked it. That's all I can say.

    @Dom
    Maybe it's the have their cake and eat it. Drones warfare is bad and drone warfare is good. WMD's are bad and WMD's are bad. Refugees are good and refugees are bad. Right wing is good and left wing is good.
    Think about it. If we see that from a subscription standpoint then getting as many people as possible to watch as long as possible is what you want and considering the sharp divide when it comes to these topics maybe they tried to say that both are right. Refugees want to murder and corrupt us but they are also poor people who deserve our love and compassion.

    To quote the from Kurtzman's most successful movie:
    Ironhide: You have a rodent infestation.

    Sam Witwicky: A what?

    Ironhide: [aiming cannons at Mojo] Shall I terminate?

    Sam Witwicky: No! No! This is a chihuahua. We love chihuahuas.

    Ironhide: He's leaked lubricants all over my foot! Hmmph!

    Sam Witwicky: He peed on you? Bad Mojo! Bad!

    Ironhide: Bad Mojo! Ugh, my foot's gonna rust...
    ---
    I guess that should explain everything.

    @James White
    "Besides, if STP sucks as bad as it does, and we're living in an extraordinary times, WHY WOULDN'T WE TALK ABOUT THE REAL WORLD?"

    Because it's still a Trek forum? Because Jammer's site is one of the few sane places left on the internet, and politics is the anti-thesis of saneness? Because there are countless of other websites where people "discuss" these things, and they all look like sh*t?

    Seriously, if people don't have anything constructive and relevant to say, there is always the option to say nothing. This episode already has 750 comments which are already a nightmare to wade through. I'm not saying that people should force themselves to shut up or anything, but this is getting totally ridiculous. How about actually stopping to *think* for a few moments, before you press "submit"? Ask yourself: Will the discussion really benefit from me posting this?

    Also, before you guys insist on turning Jammer's site into a news disccussion board, perhaps you should ASK your host whether he is okay with that idea.

    Because I have a very strong feeling that he won't be okay with it at all.

    (as a side note, politics barely even counts as "the real world". It's all a show, as you know, and it ain't a pretty show either).

    Omicron - I think you have it backwards. It's precisely because the quality of posters on this forum is generally much higher than your average joe's that makes this such a great place to discuss real-world issues. Don't be like the schleps who take legitimate political/social issues and turn them into a binary, "it's us vs. them" kind of discourse, replete with ad hominem attacks, false equivalencies, and so forth. In other words, talk real but talk smart.

    You also misunderstand what I'm saying regarding real world issues. Don't discuss them in a vacuum, but rather take the lessons, philosophical points, moral dilemmas of ST and apply them to the real world.

    To all of you, what's the point, really, of even watching Trek if you can't, one day, do something with some of the wisdom wrought from the experience? And I don't simply mean the shows, but how many of you, over years and years, have thought through some very difficult issues/ themes.

    Think about where we're at right now. Put aside the stupid rhetoric, the political folly and just look at the world for a moment. There are foundational issues of freedom vs. order/health, particularly in an era where real-time information (whether accurate or not) is driving policy decisions. There are issues of whether people truly need to work to simply pay the rent, or whether the minimal requirements of existence can be collectively provided (or at least partially subsidized). The virus is a trigger for issues of remote working, further automation and supply chain consolidation, the elimination of brick and mortar retail stores, and so on. But these already existed.

    These ALL, in one form or another, have been tackled by Trek. In this specific and peculiar time, the MOST TREKIAN thing you can do is talk about the world.

    And I think Jammer would want people to press their ideas outside the bubble of ST commentary. If some people are offended, too damn bad. Welcome to life.

    Jammer and I exchanged a few mails and he seems to be pretty relaxed when it comes to topics, kind of relaxed in general. I personally think that any kind of debate that touches on political conflicts should focus on the episode.

    In a way that one can discuss how the show presents something like refugees but starting discussions that have barely anything to do with the episode like building a wall at the US-Mexican border, good or bad, are not interesting or relevant for a ST review board.

    "Into Darkness started off with Spock questioning the wisdom of what was essentially and extrajudicial killing/drone strike against Khan, but by the end Khan commits a terrorist act, probably killing thousands of people, and Spock violently beats Khan up. The moral of the story seems to be all that damage could have been avoided if the Enterprise had just killed Khan earlier in the story."

    While I agree that glossing over the collateral damage Khan did to SF was a weakness of the film, Kirk's decision not to use the missiles turned out to be correct for a couple reasons. For starters, the missiles contained innocent human popsicles that had no part in the conflict. But perhaps more importantly, the mission to attack Qo'nos given to Kirk was a ploy by an Asshole Admiral to have him start a hot war with the Klingons (and have Kirk take the blame). Moreover, given what we saw of Khan's abilities, it's not certain the payload would have gotten him. And yes, I'm sure there's some Iraq-Hussein and Bin Laden-Afghanistan parallels we can draw from this story, but as always Trek leaves things vague enough to make our own interpretations.

    James White wrote:

    'It's precisely because the quality of posters on this forum is generally much higher than your average joe's that makes this such a great place to discuss real-world issues."

    Yep. We're free to discuss what we want here even if it's only tangentially related to Star Trek. I would hope people keep things in moderation and be civil, though.

    @James White

    "It's precisely because the quality of posters on this forum is generally much higher than your average joe's that makes this such a great place to discuss real-world issues."

    I generally agree.

    And as long as this approach actually works, then there's no problem. We've been doing this for years and nobody thought about complaining, right?

    Unfortunately, it seems that lately it doesn't work so well. I'm not going to speculate about the reasons for this, and it doesn't really matter anyway. I'm simply saying that we need to be aware of the situation, and make an actual effort to keep this from getting out of hand.

    "Don't be like the schleps who take legitimate political/social issues and turn them into a binary, "it's us vs. them" kind of discourse, replete with ad hominem attacks, false equivalencies, and so forth. In other words, talk real but talk smart."

    Social issues are not the same things as politics, though.

    This is another part of the problem: In the last few years, politics has divorced itself from the underlying social issues and turned into ugly "sport" of personally bashing the other candidate/party. These days, that's the entire purpose of the political game (it was always *part* of the game, of-course, but never were the world's politicians as power hungry and as insane as they are today).

    What I'm saying is, that if we want to discuss one of the contemporary social issues without falling into the "us vs them" mentality, then perhaps it would be better to speak directly of those issues instead of the politics that surrounds them? This would also have the advantage of keeping our discussions relevant for future readers, as well as to readers from other countries.

    @Chrome, fair enough, one could make the case for why extrajudicial killings are bad, but my point was that the film doesn't do that. A perfectly valid - though by no means not the only - read of the film is as a quasi-endorsement of drone strikes. There's no moment of catharsis when the characters reflect on how terrible it would have been to kill Khan with the torpedos. The whole point about starting a war with the Klingons is true, but presumably going to the planet in a shuttle and killing a bunch of Klingons as they do would also have risked starting a war. Drone strikes are actually probably less likely to start a war. Yeah, so I've got no idea what STID is trying to say.

    Well I’ve had some time to reflect on Picard since it’s been a few weeks since it ended. I thought of one big reason this show doesn’t resonate with fans the way other Trek series do. In TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager you never knew what genre you were going to get. Of course it all gets filed under “sci fi” but just think of some of the genres those series took us through. Hard boiled detective, epic scale war, straight ahead action, romance, comedy, interpersonal drama. The list goes on. You never really knew what genre the next episode would bring. Then we come to Discovery and STPicard. Both of those shows have over arching season plots that end up feeling neurotic (I think it’s a too many chefs, or writers to be specific, spoil the meal thing). All the episodes have the same feel and tone. I am not a nostalgia type of person looking back on the older episodes with rose tinted glasses. It was just better television.

    @Dom

    It's trying to say, "Remember stuff you like? Here's stuff that references it. Aren't you happy, you dribbling nerd idiots?"

    Yeah, I didn't care much for the movie.

    @Cody B

    Indeed. Let's remember that 'Ties of Blood and Water' was followed by 'Ferengi Love Songs'. 'The High Ground' was followed by 'Déjà Q'. 'The Mind's Eye' was followed by 'In Theory'.

    I think we forget how much variety contributed to those older shows.

    I'm not saying reviews should be in a hermetically sealed box, divorced from our reality.

    My issue is that, when current events are mentioned, it's usually irrelevant to the episode being critiqued. There's hundreds of Trek episodes: in the least, people (who post here) could find the episodes that actually deal with their present day concern.

    Let's be real, the season finale of STP has very little allegorical resonance with anything hapoening today. It's a grab bag of Deus Ex Machina, cringe and cliches
    ... nothing more.

    "one could make the case for why extrajudicial killings are bad, but my point was that the film doesn't do that."

    It's true an extrajudicial killing was ordered for Khan, but Kirk's shift in decision was based less on a quarrel with that and more on the impact of unleashing mysteriously devastating torpedos on Qo'nos. It all ties to into the film's overarching theme of protecting what Starfleet stands for instead of succumbing to vengeance.

    Incidentally, Kirk's plan was a peaceful negotiation for custody of Khan with Qo'nos, but Khan himself was responsible for killing all those Klingons. Those deaths could have happened with or without Kirk involved, though.

    @Chrome, I don't want to get into yet another discussion about STID, but the problem there is the same as with a lot of this new Trek: there's no follow-through. There's the scene where Kirk decides not to order the launch of the torpedoes, but the rest of the film doesn't build upon that dilemma. I forget when that scene occurs, but it's like the later two-thirds is about Khan and Marcus' conspiracy.

    Then, of course, at the end of the film, Spock DOES succumb to vengeance by beating Khan to a bloody pulp. He never apologizes, never admits that his violence was excessive. The only reason he stops is because Khan's blood is magic. So so much for not succumbing to vengeance.

    As a writer, if you want to engage with social commentary or a theme, the story has to consistently engage with it and build upon it. Just throwing in a few lines isn't social commentary.

    I agree Spock might be wrong in that particular instance (though in all fairness, Khan just committed mass murder and Spock was warned that extreme measures were necessary to stop him), but in TOS generally it's Kirk who speaks acts and talks the ethos of the series.

    It sounds like you're looking for some sort of "A-Ha!" moment where Kirk tells the audience he doesn't want to succumb to vengeance. But that would be telling instead of showing. The fact that Kirk informs gives the ship of revised orders shows us that he took Spock and Scotty's warnings about the moral uncertainty of the original Khan mission seriously.

    We should all just get the COVID so we can go to Vegas and see Captain Janeway this August. Flatten shmatten.

    @ Dom

    "@Chrome, I don't want to get into yet another discussion about STID, but the problem there is the same as with a lot of this new Trek: there's no follow-through. There's the scene where Kirk decides not to order the launch of the torpedoes, but the rest of the film doesn't build upon that dilemma."

    Kirk did show us he wouldn't ... it was after he was told that Spock had used the Torpedoes against Khan on the Vengence. He clearly indicated he wouldn't have done that when he was upset when he thought Spock blew the augments up. ... of course, McCoy removed all the Khan-sickles out of the torpedoes and into stasis chambers at Spock's direction.

    @Chrome, maybe I'm looking for an "Aha!" moment, which certainly has been how Trek handled social commentary in the past. More so I think I'm looking for follow-through. We're really talking about one single scene in the entire movie, when Kirk makes that decision. The social commentary and the themes I think do kind of work within the context of that scene. But they're kind of ancillary to the larger plot of the film. As I said before, a single scene or even a few scenes doesn't make for compelling social commentary. The themes of a story should be interwoven throughout the entire story.

    About 3/4 of the way into the film, STID becomes a movie not about the ethics of drone strikes or even about saving the Federation from its militaristic tendencies, but rather about stopping the evil madman Khan. The resolution to the central conflict turns out to be disconnected from the themes. The movie might have started as being about confronting the Federation's darkness, but there's no real resolution to that. Marcus turns out to be a lone wolf who isn't persuaded to see the light, but rather is killed off by Khan. Spock doesn't stop Khan by using Federation ethics, but rather just punches him.

    There's a disconnect between the setup and the payoff, between the questions raised and the "answers" provided. Again, similar to Picard. Picard started off as a show that depicted the Federation as less welcoming to refugees, to the proverbial "other," but it ends up being a story about stopping evil space AI and saying goodbye to Data. The central conflict raised in episode 1 (the Federation's indifference to refugees vs. Picard's championing traditional Federation values) is resolved entirely off-screen when the Federation lifts the ban on synths.

    I don’t think going back to episodic format is going to help either DIS or PIC because the fundamentals are what is the problem—the writers and writing

    They’ve attended the school of “ADHD and everything including the sink” way of writing. They don’t worry about focusing on a few ideas and developing well. They just jump from one to the next abruptly

    They don’t think out a beginning , middle and end.

    The only thing having to write standalones will do is force them to come up with an immediate payoff rather than letting it linger til the eleventh hour

    I myself would prefer standalones again. They’re more rewatchable than arcs and it allows variety and something new to look forward to each week

    And if you look at this season the writers didn’t have ten hours of arc material

    Star Trek Picard movie??

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/wegotthiscovered.com/movies/cbs-reportedly-planning-star-trek-picard-movie/amp/

    The Wackening is happening
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao99bNrJ_1Q

    Now we know why there was a Re:View for the last two episodes.

    At first I worried it was external factors delaying. Have we seen Rich Evans since the last Picard Re:View? He is likely at high risk from the pandemic.

    It may still be the case. Mike and everyone can probably work individually on a Plinkett review better than their other shows.

    Maybe Rich Evans just doesn't want to talk about it. He seemed pretty sick of it.

    @ Cody B, I agree completely.

    I'm thinking about all those TNG or DS9 breather episodes, and how one of the very best episodes in all of Trek, was actually just such a necessary break:

    https://youtu.be/XgldQAYEB3o

    I've been wondering about how these comments threads (of Discovery and Picard) will look in 10-20 years. Will there be comments from newcomers about certain episodes such as The Inner Light, Far Beyond the Stars, In The Pale Moonlight still get on a consistent basis? I'm not a big consumer of the digital, streaming age - the only series I've watched in the past decade were Breaking Bad (on the strong recommendation of a friend) and the Star Trek series. And while I can see someone watching BB in a decade or two and enjoying it, I don't know if I can say that of the Trek shows.

    @Jules

    I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. I don’t think any show that will be well over 20 years old will be wildly popular ten years from now. Are you saying ten years from now classic TNG won’t be liked by first time viewers? Why would that be? That’s like saying classic movies from the 1950s won’t be liked all of a sudden. They are classics. TNG is well over 30 years old and is beloved but you are trying to say once it turns 40 that all goes out the window? Yeah okay dude 👌

    Jules wasn't talking about the future reception of TNG.

    He was wondering whether people will return to ST:Picard (or Discovery) in 10 or 20 years, just like people are continuing to comment on TNG (and even TOS!) episodes today.

    And that's a good question.

    My apologies I read “Will there be comments from newcomers about certain episodes such as The Inner Light, Far Beyond the Stars, In The Pale Moonlight” as Jules saying those episodes (and tng ds9) won’t be seen as classics from newcomers and those series would not hold up in ten years. I see now you were saying discovery and stpicard probably won’t be remembered as classics. Yes I agree with that completely. Of course neither series is over. At best we can hope they will be remembered as having a rough start the way tng did but then found footing

    I’ve rewatched over last 30 years all of TNG Ds9 voyager episodes at least 30 times. I never tire of them. Even the ones I’m not crazy about carry a certain nostalgia. I’ve rewatched all of ToS and ENT in last 20 years at least a dozen times. I never tire of tos first two seasons or ent’s first season, the xindi arc episodes or season four

    I quit DIS in first season and never looked back. First time ever happened with a trek series.

    With PIC it was nice getting some new material in the 24th century after two decades without. But truth is while I watched the first season with the exception of the pilot and nepenthe I doubt I’ll ever revisit it. The dangers of writers going all in on a big epic narrative is that if it doesn’t ultimately go anywhere interesting and doesn’t have a satisfying payoff then I don’t care to rewatch it. And PIC let every thread it launched fizzle by the end. I found Absolute Candor, Stardust City Rag, The Inpossible Box, Broken Pieces minus the bits of mythology and exposition provided and the finale to be outright 2 star loser episodes I have no interest in revisiting.

    Honestly, I'm not sure what people will do in 20 years. I think the writing in Picard and Discovery is bad, if Star Trek is still a big franchise in 20 years I suspect people will watch it. I think most of us would agree that Voyager and Enterprise are mediocre on average, yet they're some of the most watched Trek shows on Netflix. It's unfortunately a sign of the power of IPs and nostalgia in pop culture. I worry shows that (I think) are undoubtedly better, like Farscape, will be forgotten in future decades because there isn't a big studio pumping money into the franchise or rebooting it every few years.

    Geez people find this shit so boring they haven’t commented in 18 hours.

    Where’s The Crew with their usual ad nauseous banter?

    The writing in Picard and Discovery is terrible. And I can just never understand why. Discovery was meaningless drivel but Picard had within it several premises that could have been developed into an engaging story. A Federation who had lost its way and was decaying and insular and crying out for a leader and orator of Picards quality.

    Instead we got another poorly managed series of action sequences strung together with random events and magical objects that force the next meaningless action sequence.

    The plight of the synthetic life forms never felt like a strong enough driver to take Picard on this journey and his end goal was never clear. And of course, if you think about it for a moment, was really a complete failure. Yes, he saved the small android colony of about 30 individuals, but the price was the horrendous slaughter of what appeared to be thousands of the former Borg. And it was Picard who condemed then all to death on his pointless quest to find someone who might be related to Data.

    They could have died a valiant struggle and could have formed part of the larger narrative arc about the Federations selfishness and insular nature. Instead, after building up the size and horror of the Borg cube, of reminding us of the Borg's terrible power, they were all flushed into space and then, after gaining control of it (a terrible weapon and the use of which might have had consequences for the Federaton and Seven of Nine) it was immediatley crashed into a planet, taken out by a plant.

    What's with the need to have massive fleets of spaceships in Startrek now? It's like they are trying to turn it into Star Wars. The original premise of Star Trek was that space was massive and the spaceships, like a battleship or submarine, were on their own in the expanse dealing with problems they found there. So Star Fleet can now magic up 300 battleships for a situation as minor as saving the lives of 30 androids, something the Federation aparently cared nothing about for the last 10 years. I am now surprised they had any problems fighting the Borg or the Dominion previously with these kinds of resources! Where was the impassioned speech to the Federation Council, where Picard alone managed to change opinions to save the day?

    Finally, the whole premise of this last episode was ridiculous. Am I the only one who thought that the Romulans were actually in the right?! The warning they had seen was true, the efforts they put into maintaining their vigual was justified in the end when we saw what was the end of the signal. The means they employed had much to be desired but Picards crew seemed to be intent on sacraficing all organic life for the sake of these 30 individuals, none of whom seemed to deserve the efforts being expended on them.

    I just wish the creators of these shows had more respect for the audiences and their ability to follow a more complex story. Given the swearing and gore in star trek now it seems that its targeted at a more grown up audience but the story is juvenile so I don't really understand who they are targeting any more. Gone is the science storys and technology and just a focus on poorly managed action sequences. Given the quality of actors, set designers and special effects staff they have, it just seems crazy the writing is as poor as it is.

    Picard on his fondness for interfering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr4P2vEdNQQ

    Redemption pt. 1 - Picard rejects Gowron's request for Starfleet aid based on non interference.

    Redemption pt. 2 - Picard convinces a fleet admiral to allow him to set up a blockade near the Klingon/Romulan border to expose Romulan supply ships, based on no other evidence other than Gowron being on the losing end of the war at this point, and the logic supplied by Worf that he rejected in pt.1.

    Or we can consider "Measure of a Man" (an episode directly related to this series), where Picard tries to use circumvention to interfere with a direct order from Starfleet to hand over Data to Maddox by having Data resign, only to then have to challenge the finding by the JAG that Data is indeed the property of Starfleet and cannot resign or refuse to cooperate with Maddox. There are some other interesting points from "Measure of a Man" that relate to Picard;

    - Data points out to Maddox in his quarters that although his memories would be intact, the substance and essence of them in the moment would be lost by the procedure. He would no longer have that which makes him Data. Which is the position he is in while in the quantum simulation in Picard.

    - Capain Philipa Louvois refers to Picard as still a "pompous ass". Admiral f***ing Clancy just upped the in universe ante.

    - The poker scene. I can't decide if its genius or silly. Its obviously a set up for the events of the episode, but its a hand I have a hard time seeing anyone so mathematically inclined as Data ever folding, given the size of the bet relative to the pot, the strength of his hand ( 3 of a kind, while his full hand also contains two hearts, blockers to Riker's flush possibility, while Riker has no straight or higher pair possibilities)( *only the audience knows Data has 3 of a kind*). Thats without even being able to discern what face cards the other players were holding, which could have also contained hearts. Maybe its both.

    Why do Rios and the gang take grenades to the Synth compound to destroy the beacon, when they've just repaired their ship, which has shields, armor and weapons? Just fly the ship over and blow up the beacon.

    Why, in the pilot, when Daj "senses Romulan assassins", does she and Picard them leave the safety of a Federation promenade for an isolated rooftop? Surely it is better to stay where it is safe.

    Why does Commodore Oh have Juratti infiltrate Picard's group, and then, afterwards, still launch a ninja attack on Picard's chateau? It makes no sense to get Juratti to use Picard to find Maddox, when killing Picard robs you of finding Maddox.

    Why doesn't Picard take the dead Romulan bodies to Starfleet as evidence? And why doesn't Picard ask his Romulan minders to use their "recreation device" to resurrect the past and so provide more evidence of the attacks? Why don't Rios and the gang meet Jurati and Picard on their trek across the desert to the ship/village? How does Jurati know how to use the imagination device? How does Data know what's happening outside the quantum simulation? If Soong knows Data knows what's going on outside, why doesn't he give Data a body? What happened to all the scientists on the cube? Why doesn't the Federation stay to help them? And why...

    etc.

    All of these questions AND MORE will be answered in SEASON 2.

    (There are already first reaction videos of season 2.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfQWz4gVcP8

    @ Disappointed

    "What's with the need to have massive fleets of spaceships in Startrek now? It's like they are trying to turn it into Star Wars. The original premise of Star Trek was that space was massive and the spaceships, like a battleship or submarine, were on their own in the expanse dealing with problems they found there. So Star Fleet can now magic up 300 battleships for a situation as minor as saving the lives of 30 androids, something the Federation aparently cared nothing about for the last 10 years."

    I've been saying this for YEARS, ever since Deep Space Nine and the massive fleets of completely disposable CGI starships.

    The Enterprise -- in both TOS and TNG -- wasn't exactly one of a kind, but she was a capital ship, exceedingly rare, the rough equivalent of an American supercarrier (we only have eleven of these, FYI, with roughly 1/3 deployed, 1/3 working up for deployment, and 1/3 in extended overhaul at any given time) but in DS9 they were apparently churning out Galaxy Class Starships like sausages.

    People rationalize it as "gearing the economy for war" or some such but what it really was is the SFX folks had a new toy (CGI) and they went WAY overboard with it. The wonder is gone when you see hundreds of these things on the screen, there's just nothing special about them anymore, and I'd take a million off-screen Wolf 359s over any one of DS9's on-screen fleet engagements for emotional impact and effective storytelling.

    I'd hoped when Admiral Clancy said she was putting together a squadron that we'd get exactly that, a squadron, a half dozen to a dozen starships, which would have at least made a little bit of sense to see Riker in command of, but a retired/reserve Captain in command of a fleet of hundreds of ships with tens of thousands of personnel? Did nobody in the writer's room ever serve in the military? Or study history? Or apply common sense?

    On the same topic, why did the Romulans need hundreds of warbirds to sterlize one planet when it was always said that the Enterprise herself had enough firepower to do just that? In TNG at least a warbird was roughly equivalent to the Enterprise and presumably had the same level of firepower. Did the writers forget that the Romulans sent a fleet of just 20 ships to attempt the same thing against the Founders' homeward and that said fleet destroyed 40% of that planet with a single volley?

    Ugh!

    Though I agree the ease of CGI is part of the reason they'd make more fleets than before in modern Trek, it's still extremely expensive to make it look good. ST:P isn't primarily a show about ship battles like DS9 or the TOS movies, so it doesn't really make sense for them to blow their whole budget on super unique ships that barely get five minutes of screentime.

    Also, I think it's worth mentioning that while the Romulan fleet was numerous, it contained numerous "pocket cruisers" that were compact like Narek's ship. I only remember seeing a handful of D'deridex class ships.

    @ Chrome

    "Though I agree the ease of CGI is part of the reason they'd make more fleets than before in modern Trek, it's still extremely expensive to make it look good."

    My point is that it DOESN'T look good and it's NOT effective storytelling. It's just space combat porn for the teenage fanboys.

    The destruction of the USS Odyssey was shot with models; watch how she moves during that episode and try to remember the gut-punch you felt when it first aired and you watched a GCS get owned in short order by these new bad guys. Keogh was deliberately cast/acted to remind us of Picard and the Odyssey was very deliberately made a GCS.

    Now skip ahead to the fleet engagements of the war arc. We don't know any of the crew of these ships, they're literally manned by nameless redshirts, so there's no real emotional impact to what we're watching. There are so damn many of them on the screen we can't tell them apart, two thousand foot long starships move about like F-16s, they fight at point-blank range, and there are more explosions on the screen than we'd see in a Michael Bay production.

    @Tim, I agree with the criticisms of Picard, but not DS9. DS9 was depicting a galactic war, the likes of which we'd never seen. At the beginning of TNG, the Enterprise-D was almost certainly one of the few Galaxy-class ships, but it seems hard to believe Starfleet wouldn't have made more, especially if it war worried about armed conflict. The number of ships helped sell the idea that the Dominion War was THE war to end all wars of the 24th century. And notice how DS9 built the stakes over the course of several seasons. In the first Jem Hadar episode, you only had one Galaxy-class ship. The fleets grew over the course of the series. So it's less like the 11 supercarriers we have now and more like our fleet during WW2 - but at a much larger scale (we're talking a galaxy, not a single planet).

    By contrast, there's nothing in Picard to suggest that the finale episode was going to be some big battle necessitating big fleets. Why would the Romulans think they'd need so many ships? How does the post-supernova Romulan Empire have so many ships? Why would the Federation allocate so many ships just on the word of Picard? The story doesn't support the scale of the fleets.

    And DS9 at least added some variety to the fleets.

    Tim wrote:

    "My point is that it DOESN'T look good and it's NOT effective storytelling. It's just space combat porn for the teenage fanboys."

    Well that's not fair, calling it porn implies that the battle was actually satisfying some urge. ;-) I'm with you that the number of ships was just an excuse to raise the stakes. It didn't do much for me.

    "Now skip ahead to the fleet engagements of the war arc. We don't know any of the crew of these ships, they're literally manned by nameless redshirts, so there's no real emotional impact to what we're watching. There are so damn many of them on the screen we can't tell them apart, two thousand foot long starships move about like F-16s, they fight at point-blank range, and there are more explosions on the screen than we'd see in a Michael Bay production."

    Yep, DS9 battles looked good but even then there was very little attachment to a given ship in a big battle because none of us knew who was on what ship. Give me the triple confrontation between the Enterprise-Chang's BoP-Excelsior over that stuff any day.

    I tend to agree that smaller scale conflict in terms of ships works best on screen in Trek, my favorite being the battle at Khitomer in The Undiscovered Country. The Borg being an unstoppable force in a single ship is an intimidating sight. Though, I also think larger fleets made more sense in DS9, so I agree with @Dom there.

    In Picard, the only reason the size of the Romulan (Zhat Vash) fleet would make sense is as a last stand in case they're unsuccessful in destroying the beacon, and the admonition comes to pass. I'm not sure the size of the federation fleet makes any sense given the information they have.

    @ Dom

    I couldn't disagree more. It's a fallacy that you needed huge ass fleets to portray "the war to end all wars", for one, it's false "raised stakes", nobody believed the Federation was going to lose, this isn't Battlestar Galactica, it's Star Trek, even dark af NuTrek wouldn't be bold enough to "go there" and have the Federation lose the war.

    For two, the best episodes of the war arc were the CHARACTER episodes -- "Rocks and Shoals" and "In the Pale Moonlight" were my two favorites -- not the space combat porn CGI-wank fest episodes.

    I'm sorry, but it takes the wonder and awe away when these huge starships are reduced to assembly line constructs, both within the context of the fictional universe and the SFX that we see on screen. I remember reading the TNG Tech Manual as a kid, which was based on the series bible of TNG; it took nearly a decade to build the Enterprise-D, with two more years of shakedown time, and 7+ years proceeding construction for design and R&D, all backstory that was informed by REAL WORLD experience with capital ship design and construction.

    It will take at least eight years for the new Enterprise (CVN-80) to be ready for launch from the first fabrication of components (2017) until estimated launch date (2025), with two more years for fitting out before she's ready to be commissioned into the USN (2027), then add an indeterminate amount of shakedown time and training for the plank owner crew before she's ready for her first actual deployment.

    Could that timeline be accelerated in time of war? Perhaps. But not as much as you might expect. The Essex Class Fleet Carriers of WW2 fame took a minimum of 18 months from keel laying to launching, another 6 to 12 months before they were fully fitted out and ready for commissioning, then another 6 months for shakedown and training of the plank owner crew before they were ready for action. Keep in mind the Essexes were not nearly as complicated as a modern day fleet carrier or (obviously) a FTL capable starship. We'd never be able to get a Gerald R. Ford into the water and ready for action in three years even if we threw the full resources of the nation behind their construction.

    @ Tommy D.

    "Though, I also think larger fleets made more sense in DS9, so I agree with @Dom there."

    I still don't buy it. 40 starships at Wolf 359 when faced with an existential "Twilight of the Human Race" level threat. No real reason to limit to 40 ships, we never saw them, they could have made it 4,000 ships if they had wanted to, but 40 was the number the writers went with and was consistent with Trek lore to that date.

    A few years of fictional time later and we're pulling 600+ ship fleets out of our ass and taking body blows (98 ships in just one battle) that make Wolf 359 look like a skirmish instead of the near extinction of humanity.

    People on the interwebs rationalize this in all manner of ways, "Starfleet recalled all the ships sent out for exploration after First Contact with the Dominion", "The Federation ramped up like the USA in WW2" (side note: The Two Ocean-Navy Act was passed in 1940, BEFORE the US entered the war; the ships that would beat Japan were all ordered and many were laid down BEFORE Pearl Harbor), etc., but these are all rationalizations, and a good story shouldn't require off-screen rationalization.

    Just admit it, the SFX folks went waaaaaay overboard.

    What's interesting is you CAN make a large scale battle work in Star Trek; I find "The Way of the Warrior" to be the best DS9 had the offer and the Big Battle at the end of that episode was well done from both a storytelling and an SFX standpoint, infinitely more compelling to me than any of the fleet engagements in the Dominion War arc.

    That was a character story first and foremost; we were all emotionally invested in the Klingons and their relationship with the Federation, we all cared about would happen to the Cardassians, what the geopolitical fallout for Bajor would be, how The Dominion played into this intrigue, etc.

    The Dominion were just generic bad guys, scary af when first introduced but watered down to nothing by the time the war rolled around. The same Jem Hadar fighters that took down the Odyssey with ease could later be killed by a handful of photon torpedoes (if only Keogh had thought to use his!) or a single volley from a scout ship class Klingon bird-of-prey.

    Yawn.

    @Tim
    "nobody believed the Federation was going to lose, this isn't Battlestar Galactica, it's Star Trek, even dark af NuTrek wouldn't be bold enough to "go there" and have the Federation lose the war."
    Man, TNG and TOS must have been really boring for you considering that they would never "go there" and destroy the Enterprise or kill Kirk/Spock/Bones/Picard and so on.

    The same goes for the Galactica and any show ever with a main cast.

    The war was a setting to tell stories in. Its the not the Destination, It's the journey to quote Emerson.

    Also comparing the US carrier fleets with an entire fleet of a hundreds of planets spanning federation is also a little shaky.

    @Tim, I think you're letting the minutiae of real-world shipbuilding processes to get in the way of enjoying the TV show. First of all, DS9 is a future with tech far beyond ours, where money doesn't seem to be an issue, and in which energy can be pretty easily be converted to matter. It doesn't seem implausible to me that the engineers of the 24th century would have solved some of the bottlenecks that plagued 20th and 21st century production processes. It also strikes me as a bit unrealistic to assume that the number of carriers the US has in 2020 is going to determine how many Galaxy class ships Starfleet would have in 300 years.

    More to the point, I agree that the best episodes are character episodes, but that doesn't mean you can't also have episodes with fleet battles. They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd argue they're complementary. The fleets helped sell the notion that the Dominion War is huge in scope. The character episodes helped give the war personal stakes. That balance is key. DS9 felt like a war. Sure, maybe the special effects crew could have settled for 30 ships instead of 50, but that seems like nitpicking.

    @ Booming

    "Also comparing the US carrier fleets with an entire fleet of a hundreds of planets spanning federation is also a little shaky."

    The point is you can only build a ship so fast irrespective of the size of your industrial base. We obviously do not pour our entire industrial base into the construction of our fleet carriers but even if we were able to do so it would not significantly accelerate their construction time. Only so many workers can fit out a ship at one time, only so many cranes can operate in the drydock at one time, etc.

    @ Booming

    "The war was a setting to tell stories in"

    The point that you're missing is I do not regard a CGI battle as a story. Go watch the scene in South Park's Imaginationland trilogy where Michael Bay is pitching "ideas" that are really just special effects. That's how I regard nearly all of the DS9 fleet engagements, with the honorable exception of Way of the Warrior, where I actually gave a shit about the characters ON BOTH SIDES; they weren't just ships manned by generic bad guys (the Klingons) or nameless redshirts (the Federation), they were all characters we were invested in who had believable motivations for their actions.

    @ Dom

    "Sure, maybe the special effects crew could have settled for 30 ships instead of 50, but that seems like nitpicking."

    You did see Jammer's statement in his review, right?

    "I don't like the visual arrangement of the fleets during the big standoff. The way the ships warp in and stop on a dime, and the way the ships are crammed comically close to each other, makes this feel like an over-the-top CGI cartoon. There's no weight or dimension to starships anymore. They have unfortunately become video game avatars that look like they were cloned with copy and paste."

