Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Edit: and another bad sin of Series 3 was that it almost totally ignored what happened in the first two series. The old complaint about the episodic nature of Star Trek was written large in Picard: there are no consequences; no follow-through.
Series 2 wasn't Sci-Fi: it was a moral lecture on contemporary political issues in the US. The ratings for it were terrible, the acting was poor and the pace abysmal - just check out rotten tomatoes; the writers ended up being sacked.
I think you're just being contrarian, however.
No. I'm not just being contrarian. Read my posts to see *why* I think series 2 is perfectly in line with Star Trek's past and origins.
And if you think it wasn't sci-fi, then I fear you have a very limited definition of sci-fi, which has always been more than spaceships going around going pew-pew-pew.
Feel free to disagree, obvs.
I've read them.
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point' but because that's how things would naturally be in a future interplanetary federation.
In other words, they started with the great sci-fi adventure stories and just didn't draw any lines based upon contemporary US politics - like only certain races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or any alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - for example, The Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - that manage to be very powerful without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed.
But that's not what they did with Picard series 2, is it? And I'd also argue with what we're seeing in Russia (*), the Confederation is a very apt topic to partly touch on.
I mean, what did S3 have? I won't give spoilers, but the plot was utterly hackneyed and boring. It's all been seen before.
I’ll watch another episode of Diplomat tonight to see if Leon’s right and it improves.
It is, at least, expensively produced.
Amazing how much money goes into TV these days. I watched Season 1 of the Perry Mason reboot recently and while, again, it is flawed (though for different reasons), the ability to conjure up 1930s Los Angeles is simply incredible.
To be fair, the FA Cup Semi lets choose who gets battered by Citeh match has become properly entertaining. Utter end to end thrash, made funnier by United putting Donkey on.
Longish shot prediction. Arsenal to beat City on Wednesday. And then go on to win Premiership.
It is, as they say, not the despair but the hope that gets to you.
I’ll watch another episode of Diplomat tonight to see if Leon’s right and it improves.
It is, at least, expensively produced.
Amazing how much money goes into TV these days. I watched Season 1 of the Perry Mason reboot recently and while, again, it is flawed (though for different reasons), the ability to conjure up 1930s Los Angeles is simply incredible.
You need to make it to episode 4 or 5 to really enjoy it. Then it’s rather good
It will never be historic TV but I can see it doing 3-4 fun seasons where she ends up as VP or POTUS or whatever
Another Scottish question. The BBC reports: "The Proclaimers have been removed from an official King's coronation playlist after they were criticised for their anti-royal views. Craig and Charlie Reid's hit I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles) was featured alongside prominent UK artists. Last year they agreed with a republican demonstrator who shouted during the proclamation of King Charles. The BBC understands the song was removed by the UK government following complaints."
What a bunch of sad tossers the UK chinless wonders are
Doubt you would have someone to your special celebration who made it clear they were opposed to you in every conceivable way...
The parasites should not be wasting 100 million of public mony. The clown can afford to pay for his own bloody theatre show. Hopefully it will be shovelling it down and all th elickspittle clowns get drookit.
Have you been taking your turnip syrup you naughty boy?
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Edit: and another bad sin of Series 3 was that it almost totally ignored what happened in the first two series. The old complaint about the episodic nature of Star Trek was written large in Picard: there are no consequences; no follow-through.
Series 2 wasn't Sci-Fi: it was a moral lecture on contemporary political issues in the US. The ratings for it were terrible, the acting was poor and the pace abysmal - just check out rotten tomatoes; the writers ended up being sacked.
I think you're just being contrarian, however.
No. I'm not just being contrarian. Read my posts to see *why* I think series 2 is perfectly in line with Star Trek's past and origins.
And if you think it wasn't sci-fi, then I fear you have a very limited definition of sci-fi, which has always been more than spaceships going around going pew-pew-pew.
Feel free to disagree, obvs.
I've read them.
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point' but because that's how things would naturally be in a future interplanetary federation.
In other words, they started with the great sci-fi adventure stories and just didn't draw any lines based upon contemporary US politics - like only certain races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or any alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - for example, The Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - that manage to be very powerful without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed.
But that's not what they did with Picard series 2, is it? And I'd also argue with what we're seeing in Russia (*), the Confederation is a very apt topic to partly touch on.
I mean, what did S3 have? I won't give spoilers, but the plot was utterly hackneyed and boring. It's all been seen before.
(*) And perhaps other countries.
It was as innovative as a plate of fish and chips - but equally satisfying for much the same reasons.
While Trump has his well publicised issues, Biden is now getting a good amount of heat over the IRS Whistleblower / retired spy dossier stuff that has emerged in the US over the past several days.
That could have some betting implications (although I am sure the Biden Taliban will be on here downplaying the issues pretty soon...)
That Netflix series Diplomat (about an unfeasibly pretty slender US ambassadress to the UK) is interesting. The elderly president is clearly based on Biden, the characters discuss his advanced years, the difficulty of his decline, the way he replaced someone even worse but still
It shows impatience with Biden even from a sympathetic source like Hollywood
Saw two episodes last night. Total gash. The dialogue makes me cringe.
But will keep watching for the shots of London.
Yes, it ain’t the West Wing (as it has been compared to, insanely)
It has mad plot twists, weird non sequiturs, weak jokes, a quite absurd amount of senior black politicians/spies, and yet it is pleasantly diverting, nonetheless
It has a jagged story line with some totally non-credible characters. But a nice twist at the end. In episode 5(?) it mentions the 'Scottish problem' and also Wales.
Impressive, I didn't know American TV writers knew Wales existed.
I like the fact they expect viewers to know what GCHQ, MI5, and the Foreign Secretary is.
I don’t like the fact that it’s basically West Wing meets Homeland meets Emily in Paris.
It’s quite silly.
You've kind of sold me on it though.
It’s worth it in a frothy bingey way, as your wait for better series to renew or complete
Speaking of which, there is a threatened Writers Strike in Hollywood commencing May 1 (not definite yet but quite possible). The last time it happened in 2007 it basically killed new drama for a year and American studios had to churn out endless reality TV, which doesn’t need writers
So, basically, really quite shit for fans of TV drama. Pray they settle the dispute
Shrugs doesn't matter if they strike for a decade.....most I suspect could find stuff they haven't watched yet and wouldn't mind watching for the next ten years I certainly know I could I have a list of about 30 box sets and 100 films and that would last me 5 years. Some been on the list ages as other things come up which go to the top.
As @Gardenwalker has noted, The Diplomat is genuinely intelligent and demanding of its mainly American audience
Eg an American character will say “We’re going to meet the Foreign Secretary at Chevening”
There is zero explanation of what Chevening might be (the FS’s country house) and even when it is later explained it is brisk. How many Brits have a clue that the FS has a country pile called Chevening?
I like it. Quite a lot. The very soapy beginning develops into something better. It is catnip for political geeks like us
I got to the “sniffing of armpits” in the first episode and gave up, tbh
Spoiler! This one is on my list - now I'll be expecting that twist.
The Scottish government's arguments do certainly seem strange. Why would Westminster take the initiative of telling them what the bill would look like in order to pass?
It does highlight to me that wherever one stood on devolution the settlement appears to have been completely ill-thought through particularly with regard the challenge of Scotland always maintaining a separate legal system. How was that to be finessed post-devolution without undermining the UK?
As @Gardenwalker has noted, The Diplomat is genuinely intelligent and demanding of its mainly American audience
Eg an American character will say “We’re going to meet the Foreign Secretary at Chevening”
There is zero explanation of what Chevening might be (the FS’s country house) and even when it is later explained it is brisk. How many Brits have a clue that the FS has a country pile called Chevening?
I like it. Quite a lot. The very soapy beginning develops into something better. It is catnip for political geeks like us
I got to the “sniffing of armpits” in the first episode and gave up, tbh
Spoiler! This one is on my list - now I'll be expecting that twist.
There is a coda to the sniffing of armpits..
The cameo appearance from Nick Palmer MP as “Labour MP in Orgy” is a fantastic in-joke.
As to people wanting to turn it off, I don't understand it really. It's not exactly intrusive and I doubt we'll hear it again unless there's a nuclear attack so I think that's never.
My guess is that the fact that the first most people heard of it was the government wanting to send literally everybody a pretty intrusive "this is a test" message has given a poor impression. I'm happy to get tsunami and earthquake warnings, but if whoever's in charge is happy to send broadcast test messages they clearly have a rather lower bar on what's worth bothering the population about...
But the test was required to see if it actually worked and good thing we did it too because around 20% of phones didn't get the message because one of the networks didn't set up correctly. Imagine there was a tsunami and 20% of people didn't get notified because the system was never tested properly? That's precisely what would have happened before this test.
and now they have tested it and next time still 20% of people won't get it.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enemies, for an unholy alliance was a great story and having the federation sow its own demise with section 31 experimentation on shapeshifters and eventually making a genocidal virus to eradicate the founders was a brilliant bit of writing. Sisko denying Odo the chance of curing the disease before the end of the war was a mistake and season 3 shows the fallout of that bad decision.
JJ probably also enjoyed Rings of Power, though. Which also had terrible ratings and has been a commercial failure for Amazon. Only 35% of people who started the season finished it, Netflix use an internal benchmark of 60-70% completion rates to suggest a series is worth renewing for another season, if shows don't get there or don't look like getting there they get cancelled. Apparently audiences didn't enjoy Rings of Power because we're all racist, misogynists and stuck in our ways of wanting the writers to, you know, stick to the fucking source material.
As to people wanting to turn it off, I don't understand it really. It's not exactly intrusive and I doubt we'll hear it again unless there's a nuclear attack so I think that's never.
My guess is that the fact that the first most people heard of it was the government wanting to send literally everybody a pretty intrusive "this is a test" message has given a poor impression. I'm happy to get tsunami and earthquake warnings, but if whoever's in charge is happy to send broadcast test messages they clearly have a rather lower bar on what's worth bothering the population about...
But the test was required to see if it actually worked and good thing we did it too because around 20% of phones didn't get the message because one of the networks didn't set up correctly. Imagine there was a tsunami and 20% of people didn't get notified because the system was never tested properly? That's precisely what would have happened before this test.
and now they have tested it and next time still 20% of people won't get it.
I had no idea you had decades of experience in IT. This is exactly what my response would be too.
To be fair, the FA Cup Semi lets choose who gets battered by Citeh match has become properly entertaining. Utter end to end thrash, made funnier by United putting Donkey on.
Longish shot prediction. Arsenal to beat City on Wednesday. And then go on to win Premiership.
It is, as they say, not the despair but the hope that gets to you.
I am up for that. Do Citeh. And we'll do them with a 120+7 winner in the final scored by Wout Donkey. Would be funny.
