Patrick Stewart to return as Picard
Discussion
robemcdonald said:
Ah, the over thinking it / your taking it too seriously argument.
You know the other guys right, but rather than admit it you want to change the course of the discussion...
For what it’s worth I liked it too, but without the sloppy writing and plot holes it could have been mush better.
If you’re happy to overlook the short comings, then great. Good for you.
Star Trek has always been science fiction. Not science fantasy. The difference is for science fiction to be good you have to establish a set of rules and stick to them. If not you end up with something like the last Star Wars movie.
To coin a phrase “you may not have noticed, but you’re brain did”
Star Trek TNG = 56 mins of saying thing are impossible, 4 mins of LaForge / Data reversing the polarity on the main gaviton beam from the newly inverted deflector dish. Everyone lives , including the planet they are circling below.You know the other guys right, but rather than admit it you want to change the course of the discussion...
For what it’s worth I liked it too, but without the sloppy writing and plot holes it could have been mush better.
If you’re happy to overlook the short comings, then great. Good for you.
Star Trek has always been science fiction. Not science fantasy. The difference is for science fiction to be good you have to establish a set of rules and stick to them. If not you end up with something like the last Star Wars movie.
To coin a phrase “you may not have noticed, but you’re brain did”
To say Star Trek has "rules" is a stretch
robemcdonald said:
Ah, the over thinking it / your taking it too seriously argument.
You know the other guys right, but rather than admit it you want to change the course of the discussion...
For what it’s worth I liked it too, but without the sloppy writing and plot holes it could have been mush better.
If you’re happy to overlook the short comings, then great. Good for you.
Star Trek has always been science fiction. Not science fantasy. The difference is for science fiction to be good you have to establish a set of rules and stick to them. If not you end up with something like the last Star Wars movie.
To coin a phrase “you may not have noticed, but you’re brain did”
Yeah, if you say so. There are so many episodes, films, comics and spin offs it's difficult to keep track unless you're a real full on ST nerd.You know the other guys right, but rather than admit it you want to change the course of the discussion...
For what it’s worth I liked it too, but without the sloppy writing and plot holes it could have been mush better.
If you’re happy to overlook the short comings, then great. Good for you.
Star Trek has always been science fiction. Not science fantasy. The difference is for science fiction to be good you have to establish a set of rules and stick to them. If not you end up with something like the last Star Wars movie.
To coin a phrase “you may not have noticed, but you’re brain did”
Anyway the impossibility of faster than light travel is probably a bigger plot hole that the ones that you've picked out, but I'm OK to suspect my disbelief for an otherwise thoughtfully made show.
smn159 said:
Yeah, if you say so. There are so many episodes, films, comics and spin offs it's difficult to keep track unless you're a real full on ST nerd.
Anyway the impossibility of faster than light travel is probably a bigger plot hole that the ones that you've picked out, but I'm OK to suspect my disbelief for an otherwise thoughtfully made show.
Unless you have a warp engine generating a bubble that's bending (or warping even) spacetime around your ship Anyway the impossibility of faster than light travel is probably a bigger plot hole that the ones that you've picked out, but I'm OK to suspect my disbelief for an otherwise thoughtfully made show.
My memory of TNG is undoubtedly rose tinted, but i genuinely don’t recall too many WTF moments. He new show had several in the first episode.
Interesting that FTL travel is mentioned as a plot hole. In Star Trek ships travel great distances by warping space, not by travelling FTL. an explanation of the real scientific theory is here
https://www.sciencealert.com/warp-speed-travel-is-...
And also in lots of other places you might care to look at.
As previously mentioned; I’m fine with people finding no fault with it.
I don’t particularly appreciate it being inferred that anyone with a contrary opinion being a nerd.
Interesting that FTL travel is mentioned as a plot hole. In Star Trek ships travel great distances by warping space, not by travelling FTL. an explanation of the real scientific theory is here
https://www.sciencealert.com/warp-speed-travel-is-...
And also in lots of other places you might care to look at.
As previously mentioned; I’m fine with people finding no fault with it.
I don’t particularly appreciate it being inferred that anyone with a contrary opinion being a nerd.