    Or the comment of @Disappointed that I replied to:

    "What's with the need to have massive fleets of spaceships in Startrek now? It's like they are trying to turn it into Star Wars. The original premise of Star Trek was that space was massive and the spaceships, like a battleship or submarine, were on their own in the expanse dealing with problems they found there. So Star Fleet can now magic up 300 battleships for a situation as minor as saving the lives of 30 androids, something the Federation aparently cared nothing about for the last 10 years."

    You can dismiss it as nitpicking if you want but I still feel like all of the awe and wonder is gone from starships in the Star Trek Universe and it was DS9 -- not NuTrek -- that started the trend of cut and paste starships.

    The Orville still manages this sense of awe and wonder with a fraction of the production budget of NuTrek, IMHO, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    @Tim, yes the point Jammer was making - and I agree - is that the ships in Picard don't have any weight. They're too cluttered and it looks like the ships are right on top of each other. The zip in and out too fast. There are too many for what seems to be an engagement in some backwater planet. See for example this picture here:

    https://screenrant.com/star-trek-picard-riker-new-ship-zheng-he/

    Now DS9 did sometimes have fleets that were a bit cluttered, but they usually weren't packed like sardines. There was some space in between ships. The ships moved relatively slowly, giving the feeling that they had some weight and somebody had to actually pilot them. (except for the Defiant, which was much faster). Also, you had a greater variety of ships (note not that many Galaxy-class ships in this frame). This is an image of ships in DS9:

    https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/What_You_Leave_Behind_(episode)

    Which to my mind looks very different from the image in Discovery.

    It sounds like you're more keen on the TOS/TNG era stories that focused on a single ship exploring or moving majestically through the stars. That's fine, but that's not the story DS9 is telling. DS9 is about a war, and for a war you do need fleets. If you want to convey the stakes, you can't tell a multi-season war arc and keep the fleets entirely off-screen as happened in Best of Both Worlds. That would be like having a TV show about D-Day and never seeing images like this:

    https://fortune.com/2019/06/06/the-eyes-of-the-world-are-upon-some-of-them-raceahead/

    @ Tim
    I only picked apart these two things but I could have done it with almost every sentence you wrote but it is too long to bother going through it point by point.
    And it is the same with your new post which is shorter so here it goes.

    "The point is you can only build a ship so fast irrespective of the size of your industrial base."
    That is a sentence I find baffling. It is correct in one sense but wrong in the way you want to use it. Yes, any ship no matter how effectively build needs a minimal amount of time to be finished that has to be greater than 0.

    The Enterprise was already finished for 10 years when the big battle in DS9 happens. There could be dozens of galaxy class ships at this point. There is no reason to assume that they build them recently and only for the war. And while it is true that you cannot build ships instantly we really have no way of guessing how swift a giant federation with capabilities beyond anything we can even dream of could build something. What you are doing through most of your posts are not informed estimates but wild speculation.

    " Only so many workers can fit out a ship at one time, only so many cranes can operate in the drydock at one time, etc."
    This a good example. You probably think that this is a good point but it isn't. It is a false equivalency. Comparing the construction of an aircraft carrier done by one country, today, on earth, with today's tech and means with building a space ship in space with the means of a giant Federation with future tech and so on is the very essence of a false equivalency.

    "The point that you're missing is I do not regard a CGI battle as a story."
    What does that even mean? I'm missing that you regard something? You can regard the sky as green but that doesn't make it so. Obviously a battle CGI or not is part of a story, if portrayed in a show or movie with a consistent narrative.

    " Go watch the scene in South Park's Imaginationland trilogy where Michael Bay is pitching "ideas" that are really just special effects."
    This is again a false equivalency. In several ways actually. This scene from south park has the aim of mocking Michael Bay which has become very fashionable over the years. It is a joke obviously and not a statement of fact. Michael Bay's movies have a story. Crazy almost incomprehensible, misogynistic, militaristic, anti government dumb as rocks stories but they have a story.

    " they were all characters we were invested in who had believable motivations for their actions."
    I don't need to see a shocked Turkish police officer holding a drowned child to emphasize with refugees. If I see a Miranda class ship ripped apart and then hear Dax shout: "we just lost the Majestic and the Sitak" Then in my head I think: Man that is several hundred dead. I was a soldier and I know people who have lost people in wars. Maybe I have a different perspective because of that.
    When you watch the landing in Saving Private Ryan are you just completely detached because you don't know anybody in that scene or because you don't know the "bad guys"? The same goes for the Borg scenes. The Borg have no personalities at all. They are just a threat. Does this mean that you don't like engagements with the Borg?

    You could have just said: "I don't like big space battles. I like smaller battles where I understand the personal motivations of everybody involved" and everyone would have said: "I get that". But no people have to be insulted (Michael Bay=DS9=dumb) with very shaky arguments.

    I don't even get why this has become an argument. Like Booming said, "I don't like big space battles. I like smaller battles where I understand the personal motivations of everybody involved" is a valid opinion, but DS9 is dumb because it has CGI fleets is a bit perplexing as a criticism. As far as ship battles go, TWOK and Undiscovered Country were more compelling than the massive fleet battles in DS9. But DS9 certainly had those types of battles as well. It's not an either or situation. Sometimes the story calls for a small-scale engagement with a limited number of ships, and sometimes it calls for a fleet. They're complementary types of battles.

    If the Dominion War in DS9 was *just* CGI battles, then absolutely the show wouldn't be compelling and the criticism would be justified. But the show also had scenes point of view characters on the Defiant (and sometimes other ships), as well as episodes that depicted the war without any fleet battles. Most of the fleet battles in DS9 last mere seconds. DS9 is the fleet battles plus episodes like "Siege of AR-558," plus the banter between Weyoun and Dukat, plus the character arcs arc, etc.

    I can't think of any encounter in DS9 that's comparable to TWOK or TUC. I can't put my finger on it, but at some point they really did stop scripting the Trek battles like naval battles.

    Oh and I think those screenshots Dom or whoever linked above pretty well prove Tim's point. You can see like 3 Enterprise Ds, 6 D'deridex warbirds, and 3 Klingon BoPs that all look identical. Anyone who's ever dabbed in Maya, Houdini or similar CGI applications knows how easy it is to replicate an image like that. It's pretty lazy.

    "Who needs large space fleets when Michael Burnham can solve every problem for you."

    Or Wesley Crusher. ;-)

    @Chrome

    "I can't think of any encounter in DS9 that's comparable to TWOK or TUC. I can't put my finger on it, but at some point they really did stop scripting the Trek battles like naval battles."

    'Starship Down', the opening of 'Favor the Bold' (though technically a war crime), 'Paradise Lost'

    Re: The Mandalorian - I thought it was good, but it should have been a 6-episode season... the quality took an unexpected heavy dip with the filler episodes in the middle of the season. (And when your season is only 8 episodes, you really shouldn't need filler.) Only the excellent final two episodes saved the show really, because the goodwill, trust and consistency built up in the first three episodes was pretty much squandered by the next three. I'm not as hard on episode 4 as some people are - yes, it was cliched and sentimental, and felt like an old Xena or Stargate episode, but it was still fun, warm and likable. However, episode 5 and in particular the near-unwatchable episode 6 were absolutely wretched. Because of this, it took me until the finale to really care about the show and its characters. If the season had just been 1-2-3-4-7-8 I'd easily be giving it an A- grade. As it is, I'd have to give the season a B grade overall. I am very much looking forward to season 2 though.

    Does anyone here watch Doctor Who? A Trek friend recommended me watch an episode called "Blink" and then "Vincent and the Doctor", and said I should start watching it at the new season 5. I've seen the aforementioned two episodes, and so far it seems like really great TOS/TwilightZone styled SF stories.

    "The Dominion were just generic bad guys, scary af when first introduced but watered down to nothing by the time the war rolled around. The same Jem Hadar fighters that took down the Odyssey with ease could later be killed by a handful of photon torpedoes (if only Keogh had thought to use his!) or a single volley from a scout ship class Klingon bird-of-prey."

    It was brutal how the Federation and Dominion skips could be taken out like they were TIE-fighters by the 6th and 7th season of DS9. Galaxy Class star ships being blown to bits by Cardassian phasers? Give me a break

    "The Dominion were just generic bad guys, scary af when first introduced but watered down to nothing by the time the war rolled around. The same Jem Hadar fighters that took down the Odyssey with ease could later be killed by a handful of photon torpedoes (if only Keogh had thought to use his!) or a single volley from a scout ship class Klingon bird-of-prey."

    It was brutal how the Federation and Dominion skips could be taken out like they were TIE-fighters by the 6th and 7th season of DS9. Galaxy Class star ships being blown to bits by Cardassian phasers? Give me a break

    @Trent, I've watched the first five seasons ("series," I guess, per the British) of the newish era Doctor Who, plus some material afterwards, so including those two episodes. It's uneven but I largely enjoyed it. I think Steve Moffat is a talented writer who is clearly a big sci-fi fan/enthusiast, and has written several strong episodes...but I think that his plotting is sometimes tightly wound but nonsensical, and I don't know that his long-term arcs (from what I've seen) work that well. Moffat comes from comedy originally and there's maybe some sleek glibness over depth. His predecessor in the new Who era, Russell T. Davies, came from Queer as Folk I think and he has more of a soap sensibility, which maybe accounts for his scattershot anything-goes material with big emotional beats that sometimes land (even land hard) and sometimes just crash. I largely enjoyed what I've seen overall, with caveats. There are many who enjoy it in a less ambivalent way than me.

    Hi, William, thanks for the comments. I see what you mean about Steve Moffat. He's a bit like Brannon Braga, favoring lots of mind-bending, elaborate narrative gymnastics. I loved his season 5 of Who, but 6's arc was a bit too enamored with its cleverness, though the standalone episodes were pretty fun.

    I'm watching season 7 slowly, which thankfully focuses more on standalones, whilst simultaneously skipping ahead to season 8 and the Capaldi era, which I hear is more serious, slow and low key. I've been enjoying his Grumpy Old Man take on things. With Orville on lockdown, and having run out of Trek, Who's been scratching my SF itch.

    @ Booming

    I'm not going to get sucked into an Internet back and forth of quoting each other's posts line by line and trying to rebut every single point, but you did say one thing that I'd like to address:

    "When you watch the landing in Saving Private Ryan are you just completely detached because you don't know anybody in that scene or because you don't know the "bad guys"?"

    Saving Private Ryan's landing scene was about PEOPLE. DS9's battles were about CGI. I stand by this point and you're not terribly likely to convince me otherwise.

    Have you seen the new Midway movie? I actually liked much of it, way more than I expected I would, because it paid attention to historical details (specifically, the actions of the USS Nautilus and the attacks by the Midway based aircraft) that are usually overlooked in mainstream tellings, plus the viewpoint ship throughout was the Enterprise and I'm always down for a good CV-6 story.......

    ...... but when it came to the actual battle sequences, ugh, it was the absolute worst possible use of CGI. They made it look like a video game and it pulled me completely out of the moment, every single time, beginning with Pearl Harbor, continuing through the Marshalls–Gilberts raids, then the Doolittle Raid, and finally the big moment at Midway.

    The 1970s Midway movie was terrible, it was a love story and family drama haphazardly pasted onto a major historical event, but I'd take the battle sequences from that movie (or the infinitely superior Tora! Tora! Tora! still the gold standard) over the 2019 production.

    @ Glom

    "'Starship Down', the opening of 'Favor the Bold' (though technically a war crime), 'Paradise Lost'"

    Starship Down was a total ripoff of the submarine genre, which to be fair was "Balance of Terror" (based on "The Enemy Below") but BoT did it way better, IMHO.

    The only DS9 battle sequences I can recall having emotional weight were the destruction of the USS Odyssey and the entirety of "Way of the Warrior". The latter was the best DS9 ever did I feel, we cared about the characters on both sides, we were invested in them, we knew their motivations and the reasons for their choices......

    ..... the Dominion never had that much depth. They were just Bad Guys, Space Nazis essentially. The Klingons, Romulans, and Cardassians were presented as believable villains and occasional friends throughout DS9's run.

    @Trent, I like the Moffat/Braga comparison. Moffat's non-SF work (Sherlock, Coupling) also exhibit this at times enthralling, at times annoying penchant for cleverness. (Coupling is very formally experimental for a sex farce.) I liked series 5 but even there aspects of it bothered me (though I forget what it was exactly -- something about the Amy/Rory material, I think). I had heard that series 6 was unsuccessful for many, including ones who really loved season 5, so I gave it a pass, though I wouldn't be opposed to watching it. I like what I've seen of Capaldi's take on the Doctor. As I mentioned elsewhere I'm going through a partial classic Twilight Zone watch right now, so I'm not sure what I'll do afterwards.

    @ Tim
    Keep your opinion. It is as good as mine. In Europe discussions are less about winning but about elevating the understanding of everybody involved (compared to the USA). Of course, my comment is certainly a self-deception to some degree or maybe even propaganda which brings me to your next point.

    Almost all US war movies are propaganda. Some are more overtly, some less but almost all of them are. The USA these days sadly, considering how they started (very anti military; I'm rewatching the HBO John Adams miniseries because everybody always communicates by making great speeches which I love.) are more militarized than ever before. Therefore US war movies are always hard to digest for me personally. The flag cult and the average good GI and all that nonsense. Eh no.
    That you couldn't get into the CGI, well maybe CGI is just not for you or maybe only when it is very subtle.

    I'm not sure though that especially the landing scene is about people. We know nobody in that scene, we don't know any soldier from the other side. As I said maybe the fact that they used a lot of real sets and very little CGI is what made it more emotional for you. Being a former soldier it always bugged me how the German soldiers were using the machine guns. That is not how you use a machine gun. I was trained on a very similar (MG42 and MG3 are almost the same) machine gun and the name of the game is short bursts.

    So no I haven't seen the Midway movie. The thing is, and the same applies to Saving Private Ryan, that the US Americans always trick themselves into believing that Midway or the landing in Normandy were somehow deciding/very important but they really weren't. The US would have won the Pacific War if they had lost or not in the Battle of Midway. The US just had a so much higher steel production.

    And the second front (not counting Italy) was certainly important but on the Eastern Front the Wehrmacht had 10x the soldiers than on the Western Front. Plus the divisions in army group west (The German army group in France) were often third rate and understaffed. In other words the Western Allies were fighting the little finger of the German army.
    The German army lost more soldiers in the battle of Stalingrad (and there were several battles like that) than the USA during the entire war (the Russians lost a million soldiers during that battle)
    Bottom line: When American companies do history they normally do it badly.

    I really don't know what my point was but I have written too much to erase it again. Submit Comment.

    @ Booming
    You said
    “In Europe discussions are less about winning but about elevating the understandings of everybody involved (compared to the USA)”
    as well as saying
    “Almost all USA war movies are propaganda”

    Those are both quite ignorant statements that say more about you than they speak to actual truth. Just a cursory look at your comments will show that you yourself seem more interested in “winning” arguments than any single American on here. And as far as the statement “almost all USA war movies are propaganda”, I don’t think that could be further from the truth. I won’t get into what exactly “an American war movie” even means because you could say Pan’s Labyrinth is American War movie if you wanted to since it deals with war and the investors of the film were American. But I’ll just look at some of the most well known. PLATOON- Fully shows the horrors of war. Don’t see propaganda. FULL METAL JACKET- see previous. APOCALYPSE NOW- see previous. THE HURT LOCKER- PTSD and trauma, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN- specifically shows the cost of human life and losing loved ones, THE DEER HUNTER- completely anti Vietnam war, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY- completely anti Vietnam War, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA- American film using native Japanese actors spoken in Japanese to easily relate to and humanize the Japanese soldiers of WWII, SCHINDLER’S LIST- American made WW2 film showing how a German man saved thousands of Jews from their death and the horrors of war.

    In short I think you made a ignorant and bigoted statement. If you would like to choose to have a view that Americans just want to argue and make “propaganda war films”, well you have a right to think that way. But just a small fact check on the films you are talking about will show nearly none of them are “propaganda”.

    @ Cody B.
    I guess it was too subtle then. I started my post with a statement and then wrote that the statement is self deception or could be considered propaganda.

    You need to insult me for my opinion several times, not only for this specific post but in general kind of proves my point.

    Why do I think that US war movies almost always, even if they are anti war, are propaganda?
    PLATOON: The hero of the movie is a volunteer who joins because he wants to do the right thing (basically Stone's story) but then step by step notices that war is bad. America good, war bad. One could add that weapon tech in almost all movies is portrayed in a cool looking way. And while Oliver Stone has certainly a viewpoint I can respect, he is also a patriot and it shows in many of his movies.

    I could write something about the rest of the movies but eh..

    I could also name a 1000x more US movies who are pro war and very openly propaganda.

    "an American war movie” even means because you could say Pan’s Labyrinth is American War movie"
    No. Pan's labyrinth is not a war movie. The spanish civil war at that point was already over. It is more about the aftermath.
    Schindler's list is also not a war movie but a movie about the holocaust. Wiki calls it "War film is a film genre concerned with warfare, typically about naval, air, or land battles, with combat scenes central to the drama." There is of course no official definition.

    " Just a cursory look at your comments will show that you yourself seem more interested in “winning” arguments than any single American on here."

    I actually try to make my posts, even in heated discussions, interesting, insightful and open for readers who aren't directly involved and for the person(s) who is/are. I also try to find my own mistakes and biases and name them. If somebody states something that is flat out wrong then I correct that. If you consider this wanting to win, fine. If somebody attacks me, I defend myself and then it can be about winning but in hindsight even if I have the upper hand in these hostile arguments it is not emotionally beneficial. I could argue that you see my posts as being only about winning because you maybe come from a culture were not losing is the most important thing and winning is achieved by prevailing over ones adversaries.

    @Booming
    “You need to insult me for my opinion several times, not only for this specific post but in general kind of proves my point”

    Wasn’t trying to insult you. I said you made a ignorant and bigoted statement. I stand by that. You made a sweeping generalization about an entire country. If that’s not bigoted and ignorant idk what is. Doesn’t mean I think you are a bad person or unintelligent, it’s just unfortunate. It’s how a lot of people are. They will make ignorant comments about an entire race, religion, nationality, gender or sexuality freely but then play the innocent victim if they perceive someone talking down about one of those things when it comes to them. It’s how people are I guess.


    “I could argue that you see my posts as being only about winning because you maybe come from a culture were not losing is the most important thing and winning is achieved by prevailing over ones adversaries.”

    Not sure where you are trying to go with that statement but it certainly seems like reaching. Another low blow and unwarranted sweeping generalization of American people perhaps?

    Sure you could probably list pro war American movies. None of them would be as popular or critically acclaimed as the ones I listed though. The ones I listed are the ones people have seen. And saying “but the weapon tech in some of those movies is showed in a cool way” is subjective. A gun being fired in a war movie doesn’t make the movie “propaganda”. It just means weapons were shown and fired.

    @ Cody B.
    " I said you made a ignorant and bigoted statement. I stand by that. You made a sweeping generalization about an entire country"
    I made a comment about a genre of movies created by an industry in the US.

    " Doesn’t mean I think you are a bad person or unintelligent, it’s just unfortunate. It’s how a lot of people are. They will make ignorant comments about an entire race,..."
    Now you are comparing me to racists?!

    "Another low blow and unwarranted sweeping generalization of American people perhaps?"
    Ok, so you are US American. I didn't even know that. Wouldn't you say that a lot of US American culture is geared towards a mindset that creates dichotomies bad vs good; us vs them? And that this aspect could be more pronounced in US culture than in other cultures?

    @Booming
    "I guess it was too subtle then. I started my post with a statement and then wrote that the statement is self deception or could be considered propaganda. "

    Does that make it okay?

    How does this sound to you:

    "Straight people are nice and fair. Gays are rude and a bunch of liars. This statement of mine could be seen as a rude lie.

    [then comes a 100-word rant that pretty much enforces the idea that gays are rude and a bunch of liars]"

    Would you like it if somebody said that to you?

    @Omicron
    "Does that make it okay?"
    I would think so. I'm basically saying that the statement "In Europe discussions are less about winning but about elevating the understanding of everybody involved (compared to the USA)" has a good chance of not being true. The "In Europe" statement was just a segueway to talk about propaganda movies. I do think that the US is right now is in a very combative state when it comes to internal conflicts. But EU meetings are no picknick either. So there you go.

    By the way,my opinion that most US war movies are some form of propaganda is not the same as homophobia which has caused the death of countless people. That comparison is a little off.

    Cody said: "PLATOON- Fully shows the horrors of war. FULL METAL JACKET- see previous. APOCALYPSE NOW- see previous. THE HURT LOCKER- PTSD and trauma, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN- specifically shows the cost of human life and losing loved ones, THE DEER HUNTER- completely anti Vietnam war, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY- completely anti Vietnam War, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA- American film using native Japanese actors spoken in Japanese to easily relate to and humanize the Japanese soldiers of WWII, SCHINDLER’S LIST- American made WW2 film showing how a German man saved thousands of Jews from their death and the horrors of war."

    "Showing horrors" doesn't make something "not propaganda". Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ", for example, spends most of its running time watching as Jesus gets graphically brutalized. Once the audience is sufficiently bludgeoned into feeling guilty, it then hits you with its message: this death saved you, earn this, and worship at the altar of the cross. In this way, you're positioned to adopt a very specific ideology.

    “Saving Private Ryan” pulls the same stunt. You watch Americans get brutalized for two hours, before it guilts you into legitimizing its message: earn this, these Christ-like soldiers died for you, scarified themselves on the altar of “freedom” etc. Along the way you have other little sneaky bits – a German who is shown compassion comes back to murder an American, little symbolic scenes with Jews and German knives etc – all serving to bolster a very silly and a very American view of the war, scrubbed clean of any wider political, geographical or socio-economic context. And of course our heroes are always outnumbered, out-teched and out-gunned, like cowboys surrounded by Indians in westerns, another genre that specialized in reversing history and feigning victimhood.

    If “Saving Private Ryan” got high on its little war-porny set pieces – there's a reason its chief influence has been video games – “Schindler's List” plays like a snuff film getting high on its little torture sequences, Jews hunted by Nazis like humans were by sharks, tripods and dinosaurs in Spielberg's fantasy films. Ralph Fiennes even gets his own little arc which serves to explicitly prove how much of a monstrously “inexplicable” thing Naziism is ("I can't help being evil!"). Causes, politics and context don't matter. Then you get the Zionist ending, Jews “deservedly” marching to Palestine/Israel to the tune of Jerusalem of Gold.

    “Hurt Locker”, meanwhile, bends over backwards not to say anything about US involvement in the Middle East. The director's “Zero Dark Thirty” was even worse.

    Then you have Vietnam. Like most American war movies, "Deer Hunter", "Apocalypse Now" and "Platoon" hinge on romanticised madness and much macho self pity. The overriding message is always "look what they did to us", the Vietnamese largely invisible, and the Vietnam war itself rendered incomprehensible. In the case of "Deer Hunter", you have the Vietnamese portrayed as grinning savages (their dialogue is not even Vietnamese) and introduced with propagandistic scenes showing the NVA killing babies and women (and later toying with Americans with their roulette games or tiger cages, which historically didn't happen; it was the US-backed South Vietnam torturing the vietcong in the infamous cages). "Platoon" and “July”, Stone's genuine attempts at “anti Vietnam war” films, themselves can't escape being about the lost innocence of white dudes. There's a solipsism and myopia to these films that, even when the author has the best intentions, can't help being propagandistic.

    “Full Metal Jacket”, made by a dude with some brains, at least seems to critique this trend. Here you have a cynical hipster – Private Joker, who believes himself immune from propaganda, who believes himself having survived bootcamp brainwashing as a "free-thinking individual" – nevertheless still intellectualizing and rationalizing himself into being a good Imperialist. He/America rapes Vietnam in the name of saving Vietnam. He kills, he convinces himself, in the name of mercy and humanitarianism. Tellingly, it's also the only film where the combat has the white boys always comically outnumbering the Vietnamese (they're in their safe military base, walking behind convoys of tanks, up against a single child etc), and where Vietnam's an actual civilization that gets pulverized rather than a nightmarish, lawless jungle in need of taming by the Mickey Mouse Club.

    So American war films are largely propaganda. And it's not bigoted to say this. I'm always reminded of Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle's joke about them: “American foreign policy is horrendous. Not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse, they come back twenty years later and make a movie about how killing all your people made their soldiers oh so sad! Boo hoo! Americans making a movie about what war did to their soldiers, is like a serial killer telling you what stopping for hitch-hikers did to his clutch.”

    A lot of this is to do with funding too. You don't get Pentagon support and access to gear if your script doesn't toe the party line (and a lot of military contractors have shares in big movie studios and TV stations). Stuff like "Full Metal Jacket" and "Redacted" couldn't get US military approval, and the Department of Defense turned down each of Stone's three Vietnam films.

    @Trent

    I suppose that’s the thing about art. You see in it what you want. You are choosing to discount every movie I named as having any artistic value and that they are only “propaganda”. They just couldn’t have any meaning and message other than “propaganda”. I’m not going to comment much on your racist multiple usage of the term “white boys” but I really hope you grow up. You are talking about grown men who were brave enough to put their life on the line for other people. Whether you agree with wars they served in or not you should have enough respect to not call them “white boys”.

    Trent - your use of the term solipsism is completely off the mark. I suggest you stick to film analysis. Also, you sound like an anti-American schmuck. Some of your criticism is legit, but much of it is just triggered hate.

    In fairness, maybe Trent is having a really bad day. I've read some solid posts from him. Many people are having a tough time dealing with reality these days, lashing out in some oddly irrational ways. I hope things calm down for his and many others' sakes.

    "you are choosing to discount every movie I named as having any artistic value and that they are only “propaganda”
    That is not what he did.

    " I’m not going to comment much on your racist multiple usage of the term “white boys” but I really hope you grow up."
    White boy is racist now? I think it is quite alright to call teenagers (average age of vietnam soldiers was 19) boys. People have no problem calling women in their 30s girls.

    Let's bring this back to Star Trek guys.

    whoops correction the average age was a little higher. For a private it was probably 22.

    @ Trent, any friend who starts you off with Blink, is a good friend indeed :-)

    Blink is probably one of the best of nuWho. The girl in the episode is played by Carey Mulligan, who went on to have a pretty amazing acting career. Those were the days when Who could spot top talent. Sort of like how Trek, back in TOS movie and TNG days, had Kirstie Alley, Ashley Judd and Famke Janssen.

    Stephen Moffat probably made his reputation with nuWho viewers back when Girl in the Fireplace aired in the second series. If you haven’t seen it, check it out. The Doctor’s real-life wife, Sophia Jane Myles, plays Madame de Pompadour to perfection. The second series brought on David Tennant, who provided a wonderful new energy to the role.

    You’ll see Moffat's name pop up quite a bit on the Hugo Awards list. His wins were mostly back when nuWho was competing with the greats like Buffy, nBSG, Firefly, and even early seasons of Game of Thrones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Award_for_Best_Dramatic_Presentation#Short_Form

    These days "The Expanse" and "The Good Place" - both incredible shows - win the Hugo. nuWho and nuTrek just aren’t up to that level of competition any more.

    @Booming

    Nice attempt to pretend you’re the bigger man.

    “Let me try to tear down and argue against everything you said and then end it with ‘Let’s keep it about Star Trek guys’”

    And yes calling a grown man a “white boy” is racist. The intent behind calling people “white boys” is to demean. This is common sense I don’t know why I’m even explaining it.

    This is the last time I will be replying on this thread

    @Cody
    Why did you put that opinion of yours in quotes?

    "And yes calling a grown man a “white boy” is racist. ... .This is common sense I don’t know why I’m even explaining it."
    You continue the good fight against anti white hate!
    Let this scene inspire you (I'm the old war horse and you are Hood).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kP402-EoRo

    "This is the last time I will be replying on this thread"
    We shall see. :)

    @ Cody B, of course it is racist to refer to a person by the color of their skin. It is by definition reductive, and thus demeaning.

    But at least, in a few hundred years, we can look forward to the range of skin colors being expanded. And the range of slurs will also be expanded ;)

    SHRAN: Captain Archer. Look at the trouble you've gotten your pink skin into this time.

    Worry not, @Cody B, it could always be worse. Imagine you were green!

    https://youtu.be/rRZ-IxZ46ng

    It's not that easy being green;
    Having to spend each day the color of the leaves.
    When I think it could be nicer being red, or yellow or gold-
    or something much more colorful like that.

    But with Star Trek, there is always hope!

    By the time we get to the 23rd century, officers like Uhura are able to let such moronic words just roll off their backs, even when those words come from someone like honest Abe.

    https://youtu.be/2BBOWsWODX4

    Sadly, you and I are not likely to see such a day.

    One would only hope that folks on @Jammer's site could refrain from such ugly behaviour. But these nuTreks seem to attract the worst sorts.

    You all were so busy being pissed off that you didn't see that Star Trek: Strange New Worlds has been announced.

    A Star Trek Show, about the Enterprise, under Captain Pike!

    "Number One, Spock and Pike!
    Sounds great, what's not to like?"

    ... Of course, I'm sure you guys will find things not to like. Maybe besides each other's comments, even.

    I get it though, if you weren't pissed off you'd have nothing to type angry screeds about...

    It is good news. Anson Mount deserved his own show considering how much he carried DISCO season 2. I'm looking forward to getting to know Rebecca Romijn's Number One better too. Turns out Pike's a fascinating character which is funny considering his humble roots in the ill-fated TOS pilot.

    So, I guess the question is now how much will they respect TOS canon? Discovery was propelled into the future because the writers felt constrained by the franchise's history and now they're doing a 180 with a show that will live off that canon.

    I can’t wait to hate the new Captain Pike show (which I will never watch, and about which, I do not know a thing) already. Two months without new Trek news to preemptively hate on has really sucked!

    Great to hear the news there's going to be a new Pike show. As the fourth (!) new Trek show in four years, I hope they take this one in a more episodic direction. And that's all I have to say about it until we see more!

    Let's hope that in the future they keep the Botox away from Romijn because that forehead is not moving.

    Cody said: "You are choosing to discount every movie I named as having any artistic value"

    You're changing the topic. Nobody's talking about "artistic value". We're talking about the "propaganda", be it explicit or implicit, of American war films, which many, especially non-Americans and film scholars, routinely regard these films as being rife with. And this is true of many war films, be they made by jingoistic guys like Michael Bay, or supposedly prestigious directors like Spielberg or Ridley Scott (who admits he made “Black Hawk Down” as a modern version of one of his favorite films as a kid, “Zulu”, which pined for the glory days of British Imperialism).


    Cody said: “I’m not going to comment much on your racist multiple usage of the term “white boys””

    My usage of “white boys” was deliberate, not “racist”, and your reaction to it – and missing of its point – further proves Booming's point.

    Booming: “Hi guys, did you know most American war films are propagandistic?”

    Cody: “That is a bigoted statement. Here are some Vietnam war films which have no propaganda!”

    Booming: “The Vietnam war, a war in which countless millions of civilians were murdered, in which thousands were tortured, in which the country was obliterated by more bombs than were dropped in the entirety of WW2, in which hundreds of thousands continue to die to mines, chemical poisonings and mutations, in which the nation was illegally artificially divided and a dictator propped up, in which the CIA colluded with the ARVN to stage terrorist attacks on civilians to foment agitation, in which the US turned down Vietnamese pleas for emancipation from French rule (and help in writing a democratic constitution) and instead sided with and armed the French, leading to films which whitewash all history and politics, never-mind the Vietnamese themselves, to focus instead on sad white guys gunning down faceless primitives (in “Apocalypse Now”, the Vietnamese literally walk about with bows and arrows!), isn't propagandistic? Propaganda has always hinged on omission!”

    Cody: “You said 'white guys', that is bigoted!”

    Booming: “War, colonialism, and white power are intertwined, and racialist thought has always bed-rocked western warfare. Being blind to this is itself a tenet of racism.”

    Cody: “Black lives matter is also racist! All lives matter!”

    Booming: “Ima walk away now.”


    Cody said: “but I really hope you grow up.”

    It's the other way around. The war genre is largely juvenile, panders to baser blood lusts, and rarely goes beyond designer carnage and much romanticised madness. Were the genre to “grow up”, it would actually examine the wars they profess to be about, but they can't, and so remain trapped on a apolitical level, collapsing conflicts to the level of soldiers looking out for fellow soldiers, everything else cynically dismissed.


    Cody said: “You are talking about grown men who were brave enough to put their life on the line for other people. Whether you agree with wars they served in or not you should have enough respect to...”

    More Gulf War and Vietnam vets died of suicide at home than in their respective theaters of war. On a literal level, their home soil is more hazardous then the wars they “braved”. And the reason for these suicides is largely due to the discrepancy between the actuality of war, and the kind of bogus mythologies their nations instil them with, and which you're trying to perpetuate here.

    And of course most of these soldiers don't “choose to put their lives on the line”, as you claim. Most soldiers are low income, 66 percent of US soldiers were drafted in WW2, 90 percent of US army soldiers were draftees at the height of Vietnam, over 40 percent were black, and none have the freedom to disregard wars they object to. There is little “free choice” here. The notion that they're “saving people” is similarly an insult to the colossal acts of evil that were the Gulf and Vietnam Wars, and even the supposed "Good War" of WW2, in which the chief allies were busy engaging in modern colonialism in the Caribbean, Africa, China, South America and Asia, and suppressing democracy at home. Their “war on fascism” itself had little to do with any morally consistent “objection to fascism” either (or “saving Jews from Hitler”, as a common WW2 myth goes; one recalls the sneaky subplot in “Saving Private Ryan”, in which an intellectual/pacifist character stands by and watches while a Jew dies slowly to a knife by a German who was “compassionately” released earlier in the film).

    This is why I mentioned Mel Gibson's “Passion of the Christ” earlier. Jacques Ellul, an expert on propaganda, once (correctly) predicted that military mythology would increasingly come to resemble religious mythology and iconography. And so you have one BS narrative – Christ's sacrifice - morphing into another: freedom needing to be periodically replenished by blood being spilled on the altar of the military, soldier's torn bodies used to bolster not the church, but faith in the state. But Christ didn't die for your sins, is largely made up, as are most things attributed to soldiers.

    White said: "Trent - your use of the term solipsism is completely off the mark."

    Im using the word in the sense of being myopic, navel-gazing and self-centered. I mean, "Deer Hunter" is literally a Vietnam film about a dude who broods for 3 hours because he cant bang Meryl Streep. His dilemma: leave the guy Streep wants to marry to be tortured by Vietcong caricatures, or rescue him and live the rest of his life celibate. The horrorrrrr...!