As @Gardenwalker has noted, The Diplomat is genuinely intelligent and demanding of its mainly American audience
Eg an American character will say “We’re going to meet the Foreign Secretary at Chevening”
There is zero explanation of what Chevening might be (the FS’s country house) and even when it is later explained it is brisk. How many Brits have a clue that the FS has a country pile called Chevening?
I like it. Quite a lot. The very soapy beginning develops into something better. It is catnip for political geeks like us
I got to the “sniffing of armpits” in the first episode and gave up, tbh
Spoiler! This one is on my list - now I'll be expecting that twist.
There is a coda to the sniffing of armpits..
The cameo appearance from Nick Palmer MP as “Labour MP in Orgy” is a fantastic in-joke.
I wasn’t sure about Sir Derek Jacobi in the part but he really pulled it off. As it were.
3 Weeks ago Average Lead was 20.38 Fall in Lab Lead 5.85
Please explain SKS fans.
I've no explanation for SKS fans. Do they actually exist ?
Only in the mirror universe.
On the whole UK politicians don't have fans, and it doesn't end well when they do.
They have a sliding scale of unfandom, which is then translated or transposed like music into a higher octave. So 'tolerant indifference' becomes 'fanatical devotion'. It's like how they mark GCSE Maths papers where 23% becomes 87% by transposition.
The real highest level is tolerant indifference. Like centrist 'usually Labour' voters feel for SKS. The lowest level is unmitigated hatred, such as miners for Mrs T, golf club members for Jezza, all sentient life for Bridgen, Burgon, Dorries, Pidcock and so on.
Blair, Boris, Putin, Trump, Sturgeon, Salmond had fans. Doesn't end well.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
All the trek shows were rebooted. TNG got rid of crusher, brought in Pulaski as a racist doctor aping McCoy, ditched her when hat didn't work, threw out Gene, brought in the Borg, and never looked back. DS9 canceled the peace with the Kilingons, brought in Work and the Defiant, and never looked back. Voyager got rid of Kes, brought in Seven and wrapped her in a skintight suit and ignored Kate Mulgrew who was angry at the sexism (Mulgrew and Ryan still don't get on), and it mostly worked. Disco was rebooted twice (Hello pike! Hello future!) and still didn't work. Enterprise rebooted with the Xindi arc, spenttwo years making memberberry pie (the Augment virus!), but only the hardcore fans cared and it died. Only the animated shows endured because they're cheap to make and don't need big audiences. Gen Z fans think the show is of a piece, but it's a continuous string of daft decisions, ducttape, and a fair bit of sexism, with grace Lee Whitney, gates McFadden, Terry Farrell, Kate Mulgrew being treated poorly. As a franchise they just throw shit at the wall and hope something sticks... 😀
... but Ryan was a better actor than the rest of the cast...
You've got me thinking now: which were bad, which were good. Thinks. Ok, some were good, some were bad. Did you have a particular one in mind?
I don't recall any being particularly bad - and Picardo was very good - just that most were pretty bland characters and they weren't good enough to be able to rise above that. My mum was a big fan of Chakotay, and Paris and Torres had a bit more to them, but Kim and Tuvok were pretty uninteresting and Janeway was...ok.
Edit: Also, I hope I get some credit from an annoyed PB for at least attempting to link Trek talk to politics, however shoehorned.
While Trump has his well publicised issues, Biden is now getting a good amount of heat over the IRS Whistleblower / retired spy dossier stuff that has emerged in the US over the past several days.
That could have some betting implications (although I am sure the Biden Taliban will be on here downplaying the issues pretty soon...)
That Netflix series Diplomat (about an unfeasibly pretty slender US ambassadress to the UK) is interesting. The elderly president is clearly based on Biden, the characters discuss his advanced years, the difficulty of his decline, the way he replaced someone even worse but still
It shows impatience with Biden even from a sympathetic source like Hollywood
Saw two episodes last night. Total gash. The dialogue makes me cringe.
But will keep watching for the shots of London.
Yes, it ain’t the West Wing (as it has been compared to, insanely)
It has mad plot twists, weird non sequiturs, weak jokes, a quite absurd amount of senior black politicians/spies, and yet it is pleasantly diverting, nonetheless
It has a jagged story line with some totally non-credible characters. But a nice twist at the end. In episode 5(?) it mentions the 'Scottish problem' and also Wales.
Impressive, I didn't know American TV writers knew Wales existed.
I like the fact they expect viewers to know what GCHQ, MI5, and the Foreign Secretary is.
I don’t like the fact that it’s basically West Wing meets Homeland meets Emily in Paris.
It’s quite silly.
You've kind of sold me on it though.
It’s worth it in a frothy bingey way, as your wait for better series to renew or complete
Speaking of which, there is a threatened Writers Strike in Hollywood commencing May 1 (not definite yet but quite possible). The last time it happened in 2007 it basically killed new drama for a year and American studios had to churn out endless reality TV, which doesn’t need writers
So, basically, really quite shit for fans of TV drama. Pray they settle the dispute
Shrugs doesn't matter if they strike for a decade.....most I suspect could find stuff they haven't watched yet and wouldn't mind watching for the next ten years I certainly know I could I have a list of about
As to people wanting to turn it off, I don't understand it really. It's not exactly intrusive and I doubt we'll hear it again unless there's a nuclear attack so I think that's never.
My guess is that the fact that the first most people heard of it was the government wanting to send literally everybody a pretty intrusive "this is a test" message has given a poor impression. I'm happy to get tsunami and earthquake warnings, but if whoever's in charge is happy to send broadcast test messages they clearly have a rather lower bar on what's worth bothering the population about...
But the test was required to see if it actually worked and good thing we did it too because around 20% of phones didn't get the message because one of the networks didn't set up correctly. Imagine there was a tsunami and 20% of people didn't get notified because the system was never tested properly? That's precisely what would have happened before this test.
and now they have tested it and next time still 20% of people won't get it.
I had no idea you had decades of experience in IT. This is exactly what my response would be too.
Been a software engineer since the early nineties so yes
Ah, I see Peston is trying his own whataboutery. Apparently if you don't buy wholesale a nonsensical apology you don't believe in compassion, understanding and forgiveness (he is right though that I did not know he was Jewish, not that it affects my opinion that his view was stupid).
Some of you don’t appear to know that I am Jewish, have been confronted by antisemitism and have campaigned against it - and all racism - my whole life. However I passionately believe that the good society is built on compassion, understanding and forgiveness. https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1650149005089730561?cxt=HHwWgsCzrd_xwOYtAAAA
Not what he's saying. He's just defending his own opinion there, which is fair enough. Even though he's wrong.
Looks like what he's saying to me. He believes in forgiveness and understanding and so has bought the apology hook, line and sinker, thus implying others who don't buy it do not believe in forgiveness and understanding.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enie
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Edit: and another bad sin of Series 3 was that it almost totally ignored what happened in the first two series. The old complaint about the episodic nature of Star Trek was written large in Picard: there are no consequences; no follow-through.
Series 2 wasn't Sci-Fi: it was a moral lecture on contemporary political issues in the US. The ratings for it were terrible, the acting was poor and the pace abysmal - just check out rotten tomatoes; the writers ended up being sacked.
I think you're just being contrarian, however.
No. I'm not just being contrarian. Read my posts to see *why* I think series 2 is perfectly in line with Star Trek's past and origins.
And if you think it wasn't sci-fi, then I fear you have a very limited definition of sci-fi, which has always been more than spaceships going around going pew-pew-pew.
Feel free to disagree, obvs.
I've read them.
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point' but because that's how things would naturally be in a future interplanetary federation.
In other words, they started with the great sci-fi adventure stories and just didn't draw any lines based upon contemporary US politics - like only certain races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or any alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - for example, The Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - that manage to be very powerful without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed.
But that's not what they did with Picard series 2, is it? And I'd also argue with what we're seeing in Russia (*), the Confederation is a very apt topic to partly touch on.
I mean, what did S3 have? I won't give spoilers, but the plot was utterly hackneyed and boring. It's all been seen before.
(*) And perhaps other countries.
How about seeing the consequences of Starfleet command preventing Odo from going back to the Founders to cure the disease that Section 31 used to attempt to commit genocide? Showing that bad decisions have consequences is the shade of grey which made TNG and DS9 so amazing in the first place.
My wife has never been interested in Star Trek before and we recently completed DS9 and even she was absolutely amazed as to how deep the story was and how relevant it is to today. She was amazed that really strong female characters like Kira were on TV back then and that a black captain just seemed so normal, no fanfare because it's 300 years from now so who cares about skin colour.
More than anything else Star Trek is about the characters and seeing how they deal with the various scenarios that they are thrust into. One of the reasons Voyager was less well received than DS9 or TNG was because Janeway was a very erratic decision maker and it wasn't until Seven joined the crew that the show became tolerable because she and the Doctor became much bigger focal points.
Picard Season 3 brought that consistent writing and exploration of the human condition back.
To be fair, the FA Cup Semi lets choose who gets battered by Citeh match has become properly entertaining. Utter end to end thrash, made funnier by United putting Donkey on.
Longish shot prediction. Arsenal to beat City on Wednesday. And then go on to win Premiership.
It is, as they say, not the despair but the hope that gets to you.
I am up for that. Do Citeh. And we'll do them with a 120+7 winner in the final scored by Wout Donkey. Would be funny.
I have an exceedingly small sum riding on it. As I did today that ManU, despite being complete rubbish, would not lose to Brighton. Maybe I'm starting to be on a roll. Not.
Regarding the header, I don't think the Scotland/Ireland comparison is that useful. I don't see vast intractable problems. The whole episode of devolution and then an aborted attempt at Independence, followed by the disintegration of the governing party, who chose the moment to make a last stand over an unpopular policy, may just all ultimately come to actually reinforce the resilience of the British state.
Yes, the comparison is a bit overblown, if eyecatching.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enie
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Edit: and another bad sin of Series 3 was that it almost totally ignored what happened in the first two series. The old complaint about the episodic nature of Star Trek was written large in Picard: there are no consequences; no follow-through.
Series 2 wasn't Sci-Fi: it was a moral lecture on contemporary political issues in the US. The ratings for it were terrible, the acting was poor and the pace abysmal - just check out rotten tomatoes; the writers ended up being sacked.
I think you're just being contrarian, however.
No. I'm not just being contrarian. Read my posts to see *why* I think series 2 is perfectly in line with Star Trek's past and origins.
And if you think it wasn't sci-fi, then I fear you have a very limited definition of sci-fi, which has always been more than spaceships going around going pew-pew-pew.
Feel free to disagree, obvs.
I've read them.
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point' but because that's how things would naturally be in a future interplanetary federation.
In other words, they started with the great sci-fi adventure stories and just didn't draw any lines based upon contemporary US politics - like only certain races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or any alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - for example, The Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - that manage to be very powerful without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed.
But that's not what they did with Picard series 2, is it? And I'd also argue with what we're seeing in Russia (*), the Confederation is a very apt topic to partly touch on.
