Star Trek Picard and Trek Taking on Modern Politics

[Jonathan]

It was nice to have a Star Trek ending and NOT a Star Wars ending: the conflict was resolved by intelligence and not ''shoot pew pew".

That's exactly what they were going for of course, that Picard wins the day through diplomacy (which I think is what you're getting at; I can't in good conscience call anything in this show intelligence) and we're meant to think 'just like Captain Picard of old!', but counter-intuitively it represents the opposite of Picard's diplomacy in TNG. The point about talky Picard of old was that he stood for rationality over emotionalism, and in most cases that is indeed seeking the diplomatic route and cooler heads prevailing, but in this situation the stakes are that holding up the Romulans could spell the end of life in the Milky Way. As tough as it may be as he's personally been involved with her all this time, trillions of lives are at stake if the transmitter isn't destroyed, and anything that gets in the way of achieving that is an idiotic risk, certainly not something to be gambled on the chance of an old man with a migraine talking down an ingrate android from her genocidal actions. Captain Picard of TNG knew that leadership meant not shying away from the tough decisions when necessary, and this was the opposite of that.

There's more analysis for the whole episode (and there's a lot to say) in my video review of it here if anyone's interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anCcuRdT3eg

[CharlesPhipps]

It was nice to have a Star Trek ending and NOT a Star Wars ending: the conflict was resolved by intelligence and not ''shoot pew pew".

That's exactly what they were going for of course, that Picard wins the day through diplomacy (which I think is what you're getting at; I can't in good conscience call anything in this show intelligence) and we're meant to think 'just like Captain Picard of old!', but counter-intuitively it represents the opposite of Picard's diplomacy in TNG. The point about talky Picard of old was that he stood for rationality over emotionalism, and in most cases that is indeed seeking the diplomatic route and cooler heads prevailing, but in this situation the stakes are that holding up the Romulans could spell the end of life in the Milky Way. As tough as it may be as he's personally been involved with her all this time, trillions of lives are at stake if the transmitter isn't destroyed, and anything that gets in the way of achieving that is an idiotic risk, certainly not something to be gambled on the chance of an old man with a migraine talking down an ingrate android from her genocidal actions. Captain Picard of TNG knew that leadership meant not shying away from the tough decisions when necessary, and this was the opposite of that.

There's more analysis for the whole episode (and there's a lot to say) in my video review of it here if anyone's interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anCcuRdT3eg

Destroying the transmitter is the logical thing to do. Wiping out innocents is not.

But this isn't a new Picard as this is exactly the same situation in INSURRECTION.

A small populace versus a Utiliatarian gain.

[Captain Crimson]

It was nice to have a Star Trek ending and NOT a Star Wars ending: the conflict was resolved by intelligence and not ''shoot pew pew".

That's exactly what they were going for of course, that Picard wins the day through diplomacy (which I think is what you're getting at; I can't in good conscience call anything in this show intelligence) and we're meant to think 'just like Captain Picard of old!', but counter-intuitively it represents the opposite of Picard's diplomacy in TNG. The point about talky Picard of old was that he stood for rationality over emotionalism, and in most cases that is indeed seeking the diplomatic route and cooler heads prevailing, but in this situation the stakes are that holding up the Romulans could spell the end of life in the Milky Way. As tough as it may be as he's personally been involved with her all this time, trillions of lives are at stake if the transmitter isn't destroyed, and anything that gets in the way of achieving that is an idiotic risk, certainly not something to be gambled on the chance of an old man with a migraine talking down an ingrate android from her genocidal actions. Captain Picard of TNG knew that leadership meant not shying away from the tough decisions when necessary, and this was the opposite of that.

There's more analysis for the whole episode (and there's a lot to say) in my video review of it here if anyone's interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anCcuRdT3eg

Destroying the transmitter is the logical thing to do. Wiping out innocents is not.

But this isn't a new Picard as this is exactly the same situation in INSURRECTION.

A small populace versus a Utiliatarian gain.

In that sense, it seems to be building off the movies, at the very least.

[Jonathan]

It was nice to have a Star Trek ending and NOT a Star Wars ending: the conflict was resolved by intelligence and not ''shoot pew pew".

That's exactly what they were going for of course, that Picard wins the day through diplomacy (which I think is what you're getting at; I can't in good conscience call anything in this show intelligence) and we're meant to think 'just like Captain Picard of old!', but counter-intuitively it represents the opposite of Picard's diplomacy in TNG. The point about talky Picard of old was that he stood for rationality over emotionalism, and in most cases that is indeed seeking the diplomatic route and cooler heads prevailing, but in this situation the stakes are that holding up the Romulans could spell the end of life in the Milky Way. As tough as it may be as he's personally been involved with her all this time, trillions of lives are at stake if the transmitter isn't destroyed, and anything that gets in the way of achieving that is an idiotic risk, certainly not something to be gambled on the chance of an old man with a migraine talking down an ingrate android from her genocidal actions. Captain Picard of TNG knew that leadership meant not shying away from the tough decisions when necessary, and this was the opposite of that.

There's more analysis for the whole episode (and there's a lot to say) in my video review of it here if anyone's interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anCcuRdT3eg

Destroying the transmitter is the logical thing to do. Wiping out innocents is not.

But this isn't a new Picard as this is exactly the same situation in INSURRECTION.

A small populace versus a Utiliatarian gain.

I literally call it the Star Trek: Insurrection problem in my video, which is that the supposed villains are kind of in the right. It could also mean ruining the thing by letting Patrick Stewart have some creative control, of course.

[CharlesPhipps]

Mind you, wiping out androids is what causes the Reapers to wipe out organics.

So, any plan that begins with, "wipe out the androids, just don't get caught" seems a stupid one.

[Jonathan]

It's the chicken and the egg, Will!

Really the thing majorly at fault is the Admonition vision. Made by the super-synths whose foremost concern is the protection of their synth brethren, it gives organics (who are much more likely to find it than synths on the balance of probabilities) the unshakeable notion that they must absolutely destroy synths. Bit of a blunder on the programming front that one, I'd say. I talk about it at a bit more length in my review of Et in Arcadia Ego part 1, if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_c9jLJGQ-s