Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sorry, exactly which straw is it your grabbing at?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Sorry, exactly which straw is it your grabbing at?

No straws. Just wondering why you are willfully ignorant of things because tl:dr.

No, I read it all.

Just......baffled.

So if Picard hadn't got all uppity would any of this have happened?

Seems like the Romulans are right. The synthetics remain a threat because their memory of this alternate Cough Killer Cthulu Cylon Cough race still exists.

Should cracked the planet's crust with torpedoes once the signalling device was deactivated. Now Metal Cthulu knows someone is out there.

Last time they left a hyper evolved race behind they got the Borg...

Also seems like the Romulans are still a threat, if limited. Spies at the top of the Federation. Looks like a job for Sysko...

Is it me or the Federation royally sucks it ferrying out agents. Their admiral vetting process needs some work. Maybe they should contact the Tal Shiar for some best practices.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
No, I read it all.

Just......baffled.

A lot of classical Chinese literature consisted of criticism and commentary. To me it appears as though many of China's greatest philosophers realized they'd get more views if they attached their brilliant treatises to older, already-successful works. It's like... if they wanted to make a gritty modern sci fi franchise, they knew they could only get funding by selling it as a commentary on an established IP.

Just watched the two part finale and, other than the torture porn opener and pimp and pirate frenchman episode, this two part finale has to be my least favorite arc in the season.

If Nepenthe was an Inner Light style blueprint of how to do emotion and nostalgia in trek well, this was more like the 2nd season Riker in a coma Shades of Gray clip episode opposite mixed in with a hefty dose of vapid DISCO Battle of the Binary Stars massive fleet "action" and unearned emotion quickly made as redundant as the starship battle and thousands of years of double super secret Romulan society's guiding purpose. Wow... just wow. There is so much wrong with this finale.

Does this mean there was a line as exciting to meme-makers as “Data, something’s got me!”?

Does a Romulan forgetting that Vulcans evolved on their eponymously named planet instead of just arrived there count?

I thought TOS established that Vulcans were the descendants of an ancient colony of Sargon’s people..? That might have been one bit of canon they got right?

(Fanon explains that the Mintakans and Vulcanoid Rigelians are also descendants of Sargon’s people.)

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I thought TOS established that Vulcans were the descendants of an ancient colony of Sargon’s people..? That might have been one bit of canon they got right?

(Fanon explains that the Mintakans and Vulcanoid Rigelians are also descendants of Sargon’s people.)

I always took vulcanoid species as examples of convergent evolution due to that other ancient race they covered in TNG seeding the galaxy with their own DNA. I remember T'Pol on ENT flat out saying they evolved on Vulcan though but I'll admit I don't recall the details of Sargon specifically from TOS.

edit: From the Memory Alpha site:

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Sargon's_species

Spock theorizes that the Vulcan species might actually be descendants of colonists of Sargon's species, stating "That would tend to explain certain elements of Vulcan prehistory.". T'Pol, however, stated that Vulcans evolved on Vulcan in ENT: "The Forge". Nevertheless, this was roughly a century before "Return to Tomorrow" took place and T'Pol probably just cited the scientific theory of her time. TNG: "The Chase" then established the Romulans, and therefore the Vulcans, to have originated from DNA sequences seeded on numerous worlds by the ancient humanoids 4.5 billion years ago. If Sargon's people resulted from DNA by the ancient humanoids themselves, both "Return to Tomorrow" and "The Chase" are in fact compatible.

If Sargon's people were the primordial progenitors referenced in TNG then Vulcans are no more or less from Vulcan than Earthlings are from Earth. I don't see that personally as compatible with them "arriving" on Vulcan as Narek states but YMMV.

I think the primordial Progenitors died out billions of years ago. Then there are the Preservers and the Aegis, who mess around with endangered sapient species, as well as the various godlike beings...Star Trek’s chronology is like a bowl of dirty spaghetti.

It definitely is but IMO that makes it doubly important to apply the KISS principle when possible. We have a main character flat out saying they evolved on Vulcan (likely supported by copious scientific evidence especially given the race we're talking about) and another theorizing apparently (again.. I don't recall the details of that episode as I haven't watched TOS regularly since the 1980's). I'd go with the former given that it is both later in the real world, more certain, and not definitively negated in subsequent primary canon... though I admit that exact same logic could be applied to Narek's definitive statement to the contrary and thus override it. I just don't have any good will to give the writers in order to assume they were doing it on purpose rather than just fething it up.

Thanks to time travel and quantum, they could both be right.

A tidbit - I got a survey today from CBSAA about Picard. I'm not supposed to talk specifics, but I was pretty harsh on the show in the opportunities I had. Maybe some others here will get this as well.

Eh? You can talk as much as you like about a voluntary customer feedback survey from a company

I do want to know, are people who where harsh on Picard applying the same criteria to TNG, because TNG has some reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal stinkers let's be fair

BrianDavion wrote:
I do want to know, are people who where harsh on Picard applying the same criteria to TNG, because TNG has some reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal stinkers let's be fair

I mean, the general rule for Star Trek is that only half the episodes are any good (and that is to be fair, probably generous).

BrianDavion wrote:
I do want to know, are people who where harsh on Picard applying the same criteria to TNG, because TNG has some reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal stinkers let's be fair

On an individual episode basis? Half of TNG is junk.
But the tone and principles of the setting and Federation were consistent and idealistic. There were bad apples, but that was a problem with the individuals, and they were shown to be bad, wrong or misapplying principles.

Picard is doing social commentary exactly the wrong way round. Rather than providing a better and nobler example, they turned everything to crap and required an advanced and intellectual society to lower itself to modern problems so it could be rescued from the gutter by the Great Man.

BrianDavion wrote:
I do want to know, are people who where harsh on Picard applying the same criteria to TNG, because TNG has some reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal stinkers let's be fair

It really depends on what you value in a show. I don't enjoy the kind of drama that's all about interpersonal conflict and angry people shouting teach other. TNG might have been essentially wallpaper in that regard, but it gave me what I wanted; a group of ostensibly professional people who are all moderately decent to each other getting into memorable (if silly) space adventures. When there was drama, it meant more due to the baseline calm of the show. (Remember when a Cardassian pointing a garage door opener at Picard was considered a tense torture scene?). It probably means I'm lame, but I want Star Trek to be a show that stimulates my imagination rather than my fight-or-flight reflex.

TNG definitely had its share of stinkers (several inexcusably bad), and TOS was *mostly* stinkers (with a few gems).

That said, they were also products of their time, and film/television has grown tremendously since then, and what would fly then wouldn't today in many cases.

Now, again, as I noted earlier, I'm willing to give it a pass because it basically promised and delivered on being what Star Trek always was, including a lot of its classic goofiness. Likewise, Picard hasn't done anything to Star Trek that hasn't already been done to it but they didn't really build anything tremendously special either.

I guess I'd judge Picard has having met the (low) bar, but not really fulfilling anyone's hoped for ideals

I don’t have any rose colored glasses for TNG - almost all of the first two seasons was poor to ‘meh’ at best. I think Picard suffered from too many cooks (executive producers), and tried hard to spread too much butter on too little toast over ten episodes in a story that probably could have been wrapped up in two or three at most.

 Vaktathi wrote:
TNG definitely had its share of stinkers (several inexcusably bad), and TOS was *mostly* stinkers (with a few gems).

That said, they were also products of their time, and film/television has grown tremendously since then, and what would fly then wouldn't today in many cases.

Now, again, as I noted earlier, I'm willing to give it a pass because it basically promised and delivered on being what Star Trek always was, including a lot of its classic goofiness. Likewise, Picard hasn't done anything to Star Trek that hasn't already been done to it but they didn't really build anything tremendously special either.

I guess I'd judge Picard has having met the (low) bar, but not really fulfilling anyone's hoped for ideals

I disagree on a few things. What I saw of Picard did not feel like Star Trek to me whether or not you feel it achieved certain checkboxes. These days I really would prefer to watch shows that feel like happ background noise than anything like BSG/Breaking Bad/The Wire/The Shield/GOT. If I want to see deeply flawed people destroy their lives over the course of years I can just go to my family reunions.

Second, it is possible to make shows today that are episodic and enjoyable. The Orville hits almost all the notes I want from Star Trek. The formula still flies.

I don't feel like the show tried to maintain continuity with real Trek in tone or spirit, or even in terms of visual storytelling. It's fine for people to like New Coke, but please don't try to gaslight me by telling me it tastes the same as Classic Coke.

Voss wrote:

Picard is doing social commentary exactly the wrong way round. Rather than providing a better and nobler example, they turned everything to crap and required an advanced and intellectual society to lower itself to modern problems so it could be rescued from the gutter by the Great Man.

Literally everything wrong with the federation in Picard season 1 can be directly traced back to Commodore Oh, the head of Starfleet Security was a Romulan spy.

Sure, there was an admiral angry at Picard, because Picard publicly embarrassed the Federation. But what did she then do after she chewed him out? Exactly what he asked. (And was then overruled by Oh).