    Mal said: "Stephen Moffat probably made his reputation with nuWho viewers back when Girl in the Fireplace aired in the second series....."

    That episode was recommended to me too, and I almost watched it last week, but I think I'm going to watch season 5 to 12 before looping back and catching the David Tenant era. I've not seen "The Expanse", but agree that "The Good Place" is excellent.

    Star Trek: Strange New Worlds announcement is probably most celebrated by those few youtube conspiracists. It's yet one more season of Trek during which they can sucker haters and milk their pre-programmed deep loathing for more clicks and revenue.

    Oh Trent, you made me sound so eloquent. :D


    @Mertov
    Sooner or later the people will get tired of hating it, probably in general, too. CBS has now almost achieved it's goal. Having Star Trek all year round, in the hopes that people will keep their subscriptions. I guess Star Trek is the only thing so far that brings subscriptions. How many shows are there, 6?? Let's see: Discovery, Picard, Strange new worlds, section 31 show. Four show with 10 episodes would be enough for an all year round cycle. Then there are the two animated shows for tse schildrenn.

    They can launch as many new series as they want, the writing won't improve if they're all written by the same people. This sounded promising at first, but the pilot is written by Akiva Goldsman based on a story by Akiva Goldsman, Alex Kurtzman and Jenny Lumet (I didn't recognise the last name, but she wrote that dreadful Short Trek where Tilly meets the magical space queen). They all have a terrible track record. It's not about whether they are or aren't good at writing Star Trek or whether or not they get Star Trek - they are bad at writing drama.

    TNG was awful for the first 2 seasons and only became a beloved high-quality show and pop-cultural behemoth because it was totally overhauled by Michael Piller and the writers he hired. (This in turn is the only reason we ever got DS9 and VOY.) Current Star Trek needs a similar complete overhaul of this kind, because it's jut not working, it's as bad as or worse than those first two TNG seasons. Instead, they keep launching new shows. Imagine if at the end of season 2 of TNG, instead of doing that overhaul that gave us season 3 and everything that followed, they'd instead launched various spinoffs and side series with the same level of quality as S1-2 TNG, in the hope that one of them would take off. That's what's happening with Trek at the moment.

    Fix the writing first. It's the foundation on which everything else rests.

    @wolfstar, I agree, but unfortunately the viewer ratings for these new shows are strong enough that I doubt we're going to get a shakeup of the writers room. I guess nostalgia's a powerful drug.

    "to focus instead on sad white guys gunning down faceless primitives (in “Apocalypse Now”, the Vietnamese literally walk about with bows and arrows!), isn't propagandistic?"

    Sorry this part kind of grabbed my eye as I was skimming your post - did you just cite Apocalypse Now as an example of pro American Vietnam War propaganda?

    @ Dom
    If it is Nostalgia. Look at it like this. The most successful restaurant chain is McDonalds. Is the quality good? No. Are the waiters nice? No. Does the restaurant look inviting? No. Is the menu varied and interesting? No.
    It is fat, salt and sugar and the seed for wanting it is often planted in childhood.

    I think they are trying the same with Star Trek. That is why we get two shows aimed at kids. That is why the adult shows are that special blend. it's all surface and pretty much the same. You don't go to McDonalds because you want an adventure. And getting guys like Chabon is like getting a famous chef to design the new burger. Well, if Chabon is involved then it cannot be garbage?!

    This is going to be the first show I will not watch from the start. Maybe I'll binge it, if it turns out to be good but probably not.

    @ Jason
    I think Trent tried to show that a war movie can be anti war but still pro US propaganda. I wouldn't even think that there are bad intentions. The US audience would not be really interested in the suffering of the Vietnamese, it is more easy to emotionally connect with people you know, like the US soldiers and to connect with them you need to make some or most of them sympathetic. It is also uncomfortable for an audience that still embraces thoughts like shining city on a hill and so on to come to terms with the fact that the USA did horrible stuff to a third world country because of a theory (domino) that turned out to be wrong and didn't even fit the situation. Movies to a large part are about wishfulfillment and who wants to be part of the evil empire murdering and torturing millions of people for no real reason in a war started under false pretense.

    That was the genius of Roddenberry. To basically talk about the horror but in a way that was not too overt. Roddenberry wrote himself that if he could have made it if he really wanted to then nobody would have watched it.

    I think Apocalypse Now is guilty of disinterest in the Vietnamese as people, but I think it's different from even Oliver Stone's films. Whereas the protagonists in the (somewhat autobiographical) Stone films have an idealism which is put through the reality of their war, IIRC the major characters in Apocalypse Now are megalomaniacs (Kurtz), aloof cynics (Willard) or simply psychopathic (Kilgore). Even the US sending Willard to stop Kurtz seems largely to be about PR and Kurtz stepping out of line rather than a principled objection to his method. It really seems to depict the US as being a violent empire using various types of psycho to get its ends, which already has a "heart of darkness," and uses a whole country and people to play out its violent fantasies.

    I think that the case that might make AN "PRO-US propaganda" is that, as I say, the Vietnamese are not really treated as people, and there is the sense in which the main problem of Kilgore napalming is that it's bad for him to kill, rather than that it's bad that the Vietnamese were killed. There is probably some idea that the violence of the environment accelerated the process by which the violence of the US characters was brought out, though I think it mostly seems to be arguing that it's the power to do what they want without consequences is the real reason for the horror.

    William your take on the film is more in line with mine. I do think it's a valid criticism that the Vietnemese characters are largely faceless, but then again, if they were portrayed as more human (from the point of view of the American protagonists) then it would negate or undermine part of the film's thesis about human nature.

    In any event, I just thought it was risible to suggest that such a film could be in any way pro American.

    It's funny this film came up. My sister was saying how she was amazed at the risks Trump was taking re: Covid given his age and weight and such and she was half-joking she wished he'd be the victim of his own stupidity.

    I told her he reminded me of Robert Duvall's character in Apocalypse Now, who was walking into machine gun fire without a care in the world yet everyone just *knew* wouldn't "get a scratch" in the war. Kind of a metaphor for America itself maybe (not that I am anti American mind you!)

    The Rober Duvall comparison is kind of fitting. You somehow know that Trump will not get sick.

    " wouldn't "get a scratch" in the war. Kind of a metaphor for America itself maybe"
    Considering the scale of the outbreak. In the last 6 weeks the USA only had two days with less than 20k new cases. The numbers aren't really going down and now they are opening again. It seems to be a very strange approach that will cost a lot.

    In Germany we had the peak 5 weeks ago with 7k new cases for 5 days and they started opening here when the cases were around 1k (yesterday it was 700; for the US it was more than 25k).

    Yeah Jason. I think to further elaborate, I think the film (and Coppola, and Conrad) have a "thesis about human nature" which is not Vietnam War-specific, and so is maybe using a very recent tragedy to harp on an abstract point, when maybe/probably some more specifics of what was specific to this conflict (and the American aims therein, and the Vietnamese experience) would be more appropriate. It's kind of a psychodrama/bad acid trip of a movie and is, in that sense, kind of solipsistic. Still, it's pretty remarkable too for how brazen it is at undermining the notion of US good intentions. One of the advantages of sci-fi/fantasy is that it's possible to do the kind of mythic storytelling that plumbs the depths of human nature without having to hold the burden of making sure you're using the right subject matter.

    "It's funny this film came up. My sister was saying how she was amazed at the risks Trump was taking re: Covid given his age and weight and such and she was half-joking she wished he'd be the victim of his own stupidity.

    I told her he reminded me of Robert Duvall's character in Apocalypse Now, who was walking into machine gun fire without a care in the world yet everyone just *knew* wouldn't "get a scratch" in the war. Kind of a metaphor for America itself maybe (not that I am anti American mind you!)"

    That really gets at it. Trump, like Kilgore, is apparently Teflon and nothing sticks. The rest of America is not. It does seem likely that eventually some of Trump's brazenness will bite him in a way that seems to do some actual harm to him (getting sick, for instance), but probably he will just continue until then, and he'll just be invincible until the moment he isn't.

    I'm also reminded of that moment when Trump looked at the eclipse with naked eyes while everyone else wore protective glasses. It's a tiny, tiny moment but feels like it explains a lot of what this guy is about.

    @Booming

    I'm the same. This is the most promising because Anson Mount was great, but I also heard they're bringing a young too Kirk into it. I just rewatched 'The Menagerie' to check (fine episode) and Kirk had met Pike at an event once. So there's no seed to explore. It's just retconning for the purposes of fanservice. So that automatically puts me off. I really hate fanservice. It makes me feel patronised and demeaned.

    But I'm just worn out by all this Star Trek. They have in the works more TV shows that the first 50 years combined. Now I know how Star Wars fans feel. I've just lost interest.

    While we're at it, "Full Metal Jacket" is not pro-war propaganda either. The first act makes recruitment look like a living hell and notably drives someone to murder-suicide.

    I sort of see the point that there were "cool-looking action scenes" in the movie that promoted war and American imperialism on a superficial level, but the *explicit* message of the film is akin to trying to maintain your humanity when everyone around you is a pro-war nut. Otherwise, there's some really biting commentary on the futility of fighting a war in Vietnam (where you're not wanted) and Lyndon B. Johnson's questionable decision to draft people into that mess.

    A litmus test for propaganda is that it will not show the downside to the promoted cause.

    @wolfstar

    Exactly. We have three full seasons of shows to show us what to expect. These are the same showrunners, writers and actors. I’ll watch it. Once. There will be a couple episodes I liked but didn’t love. Overall I will be disappointed. At this point if anyone is actually getting excited and expecting a great show you should consider the ‘fool me once’ saying

    “At this point if anyone is actually getting excited and expecting a great show you should consider the ‘fool me once’ saying”

    Many of us liked the other shows, so there’s plenty of reasons to get excited. But I agree, if you didn’t like the other shows, you should just move on. There’s plenty of other Treks and sci-fi in general out there to talk about.

    @Mike C

    It’s more nuanced and complicated than that. I agree that there are some people who seem to really get angry and write many scathing diatribes to each episode. Moving on might be good for them if they are getting that upset. But many of not most of us just want better. We love Star Trek and will be watching and hoping for the best but not getting anything near that.

    Fair enough, Cody B, although you need to realize no one here (not even Jammer) has creative control over the Star Trek properties. If you’re that interested in the show’s future why not email or tweet some of the people involved in making it. Complaining here might temporarily make you feel better, but realistically it won’t change anything.

    Good to see that most people aren't buying the way the show so casually tries to excuse the murder of Maddox. All the characters seem to quickly forgive and forget because they're all one big happy family now, but that won't bring Maddox back.

    Even though they brought back Culber, and Tyler arguably had a better excuse, not everyone completely forgave or forgot Tyler for what Voq did, or if they did, it took a while. Agnes will ultimately face the law, but will either be pardoned or found not guilty in short order because, like Tyler, her place in the show is assured not by the audience's approval but because the creators have an overriding respect for the actor.

    #JusticeforMaddox

    William B - whether Apocalypse Now is a psychodrama or bad acid trip does not make it solipsistic. It makes it either a dubious recollection or a figment of one's hallucinating mind. Solipsism is a metaphysical/epistemological concept that questions the ontological basis for anything existing outside of one's mind. As a variant, it questions whether knowledge of the external world is possible. This, in turn, impacts our ability to know others as we do ourselves (assuming they even exist).

    You at least make the effort to apply the term with some degree of accuracy. Trent's post was just an America hating rant littered with unsupported and hyperbolic conclusions.

    @James White, I've often seen solipcism colloquially used to mean self-absorbed (or absorbed in one's own group or country's perspective) to the point where the internal realities of others (other peoples) are not considered to be real or meaningful. This is related to but distinct from its definition as philosophical concept, but, fair enough, I'd be happy to substitute a different term. My (very brief) web search suggests that this informal meaning of solipcism isn't found in the dictionaries I checked.

    @Trent, glad I am not the only one who found the stuff at the end (with Picard “dying” and Data dying) really weak.

    @OTDP, I agree with you that AI is still sentient if it is complex enough—that it doesn’t have to be formed from the same physical components as our brains.

    Relatedly, two recent science fiction series I have really enjoyed are Devs on Hulu and Upload on Amazon.

    @ SlackerInc
    I watched the first and a half episodes of upload and I find it a little meh. It's like schmalzy boring black mirror with supermodels. The leads are pretty bland, don't you think?

    @MidshipmanNorris
    "You all were so busy being pissed off that you didn't see that Star Trek: Strange New Worlds has been announced."

    Oh, we've noticed. Some of us simply don't care anymore.

    "A Star Trek Show, about the Enterprise, under Captain Pike!"

    Yeah! What could go wrong?

    The only thing that would have been even better, is a post-Nemesis show centered on the legendary Jean Luc Picard played by the legendary Patrick Stewart.

    Oh, wait...

    "... Of course, I'm sure you guys will find things not to like."

    I'm sure we will.

    But not because we're actively looking for such things. Seriously, how dense do you need to be, in order to believe that Star Trek fans *want* to hate Star Trek?

    We don't *want* to hate Kurtzman-Trek. It's just that the material (at least so far) was so terrible that it didn't give us any other choice.

    But hey! Don't let a bunch of old whiners stop you! Just imagine all the murder and eye-gouging and dystopian sh*t you'll be depriving yourself of, had you listened to the naysayers. After all, it has the words "Star Trek" in the title, so it has to be good, right?

    @Omicron
    You have forgotten the obviously best show called strangest new worlds. Ok so listen, Picard is Captain but Kirk is also Captain, because of the bad stuff that always happens, Starfleet instituted collegiality and Kirk and Picard change command every month. Spock is first officer for Picard, Riker is also first officer but for Kirk. Basically it's two people for everything and because the enterprise was thrown into the future, Starfleet thought that it would be good to combine the two crews. Everybody is back, the old crew and new crew. It will be totally familiar and absolutely new.

    And they fight against the Borg, commanded by clone Locutus but the Borg are actually running from an even bigger threat. A species that conquers universe after universe. One of their ships can destroy all the fleets in our galaxy. They are more powerful than a thousand Q's!!!

    I think I'm going to need a Red Letter Media video or Plinkett Review on the reveal to tell me how I should feel about this new Pike era show.

    "But hey! Don't let a bunch of old whiners stop you! "

    Not to worry, because we won't.

    I liked the actor who played Pike in STD but he was kinda written as Captain Cool-Dad; he seemed to put up with a lot more backtalk and order-questioning than any other captain.

    Also does that mean more Spock? Probably?

    @Tommy D.
    "I think I'm going to need a Red Letter Media video or Plinkett Review on the reveal to tell me how I should feel about this new Pike era show."

    It's not like what you're doing is any better, is it? Following one herd isn't any better than following another.

    Here is a shocking idea:

    How about you think for yourself and make up your own mind?

    @Booming

    LOL

    I'm picturing Kurtzman stumbling upon your post and saying to himself "hey, now that's a great idea!". You just know that what he'll think. ;-)

    Here's a shocking revelation about your shocking idea, something I posted before Picard aired:

    "Think I’m going to do this the old school way. I’ll watch it, then formulate my opinion.

    Then I’ll read Jammer’s review 🙂"

    In fact, you have a comment right below mine.

    https://www.jammersblog.com/2019/07/20/latest-picard-trailer-reveals-familiar-faces/#comments

    @Tommy D
    "Here's a shocking revelation about your shocking idea, something I posted before Picard aired"

    I wasn't talking about that.

    I was talking about how you happily joined the herd of mockers in a mob attack against those whose only "sin" is having a different opinion.

    Seriously. The new Pike series was just announced and what's the first thing that nearly everybody is doing? Mock the "haterz". As if people cannot possibly have perfectly legitimate reasons for disliking the direction that Trek is taking right now. As if three complete seasons is not enough information to base an informed opinion on.

    That's the herd I'm talking about.

    And you know what's really frightening? There wasn't a single Nu-Trek fan that refrained from doing that. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

    I find this kind of mob mentality to be downright scary. Is that the face of Star Trek's fandom now?

    "And you know what's really frightening? There wasn't a single Nu-Trek fan that refrained from doing that. NOT A SINGLE ONE."

    How can you know that?

    @William B

    I meant that there wasn't a single person who voiced their enthusiasm for the Pike series who didn't do that.

    So far, at least.

    If you want to change that statistic, I'm all for it :-)

    @OTDP,

    Ha, fair enough (though I haven't followed the thread closely). I am not that excited about the Pike show, it just seemed a pretty sweeping statement.

    @William B

    Apparently I haven't really followed the thread closely either... Not everybody did it. My apologies to Tim C and Mike C, whose reasonable voices were drowned by louder and ruder people.

    Still, upon rechecking carefully, the majority did do exactly as I said and It still reeks of mob mentality.

    @OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
    My intitial response was to this:

    "But hey! Don't let a bunch of old whiners stop you! Just imagine all the murder and eye-gouging and dystopian sh*t you'll be depriving yourself of, had you listened to the naysayers. After all, it has the words "Star Trek" in the title, so it has to be good, right?"

    You made a snarky implication about people who enjoy "Nu-Trek" (implying sheep mentality, also I don't enjoy eye gouging), so I responded with a snarky comment of my own (implying sheep mentality), and then you doubled down with more snark as a response (implying sheep mentality), and I responded to that claim. There's really no more to it than that.

    "The Plinkett Picard review is up."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tYPzSGVHOc

    Man, watching all this stupid nonsense again, I mega cringe all the time.

    @Sen-Sors, the Red Letter Media review is so disturbing.

    https://youtu.be/TwF1iri1GjQ

    It is basically an obituary. Star Trek is dead.

    nuTrek is a zombie.

    Is a 94 minutes review really necessary? "We just got more Discovery" would have done it.

    94 min is absolutely necessary because this isn't just about Picard, it's Mike Soklosa finally coming to terms with Star Trek being dead. Rich has given up on it for a long time but Mike still had hope.
    It was probably the most important tv/movie universe in his life and seeing it becoming this ... thing. I'm actually surprised that it is only 94 min.

    Feels odd to come on to this site to discuss another review, but we life in a wild world...

    Man that RLM review felt cathartic. I’ve been coming onto this site for roughly 20 years and I’ve disagreed with jammer’s take many times (part of why I like his writing is because he gives me something to think about when I dont agree). I’ve never been confused by Jammer before. If I didnt agree, I could see his viewpoint. This time, i couldn’t. To so embrace this dumpster fire of a TV show that insulted its audience, cared nothing for its source material, and spent so much time doing literally nothing, how could anyone feel so powerfully about it given how empty it was? The journey matters, as many have said.

    Mike at RLM got this and in 94 minutes expressed the disaster that this show was. The arrogance and tone deafness of it. The wasted potential. The gratuitous nostalgia bait and the glaring logical inconsistencies. RLM and this comments thread have really made me know I wasn’t alone in thinking this way.

    I’m older now, business owner, home owner, and a father. I was none of those things when I started reading Jammer’s blog. These days, I dont have the luxury to have my time wasted by insultingly stupid media. STP never took itself, or its audience, seriously. Thats not always bad, but in this case it was. It was cynical. Maybe Jammer’s priorities are different now too (actually, he’s said as much and I respect that!). Maybe his bar is lower while mine is higher? Maybe thats true for many of us who, after all these decades, still come here and take time to comment. I’ll always keep coming here for Jammer’s take, but I’m wondering if we’ve just grown in different directions in what we expect and accept in our media in 2020.

    Not Plinkett's best work. A bit meandering. But then, to reference the late great Confused Matthew, maybe he refused to be more coherent than the show.

    His bullet points should have been.
    1. Star Trek makes America great again. A piece about how the show botched it messages so badly, it ended up taking Trump's side.
    2. Star Trek: Picard? Section about how the main story is not a story about Picard, he is merely a participant and even then sometimes very much a supporting character. This is also a good time to address the structural problem with the storytelling that by showing us plot from all angles, it detaches us from things. We're observing the story likes gods on Mt Olympus, rather than experiencing it if the narrative was framed through a viewpoint character.
    3. Everything is nothing. Addressing how they just throw all sorts of nonsense at the screen leading to padding and plotlines that go nowhere. Borg, Romulan refugee situation, Elnor, Raffi's problems, Rios's contrived backstory, all pointless.
    4. Feel, don't think. This is where he lists the supermassive plot holes but frames them in terms of their purpose, which is moments of pathos at the expense of coherence. Why is Soji is a sleeper? Doesn't matter. Her journey of self-discovery is so emotional. Also, point out how the Data and Picard deaths are very much in this mold.
    5. Chateau Picard, made from the finest memberberries. Address the shallowness of the fan service. The manipulative nonsense of the Data stuff, Riker's cavalry cameo.
    6. A vision of the future. Here is where he can get into the darker take on the Trek setting. Also, discuss the missed opportunity of having the story be about the Federatiom finding its way again, rather than just bringing up that the Federation sucks now and just forgetting about it halfway through the season.

    I think that would cover it.

    His vid was quite a rant.

    I think we need to mention 7... why was she in this series again? To drive a borg cube through a transwarp hub to be attacked by space flowers?

    A note I've been wanting to post for awhile...

    The scene with Picard and Data... emotional... well done, but I've discovered I didn't have any feelings for the quitter Picard, all my emotions were for Data. He was trapped in this positronic quantum blah, blah for 20 years... unable to interact with anyone, etc... my emotions were for him finally being rescued and allowed to complete his quest. One wonders if Data ever would have desired to "die" if he hadn't sacrificed himself to stop Schizon in Nemesis and hadn't been succumbed to this quantum prison.

    @Glom, I haven't seen the RLM review, but that list is spot on.

    @Eamon, I do think there's a bit of a disconnect between Jammer's star rating and the text of the review. Jammer always recommends focusing on the text, which is a bit more nuanced. Also, for serialized shows, it would probably be helpful to have some sort of rating for the season. There are individual episodes of Picard that I thought were fine or even good, but taken as a whole, knowing the end, I can't really recommend the show.

    @Tommy D

    I wasn't referring to your reply to me. That would have been hypocritical of me, if I've done that.

    I was referring to your implication that the "haterz" [TM] are basing their opinions on stuff like RLM. Like everybody who doesn't like the new shows is a brainwashed follower of some youtube show.

    Hint: I don't even watch these shows. Not regularly, anyway. Can't say I see the point of tuning in weekly just to hear a bunch of people telling me stuff I already know.

    @Booming
    "It was probably the most important tv/movie universe in his life and seeing it becoming this ... thing. I'm actually surprised that it is only 94 min."

    His acceptance process obviously took longer.

    Those 94 minutes just made it official - both for Mike himself and his viewers.

    @Eamon

    "To so embrace this dumpster fire of a TV show that insulted its audience, cared nothing for its source material, and spent so much time doing literally nothing, how could anyone feel so powerfully about it given how empty it was?"

    I don't get it either.

    Jammer never pulled his punches when it came to criticizing Old Trek. His take was always:

    (a) thoughtful and consistent
    (b) balanced
    (c) taking the greater picture into account.

    Yet now, after a full season of complaining that very little of PIC S1 made any kind of sense, he basically does a 180 and says that none of it matters just because a few awesome emotional moments between Picard and Data.

    That's some massive change in attitude, I gotta say.

    So you're definitely right. This is confusing as ****.

    "Maybe his bar is lower while mine is higher?"

    I can't speak for you personally.

    I can tell you that my own personal bar isn't any "higher" than it used to be. If anything, being starved for Trekkish content for over a decade has made me more willing to compromise.

    @OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

    Understood.

    With regards to RLM, they're probably fine overall. But I really don't get the Plinkett thing. YMMV

    Yeah many people liked the Plinkett reviews but I never cared for them. To violent and... no. The half in the bag episodes are more to my liking. The review episodes about STP are also good.

    @Booming.

    Plinkett isn't their best output. Best of the Worst is my favourite though the episodes lately have started to get a bit too long and have a bit too much Macaulay Culkin. While the Plinkett reviews got RLM noticed and they, particularly the SW prequels (although the Nadine stuff was a bit niche taste to be sure), contain lots of good stuff, they paved the way for better stuff. I would prefer they did more commentary tracks. They still haven't done a Star Trek movie.

    @othdp

    It was kind of weird the way Jammer gave this episode a pass. He flat out stated that the synth stuff and the other C plots was also essentially just filler and "dumb as rocks" to boot, and yet three minutes of somewhat affecting scenes is enough to pretend the show runners hadn't been wasting 90% of the time they asked us to put into this. To paraphase Kira, those three minutes "must have been some kiss."

    Speaking of wasting time, we have probably spent more time discussing and thinking about this show than actually watching it. But then, it is a train wreck of such massive proportions, it is fascinating. From the unintentional far right messages, to the incoherent plotting, to the baffling stylistic choices, to the sheer chutzpah of using so many hackneyed tropes (blue laser into the sky?). Unlike Discovery that fails in a dull way, this fails in a spectacular way. It's like The Room of Star Trek.

    @Glom

    Im fairly certain Plinkett has done Star Trek 7-10 and re:view did Star Trek The Motion Picture.

    The Plinkett review was fun, i skipped around because it was so long, but well done and funny

    Here is where I see the difference with ST Picard versus what Trek is/was

    Trek was about humanity having evolved past a lot of our historical problems (war, racism, environmental issues, discrimination, income equality, religious dogma, etc) . Humans were still plenty flawed but were all striving for a much different ideal that what we strive for currently (material things, power over overs, and so on).

    THat was bent around during DS9 but that was a backdrop of WAR , but those core Trek ideals were still reached for by humans even if war forced a lot of compromise or outright perversion of ideals

    It was all what Trek should be.

    2009 Nu Trek was turning it into an action adventure franchise. Fine, it was an alternate timeline and I found the movies fun in that context, I didnt look at them as a continuation of Trek

    But something happened along the way. Discovery was part of it, but Picard went full blown. Instead of having humanity advanced to new ideals, they protrayed everyone as 20th and 21st century humans (us) with the same swear words and drug problems and debauchery with the backdrop of future tech. So you get all the grime and smudge and not the ideals of what Star Trek was supposed to be.

    If I try to make ST Picard a continuation of Star Trek, its garbage. If I just take it in a vacuum as our contemporary selves going on hi tech future adventures, I can relax and enjoy the show.

    Make sense? It isn't Star Trek any more other than the name and the lineage of races and organizations. And I think if a fan can make peace with that, maybe they like it more or just not bother watching it and are at peace.

    Omicron:
    -----------
    I was talking about how you happily joined the herd of mockers in a mob attack against those whose only "sin" is having a different opinion.

    Seriously. The new Pike series was just announced and what's the first thing that nearly everybody is doing? Mock the "haterz". As if people cannot possibly have perfectly legitimate reasons for disliking the direction that Trek is taking right now. As if three complete seasons is not enough information to base an informed opinion on.
    -------------

    Get over yourself and grow up.
    Since I am one of those you refer to, here is my answer:

    Get over yourself..

    You are here bashing a show (two actually) at the rate of dozens of posts per episode that you, by your own admission, don't even watch, and whose fans you labeled as "lowest common denominators.: ANd now you are going to cry river and play victim?

    Grow up..

    And as for "being of different opinion."

    It has nothing to do with that. It has to with opportunistic nincompoops posing as youtubers (not referring to the one mentioned above, I don't know that broadcaster) making BS headlines like "Kurtzman is getting fired" for the umpteenth time, or "DSC/PIC is cancelled" for the umpteenth time, or something along the lines of "PIC showrunners revealing (!!) that they hate Picard and wanted to humiliate him," just so they can get their clicks up for their ratings, sucking dumbshits who drool so hard over their deep loathing of DSC or PIC that they are willing to butter their bread and give them the clicks they want without using any IQ they ay have in their brain.

    Yeah, I'll gladly mock anyone in these two groups aboce, but you can wipe your victim tears since you belong to neither one of these groups because you said that you don't listen to any of those youtubers.
    Calm down, take a deep breath..

    PS - in addition to my comment, Jurati getting essentially a pass for cold blooded murder was kind of the nail in the coffin for me of this being anything that I can call Star Trek.

    She wasnt programmed to kill him or even told to. She was told there was going to be a destruction of life if AI was able to reach a certain level so she took it upon herself to murder an AI scientist. That is murder, and at the very least should get a trial. But is just all happy go lucky at the end of the finale. Trek did have consequences at the very least in that one episode.

    Omicron:
    ------
    But not because we're actively looking for such things. Seriously, how dense do you need to be, in order to believe that Star Trek fans *want* to hate Star Trek?

    We don't *want* to hate Kurtzman-Trek. It's just that the material (at least so far) was so terrible that it didn't give us any other choice.
    -----

    Of course there are such haters of Kurtzman that, yes, they ABSOLUTELY want to use any Star Trek series that comes out with his name tied to it to spew their deeply seeded hatred out. There is a professional British reviewer out there who decided PIC was going to suck and announced so before it aired a single minute. Do you think that person will review objectively from that point on? No. He will review the show in the way that justifies his reasoning. He will bash it regardless, his mind is made up, because he wants to show that he was right. Yes, that person *absolutely* wants to hate it, and wants others to do so so he can claim he was right.

    There are people who were already bashing DSC or PIC before a single minute aired, you can go see it for yourself. Yes, they absolutely want to hate it, want the shows to fail, so they can claim to be right. This is why each time a show gets announced or renewed, their "cancel" or "dead before take off" hopes get crushed and you see that vile group of youtubers I referred to in the previous post celebrating secretly and popping out those clips with headlines to sucker those haters in for clicks, predicting all gloom and doom for shows and renewals (what are they now, zero for 5? zero for 6?)

    Eventually they'll get one right (since shows don't go on forever) and they'll claim triumph.

    Can you imagine what a nightmare it would be for someone who expressed at every turn their pre-disposed deep loathing of Kurtzman and actually have to admit that they like one of the recent Star Trek shows? You think those people (not including you, you say don't watch them) are capable of watching episodes and objectively reviewing the show?

    So yes, they are absolutely ACTIVELY looking to hate.

    Yanks,

    I thought about that too (what you say at the end of your post about Data). It's probably because of how abrupt that ending was for Data, and cruel, that what PIC did was needed and just. Data being dead like this feels better than how it was pre-PIC, post-Nemesis in my opinion.

    "
    Here is where I see the difference with ST Picard versus what Trek is/was

    Trek was about humanity having evolved past a lot of our historical problems (war, racism, environmental issues, discrimination, income equality, religious dogma, etc) . Humans were still plenty flawed but were all striving for a much different ideal that what we strive for currently (material things, power over overs, and so on).

    THat was bent around during DS9 but that was a backdrop of WAR , but those core Trek ideals were still reached for by humans even if war forced a lot of compromise or outright perversion of ideals

    It was all what Trek should be. "

    I don't know if that's possible. I think around the time of DS9, they realized that classic TOS and TNG didn't have ideals which were very different from that of the naval explorers, scientists and knowledge seekers throughout history. That ideal was if we can just find out more about this, get more knowledge about that, explore the unknown and make progress then everything will be okay.

    Meanwhile DS9 was showing us there was still war, suffering, and people were still people. All that "boldly going where no one had gone before" had got us nowhere. So VOY became about getting home, and ENT explored the transition phase (mostly unsuccessfully). DIS gave us lip service, where it pretended to be about exploration (hence the title) but it was clear had no interest in it.

    I don't see where else show can go next. The innocence was gone long ago and is not coming back. I can understand why even acclaimed sci-fi writers can't get this trainwreck back on the rails.

    What's more, viewers remain silently assured that the only kind of exploring we will be getting in Trek is: "seek and do not find". The whole franchise depends on NOT getting answers to anything, otherwise it wouldn't be able to keep going. So while other series are able provide the answers to questions they are looking for (BSG, B5, Farscape), we know that's not going to happen here. So in a way, Kurtzman's "mystery box" approach is the perfect formula to sustain that. Unfortunately.

    @ Mertov
    Welcome to the desert of the real. Have you never seen a tabloid? These vids are just the youtube version of that. Why do you think that tabloids are always full with stories about foreign looking males doing something illegal? The same reason that midnight edge or whatever only do negative stuff about Discovery and STP, because people don't go there for information but to have their prejudice justified aka confirmation bias. I don't like Discovery and I really dislike STP but I have never watched any of those vids, maybe you should do the same.

    @Mike
    ". I think around the time of DS9, they realized that classic TOS and TNG didn't have ideals which were very different from that of the naval explorers, scientists and knowledge seekers throughout history." and "The whole franchise depends on NOT getting answers to anything, otherwise it wouldn't be able to keep going."
    Star Trek was about diplomacy, as well. Going to a planet, trying to understand and then deal with the inhabitants. Could you elaborate what you mean with NOT getting answers? I really don't know what you mean to say? Why seek and do not find? They found lots of beings in Star Trek?!

    @Mike
    "I can understand why even acclaimed sci-fi writers can't get this trainwreck back on the rails."

    Getting it back on rails, actually, should be relatively easy.

    If I were at the helm of Star Trek right now, I would do the following:

    First step: Undo the damage. Shouldn't be difficult. Some of the best Trek episodes ("Year of Hell", "Yesterday's Enterprise") were about fixing a timeline that went hopelessly off the rails. Also establish that in the real Prime Timeline, the Federation helped the Romulans prevent the Hobus supernova altogether.

    Second step: Go back to the basics. Give the fans a breather. Spend some time regaining their trust. This isn't the time to break new grounds - yet. Just do the kind of stuff that Trek has always done, and do it well. Set it in the 25th century. And just to show we're serious: establish that Icheb, Maddox and Hugh are alive and well.

    Third step: Continue where Old-Trek has left off. The aftermath of the Dominion War is a story screaming to be told. Show us a *convincing* view of the Federation in shambles, and Let's watch how the Federation picks up the pieces and regains its moral backbone. Abolish section 31. Use cameos of known 24th century characters, but do it *sparsely*. I'd consider making 7-of-9 a semi-regular of this show, giving her some real character growth and fixing the terrible character-assassination that ST:P did to her.

    Fourth step: Do something completely new, while still respecting the original. This part is trickier, but I still don't see why a good writer should have any problem doing this successfully. Isn't it the *job* of good writers to find new stories to tell? I don't see why the Trek setting should make this any more difficult then any other setting.

    What about you? If you had absolute control over Star Trek starting tomorrow, what would you have done? It would be interesting to compare our different visions.

    Booming,
    Agreed. And I don't. I mentioned the headlines I read on social media and those people social media messages that I come across. I am not about to support their clickbaiting, let alone spend time on a show that I hate, whether watching it, talking about it, or getting my rocks off listening to some vile youtuber because it appeals to my base instinct of deeply seeded hatred for a show or individual. Hatred is not something I thrive on.