I mean, what did S3 have? I won't give spoilers, but the plot was utterly hackneyed and boring. It's all been seen before.
(*) And perhaps other countries.
How about seeing the consequences of Starfleet command preventing Odo from going back to the Founders to cure the disease that Section 31 used to attempt to commit genocide? Showing that bad decisions have consequences is the shade of grey which made TNG and DS9 so amazing in the first place.
My wife has never been interested in Star Trek before and we recently completed DS9 and even she was absolutely amazed as to how deep the story was and how relevant it is to today. She was amazed that really strong female characters like Kira were on TV back then and that a black captain just seemed so normal, no fanfare because it's 300 years from now so who cares about skin colour.
More than anything else Star Trek is about the characters and seeing how they deal with the various scenarios that they are thrust into. One of the reasons Voyager was less well received than DS9 or TNG was because Janeway was a very erratic decision maker and it wasn't until Seven joined the crew that the show became tolerable because she and the Doctor became much bigger focal points.
Picard Season 3 brought that consistent writing and exploration of the human condition back.
Isn't the funny thing that Roddenberry was less in to the shades of gray people like so much about some later Trek? I may be wrong as I'm not in to the earlier stuff, but I thought he was supposed to have been more 'the Federation is a utopia, full stop' kind of guy rather than exposing some of the ugly underbelly of what was admittedly a great society.
Ah, I see Peston is trying his own whataboutery. Apparently if you don't buy wholesale a nonsensical apology you don't believe in compassion, understanding and forgiveness (he is right though that I did not know he was Jewish, not that it affects my opinion that his view was stupid).
Some of you don’t appear to know that I am Jewish, have been confronted by antisemitism and have campaigned against it - and all racism - my whole life. However I passionately believe that the good society is built on compassion, understanding and forgiveness. https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1650149005089730561?cxt=HHwWgsCzrd_xwOYtAAAA
Not what he's saying. He's just defending his own opinion there, which is fair enough. Even though he's wrong.
I don't agree with Diane Abbott about anything much, and have no real affection either, not do I think she is a particularly good politician who happens to think differently from me. Nor am I impressed with the article or the apology.
But Robert Peston is, in this case, absolutely right. Compassion, understanding and forgiveness is never wasted.
As @Gardenwalker has noted, The Diplomat is genuinely intelligent and demanding of its mainly American audience
Eg an American character will say “We’re going to meet the Foreign Secretary at Chevening”
There is zero explanation of what Chevening might be (the FS’s country house) and even when it is later explained it is brisk. How many Brits have a clue that the FS has a country pile called Chevening?
I like it. Quite a lot. The very soapy beginning develops into something better. It is catnip for political geeks like us
I got to the “sniffing of armpits” in the first episode and gave up, tbh
Spoiler! This one is on my list - now I'll be expecting that twist.
There is a coda to the sniffing of armpits..
The cameo appearance from Nick Palmer MP as “Labour MP in Orgy” is a fantastic in-joke.
I wasn’t sure about Sir Derek Jacobi in the part but he really pulled it off. As it were.
Personally think Hugh Grant more suitable for the role of NPxMP - on multiple levels.
Though perhaps HG's bit long-in-tooth to portray NPxMP in his misspent (really?) youth.
When it comes to rest of cast, Elizabeth Hurley would be a natural, again in more ways than one (and also ignoring age-ist objections).
As for the final member of this temporary triangle, sad that Dame Edna is no longer available. . .
Ah, I see Peston is trying his own whataboutery. Apparently if you don't buy wholesale a nonsensical apology you don't believe in compassion, understanding and forgiveness (he is right though that I did not know he was Jewish, not that it affects my opinion that his view was stupid).
Some of you don’t appear to know that I am Jewish, have been confronted by antisemitism and have campaigned against it - and all racism - my whole life. However I passionately believe that the good society is built on compassion, understanding and forgiveness. https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1650149005089730561?cxt=HHwWgsCzrd_xwOYtAAAA
Not what he's saying. He's just defending his own opinion there, which is fair enough. Even though he's wrong.
I don't agree with Diane Abbott about anything much, and have no real affection either, not do I think she is a particularly good politician who happens to think differently from me. Nor am I impressed with the article or the apology.
But Robert Peston is, in this case, absolutely right. Compassion, understanding and forgiveness is never wasted.
Apart from Diane Abbot has form for this sort of thing, its not exactly the first time she has been racist
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Part of me wonders whether the Scots, including the SNP, would dislike it very much if the English voted 'England to separate from Scotland' in a referendum.
It's one of those issues like 'free speech'; everyone looks first to who is saying 'free speech' before deciding if they agree with them.
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
3 Weeks ago Average Lead was 20.38 Fall in Lab Lead 5.85
Please explain SKS fans.
I've no explanation for SKS fans. Do they actually exist ?
Only in the mirror universe.
On the whole UK politicians don't have fans, and it doesn't end well when they do.
They have a sliding scale of unfandom, which is then translated or transposed like music into a higher octave. So 'tolerant indifference' becomes 'fanatical devotion'. It's like how they mark GCSE Maths papers where 23% becomes 87% by transposition.
The real highest level is tolerant indifference. Like centrist 'usually Labour' voters feel for SKS. The lowest level is unmitigated hatred, such as miners for Mrs T, golf club members for Jezza, all sentient life for Bridgen, Burgon, Dorries, Pidcock and so on.
Blair, Boris, Putin, Trump, Sturgeon, Salmond had fans. Doesn't end well.
Interesting, but I'd like to point out that Ken Clarke, Paddy Ashdown types have fans too, just not enough to get elected!
Ah, I see Peston is trying his own whataboutery. Apparently if you don't buy wholesale a nonsensical apology you don't believe in compassion, understanding and forgiveness (he is right though that I did not know he was Jewish, not that it affects my opinion that his view was stupid).
Some of you don’t appear to know that I am Jewish, have been confronted by antisemitism and have campaigned against it - and all racism - my whole life. However I passionately believe that the good society is built on compassion, understanding and forgiveness. https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1650149005089730561?cxt=HHwWgsCzrd_xwOYtAAAA
Not what he's saying. He's just defending his own opinion there, which is fair enough. Even though he's wrong.
I don't agree with Diane Abbott about anything much, and have no real affection either, not do I think she is a particularly good politician who happens to think differently from me. Nor am I impressed with the article or the apology.
But Robert Peston is, in this case, absolutely right. Compassion, understanding and forgiveness is never wasted.
As a general point it isn't. But when people apologise it needs to be sincere. Otherwise we are not showing understanding and compassion, we're being suckers. I actually agree in part with this post from Momentum about restoring the whip because she has apologised - but I think that still needs an investigation because her apology was that she sent the wrong draft, and people were not offended because of minor drafting issues. I think an investigation to see what the final draft was meant to say is reasonable, and if it still says the same basic thing then it is not showing a lack of compassion or understanding to hold her accountable for that. And only then would any forgiveness be meaningful - how could I truly be forgiven without the full facts being known? It could be granted regardless of what I or she did, but it would still need full knowledge.
We need to know what we are being forgiven for after all.
*In response to events regarding Diane Abbott today*:
Diane was right to apologise for her comments this morning.
Without treading on too many other threads - three recent-ish sci-fi I've enjoyed has been "Station 11", "Calls" and "The Collapse” (“L’Effondrement”).
Also looking forward to the adaptation of the very good book 'Silo' by AppleTV in a few weeks (and hoping they haven't destroyed it...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYhuvIv1pA
Ah, I see Peston is trying his own whataboutery. Apparently if you don't buy wholesale a nonsensical apology you don't believe in compassion, understanding and forgiveness (he is right though that I did not know he was Jewish, not that it affects my opinion that his view was stupid).
Some of you don’t appear to know that I am Jewish, have been confronted by antisemitism and have campaigned against it - and all racism - my whole life. However I passionately believe that the good society is built on compassion, understanding and forgiveness. https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1650149005089730561?cxt=HHwWgsCzrd_xwOYtAAAA
Not what he's saying. He's just defending his own opinion there, which is fair enough. Even though he's wrong.
I don't agree with Diane Abbott about anything much, and have no real affection either, not do I think she is a particularly good politician who happens to think differently from me. Nor am I impressed with the article or the apology.
But Robert Peston is, in this case, absolutely right. Compassion, understanding and forgiveness is never wasted.
Apart from Diane Abbot has form for this sort of thing, its not exactly the first time she has been racist
The only time forgiveness can be wasted is when it isn't needed.
Ah, I see Peston is trying his own whataboutery. Apparently if you don't buy wholesale a nonsensical apology you don't believe in compassion, understanding and forgiveness (he is right though that I did not know he was Jewish, not that it affects my opinion that his view was stupid).
Some of you don’t appear to know that I am Jewish, have been confronted by antisemitism and have campaigned against it - and all racism - my whole life. However I passionately believe that the good society is built on compassion, understanding and forgiveness. https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1650149005089730561?cxt=HHwWgsCzrd_xwOYtAAAA
Not what he's saying. He's just defending his own opinion there, which is fair enough. Even though he's wrong.
I don't agree with Diane Abbott about anything much, and have no real affection either, not do I think she is a particularly good politician who happens to think differently from me. Nor am I impressed with the article or the apology.
But Robert Peston is, in this case, absolutely right. Compassion, understanding and forgiveness is never wasted.
Apart from Diane Abbot has form for this sort of thing, its not exactly the first time she has been racist
The only time forgiveness can be wasted is when it isn't needed.
Dear Diane has made many racist statements over the years and apologised for them, when people keep reoffending at some point you wonder how sincere the apologies are
Without treading on too many other threads - three recent-ish sci-fi I've enjoyed has been "Station 11", "Calls" and "The Collapse” (“L’Effondrement”).
Also looking forward to the adaptation of the very good book 'Silo' by AppleTV in a few weeks (and hoping they haven't destroyed it...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYhuvIv1pA
I hated Station 11 the book. Silo looks good, and changing the name from the book makes sense.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enemies, for an unholy alliance was a great story and having the federation sow its own demise with section 31 experimentation on shapeshifters and eventually making a genocidal virus to eradicate the founders was a brilliant bit of writing. Sisko denying Odo the chance of curing the disease before the end of the war was a mistake and season 3 shows the fallout of that bad decision.
JJ probably also enjoyed Rings of Power, though. Which also had terrible ratings and has been a commercial failure for Amazon. Only 35% of people who started the season finished it, Netflix use an internal benchmark of 60-70% completion rates to suggest a series is worth renewing for another season, if shows don't get there or don't look like getting there they get cancelled. Apparently audiences didn't enjoy Rings of Power because we're all racist, misogynists and stuck in our ways of wanting the writers to, you know, stick to the fucking source material.
