Star Trek: Picard - Season 1 |OT| Re-ENGAGE!

Jan 29, 2018
2,342
Actually an episode of TNG shows that you can be conscious during transport. It's just that the process is usually so quickly you don't notice it.

It's like if one frame of information was put in front of your eyes at the exact same moment you blinked.
Sure, we the viewers saw that he was conscious throughout, but how does Barclay prove that to an in-universe observer? There's no scientific way to say the guy who was transported is the same uninterrupted consciousness instead of a new guy with all the memories of the original Barclay. The conscious being that stepped into the transporter might end then and there, and there'd be no way to know without some breakthrough that defined and quantified consciousness.
 

Phil me in

Banned
Nov 22, 2018
1,039
Anyone else think Patrick might be abit too old to play Picard. I liked it when Picard would physically lay the smack down on scrubs. Not sure Patrick could handle that.
 

Cheerilee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,112
We're not going to figure this out here, but I think you're oversimplifying the transporter thing. The difference between converting matter into energy and back again versus converting energy into a copy of that matter ends up in philosophical territory. Star Trek asks us to assume that's been figured out, but doesn't (and can't) explain how. If there's even a way to prove continuity of consciousness I can't think of it.
I saw the CGP Grey video on continuity of consciousness, so that's about where I am on education in the subject.

IMO, people are changing constantly. On a technical level, the you of five minutes ago is technically not the same being as the you of right now. Right now isn't even "right now" anymore. But that's okay because you observed the passage of time, so you are still you. But that raises the question, what happens when you go to sleep? The continuity of consciousness breaks right there. Do you die every night after you close your eyes, and are you a new you every day? In some sense, yes, but from a more sensible perspective, no, that's just silliness.

The Star Trek transporter is just a roller coaster ride that involves a temporary transformation into an energy being. Star Trek has even established that you can remain conscious while you're in a state of energy, so the continuity of consciousness is not even broken. It's not an issue. Star Trek transporters aren't suicide boxes. The writers deliberately went out of their way to say/prove that they're not. There are other transporters (like the one used in The Prestige) which clearly are suicide boxes, but that doesn't mean that every transporter has to be one.

The fact that transporter accidents have resulted in copy-beings does raise the question of whether one, the other, both, or neither copy has a soul, but fearmongers saying that all transporters destroy the soul, and that even one transport ride means that you are tainted and scarred as a soulless individual forever, seems about on par with the primitive fear that taking a photograph captures and steals your soul, also rendering you a soulless individual. It's nonsense until someone comes up with a better reasoning than "Well, you can't disprove it."

Edit: Sorry Kzinti.
 
Last edited:

Joeytj

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,833
I feel like Star Trek should get to the point where really imaginative writers actually run with the ideas presented throughout the different series and kind of get a tighter grip on it all and try to make it coherent as possible. If that means modifying things a little, whatever. I think the flimsy way it's been handled since forever is just kind of old and I'd really like to see a deeper sci-fi story using the Star Trek universe and all it's crazy technology - and what it would mean to be human. Sort of like the Iain Banks Culture series that some have mentioned in this thread. I'd love to see Star Trek actually get weird and consequential and stop telling boring stories about androids and Romulan conspiracies. Give me more complexity. Not sure if that would work best in an episodic/serial mix or just straight serialization.

Even beyond the tech stuff, I'd like to see writers that actually cared about the continuity and kept it all connected. I think continuity can be really fun when it's adhered to beyond the flaky way most people approach Star Trek, where it's only used if it's convenient to the story they want to tell. It's like Star Trek has steadily become space fantasy over the years, but there's real opportunities or potential to develop something that could be complex and entertaining. Those qualities don't have to be in opposition, but I get the feeling people that get involved with Star Trek think that the only stories that can be told are very traditional action/adventure with the wrapping of what has been known as Star Trek. It's not that this means those kinds of series are bad, just a little old at this point. Like I loved DS9 back in the day, but I can't really get into the war arc stuff anymore as it just feels like I'm watching some traditional war story, which DS9 succeeded in doing with it's rich characterization, but I don't know it's just not super interesting anymore. Whereas with old episodes of other series where an idea was presented in isolation, I find it still engaging to think on what I've seen and what ideas were presented.
At the end of the day though, Star Trek was never intended to be the type of hard science fiction a lot of people claim to want.

I was surprised that very few if any of the reviewers picked up on the Issac Asimov diss in Episode 2 of PIC. Most thought it was an ironic joke about a character in a science fiction show claiming he wasn’t into science fiction, and I think that was the top layer of that joke.

But I saw it too as a kick at Asimov, or at least an acknowledgement of how Asimov hated TOS when it first came out because of just how loose it was with science facts. He was later convinced by Roddenberry to accept the show for what it was, science fiction for a mass audience in a western adventure show set in space. Asimov came around and then loved the show for other reasons, like its social commentary and characters.
 