    Omicron,

    Riiiiight, because you unloading your hatred on a show that you don't watch at the rate of dozens of posts per episode and cheer and campaign for others to not accept it as part of the universe, etc.. is perfectly innocent (!)
    Or attack someone (or few) and then play victim when they respond to you is perfectly honest (!).
    The irony is how you expect to slam shows and directly bash shows and people, and yet get your feelings hurt when they push back..

    And speaking of ironies, here is a good one that I did not even notice before.

    ----- Omicron:

    I don't get it either.

    Jammer never pulled his punches when it came to criticizing Old Trek. His take was always:

    (a) thoughtful and consistent
    (b) balanced
    (c) taking the greater picture into account.

    Yet now, after a full season of complaining that very little of PIC S1 made any kind of sense, he basically does a 180 and says that none of it matters just because a few awesome emotional moments between Picard and Data.

    That's some massive change in attitude, I gotta say.

    So you're definitely right. This is confusing as ****.
    -------------------

    What?
    You're confused by Jammer's take on an episode that you did not even watch?
    Or his "massive change in attitude" on a show that you don't watch?
    How would you even be able to judge, let alone be confused "as ****" about a review written by a respected reviewer when you have not watched what he is reviewing?
    Elementary Irony 101

    @Mertov
    Yeah hate, that is a pretty intense emotion. Do people actually hate NuTrek? I dislike it but I certainly don't hate it. Why would somebody hate a show or movie. The last media product I hated was american sniper (I even avoid Bradley Cooper movies since then) because that movie is insultingly horrible propaganda but apart from that. No.
    When it comes to NuTrek I'm pretty much through the stages of grief and have now reached acceptance. NuTrek is what it is and it is not for me. Would have been nice to see a modernized version of Star Trek but it was not to be.

    @Mike
    About your trainwreck comment. Is it a trainwreck? Sure for most Trekkies it is but considering how CBS is pumping out show after show I guess that Star Trek is the only thing that brings subscribers. Considering that we got three seasons of this and that season 3 of Discovery looks like more of the same, it seems reasonable to assume that this is what CBS wanted.

    But to provide a little glimmer of hope for us TrekDinos. If the shows were a good way of getting people in, but then couldn't give new customers a valid reason to stay then maybe, maybe at some point they will actually try something trekky. Just to see if that has more longevity.
    Maybe.

    @Mertov
    "Riiiiight, because you unloading your hatred on a show that you don't watch at the rate of dozens of posts per episode and cheer and campaign for others to not accept it as part of the universe, etc.. is perfectly innocent (!)"

    What a baseless wild exaggeration.

    I am voicing my opinions here just like everybody else. Sometimes this leads to a discussion, and the back-and-forth sometimes reaches dozens of posts.

    Also, I'm not "campaigning" for anything, with the exception of telling people that they have a CHOICE.

    Look... I know that some people really like ST:P. There was fan (forgot his name) who wrote a passionate post about how it warms his heart to see the old faces again, and that this was the main attraction of Picard for him.

    I have no problem with such people. I'm not trying to "convince" them to stop enjoying what they are enjoying, or to stop paying for the stuff they are enjoying. On the contrary, I've said more than once: If you like the new shows, it is your duty as a loyal fan to support them in any way you can.

    But there other people who are sticking around for the wrong reasons. People who think they are obliged as Trek fans to accept every crazy thing that TPTB throws at them. People who are falling victims to marketing tactics that keep them at a perpetual state of "paying and complaining". People who literally complain that watching STP has diminished their enjoyment of TNG, and yet continue to watch the next episode without stopping to question what they are doing.

    I'm not okay with people being used in this manner, which is why I'm campaigning for raising the fandom awareness of these things.

    Do you have a problem with that?

    I am ... conflicted, I think would be the most appropriate word. It feels like this was the end of an extremely long and meandering prelude to the actual adventures the characters will have (I don't have an opinion either way as to whether it will be any better next season, but that's just how it feels).

    Picard's death felt extremely hollow and a waste of screen time because I already knew the show was coming back and there was no way they could kill off the title character. I don't feel much of a connection for most of the new characters, only Dahj/Soji, (dislike for Narissa, Narek and Oh,) and I adore Kestra. I quite liked Jurati until she murdered Maddox ... I dunno. I think the unnecessarily strong language and the gratuitous gore and violence pulled me out of the story and I couldn't immerse myself in it after that. And I'm someone who usually gets emotionally involved and cries very easily (I cry at The Brittas Empire, for goodness' sake!) That lack of connection and complete disbelief that Picard could be truly dead meant I was not moved in the slightest. Data's death however did made me cry (once I'd got past my utter confusion about what was going on - where did that quantum simulation come from?! It occurs to me that it could possibly have been a detail I've forgotten from Nemesis, but it's such an important detail that if that were the case, it should have been mentioned at some point by someone in Picard. Perhaps it was and I still missed it.)

    The whole season felt like an extremely long setup for not much payoff, and it felt disjointed - programmes nowadays are much more complex than they used to be, and they need to be, to stand up to binges and multiple rewatches, but I don't think it needs to be so complex that the viewer feels they need to watch it two or three times just to actually understand what was going on. I feel like I've missed how everything related together, but I shouldn't *have to* watch it again just to 'get it'. And honestly, right now I don't particularly want to watch it again.

    There were parts I enjoyed, and as a standalone it feels like episodes 9 and 10 were pretty okay - but as an ending to this story they were anticlimactic, for sure. I really wanted to love this show, but alas.

    I agree Trek should get back to basics. A starship having weekly standalone adventures. Jeopardy. Sci fi plot

    I’m so tired of these season long mystery box arcs. It’s lazy writing.

    Next fire Kurtzman and all the current hacks on the writing staff ie everyone

    Make new writers watch TOS and TNG and remember why those episodes were fun, interesting, involving and entertaining. Teach them about a beginning middle and end

    Let them know it’s okay to let a scene breathe

    @Omicron
    I don't much care about the format. I think the new series will fail if it changes the format but doesn't change anything else. I'd like to see some authenticity. Genuine wonder and curiosity at things, not just cynicism and unearned feels. And I do want to see aliens again - not just humans with pointy ears and androids who are essentially human. STP made everything feel so tiny, I miss the epic scale of the previous shows and movies. The universe is an enormous, mysterious place so use some imagination and show us that.

    I think recycling plots is okay. A lot of the best episodes were recycled from older written sci-fi anyway. So I wouldn't mind if they took up an interesting sci-fi premise from somewhere else as a series concept or overarching arc. At least it would be better than doomsday roboctopus.

    @MusicalTurtle

    They WANT you to think it’s complex and needs rewatches. It’s not. Your gut feeling is right. It’s a mess. Just like Discovery they start up five new plots before just one is resolved. It’s like a magician’s trick they are juggling all these plots “oh hey no look over here at this crazy new plot, cast your eyes away from that old plot hole”

    This show was supposed to be a character study about a beloved character....

    It was, in the end, an empty show with an empty plot about refugees? Armageddon? Artificial Intelligence? Can someone tell me what the central theme of PIC was? Can someone tell me what the take away from this was? Synths are good....unless they’re octopi cuz then they’re bad...but refugees are good cuz picard says so but also don’t trust them because they maybe have a secret society inside them that will try to destabilize your society because you have....synths?

    What?

    Do you know what I was hoping this show would be? A show about an aging man - once great, once acclaimed - but now struggling with the diminishment of time on himself. How does a man who used to be defined by his greatness handle being less than he once was? Does he still have greatness in him and what defines his greatness? Was he really as great as we thought, and he thought, or does he have to accept hard truths about his past that maybe he never did? All in the backdrop of a utopian society that was bent and tested during the dominion war but trying to find its way back to its core ideals.

    THAT would be a fresh take on Trek. THAT would utilize a talent like Stewart. THAT would boldly tell a story that Trek hasn’t yet tackled.

    Nope. Instead we got convoluted mystery plot that made no sense and had one great memberberries scene at the end.....and even that scene was undercut by how stupid it was. Data in a prison of his own mind for 14 years? Yikes! Data talking about the finality of death and its importance, just to reincarnate Picard in the next scene, and them him asking for more time?? Ouch?

    Oh yeah and death octopus robots stolen from a video game franchise. Ok.

    @Eamon, I agree, and what's so odd is that the writers seem to know what would make a good story, but didn't deliver it. If you listened to the writers talk about the show before it aired, they were raising some of the same questions you do. But, as you pointed out, the actual show has nothing to do with those questions or themes. It really makes me wonder... are the writers just so bad that they don't understand the implications of their story? Or was there a bunch of studio meddling that water down whatever messages were intended?

    @Eamon
    To all your questions: Yes. :)

    To quote Rich Evans: "If Patrick Stewart wants to dance around in an alien bar with a silly accent and an eyepatch then we write that in."
    That should answer all the other questions that might arise.
    And in a way STP is a character study of an old famous man dealing with decline, sadly not of Picard but of Patrick Stewart. Silly accents, doomsday and Jesus metaphors. hallelujah

    Having still not seen "Picard," I'll add that sops to Patrick Stewart's vanity (or kooky ideas) have been present since at least Captain's Holiday. Stewart is a big enough draw and important enough for the franchise that it's probably worth granting him the occasional dumb idea. Captain's Holiday was pretty silly but if we have to have a Captain's Holiday in order to have Yesterday's Enterprise, Best of Both Worlds, The Defector, Sarek, The Offspring, The Survivors etc., then fine, go have your low-budget Indiana Jones adventure sir. By the films the ratio was arguably off, where the "arguably" is only how much of the problem with the films was because of Stewart's input and how much for the various other problems.

    @ Dom,

    " It really makes me wonder... are the writers just so bad that they don't understand the implications of their story? Or was there a bunch of studio meddling that water down whatever messages were intended?"

    Say whatever you want about the content they decided to finally add, the writing itself is really bad, around the same level as DISC, which I would put somewhere near a high school level in a creative writing class.

    How about this for an idea for a new series? A few decades after the Dominion War (post-Picard, of course) a virus shows up on each of the allies' homeworlds, and is determined to be a last-ditch Dominion plot which got delayed for some unknown reason. The Federation is in shambles, interstellar borders close, and maybe one planetary leader (Earth?) starts acting crazy and suggests injecting dilithium as a cure. UFP decides to send out a ship on a 5 year mission to find a cure and some answers.

    Would allow for a balance of exploration, diplomacy, science & relevant politics. Both long-form and episodic storytelling. Lots of old cast members. I know it's kinda been tried before but Crusade never got a chance and I'd like to see the Trek take on it. Besides, ST has a great track record with copying Bab5, and could even bring back the DS9 writing team.

    @Dom
    "It really makes me wonder... are the writers just so bad that they don't understand the implications of their story?"

    The writers aren't the problem. Michael Chabon, at least, is known as a good writer. He was directly involved in writing over half the episodes and he is also one of the chief producers.

    One problem is Kurtzman, who:
    (a) Believes that good old Trek-style sci fi has no place in the 21st century.
    (b) insists on the show following his nonsensical brand of mystery-box oriented storytelling.

    Another problem are the suits at CBS, who spent hundreds of millions of dollars on turning Star Trek into... ehm... whatever it transformed into these days. This new version of Star Trek is also supposed to be the flagshow of their streaming service, which is why they are creating so many different shows right now.

    Can you really see these people coming forward and saying "Sorry, guys. We made a mistake. Let's start over"?

    Yeah, neither can I. And unfortunately, as long as CBS has this "vision" regarding Star Trek, the writing will continue to suck. Even the best writers in the world won't be able to change that.

    "The writers aren't the problem. Michael Chabon, at least, is known as a good writer."

    Yeah, about that... I have my doubts. Never read any of his other stuff (and probably never will now) but in my opinion a good writer wouldn't put his name to writing he didn't approve of. I mean, is he desperately short of cash or something? Credibility and reputation matter a lot to any decent writer.

    "One problem is Kurtzman, who:
    (a) Believes that good old Trek-style sci fi has no place in the 21st century."

    I actually agree with him there. I don't want to watch new TNG or TOS episodes. Fortunately it's not a choice between that and Abrams/Kurtzman style.

    @Mertov
    "How would you even be able to judge, let alone be confused "as ****" about a review written by a respected reviewer when you have not watched what he is reviewing?"

    Because I've read the review.

    When a respected reviewer basically states "We've been treated to 10 hours of mostly nonsense which should really be condensed into two. None of it really mattered, and it was all a huge McGuffin aimed at getting us to the final scene of Picard saying goodbye to Data" and then proceeds to give the episode 3 stars and the entire show a positive summation - that's very strange indeed.

    Don't *you* find it strange? Can you even respond intelligently and to-the-point, at a level that goes beyond "but you haven't watched the shooowwwwww"?

    @Eeamon
    "Can someone tell me what the central theme of PIC was?"

    I would say that there is none. That the show is a total incoherent mess. Then again, what do I know? I haven't even watched the da*n thing.

    Maybe Mertov will be able to explain it to you. ;-)

    Checking Chabon's wikipedia page. Apparently he wrote the short Trek episodes "Calypso" and "Q&A". Both were decent stories.

    So credit where credit's due.

    If I would speculate I would say that they knocked on Chabon's door. He opened, they said:"Here, have this big sack of money." "For what?!" He asked, still confused from his morning Absinth. "Well, for writing Star Trek, you love Star Trek, don't ya?!" "Sure, can I do what I want?" "Absolutely, just sign here." They said suppressing a chuckle. Before entering the helicopter they turned around and shouted:"Oh one thing. There will be a few people giving minor input every now and then." and Chabon waved and went back to his absinth room also called the green room. (That is were he got the synth idea (absinth...synth))

    And after a marvelous year writing Star Trek Chabon decided, that this was so wonderful that he didn't want to continue working for them because nobody could top that season.

    So the producers asked themselves:" Does Stephen King still have a drug problem?" Stay tuned for season 2.

    Or the less prosaic explanation. He wanted lots of money, they had lots of money; they wanted a big name writer, he had a big name. He thought it will be just one year then everybody and him would forget, they thought we start with a big name and after that get a few writers who work for scale.
    Everybody wins.

    Omicron:
    -----------------But there other people who are sticking around for the wrong reasons. People who think they are obliged as Trek fans to accept every crazy thing that TPTB throws at them. People who are falling victims to marketing tactics that keep them at a perpetual state of "paying and complaining". People who literally complain that watching STP has diminished their enjoyment of TNG, and yet continue to watch the next episode without stopping to question what they are doing.

    I'm not okay with people being used in this manner, which is why I'm campaigning for raising the fandom awareness of these things.

    Do you have a problem with that?
    ---------------------------------

    I have zero problem with you sounding absurd, because this one takes the cake, (well not quite, you outdid yourself again, see below).

    Let’s see…

    There are people – "victims," according to you – who are brainwashed into “perpetual state of ‘paying and complaining’” and watching a show because “someone” or “TPTB” is bullying them into watching it, despite having the complete freedom to flip the channel, and themselves knowing that they do. And the grand mensch Omicron is here to render a public service to these fallen "victims" and save them.

    Entertaining to say the least… I will not tell you to get over yourself on this one, you are obviously way past that point.

    Still not as absurd as arguing that you can judge a show and a shit on it dozens of posts per episode, despite not having seen a single second of it, because you read a review (never mind the flimsiness of that reasoning since you you piled on even before the review you refer to was even posted). And you’re talking to me about intelligence while you make this argument. Splendid.

    And here comes the kicker:

    ------When a respected reviewer basically states "We've been treated to 10 hours of mostly nonsense which should really be condensed into two. None of it really mattered, and it was all a huge McGuffin aimed at getting us to the final scene of Picard saying goodbye to Data" and then proceeds to give the episode 3 stars and the entire show a positive summation - that's very strange indeed.-----

    What? You are now giving a quote from Jammer to make your argument that it’s ok for you to claim expertise on a show you have not watched, when you just criticized few posts earlier yourself his “massive change in attitude” in reviewing PIC and claimed that it was “confusing as ****.”???

    Marvelous…

    James:
    -------------
    "One problem is Kurtzman, who:
    (a) Believes that good old Trek-style sci fi has no place in the 21st century."

    I actually agree with him there. I don't want to watch new TNG or TOS episodes. Fortunately it's not a choice between that and Abrams/Kurtzman style.
    -------------

    Yes James, I feel the same way. No rehashing of what we have seen for decades. There are hundreds of those in trek archives and I love most of them and revisit them. I prefer the arcs now (and I feel certain the younger audience does too, I am around college students and most find old Star Trek corny and boring, I know because I convince them to try and only a few stuck with it so far, that's a whole other discussion).

    Discovery, for example, had some episodes where it had a good mix of bottle plot combined with elements of the longer arc, those would be my favorite type (DS9 had plenty of those, excellent ones, in seasons 4-7). PIC solely stuck to the longer arc, it seems.

    Omicron:

    Good luck with your campaign to raise self-awareness to those in suffering and need. Your expertise and storied level-headedness - about something you have never watched, no less - will no doubt provide comfort and insight to the bullied victims of Alex Kurtzman and CBS All-Access, as they begin their journey of de-programming and self-recognition.

    @Mertov

    Thank you so much for your recent posts. I am glad I am not the only one who does not visit this site to be patronized. It is bad enough when others tell a person what to think; some have taken it upon themselves to declare what others of us actually are thinking , just as these some have lectured us as to the meaning of something they have never seen.

    @Mertov
    "It is bad enough when others tell a person what to think; some have taken it upon themselves to declare what others of us actually are thinking"

    Eh, no.

    There are people here who came out and literally said that:
    (1) The show is terrible in their view.
    (2) The only reason they are still onboard is because of the magic words "Star Trek" in the title.

    There are also people here who openly stated that the main reason they are still watching is because they want to be able to participate in the discussions. Seems like they got it into their heads, that if they stopped watching the show, they wouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion.

    Now I wonder, where the heck did they get that impression? Couldn't be because of people like you, who keep fighting to keep those who "don't watch the show" out of the discussion, could it?

    Why are you so bent on that, anyway?

    If a guy came to the forums of a show that I like (say the Orville, or DS9) and he started posting scathing reviews, I would have jumped on the opportunity to discuss the show I'm a fan of. I most certainly wouldn't be trying to look for excuses for why the guy's opinion is "not valid".

    If it turned out that he didn't do his homework (e.g. didn't watch the show) and was just babbling nonsense - so what? That would be his problem and not mine. Why on earth should I care?

    Similarly, if you think that my opinions regarding ST:Picard are nonsense, then go ahead and demonstrate your superior knowledge IN AN ACTUAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SHOW. Should be a breeze, shouldn't it? If all the vitriol you've posted had any merit, then you should have no problem making a fool out of people like me by simply giving examples from the show itself.

    In short: Either put up or shut up.

    Note:

    I want to make it perfectly clear that the above is NOT aimed at all (or even most of) the fans of the new shows. I know that there are plenty of Picard fans who genuinely enjoy the show and are looking forward to discuss the show itself and/or Star Trek in general.

    My problem is only with those who are more interested in playing online "gotcha" with those they don't agree with, than they are in actually discussing Star Trek.

    Omicron:
    -------------------------------------------

    @Mertov
    "It is bad enough when others tell a person what to think; some have taken it upon themselves to declare what others of us actually are thinking"

    Eh, no.
    ----------------------------------------

    "Eh, no" is correct... since that would not be me you quoted. Re-read and try again.

    But I couldn't help but notice you outdid yourself again (when it rains it pours).

    ---------"If a guy came to the forums of a show that I like (say the Orville, or DS9) and he started posting scathing reviews, I would have jumped on the opportunity to discuss the show I'm a fan of."--------

    Whaaat?

    Would you like me to quote you on what you said to someone who wrote scathing things on The Orville board? Something like "don't you have better things to do in life than come to a discussion page of a show you dislike"??? It must have slipped your mind while you were trying to render your public service to poor souls. And how ironic that out of all people you would say that... At least the person you said that to *was* actually watching the show and not trashing it without having seen a second of it.

    Absurd claims of saviorship, misquoting people, claiming expertise on a show (or two) you have not watched over people who have, stating that you'd do things when you've blatantly done the opposite (again, I'll be happy to find your quote).

    Delusions of grandeur, and now straight-forward lying?? You are on a roll aren't you?

    ouztol:

    Thanks, but you forgot to also include those who you venture to inform you that you are too stupid to understand what you are watching.

    @Mertov

    Indeed; thank you for noting my omission. Not having watched something is now considered as proof of understanding that something, sufficient to lecture we unwashed masses who have seen it in our intellectual place.

    By the way, I think Carmen is the greatest opera ever. And I hold this belief precisely because I have never seen it performed. I have never listened to iy either. Am I not a great opera critic, one whose word should be taken as holy writ at all times?

    @Ouitzul

    Two posts for two, and not a word about Star Trek. Isn't that interesting?

    @Mertov

    That's some intense hate-filled vitriol right there.

    When you start using ugly words like "claims of saviorship" and "delusions of grandeur" that really says it all. Mob mentality, as I've already said. Can't say I'm
    surprised.

    Of-course none of this is really about me personally. It's about a sizable portion of Trek fandom that people like yourself are eager to silence: Trekkies who are not at all content with the current direction that Star Trek is taking, and have therefore decided to stop watching.

    Funny, how the very same people who heatedly argue that there's no pressure within fandom to conform, are those who exert the most pressure. Don't you think?

    Omicron, nice attempt at meandering around the valid points I brought up and avoid facing up to your own double standards by playing the victim as usual.
    The guy who posts dozens of vitriol posts himself about a show he doesn't even watch, practices the very behavior for which he castigates others, and when called out on all those, claims to be vtirol-victim himself and cries foul.
    You are consistently outperforming yourself.

    "Of-course, none of this is really about me personally."

    I hate to bring your neatly arranged narrative down, but yes, it is...
    I know you'd like to imagine that you are the spokesperson for a large group of people, create divisions, make things about "us" vs "them," etc... but alas, you are not that important, it's merely about you.

    @Mertov

    1. Only the imbecile fails to grasp the essence of a thing when enough sensible people express enough sensible opinions about that thing in general debate, as here on Jammer’s.

    Enough sensible people have expressed enough sensible thoughts here about STP.

    And Omicron is not an imbecile.


    2. It is indeed impossible to grasp all the particulars of any complex thing in general debate.

    It is unnecessary, however, to grasp all the particulars of a thing when simply wishing to engage in a general debate about that thing.

    Omicron is simply wishing to engage in a general debate about STP.


    3. Only the pedant demands of others complete knowledge of the particulars when wishing to engage in general debate.

    Omicron, I repeat, is simply wishing to engage in a general debate about STP.


    4. Only an imbecile would fail to notice the qualitative difference in the general debate on STP when compared to say, TNG. Commenters are commenting qualitatively different things. They are making qualitatively different questions.

    This qualitative difference informs the reader. See point 1.

    And Omicron, I repeat, is not an imbecile.


    5. I, a Catholic with vast knowledge of (Christian) theology, have read thousands of pages of sacred Hindu texts, and only secondary literature on Buddhism.

    I admit that I am far more informed on Hinduism than I am on Buddhism. But I should think I am sufficiently informed on Buddhism to engage in any general debate.

    Would you suggest that I am unable to participate in a general, informal debate on Buddhism simply because I have not read the actual Buddhist texts themselves?


    6. Omicron, a Star Trek fan with perhaps vast knowledge of science fiction, has watched hundreds of Star Trek TOS-ENT episodes, and only read secondary literature on STP.

    Now you complete the line of reasoning. You’re not an imbecile, either.

    At this point @mertov and @omicron, I have no idea what either of you are arguing about. You’ve both descended into a meta analysis argument about how each other argue. All over a TV show that isn’t very good (or is great depending on who you ask).

    Can we get back to having a healthy debate about ideas, not each other?

    @Eamon

    "Can we get back to having a healthy debate about ideas, not each other?"

    While I agree, I actually think this is an important debate about ideas.

    Sadly, there seem to be no ideas worth discussing in either Discovery or Picard. But ironically, both have seen much debate on the matter of whether it is legitimate to comment something you have not experienced yourself.

    Much of that debate has consisted of responses to Omicron's commenting without having seen those shows. Sometimes Omicron becomes repetitive, yes, but so do we all. And he usually makes reasonable arguments, commenting on general issues which he can possess perfectly valid if second-hand knowledge of, and not too particular details of which he *cannot* have any knowledge at all, say, the music score, or the CGI in a specific scene.

    I find it fascinating how some criticise others for expressing opinions, and even making perfectly valid claims based on the exchanges of ideas, or opinions, to be found for example here on Jammer's. This would negate the entire idea of the exchange of ideas in the first place.

    Yet here we are, with a blend of old commenters like Mertov and recent arrivals arriving by parachute out of nowhere like this fellow Ouitzul, alias ouiztul. If comments are supposed to be meaningful, and if readers are supposed to learn anything from them, are readers then not to be allowed to comment on the comments?

    I mean, why are people commenting here to begin with? Are we really all just shouting into a vacuum?

    I find these questions interesting. And since Picard seems to offer no intriguing ideas otherwise (the quality of comments on the STP threads is frankly atrocious), I for one certainly don't mind debating them instead.

    It would be nice if we once and for all were to acknowledge that Omicron's criticism is as valid as anyone's. As long as he avoids commenting on those things he can know nothing of—say, the acting in a particular scene—and sticks to commenting what can be easily grasped by anyone with half a brain, I see no problem in his commenting. And it would be nice if people like, in this case, Mertov would stop a criticism of him that is (to be blunt) sheer nonsense.

    Let me make this simple. I watched the show. It sucked. I will not watch it further.

    As for self-awareness, focus your attention on the "real world." It's a mess, and a great many people are anxious, paranoid or outright delusional. On both sides. Because they won't look at the science. Won't think for themselves.

    Help those people and quick bickering over a shitty television show.

    @Andy’s Friend
    “ are readers then not to be allowed to comment on the comments?”

    If you can show me an example where this has proven constructive I’ll eat my hat. Mostly, it just turns out a bunch of people getting angry and shouting at the keyboards.


    STP by its own merits has plenty to discuss. I loathed it but did watch it because I wanted to be as informed as I can about it. I think there was plenty wrong to discuss whether it was Star Trek or not. Problems in storytelling, poor characterization, etc.

    Now, some people seem to like it. I cant really understand why, but I’d like to. Mertov says “the young people he knows like it”. Ok. I mean, I’m not sure thats a representative sample but I’ll take his word for it. The young people I know (I’m 40, and been coming to this site since just before the BSG era) dont even watch it nor want to.

    So, if we’re using young people as a metric whose young people count more? Mertov’s, who seem to have a lower quality bar for their media, or mine, who think Star Trek is a relic of the past and dont care to engage with it no matter what Kurtzman does to it?

    I personally dont think young people have a lower standard for quality. I’ve seen the shows they like and most of the ones that are hits are hits for a reason. Avatar: The last Airbender was a huge hit about 10 years ago. Why? Great characters, plotting, thematic story telling.... you know, all the things Star Trek used to do but now refuses to.

    I do think young people dont care for Trek. Why would they? My son probably wont think the franchises of my youth were any cooler than I thought my dad’s were. Doesn’t meant his bar will be lower. So if young people dont care about Trek, only old timers like us, why shouldn’t we expect and hope that the creative teams serving us give us better stories? If we’re the ones buying why not serve up what we’re asking for.

    Most Trek fans - the ones who care about the core ideals of the franchise - are OK with pushing the envelope and treading new ground as long as those core ideals are maintained. Even the TOS/TNG didnt always succeed at that. The TNG films failed in that regard too. There was scope in STP for a different style of story. What we got was a plagiarized video game plot that amounted to very little after a season of plot devices, plot holes, plot macguffins, and plot setups that also amounted to little. Is that good TV? When weighed against the best of what Star Trek offered, is that something to celebrate just because its got starships and recognizable nostalgia bits?

    I don’t claim to be right. These are my ideas. Ideas about the show. See how much better these ideas are to discuss rather than “you said this and i said that and then you said this other thing and then you accused me of that thing and....”?

    Also, I’ve been coming to this site for the better part of 2 decades because the level of discussion is usually better than elsewhere - even if I don’t always contribute. (Nothing about discovery made me want to). But i guess thats me commenting on the quality of comments so maybe I will go eat my hat.

    @Eamon
    "
    So, if we’re using young people as a metric whose young people count more?"
    Uh uh uh I can answer that.
    Neither :)
    (Ok, if one of you is the Pew Research Center and has representative group of young people then I eat MY imaginary hat)

    @Eamon

    Commenting on comments, by itself, is not a problem. Never was.

    Deliberate personal attacks (like what happened here recently) are a different problem. Let us not be naive. The current situation is not just the result of a heated debate that went out of hand. It is something else entirely.

    Also Check Mertov's posting history. This isn't the first time he has done this.

    @Andy's Friend
    "I actually think this is an important debate about ideas."

    Indeed.

    Once we strip away all the personal attacks and all the nonsensical flaming, the debate can be summed up with a very simple general question:

    Should we bar decades-long Trekkies from commenting on the current state of Trek, just because they don't watch the new shows? Should we tell all these people to just shut up? Or worse: Pressure these people to hate-watch a show they don't like, just so they can earn the "right" to speak up?

    Because this, really, is what Mertov's argument boils down do. He tries to fog the issue by making it about me, but it isn't about me at all.

    Speaking of which:

    @Mertov
    "it's merely about you."

    Then I kindly ask you to stop making this about me.

    Seriously, nobody here is interested in your personal attacks against another poster. In your own words: I am not that important.

    So I'd appreciate it if you get off my back. Like... right now.

    I'd also love to hear your actual opinion about whether Trekkies who don't watch the new shows should feel free to speak up here or not. That's actually a topic worthy of discussion, unlike your endless rants against a single person.

    @Mertov
    If it’s merely about ODTP like you say then why don’t you stop wasting everyone’s time on a public review site? I don’t think anyone is following what y’all are saying to each other anyway. I personally stopped caring after the first few posts.

    @ODTP
    Mertov is not wrong about one thing. I discovered Jammer’s reviews site when Enterprise aired, I wrote a few times under different names years ago. I didn’t like DISCO and stopped watching it after the first few episodes and I didn’t like PICARD but I watched because it was only 10 episodes. Sorry to say but I even got tired of reading your predictable comments. “Kurtzman is bad, CBS is evil, nutrek is bad, Star Trek is dead” and now I learn you didn’t watch the shows, but you have more to say about them negatively in volume at least than anyone else. Sorry but that’s preposterous and if you cannot see why it would appear that way to others, I don’t know what to tell you.

    @everyoneelse
    Sorry for the interruption. I’ll get out of the way now and go back to lurking.

    It’s only a TV show people.

    @MAJERUS
    "If it’s merely about ODTP like you say then why don’t you stop wasting everyone’s time on a public review site?"

    Indeed.

    Kinda ironic, given the rest of your post.

    Here is an idea:

    Since we all agree that ranting about a single poster is wasting everyone's time, it would be nice if people just stopped doing that.

    And here's a tip: If you don't like my posts, don't read them.

    Now, how about we return to discussing Star Trek?

    Eamon and Majerus,

    If you go back above to where it all started, you’ll see that it did with Omicron’s direct attack containing derogatory terms to me and other posters (if there any others). I can only hope that you don’t expect people who get attacked in such manner to stay silent in response.
    --------------

    Eamon,

    I’ve been teaching at university (-ies) for over a decade and the topic of what they watch, or in general their TV consumption, is a topic of interest for me. I hold stats, numbers, how many watch what, etc. purely out of my own interest (there is more on this under one of Discovery’s episodes, no.9 I believe, so I won’t repeat it here). Take it for what it is worth to you but here are my basic observations: hardly any watch cable TV or even have cable (this semester, I had a total 56 students, only 4 had cable at home! Second most extreme ratio I’ve seen ever, first being 1 student out of 32 in Fall 2018). They know about my Trekkie-ness, heck they cannot miss it, my computer desktop is Station DS9 that they see on the projector whenever I show things for my lectures (they laugh). Most enter my classes having never watched Star Trek which confirms your observation that young people in general don’t watch Star Trek (though it’s a small sample size). But several do grow an interest and begin watching it after hearing about it so much from me, lol. My consistent observation has been that the ones who begin with DS9 and TNG claim it’s boring (unfortunately their first seasons are bad). But a few who stuck with them ended up liking it, only a few though. The ones that try TOS for the first time almost always find it too “cheesy” or even “stupid” (to which I strongly object, but…) Some have come in having seen the last 3 Kelvin movies (or one or two of them) and they like them but need a “push” to start watching the TV shows. The most success I had in converting to Trekkies (and I am not talking about many here, maybe 2, 3, or 4 out 10 who tried Trek TV in a given semester) was with those who began with the latest movies or Discovery. (My own daughter of 24 only became a fan after watching the 2009 movie and I made her watch DS9 afterward while I was doing a rewatch. Now, she is a Trekkie in general but she still finds TOS corny for example and won’t watch unless I happen to be watching one when she is with me. She likes TNG). I don’t have any Picard numbers to give because it’s new. Now, remember these are students who came into the semester not having seen any Trek on TV except maybe a minute in passing back when they were little with their parents. Overall, my experience from several years of this show me that more of them became Trekkies, so to speak, like the recent Treks. I wouldn’t label them as having a low quality as a standard either, it’s just a different generation. I am from the 50 and above generation of Trekkies having watched every series when they originally aired except TOS as reruns in early 70s and I know others my age who enjoy the current versions too. I liked each with varying degrees (except Enterprise) but today, I prefer myself the less episodic and more serialized version, though I’d watch any Trek series that comes up and still form an opinion based on its own merit. For example, I am not much of a fan of prequels in general and like I said, prefer the more serialized version now but if the new Pike series (thus a prequel) is episodic like I read somewhere, I’ll still give it a try and judge it accordingly.
    ---------------

    Omicron:

    “Also Check Mertov's posting history. This isn't the first time he has done this.”
    This is a good idea except you conveniently forgot to include yourself for the history check, which would show that my points about your self-contradicting patterns are very much valid.

    “Deliberate personal attacks (like what happened here recently) are a different problem.
    Ha! Agreed! Like referring to posters using denigrating labels. Had you refrained from doing that, I would have never responded. But if you do, don't expect me to remain quiet from this point forward either.

    And as for you last response to Majerus above,
    "Kinda ironic, given the rest of your post."

    Actually no, the rest of his post is very valid and consistent with what he said to me. So is what you said about not reading your posts if you don't like them, something you could abide by yourself if you wish to, but seemingly you don't practice what you preach to others here either.

    @ODTP
    Sorry you see my post as ironic. I had no beef against either of you and made a neutral observation. I stand by it. This is the most I have written on any given episode on this site. I don’t plan to keep up with your rate of writing. Sorry for this second interruption. I promise it’s the last anyone’ll hear from me for a while.

    @Mertov
    Sorry to you too but I don’t have time to go up and check messages and I don’t care that much really.

    @Eamon

    “STP by its own merits has plenty to discuss. I loathed it but did watch it because I wanted to be as informed as I can about it. I think there was plenty wrong to discuss whether it was Star Trek or not. Problems in storytelling, poor characterization, etc.”

    I never watched it, and everything I read here convinces me that I would have loathed it, too. But after the first half season of Discovery, I simply couldn’t care less about what passes as Trek these days.

    This is what I find interesting, though:

    First, I don’t think that the discussion of *whether* present Trek is Star Trek or not is relevant. It clearly isn’t. And (to be blunt) I don’t even care to argue why. If my interlocutor can’t see it, there is little point in debating it.

    The discussion of *why* present ‘Trek’ is no longer Star Trek however I find interesting. But that must necessarily be part of a much vaster discussion on our current society. And perhaps the most appropriate venue for such a discussion (provided anyone else is even interested) isn’t Jammer’s Reviews.

    Second, and more important: I think Omicron is right. I think it is more important that we vote with our wallets if we want things to change. I think that it is better to stop watching what we dislike, than it is to support such productions out of a wish to ‘be as informed’ as possible, as you put it.

    The bottom line is, you were right. You loathed Picard. It was not for you. And you likely knew that after the first two or three episodes already. Then why on earth keep watching, and thereby keep supporting it? I know that you perhaps may have done so without paying for it, but the question is directed at all viewers/readers: some of them paid for watching something they disliked.

    I think this is the main question that Omicron wants us to consider. Yes, he is repetitive. Yes, he is predictable. But I feel that his question is genuinely valid, intriguing, and important. Why do so many people keep watching what they, by their own admission, do not like?

    I think this is two grown people arguing over the internet about who feels the most wronged against the backdrop of a TV show about space octopi synths. Or something.

    What has the back and forth resolved other than to get both of you even more enraged at your keyboards? Is there some magical resolution forthcoming? Maybe some Picard-TNG era diplomacy that’s about to drop and we’ll all fly off as friends?

    Or Maybe lets all talk about Star Trek again?

    @ Andy's friend
    full disclosure: I got this on amazon prime. So technically I only payed in time (I did buy the second season of Orville which is now free... well).

    Why did I watch the entire season of Picard. I heard a little about it beforehand, that it would be a thoughtful character study of an aging Picard (They actually said that). I almost immediately realized (I think after episode 1) that this won't happen. Everything after that was basically bystander effect. I just could not look away. In hindsight I must admit that I liked season 2 of discovery better than STP.
    And when people say that they think that it is Trek and really like it then... I guess I can accept that there are people who like it. There are people who like Ultimate fighting. I think it is a mediocre show and a terrible Trek show. It destroys Trek.
    Let me predict one thing. When this CBS Trek show wave is over then that will be it.
    The old Trekkies will slowly die off and there won't be new Trekkies. We are like scientology. We had 3 good decades and then the science fiction writer at the core of it all died. Then lesser minds took over.

    Is it because of the times that NuTrek is the way it is. Maybe, in the 90s you didn't have many options so a show could find it's message but now it has to work immediately because there are always other shows. The netflix ceo said that they don't produce shows for 7 or more seasons anymore but for 2-3 and then move on.

    But as some pointed out. In the end it's just a show(s). If there is a (marketable) desire in humans for exploration and positivity then we will get that.
    Or maybe the USA are no longer capable of creating positive myth or universes about the future.
    Maybe we should learn mandarin. :)

    Full disclosure, I only watched this show so that I could participate in the comments section here. Kudos to your site, Jammer. I tried the same for DISC but was physically unable to bring myself to watch S2. It would taken Clockwork Orange conditions to make that happen. So I've stayed away from comments sections for that.

    I agree this site generally has a higher standard of discussion than most. In particular, it is refreshing to not have the usual manbaby types complaining about how there are SJW's under their beds.

    @Booming

    Comparing L Ron Hubbard to Gene Roddenberry? I guess you do have a point. Both took their very simple hack writing and managed to make a cult. In Roddenberry’s case he had a network studio to take quality control.

    It's ironic that in an age in which there is an over-abundance of compelling and thought-provoking science fiction, so many are lamenting the "death of Trek." It's only a "cult" if you live myopically.

    @ James White
    One can lament the death of Trek because it was a special thing. It was hopeful and positive and in general tried to appeal to the better parts of our nature. What other sci fi show does that?

    And while The Expanse is good. On rewatching it I stopped at some point because it is pretty depressing. What other good sci fi shows are there? MacfarlaneTrek is ok but as one once wrote MacfarlaneTrek is more like your local coverband playing the favorite hits, then really it's own thing.

    STP is about Jesus Luc Picard being reborn after saving the galaxy, everybody else is a drunkard and broken, homosexuals are psychos and refugees are a deathly threat, the unknown wants to annihilate us. Oh and let's not forget that the Federation let hundreds of millions die because they could use the resources for something else. Plus classism is back, drugs...

    @james white

    I think ASSIGNMENT Earth was written by Art Wallace

    Cody B - I suggest you do a little research before responding. I'll give you a mulligan.

    Booming, here is what's out there -

    Black Mirror
    The Expanse
    Dark
    Stranger Things
    The OA
    Westworld
    Dr. Who
    Devs
    Handmaid's Tale
    The Man in the High Castle
    Lost in Space
    The Orville
    The Rain
    Altered Carbon
    Humans
    Mr. Robot

    A few have ended recently. And there are others I obviously haven't mentioned. But I stand by what I said. That is a very strong list of sci fi shows.

    Booming - I do agree that Trek is unique. But maybe let it "die" for awhile. It can always come back, especially when the CBSs and Disneys are no longer fucking with our cultural artifacts. In the meantime, give a number of those a try. Also, there's another BSG remake/reboot on the way, a new vision of Dune, a new Nolan film, and plenty of indi sci fi projects.

    Ultimately, Roddenberry was a visionary. So we have the extraordinary creation of a visionary's universe, brought to life by some very talented showrunners and writers. Same with Tolkien's LOTR. Possibly the same w/ Dune if Villeneuve can get it right.

    Maybe what we need is a new visionary - one that creates a very positive, rich and mentally engaging future. Doesn't need to be ST. With all the talent out there, I say just give it time.

    Also, and root for Alex Garland to land new projects.

    @ James White
    let's get through the list

    -Black Mirror (apart from San junipero - which I love) it is a very dark show. I liked it more when nobody knew it.
    -The Expanse: As I said, right now I have a problem with dark and depressing.
    -Dark: Not sci fi. And being German I must admit that I'm highly critical of everything German. I think we should stick with strange arthouse movies that nobody watches :) I saw the first season and thought eh...
    -Stranger Things: Also not a sci fi show and certainly not optimistic. I really liked the first season but now with the rest I can never watch it again. The later copy and paste seasons destroyed it for me.
    -The OA: Never seen it. Did not tickle my fancy. Doesn't look very optimistic, though.
    -Westworld. MOST PRETENTIOUS SHOW EVER. I liked the first season but after that it becomes pretty thoughtless torture porn. It's like they have to fill a murder quota every episode. Also this show is so much in love with itself.
    -Dr. Who. Yeah ok but for the time being I have no way of getting that even though I'm on three streaming services. It is also pretty redundant but silly enough to be enjoyable.
    -Devs: I don't have Hulu. While I really liked both Garland features (I actually like the less beloved Annihilation more) this also looks preeeety depressing.
    -Handmaid's Tale: Here I jumped ship when I realized that Peggy from Madmen would never get out of it. Also torture porn. Maybe even worse than Westworld. Also very depressing.
    -The Man in the High Castle: I liked it a bit but the leads are just too terrible and the plot is all over the place. Also dark and depressing.
    -Lost in Space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OrS5Ym6vzU
    -The Orville: Yeah... eh it's ok. The only relatively positive show on your list. If you can ignore some troubling aspects like Stalky McrapeBlob.
    -The Rain: Pass. That show came out when I started to tire of all this dark and depressing stuff that is 95% of "good" shows. People really have to pop a Xanax or get out more.
    - Altered Carbon: I watched the first episode, I think, and found it pretty stupid and simplistic.
    - Humans: Never heard of it. Looks like Westworld but less gory but still depressing and dark.
    -Mr. Robot: Evil corporations control us all. I already live that, I don't need to see a show about it. :) I liked the first season, though, then it went off the rails. Consumed by it's own success, I assume.

    As I said before. Either the US has lost the ability to create positive outlooks or the audience is so depressed that they want nothing else. I do want positive.
    The good place was nice, ok they dropped the ball in season three but still. I cried and laughed and at the end I didn't think that everything will get worse and life is a nightmare where we helplessly tumble towards our doom.

    Villeneuve is doing Dune... hmm that gives me some hope. I'm somewhat interested in the second age Tolkien thing Amazon spent a whooping billion on. I fear that it will be another tank driving through my early teenage memories. We shall see.

    @James White

    "I do agree that Trek is unique. But maybe let it 'die' for awhile."

    I'm all for that. With 700+ episodes, many of them true classics, I don't really understand this mad rush to create tons of new sh*tty content.

    The problem is that CBS is not willing to leave the old material alone. As Mal half-jokedly said, Star Trek has turned into some kind of grotesque zombie. If it had simply died in peace, it would have been far better.

    You know what I've discovered recently? That I can't enjoy TNG anymore. To be more precise: I can enjoy thinking about it, but I can no longer enjoy *watching* it.

    Because every time I see Picard in TNG, I automatically think about what his actor is doing to Star Trek right now. I also think about *why* he is doing this. I listen to Picard's speeches and they ring phony in my ears, because I know the actor (even back then) felt nothing but contempt to the message he was hired to convey.

    You have no idea how awful this is.

    But no biggie, right? We are just a bunch of silly haterz who are afraid of change.

    (Being a Trekkie in this day and age is beginning to look like way too much trouble for my taste...)

    "Maybe what we need is a new visionary - one that creates a very positive, rich and mentally engaging future. Doesn't need to be ST. With all the talent out there, I say just give it time."

    Yes. That's exactly what we need. Something fresh and focused to enjoy. I wait with baited breath for this to happen.

    Meanwhile we have the Orville. It's not perfect, but it's the only thing that's even remotely in the right ballpark. You know the world has gone completely crazy, when Seth McFarlane (of all people) is producing the Trekkiest show of the past 15 years.

    @Booming
    "As I said before. Either the US has lost the ability to create positive outlooks or the audience is so depressed that they want nothing else."

    Neither.

    It's just that the entertainment industry is ruled by mega-corporations who got used to certain formula and they are too afraid to change it.

    There are plenty of creative types that can (and want to) make more positive things. It is just highly unlikely that you'll see their creation on TV.

    And of-course there's an audience for such things. The Orville is proof of that. Despite all the weaknesses of that show, it still managed to get millions of loyal fans.

    Now imagine if we got rid of the flaws. Imagine the premise being done correctly. It is very easy to see that positive sci fi can be a gold mine.

    Also, why are you singling out the USA? If you know of any non-US positive shows out there, please do tell.

    Booming - as they say in this country, "not so fast, Jack" :)

    As you said, let's get through the list. I'll list your comments and my "response" to each.

    ------------------------------------

    -Black Mirror (apart from San junipero - which I love) it is a very dark show. I liked it more when nobody knew it.

    Response: You forgot USS Callister (tough middle part but very uplifting ending); Striking Vipers (fun and engaging); Nosedive (light-hearted fare); Hang the DJ (romantic); and several others. It's not just SJ my friend. Also, a number of the other shows I would not consider "very dark." Yes, White Bear is brutal. But only a few get to that level.

    -The Expanse: As I said, right now I have a problem with dark and depressing.

    Response: Yes, you indicated this. But you also said there is very little "good sci fi shows" on today. Those are two different things. But I'll take you to mean that "good" = "optimistic." I don't think a majority of people would agree with you. Also, there is a quite a bit of humor in The Expanse. It's really not as bleak as you make it out to be. In fact, the realism adds to my optimism that in the future, at least there will be forces on both sides fighting it out. ST is a utopian drama. Good luck with that future.

    -Dark: Not sci fi. And being German I must admit that I'm highly critical of everything German. I think we should stick with strange arthouse movies that nobody watches :) I saw the first season and thought eh...

    Response: I disagree. It's a time-traveling mystery/drama that spans multiple timeframes. At best, you could argue it has other elements as well so it's a hybrid.

    -Stranger Things: Also not a sci fi show and certainly not optimistic. I really liked the first season but now with the rest I can never watch it again. The later copy and paste seasons destroyed it for me.

    Response: That's subjective. The show continues to garner a positive reception and critically favorable reviews. Also, if Stranger Things isn't sci fi, then neither is the X Files or Fringe. Telekinesis, inter-dimensional travel, alien creatures. Yes, this is hardly "hard sci fi." However, ST has warp drive and transporters, neither of which is grounded in anything close to legitimate science.

    -The OA: Never seen it. Did not tickle my fancy. Doesn't look very optimistic, though.

    Response: It's not overly optimistic. I liked parts of it. It has a very loyal fanbase which was very upset over its cancellation.

    -Westworld. MOST PRETENTIOUS SHOW EVER. I liked the first season but after that it becomes pretty thoughtless torture porn. It's like they have to fill a murder quota every episode. Also this show is so much in love with itself.

    Response: Actually, it doesn't. Season 2 is held in high regard and some prefer it over season 1. Season 3 is a bit more of a mixed bag. However, it's an attempt to "reboot" the show beyond the theme park motif. The primary criticism is that it is too unwieldy and complex. Hardly the "thoughtless torture porn" you are describing.

    -Dr. Who. Yeah ok but for the time being I have no way of getting that even though I'm on three streaming services. It is also pretty redundant but silly enough to be enjoyable.

    Response: Well, TNG was pretty redundant when you consider its connection to TOS. VOY is TNG redux. Enterprise is proto-TOS and far less enjoyable. Only DS9 deserves a truly innovative label. Dr. Who isn't for everyone. But it's fun and generally uplifting. A

    -Devs: I don't have Hulu. While I really liked both Garland features (I actually like the less beloved Annihilation more) this also looks preeeety depressing.

    Response: It's an existential tale with a sci fi premise. If you like Annihilation, you'll probably like this. Because Annihilation is all kinds of depressing and fucked up my friend.

    -Handmaid's Tale: Here I jumped ship when I realized that Peggy from Madmen would never get out of it. Also torture porn. Maybe even worse than Westworld. Also very depressing.

    Response: Or, incredibly well acted, tight script, compelling plot turns, and extremely believable drama. Torture porn takes up a very small part of it. That's a lazy critique.

    -The Man in the High Castle: I liked it a bit but the leads are just too terrible and the plot is all over the place. Also dark and depressing.

    Response: Leads are decent but I'll agree they could be better. Also, you've used you allotment of 5 "dark and depressing" criticisms. You're no longer allowed to use this.

    -Lost in Space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OrS5Ym6vzU

    Response: That was pretty funny. You rick-rolled me, YouTube style. Seriously, Lost in Space is so much better than it has any right to be. The sci fi and overall concepts may not be top tier, but the episodes are entertaining and the characters are well developed. Mediocre? No, Will Robinson!!

    -The Orville: Yeah... eh it's ok. The only relatively positive show on your list. If you can ignore some troubling aspects like Stalky McrapeBlob.

    Response: This show is worse than probably every other listing. It's at least uplifting so it gets an auto bump of 50% on your scale. Otherwise, it's pretty stupid.

    -The Rain: Pass. That show came out when I started to tire of all this dark and depressing stuff that is 95% of "good" shows. People really have to pop a Xanax or get out more.

    Response: Yeah, that's probably true of this show.

    - Altered Carbon: I watched the first episode, I think, and found it pretty stupid and simplistic.

    Response: One episode viewing. Congrats. It's not 2001. But it has it's moments.

    - Humans: Never heard of it. Looks like Westworld but less gory but still depressing and dark.

    Response: Maybe you don't like depressing and dark because you're prone to constantly saying "depressing and dark"

    -Mr. Robot: Evil corporations control us all. I already live that, I don't need to see a show about it. :) I liked the first season, though, then it went off the rails. Consumed by it's own success, I assume.

    Response: Partly true. It's a sold show across its seasons. Very few would say it "went off the rails." Also, if you live this, and you're depressed to the point that you cannot watch 75% of the sci fi out there, I suggest a change of scenery for you.

    As I said before. Either the US has lost the ability to create positive outlooks or the audience is so depressed that they want nothing else. I do want positive.
    The good place was nice, ok they dropped the ball in season three but still. I cried and laughed and at the end I didn't think that everything will get worse and life is a nightmare where we helplessly tumble towards our doom.

    Response: We haven't lost the ability. We're in a holding pattern while we "clean house." The U.S. rarely does anything in an efficient or simple fashion. We move in cycles, and the change is often messy. I'm the eternal optimist. Things will get better. The U.S. would do well to embrace some of the features of your country, particularly when it comes to NOT SAYING FUCK YOU to every scientist on television.

    Villeneuve is doing Dune... hmm that gives me some hope. I'm somewhat interested in the second age Tolkien thing Amazon spent a whooping billion on. I fear that it will be another tank driving through my early teenage memories. We shall see.

    Response: Yep. I'm just having some fun with this. I very much want a return to form for ST. But, to play devil's advocate, you may have dismissed some of the shows above too quickly. Give a few another shot.

    Omicron - I agree as well. When Ridley Scott started fiddling with his Alien prequel films, that really bugged me. Lucas as well in the SW universe.

    Don't sweat it. I thought the Halloween series was irredeemable. Then Carpenter told every director since the original to fuck off. And the result was fantastic. You never know what the future holds, especially for something as timeless as ST. In the meantime, things like Inner Light, Chain of Command, Darmok, BOBW, and so forth will always exist. Just declare Picard "over" with All Good Things. Or maybe even Nemesis if you can stomach it. Kurtzman sucks so bad that honestly I don't consider his shows ST.

    @James White

    I personally recommend both Black Mirror and the Expanse, and I'm known for being *very* picky in the stuff I watch.

    Doesn't change the fact that having more variety would be better. Why does EVERY sci fi show be dystopic and grim these days? Heck, Black Mirror isn't even American...

    "Just declare Picard 'over' with All Good Things. Or maybe even Nemesis if you can stomach it. Kurtzman sucks so bad that honestly I don't consider his shows ST."

    Sure. That's not the problem.

    The "only" thing that's ruined for me is the enjoyment of watching one specific actor when he plays one specific role: Patrick Stewart portraying Picard.

    I know it sounds petty, but I'm not doing this on purpose! I'm not stupid. I know the difference between the fictional character of Jean Luc Picard (who is still a role model for me) and the person who plays him.

    I just can't help but feel the actor's own contempt to the role that he is playing, every time I see him onscreen. It takes me straight out of the story. It's silly, I know, but you can't control these things.

    Omicron - I can't disagree there. If Patrick Stewart would not play Picard as he was on TNG, they really should have said no. It's funny, because in the first episode of the PIC show, you see a glimpse of the old Picard in the interview. Then it's gone for most of the season. THAT MAN needed to come out. He can be older, wiser, even more taciturn. But he cannot be someone unrecognizable to the man that just dominated TNG for all those years.

    As for Stewart himself, he's an actor. They're usually not nearly as clever as the characters they play. What do you do...

    Take solace in the fact that you know better than the actor himself when it comes to Picard. And look for a brighter future for ST. Who knows, maybe Kurtzman will suffer an embolism when attempting to edit one of his meth-infused, shit scenes.

    If it were just a matter of Stewart participating in ST:P, I doubt it would have had the same effect. It's the fact that the actor actively campaigned for this change, combined with the knowledge that this was always how he felt about the character.

    "As for Stewart himself, he's an actor. They're usually not nearly as clever as the characters they play. What do you do..."

    LOL. Well, that certainly made me feel better ;-)

    (doesn't really solve my problem. But at least I can now laugh about it instead of feeling miserable, so thanks)

    @James White
    Ok, you got me on the comment about there not being good sci fi shows. I meant it more in the sense of distant future, not "in the year 2035" we all have sex with robots or existential dread. I'm really looking forward to all those prostitute demonstrations. "WE NEED TO FUCK!!; WE NEED TO FUCK!!" Maybe then society has to finally deal with that topic in an adult manner. Prostitution is legal in Germany but far from well organized. I digress.

    I think we have a different threshold for pain or watching suffering. I have a really hard time watching people suffer, mentally and physically. Even bad people. You name USS Callister it has a happy ending but even though the bad guy is a real psycho does he deserve to suffer for eternity? Nosedive I found pretty depressing actually. The downfall of that lady. Sure many of Black Mirror episodes have funny moments but they often have a depressing message. Nosedive does too, I think. Hang the DJ again happy ending but all standing on a somewhat depressing foundation. Taking the Human element out of love. I don't know. I'm sensitive. Maybe I should watch more Hobo death matches. ;)

    Ok let's get through it quickly:
    - The Expanse. I think the world(s) are pretty bleak. The people on the rings for the most part live really shitty lives. Earth also seems pretty rough. Even if you are really smart you have to win the lottery to get an education... masses live on the streets. Only the people on China.. ah I mean Mars look relatively happy until they don't. That shift in Mars society seemed a little too sudden for my taste. Then the murder molecule. The show kills off more characters than Game of Thrones. Only our plucky crew has plot armor.

    - Stranger Things happens in the past. Sci Fi for the most part happens in the future. I guess there are several opinions on the matter.

    - - Westworld " Hardly the "thoughtless torture porn" you are describing." Ok maybe it is not thoughtless but I find it somewhat sinister because it laments how Humans enjoyed violence and horrible stuff in the parks while showing nothing else but violence and horrible stuff. It is like a violent movie who wants to criticize that movies are violent. Maybe sinister is too much but certainly hypocritical.

    - Ok with Dr. Who you dropped the ball a little. Dr. Who does more or less the same over and over again. The magic so to speak comes from the new duos. The stories are all the same essentially. TNG was in many ways very different from TOS. I did not particularly like Voyager and Enterprise. Voyager because it was bland and Enterprise because of all that cowboy "we gotta do this now damn!" and "T'Pol you are such a buzzkill, maaaan" behavior.
    Dr. Who is uplifting, that is true. I must point out that I only saw maybe 5 seasons of Moffat Who.

    - Handmaid: Again I think we perceive violence differently. The problem I had with it was the scene when she almost gets into the plane to freedom and I knew well before that she would never get out because then the show would be over or lose it's narrative thrust. So the suffering has to continue indefinitely. Then there was a scene where they were burning the hands or something of some of the Handmaids and I felt so bad that I quit.

    - I found lost in space generic. But I'm happy that you liked the vid. :)

    - You are right about the Orville. I still haven't finished season two. It sometimes almost reaches good but never really maintains that height. But it does not make me feel bad.

    - Altered Carbon just didn't interest me. And these days I don't watch several episodes when I like nothing in the first episode.

    About depressing and dark.tm. Well, a friend will come over the day after tomorrow and I had to test what times are best to drink on the balcony and being the dutiful scientist that I am I made quite a few tests. #CoronaSomething
    So forgive me if my writing isn't as razor sharp as it should be.

    - The Story of Mr. Robot (the same goes for Stranger Things) was over after season one. It was a great season. A lot of the mystery and charm falls apart when you stretch these concepts out, in my opinion.

    " We haven't lost the ability. We're in a holding pattern while we "clean house.""
    Clean house, burn house... we shall see. Before Trump I thought that you would make it into another cycle but now I'm not so sure. Actually I don't think so. Apart from Trump blowing up the federal budget, The US made more than 1.2 trillion in debt last year during the longest economical growth period since probably the Roman Empire and then Corona. What will cost that 6 trillion at least. Could be a lot more. There are a few fundamentals that are really off in the US. And now with Trump having destroyed the last remnants of the democratic consensus... I'm drunk. Could all turn out fine.

    "NOT SAYING FUCK YOU to every scientist on television."
    You people do say fuck a lot to scientists. We have that too but far less also more or less working social nets, health care and free education which keeps the plebs in check... For now. :D

    "and you're depressed to the point that you cannot watch 75% of the sci fi out there, I suggest a change of scenery for you."
    I'm fairly melancholic. Change of scenery is difficult right now. But it is planned. Doing a lot of research into right wing populism which is like studying a really slow deadly avalanche. Not a great mood booster, I can tell you that.

    Still does sci fi have to be so dark and depressing.tm. You would probably admit yourself that the future sure seems pretty shitty in most of these.

    " Give a few another shot."
    Maybe later. First I need some positivity.
    I saw this show "Into the night". It is a good show and I thought the next goddamn end of the world I want to watch should only have people who stay nice and calm and get out of situations by to quote Wesley Crusher:"Don't worry captain, I will think us out of here." Not like it is today in these shows were everybody things about cannibalism after five minutes.

    Dark is German? Would it be good for someone trying to learn German?

    @Glom
    There are always subtitles. I watch much like into the night with subtitles. Often better.

    But learn German for a show. No.

    German is also not an easy language. It is often fairly illogical.
    Just to give you a taste. In German things have genders. The moon is male. The sun is female. The water is neutral. The fist is female. the horizon is male. Lumber is neutral. 95% of these make no sense and are completely arbitrary and have to be learned.
    And it doesn't end there...

    Personally loved Mr. Robot. Thought the acting and direction were awesome. Only missteps in my mind were a dragging of the 2nd season and the ending, which while still good wasn't quite the payoff I had hoped for.

    How about forgetting about new shows? Most people here, from what I gather, haven't even watched fucking Babylon 5. Jammer hasn't. As a sci-fi fan, that's a crime.

    Also, the same people decrying the "dark and depressing" stuff of today still praise nuBSG.

    @James White

    I agree with just letting Star Trek go. I still have the entirety of TOS and the decent movies on bluray. The other series are on Netflix. Prior to the reboot, I felt there was more than enough material that I didn't need more Trek for the sake of more Trek. Some say we should be happy that at least there's finally new Trek on TV, but I disagree. There was already enough for me to not just accept any old slop.

    I intend to not bother with this from now on. Discovery s1 of course I gave a chance because it was the first Trek in over a decade. In fact, I gave it a lot of benefit of the doubt. Discovery s2 I gave a chance because at least give the show a season to find its footing. Picard s1 of course I checked out because it was the return of iconic stuff. But that's enough giving it a chance for me. Sure the failure of Picard was fascinating, but one gripping train wreck is enough. And Discovery was a dull failure so total snoozage at watching s3.

    The best thing I can do is send a message, however small, by not adding to the click stats. The problem is that a cottage industry has arisen where every person and their dog make their livings out of hate watching things and ranting about it on YouTube. So I fear CBS won't suffer all that much. They'll still have their subs. They'll mostly be Youtubers watching it so they can post videos about how awful it is. And so CBS will think they have a successful model on their hands and Alex Kurtzmann will look vindicated. Kurtzmann? More like Kurtzgehirn.

    @Booming

    Mere triffles. Gender is the easy bit. I particularly like the gender balance of flatware, die Gabel, das Messer, der Löffel.

    But have you seen Dutch word order?

    German is probably the easiest language I've tried. At least your spelling is way more consistent than the dog's dinner that is English.

    @OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

    [(Being a Trekkie in this day and age is beginning to look like way too much trouble for my taste...)]

    I would agree, but probably not for the reason you're experiencing, which if I'm gathering from your post correctly, is that the quality of the shows has declined?

    For me, being a Trekkie in this day and age is beginning to look like way too much trouble for my taste, because I actually have found stuff to enjoy about the last few outings (NuTrek, Disco, Pickerd), and came to Jammers Reviews to converse with people about them...

    Only to be vigorously slapped down for "not having any real knowledge of cinema" simply because I don't mind if a show doesn't cure my lymphoma as long as it keeps me occupied for a while and gives me something to look forward to at the end of my week.

    DISCLAIMER: NO I DO NOT ACTUALLY HAVE LYMPHOMA I'M JUST BEING SARCASTIC SORRY IF YOU HAVE IT FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT OK, YOU CAN DO IT

    ... I said it when I first got here, and I'll say it again, and probably continue saying it ad infinitum and change no one's mind, but

    ***It's a SONG, ya green-blooded... Vulcan!! The words aren't important, what's important is that you have a good time singing!!***

    I feel like the biggest and most critical voices on this very comment board are unchanged from when I got here back when STID was out, and that nothing but nothing will ever be good enough for these people.

    Admit it. You just enjoy trashing the shows you like to watch, and you're going into every viewing with a giant chip on your shoulder. I calls em like I sees em.

    @midsh..norris

    You got me. I admit it. I just watch this show so I can trash on it with internet strangers.

    Not one part of me wants a good star trek show in keeping with the best it used to have to offer. Nope.

    Just want trash fodder for my internet stranger circle jerk of hate.

    Personally, I was on board with Picard through episode one. Not 100% sure about the direction but willing to go along with the story they seemed to be telling. Then the opening of episode two hit and totally turned me around. Not to mention the story I *thought* they were telling got dropped only to essentially be resolved in the last two minutes with a throwaway line of dialogue, while the rest of the season faffed about and meandered for 8 episodes. Putting aside all the "not Trek debates" I found the show a shoddily written, clumsy, jumbled mess with no through line, poor plotting, weak characterization and an over-reliance on trite, meaningless spectacle.

    I don't dislike the show because it's new Star Trek and I hate all new Star Trek, (though that is sadly turning out to be the case) I dislike it because it is not a good show, and I stuck around with it as it was serialized and much like a sports fan watching his favorite team lose a game, kept watching because I hoped they'd pull it out of the fire in the second half, or the final minutes. The show did not. It tripped, fumbled the ball and skidded into the endzone with all the grace of an overweight pidgeon, fat on the greasy leavings of a fast food parking lot attempting a water landing in a shallow pool. Splash.

    I suppose though, as a piece of entertainment, Picard is doing it's job. It is entertaining me, finding new ways of ripping it to shreds for its mediocrity.

    Ahem. Now that THAT cathartic experience is done with, I shall move on to my main point...

    A few nights ago I finished "Farscape" for the first time. It was an... interesting show. At the start of every season I found myself thinking what a weird show it was, and there was always a point where I wondered if I should go on, but I always gave it another episode and found myself drawn back in. Invariably by the end of the season I'd be hooked and appreciative of the storytelling I'd experienced. Having finished it I can say I enjoyed it, it may not be my favorite sci-fi show, but it's good.

    Looking back on it though, it struck me how much of Farscape's DNA resides in Picard, but not executed nearly as well. Farscape revolves around a ragtag bunch of characters, all of whom start out at their lowest point, all of whom are looking for a form of redemption and all of whom are morally questionable. Much like the characters of Picard. The difference is that these characters have to EARN their way out of where they are. Episodes and arcs devoted to their growth, versus token lines that sometimes don't match up with the action around them as in "Picard".

    The storytelling of Farscape is in that semi-serialized sweet-spot but contains seasonal throughlines, much as Picard had a season storyline, but it flowed more organically and felt less like trying to fit a plot point in whereever a space could be found. (Granted 10 eps vs 24)

    Then the world of Farscape: Gritty, lived in, morally dubious. Much like Picard's tries to be. But the reason Farscape does this better is because of its blank canvas, while Picard is trying to fit in with the tapestry of a franchise and doesn't quite fit in with it's surroundings. But then Farscape, as with most shows, was attempting to stand apart from the gold standard of TV sci-fi: Star Trek. So, what do you get when Trek tries to distance itself from what it used to be? Every other sci-fi show that's out there, sll of which don't have as strong a legacy.

    This last point is of particular interest to me, as It got me thinking about the "culture" of media franchises. There's been a lot of debate about what lies behind ohrases like "This isn't Star Trek" and the like, and whether "Star Trek" is just that which is labelled as such or if it's more than a title. Do media franchises have a "culture"? If so, is such a thing immutable? If it can change, is it possible to change enough that it is no longer that which it claims to be? (Ala, the example of the axe whose handle is first replaced, followed later by the blade - is it the same?)

    Lets look at some other franchises, such as James Bond. What is it's culture? Suave, British spy. Womanizing. Attractive women. Bond is an attractive guy. Gadgets. Intrigue. Action. Cars. Evil geniuses, henchmen and nefarious plots. A somewhat, heightened world of international espionage. But, for a time, the newer movies have eschewed some of those elements. Fewer gadgets, more grounded world, grittier action. Less womanizing. Yet still considered "James Bond." Is there a point where a Bond movie could distance itself from the elements of it's culture where it could be considered "Not James Bond"? Or would that just be the whining of an entitled fandom?

    What about the franchise of DC comics characters, and the recent attempts at a cinematic unoverse? Did those movies stray too far from the established traits and "culture" of that franchise and its charactersresulting it its lackluster performance? E.g, Superman being too dark and gritty, not enough of s "boy scout", or Batman abandoning the established "no killing rule"

    Contrast this with MCU, which was workimg with a far less established "culture" behind it's characters (Marvel characters to me weren't as well established in pop culture as DC's had been, barring a few exceptions) and thus could take more liberties, resulting in a trillion dollar success.

    Is a media franchise capable of having a culture? A pop culture sub-culture, if you will? Is adherance to that established culture important? Or does distancing from it allow "This isn't X" to be a valid argument? Or is that merely a fandom practice that has no bearing on a final produce, its success or failure, and something creators should ignore? All interesting questions, I think, and which I cannot answer. At least, not without doing some acafemic research and writting a term paper on. Which I probably won't let's be honest. But I'd be interested in hearing other's thoughts on it...

    (And less of the comments on others comments about comments on comments ;-P)

    And finally, if you DID find yourself a fan of Picard, then you may also like Farscape, as it does have some of the same themes, but without the Star Trek baggage. And if you were NOT a fan of Picard then I would reccomend Farscape as an example of what Picard was trying to do, but done right, and without the baggage of Trek behind it.