Rings of Power is the epitome of a show designed by committee. And by the sounds of it Amazon have learnt absolutely nothing and will plough on doing what they are doing with it.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enie
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Edit: and another bad sin of Series 3 was that it almost totally ignored what happened in the first two series. The old complaint about the episodic nature of Star Trek was written large in Picard: there are no consequences; no follow-through.
Series 2 wasn't Sci-Fi: it was a moral lecture on contemporary political issues in the US. The ratings for it were terrible, the acting was poor and the pace abysmal - just check out rotten tomatoes; the writers ended up being sacked.
I think you're just being contrarian, however.
No. I'm not just being contrarian. Read my posts to see *why* I think series 2 is perfectly in line with Star Trek's past and origins.
And if you think it wasn't sci-fi, then I fear you have a very limited definition of sci-fi, which has always been more than spaceships going around going pew-pew-pew.
Feel free to disagree, obvs.
I've read them.
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point' but because that's how things would naturally be in a future interplanetary federation.
In other words, they started with the great sci-fi adventure stories and just didn't draw any lines based upon contemporary US politics - like only certain races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or any alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - for example, The Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - that manage to be very powerful without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed.
But that's not what they did with Picard series 2, is it? And I'd also argue with what we're seeing in Russia (*), the Confederation is a very apt topic to partly touch on.
I mean, what did S3 have? I won't give spoilers, but the plot was utterly hackneyed and boring. It's all been seen before.
(*) And perhaps other countries.
How about seeing the consequences of Starfleet command preventing Odo from going back to the Founders to cure the disease that Section 31 used to attempt to commit genocide? Showing that bad decisions have consequences is the shade of grey which made TNG and DS9 so amazing in the first place.
My wife has never been interested in Star Trek before and we recently completed DS9 and even she was absolutely amazed as to how deep the story was and how relevant it is to today. She was amazed that really strong female characters like Kira were on TV back then and that a black captain just seemed so normal, no fanfare because it's 300 years from now so who cares about skin colour.
More than anything else Star Trek is about the characters and seeing how they deal with the various scenarios that they are thrust into. One of the reasons Voyager was less well received than DS9 or TNG was because Janeway was a very erratic decision maker and it wasn't until Seven joined the crew that the show became tolerable because she and the Doctor became much bigger focal points.
Picard Season 3 brought that consistent writing and exploration of the human condition back.
Isn't the funny thing that Roddenberry was less in to the shades of gray people like so much about some later Trek? I may be wrong as I'm not in to the earlier stuff, but I thought he was supposed to have been more 'the Federation is a utopia, full stop' kind of guy rather than exposing some of the ugly underbelly of what was admittedly a great society.
But some of the best TOS episodes dealt with the same shades of grey, City on The Edge of Forever is widely recognised as one of the best ever episodes in Star Trek history and it is precisely the shade of grey that not saving someone's life is the right decision. Even when the person isn't evil or bad at all.
Has no PBer (besides yours truly) noted the direct connection, between "Star Trek: Voyager" and OGH's most famous wager?
Yes. Voyager to Jeri Ryan to her husband's BDSM desires to the divorce to his aborted senate run to Obama being chosen to replace him to Obama's senate win to the Obama presidency which OGH tipped at 50-1
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
Pretty inequitable, one side has a veto if, and only if, it suits what you want?
Where have I said only one side has a veto....are you hard of thinking?
We only continue as is if both sides want to continue as is.
If either side says no then end of relationship?
Where does only one side have a veto?
You've suggested a change to make Scottish independence ('something I support') a thing that could be inflicted on Scotland even if, say, 75% of their population voted to maintain the status quo; i.e. against their wishes the population of Scotland could be cast adrift.
It would be exactly like the rest of the EU voting against the UK's EURef vote and preventing us, against our wishes, from leaving.
3 Weeks ago Average Lead was 20.38 Fall in Lab Lead 5.85
Please explain SKS fans.
I've no explanation for SKS fans. Do they actually exist ?
Only in the mirror universe.
On the whole UK politicians don't have fans, and it doesn't end well when they do.
They have a sliding scale of unfandom, which is then translated or transposed like music into a higher octave. So 'tolerant indifference' becomes 'fanatical devotion'. It's like how they mark GCSE Maths papers where 23% becomes 87% by transposition.
The real highest level is tolerant indifference. Like centrist 'usually Labour' voters feel for SKS. The lowest level is unmitigated hatred, such as miners for Mrs T, golf club members for Jezza, all sentient life for Bridgen, Burgon, Dorries, Pidcock and so on.
Blair, Boris, Putin, Trump, Sturgeon, Salmond had fans. Doesn't end well.
Interesting, but I'd like to point out that Ken Clarke, Paddy Ashdown types have fans too, just not enough to get elected!
Fair point. I'm a fan in this sense of Clarke, Rory Stewart, Roy Jenkins, Rowan Williams, John Curtice, Peter Hennessy, Matthew Parris, Peter Kellner, Edward Stourton, Nick Robinson; all sorts of good chaps.
But not in the same way that I am a fan of Shostakovich, Verdi's Falstaff, Der Rosenkavalier, Anthony Powell, Beethoven, Vermeer or Wagner. Or England in an Ashes series. Or Arsenal 1970-71.
Political fandom puts it in the wrong place. It is doomed.
Without treading on too many other threads - three recent-ish sci-fi I've enjoyed has been "Station 11", "Calls" and "The Collapse” (“L’Effondrement”).
Also looking forward to the adaptation of the very good book 'Silo' by AppleTV in a few weeks (and hoping they haven't destroyed it...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYhuvIv1pA
I hated Station 11 the book. Silo looks good, and changing the name from the book makes sense.
Station 11 is a great book. Now that was a really bad pandemic.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enemies, for an unholy alliance was a great story and having the federation sow its own demise with section 31 experimentation on shapeshifters and eventually making a genocidal virus to eradicate the founders was a brilliant bit of writing. Sisko denying Odo the chance of curing the disease before the end of the war was a mistake and season 3 shows the fallout of that bad decision.
JJ probably also enjoyed Rings of Power, though. Which also had terrible ratings and has been a commercial failure for Amazon. Only 35% of people who started the season finished it, Netflix use an internal benchmark of 60-70% completion rates to suggest a series is worth renewing for another season, if shows don't get there or don't look like getting there they get cancelled. Apparently audiences didn't enjoy Rings of Power because we're all racist, misogynists and stuck in our ways of wanting the writers to, you know, stick to the fucking source material.
Rings of Power is the epitome of a show designed by committee. And by the sounds of it Amazon have learnt absolutely nothing and will plough on doing what they are doing with it.
Indeed, the same writers that have ruined The Witcher on Netflix as well. Apparently season 3 was going to be a complete dumpster fire until Henry Cavill stepped in and forced loads of changes by refusing to say the lines because they were completely out of character for Geralt. I expect season 4 to be a complete shit show now that Cavill is off the project.
Rings of Power was awful, I may tune into season 2 just to hate watch it.
As @Gardenwalker has noted, The Diplomat is genuinely intelligent and demanding of its mainly American audience
Eg an American character will say “We’re going to meet the Foreign Secretary at Chevening”
There is zero explanation of what Chevening might be (the FS’s country house) and even when it is later explained it is brisk. How many Brits have a clue that the FS has a country pile called Chevening?
I like it. Quite a lot. The very soapy beginning develops into something better. It is catnip for political geeks like us
I got to the “sniffing of armpits” in the first episode and gave up, tbh
Spoiler! This one is on my list - now I'll be expecting that twist.
There is a coda to the sniffing of armpits..
The cameo appearance from Nick Palmer MP as “Labour MP in Orgy” is a fantastic in-joke.
I wasn’t sure about Sir Derek Jacobi in the part but he really pulled it off. As it were.
Personally think Hugh Grant more suitable for the role of NPxMP - on multiple levels.
Though perhaps HG's bit long-in-tooth to portray NPxMP in his misspent (really?) youth.
When it comes to rest of cast, Elizabeth Hurley would be a natural, again in more ways than one (and also ignoring age-ist objections).
As for the final member of this temporary triangle, sad that Dame Edna is no longer available. . .
NPexMP us well over 6 ft aiui. Grant isn't he is about 5 ft 9" and looks better on TV and film than in real life.
Ah, I see Peston is trying his own whataboutery. Apparently if you don't buy wholesale a nonsensical apology you don't believe in compassion, understanding and forgiveness (he is right though that I did not know he was Jewish, not that it affects my opinion that his view was stupid).
Some of you don’t appear to know that I am Jewish, have been confronted by antisemitism and have campaigned against it - and all racism - my whole life. However I passionately believe that the good society is built on compassion, understanding and forgiveness. https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1650149005089730561?cxt=HHwWgsCzrd_xwOYtAAAA
Not what he's saying. He's just defending his own opinion there, which is fair enough. Even though he's wrong.
I don't agree with Diane Abbott about anything much, and have no real affection either, not do I think she is a particularly good politician who happens to think differently from me. Nor am I impressed with the article or the apology.
But Robert Peston is, in this case, absolutely right. Compassion, understanding and forgiveness is never wasted.
Apart from Diane Abbot has form for this sort of thing, its not exactly the first time she has been racist
The only time forgiveness can be wasted is when it isn't needed.
Dear Diane has made many racist statements over the years and apologised for them, when people keep reoffending at some point you wonder how sincere the apologies are
As @Gardenwalker has noted, The Diplomat is genuinely intelligent and demanding of its mainly American audience
Eg an American character will say “We’re going to meet the Foreign Secretary at Chevening”
There is zero explanation of what Chevening might be (the FS’s country house) and even when it is later explained it is brisk. How many Brits have a clue that the FS has a country pile called Chevening?
I like it. Quite a lot. The very soapy beginning develops into something better. It is catnip for political geeks like us
I got to the “sniffing of armpits” in the first episode and gave up, tbh
Spoiler! This one is on my list - now I'll be expecting that twist.
There is a coda to the sniffing of armpits..
The cameo appearance from Nick Palmer MP as “Labour MP in Orgy” is a fantastic in-joke.
I wasn’t sure about Sir Derek Jacobi in the part but he really pulled it off. As it were.
Personally think Hugh Grant more suitable for the role of NPxMP - on multiple levels.
Though perhaps HG's bit long-in-tooth to portray NPxMP in his misspent (really?) youth.
When it comes to rest of cast, Elizabeth Hurley would be a natural, again in more ways than one (and also ignoring age-ist objections).
As for the final member of this temporary triangle, sad that Dame Edna is no longer available. . .
NPexMP us well over 6 ft aiui. Grant isn't he is about 5 ft 9" and looks better on TV and film than in real life.
I look better on TV and film than in real life. Sadly, I am not on TV or film.