.....like many sci fi, it all comes down to the writing - despite my above criticism of a lot of TNG rule bending and rule changing just for the plot to be able fix itself at the end, (and also Voyager included and dont get me started on Discovery) I think TNG had some great episodes - Q ones, some first Borg ones and a few more political and cultural ones too (Klingon / Worf, Romulan / Spock etc) - its also true of DS9, although they were the opposite of TNG to some extent, giving us a larger arc/political world and less about "reversing the tachyon beam and alternating rotational frequencies captain!)
OK, to address your comments...
robemcdonald said:
I was a pretty big fan of TNG and have watched pretty much everything Star Trek (with the exception of the animated series)
Sloppy writing
Plot errors. (They talk about there being Data and B4, but forget about Lal and Law)
Just because they didn't give the full catalogue of Noonian Soong's work doesn't really mean they were ignorant of it. Hardly a plot error.Sloppy writing
Plot errors. (They talk about there being Data and B4, but forget about Lal and Law)
robemcdonald said:
Gaps in logic (how could a malicious party transport into star fleet HQ? 950 million doesn’t seem like a lot of Romulans, why couldn’t they just move themselves to a different planet in the empire? There must have been a thousand ways to do it without having to build an amarda,)
Really? The Enterprise D could - at a real stretch - cope with a maximum of 6,000 people. You'd need nearly 160,000 Enterprise D's (the flagship of the fleet!) to evacuate the Romulans. Whilst space travel is routine in the Star Trek universe, it's not quite as plentiful as that,robemcdonald said:
Why would you put an artificial brain in an organic body? Wouldn’t the other way around make more sense?
Surely that depends on your aims. If it's a disposable worker/soldier then factory brains all the way.robemcdonald said:
Hopefully some points will be answered as the show moves on.
At least it’s not as bad as discovery.
You're watching mainstream science fiction and expecting what exactly?At least it’s not as bad as discovery.
Haha wondered if this would start to descend into something like Discovery thread (only on a less stressful angle!)
I would really try and push aside the plot holes, they aren't plot holes really as we haven't seen the full extent of the plot yet as we are only one episode in so we have yet to see how it plays out.
I enjoyed watching is again and looking closely for stuff, and seeing the YT videos of others doing the same (Datas cat in his painting is still the best one for me!)
I would really try and push aside the plot holes, they aren't plot holes really as we haven't seen the full extent of the plot yet as we are only one episode in so we have yet to see how it plays out.
I enjoyed watching is again and looking closely for stuff, and seeing the YT videos of others doing the same (Datas cat in his painting is still the best one for me!)
coldel said:
Haha wondered if this would start to descend into something like Discovery thread (only on a less stressful angle!)
I would really try and push aside the plot holes, they aren't plot holes really as we haven't seen the full extent of the plot yet as we are only one episode in so we have yet to see how it plays out.
I enjoyed watching is again and looking closely for stuff, and seeing the YT videos of others doing the same (Datas cat in his painting is still the best one for me!)
You forget Data could forsee decades into the future. That wasn't Spot, that was his great, great grand kitten.I would really try and push aside the plot holes, they aren't plot holes really as we haven't seen the full extent of the plot yet as we are only one episode in so we have yet to see how it plays out.
I enjoyed watching is again and looking closely for stuff, and seeing the YT videos of others doing the same (Datas cat in his painting is still the best one for me!)
robemcdonald said:
Too much I suppose..
Watched this today. Loved it, you may enjoy it. I appreciate another fandom's knowledge of their love and also ho the mourn! 
Star Trek: Picard - re:View
RedLetterMedia
https://youtu.be/hfQdf93e63I
Apart from the absolute rubbish spouted about B-4 (which suggested the writers didn't get The Next Generation at all) I thought it was very well done. Picard's current situation was perfectly feasible given the events since Nemesis.
If they can keep to the current standards and do some basic fact checking then this could be good enough to make up for Discovery.
If they can keep to the current standards and do some basic fact checking then this could be good enough to make up for Discovery.
rider73 said:
..........watch the Expanse - rules, physics, no technogoogle...........thats a top notch sci fi series.
Like bodies floating out into space rather than imploding? Like space noises and bad lighting?Please - I love the Expanse, but the physics are playground compared to "proper" sci-fi.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff