I hated the first few episodes, grated my palms through the the next few, gave up, abandoned, hated the whole series, re-downloaded and then...at the end, after it all, after episodes 9 and 10, the whole "support the "synthetic lifeforms"' thing makes sense by me and to the devotee audience at large.

Star Trek is ace and ESSENTIALLY atheistic. That is the message. There's no such thing as a synthetic artificial flesh and blood lifeform...it just means there's no supernatural soul! Gwaaan Picard, love u more than ever Startrek XXXXX@@@

I can't even say I am disappointed, because I anticipated it to be dross undeservedly wearing the the title 'Picard'.
The whole synthetic lifeforms things is copy-pasted directly from Mass Effect and it's sources, including the Reapers threatening to invade the galaxy.

It was dark for the sake of being dark, because Stewart wanted to make a heavy-handed analogy to Brexit, not because there were actual good in-universe reasons for the Federation to turn into a xenophobic, isolationist entity.

7 of 9 seemed to have completely forgotten her character arc from Voyager and was only included as superficial fan-service just like Riker and Troy.

The story makes fuck all sense:
1. You can't clone Data from a single positron.
2. The UFP doesn't have only one shipyard and the one at Utopia Planitia was in orbit, not on the surface of Mars.
3. The Romulan Star Empire has their own infrastructure as well as a fleet, so even if the Federation needed to help it wouldn't be to the massive extent as the giant fleet built specifically for the evacuation. This is made doubly ridiculous by the massive Romulan fleet that appears at the end of the season.
4. The Romulans suddenly having a secreter secret police is just lazy writing.
5. The UFP both banning all synths and immediately cease all aid to the Romulans because of the ludicrous uprising on Mars makes no sense given the UFPs history.
6. The Romulans beaming down to Vash's appartment to engage in fista-cuffs makes no sense. They could have just beamed her into a holding cell, with far less risk. This was clearly done to create a generic fight-scene.
7. If 7 of 9 is in control of the Borg Cube, how:
A. Are the Romulans able to open the airlocks and evacuate the drones?
B. Doesn't 7 of 9 just beam them back immediately?
8. Why would UFP races help the Romulans with the cube if they're supposedly so antagonistic towards the Romulans and distrustful of both Borg and synths?
9. Why would the Romulans not share their information about this galaxy-ending threat with the UFP?

And these are just some of the issues I could mention off the top of my head.

Haven’t seen it yet as it’s on the pricey Amazon. I’ll have to wait it out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd never heard of it, I thought this was about the facepalm memes. Picard is the best.

I started watching back when it first came out. As I remember, the opening scene between Data and Picard was pretty OK. From that point on, I found that I really didn't like any of the new characters they started introducing. Also, they seemed to use a particular frequency of high-pitched squelchy sci-fi bleeps and chirps (the ones that are meant to let people know that computers and technology are doing something) which jarred my ears, causing me to constantly focus on ridiculous "sci-fi" sounds rather than anything that was going on in the show. I even tried EQing those frequencies out, but to no avail.

Watched 3, maybe 4 episodes. Haven't a clue. Nothing to do with Star Trek though.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I can't even say I am disappointed, ...
...And these are just some of the issues I could mention off the top of my head.

You do know it's make-believe, right

I thought it was bostin

I quite liked the first few episodes, but I felt it meandered a bit after that. It was alright though, had some good moments. It wouldn't be the first Star Trek show to have a weak first season but end up watchable.

I certainly enjoyed it more than Discovery.

I never liked Star Trek in the first place. Always just thought it was a soap opera in space.

I'm anti-establishment me.

campermon wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I can't even say I am disappointed, ...
...And these are just some of the issues I could mention off the top of my head.

You do know it's make-believe, right

Doesn't mean it doesn't have to follow any logic at all, contradict established lore etc.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:<snip>
...is just lazy writing.
<snip>

(Summary.)

A single episode of TNG, at random, likely has more interesting ideas, better executed, and better acted, than all of... this. And that’s from a time when they averaged 23(?) episodes in a season. Picard is below average in the franchise - except for episode 7, which is pretty good even by TNG standards.

arugula2 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:<snip>
...is just lazy writing.
<snip>

(Summary.)

Fair enough.

surreptitious57 wrote:
I have never liked Star Trek either so that makes two of us

Three. It's just another soapie. Some trekkies see profound concepts in it. Not much different to Christian cultists who see profundity in the Bible.

And I also stopped watching Dr Who back in 72 - the only good thing about it is the theme tune
I also dont like Star Wars - these three are not programmes / films I have any interest in at all
I have seen one of the Star Trek films however which was alright but not worth watching again
Dr Who has always had terrible sets and Star Wars is for children and Star Trek is stuck in a time warp so no to them all
Apologies for derailing the thread - normal service will be resumed as soon as possible - so beam me out of here Scotty

Hermit wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
I have never liked Star Trek either so that makes two of us

Three. It's just another soapie. Some trekkies see profound concepts in it. Not much different to Christian cultists who see profundity in the Bible.

Eh... "profound concepts" are secondary... and a simpler take would be that the franchise dabbles in philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychology. What makes it different from other soaps in this regard - conceptually at least - is that it usually takes the task seriously. But the only reason to recommend fiction on TV is if it's written/acted/directed well. I can't speak for the original series, but much of TNG is simply good television. Whoever hasn't discovered this has simply missed out. No biggie, it happens.

arugula2 wrote:

Hermit wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
I have never liked Star Trek either so that makes two of us

Three. It's just another soapie. Some trekkies see profound concepts in it. Not much different to Christian cultists who see profundity in the Bible.

Eh... "profound concepts" are secondary... and a simpler take would be that the franchise dabbles in philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychology. What makes it different from other soaps in this regard - conceptually at least - is that it usually takes the task seriously. But the only reason to recommend fiction on TV is if it's written/acted/directed well. I can't speak for the original series, but much of TNG is simply good television. Whoever hasn't discovered this has simply missed out. No biggie, it happens.

Keep enjoying the show. I have sampled it over the decades. Production values have certainly risen since those horrifically cheap productions,



but content has never (in my view) gone beyond soap opera standard.

Dabblation in the fields of philosophy, anthropology, sociology and psychology kept underwhelming me. In that regard the five volumes of the Hitchhikers Guide and the first four of five series of Red Dwarf were more impressive even though neither even attempted to be serious, let alone systematic or comprehensive, in that regard.

To each their own, I suppose.

Hermit wrote:

arugula2 wrote:

Hermit wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
I have never liked Star Trek either so that makes two of us

Three. It's just another soapie. Some trekkies see profound concepts in it. Not much different to Christian cultists who see profundity in the Bible.

Eh... "profound concepts" are secondary... and a simpler take would be that the franchise dabbles in philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychology. What makes it different from other soaps in this regard - conceptually at least - is that it usually takes the task seriously. But the only reason to recommend fiction on TV is if it's written/acted/directed well. I can't speak for the original series, but much of TNG is simply good television. Whoever hasn't discovered this has simply missed out. No biggie, it happens.

Keep enjoying the show. I have sampled it over the decades. Production values have certainly risen since those horrifically cheap productions,



but content has never (in my view) gone beyond soap opera standard.

Dabblation in the fields of philosophy, anthropology, sociology and psychology kept underwhelming me. In that regard the five volumes of the Hitchhikers Guide and the first four of five series of Red Dwarf were more impressive even though neither even attempted to be serious, let alone systematic or comprehensive, in that regard.

To each their own, I suppose.

Either way, disliking a show, because of how some of it's fans view it, seems a bit odd.

Picard is poor.

Everyone just seems cross with him.