    Gosh darn typos... thats what I get for writing PARAGRAPHS on my phone. In the dead of night no less... >_

    @Eamon
    You are such a garbage person. If you had a show I would hate watch it. :D

    Don't worry about Norris. We went through this five times already. People criticize the show, then Norris rides in to tell the "haters" where they can stick their views #echochambers4everybody.

    @nolan

    I think you nailed it here. This doesnt stand on its own EITHER as a stand alone show or as a connection to a past franchise.

    On the latter, it fails miserably. There is a backdrop they are working with when you label something Star Trek (barring the 2009 reboots) and then using an iconic character known for wisdom and diplomacy. STP threw all that away but without ever earning it. Why was the federation so far from its utopian ideals? Oh right because the producers said so.

    If this show wasn’t as star trek show it would STILL be a failure of a TV show for all the reasons you and others have mentioned. The canned plot lines, the glaring plot holes, the lack of resolution to anything, the making-something-seem-important-only-to-be-dropped-the-next-episode storytelling. And again, the blatant plagiarism of Mass Effect 3’s story endgame that they thought no one would notice.

    A show can change it’s culture. Here’s an example.... Star Trek. What? TNG was vastly different from TOS, but the changes felt organic. DS9 was vastly different to them both, but again, the changes to the universe and show culture happened because of good storytelling. I mostly blame Ron Moore for this, but hey, he had a vision for a slightly less perfect Federation. But instead of just having every cursing and having Sisko assassinate a Romulan senator, he allowed the development of the story to lead there. It felt earned and as a result of good storytelling. We could understand the Federation bending and cracking because we could see the factors that caused it.

    And STP didnt score in the end. They put the ball in their own goal.

    @Nolan
    "(And less of the comments on others comments about comments on comments ;-P)"

    I just have to comment on this.

    Does this make my comment "a comment about a comment on comments on other comments about comments on comments"? ;-P

    "Is a media franchise capable of having a culture? A pop culture sub-culture, if you will? Is adherance to that established culture important? Or does distancing from it allow "This isn't X" to be a valid argument? Or is that merely a fandom practice that has no bearing on a final produce, its success or failure, and something creators should ignore?"

    These are indeed interesting questions, and I don't pretend to know the answers.

    But I think you're ignoring a very important consideration here: What did the original creator of the franchise want? Should that have relevance as well?

    Star Trek was created with a very specific vision in mind: To show us a better humanity and give us hope for the future. This fact isn't the invention of some geek culture. It was mentioned countless of times in Roddenberry's own words.

    Leaving everything else aside, doesn't this vision deserve to be protected? At least to some extent?

    We should also remember that we aren't just talking about some crazy caprice here. It's not like Roddenberry had an obsession to broccoli and the color purple. We are talking about a genuinely important, hopeful, positive vision for the future.

    Is it okay for the current IP owners to just throw all this away as they please? I don't think so. Nor do I think that the fans who feel betrayed and/or angry are "overreacting". This *is* a big deal and it should be treated as such.

    @Eamon
    "DS9 was vastly different to them both, but again, the changes to the universe and show culture happened because of good storytelling. I mostly blame Ron Moore for this, but hey, he had a vision for a slightly less perfect Federation."

    DS9 is really a borderline case.

    On the one hand, they made a very real effort to respect everything that came before.

    On the other hand, it *did* become increasingly dark and warlike, to the point where the question "is DS9 still Trek?" was a valid one.

    I know of some Trekkies who can't accept DS9 as Star Trek because of this. I get where they are coming from, even though I do not share their opinion. This is a grey area where a variety of individual opinions can make sense.

    With the new shows, however, the situation is quite clear cut. If you removed the words "Star Trek" from the title and changed a few iconic names, the result would be simply UNRECOGNIZABLE as Star Trek.

    Some people don't mind this. Others are positively excited by these changes. Both reactions are perfectly fine. To each his own.

    The problem begins when people are denying that these massive changes are even taking place. No, there is no precedent for this kind of complete overhaul in the history of Star Trek. Anybody who says otherwise is either lying or delusional.

    Omicron I think the only question that really matters is it in any good? Others have fully canvassed the reasons why it isn't.

    Perhaps it's my perspective as a TNG era trekkie and child of the 80s, but I never had a problem with DS9's allegedly darker tone or questioned its status as Trek. I don't even agree that it is particularly dark frankly excepting a handful of episodes, In the Pale Moonlight and For the Uniform being the standouts that get everyone's panties in a bunch.

    And those episodes were either storytelling blunders best ignored or the consequence of a very specific context driven by the war story being told. But DS9 as a whole was never "dark" overall. And to be clear, I see "dark" as more or less synonymous with nihilism.

    @Omicron
    "Is it okay for the current IP owners to just throw all this away as they please?"
    Yes. They can slowly walk it off a cliff. The bigger problem is that a company (CBS) can say what Star Trek is and what isn't and a company will always do what it deems to be the most profitable. Even if there were a nice team of talented people somewhere who want to make good Trek, they couldn't.

    @Nolan
    I think that a cultural product or creation has to have an identity, a micro culture, if you will. If it ceases to be identifiable as that creation then it ceases to be that creation. That is why they throw in Spock, Picard, Riker, Data, the Enterprise and all that because without it, it would be unrecognizable.

    About your question concerning super hero franchises. You may be right that DC had it a little harder because everybody knew the Christopher Reeves Superman which is still beloved. They were happy somewhat silly movies, turning this around into dark and gritty was a bad idea, in my opinion, because if Superman isn't just a nice dork with superpowers then he is really scary. I can really recommend "The Boys" (great show,by the way) to highlight what a nightmare a realistic superhero would be.

    Marvel's heroes remained silly. They also were really lucky that Downey needed money for actual angel dust. He is a great actor. The Guardians were a bunch of lovable losers. Marvel also understood what comic movies are. Childish. It is pop corn cinema in it's most pure form. They are smartly made, funny and forgettable. I don't remember anything from these movies apart from the celebration of the male body.

    " Is there a point where a Bond movie could distance itself from the elements of it's culture where it could be considered "Not James Bond"?"
    Is Adam Sandler doing a "movie" right now? I think he would be up to the challenge.

    @omicron

    Bingo. The difference between DS9 and its edgier, dark turn is that a) there was still an appreciation of the source material by the writers and b) even the characters themselves struggled with it.

    Actually watching the characters of DS9 deal with the morally changing circumstances and the test of their ideals made for great viewing. It’s actually those things that elevate DS9 above TNG in my ranking. Let’s be honest, DS9 was probably equally controversial in its day. However, as the stories played out people came to still respect that there was an undercurrent of what made Star Trek unique. Even if the ideals of the federation were getting bent (or broken) there were ramifications for them. Either characters struggling with that, arguing for or against the bending of tradition, etc. There was debate WITHIN the show about “What is star trek.”.

    Like you said, if you remove any of the trek packaging from the new series or new films, you’re only left with generic space show/film. Not particularly compelling as Trek or otherwise.

    The truly sad thing is that STP didn't have to suck. It sucked because of factors having nothing to do with the underlying idea of revisiting one of the most iconic sci fi characters near the conclusion of his life. There are many, many ways in which this story could have worked. But that presupposed that a "work of art" was ultimately what CBS desired. What it prioritized. When you have a new show, you need a high quality product. You need to be infused with some combination of exceptional acting talent, writing, substantial issues (or kinetic scenes), depending on what it is you seek to achieve. You hope for those iconic moments - that transcend an episode or even a season - that viewers remember. These keep us coming back. They become the backbone for the mythology that develops. They are the "art" upon which the product depends.

    With ST, CBS went full on mercenary. Fan service. Check. Return of iconic character. Check. Cool F/X. Check. Diverse cast. Check. Mystery box. Check. Plot, coherency, intelligence, vision, depth, and the grasping of human beings to understand some higher truth - something bigger than themselves - all of this. UNNECESSARY. Not undesired. Just not needed to succeed. Perhaps too much of a risk. Perhaps not fully attuned to what the younger demographic wants. Who knows.

    The sad thing is that STP could have been a great drama. Perhaps even exceptional. But it was never given a chance. Because a hack producer, a mediocre writing team with little to no understanding of ST (as a whole), and a bunch of corporate fucks (much like Disney) decided that success would be exclusively defined by immediate viewership. That the artform itself was irrelevant to the formula in which success was defined.

    In the end, we don't hate STP in a vacuum. We hate it because we understand the contempt that CBS held for the entire thesis of ST. A greedy, short-sighted, shallow and intellectually fallow organization contorting ST into something that it could never be. I stand by my original conclusion: fuck you Kurtzman. Now, I'm just adding a few more names.

    @James White
    "...decided that success would be exclusively defined by immediate viewership."

    You know what's the saddest part is?

    If CBS had actually done what's needed to maximize immediate viewership, Star Trek would have been in far better shape.

    First step would be to realize that when you have a Star Trek show that's hidden behind a paywall, the vast majority of your viewers are going to be Trek fans. Trek fans of many different types and personalities and ages and needs... but Trek fans nevertheless. So it makes little point to pander to any other demographic.

    Seems like CBS realized this when they first conceived ST:P, because they've found the PERFECT pitch to hook Trekkies with: The legendary Patrick Stewart portraying the even more legendary Jean Luc Picard.

    So far so good. That's "shut up and take my money!" material, right there.

    But then, unfortunately, they seemingly forgot who their target audience is. In the end, there is very little in ST:P that is even remotely aimed at Trek fans.

    The one big exception is the nostalgia factor. CBS got that part right (at least from a business perspective). There's a reason why "Nepenthe" is the most well-received episode of ST:P. There's also a reason why Jammer was willing to forgive ten hours of nonsense when the endpoint was a touching scene between Picard and Data. Most of us love this stuff.

    The problem is that you can't base an entire season on nostalgia, even with Picard as your main character. That's why we have all the cheesy action scenes, the mcguffins, the violence, the torture porn, the mystery boxes, the nonsensical plot... and the fact is that all these were aimed at a mainstream audience THAT DOESN'T EVEN WATCH THE SHOW.

    The percentage of actual viewers of ST:P who think these things are good is tiny. Even among the fiercest defenders of the show, you are not going to find many who argue that these things make the show *better*.

    In short:

    If CBS had seriously tried to reach the goal of maximizing immediate viewership, they would have created a much better show. And then we would not be sitting here, arguing with one other whether the show is good or bad.

    Instead, we would be sitting side by side, enjoying a thoughtful well-written story worthy of Picard's iconic legacy. A show that gives this beloved character the proper farewell he deserves.

    One terrific show in my opinion that nobody has mentioned is 'Counterpart.'
    Has anyone seen it?

    I don't think that STP or Discovery are made for Trekkies. These people looked at the numbers of Voyager and Enterprise and concluded what anybody who can count would: These shows produced diminishing returns.

    They aimed this at people for which Picard is a cultural icon. Maybe they searched for the most popular gif with a Star Trek character in it. 15 min later Patrick Stewart's golden iPhone rang.

    That people liked Nepenthe so much somewhat mystified me. Nothing happened in that episode and even in that episode they found the time to take dump on Star Trek. The Riker-Troy's are of course scarred for life by the Federation because the Federation doesn't allow a positronic matrix to exist, even for medical purposes. Doesn't mean that you have to build androids. Just build the matrix and save dying children but no. It is so manipulative. Everybody is traumatized, nobody lived happily ever after.

    Oh and for the people who say that Picard had to learn how to deal with a teenager in Nepenthe. He had kids when he lived his second life in the inner light.

    @Booming

    Nepenthe is okay. It at least is devoid of schlock elements.

    But I found the attempt to characterise Soji as a teenager rather inconsistent. Her fake memories cast her as a qualified surgeon who was a key part of the team on the Borg Reclamation Project. She was an adult. She needed emotional support due to an existential crisis and being nearly murdered by her boyfriend, but characterising that as her being a teenager seemed forced and rather condescending. I get the dynamic they wanted to create between the two characters, but as with everything in this show, they don't care what sloppy mess they use to hit their goals.

    Troi's description of the disease was rather funny. You culture the infected cells in a positronic matrix? So you cut out a piece of the patient's brain and put it in a technojar for a bit? That's weird. Also, is this implication that you have a living consciousness that has no body, no means of expression, trapped in a medical lab being used to culture organic tissue for eternity. That's kind of horrific.

    And that makes the overall theme kind of weird. I'm sure they're going for the whole allegory of how the NHS depends on immigration and policies based on xenophobia will be a disaster for our health, but this particular allegory makes the relationship come of a rather exploitative. It's fine if you want to do something about exploitation, but this relationship is portrayed as a positive in this show. Oh look, another accidental far right message.

    @Glom
    Hahaha. Man, I didn't even think of that. But you are right, all those healthy organs in those refugees doing nothing, waiting to be used for sick kids.

    The whole silicon based virus was pretty stupid. Humans aren't made of sand or silicon (ok most aren't) so how would a silicon based virus multiply in a Human body? A virus occupies a cell and then makes it produce the virus. That wouldn't work with a silicon virus. That is so great about NuTrek, they care so little about the most basic scientific things, even people who hate science can enjoy it.

    About Soji. Yeah you are right. Does she just have the mind of a teenager? Dash was accepted at the Daystrom. Can you start at the best research facility as a teen? And Soji was, as you point out, one of the leading scientists at this super important hard to get to reclamation facility.

    @omicron

    “ f CBS had seriously tried to reach the goal of maximizing immediate viewership, they would have created a much better show.”

    Thing is, they didnt have necessarily HAVE to make a better show. They just had to PROMISE one. We all paid upfront. They got a huge influx of cash just from the promise of more Picard and the promise of a Star Trek show for Trekkies.

    When they failed to deliver, well, they still got that huge pile of sign up money and we didn’t get refunds. I wonder how many people stuck out paying till the end? Luckily for me, I’m in the UK and this was part of Amazon Prime here. I would have paid if I still lived in the US I probably would have cut my subscription after eye patch picard episode and I wonder how many have.

    Either way, they got what’s important to them. An early, and large, infusion of money. And apparently sustained enough to do another season.

    Omicron and Eamon - I agree with you both. CBS had a "sure thing" with Picard that they cashed in on. So, the quality control was probably lacking. Still, if they had bothered to ask the core ST fanbase what is essential to them, the end result may have been closer to the Picard of TNG. The thesis they operated under - that this Picard would be wholly different than the previous Picard, existing in a fundamentally changed Starfleet - probably doomed the whole thing. You can't "undo" Picard in this manner. But, again, this supposes that Kurtzman and his team had the wherewithal and talent to stay true to TNG while bringing a fresh message and set of challenges in a competent manner. They obviously did not.

    Moreover, as Eamon indicated - they never needed to.

    "And again, the blatant plagiarism of Mass Effect 3’s story endgame that they thought no one would notice. "

    Read a ton of comments here, and this was the only one I saw to reference this. I haven't played Mass Effect myself, but people who have are saying the plot of this show is heavily derivative of it, there seem to be a lot of smoking gun similarities that are hard to ignore.

    Then we can look at Star Trek: Discovery and realize that many aspects of season 1 are ripped off from the computer game Tardigrades, including a number of characters that look visually similar (the characters of Michael Burnham, Paul Stamets, Hugh Culber, Sylvia Tilly), to say nothing of the use of a giant Tardigrade that can travel through space instantaneously.

    It's really surprising to me that shows with the kind of budgets Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard have would need to resort to this kind of copying, it certainly isn't something I'd find indicative of high quality writing.

    Ok after somebody just puked into my toilet I have to state one thing. The story of STP is not stolen from Mass Effect 3. It is stolen from Mass Effect 1-3.
    Plus. You all assume that they aimed this trashfire at trekkies. Get real people. This was not for us. It was for the popcorn munching peeps.

    @jpaul

    That case against Disco was dismissed in court, but it seemed more like the judge didnt really understand how one medium (TV) could possibly plagiarize another (video games). The judge’s own ruling seemed to contradict itself.

    “They’re only similar insofar as they both feature adventures in space and a Tardidgrade.”

    Umm yes..sooo....discovery season 1?............... maybe he didnt want DISCO season 1 past the Pilot episode either. He’d be forgiven for thinking that season would be about Klingons and not space mushroom tardigrades.

    Seems like these writers and producers not only have contempt for the source material, so does Patrick Stewart (as omicron pointed out), they also think we’re oblivious too. Sad times to be a Trek fan.

    Full disclosure, I’ve never paid to go to a Trek convention. I went to one once as a guest and all I could sense was a thousand people in love with the Trek world and all the people involved with it (actors, writers, producers, suits) so seemingly contemptuous of the audience. It made me realize early on that we fans have always cared a lot more about this stuff than they did, which makes sense. To them its a job. To us, we take it as part of our identity. Maybe we shouldn’t. It just TV

    I mean, as long as we're talking "influences" and shared themes/plots and Creator/actor intent, to me it seems clear that Stewart wanted a close out for Picard just as he got one for Professor Xavier in "Logan." I mean, look at how similar THOSE are. Character-name title, a darker, dystopian-esque future for the characters. A not quite, but for all intents and purposes daughter of a close friend who needs saving. An attempt at an emotional send off for the character. A troubling mental/brain condition hanging over the character. The general absence of other, remembered characters. And a darker, grittier, R-rated tone.

    Worked for X-Men because the elements/culture of that franchise had already been scattered and were less than concrete. By the time Logan hit, nobody really cared about the X-Men overarching world and the film got to exist in a weird sort of vacuum. Plus, It was actually a pretty darn good film. Good writing, good exploration of character, moving performances.

    Stewart wanted that again for Picard, probably so he could send the character off in a similarily moving way, but I think things got muddled along the way, then S2 was ordered and now we have Robo-Picard. (Though the episode "The Schizoid Man" from TNG S2 establishes this possibility, it still falls flat to me here) in the end it just didn't really work.

    It's a shame, I can relate this show to so many other sci-fi works, (granted as a sub-par example), yet the one thing I can't tie it to is what it purports to be.

    And now there's a new show coming out and it promises to be more of what fans want. (Again) The fact they're touting its episodic nature makes me want to support it to show that that is a viable formula, but I've been burned three times already and can't help but see the parade of shows CBS is greenlighting is them throwing darts at a wall to see which one is going to be their pop culture touchstone that will live on, while each dart that does miss that mark still gets them a nice payout, all the while the sunk costs fallacy chugs along in the background for both them AND fans.

    And I know, that is a darn cynical view, and I'm sorry to those that like it, but I just. Don't. See it. I've seen people talk about being moved by the show, who liked Raffi's character as a relatable figure of familial experiences and so forth, but I don't see any of it. *shrug*

    Speaking of great new scifi, hope everyone is watching Space Force.

    It's like the most enjoyable prequel for Star Trek/Orville we could hope for!

    And Steve Carrell is fantastic. The Office in space uniform :-)

    Ah, Carrell, Malkovich and story by Daniels? It sounds like it has a lot of potential. Alas, no Netflix subscription here so hopefully it will have a free preview somewhere.

    Space Force is mildly entertaining. If you got time to kill, maybe.
    The show doesn't know what it wants to be. The scientists are funny sometimes especially Malkovich but Carrell's character is not well constructed. The rest is all over the place.

    @Booming

    I saw Space Force in the just added section of Netflix. I could tell it had not funny and mediocre written all over it. I went with Uncut Gems and the Epstein docu series instead.

    I wouldn't call it mediocre but it is certainly not good. I will pass on the Epstein doc. Rich people being shitty + sex, that's like dog bites man.

    Space Force is just what the doctor ordered after The Good Place ended and while we wait for new Orville episodes.

    At least someone out there is making uplifting wholesome scifi again!

    Plus it is always great to see Lisa Kudrow (Phoebe from Friends) back on screen again! Yeah!

    https://youtu.be/MkHQxsv1JgQ?t=78

    The problem with Space Force is that the uplifting tone feels often unearned, bordering on manipulative or cheesy. In the Good Place it felt earned, the characters were recognizable and smartly written.

    In a sense Space Force feels somewhat like STP because in STP almost nothing is earned, everything is just thrown at the audience, like an emperor throwing jewelry at the crowds. But while STP is almost irredeemable because you had to redo the entire show, Space Force just needs tightening. Especially the characters and motivation of the characters. That is why Malkovich works the best. His character makes sense and his motivation is clear. Carrell on the other hand is 6 different characters. He is a war hero, he is a competent father, he has empathy, he lacks empathy, he is incompetent to the point of feeble-mindedness, he accepts unacceptable behavior. It seems like they wanted to ridicule the military but also not spit on the eternal love of Americans for their military. The show has to decide if it wants to be nice to everybody and therefore say nothing or be an actual satire.

    And you mentioned Lisa Kudrow. What happened there?? I'm at episode 8, I think. She almost disappeared. She is in prison for unexplained reasons and we see her in maybe three episodes for a very short time (just looked it up, she is just in 5 episodes in season 1). That looks like production problems. Something went wrong.

    Are they even aiming for satire? Space Force seems like it would be a good idea for short one-off show, mocking Trump's idea. But a whole series? If you do that then you're limiting how satirical you can be, and it becomes about 'likeable characters' etc.

    American TV tends to overdo things anyway. How many seasons was the US Office show? The Brits only needed 3.

    Oh they are definitely going for likeability. There are now four love stories. All of them fairly to extremely terrible and sickly sweet. Carrell and engineer is the least terrible so far. Pilot and scientist is pretty terrible. Carrell and Kudrow, they have zero chemistry. I suspect these two hate each other. I would not be surprised if Kudrow is written out of the show.
    But by far the worst love story is daughter and hick. That stuff reaches cringe level. Maybe it works for Amis (that is how Germans call the US Americans), I don't know. Blue state red state love.
    The office had 9 seasons and coincidentally only three were really good (2-4).

    And the timing of Neflix dropping Space Force is basically perfect.

    We are just 150 minutes away from the earliest docking time to the ISS!!!

    Watch NASA live:

    https://youtu.be/21X5lGlDOfg

    I could not be any less interested in Elon's new toy. Since the whole pedo guy thing, I despise that dbag for which he was acquitted even though he was guilty but hey justice. He is two twitter feuds away from becoming a Bond villain. Plus the Russians fly rockets into space for 70 years now and I don't watch that either.

    @Booming.

    TOS taught us that Russian accomplishments are human accomplishments. There is no reason to minimize launches just because they are taking off from Russia.

    ST First Contact taught us that our greatest breakthroughs will be thanks to individuals driven by profit like Zephram Cochrane, not any sort of world government. There is no reason to minimize human accomplishments just because of the character of the folks making the breakthrough.

    Dragon is less than 1 mile from the ISS!!! It looks so beautiful over the Chinese night sky right now:
    https://youtu.be/21X5lGlDOfg

    @Mal
    "There is no reason to minimize launches just because they are taking off from Russia."
    I didn't. The Russians provide reliable rockets for a long time now. But only because the US messed up their planning and were unable to launch nothing for 10 years doesn't mean that what happens now is special. When a new bus is introduced near you, would you watch that?
    Do you know how man successful orbital launches there were in 2019? 102 (97 succesful), in 2018 it was 114. Did you watch those, too?

    "ST First Contact taught us that our greatest breakthroughs will be thanks to individuals driven by profit like Zephram Cochrane, not any sort of world government."
    ST first contact was not a documentary. And our greatest breakthroughs were certainly not because of "indivduals driven by profit" Do you think that Einstein or Flemming or Newton were driven by profit?! Plato! Unbelievable. :D

    and let me add this: Building rockets and electric cars. What a visionary!

    The governments Mal refers to usually are driven by some kind of profit, though. Would the US have gone to the moon if not in competition with the USSR? A group of people banding together doesn't make much sense unless there is some other group of people somewhere else. World government probably won't happen until there is another "world" of Vulcans and ETs whom we can fight, bargain with.

    @ Booming, countries like China and Kazakistan and Iran do not typically live broadcast manned launches from their facilities (Russia doesn't launch from Russia).

    https://www.rocketlaunch.live/?pastOnly=1

    But when Nasa is involved, you might at least get the launch.

    https://www.rocketlaunch.live/launch/soyuz-ms-16

    It is a rare treat to get the entire mission broadcast live, as we are getting right now for Dragon.

    https://youtu.be/21X5lGlDOfg

    Part of that is that TV stations aren't about to give 23 hours of continuous broadcast of NASA TV, which is how long it takes to get to the ISS. And part of that is that online broadcasting has dramatically improved in the last decade.

    We live in awesome times!

    @Booming

    Looks like the currently fashionable cynicism has stuck to you too...

    I don't like Elon Musk either (to put it mildly) but this doesn't change the fact that today is a big day for space enthusiasts all over the world.

    The Flacon 9/Dragon combination isn't just "a new bus". It's a technology that's far beyond anything else we currently have, both in terms of cost and versatility. It's the first step towards returning to the moon and beyond.

    You know, for a person so desperate for some positivity in their life, you sure are bent to look at the negative side of things...

    @Mal
    "countries like China and Kazakistan and Iran do not typically live broadcast manned launches from their facilities (Russia doesn't launch from Russia)."
    Technically Baikonur is a part of Russia and under Russian jurisdiction. (Picture me pronouncing that like Malkovich would in Space Force)
    What more is there to say than.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1FxfR3lg6Q

    "We live in awesome times!"
    Oh we sure do.

    @Omicron
    " both in terms of cost and versatility"
    Why do you think cities or whoever gets a new bus?

    "You know, for a person so desperate for some positivity in their life, you sure are bent to look at the negative side of things..."
    Oh yeah with global defence budgets going up every year, more control by companies and states of our lifes, destruction of our planet accelerating every year (most people don't know this but CO2 emission still go up not down every year), destruction of the rainforest accelerating, dictatorial sentiments on the rise everywhere and a global pandemic to just name a few little clouts.

    But a hey a billionaire megalomaniac has build a reusable rocket which can transport as many people as the space shuttle and a quarter of the payload. It is truly a great day.

    Booming - I thought you were going to cap your depressing shit at 5 examples per day. You're pushing your allotment.

    Yes, we have issues. But Omicron is right. It's a great achievement. Private sector will drive space travel and future expansion. There will be better times

    @ Booming

    This is a sample of some things you’ve said in the past one week. Who knows what there would be if I went back further. You’ve stopped now to saying “amis” which the exact same thing as an American calling Germans “krauts”. You can play coy and deny that but some very simple quick research would show the term has negative connotations. Respectfully, can you please stop with anti American stuff?

    “Maybe it works for Amis (that is how Germans call the US Americans), I don't know.

    It seems like they wanted to ridicule the military but also not spit on the eternal love of Americans for their military.

    Before Trump I thought that you would make it into another cycle but now I'm not so sure. Actually I don't think so. Apart from Trump blowing up the federal budget, The US made more than 1.2 trillion in debt last year during the longest economical growth period since probably the Roman Empire and then Corona. What will cost that 6 trillion at least. Could be a lot more. There are a few fundamentals that are really off in the US. And now with Trump having destroyed the last remnants of the democratic consensus...

    Either the US has lost the ability to create positive outlooks or the audience is so depressed that they want nothing else

    Or maybe the USA are no longer capable of creating positive myth or universes about the future.

    Do you know what I hate most about American shows? That they have to go on forever

    I think they are about navel gazing and despair which is rampant in the USA right now. The US Empire is falling apart and nobody knows how to stop that. “

    @James
    That is not depressing shit, that is reality. We have almost reached the point of no return. Stick you head in the sand if you must.
    "Private sector will drive space travel and future expansion."
    I highly doubt the future expansion part and I would like to add that for around a decade half of space flights have been done by private companies, mostly Arianespace.
    Apart from satellites and a few billionaire space tourists what market is there? Private companies won't be able to build space stations or a mars base and I don't know how much money there will be from governments when they have to invest so much into camels herds for the great transcontinental desert and underground living facilities.

    @Cody
    Oh so sensitive.
    " You’ve stopped now to saying “amis” which the exact same thing as an American calling Germans “krauts”"
    No, it is not the same. It is just an abbreviation (Amerikaner=Amis). But if you want to call Germans Krauts that is fine with me but I have to tell that there are quite a few Germans who don't eat Kraut. Imprecise.

    " Respectfully, can you please stop with anti American stuff?"
    The quotes from me are not anti USA. It is just my geopolitical view. My views on India or China are not much more rosy than that. People who know me say that I have an eerie ability to correctly predict things. There is of course nothing eerie about it. There are fundamentals that will bring about certain realities. Most people just like to ignore those and live in a dream world.

    @Booming
    If it was sensitivity I would have said something the first time you said something negative about the country I live in. Instead I waited until about the 20th. It’s annoyance much more than sensitivity. I come here to talk about trek episodes. I understand sometimes the topic goes to other things. Fine. It’s gotten to the point that it’s daily from you it’s a little like....yikes. Ya know

    Booming, dude calm down. It's meant to be light hearted. Respectfully, I live in Washington. I'm dealing with this shit in a very direct and tangible way. My business is in the government and tech sectors. I've had the chance to take a bail out from Uncle Sam, but I don't need it. I'm working 70 hour weeks to make damn sure I never will. I'm on the front line of legal action against our Government for harming small businesses. And I'm writing a book about the issues America is dealing with.

    You don't actually know me. But let's not pretend you are anywhere as close to this as I am. It's why I continuously harp on people for bitching about silly things in ST when the world is on fire.

    You need to have a little faith. This too shall pass. America has always rebounded. It will come out of this stronger. But, as you've said, it will take a lot of time and hard work.

    Just to follow up with Mal, I thought Space Force was pretty good, though most of its charm arises from the great biplay of Carrell and Malkovich. I'm not sure what to make of the "ending", but I guess there's more to come. One criticism I have is that I don't really like how it treats the Chinese as boogeymen antagonists. China and the U.S. have their spats, sure, but I can't imagine China claiming the Moon and desecrating the American flag just for giggles. Otherwise, the U.S. satire was interesting and it may indeed be timely.

    A nine parted "teaser" until the first episode. Must be a record. But I enjoyed the way more or less. And I very much appreciated most parts of the final. The discussion between Data Picard was good. In spite of the inverse Dumbledore Potter ending of the scene.

    But now, allowing me to make one of these stupid questions that other do. Why did Agnes Jurati not use the fantastic "Swiss army high tech brass knuckle" to fix Picards brain?

    Look forward to next new Trek.

    @ James
    "It's meant to be light hearted."
    There is no German word for that. Light hearted... there is only melancholy, slow decay and finally death and endless darkness. :)

    "Respectfully, I live in Washington."
    The USA these days are like a book you read in winter with a good cup of tea.

    Good luck with your book, by the way!

    "You don't actually know me. But let's not pretend you are anywhere as close to this as I am"
    I'm not sure what "this" is. I have written several papers about the USA. Ok, Ok only one exclusively about the US but several other mentioned the US! But as you say I don't know who you are and maybe you are a real inside player.

    "But, as you've said, it will take a lot of time and hard work."
    Federal budget, Wealth imbalance, super pacs/citizens united. Right now these three important areas get worse constantly. If you can fix these three areas your country might have a shot.
    We shall see. Best of luck.

    But Cody is right about one thing. This is Trek territory.

    @Cody!
    Nice to see that you are going through my posts. Up for another battle of wits, eh? I said nothing anti american or are you saying that nobody should be allowed to say anything that could be interpreted negatively about the USA?

    The first comment was about Space Force (a sci fi show) and I didn't start that debate. The next one is an answer to a topic that had at it's core sci fi discussions. James gave his opinion, I gave mine. The third comment was part of the sci fi debate as well. The forth comment was actually about Star Trek/NuTrek. The fifth comment is again from a debate about shows that I did not start and maybe you should have looked at the sentence after the two you quoted:"If a show is good then you know that it will run until even the last fan hates it." So what I'm saying is, cody, that there are good shows in the US who then turn bad because they are kept alive for too long. I guess that was already too negative about Murica, Mate? and the last one about the US Empire falling apart. Two things, I actually think that the USA have grave problems and will probably not be a able to solve them. Sorry if that offends you and the second thing is that a huge part of US shows are as somebody called it grimdark or horribly nihilistic these days. There must be a reason for that. Understanding why societies act the way they do is my job, so I tend to think in these ways.

    And I'm here discussing shows made in the USA, by US Americans and as I have shown I started none of the debates you quoted and most were either about sci fi or Star Trek.

    Watched the first episode of Space Force. Less than mediocre. Maybe I'll try and pick it up at a later time.

    @James White
    "It's why I continuously harp on people for bitching about silly things in ST when the world is on fire."

    Mind telling us what we should do instead?

    I'm serious. This isn't the first time you've said this. You seem to imply that we are being irresponsible and that we should be doing something active about the situation.

    So I'm asking you straight out: What, exactly, is it that you expect the people here to do? If you have any useful ideas in this area, I'll be very interested in hearing them.

    Because I've been wrecking my brains on this for three months now, and I came up empty-handed. The situation sucks, but right now I see no alternative to sitting tight and waiting it out.

    At any rate, while we are waiting it out, we might as well continue with our lives. And if we're on a Star Trek discussion board, we might as well talk about Star Trek.

    Besides, the current state of Star Trek is closely related to the current state of the world. You're not seriously suggesting that we stop talking about what TPTB are doing to Star Trek, are you?

    @Booming
    "I'm not sure what "this" is. I have written several papers about the USA."

    "This" means actual reality.

    Unfortunately, given the stuff you've written here on the subject so far, understanding reality does not seem to be your strong suit.

    Not really surprising, for a person who believes that writing academic papers on a country makes him more knowledgeable then the people who actually live there...

    I think first he or she (certainly there are some females James's out there; I googled but I only found articles about female James Bond; So yeah probably a he or a they, that seems to get some traction lately; boing Ryan Reynolds named his daughter James; I kind of like it) should clarify what is meant with silly things.

    Well, I tuned into Space Force.... eeesh, I guess you need to be a "The Office" fan to like it. Personally, I'm not amused or impressed.

    As for the Dragon launch, it was AWESOME!! I love that the private sector is not firmly involved with manned space flight. Can't wait for humans to be able to fly up to orbit and take in the view.... although I'm sure I won't be able to afford it.

    No discussion on the protests and riots? :-) Probably the all the better.

    @Omicron
    "Not really surprising, for a person who believes that writing academic papers on a country makes him more knowledgeable then the people who actually live there..."
    Are you serious??
    there are certainly instances where a scientist can understand aspects of a country better than a layperson who lives in that country. For example ,and that isn't even really part of my scientific research, I know quite a bit about US history, probably more than at least half of the US population.

    "Unfortunately, given the stuff you've written here on the subject so far, understanding reality does not seem to be your strong suit."
    You stated that your life is influenced by god directly so let's not argue about who has the tighter grip on reality.

    @ Omicron,

    "Because I've been wrecking my brains on this for three months now"

    Freudian slip, I think you meant "wracking" :)

    @Booming

    You have a severe ego problem. Yesterday you said you amaze people by predicting the future, you constantly say how intelligent you are, I have not ONE TIME seen you try to reach any kind of middle ground or admit you were wrong about anything with the various people you argue with on here, and now you are interpreting me politely asking you to stop posting anti American sentiments daily as wanting to have a “battle of wits” with you. No I’m asking if you can please stop with daily anti American sentiments on a website for Star Trek episodes discussion. That’s all. Can you do that please? I don’t come here to see my country slandered daily. I’d like to come here for friendly discussion on Star Trek.

    Booming / Omicron: www.mw-pc.com. I live in N. Virginia, run a firm of 8 attorneys now (the site needs updating), and my other business Aqua Meridian, LLC does financial assistance / capital raise work for small to mid cap businesses. You can check out my bio on the website. This is me (for everyone to see).

    Omicron - what can you do? It depends on what you're willing to do. I don't have an answer for all people. I really don't. To Booming's point, some sort of advocacy against out of control debt accumulation, the funding of science/research, the maintenance of our relationships with allies, etc. My 6 year old son is offering Brookings, CSIS and two other advocacy groups his time (uncompensated) to do some research. The various experts are listed. Pick one and reach out to them.

    Write some article, white paper, Op-Ed, whatever. Put your voice out there. Most of you are extremely intelligent. Do something.

    Volunteer. Take some food to people that need it. We volunteer with a local farm to deliver food to especially vulnerable people that lack the means to pay for it (without subsidies, food stamps, etc.)

    Protest. Tell politicians to go fuck themselves. Stand for something. Not on a ST website. Wherever.

    Why do I come here? I really don't know. At first, it was a whim. Now, I realize many of you are some of the most thoughtful and decent people out there. So, yes, I'm telling you that you have more to offer than bitching on this site.

    @James White
    People have been protesting, putting their voices out there and volunteering as long as there has been civilization. If it was the answer, we'd be in a fine situation by now.

    @Peter G.

    Nothing Freudian about it. Just a word I didn't know how to spell until you corrected me.

    @James White

    "Why do I come here? I really don't know. At first, it was a whim. Now, I realize many of you are some of the most thoughtful and decent people out there."

    Thank you for the compliment.

    Now let me ask you this:

    Do you really think "the most thoughtful and decent people out there" have decided to dedicate their entire lives to bitching on a Star Trek website? And that we need a person like you to tell us to help people in need and so forth?

    I mean, that's basically what you have assumed here. Knowing the kind of people we are, does this assumption make any kind of sense to you?

    "Protest. Tell politicians to go fuck themselves. Stand for something."

    One of the things I stand up for, is the importance of continuing to live our lives as normally as possible, even in the face of crisis.

    From spending time with our families to discussing our favorite TV shows, it is the little things that make our lives worth living. Even if it occasionally means that we get into heated debates on "trivialities". That's part of life too.

    So you want to me protest? Very well:

    I protest against the notion that Trekkies should stop discussing Star Trek on a website dedicated to Star Trek just because things have gotten rough in the real world.

    Oh, and lest I forget: The politicians (from both sides) *can* go and **** themselves. There. I've said it. Not that this will make any kind of difference, but venting against a crummy situation is also part of life.

    @Mike
    Good point. Obama pointed out that much when he mentioned that this will have been worth something if it is transformed into actual political change. Always the constitutional professor.

    @James
    I'm actually politically active and also lead a program for immigrants. So I share your sentiment. Sadly politics (and everything where it is about power) is a dirty very rough business. Still, nice that your kid is so active and Brookings, I guess I know what that means. ;)
    Asking us to be more civil is certainly justified. I personally are often too combative.

    Cody
    https://tenor.com/view/heiitse-cfc-chelseafc-redcard-var-gif-16550606

    I shall be brief

    I am glad you liked it Jammer.

    There was almost nothing salvageable in this series :

    1. The hero spacecraft was as uninspiring as the Scorpio from Blake's 7 season 4,as non starfleet a ship as you could get: yes I know it wasn't a fleet ship.
    2. Raffy belongs in detox.
    3. Seven of Nine as Elen Ripley ; give me a break.
    4. The Sheer 'f bomb' hubris syndrome ,effing this ,effing that-utterly puerile writing by ninnies.
    5. What was the point of having Legolas in this?

    I quite liked a Romulan Borg connection as in Star Trek legacy but it was poorly executed here.

    Deconstructing Picard was a nonsense .

    The only thing was the scene with Data but even so it was cheesy.
    And then they have the unwarranted arrogance to set this up for a second season: of what precisely-Firefly Clone :the show?

    @Borusa I can understand some of your points. I also have my doubts regarding Legolas. But his naive character was interesting.

    But your comment regarding Raffy and detox. Honestly, is not Picard in more need?

    I very much enjoyed the return of Seven. She seems very fit. I also liked that the Raffy character had traces of life. I am lucky to be enough old / mature to appreciate the beauty independent of it's age.

    It is good to see that 50+ women also have a place in the world.

    Correction:
    Rios would also need a Detox. Picard perhaps not or perhaps also after living on a vineyard so long. :-)

    @Maq
    Seven also drinks all the time.

    "regarding Legolas. But his naive character was interesting."
    I felt the opposite. He character was so one dimensional. Try to summarize him: "naive, loyal." Apart from that it is killing people, the second most behind Narissa.

    "It is good to see that 50+ women also have a place in the world."
    I'm really happy that this happens and that they toning down the Botox. Foreheads are finally moving again. Really freaked me out to see all these dead Botox faces.

    @Booming
    "Seven also drinks all the time. "

    Yes, a lot of people having daemons in Picard. Do You get an discount when you send three persons to a clinic?

    If I remember correctly, Roddenberry after having seen the horrors of ww2 had an idea of an equal world, no race boundaries, not even monetariean. Let go that the woman have do run around flashing their knickers.
    (Guess that is the price for "peace on earth" they have to pay, and I could live with it)

    But what happened after Kirk? Picard the patron has a great vineyard but Raffi Musik lives in a mobile home like container and Riojas wants to double the price when it gets a little bit tricky.

    Something went wrong.

    @Maq
    "Something went wrong."
    This show has certainly nothing to do with what Roddenberry imagined. On one hand it seems to be a giant Patrick Stewart ego project and CBS hired Kurtzman because he has a certain way of creating and that is what Star Trek is now. They have cut out the old core and now it's just memberberries like Picard or the old crew, Spock and whatever else you want to call Discovery and Picard, nihilistic, far removed from reality?

    It is not made for people like me and apparently many old trekkies feel the same.
    If CBS will be successful or just burn this IP to the ground we will know in a few years.
    For me personally Star Trek is now a thing of the past.
    And that's ok. Everything ends eventually.
    Would I have loved it if Star Trek had soared once more. Sure.
    But it was not to be.

    @Booming

    Yes, something has gone wrong. But I do not see it as harsh as you do, I think. TOS was far from perfect. They had some really horrible episodes. But they did something new, and it was optimistic, exploring and new.

    Growing up in a country without the same kind of racial or ethnic conflicts I dis not really appreciate the importance of Uhura on the bridge, To me Chechov was a the big statement.

    Today there are three things that is irritating.

    Episode should be free standing. I do accept some sort of theme in a season but in my opinion each episode should be free standing. Ok compromise if you only have 35 40 minutes you sometimes need more so double and triple episodes might be tell something more complex.

    Violence, our perception has changes but Star Trek was to a big extent non brutal an violent compared with today.

    Even if I like the fantastic graphic, the story should be more important. More thoughtful episodes instead of star wars.

    I try to enjoy the things that I can :-)

    @Maq
    "Episode should be free standing. I do accept some sort of theme in a season but in my opinion each episode should be free standing. Ok compromise if you only have 35 40 minutes you sometimes need more so double and triple episodes might be tell something more complex."
    I doubt that will come back anytime soon. Apart from sitcoms and telenovelas you will not see episodic TV. Every now and then there will probably be some show that tries a more episodic format but considering that Star Trek these days is pretty far behind the times I doubt that they will break with something that is basically standard now, season or multiseason arcs long arcs.

    "Violence, our perception has changes but Star Trek was to a big extent non brutal an violent compared with today."
    For many people dark, and that includes the violence, is a sign of maturity, more adult programming, which is understandable because until fairly recently you couldn't show real violence because censorship wouldn't allow it, so for a while writers and producers explore the new opportunities. While being dark and gritty can at times be adult, these days I find it very immature.
    Right now people have a feeling of being overwhelmed and unable to do something about the present and immediate future slowly crumbling. A huge majority of cultural products reflect that.
    It is connected to nice German word: Weltschmerz.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDdnAmEQf4A :)

    "Even if I like the fantastic graphic, the story should be more important. More thoughtful episodes instead of star wars."
    The problem is that many people don't want thoughtful, for many people it often goes somewhat in the opposite direction. Many people want to shut their brains off, not get into a higher gear when they watch shows.
    There are many fantastic shows that barely stay(ed) afloat and garbage like big bang or two and a half men makes giant piles of cash, same goes for modern family which is a little bit more sophisticated. I have watched quite a bit of all of these shows. Guilty pleasure. They are not art but ok to good craftsmanship. Sadly Discovery and STP aren't even that.

    This HAS to have the most comments of any episode on this site. Say what you will about the reception to the last few series, but at least it shows the franchise still has a lot of people passionate about it.

    I really do wish what we actually got was better. It easily could have been.

    I tried to rewatch STP, thinking that maybe I'd been unfair since it didn't conform to my expectations.
    Sadly, I had to give up .... knowing about all the plot holes, lame dialogue, poor characterization and unresolved/illogicsl elements made it impossible for me to give it another shot. STP is a total failure as far as a second viewing goes (nevermind the first viewing).

    (Side note: one easy way to tell scenes that were done on the extensive reshoots is to observe Elnor: the actor obviously had set aside his exercise regime in the months between the initial filming and studio mandated retooling).

    @Booming
    "It is not made for people like me and apparently many old Trekkies feel the same."

    You said it above. But even if it is not really made for me, I will try to enjoy the parts hat I can.

    @Dave in MN

    I watched it without real expectation. I had hoped for more. Unlogical stuff Loopholes I try to ignore, After all it is a fiction, fantasy, fairy-tail and entertainment. It is far away from a plausible society. I did manage to rewatch it. It did not really get better but I died enjoy some parts more but also used the forward button.

    Star trek have always been uneven. The entertainment value have often come from the contrasts with other species. That has been thoughtful and often funny. In Picard the main alien species was the Romulans and it was quite serious. It was also dystopian societies that was described. Fair enough to try something new but it was to boring to slow before it really started and just a single loooong theme.

    I have not given up the hope for a better season two.

    Holy shit, people are rewatching this? I don't mean to put anyone down, but there are better ways to spend your time. Go for a walk in nature. Call a friend you haven't spoken to for a while. Learn a new subject. Hell, sleeping for 10 hours would be a vastly improved use of time.

    Then again, the human psychology is fascinating, and maybe torturing ourselves is the goal for many of us.

    @Dave
    You are a mad man. A MAD MAN! :)

    @maq
    "It is far away from a plausible society."
    Sure it is a plausible society. The problem people have with that world is that it could not be Star Trek. Roddenberry made clear that the Federation had to be a force for good and that Federation people had no real interpersonal problems. So he basically forbid anything that makes for easy drama. These two core Trek things were thrown out of an airlock. It would be like a show about lord of the rings where the cast visits the elves and finds out that they all are now cursing drunkards and dislike nature because the WAAAAAAAAR has changed them so much. It would destroy an important part of what Tolkien imagined. This Star Trek iteration does the same to what Roddenberry wanted, it actually cuts even deeper then the Tolkien example.

    " In Picard the main alien species was the Romulans"
    That was because the Romulans were in the new movies. For the most part there is only stuff in this show that people who are not trek fans know. That was probably the first warning sign.

    "Fair enough to try something new but it was to boring to slow before it really started"
    I strongly disagree with this but I fear that we (not me though) will see more of this in STP s2. Because it is streaming it will (like Discovery s1) probably start with a bang.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfaTZC2IJSA

    "I have not given up the hope for a better season two."
    Out of three seasons of NuTrek I enjoyed three and half episodes (1 in Dicovery s1; 2 in s2 and a half in Picard) and that is just not enough after 30 episodes. There are more episodes that I hated or at least disliked.

    Kurtzman Trek ain't gonna get better. They're going to keep pumping out series and gimmicks to con audiences, but the whole franchise at this point has been corrupted and co-opted by money men and hacks.

    I've been watching the Steven Moffat era of Doctor Who and it's been keeping me going until Trek is handed over to someone with talent. It's got the same pacifist, humanitarian vibe of Roddenberry, and the experimental, zany qualities of Braga-Trek. Too many unnecessary monsters and kiddie stuff, but every now and then it hits some big highs.

    And you just don't get those highs anymore with Kurtzman Trek. Instead it's just a kind of long stretch of mediocrity punctured by awful Kurtzman tropes and decisions.

    You also sense that Trek now has an identity crisis. Without a smart showrunner to bend things toward his or her singular vision, it flails in all directions. And so it wants to be a zany Braga-esque mindf*ck, but exists in an era where other shows are doing this better ("Rick and Morty", "Futurama", "The Good Place", "Community", "Orville" etc) and more concisely.

    It wants to be "serious", but repeatedly sabotages this desire by inserting Kurtzmany action schlock.

    It wants to be original and new, but is constantly inserting call backs and fanboy nods.

    You sense that Kurtzman Trek abounds in a bevy of aesthetic contradictions, desperately chasing down every possible demographic and market share, like some kind of odd, grotesque, cobbled-together Frankenstein Monster.

    The recent announcement of "New Worlds" epitomizes this made-by-committee desire to follow the fickle whims of fanboys, a new show rushed to production lines to appease the horde screaming for "more episodic Trek!".

    @Trent, I agree with you re. Kurtzman Trek. It's a 1-trick pony and that trick isn't very good; however, I think just being able to focus on episodic Trek might make the demands on the deficient writing staff easier than trying to come up with season-long arcs. If "Strange New Worlds" was another serialized Trek, I would not get my hopes up.

    What literally frightens me is this talk about a Section 31 series... Now there's something that should not come to fruition, episodic or not.

    @Cody B

    Agreed re: wanting to come to this site to just have a friendly discussion about Star Trek. I don’t want to tell people what they can and cannot talk about, but I will note, whether a particular thread is about Trek or not, the conversation such as it is, is b coming coarser and coarser.

    The world would not come to an end if certain regulars on this site recognized neither they nor their opinions were above scrutiny. These folks, while claiming their speech is suppressed, are constantly telling others here what they can and cannot talk about. And when those others try to engage in what has been deemed “acceptable conversation,” they are declamatorily mocked for being morons.

    Having a friendly discussion means we can disagree without being disagreeable. That is not what is being demosntrated on this site. The mentality from the most vociferous posters (who also happen be the ones who monopolize conversations) is, “I’m right, you’re wrong, now shut up!” - the same people who claim the Trek writers of today have no imagination and go straight to the gutter of the lowest common denominator.

    I have had to start posting comments on other pages abou other shows (TNG, DS9); the tripods haven’t fully infested those sites yet

    @Pirotte
    First you write this
    "Having a friendly discussion means we can disagree without being disagreeable."
    and then you write this
    "I have had to start posting comments on other pages abou other shows (TNG, DS9); the tripods haven’t fully infested those sites yet".

    Also complaining about posts not being about Star Trek while writing a long post which is not about Star Trek is a little weird.

    I just love how these people drop out from nowhere, scream "those who disagree with me are being bad bad boys", and then disappear back to oblivion without saying a word about Star Trek.

    Such an agreeable, friendly, respectable thing to do, don't you think? We tripods should definitely learn about courtesy and social etiquette from these guys.

    Now back to Trek:

    I think the statement of "the Trek writers of today have no imagination and go straight to the gutter of the lowest common denominator" is 100% true.

    Anybody who disagrees with this statement is welcome to say why.

    I disagree because since you admittedly did not view Picard, its possible that its only only 87% true "the Trek writers of today have no imagination and go straight to the gutter of the lowest common denominator". ;)

    In all seriousness, I would call the writing on Picard uneven. I think there a few standout scenes and interactions, along with some good ideas (I was very disappointed not to find out more about the creators of an octonary star system, among some other things). Then there is other stuff that either falls flat or is just bad decision making. I can understand if it makes for a frustrating view, even if I personally found it enjoyable overall.

    At the same time I think the writers do a decent job of weaving some elements of TNG into the story. Data's hand of 5 queen of hearts in the opening is a nice callback to "Measure of a Man" , as the queen of hearts is his hole card in the poker scene, in which he's bluffed out of 3 of a kind by Riker, who has a broken flush draw (that its the queen of hearts should be one the reasons that Data calls the bluff, as Riker has a heart flush draw). Data's wish to have the quantum simulation deactivated is also a callback to the same episode, where Data tells Maddox that merely having memories of an existence is not the same as physically being there. It was a nice touch in what I thought was a great scene.

    Maybe I'm a little too kind to the current iterations of Trek, but I also had some unkind feelings towards the end run of VOY and ENT so maybe it all evens out.

    It's bizarre how STP put so much effort into calling back minute details like the hands of the poker game in Measure Of A Man and then completely glosses over how the Federation went on to create a race of androids for explicitly for slave labor.

    Um, hello? The whole point of the episode was that that would be a bad thing and the concept was shot down in Federation court.

    Jammer wrote, "And everyone is very sad, and it's all laid on very thick with everyone crying, and my thought was: "Really? This is how they kill off a legendary character?""

    And at that moment, Jammer, you knew how I felt when I saw Kirk's pathetic send off in Generations.

    James T deserved so much better.

    I may have been 12 years old when Kirk was killed in Generations, but I loved it back then and still don't think it was a "pathetic send off".

    Comparing Picard's death here, which had barely a trace of emotion for me, zero heroism or triumph, and an overwhelming sense of futility and pointlessness, is really hard to understand.

    @Sen-Sors

    Unfortunately a lot of this is explained in the companion novel, which although pretty good is problematic as one shouldn't be expected to read the novel to understand parts of the show.

    "It's bizarre how STP put so much effort into calling back minute details like the hands of the poker game in Measure Of A Man and then completely glosses over how the Federation went on to create a race of androids for explicitly for slave labor."

    Not really when you think about it. Whatever meat grinder the script went through before getting to this point would not have cared about (or even recognized) the subtle little Easter eggs and nods to the old series. I didn't even notice them - and I've watched Measure of a Man probably 15-20 times.

    @Tommy D

    Sounds like you're a bit brow beaten by us haterz. As much as I find it rather bizarre in this case, like what you like.

    I don't really buy Data's death wish as an allusion to that conversation with Maddox. Data was responding to Maddox's reassurance that his memories would be retained even if he mucked up. There is an "essence" to Data that would not be preserved with the memories alone and that was what Data was trying to protect. I don't think Data meant that if his memories are all that was left then that's just garbage that should be shut down.

    But here, OG Data is already dead so the issue of losing his original existence is a moot point. If this whatever it is that Picard was talking to has the agency to make such decisions, then he is enough of a person to have value in his own right, even if he isn't the true Data. And it's not even just memories in this case. It is outright stated that it is his consciousness. I recommend the book "We are Legion, We are Bob" to get a much better exploration of this metaphysical issue.

    @Glom
    "Sounds like you're a bit brow beaten by us haterz. As much as I find it rather bizarre in this case, like what you like."

    Was that sarcastic remark really necessary?

    It's a two-way street. Fans who defend the show should not be mocked any more than those who dislike it, and Tommy's latest posts were quite reasonable and balanced.

    Not that I *agree* with the things he posted, but that's what this discussion forum is for. It's fine to disagree. IDIC and all that, you know.

    @OTDP

    There was no sarcasm intended. I genuinely meant that Tommy should feel free to like what he likes and not feel compelled by the onslaught of negativity into meeting us with increasing criticism of the show.

    @Glom
    What makes this even wonkier is that they recreated Data's entire consciousness from a single neuron and what remained from the failed transfer into B4. It makes not much sense. Even if they could recreate Data's personality somehow from one neuron that still doesn't answer how whatever Picard encountered had the complete memories of Data. It is just techmagic to have an emotional scene. And if they need Data again they will just say that there was some energy left in the quantum simulation from which they recreated Data AGAIN.
    And with modern tech they will probably be able to make a new Picard show in 50 years but where not some woman but he is doing the kicks and flips.
    Remember!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN9XIQdP5j8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNTLC_uiGFA

    @Glom

    I didn't take it as anything other than an observation.

    However, I think its a reasonable stance to be critical of something and still find value or entertainment in it. I think Jammer's review makes this point well. I feel more than comfortable discussing some of the criticisms of Picard because I know it won't make me enjoy it any less.

    I ordered that book from Amazon. Can't guarantee I'll get around to it soon, but eventually I will. The depth of that kind of discussion is probably not something I could contribute a ton to. However, for those who play video or PC games, "SOMA" is a game I would recommend along the same lines.

    Oh sure. I like to make a laundry list of flaws in Skyward Sword, but I still love it.

    I would totally love a remaster of Skyward Sword if only because I'll likely never pull out the Wii or Wii-U from storage ever again, and the remote that came with the special edition stopped working.

    @Booming
    If you’re lookimg for sci-fi that shows more optimistic version of future, I recommend books by Becky Chambers. I personally would love them to be serialised. They have a spirit of old ST imo, with curiosity amd humanity.
    The novella “To be taught, if fortunate” is about space exploration by four scientists. It really feels like being with them on a mission.

    As for STP... I liked a few scenes, but overall I’m disappointed. No closures, illogical behaviours and characters, I could go on and on. Time to go back and rewatch old stuff.

    @OTDP
    Is it fair for someone to demand that other posters “talk about Star Trek” while that person has not actually watched it himself or herself? This is a attempt at thought suppression, a la “Random Thoughts.” “Sure, we can talk about Star Trek, but only if we do so on my arbitrary, goal-post changing terms.” That is what you want.

    As someone once said, one person should not be allowed to fight freestyle while requiring his opponent to abide by Marquis of Queensberry Rules. (Boxing figured in VOY’s “The Fight,” so I am talking about Star Trek).

    Whenever someone had a non-OTDP thought and expresses it, that person is “ attacking you.”

    As Q said in Q-Who, “the arrogance.” Your need to belittle posters who neither mention you, nor what you are talking about, makes me uncomfortable posting here.

    The last word is yours, as always.

    I’ve borrowed this from a friend who is both a high achieving academic and well versed Trek/pop geek.

    Regarding Episode Chain of Command pt2 where Picard was tortured:
    “One of the best ST TNG episodes. It tackled torture and interrogation... Unlike most depictions it was unflinching and visceral without descending into gore. Individual defiance in the face of unlimited State power was the virtue.

    Post 911, shows such as 24 and others would invert this formulation and glorify the torturer as a man taking on a moral burden for the greater good. Empowering the State through brutality without regard for personal morality was the virtue.“

    Compare The thought behind this to anything in STP. Can you even? TNG reached to make bold statements about the world, and did so with a maturity that I could feel as a teenager glued to my TV. TNG made me WANT to grow up to be like the men and women space diplomats who I idolized.

    STP? If it tries to say anything it’s that foreigners actually are bad, progress actually is dangerous, and exploration of the world or of the self are too mundane to matter.

    How can anyone say this is in keeping with Star Trek?

    Dropped to see if this thread was still going strong. Well, at leadt it's still going...

    But that last post by Eamon - "STP? If it tries to say anything it’s that foreigners actually are bad, progress actually is dangerous, and exploration of the world or of the self are too mundane to matter. "

    I can't make any sense of that as coming out of Picard. Bad foreigners? Some are, some aren't. Progress is dangerous? Everything is dangerous, obviously. Living is dangerous, but saying that doesn't imply you want to Give up living. As for exploration outer and inner being mundane, where does that come from?

    I enjoyed the season, and look forward to the next. It compared very favourably to other first sesson incarnations of StarTrek. We've only had 12 episodes after all. There'll be some crackers yet to measure up to the best if what we've had before.

    Look there are thousands of posts explaining what a dumpster fire STP is so i wont go off on yet another one but since asked...

    Distrust of foreigners:
    Every portrayal in this show of an alien species was basically one of violence, subterfuge, criminality, or conspiracy. Elnor, the only alien crew member was basically a murder ninja With no personality other than his murder ninja code.

    The romulans were basically a contradiction. Picard was all about saving them, caring for them, standing up for them....and then they blew up Mars. Umm. Picard is either demented or naive or both. There was literally no evidence that the Romulans in STP were worthy of trust in the old Star Trek fashion. Seems like The Federation distrusting a species that set a planet on fire killing thousands is pretty reasonable. And yet.....

    Distrust of Synths:
    The entire premise the romulans were working toward TURNED OUT TO BE RIGHT. What were they afraid of? That Synthetics would wipe out all life in the galaxy. First chance the synthetics got, one of them tried to wipe out all life in the galaxy while the rest of them watched. Umm. What? Seems like the Romulan fear was pretty reasonable too. And yet...

    The Federation:
    What federation was this? First they ban all synths, then off screen they un-ban them, but they were now protecting the very same synths that were at that exact moment trying to WIPE OUT ALL LIFE IN THE GALAXY. This federation is both naive AND stupid.

    I’m a liberal leaning as they come, but this anti-foreigner alt-right message, in the context of STP made total sense. Why wouldn’t the Romulans distrust synths? Why would the Federation trust the Romulans. Both sides had more than enough evidence to suspect that their fears were justified. Both the Romulans were right to fear that synths would try to kill everyone and the Federation were right to fear that the Romulans were an aggressive society who tries to harm it. Why? Oh yeah because Patrick Stewart says hey guys lets get along. Ok.

    JL Picard was never shown to be a stupid man before. In this show, he was beyond an idiot. In the past he was diplomat, yes, but he was also a military commander and man of science. No evidence of that here. And yet....

    Exploration:
    What was explored in STP? What worlds discovered outside of murder synth world and what species were discovered other than trans-dimensional (or trans-galactic ... it was hard to tell) murder synth octopus robots.

    What inner explorations where there? Agnes murdered someone in cold blood horrifically. No consequences because hey, at least she felt really really bad about it. And it wasnt her fault anyway a Romulan gave her a mind vision of murder death bots that turned out to be pretty accurate.

    In the final scenes, Data makes a poignant speech about the importance of mortality. Picard obliges him by digitally euthanizing him. In the next scene Picard is alive again in a synthetic body. Is he upset at this? Is he conflicted? Is he unsure because he was just swayed by Data’s view that mortality matters? Nope. He just wants a few extra years now that he’s been resurrected. Where exactly is the exploration of the inner here?

    I could go on, but its too much now. People like this thats cool. Season 1 of TNG wasnt great but it had great moments that suggested where it would go. This show was written by people who think spectacle and mystery are good substitutes for reason ethics, morality, thought and philosophy....you know, the foundation of what made Star Trek great when it was at its best.

    @Scarmoc

    Since you are perfectly willing to voice... ehm... "non-OTDP thoughts" anyway, I wonder why you don't just speak up about the things you wanted to talk about.

    I apologize if your intentions here were sincere, but you've made a terrible first impression:

    (1) A person whose sole contribution to this website is a direct attack on another poster.
    (2) Peppering that comment with random Trek references, which just looks like you're jumping through artificial hoops in order to make your comment more "legitimate".
    (3) Making the analogy between internet discussions and boxing fights. If that's how you view things, that's already a bad sign.
    (4) Complaining about "suppression of ideas", yet not willing to write *anything* about those ideas.

    All of this just looks like you're trying to pick a fight.

    Again, my apologies if I've misunderstood your intentions, but that's how it looks.

    So forgive me if I don't see any reason to "justify" or "defend" myself in front of you. I generally wait until the other person demonstrates he can have a civil discussion for at least 5 seconds, before I begin to care about what what they think.

    Fun little realization that came up among my cohorts on a Trek Club livestream as we were discussing the various series finales. In particular about how Janeway, ADMIRAL Janeway that is, decided that, despite a rather nice, peaceful future, she decides that she just can't stand life without a handful of her friends and decides to travel back in time and save them by giving them a quicker route home and dealing a major blow to the Borg, erasing 25-50 years of a pleasent future and rewriting it to one in which her friends are alive...

    And what is that future? Why, it's Star Trek: Picard! Mars is destroyed, Romulans are refugees, the Federation has entered a period of decay, synths sre banned, one of the friends she saved has a horrendous, guilt-ridden life, multiple characters beyond her series have had hard, tragic lives, class divides and poverty have gained a foothold on Earth and an AI squid machine is ready to devour all life and knows how yo get here.

    Thanks a lot, Janeway. Ya done screwed up again. Congrats Star Trek: Picard, you've retroactively further damaged a character young girls have looked up to by rendering her last decisions as having a negative effect, and undercut the finale of another series in the franchise. Your suck is like the temporal anomaly in "All Good Things..." extending both backwards AND forwards in time, spreading throughout the franchise like the Tirellian plague.

    I was talking w my Dad today, about how the best Trek episodes from TOS tended to be written by Science Fiction authors.

    It occurred to me as well that the moment Michael Piller took over TNG from an ailing Gene Roddenberry, the first thing he did was open up script submissions to whoever in Hollywood at the time thought they might have a script (TNG was close to the start of principal photography for Season 3, and they had almost NO scripts).

    ... I kind of wish Alex Kurtzman would put down the pen... Why is it that everything he does on Trek (I'm unfamiliar with his other work) tends to have 40 bajillion 'exectutive consultants' credited?

    I'm guessing it's because what he wanted to write sucked hard swollen Targ balls, and if I think he's a Denebian Slime Devil... well, that's my opinion, too, hahahahahaha... ;)

    Jammer,

    It's hard to believe I was 15 when I first came upon your site. I believe I was using Netscape Navigator and working at the public library for minimum wage at the time. I just wanted to pop in and say it's nice to see your site still up, running and productive!

    Horrible series, Picard and Disco. Better shows in past series. Babylon 5 much better.

    Hope modern Trek is long forgotten, and that soon. #CancelTrek #CancelStarTrek

    With love.

    @ Tommy D

    I'm not advocating banning this new show or making it so the cast and creators are unemployable for life. People are allowed to make mistakes once in a while. (I don't believe in cancel culture, it's censorship).

    I'm just saying Lower Decks looks cheesy/cringey and derivative of every other sarcastic surreal modern cartoon. Other than the setting, I don't see much that reminds me of Star Trek: there's no aspiration or idealism or philosophy at play (that I can see).

    The first character we're introduced to is ruthlessly mocked for showing ambition and imagination .... and of course, he's the one that has no bravery or courage. Everyone is shown as behaving unprofessionally. The other characters scream and shout like a bunch of unruly teenagers. "Jokes" are pounded into the ground. The animation .... yeah, it's just not very good (except for the still backgrounds of the ship, that's the only Trek thing they got right).

    Feel free to watch this tone-deaf abomination, Tommy. It can air 20 seasons, for all I care.

    Wow, I watched the trailer. Not that I'm really interested in anything Star Trek anymore but this... wow... It is like watching somebody having sex with a corpse and that corpse is Star Trek.

    Nihilism, emotions and idiocy.
    That is what Star Trek is now.
    Another sacrifice on the altar of marketability.

    Booming,

    I also saw the trailer and while I'm always stoked for new Trek I'm not sure I have any desire to watch this.

    Ooof. Lower Decks.... was this someone’s kid’s idea of a joke that their producer relative was like “hey wait a minute??? $$$$$”

    At this point, who is Star Trek for? Existing and old fans aren’t served by what Star Trek has become. All the cynical, nihilistic revisions wont make new audiences care.

    Who are they producing this crap for?

    @Yanks
    There are fine meals, there is McDonalds and then there are Trekkie tastes. We have fairly specific demands: smart science fiction, hopeful, positive maybe even normative. A world were Humans live in some form of harmony.

    NuTrek is McDonalds. It is not for Trekkies.

    I'm afraid you're right Booming. It really saddens me. I've enjoyed Discovery (season 2 to the most part) and most of the Short Treks.... but they are missing the jist of Trek IMO.

    @ Dave in MN

    Since my response was in jest (maybe I need to work on my humor execution in Jammer land) to Samuel's post above mine, I'm not sure what you're responding to at all, especially in regards to lower decks, given I haven't made any post regarding the trailer.

    As far as the lower decks trailer, I thought the ship looked cool. But I'm not into animated stuff all that much so if I do watch it will be at my own pace.

    The Lower Decks trailer makes Into Darkness look like a masterpiece. I'm just done with Trek.

    Some decent comments in this long and verbose discussion about whether or not Picard portrays the Federation as a dystopia:

    https://old.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/comments/i3r759/the_future_of_star_trek_picard_is_a_dystopia/

    Robert Meyer Burnett discusses with Melinda Snodgrass about how "Picard" references her TNG episode "Measure Of A Man" and uses characters (Maddox) without crediting her (and paying her residuals):

    https://youtu.be/knToX_gE0v4?t=2649

    Tears like niagra falls at the end!!

    I was a little underwhelmed with most of what went on this season. Yes, there were good moments and some great TNG nostalgia but I wasn't too bothered how episode 10 panned out.

    With 15 min to go I was like "oh this exciting but so what?" Then Picard dies and those scenes hit me hard! Emphasised by having just finishing watching the whole of TNG from start to finish over a 3 to 4 month period.

    I discovered Jammers reviews after another guy's reviews ended in season 4 or 5 of TNG. Love reading your thoughts after the episode!

    I’d say 3 stars is about right. It wasn’t a great first season, but what Star Trek series (besides TOS) has ever had a great first season? I expressed my displeasure in part 1 as being an Augments rehash, but thankfully they made up for it in the last half of this one. It almost made me forget about the über dark tone, unnecessary cursing, red herring buffet, and having so little of Picard in a show called Picard.

    But to bookend this exploring Picard and Data’s relationship was fantastic. I think it was a way to bridge the gap from a great finish on TNG, through some bad movies, and into new territory. Time will tell if the journey was worth it, but if the follow up is more like the ending and not like the 8 episodes of exposition and filler, I’d say we have a lot to look forward to.

    William B on May 16, 2020:

    “It does seem likely that eventually some of Trump's brazenness will bite him in a way that seems to do some actual harm to him (getting sick, for instance), but probably he will just continue until then, and he'll just be invincible until the moment he isn't.”