Amnesty

Member
Nov 7, 2017
1,096
At the end of the day though, Star Trek was never intended to be the type of hard science fiction a lot of people claim to want.

I was surprised that very few if any of the reviewers picked up on the Issac Asimov diss in Episode 2 of PIC. Most thought it was an ironic joke about a character in a science fiction show claiming he wasn’t into science fiction, and I think that was the top layer of that joke.

But I saw it too as a kick at Asimov, or at least an acknowledgement of how Asimov hated TOS when it first came out because of just how loose it was with science facts. He was later convinced by Roddenberry to accept the show for what it was, science fiction for a mass audience in a western adventure show set in space. Asimov came around and then loved the show for other reasons, like its social commentary and characters.
Right, but I’m saying what Star Trek keeps doing is just not that interesting. It doesn’t even have to go full into hard sci-fi to be something different or more compelling than it is now or has been in the past. At its best it did present itself as something more than just traditional adventure drama, which is what I’d like to see accentuated more than the bland plots they’re coming up with these days. Less space fantasy and more dealing with what the future and technology actually mean for humans (in ways that are relevant - so less focus on scary androids and moreso on complex, larger scale AI), beyond the same old faction politics ST has tapped for decades. I think you can make sci-fi for a mass audience that isn’t the same old thing time and again. Especially now, I think there is potential in complexity reaching larger audiences. Like continuity for example could be used to actually build a coherent and consistent world instead of just being window dressing, I don’t think that’s a limited audience type thing at all today.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
5,936
so apparently worf is the captain of the enterprise
I felt a little incredulous about it at first too but, well... Riker and Troi are over on the Titan, Data is gone, Crusher is a Doctor so commanding a flagship isn't really her realm. If we're looking at the original cast, it's pretty much between Geordi and Worf. But Geordi is an engineer and naturally spent most of his time in engineering dealing more with technology than with people.

Worf was actually an Enterprise bridge officer dealing directly with high risk situations. On DS9 he coordinated starfleet activity for that entire sector. He later became the commander of the USS Defiant. He also became a Federation ambassador (to Qo'noS of course).

If they're going to pick from the original cast, Worf seems like the best answer. Dude actually has a pretty damn nice resume.
It just feels weird because Worf was so often played for laughs or outright ignored in the TNG era. But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense (within the context of fiction).


Now I just wonder if it's still the E.
 

StallionDan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,883
I felt a little incredulous about it at first too but, well... Riker and Troi are over on the Titan, Data is gone, Crusher is a Doctor so commanding a flagship isn't really her realm. If we're looking at the original cast, it's pretty much between Geordi and Worf. But Geordi is an engineer and naturally spent most of his time in engineering dealing more with technology than with people.

Worf was actually an Enterprise bridge officer dealing directly with high risk situations. On DS9 he coordinated starfleet activity for that entire sector. He later became the commander of the USS Defiant. He also became a Federation ambassador (to Qo'noS of course).

If they're going to pick from the original cast, Worf seems like the best answer. Dude actually has a pretty damn nice resume.
It just feels weird because Worf was so often played for laughs or outright ignored in the TNG era. But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense (within the context of fiction).


Now I just wonder if it's still the E.
You say this when we have seen future versions of both Crusher and Geordi in command of their own ships.
 
Jan 29, 2018
2,342
I felt a little incredulous about it at first too but, well... Riker and Troi are over on the Titan, Data is gone, Crusher is a Doctor so commanding a flagship isn't really her realm. If we're looking at the original cast, it's pretty much between Geordi and Worf. But Geordi is an engineer and naturally spent most of his time in engineering dealing more with technology than with people.

Worf was actually an Enterprise bridge officer dealing directly with high risk situations. On DS9 he coordinated starfleet activity for that entire sector. He later became the commander of the USS Defiant. He also became a Federation ambassador (to Qo'noS of course).

If they're going to pick from the original cast, Worf seems like the best answer. Dude actually has a pretty damn nice resume.
It just feels weird because Worf was so often played for laughs or outright ignored in the TNG era. But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense (within the context of fiction).


Now I just wonder if it's still the E.
Still seems like
a significant backwards career move from Ambassador.

Also if it's not the Enterprise E it's a little goofy. These ships should be in service for decades, not 10-15 years.
 

Wrexis

Member
Nov 4, 2017
579
So did anyone forget that Picard was Captain of the Stargazer for 22 years?

He's spent what, 65 years in Starfleet?
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,936
You say this when we have seen future versions of both Crusher and Geordi in command of their own ships.
Do brief future cameos from defunct timelines somehow make them more qualified
I'm aware of those versions but it doesn't really matter
For example being captain of a medical ship in service as a mobile hospital is not the same job as being captain of the federation flagship
Still seems like
a significant backwards career move from Ambassador.