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
Ok, I’ll raise you up the evolutionary scale. The petulant psephological reasoning of a rejected boyfriend.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
All the trek shows were rebooted. TNG got rid of crusher, brought in Pulaski as a racist doctor aping McCoy, ditched her when hat didn't work, threw out Gene, brought in the Borg, and never looked back. DS9 canceled the peace with the Kilingons, brought in Work and the Defiant, and never looked back. Voyager got rid of Kes, brought in Seven and wrapped her in a skintight suit and ignored Kate Mulgrew who was angry at the sexism (Mulgrew and Ryan still don't get on), and it mostly worked. Disco was rebooted twice (Hello pike! Hello future!) and still didn't work. Enterprise rebooted with the Xindi arc, spenttwo years making memberberry pie (the Augment virus!), but only the hardcore fans cared and it died. Only the animated shows endured because they're cheap to make and don't need big audiences. Gen Z fans think the show is of a piece, but it's a continuous string of daft decisions, ducttape, and a fair bit of sexism, with grace Lee Whitney, gates McFadden, Terry Farrell, Kate Mulgrew being treated poorly. As a franchise they just throw shit at the wall and hope something sticks... 😀
... but Ryan was a better actor than the rest of the cast...
You've got me thinking now: which were bad, which were good. Thinks. Ok, some were good, some were bad. Did you have a particular one in mind?
I don't recall any being particularly bad - and Picardo was very good - just that most were pretty bland characters and they weren't good enough to be able to rise above that. My mum was a big fan of Chakotay, and Paris and Torres had a bit more to them, but Kim and Tuvok were pretty uninteresting and Janeway was...ok.
Edit: Also, I hope I get some credit from an annoyed PB for at least attempting to link Trek talk to politics, however shoehorned.
You may have all the PB credit it is in my power to bestow. Or a biscuit? Whichever you prefer...
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
Pretty inequitable, one side has a veto if, and only if, it suits what you want?
Where have I said only one side has a veto....are you hard of thinking?
We only continue as is if both sides want to continue as is.
If either side says no then end of relationship?
Where does only one side have a veto?
You've suggested a change to make Scottish independence ('something I support') a thing that could be inflicted on Scotland even if, say, 75% of their population voted to maintain the status quo; i.e. against their wishes the population of Scotland could be cast adrift.
It would be exactly like the rest of the EU voting against the UK's EURef vote and preventing us, against our wishes, from leaving.
Not at all if the eu had voted against us leaving 100% then we would leave If the uk had voted 100% remain and the eu had voted for us to leave then we would leave.
Only if both sides vote remain do we stick together.
That is not a veto on people leaving in the least. Its just saying both sides get a say on whether the relationship continues if either side wants to question it.....why do you find that a bad thing.
Now generally the eu aren't going to issue a referendum on a country leaving nor the uk. However if a country within either entity does instigate a referendum then the other side should also get a vote on "no we want you to stay/yes we want you to fuck off". Seems fair to me.....both sides have to say stay together.
Why do you think either the uk or eu should not be able to say actually now you mention it we do want a divorce?
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enemies, for an unholy alliance was a great story and having the federation sow its own demise with section 31 experimentation on shapeshifters and eventually making a genocidal virus to eradicate the founders was a brilliant bit of writing. Sisko denying Odo the chance of curing the disease before the end of the war was a mistake and season 3 shows the fallout of that bad decision.
JJ probably also enjoyed Rings of Power, though. Which also had terrible ratings and has been a commercial failure for Amazon. Only 35% of people who started the season finished it, Netflix use an internal benchmark of 60-70% completion rates to suggest a series is worth renewing for another season, if shows don't get there or don't look like getting there they get cancelled. Apparently audiences didn't enjoy Rings of Power because we're all racist, misogynists and stuck in our ways of wanting the writers to, you know, stick to the fucking source material.
Rings of Power is the epitome of a show designed by committee. And by the sounds of it Amazon have learnt absolutely nothing and will plough on doing what they are doing with it.
Indeed, the same writers that have ruined The Witcher on Netflix as well. Apparently season 3 was going to be a complete dumpster fire until Henry Cavill stepped in and forced loads of changes by refusing to say the lines because they were completely out of character for Geralt. I expect season 4 to be a complete shit show now that Cavill is off the project.
Rings of Power was awful, I may tune into season 2 just to hate watch it.
Rings of Power was excellent and I am thoroughly looking forward to the next series.
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
To be fair to TUD, he votes for a party which has leaving the UK in its rule book. By contrast nobody in England votes for any party (e.g. the English Democrats) which wants to break up the UK. If you want to kick Scotland out of the union then don't vote for unionist parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, or the Lib Dems. The hardcore Scot Nats certainly don't.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
All the trek shows were rebooted. TNG got rid of crusher, brought in Pulaski as a racist doctor aping McCoy, ditched her when hat didn't work, threw out Gene, brought in the Borg, and never looked back. DS9 canceled the peace with the Kilingons, brought in Work and the Defiant, and never looked back. Voyager got rid of Kes, brought in Seven and wrapped her in a skintight suit and ignored Kate Mulgrew who was angry at the sexism (Mulgrew and Ryan still don't get on), and it mostly worked. Disco was rebooted twice (Hello pike! Hello future!) and still didn't work. Enterprise rebooted with the Xindi arc, spenttwo years making memberberry pie (the Augment virus!), but only the hardcore fans cared and it died. Only the animated shows endured because they're cheap to make and don't need big audiences. Gen Z fans think the show is of a piece, but it's a continuous string of daft decisions, ducttape, and a fair bit of sexism, with grace Lee Whitney, gates McFadden, Terry Farrell, Kate Mulgrew being treated poorly. As a franchise they just throw shit at the wall and hope something sticks... 😀
... but Ryan was a better actor than the rest of the cast...
You've got me thinking now: which were bad, which were good. Thinks. Ok, some were good, some were bad. Did you have a particular one in mind?
I don't recall any being particularly bad - and Picardo was very good - just that most were pretty bland characters and they weren't good enough to be able to rise above that. My mum was a big fan of Chakotay, and Paris and Torres had a bit more to them, but Kim and Tuvok were pretty uninteresting and Janeway was...ok.
Edit: Also, I hope I get some credit from an annoyed PB for at least attempting to link Trek talk to politics, however shoehorned.
You may have all the PB credit it is in my power to bestow. Or a biscuit? Whichever you prefer...
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Edit: and another bad sin of Series 3 was that it almost totally ignored what happened in the first two series. The old complaint about the episodic nature of Star Trek was written large in Picard: there are no consequences; no follow-through.
Series 2 wasn't Sci-Fi: it was a moral lecture on contemporary political issues in the US. The ratings for it were terrible, the acting was poor and the pace abysmal - just check out rotten tomatoes; the writers ended up being sacked.
I think you're just being contrarian, however.
No. I'm not just being contrarian. Read my posts to see *why* I think series 2 is perfectly in line with Star Trek's past and origins.
And if you think it wasn't sci-fi, then I fear you have a very limited definition of sci-fi, which has always been more than spaceships going around going pew-pew-pew.
Feel free to disagree, obvs.
I've read them.
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point'b
In other words, they started with the stories and just didn't draw any lines about different races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - the Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enemies, for an unholy alliance was a great story and having the federation sow its own demise with section 31 experimentation on shapeshifters and eventually making a genocidal virus to eradicate the founders was a brilliant bit of writing. Sisko denying Odo the chance of curing the disease before the end of the war was a mistake and season 3 shows the fallout of that bad decision.
JJ probably also enjoyed Rings of Power, though. Which also had terrible ratings and has been a commercial failure for Amazon. Only 35% of people who started the season finished it, Netflix use an internal benchmark of 60-70% completion rates to suggest a series is worth renewing for another season, if shows don't get there or don't look like getting there they get cancelled. Apparently audiences didn't enjoy Rings of Power because we're all racist, misogynists and stuck in our ways of wanting the writers to, you know, stick to the fucking source material.
What I find fascinating about this is how, consistently, "critics" give such series such high ratings whilst they are utterly trashed by the audiences who watch them.
I can only assume it's herd like behaviour of critics, most of whom probably share similar backgrounds and opinions, who feel they have to laud what should be lauded, and then convince themselves accordingly.
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
What is certainly true is that England could vote to leave the union, and that given the recent history it would not be irrational for E,W and NI to seek to leave Scotland.
It's also true that it takes two to make and keep a marriage, and only one to dissolve it.
It's rational therefore for the E,W and NI position re Scotland to be: you have a second referendum, then we have one too on the same question, and we separate if either votes to do so.
It would also make fantastic politics of the highest order and keep PB going for years.
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
Pretty inequitable, one side has a veto if, and only if, it suits what you want?
Where have I said only one side has a veto....are you hard of thinking?
We only continue as is if both sides want to continue as is.
If either side says no then end of relationship?
Where does only one side have a veto?
You've suggested a change to make Scottish independence ('something I support') a thing that could be inflicted on Scotland even if, say, 75% of their population voted to maintain the status quo; i.e. against their wishes the population of Scotland could be cast adrift.
It would be exactly like the rest of the EU voting against the UK's EURef vote and preventing us, against our wishes, from leaving.
Not at all if the eu had voted against us leaving 100% then we would leave If the uk had voted 100% remain and the eu had voted for us to leave then we would leave.
Only if both sides vote remain do we stick together.
That is not a veto on people leaving in the least. Its just saying both sides get a say on whether the relationship continues if either side wants to question it.....why do you find that a bad thing.
Now generally the eu aren't going to issue a referendum on a country leaving nor the uk. However if a country within either entity does instigate a referendum then the other side should also get a vote on "no we want you to stay/yes we want you to fuck off". Seems fair to me.....both sides have to say stay together.
Why do you think either the uk or eu should not be able to say actually now you mention it we do want a divorce?
Ah I see where you're going wrong - you're treating international relations like a domestic marriage, when the two are entirely different things.
It's similar to the mistake Margaret Thatcher made in comparing the national economy to a household budget.
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
To be fair to TUD, he votes for a party which has leaving the UK in its rule book. By contrast nobody in England votes for any party (e.g. the English Democrats) which wants to break up the UK. If you want to kick Scotland out of the union then don't vote for unionist parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, or the Lib Dems. The hardcore Scot Nats certainly don't.
I did not say I want to kick them out though I support scottish independence, I merely said it shouldn't be as both the scots independence referendum or the eu referendum where only one side gets to say....why do you see that as unfair?
It used to be with divorce if the man said no then no divorce, now it needs two yes's to continue a marriage we accept that as fair. A no from either side negates the marriage. Why should either the uk or eu have to accept a member staying that says we are thinking of leaving and we are having a vote on it and not also be able to say, you know what....actually we don't want you now you brought it up
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enie
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Edit: and another bad sin of Series 3 was that it almost totally ignored what happened in the first two series. The old complaint about the episodic nature of Star Trek was written large in Picard: there are no consequences; no follow-through.
Series 2 wasn't Sci-Fi: it was a moral lecture on contemporary political issues in the US. The ratings for it were terrible, the acting was poor and the pace abysmal - just check out rotten tomatoes; the writers ended up being sacked.