    It’s amazing how prescient this comment sounds now.

    Only just got to watch ST:Picard series 1 on dvd past week. Loved Remembrance, Nepenthe, and Picard's last goodbye to Data (season 1 finale). All in all, a great intro to Picard's new motley crew; but here's hoping to see all the other ST characters & much loved veteran actors in the next 12 seasons (and why not, Midsomer Murders still going strong, decades old, like you).
    Engage!

    I was really looking forward to the show and it was great.

    The showrunners found a way to naturally connect to past characters without making it appear to be blind fan service.

    Some general thoughts:

    - I agree with Jammer’s review of the final episode and that the show is ultimately about Picard saying goodbye to Data, and I think it’s also about Data’s humanity being told through Soji and the themes of artificial intelligence and consciousness.

    - How come there wasn’t a single mention of the Dominion War? The consequences of the war would’ve been felt for decades and it’s strange there wasn’t even a passing reference.

    - We also needed more insight into current state of the Alpha Quadrant and how the other powers are faring (a few minutes of exposition wouldn't have hurt).

    - The Narek/Narissa scenes simply did not work.

    Going forwards, the show should continue to be about these new characters & continue to introduce new personalities and stories, and where the narrative fits bring back old faces. Can you imagine how awesome it would be to have a DS9 character return (assuming it makes narrative sense)?

    HK Star Trek:
    "Going forwards, the show should continue to be about these new characters & continue to introduce new personalities and stories, and where the narrative fits bring back old faces."

    I completely agree, I'd even prefer that old faces only make cameo appearances and A stories built around the new ones. That being said, the second-season announcement confirmed Q's return!!!! -- "The trial never ends"

    "I am ageless-- you are not."

    I think the make up team are currently shitting themselves after the crap they got for Data make up.

    Now having rewatched it two times I come to a sligtly other conclusion than the first time. I then disliked it because it was slow and had no free standing episodes.

    When I rewatched the serie during three days it was definetly more enjoyable and quite beautiful. Perhaps that is the solution for next time. Wait until its ready and then whatch it en suite.

    Two other things struck me, one obvious.

    1. It was almost the same plot as in DIS seaon 2. That already had been used in stargate.

    2. The end reminded me very much of Disneys jungel book from 1967.

    Thoughts on finishing my first viewing of Picard:

    -In some ways, this show was much better than I expected and there were actually a lot of moments that felt like the show was doing something very special. But the core scaffolding I'd say was a bit more middling--- like a 2.5 star show with enough really special moments to bring it up to 3.

    -Most of those really special moments were the ways in which the series re-introduced and worked with established characters--- Seven of Nine, Riker, Data-Picard (see the finale).

    -The biggest source issue for the show I think is kind of sloppy writing. This was evident in plenty of plotting, in the execution of some scenes, and in the inconsistencies around a lot of the new characters. A lot of the time the show felt like it was taking shortcuts, changing its mind, or avoiding a techno-babble exposition type scene because those got way overdone on previous trek-- but they are still needed in some form here! Ultimately, there were a lot of leaps of faith required of a viewer based on what was just seen on screen. It got to the point where I became too suspicious of hanging threads and any work not directly shown to us-- you can get away with that if the audience is confident that these things are deliberate and you will address them, but they don't work nearly as well when my first incliniation is that it is just sloppiness.

    -It took me a little while to accept the continuation of 90s trek characters and universe in a show that really doesn't feel much like 90s trek in many ways. But once I got on board, I stopped having those issues.

    -Seven of Nine was my favorite character this season. And I really liked Stardust City Rag mostly for her value.

    -Picard is dead, and now we have a nice little copy of Picard. I'm fine with that, but I don't have confidence that the series will explore copy Picard's situation--- it looks like they are going to just treat him as Picard, and as someone who thinks he IS Picard, with a few jokes thrown in. I'd really like to see him grapple with the nature of his existence for a bit, before perhaps accepting that whatever distance there is between himself as the copy and the original Picard doesn't matter so much because he is a real sentient consciousness with all the memories and experiences of Picard-- that whatever you might say about how this is a distinct new copied consciousness, from his perspective there's no difference.

    -The serialized format with season-long story I think worked well to reintroduce Picard and take on all the weight that that involved. As an engaging plot with a satisfying pay off it was decent-- neither a bust nor a ringing success. But I'm hoping the next season will have a more episodic approach with ongoing plot threads, character development, and balancing individual stories with something bigger. Based on how this season ended with essentially Picard and his new crew fully assembled, it seems to me that this might be the direction they are going-- following this crew on some adventures while something lurks in the background.

    Loved it. Picard back and Stewart hits all the right tones with the older Picard. A lot harder to accomplish than the worship-Him at-all-costs version in the TNG series, not that he didn't sell that either. Rios, Raffi, Agnes all good, will get more character growth in Season 2.

    After reading the prequel book that beautifully features the tragic breakdown of Raffi's personal life because of her obsession to help Picard with the Romulan evacuation, I feel like the writers should have spared more time to her redemption. Oh well. On the opposite end, thanks to the writers for giving Data a proper goodbye.

    Bring on Q and the new challenge.

    Tim
    Tue, May 26, 2020, 8:37pm (UTC -5)
    How about forgetting about new shows? Most people here, from what I gather, haven't even watched fucking Babylon 5. Jammer hasn't. As a sci-fi fan, that's a crime.


    ---

    I get the feeling Jammer has some sort of ridiculous hatred for it tbh... to watch this poo and not B5....

    B5 is much better sci fi than Nu-Trek, but Jammer has reviewed Star Trek for decades so it makes sense he would decide to review Picard - especially when he didn't know how it would turn out.

    Would certainly be cool to have a B5 discussion in this forum. I highly recommend the series. It's like DS9 without the padding. Absolutely blows away nu Trek in sci-fi and just overall. Even Crusade is better than nu Trek. But that should not come at the expense of reviewing nu Trek as this is primarily a Star Trek review site as I understand it. (And occasionally nu Trek can come up with a terrific episode in spite of its ethos.)

    There is a new trailer. I will not watch season 2 but I'm already looking forward to reading about it here. :D
    It's all back
    - Q
    - The Borg Queen
    - Time travel
    - LOTS of action
    - New hairstyles
    - so far no scenes with Picard wearing an eyepatch and doing a silly french accent. :(

    Even when I still liked Trek I detested time travel plots where history was changed to make the Nazis win WW2 or whatnot. Enterprise burned out of me any desire to see that sort of thing again.

    Here we go again with the grim dark the future is a "totalitarian nightmare" - giving the writers excuse to masturbate on their woke angst over racism or whatever horrors they really really really want to explore but otherwise can't because - you know- Star Trek.

    So if the Federation Gene created can't be the racist sexist ableist genderist trumpist totalitarian nightmare the writers just want so desperately to write about they just have Q snap his fingers and POOF! And even better, let them travel back to the 21st century where they can stop Trump from winning the 2016 election which is probably where Q made history go wrong.

    The question is, what does it matter anyway since we already saw in season 1 what a grim gritty ugly world the protagonists lived in.

    Well, at least Picard and Discovery get away from Star Trek. Discovery went into the far future and Picard into the past. Sure Discovery basically destroyed Star Trek by showing that the Federation imploded, still maybe that is Q, too...

    "where they can stop Trump from winning the 2016 election which is probably where Q made history go wrong."
    Trump being the starting point for a galaxy wide fascist empire. That would be soooo dumb, I'd watch that. :D

    I just watched the trailer as well.

    We've had 4 seasons of live-action nu-Trek, so far, in which the Federation is a cesspit and our heroes are continuously scrambling to "restore the Federation" or "remind the Federation of its most cherished values".

    These seasons seem completely unwilling to just accept the existence of Roddenberry's Federation, and get on with other stories.

    Now we have a new season of "Picard" which seems like it seeks to do the same thing. Earth is a totalitarian cesspit and Picard has to "remind everyone of how to act".

    Who wants to watch this stuff? You don't need to use Earth and time-travel plots to tell a tale of totalitarianism. Just set your tale on an alien planet, stick some plastic on an extra's forehead, and knock up a cheap set. Instant allegory!

    @Trent
    "remind the Federation of its most cherished values"
    I would say that considering the Federation in Discovery season 1 is ok with genocide we are already at the most basic values. Same goes for the Federation in Picard which left hundreds of millions of Romulans to die from the supernova (that made zero sense) just because.

    Going back into the past to prevent a totalitarian future... well I suppose we're getting a more totalitarian present with the senile tyrant puppet Biden in the White House, Australia's draconian approach to stem the pandemic etc. So do Picard & co. go back to Wuhan in 2019 and prevent COVID-19 from becoming a pandemic and thus not give totalitarians the opportunity they've been waiting for?

    Think we're in for more the same crap as in S1. The overall arc will be unsatisfying and unoriginal but for a few twists (like Q's reintroduction). But there may be a decent episode in there that can largely stand on its own (though the trailer didn't give any such indication).

    Has there been any indication that "Strange New Worlds" will be episodic? If so, that would make it a lot easier for Trek's team of poor writers. Seriously hope they do something different with that series.

    Booming said: "I would say that considering the Federation in Discovery season 1 is ok with genocide we are already at the most basic values."

    Yeah, but the heroes of all these shows tend to disapprove of where the Federation's at. Michael balked at the idea of taking strategic tips from a Mirror Warlord, and Picard thinks Starfleet's lost some of its soul.

    Kurtzman Trek is about idealists living in a dirtied-up Federation, and the impression I get is that this is supposed to be uplifting. ie - with a little bit of gutsiness, heroism and hard work, Kurtzman Trek says, the Federation will one day, or once again, be a shining beacon.

    I think the effect this has on the audience, though, is different. There's nothing rousing, hopeful and inspiring about this. And that's because *utopian fiction always derives its power by being actively in contrast with how things are. By simply existing as an antithesis, it derives its power. You don't need to dirty up the Federation to make an anti-totalitarian point, the Federation existing at its best, already makes this point for you.

    *I know some balk at the idea of the Federation as a "utopia", but I always define utopia as an ongoing praxis. In this sense, the Federation embodies a utopian impulse.

    Anyway, we're jumping the gun. We don't know what this season is about.

    @Trent
    "Kurtzman Trek is about idealists living in a dirtied-up Federation, and the impression I get is that this is supposed to be uplifting. ie - with a little bit of gutsiness, heroism and hard work, Kurtzman Trek says, the Federation will one day, or once again, be a shining beacon.

    I think the effect this has on the audience, though, is different. There's nothing rousing, hopeful and inspiring about this"
    These are probably the two main issues these shows have. For Trek fans it destroys Star Trek by suggesting that the Federation is essentially another space empire, humanistic and all but in the end it will crumble, not a better state of human existence, that once achieved, can never be lost.

    And for everybody else it is disappointing because there doesn't seem to be any struggle for reaching these ideals by a broader part of society. Like the military is arguing for murderous drone strikes or racists are saying Romulans are garbage and then we see many people fighting against that but no, as far as we know it is either Discovery alone or Picard's little team. Even fleet admiral, acting captain Riker says basically "Helping people is bad". How is Picard's dirty half dozen supposed to change a federation with it's trillions or quadrillions of beings? There is no indication that society wants to get back. We never see demonstrations or anything. Considering that the Federation is supposed to be very democratic, one has to assume that a majority of people in the Federation want it this way. The biggest joke is at the end of Picard where a voice just tells us:" The Federation lifted the ban on androids." That is how disinterested this show is in its main problem. The main struggle for the soul of the Federation is never really shown and then resolved off screen. How could that be satisfying for an audience??

    Kurtzman's "the amazing spiderman 2" was so terrible that they had to reboot the entire franchise after that. It seems that CBS has just decided to let Kurtzman destroy Trek with his incompetence. People are watching Lower Decks because if you put that label on something, some people will watch it. Maybe that is true for the other NuTrek stuff as well. I'm approaching it differently. I ask myself the question " Would you watch it if it did not have the label Star Trek." and that is basically a no for all Kurtzman Trek.

    New interview with Akiva Goldsman:

    https://trekmovie.com/2021/09/14/interview-akiva-goldsman-on-q-the-borg-queen-and-what-season-2-of-star-trek-picard-is-all-about/

    Q: Can you give an update on the Picard production? You’re done with season two and then moving on to season three?

    A: Season three starts the day after season two wraps.

    Q: So did you have all of season two written by late in 2020?

    A: No.

    Q: You were still writing season two this year?

    A: Yes

    Q: You did once say your biggest lesson learned from season one was crafting the season as a whole to make sure stuff pays off.

    A: Yes. I can’t answer whether or not we learned it because I haven’t seen the rough cuts yet of the last two episodes [of season two].

    Q: But there were efforts made.

    A: Oh, yes, for sure.

    _______________________

    https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/39d22a86-5f1b-49b6-8c8b-6afacf58c3fc
    I feel like somebody just performed a jedi mind trick on me?!

    I think the Picard/Data scenes at the episode's end are too simplistic, and Picard himself seems a bit too much of a naif in them, but the basic letting-go-of-Data here, essentially doing right by "Nemesis" as much as is possible, was affecting enough for me to embrace them.

    Otherwise, Picard's willingness to sacrifice his life for the cause and to recognize this life-sacrifice as a kind of adult responsibility, of how to teach Soji by example, is good, and is, well, our Picard, as well as actually moving his character forward in sending him to embracing his role as surrogate parent (grandparent?), which is the thing he so resisted during the series. In some ways we maybe don't need Picard to tell people he loves them, but...maybe that is what he needs, and maybe that's okay.

    I think a good season could have built up to Soji's being tempted to unleash destruction out of self-protection and being talked down by a sacrifice by Picard to be something fantastic. As is, well, there's a shell of a story here. And honestly I do think that the Picard/Soji dynamic and Soji's traumatic trust injuries (particularly from Narek) are given enough attention that the climax still has some ring to it. But there's a *lot* of noise drowning it out.

    Interesting flex to introduce Soong's son who's a sociopath. "Acquired taste" indeed. Can't write out Spiner entirely even if they finally commit to Data being gone for real, huh.

    The golem ex machina resolution for Picard was indeed set up, but it does feel cheap if the episode is going to rest on Picard's sacrifice's importance, and the idea that the Soong we saw in this episode would scrap his own chance at immortality to give Picard another few decades is not plausible.

    Seven apparently joining the crew, or hitching a ride, rather than taking up Hugh's work with the xBs, the obvious narrative place for her, is...well, I mean, Jeri Ryan is a treasure and I'm glad to see her, but wow. Similarly for Riker being pulled out of reserve; it really did feel like Nepenthe was more properly his place.

    Anyway as people have said the season keeps veering wildly about. All the stuff about the Romulan refugee crisis is just a dead end, which is a problem because having Picard be told over and over again that he should have helped them means that it's hard to accept that now he can go off and do other unrelated adventures, just with Elnor nearby.

    The general Kurtzmann Trek problem of digging its characters in too big a hole too early is obviously present; nothing in this last episode suggests that it's plausible that we're dealing with someone who was an active drug addict hermit a few weeks before, or a cyberneticist who became a murderer and then a spy and then a pilot and so on. Soji leaving her planet right after just not using the Ragnarok machinery and we're going to, what, expect that

    What's interesting is that THE ORVILLE SPOILER The Orville has similar basic problems -- the whole Isaac thing, e.g., and how his flip from friendliness to genocide to friendliness is largely swept under the rug -- but the show's breezy tone and actual commitment to day-by-day lived existence, as well as its more obviously "fake" let's-put-on-a-show (vanity project, even) retro aesthetic make it easier to roll with these huge character beats as part of a pulpy sci-fi dramedy. "Picard" takes itself seriously and then undercuts itself. But it has moments.

    Regardless, I went into the season with low expectations and I'm glad I did, because that did allow me to appreciate what the season does give. There were threats, but Picard more or less came through with his own dignity intact, and it was good to see Stewart in the role. Giving Data a more elaborate send-off generally felt right, and I like our looks at Riker, Troi, and Hugh (even if the latter was killed off, it was good to know what he made of himself since we saw him). (Not a fan of this show's version of Seven, though I am a fan of Ryan.) I largely enjoyed the cast (I'm particularly fond of Alison Pill). Not a glowing recommendation (or a recommendation at all) but it is what it is.

    I will add that as Jammer alludes to, the opening and closing Picard/Data material does seem fitting.

    That said -- I did know something about that Picard/Data denouement (because I visit this site), and I think I kind of imagined that the season would actually be in part a quest for Picard to find Data. And indeed it was -- where Soji is the proxy. But I think it would have been good to introduce earlier in the season the recognition *that Data might still be alive* -- not just in his daughter's mind or whatever, but for-real possible to release from some prison. And then pivot to Data actually wanting to be "released" as in killed, rather than released as in rescued back to life. This would tie in with the "I don't want the game to end" beginning and tie things together.

    I guess the related issue is that the Picard/Data scene really overlooks what Data actually thinks of Soji (and Dahj, and the others I guess): does he see them as being like Lal? Does he want to see them? Does he know of them? Does he want to be preserved so that he can be there for them? These are obvious questions given, you know, *this season*.

    As with a lot of the season, there is a sense in which the Picard/Data scenes exist in their own self-contained mini-arc which has little to do with anything else going on. I guess it makes it hard to take it all too seriously, as a result.

    Still, again, I appreciate the sincerity of the performances. I think there is something special about the Picard/Data moments, even if -- well...even if.

    @ William B, (or perhaps just because you're commenting on these),

    I had to re-read my own comments on this season the other day because, well, frankly I couldn't remember much about the details of the stories or my thoughts about them. Re-reading them, I remember why: it was such a disjointed and chaotic mess that it was hard to tell episode-to-episode where the story was going. Occasionally I've had this problem with a long-form story series, like Game of Thrones, where the interlude between seasons would cause me to have memory gaps requiring me to read synopses of episodes I'd already seen to explain stuff in the new season. It's kinda easier to binge the whole series at once from that standpoint, But this phenomenon was happening episode to episode in PIC.

    Having remembered now what these episodes were about, I came to a conclusion about one issue some of us discussed in the comments about the joy of discovery. Part of that, I think, is the concept that learning and knowledge are themselves a joy, that it's a good thing to know more and see what's out there. But ST: PIC would have us believe that some knowledge, maybe some of the most important knowledge out there, is so horrific that you would go mad and kill yourself if you learned it. Such a nightmare to learn that you'd readily murder your lover on account of it. This is Lovecraftian stuff, and although I'm not averse to a story like that, it seems to me to introduce something that makes Trek impossible. More specifically, if knowledge can be divided up between that which is a joy to learn and that which will make you rue the day you were born, it means each and every discovery might be amazing or horrible, and therefore there can be no default in hoping to learn more being an optimistic endeavor.

    The mystery box format itself seems to reinforce the idea that the audience wanting to know more will as likely as not result in happy conclusions as beloved characters dying. JRR Martin made himself famous for relentlessly killing off beloved characters, so that you could never be sure what to hope for or who to root for. But Trek can't have that kind of ambiguity where the choice to explore might be a dismal mistake. Q challenged us with that in Encounter at Farpoint and the answer was that, no, we really do want to go out and learn rather than stay home, even if there are risks. But the conclusion of PIC, aside from the Data/Picard scenes, is also that Picard seems to have needed to put aside his need to learn the truth and be right, and do admit his own failure and devote his attentions to caring for those around him. I won't pit myself as an antagonist to the idea of mixing caring with knowledge, but PIC seems more to be saying that knowledge won't really get you anywhere since every episode new knowledge will upend and subvert what you thought was true anyhow. So just give up on knowing the answer and fight for love instead. I can halfway dig that, but only halfway; the other half of me insists that this is a direct contradiction of the original Trek message that we, as a species, need to learn some lessons and improve our awareness of our surroundings, and that through this knowledge we can be better. But here we get Stardust City Rag, where the knowledge of right and wrong is trumped by violence, and in the finale, where knowledge of a hyper-advanced intelligence is trumped by a speech from the heart. In both cases an emotional outpouring is more important than understanding. From that standpoint I think that's basically the same message I was getting from DISC: knowledge is at best a double edged sword, so better to feel your way through situations. Knowledge can hurt you. Go with your gut. And I will say one thing about this message: if TNG had an incomplete view of life, favoring ivory tower wisdom over the realities of messy life, it did need a correction. It's just I felt that correction came from DS9. PIC isn't a correction, so much as an inversion: a hailing of the messy reality of life, and dismissal of ivory tower wisdom. But I just don't see a possibility that a Trek story can dismiss knowledge as being an ultimate good and still be what we need it to be. It just becomes Game of Thrones in space.

    @Peter,

    I think that what you say is largely correct. It does make me think of a few things.

    1. Regarding "Picard," while I agree with your general assessment, I think there was some effort to remember who Picard is. When he makes his impassioned plea to Soji, he introduces the concept by saying, basically, that the androids are children, have had few role models, and how children learn best is by example. So it's an emotional plea, but also one that is calculated and based on his understanding of life cycles, history, psychology, and myth. I'm not really going to try to mount a defense that this is great writing or that Picard is right, but I think you can see the wheels turning. And while he does decide he needs to do a plea from the heart, I don't think he personally is rejecting intellect in doing so in the moment. It's a bit like The Galileo Seven where the logical thing to do is an emotional maneuver, which is trying to weld head and heart. Whether the series is consistent with this is a different question.

    2. Given that I mentioned The Galileo Seven, it occurs to me that the situation where any piece of knowledge they discover out there could drive a person mad does remind me of Trek: TOS. I think Trent (or possibly others) mentioned this in one of his reviews, how frequently it seems that characters succumb to species of space madness, from Mitchell onward. Is There In Truth No Beauty has a very Lovecraftian element in particular. But the series is always clearly on the side of exploring anyway, and in particular on encountering each new problem with curiosity, gusto and white knuckle determination. Some of it is I think because Spock models an extreme Stoicism in the face of such horrors combined with an intense curiosity and Kirk again just has this gusto on top of everything else. Risk is our business, etc., but he basically wants to keep going out there no matter how many crew members and friends he loses. So it's never anti-knowledge, but lays down how frightening that knowledge can be.

    And here the difference in format and aesthetics may be very important. The series of one off adventures in a stagey (in a good way), brightly coloured format, in which problems are encountered, many are driven mad or killed, and then they are conquered, can convey to the audience both the stakes and the worth of pushing past without bludgeoning them. That the main cast is basically safe is also a kind of emotional promise to the audience not to get too discouraged either. Whereas long format season arcs where nothing is ever safe or comprehensible bludgeon the audience into fear (which Picard identifies as an incompetent teacher in this very episode) and cynicism, create a kind of adrenal fatigue. Which is not an insurmountable storytelling problem, arguably, but it's going to be difficult.

    @William it just seems like over-analysis on your part. I just don't think you can compare the ethos of Picard to TNG era shows or even TOS. The one example from No Truth in Beauty seems specious to me. The Medusan was not intended to convey anything I would call Lovecraftian. On the contrary, it was intended to portray an entirely different message, that just because something seems ugly superficially doesn't mean it can't have inner beauty. The ambassador isn't some Lovcraftian horror - the fact that seeing him drives you insane is more of a metaphorical device.

    @Jason, good point about In Truth No Beauty. What I mean is that it seems like people are often killed or overwhelmed or driven mad by new things in TOS, in response to Peter's post, but that TOS by design conveys that it's worth the risk.

    I know William. But something isn't Lovecraftian merely because bad things are out there that can do bad things to us. There is an element of nihilism to Lovecraftian horror that is absent in Trek. Frankly I am not sure it even fits with PIC or the other new shows because they are way too sentimental to fit that mold. It is a very weird blend.

    @Jason, fair point. I've only read one or two Lovecraft stories and was mostly going off Peter's comment.

    The aspect of a Lovecraftian universe I was mostly highlighting was the idea that ignorance is what shields you from madness, and that even getting a glimpse of the truth will destroy you, because the ultimate reality out there is bleak. We are best living parochial lives, not thinking too much about how things really are, and instead being insular in our attentions. So this is a message that I think is incompatible with Trek. I'm not suggesting that this is an outward thesis of PIC, but rather than the story implies that knowledge may be a horror. Both TOS and TNG rested entirely on the idea that we absolutely need knowledge, not just enthusiasm and feelings, in order to move beyond savagery. To the extent that PIC is saying that high-faluting knowledge is somehow disconnected from gritty reality (exemplified in Picard vs Raffi, or Picard vs Seven), it is saying that intellectual moral understanding is really something like a patriarchal imperialism that needs dismantling in favor of emotive connections to those in pain. Again, I won't place myself at odds with emotive connections, but am only observing that the knowledge = danger motif is a reversal of a central premise of TOS and TNG.

    @ William B,

    "And while he does decide he needs to do a plea from the heart, I don't think he personally is rejecting intellect in doing so in the moment. It's a bit like The Galileo Seven where the logical thing to do is an emotional maneuver, which is trying to weld head and heart. Whether the series is consistent with this is a different question."

    It will always come down to writing quality and framing in the end. Do we see inspiring scenes where Picard's honor and intellect shine, or do we see scenes where in employing his traditional tools he's made to look foolish? I would argue PIC prominently features the latter. It's not so much saying he's useless and incapable of learning, but rather that he's been missing what's really important all this time and now he's willing to learn. Now I don't mind a learning arc for Jean-Luc, it's just that the way they frame it they are implying repeatedly that this requires not only adding to what made him a champion of right in TNG, but actually deconstructing that and adopting a new model. So basically if he wants to continue to be a champion of right he needs to turn over his model of rightness in favor of something...updated. He needs a new morality, in short, and one based in the world of emotive connection rather than logic and knowledge. Like I said before, I can *halfway* get behind that, but only insofar as it would highlight the All Good Things lesson of getting closer to his people. But absolutely *not* insofar as it means Q's lesson of expanding his comprehension is rejected simultaneously. It's the notion of rejecting objective reason in favor of subjective experience which is so frightening in American society now, both on the right and on the left I might add.

    The other major problem is that you cannot sympathize with most of our "heroes".
    SojiDash almost wiped out all organic life in the galaxy. She knew what she was doing and without Picard she would have done it and she still can do it.
    RaffiSeven are both bitter drunks with lots of baggage.
    Agnes murdered Maddox.
    Pilotman is there to drive the bus. According to Picard he is Starfleet to the core but what does that mean anymore.
    Elnor is... Elnor.
    The only likeable people were the housekeepers.

    Oh and let's not forget that because of Discovery, Picard is basically now a prequel show, all Trek shows are. We already know that all this will amount to nothing. Picard will not create a better Federation. In a few hundred years the Federation will just be a little bubble in the middle of nowhere.

    I'm happy for the people that enjoy lower decks. It's not for me but Discovery and Picard are just awful Trek shows. Science means nothing, explorations is dangerous and the Federation is a slowly decaying empire without any real purpose.

    Jammer said:

    > "race against the clock to stop a would-be robot apocalypse"

    ... Or, if you will,"Robocalypse."

    And I for one welcome our new robot overlords

    I'm moving this debate over to STP, I hope that's alright.

    @Sen-Sors
    It is always a little disheartening when this kind of pandering works. Somewhere at CBS a few cynical studio execs are padding each other on the back for Nepenthe and this one.

    @Nick
    When I saw that scene with Data and Picard I again imagined a bunch of people sitting in a room and thinking about what they could do to make people watch season 2. Then somebody said:"How about killing Data again but this time after a conversation." standing ovations, then everybody ordered lunch. It felt so manipulative. Many things in the episode, actually. Like acting captain Riker commanding the copy paste fleet. Oh commanding the Romulan fleet which is soooo incredibly dumb, it was maybe the most annoying thing in this episode. It is disrespectful towards the audience. The Romulans have planted a Romulan spy in Starfleet intelligence and that spy became head of Starfleet intelligence (itself already borderline impossible) and this most valuable spy in the history of espionage then blows her cover because she wants to command the annihilation fleet herself. In anything coming even close to reality her being revealed as a spy would likely cause a declaration of war, at least a complete breakdown of all relations and a cold war. But the main bad gal has to be there for the final stand-off, plus Riker gets a few "fuck yeah" lines.

    Ok, nick content warning. You like the Data scene and I write some bad things about it. It could lessen your enjoyment of the scene.

    Back to the Data scene. All his memories and his entire personality was recovered from ONE neuron (Magnets, how do they work?) and then they kept him for an undeclared amount of time in that little cube thingy. During his cube time Data apparently became suicidal and Picard, as any good friend would, immediately agrees to kill him. Giving us the wonderfully idiotic metaphor:"A butterfly that lives forever is not really a butterfly at all." And Picard telling Data that he loves him so much and dreams of him all the time. Give me a break. Picard only dreams of antiquities and sometimes of Vash (the women, not the spy agency).

    Well, I guess when they decided to call it Star Trek Picard, they made it clear that subtlety was not their goal. This and many other things are the reason why this is the worst season of Trek. TNG season 1 may have stumbled a lot but at least they tried something new. A completely new crew, a new design, a vastly different kind of captain. Sure it was often a mess but at least they were trying something new. Season 1 of Star Trek Picard took a lot of fan service and nostalgia put it in a really dirty blender added the Grand admiral Patrick Stewart's guilty feelings and low opinion of TNG sauce and served it to us. Did I mention the numerous torture porn scenes... It is the ultimate anti star trek.

    Robocalypse paused,

    https://screenrant.com/star-trek-picard-production-shut-down-covid-details/

    I loved the final scenes with Data and Picard, very TNG. The concept of Data’s consciousness lingering from that chip at the end of Nemesis, and Picard needing to deactivate it to let go of the idea of Data coming back, was really clever and well visualized in the scenes. I also loved Riker arriving with the cavalry. And the way Picard succeeded with diplomacy at the end, but by showing rather than talking about it: smartly written.

    It’s just too bad that so much half-baked, tonally inconsistent, and rushed stuff happened along the way in season 1. Was I the only one wondering what happened to Narek, the Romulan agent who started helping them and suddenly vanished from the show at the end? Did he stay on the planet? The Seven revenge episode was gruesome and dumb. The current state of the Romulan Empire and its relationship to the Federation without a Neutral Zone was never clear. The characterizations often felt thin and rushed for much of the season. Etc. I’d say the season was a solid B+ or A- and I marvel that it wasn’t better with all the money and resources they had.

    But Star Trek has always been loveably inconsistent regardless of budget. It really makes me appreciate the genius of the Original Series, how much creativity they managed with so few resources, and how great DS9 was because of its ability to have both a clear arc and memorable serialized shows. Those were the high points of Star Trek television productions for me; I don’t find that TNG holds up as well. But the Picard season finale really evoked all the best things about TNG and made me appreciate Nemesis more fondly, so that’s pretty cool.

    Except if and when it’s plot relevant, I hope they don’t harp constantly in season 2 about Picard being an Android. I’d rather forget that. And the perfunctory deaths of Hugh and Maddux

    New season 2 trailer out...

    https://intl.startrek.com/news/the-official-star-trek-picard-season-two-trailer-has-arrived

    It's silly to jump in with the 1,128th comment on this thread but I'm pretty excited after watching Picard. Some observations:

    1 - It was great to come back to Jammer's after so long and read fresh reviews for a new show!

    2 - As usual, Jammer has a lot of observations that jibe with my take on things, has way more insight on those things than I have, and also has a few things I don't agree with.

    3 - I'm tired of how self-involved, clever, "big," and movie-like TV shows are anymore. Like, can't this climax just focus on THIS group of androids and people and the implications they have for all AI and "organics"? Does it HAVE to be a literal, immediate threat to Everyone in the Entire Galaxy?

    So, yeah, the last 20 minutes of the previous episode and the first 40 of this one were very stupid and annoying to me. Characters losing their character? Multiple ticking clocks? Giant battle? Bad guys stalling until the good guys can save the day at the last second? Oyyy...

    4 - So, a hole in space revealing tentacle machines as the super-duper AI wasn't any more stupid than everything else at that point. BUT - one thing that explains it (in reality, if not in-story) is that myth-telling scene around the fire. The whole thing sounds to me like a sci-fi take on the Old Ones type alternate-dimension apocalyptic horror gods of Lovecraft. They even call that-which-shant-be-named Cthulu - er, I mean - Ch'khalagu. So, yeah, robot tentacles. Makes sense.

    I felt like there was a lot of references/similarities to a wide range of sci-fi lore in this series, more so than in other Trek that I've watched. Like, there's as much Tezuka and Assimov in here as there is Roddenberry, and I liked that.

    5 - Yes, the ending was devastatingly good. I felt a little silly getting so emotional about it watching it last night. Like, is this just my age and nostalgia at work? That's part of it. But it's also Story, it's Life, and it's damn good Star Trek.

    Thanks for another great review!

    My brother-in-law sent me this youtube video -- sort of covers all of Trek history with a particular focus on PIC S1 at the end (ahead of the premiere of PIC S2). Found it entertaining so thought I'd share it here. It's a tad over 20 mins.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANnFNfVuZeM

    ST: Picameo ends it's first season as a convoluted mess of random storylines attempting to converge but having about as much luck as the parallel rails of a railroad. I was thoroughly confused throughout the episode, even though I thought I had gotten a hang of what was happening over the previous few episodes. I realized I still didn't know all the characters' names, which is a really bad sign 10 episodes in. The Agnes character is insufferable and horribly miscast. Her whole "ditzy coward" routine falls as flat as S1 Neelix. Randomly throwing in references from 20 years ago like "just use the Picard maneuver" is no replacement for a legitimate story. Turns out writing DOES matter! Nearly a decade after the Arrested Development reboot flopped, streaming still hasn't learned that they key to a successful reboot is not mindless nostalgia but actually having something new to say. This show does not have it. I doubt anyone involved in front of or behind the camera actually believed in what was going on, but in traditional cowardly Hollywood fashion, no one dared to speak up about the Emperor's new clothes.

    I kinda laughed in this episode when Raffi asked “What’s happening? And Rios answered, “Nothing that makes any sense.”

    I thought, yeah that’s what I’ve been saying this whole damn season! Lol

    I really wanted to like this show, but I found this entire season to be a hot mess. I hope season 2 is better.

    You can tell a series is bad when anything anyone says about it are what the characters do rather than asking what the point of all of it was. I don't care if Picard gives a monologs or if there's some intricate mystery surrounding the Romulans if there is nothing insightful to be said.

    This isn't Star Trek, it's jingling keys for the LCD and it annoys me how placid these reviews have become in the face of it.

    Submit a comment

    ◄ Season Index