Federation Captain kills innocents? He was under direct orders from Oh and threatened with a remote destruction of his ship if he didn't do it. He was then so overcome by guilt he killed himself.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
TNG definitely had its share of stinkers (several inexcusably bad), and TOS was *mostly* stinkers (with a few gems).

That said, they were also products of their time, and film/television has grown tremendously since then, and what would fly then wouldn't today in many cases.

Now, again, as I noted earlier, I'm willing to give it a pass because it basically promised and delivered on being what Star Trek always was, including a lot of its classic goofiness. Likewise, Picard hasn't done anything to Star Trek that hasn't already been done to it but they didn't really build anything tremendously special either.

I guess I'd judge Picard has having met the (low) bar, but not really fulfilling anyone's hoped for ideals

I disagree on a few things. What I saw of Picard did not feel like Star Trek to me whether or not you feel it achieved certain checkboxes. These days I really would prefer to watch shows that feel like happ background noise than anything like BSG/Breaking Bad/The Wire/The Shield/GOT. If I want to see deeply flawed people destroy their lives over the course of years I can just go to my family reunions.

Second, it is possible to make shows today that are episodic and enjoyable. The Orville hits almost all the notes I want from Star Trek. The formula still flies.

I don't feel like the show tried to maintain continuity with real Trek in tone or spirit, or even in terms of visual storytelling. It's fine for people to like New Coke, but please don't try to gaslight me by telling me it tastes the same as Classic Coke.

Not trying to gaslight anything, just calling it how I saw it myself is all. It had all the classic Star Trek technobabble, plot holes, painfully contrived plot mechanisms, mechanically brain dead bad guys, social commentary, etc ad nauseum. This didn't come off to me like BSG or Breaking Bad at all, Picard did not destroy his life, his life was essentially already over and he went on a last great hopping big bender, while everyone else in the show either starts off broken or we see break but then is better (to at least some degree) by the end.

Can episodic stuff be done better today? Sure, I never denied that they couldn't be (though I never made it past the first episode of the Orville myself, came off too much as a Galaxy Quest/Family Guy youtube mashup to me personally and I haven't gotten back into it), and addressed that we have seen the bar raised since TNG's original airing. ST: P is not the height of Star Trek's craft by any means, but it's not its worst either.

That said, I would agree that in terms of visual storytelling, as a show, it's very different from the old shows, I don't think in and of itself that's necessarily a bad thing, just different.

For those who have watched DISCO season 2 and Picard, is the former better/worse/about the same as the latter? I'll be starting in on DISCO now that I'm done with Picard and I suspect I might have to gird my loins given my opinions on STD s1 (bad) and Picard (approaching mediocre).

DISCO is... complicated.

Season 2 episode 1 kind of contains everything I hate about the show.

But ignoring that, I found Season 2 a lot stronger than season 1, with both Saru and Captain Pike being big highlights of it.

Yeah, I saw the STD s2 premiere episode on youtube and it had the same effect on me and showcased the worst of the show and the people behind hit unfortunately. I had heard that s2 was better overall but that's not a high hurdle to jump and that's why I asked for a comparison to Picard's opening season.

At the risk of sounding like a Troll/Poop Stirrer, what was it you weren’t keen on in Disco?

I ask because I enjoyed Disco and Picard both.

My problem with STD S2? I honestly can't remember squat about it. I watched every single episode as they came out, but aside from being vaguely disappointed by Spock's hamfisted portrayal, I can't remember what any of it was about. I have no idea what the story was. It was just too incoherent to really stick.

I'm going to kind of talk exclusively about Disco 2x01, because that's really the one that annoyed me most.

1) Technobabble punctuated by excited Tilly swearing. Definitely felt like a parody.

2) Burnham was a better pilot of a craft she, as far as I know, never flew before, far outshining the guy that was supposed to be the skilled pilot, that died horribly.

3) Burnham is right. Always. Everyone who disagrees with her, either gets on board moments later, or dies horribly showing that disagreeing with Burnham is a death sentence.

4) Terrible setup of the last part of the episode, with exposition delivered at superspeed, resulting in a 5 second CGI 'moneyshot' solving a problem that in previous shows, would have been an entire episodes worth of content.

5) This is delving into my memory a bit, but I'm sure there was plenty of grimdark miserypron in the episode too, with people all being horrible to each other and being NuBSG rejects.


-------------------------------

So, usually the rest of the Disco episodes in S1 and S2 have SOME of that, but it's quite often dotted around a little bit and, especially in the rest of S2, is a LOT longer between the bad parts, and Christopher Pike does embody everything about the classic Trek Federation we want (As does, for that matter, the rest of the Enteprise crew we see. - Number 1 is great!).