I think you're just being contrarian, however.
No. I'm not just being contrarian. Read my posts to see *why* I think series 2 is perfectly in line with Star Trek's past and origins.
And if you think it wasn't sci-fi, then I fear you have a very limited definition of sci-fi, which has always been more than spaceships going around going pew-pew-pew.
Feel free to disagree, obvs.
I've read them.
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point' but because that's how things would naturally be in a future interplanetary federation.
In other words, they started with the great sci-fi adventure stories and just didn't draw any lines based upon contemporary US politics - like only certain races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or any alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - for example, The Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - that manage to be very powerful without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed.
But that's not what they did with Picard series 2, is it? And I'd also argue with what we're seeing in Russia (*), the Confederation is a very apt topic to partly touch on.
I mean, what did S3 have? I won't give spoilers, but the plot was utterly hackneyed and boring. It's all been seen before.
(*) And perhaps other countries.
How about seeing the consequences of Starfleet command preventing Odo from going back to the Founders to cure the disease that Section 31 used to attempt to commit genocide? Showing that bad decisions have consequences is the shade of grey which made TNG and DS9 so amazing in the first place.
My wife has never been interested in Star Trek before and we recently completed DS9 and even she was absolutely amazed as to how deep the story was and how relevant it is to today. She was amazed that really strong female characters like Kira were on TV back then and that a black captain just seemed so normal, no fanfare because it's 300 years from now so who cares about skin colour.
More than anything else Star Trek is about the characters and seeing how they deal with the various scenarios that they are thrust into. One of the reasons Voyager was less well received than DS9 or TNG was because Janeway was a very erratic decision maker and it wasn't until Seven joined the crew that the show became tolerable because she and the Doctor became much bigger focal points.
Picard Season 3 brought that consistent writing and exploration of the human condition back.
Isn't the funny thing that Roddenberry was less in to the shades of gray people like so much about some later Trek? I may be wrong as I'm not in to the earlier stuff, but I thought he was supposed to have been more 'the Federation is a utopia, full stop' kind of guy rather than exposing some of the ugly underbelly of what was admittedly a great society.
Yes, and the point was he explored the human condition in its totality - absolutely inclusively and without exclusion - and didn't distinguish between its "groups".
This is the entire antithesis of Woke which depends upon an injustice hierarchy of identity groups for its survival, which Roddenberry would have had little time for.
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
To be fair to TUD, he votes for a party which has leaving the UK in its rule book. By contrast nobody in England votes for any party (e.g. the English Democrats) which wants to break up the UK. If you want to kick Scotland out of the union then don't vote for unionist parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, or the Lib Dems. The hardcore Scot Nats certainly don't.
I did not say I want to kick them out though I support scottish independence, I merely said it shouldn't be as both the scots independence referendum or the eu referendum where only one side gets to say....why do you see that as unfair?
It used to be with divorce if the man said no then no divorce, now it needs two yes's to continue a marriage we accept that as fair. A no from either side negates the marriage. Why should either the uk or eu have to accept a member staying that says we are thinking of leaving and we are having a vote on it and not also be able to say, you know what....actually we don't want you now you brought it up
Scotland and England and Wales are not a married couple (or trio). Your analogy is flawed.
Without treading on too many other threads - three recent-ish sci-fi I've enjoyed has been "Station 11", "Calls" and "The Collapse” (“L’Effondrement”).
Also looking forward to the adaptation of the very good book 'Silo' by AppleTV in a few weeks (and hoping they haven't destroyed it...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYhuvIv1pA
On AppleTV, I thought Severence was excellent, although it might not be to everyones taste. I found Wool (the book series Silo is based on) a tad flat personally, but I can see that it might make good source material for a TV series.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enie
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Edit: and another bad sin of Series 3 was that it almost totally ignored what happened in the first two series. The old complaint about the episodic nature of Star Trek was written large in Picard: there are no consequences; no follow-through.
Series 2 wasn't Sci-Fi: it was a moral lecture on contemporary political issues in the US. The ratings for it were terrible, the acting was poor and the pace abysmal - just check out rotten tomatoes; the writers ended up being sacked.
I think you're just being contrarian, however.
No. I'm not just being contrarian. Read my posts to see *why* I think series 2 is perfectly in line with Star Trek's past and origins.
And if you think it wasn't sci-fi, then I fear you have a very limited definition of sci-fi, which has always been more than spaceships going around going pew-pew-pew.
Feel free to disagree, obvs.
I've read them.
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point' but because that's how things would naturally be in a future interplanetary federation.
In other words, they started with the great sci-fi adventure stories and just didn't draw any lines based upon contemporary US politics - like only certain races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or any alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - for example, The Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - that manage to be very powerful without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed.
But that's not what they did with Picard series 2, is it? And I'd also argue with what we're seeing in Russia (*), the Confederation is a very apt topic to partly touch on.
I mean, what did S3 have? I won't give spoilers, but the plot was utterly hackneyed and boring. It's all been seen before.
(*) And perhaps other countries.
How about seeing the consequences of Starfleet command preventing Odo from going back to the Founders to cure the disease that Section 31 used to attempt to commit genocide? Showing that bad decisions have consequences is the shade of grey which made TNG and DS9 so amazing in the first place.
My wife has never been interested in Star Trek before and we recently completed DS9 and even she was absolutely amazed as to how deep the story was and how relevant it is to today. She was amazed that really strong female characters like Kira were on TV back then and that a black captain just seemed so normal, no fanfare because it's 300 years from now so who cares about skin colour.
More than anything else Star Trek is about the characters and seeing how they deal with the various scenarios that they are thrust into. One of the reasons Voyager was less well received than DS9 or TNG was because Janeway was a very erratic decision maker and it wasn't until Seven joined the crew that the show became tolerable because she and the Doctor became much bigger focal points.
Picard Season 3 brought that consistent writing and exploration of the human condition back.
Isn't the funny thing that Roddenberry was less in to the shades of gray people like so much about some later Trek? I may be wrong as I'm not in to the earlier stuff, but I thought he was supposed to have been more 'the Federation is a utopia, full stop' kind of guy rather than exposing some of the ugly underbelly of what was admittedly a great society.
But some of the best TOS episodes dealt with the same shades of grey, City on The Edge of Forever is widely recognised as one of the best ever episodes in Star Trek history and it is precisely the shade of grey that not saving someone's life is the right decision. Even when the person isn't evil or bad at all.
The Voyager one where the free Borg are given the choice to survive as drones in the collective, or to live one month as free humans before dying of a brain disease is fantastic too.
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
What is certainly true is that England could vote to leave the union, and that given the recent history it would not be irrational for E,W and NI to seek to leave Scotland.
It's also true that it takes two to make and keep a marriage, and only one to dissolve it.
It's rational therefore for the E,W and NI position re Scotland to be: you have a second referendum, then we have one too on the same question, and we separate if either votes to do so.
It would also make fantastic politics of the highest order and keep PB going for years.
Precisely my point, and the real point of it would be to stop people to a certain extent from calling frivolous referendums if they know the end result is that to keep the status quo they have to not only rely on their own voters saying stay but the other side too.
I do believe there was a genuine urge to leave on the intial scots independence referendum, I think the case for the second referendum Sturgeon realised that even if called she would be unlikely to win hence the prevarication however it was loss free for her to keep agitating for one. That might change if she felt if granted one the rest of the uk would have a chance to say bye....probably not on the second one however by the time we got to the 5th indy ref in 50 years you might find the rest of the uk losing patience.
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
To be fair to TUD, he votes for a party which has leaving the UK in its rule book. By contrast nobody in England votes for any party (e.g. the English Democrats) which wants to break up the UK. If you want to kick Scotland out of the union then don't vote for unionist parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, or the Lib Dems. The hardcore Scot Nats certainly don't.
I did not say I want to kick them out though I support scottish independence, I merely said it shouldn't be as both the scots independence referendum or the eu referendum where only one side gets to say....why do you see that as unfair?
It used to be with divorce if the man said no then no divorce, now it needs two yes's to continue a marriage we accept that as fair. A no from either side negates the marriage. Why should either the uk or eu have to accept a member staying that says we are thinking of leaving and we are having a vote on it and not also be able to say, you know what....actually we don't want you now you brought it up
Scotland and England and Wales are not a married couple (or trio). Your analogy is flawed.
So why does only scotland get a say? How is that fair that scotland can say we don't want the rest of you but we cannot say we don't want scotland? Seems the only people that get a veto in the current scenario on the UK as it is is Scotland.....weren't you the one saying one side shouldnt be the only one with a veto
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enie
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Edit: and another bad sin of Series 3 was that it almost totally ignored what happened in the first two series. The old complaint about the episodic nature of Star Trek was written large in Picard: there are no consequences; no follow-through.
Series 2 wasn't Sci-Fi: it was a moral lecture on contemporary political issues in the US. The ratings for it were terrible, the acting was poor and the pace abysmal - just check out rotten tomatoes; the writers ended up being sacked.
I think you're just being contrarian, however.
No. I'm not just being contrarian. Read my posts to see *why* I think series 2 is perfectly in line with Star Trek's past and origins.
And if you think it wasn't sci-fi, then I fear you have a very limited definition of sci-fi, which has always been more than spaceships going around going pew-pew-pew.
Feel free to disagree, obvs.
I've read them.
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point' but because that's how things would naturally be in a future interplanetary federation.
In other words, they started with the great sci-fi adventure stories and just didn't draw any lines based upon contemporary US politics - like only certain races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or any alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - for example, The Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - that manage to be very powerful without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed.
But that's not what they did with Picard series 2, is it? And I'd also argue with what we're seeing in Russia (*), the Confederation is a very apt topic to partly touch on.
I mean, what did S3 have? I won't give spoilers, but the plot was utterly hackneyed and boring. It's all been seen before.
(*) And perhaps other countries.
How about seeing the consequences of Starfleet command preventing Odo from going back to the Founders to cure the disease that Section 31 used to attempt to commit genocide? Showing that bad decisions have consequences is the shade of grey which made TNG and DS9 so amazing in the first place.
My wife has never been interested in Star Trek before and we recently completed DS9 and even she was absolutely amazed as to how deep the story was and how relevant it is to today. She was amazed that really strong female characters like Kira were on TV back then and that a black captain just seemed so normal, no fanfare because it's 300 years from now so who cares about skin colour.
More than anything else Star Trek is about the characters and seeing how they deal with the various scenarios that they are thrust into. One of the reasons Voyager was less well received than DS9 or TNG was because Janeway was a very erratic decision maker and it wasn't until Seven joined the crew that the show became tolerable because she and the Doctor became much bigger focal points.
Picard Season 3 brought that consistent writing and exploration of the human condition back.