Also if it's not the Enterprise E it's a little goofy. These ships should be in service for decades, not 10-15 years.
Yes they should be in service longer, but this is fiction, so we'll get new enterprises as frequently as the guys in charge deem it exciting.
Personally I think an E-Refit would be cool.
Give me a better bridge though. The old one was a total yawn. Grey metal with blue lights, big surprise.
 

Wrexis

Member
Nov 4, 2017
579
The Picard novel is interesting so far.

it's set just before the star goes Supernova. La Forge has a big ish role as the project lead on Mars building ships for the Romulan relief effort.

Raffi has a kid.

There is an intriguing suggestion the supernova was not natural.
 
Last edited:

Dougald

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,825
Will we see the two-handed punch in this show? It's not real Star Trek until someone busts that one out
 
OP
OP
Spectromixer

Spectromixer

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,542
USA
New episode tomorrow

1.04 Absolute Candor

The crew's journey to Freecloud takes a detour when Picard orders a stop at the planet Vashti, where Picard and Raffi relocated Romulan refugees 14 years earlier. Upon arrival, Picard reunites with Elnor (Evan Evagora), a young Romulan he befriended during the relocation. Meanwhile, Narek continues his attempts to learn more about Soji while Narissa's impatience with his lack of progress grows.
 

Mr. Pointy

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,617
Calling it.

Narissa's attempt to force Narek to extract information from Soji results in a threesome.

It's clearly what the writers are intending with that subplot.
 

auicc

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
274
To stay up or not to, that is the question. I do have a feeling that these next episodes will have a more faster pace due to the change in directors.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,156
After episode 4 I'm definitely on board. I'm not gungho about it as I still think Picard isn't Picard enough, but as I stated before we do see glimpses of Captain Picard when he gets angry and self-righteous. Perhaps he's softer on purpose; a man disillusioned with Starfleet and the principles he stood by but one regaining a sense of purpose.

But it looks like we're finally getting the adventure side of things now.
 

Noodle

Member
Aug 22, 2018
1,819
And incest comes to Star Trek.

14 years ago Picard seems less like TNG Picard than present-day Picard.

Nice to see some space travel. They've changed the warp travel FX unless that's meant to be quantum slipstream. I really wish they'd shown a Federation starship in the flashback instead of more Discovery shuttles.

Anyone else bothered by the microaggression that both Rios and Raffi assumed the pilot must be male by default? I know, an intentional misdirection by the writers for the reveal but you'd have hoped with 300 years of betterment they would have eliminated such ingrained biases.
 

Dr Doom

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,689
This side tracked needs to have consequences on their main mission

Narissa and Narek my intergalactic Lannister
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,156
You say this when we have seen future versions of both Crusher and Geordi in command of their own ships.
Everyone becoming Captains is one of the silliest things in Star Trek.
Anyone else bothered by the microaggression that both Rios and Raffi assumed the pilot must be male by default? I know, an intentional misdirection by the writers for the reveal but you'd have hoped with 300 years of betterment they would have eliminated such ingrained biases.
No. Because as you said it was intentional by the writers. We're not actually looking into life in the late 24th century after all.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,327
So after the fourth episode I think it's time for some first impressions of the series. Judging it by general sci-fi TV standards it's perfectly serviceable and watchable, although I imagine that viewers who are new to Star Trek will be confused a bit. It doesn't have the TNG+ look that one would expect from a post TNG-era show but I can deal with that as Discovery was way worse in that regard and I understand the need for a show's visuals to be updated to modern standards and style.

My main issue with the show so far is that Picard, the main character, is simply unrecognizable as the eponymous captain from the series and (less so) from the movies. He is not the same character and Stewart is very clearly playing himself in this series instead of an established character. Everything about him is so far removed from what we saw earlier that I am seriously wondering what was the point in making a Picard show at all. That was a rhetorical question as we all know the point (nostalgia pandering and money). This latest episode further reinforces that aside from the fact that he is being played by the same actor, this series' Picard is a completely different character.
 

SG-17

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,480
People can change a lot in 30 years, especially when facing their own mortality and radical life changes.
 

Sir Hound

Member
Oct 28, 2017
749
I think Star Trek fans are so used to maintained status quos that they can’t handle the idea of a character arc, especially one spanning decades. I wonder if there’s an overlap with DS9 fans and people who don’t mind seeing a different Picard.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,327
People can change a lot in 30 years, especially when facing their own mortality and radical life changes.
Show that change then, as well as the reasons for it. Don't jump to a different character and pretend it's the same.

Picard is way better than Trek has been since 2001.
A very low bar that Picard can't even pass in my opinion. I would gladly take the last season of Enterprise over Picard.