Isn't the funny thing that Roddenberry was less in to the shades of gray people like so much about some later Trek? I may be wrong as I'm not in to the earlier stuff, but I thought he was supposed to have been more 'the Federation is a utopia, full stop' kind of guy rather than exposing some of the ugly underbelly of what was admittedly a great society.
Yes, and the point was he explored the human condition in its totality - absolutely inclusively and without exclusion - and didn't distinguish between its "groups".
This is the entire antithesis of Woke which depends upon an injustice hierarchy of identity groups for its survival, which Roddenberry would have had little time for.
Personally i think there's something in the idea that whilst sci-fi visions of the future are often in themselves commentaries on the culture of the time they were made, one of the most powerful and effective ways they can do that is by presenting a vision, say of a harmonious and equal society, without needing to replicate clear analogs of contemporary political disputes, and show them grappling with the dilemmas that might arise from that. And if you do be a bit more direct, you do it in a way where X could be a stand in for Y, not where it is bleedingly obvious X is Y and dont you forget it.
I've not seen Picard Season 2 so I cannot say if that is how it went down, though I recall Stewart making comments like that about intending to comment very clearly about today.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enie
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Edit: and another bad sin of Series 3 was that it almost totally ignored what happened in the first two series. The old complaint about the episodic nature of Star Trek was written large in Picard: there are no consequences; no follow-through.
Series 2 wasn't Sci-Fi: it was a moral lecture on contemporary political issues in the US. The ratings for it were terrible, the acting was poor and the pace abysmal - just check out rotten tomatoes; the writers ended up being sacked.
I think you're just being contrarian, however.
No. I'm not just being contrarian. Read my posts to see *why* I think series 2 is perfectly in line with Star Trek's past and origins.
And if you think it wasn't sci-fi, then I fear you have a very limited definition of sci-fi, which has always been more than spaceships going around going pew-pew-pew.
Feel free to disagree, obvs.
I've read them.
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point' but because that's how things would naturally be in a future interplanetary federation.
In other words, they started with the great sci-fi adventure stories and just didn't draw any lines based upon contemporary US politics - like only certain races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or any alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - for example, The Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - that manage to be very powerful without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed.
But that's not what they did with Picard series 2, is it? And I'd also argue with what we're seeing in Russia (*), the Confederation is a very apt topic to partly touch on.
I mean, what did S3 have? I won't give spoilers, but the plot was utterly hackneyed and boring. It's all been seen before.
(*) And perhaps other countries.
How about seeing the consequences of Starfleet command preventing Odo from going back to the Founders to cure the disease that Section 31 used to attempt to commit genocide? Showing that bad decisions have consequences is the shade of grey which made TNG and DS9 so amazing in the first place.
My wife has never been interested in Star Trek before and we recently completed DS9 and even she was absolutely amazed as to how deep the story was and how relevant it is to today. She was amazed that really strong female characters like Kira were on TV back then and that a black captain just seemed so normal, no fanfare because it's 300 years from now so who cares about skin colour.
More than anything else Star Trek is about the characters and seeing how they deal with the various scenarios that they are thrust into. One of the reasons Voyager was less well received than DS9 or TNG was because Janeway was a very erratic decision maker and it wasn't until Seven joined the crew that the show became tolerable because she and the Doctor became much bigger focal points.
Picard Season 3 brought that consistent writing and exploration of the human condition back.
Isn't the funny thing that Roddenberry was less in to the shades of gray people like so much about some later Trek? I may be wrong as I'm not in to the earlier stuff, but I thought he was supposed to have been more 'the Federation is a utopia, full stop' kind of guy rather than exposing some of the ugly underbelly of what was admittedly a great society.
But some of the best TOS episodes dealt with the same shades of grey, City on The Edge of Forever is widely recognised as one of the best ever episodes in Star Trek history and it is precisely the shade of grey that not saving someone's life is the right decision. Even when the person isn't evil or bad at all.
The Voyager one where the free Borg are given the choice to survive as drones in the collective, or to live one month as free humans before dying of a brain disease is fantastic too.
Survival Instinct?
Or the reverse episode in season 3 where the ex-Borg who are attempting to form a new collective with Chakotay's help. Essentially they're attempting to impose their will on a completely free society they say the upside is ending violence etc... it's an allegory for freedom vs security which is still a live wire today.
3 Weeks ago Average Lead was 20.38 Fall in Lab Lead 5.85
Please explain SKS fans.
I've no explanation for SKS fans. Do they actually exist ?
I believe - an observation really - that SKS has to date been seriously underestimated as a politician, most notably by @bigjohnowls himself. If you don't underestimate him that makes you a fan, I guess.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enie
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Edit: and another bad sin of Series 3 was that it almost totally ignored what happened in the first two series. The old complaint about the episodic nature of Star Trek was written large in Picard: there are no consequences; no follow-through.
Series 2 wasn't Sci-Fi: it was a moral lecture on contemporary political issues in the US. The ratings for it were terrible, the acting was poor and the pace abysmal - just check out rotten tomatoes; the writers ended up being sacked.
I think you're just being contrarian, however.
No. I'm not just being contrarian. Read my posts to see *why* I think series 2 is perfectly in line with Star Trek's past and origins.
And if you think it wasn't sci-fi, then I fear you have a very limited definition of sci-fi, which has always been more than spaceships going around going pew-pew-pew.
Feel free to disagree, obvs.
I've read them.
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point' but because that's how things would naturally be in a future interplanetary federation.
In other words, they started with the great sci-fi adventure stories and just didn't draw any lines based upon contemporary US politics - like only certain races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or any alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - for example, The Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - that manage to be very powerful without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed.
But that's not what they did with Picard series 2, is it? And I'd also argue with what we're seeing in Russia (*), the Confederation is a very apt topic to partly touch on.
I mean, what did S3 have? I won't give spoilers, but the plot was utterly hackneyed and boring. It's all been seen before.
(*) And perhaps other countries.
How about seeing the consequences of Starfleet command preventing Odo from going back to the Founders to cure the disease that Section 31 used to attempt to commit genocide? Showing that bad decisions have consequences is the shade of grey which made TNG and DS9 so amazing in the first place.
My wife has never been interested in Star Trek before and we recently completed DS9 and even she was absolutely amazed as to how deep the story was and how relevant it is to today. She was amazed that really strong female characters like Kira were on TV back then and that a black captain just seemed so normal, no fanfare because it's 300 years from now so who cares about skin colour.
More than anything else Star Trek is about the characters and seeing how they deal with the various scenarios that they are thrust into. One of the reasons Voyager was less well received than DS9 or TNG was because Janeway was a very erratic decision maker and it wasn't until Seven joined the crew that the show became tolerable because she and the Doctor became much bigger focal points.
Picard Season 3 brought that consistent writing and exploration of the human condition back.
Isn't the funny thing that Roddenberry was less in to the shades of gray people like so much about some later Trek? I may be wrong as I'm not in to the earlier stuff, but I thought he was supposed to have been more 'the Federation is a utopia, full stop' kind of guy rather than exposing some of the ugly underbelly of what was admittedly a great society.
But some of the best TOS episodes dealt with the same shades of grey, City on The Edge of Forever is widely recognised as one of the best ever episodes in Star Trek history and it is precisely the shade of grey that not saving someone's life is the right decision. Even when the person isn't evil or bad at all.
The Voyager one where the free Borg are given the choice to survive as drones in the collective, or to live one month as free humans before dying of a brain disease is fantastic too.
Precisely my point, and the real point of it would be to stop people to a certain extent from calling frivolous referendums if they know the end result is that to keep the status quo they have to not only rely on their own voters saying stay but the other side too.
...but the only people interested in calling a referendum (frivolous or otherwise) on Scottish independence are those who actively don't want the status quo and who would be totally happy with making "keep status quo" more difficult. If Brexit has taught us anything it is that the best way to keep the status quo is not to call referenda in the first place.
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
To be fair to TUD, he votes for a party which has leaving the UK in its rule book. By contrast nobody in England votes for any party (e.g. the English Democrats) which wants to break up the UK. If you want to kick Scotland out of the union then don't vote for unionist parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, or the Lib Dems. The hardcore Scot Nats certainly don't.
I did not say I want to kick them out though I support scottish independence, I merely said it shouldn't be as both the scots independence referendum or the eu referendum where only one side gets to say....why do you see that as unfair?
It used to be with divorce if the man said no then no divorce, now it needs two yes's to continue a marriage we accept that as fair. A no from either side negates the marriage. Why should either the uk or eu have to accept a member staying that says we are thinking of leaving and we are having a vote on it and not also be able to say, you know what....actually we don't want you now you brought it up
Scotland and England and Wales are not a married couple (or trio). Your analogy is flawed.
So why does only scotland get a say? How is that fair that scotland can say we don't want the rest of you but we cannot say we don't want scotland? Seems the only people that get a veto in the current scenario on the UK as it is is Scotland.....weren't you the one saying one side shouldnt be the only one with a veto
There’s nothing stopping England having a referendum on leaving the UK.
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Sci-fi sure, but this is Star Trek. It's about being in space. DS9 only became truly great when they got the Defiant as it added the space exploration aspect to the show.
I re-watched DS9 again recently and it's amazing how nothingy the first two and a bit seasons are.
When the Dominion appears and that storyline gets properly going it's transformative for the show as a whole, but until then it's mainly episodes about how Quark is an arse and Trills are weird.
DS9 is amazing once it finds its feet, the first two seasons are just episodic, monster of the week stuff. But bear in mind there was just no such thing as season long or even series long episode arcs back then. Everyone says the Sopranos was the first to do it, but really Babylon 5 and DS9 were the pioneers. Most modern shows owe a debt of gratitude to DS9 and B5. And maybe Oz.
The DS9 pilot was unwatchably bad. The whole series was okayish, but Straczynski showed how it should have been done.
The DS9 pilot - Emissary - was superb TV, one of the best and most interesting insights into humanity any sci-fi pilot has ever delivered.
I'm afraid to conclude you just have rather poor taste.
Yes, the pilot was amazing, Duet was incredible but the rest of season one was gash. Season 2 had some small improvement but really both of those set the scene for the character arcs for Kira, Bashir, Garak and Nog.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enie
Well, having watched to the end of Picard series 3, I have something to say:
Picard series 2 was better.
I await a hefty hit from the ban-hammer.
You mean the one where they didn't go into space? Are you having a laugh?!
Sci-fi doesn't have to be about flying through space in ships; or space can be tangential to it. I might recommend Julian May's 'Galactic Milieu' trilogy as an example.
TOS was at its best when it challenged the viewers: remember Kirk and Uhura's kiss? Series 2 did this really well, which is why there were so many pathetic complaints about the way police were portrayed, or the lesbian relationship.
And yes, Series 2 was flawed in places. But at least it was less effing predictable and by-the-numbers as Series 3. I can't really say more without spoilers.
But obviously, I am not a Star Trek fan, and just enjoy good Sci-Fi.
Edit: and another bad sin of Series 3 was that it almost totally ignored what happened in the first two series. The old complaint about the episodic nature of Star Trek was written large in Picard: there are no consequences; no follow-through.
Series 2 wasn't Sci-Fi: it was a moral lecture on contemporary political issues in the US. The ratings for it were terrible, the acting was poor and the pace abysmal - just check out rotten tomatoes; the writers ended up being sacked.
I think you're just being contrarian, however.
No. I'm not just being contrarian. Read my posts to see *why* I think series 2 is perfectly in line with Star Trek's past and origins.
And if you think it wasn't sci-fi, then I fear you have a very limited definition of sci-fi, which has always been more than spaceships going around going pew-pew-pew.
Feel free to disagree, obvs.
I've read them.
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point' but because that's how things would naturally be in a future interplanetary federation.
In other words, they started with the great sci-fi adventure stories and just didn't draw any lines based upon contemporary US politics - like only certain races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or any alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - for example, The Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - that manage to be very powerful without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed.
But that's not what they did with Picard series 2, is it? And I'd also argue with what we're seeing in Russia (*), the Confederation is a very apt topic to partly touch on.
I mean, what did S3 have? I won't give spoilers, but the plot was utterly hackneyed and boring. It's all been seen before.
(*) And perhaps other countries.
How about seeing the consequences of Starfleet command preventing Odo from going back to the Founders to cure the disease that Section 31 used to attempt to commit genocide? Showing that bad decisions have consequences is the shade of grey which made TNG and DS9 so amazing in the first place.
My wife has never been interested in Star Trek before and we recently completed DS9 and even she was absolutely amazed as to how deep the story was and how relevant it is to today. She was amazed that really strong female characters like Kira were on TV back then and that a black captain just seemed so normal, no fanfare because it's 300 years from now so who cares about skin colour.
More than anything else Star Trek is about the characters and seeing how they deal with the various scenarios that they are thrust into. One of the reasons Voyager was less well received than DS9 or TNG was because Janeway was a very erratic decision maker and it wasn't until Seven joined the crew that the show became tolerable because she and the Doctor became much bigger focal points.
Picard Season 3 brought that consistent writing and exploration of the human condition back.
Isn't the funny thing that Roddenberry was less in to the shades of gray people like so much about some later Trek? I may be wrong as I'm not in to the earlier stuff, but I thought he was supposed to have been more 'the Federation is a utopia, full stop' kind of guy rather than exposing some of the ugly underbelly of what was admittedly a great society.
Yes, and the point was he explored the human condition in its totality - absolutely inclusively and without exclusion - and didn't distinguish between its "groups".
This is the entire antithesis of Woke which depends upon an injustice hierarchy of identity groups for its survival, which Roddenberry would have had little time for.
Personally i think there's something in the idea that whilst sci-fi visions of the future are often in themselves commentaries on the culture of the time they were made, one of the most powerful and effective ways they can do that is by presenting a vision, say of a harmonious and equal society, without needing to replicate clear analogs of contemporary political disputes, and show them grappling with the dilemmas that might arise from that. And if you do be a bit more direct, you do it in a way where X could be a stand in for Y, not where it is bleedingly obvious X is Y and dont you forget it.
I've not seen Picard Season 2 so I cannot say if that is how it went down, though I recall Stewart making comments like that about intending to comment very clearly about today.
If I may recommend a book to pb'ers that is scifi but I think interesting because it explores sociological issues "Oath of fealty" by Larry Niven
Looking at politics for a moment, fascinating results from the Salzburg State Election.
The two big winners were the Freedom Party (+7.5%) and the Communists (+11.3%). The big losers were the People's Party (-7.5%) and NEOS (-4.1% and dumped out of the Landtag).
The ruling coalition of People's Party, Greens and NEOS has fallen from 21 seats to just 15 and has lost its majority. Having been rebuffed in 2018, it'll be interesting to see how the Freedom Party reacts - logically, it could join forces with the People's Party and they'd have a majority but it didn't happen in 2018 and you just wonder if other options might be on the table - this itself may be informative as to how Austrian politics might be developing two years from the next federal election.
Quite remarkable Communist result - up from 0.4% to 11.7%, and nearly the largest party in Salzburg city. It follows a previous Communist breakthrough in Graz. The formula in both cases seems to be total focus on the cost of living and on helping local people with food banks, advice centres, etc. - their elected councillors give most of their salaries to charity.
I don't think they're getting anywhere at national level in Austria, and if they succeed in local councils because of hard local work, fair enough. I'm noticing a distinct tendency of voters locally in my patch not to vote in accordance with national preference but with the perceivied virtues of the parties and individual councillors locally.
When there is a referendum on scots independence, something I support they should have it on both sides
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
Is that what you think should have happened for the EU referendum?
Would have been fine with that....we voted out so we would be out, the rest of eu vote would be irrelevant so the result wouldn't be different,
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
So the rest of the UK vote would be irrelevant if Scotland voted to leave but would kick in if we voted to stay.
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
No I am saying in a divorce decision that both sides get to say yes lets stick together and only if both agree does the marriage continue.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave, If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
To be fair to TUD, he votes for a party which has leaving the UK in its rule book. By contrast nobody in England votes for any party (e.g. the English Democrats) which wants to break up the UK. If you want to kick Scotland out of the union then don't vote for unionist parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, or the Lib Dems. The hardcore Scot Nats certainly don't.
I did not say I want to kick them out though I support scottish independence, I merely said it shouldn't be as both the scots independence referendum or the eu referendum where only one side gets to say....why do you see that as unfair?
It used to be with divorce if the man said no then no divorce, now it needs two yes's to continue a marriage we accept that as fair. A no from either side negates the marriage. Why should either the uk or eu have to accept a member staying that says we are thinking of leaving and we are having a vote on it and not also be able to say, you know what....actually we don't want you now you brought it up
Scotland and England and Wales are not a married couple (or trio). Your analogy is flawed.
So why does only scotland get a say? How is that fair that scotland can say we don't want the rest of you but we cannot say we don't want scotland? Seems the only people that get a veto in the current scenario on the UK as it is is Scotland.....weren't you the one saying one side shouldnt be the only one with a veto
There’s nothing stopping England having a referendum on leaving the UK.
England leaving the uk is not the same as the rest of the uk kicking scotland out
3 Weeks ago Average Lead was 20.38 Fall in Lab Lead 5.85
Please explain SKS fans.
I've no explanation for SKS fans. Do they actually exist ?
I believe - an observation really - that SKS has to date been seriously underestimated as a politician, most notably by @bigjohnowls himself. If you don't underestimate him that makes you a fan, I guess.
I apologise for making a flip remark which you took seriously. But yes, probably true.
Comments
I mean, what did S3 have? I won't give spoilers, but the plot was utterly hackneyed and boring. It's all been seen before.
(*) And perhaps other countries.
It is, at least, expensively produced.
Amazing how much money goes into TV these days. I watched Season 1 of the Perry Mason reboot recently and while, again, it is flawed (though for different reasons), the ability to conjure up 1930s Los Angeles is simply incredible.
It is, as they say, not the despair but the hope that gets to you.
It will never be historic TV but I can see it doing 3-4 fun seasons where she ends up as VP or POTUS or whatever
Hammer time.
https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1650207056614285312?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enemies, for an unholy alliance was a great story and having the federation sow its own demise with section 31 experimentation on shapeshifters and eventually making a genocidal virus to eradicate the founders was a brilliant bit of writing. Sisko denying Odo the chance of curing the disease before the end of the war was a mistake and season 3 shows the fallout of that bad decision.
JJ probably also enjoyed Rings of Power, though. Which also had terrible ratings and has been a commercial failure for Amazon. Only 35% of people who started the season finished it, Netflix use an internal benchmark of 60-70% completion rates to suggest a series is worth renewing for another season, if shows don't get there or don't look like getting there they get cancelled. Apparently audiences didn't enjoy Rings of Power because we're all racist, misogynists and stuck in our ways of wanting the writers to, you know, stick to the fucking source material.
As it were.
They have a sliding scale of unfandom, which is then translated or transposed like music into a higher octave. So 'tolerant indifference' becomes 'fanatical devotion'. It's like how they mark GCSE Maths papers where 23% becomes 87% by transposition.
The real highest level is tolerant indifference. Like centrist 'usually Labour' voters feel for SKS. The lowest level is unmitigated hatred, such as miners for Mrs T, golf club members for Jezza, all sentient life for Bridgen, Burgon, Dorries, Pidcock and so on.
Blair, Boris, Putin, Trump, Sturgeon, Salmond had fans. Doesn't end well.
Edit: Also, I hope I get some credit from an annoyed PB for at least attempting to link Trek talk to politics, however shoehorned.
Imagine suggesting season 2 of Picard was better than season 3. It's laughable. 2024 Earth making social commentary on current events isn't sci-fi regardless of how you dress it up in Star Trek characters.
Bringing the Founders and Borg back, Starfleet's two greatest enie How about seeing the consequences of Starfleet command preventing Odo from going back to the Founders to cure the disease that Section 31 used to attempt to commit genocide? Showing that bad decisions have consequences is the shade of grey which made TNG and DS9 so amazing in the first place.
My wife has never been interested in Star Trek before and we recently completed DS9 and even she was absolutely amazed as to how deep the story was and how relevant it is to today. She was amazed that really strong female characters like Kira were on TV back then and that a black captain just seemed so normal, no fanfare because it's 300 years from now so who cares about skin colour.
More than anything else Star Trek is about the characters and seeing how they deal with the various scenarios that they are thrust into. One of the reasons Voyager was less well received than DS9 or TNG was because Janeway was a very erratic decision maker and it wasn't until Seven joined the crew that the show became tolerable because she and the Doctor became much bigger focal points.
Picard Season 3 brought that consistent writing and exploration of the human condition back.
It takes two no's to keep scotland in the uk
The scots voted to stay however, I think the rest of us should have also been able to vote if we wanted them to
But Robert Peston is, in this case, absolutely right. Compassion, understanding and forgiveness is never wasted.
Though perhaps HG's bit long-in-tooth to portray NPxMP in his misspent (really?) youth.
When it comes to rest of cast, Elizabeth Hurley would be a natural, again in more ways than one (and also ignoring age-ist objections).
As for the final member of this temporary triangle, sad that Dame Edna is no longer available. . .
The psephological reasoning of a peanut.
It's one of those issues like 'free speech'; everyone looks first to who is saying 'free speech' before deciding if they agree with them.
If Scotland votes to leave you leave,
If the rest of the uk votes we no longer want scotland to be part of us you leave
Only if scotland wants to stay and we want you to stay do you stay.
I fail to see your "psephelogical reasoning of a peanut" point....Why do you believe we shouldn't be able to say bye scotland we dont want you and only scotland is allowed to terminate the marriage?
We need to know what we are being forgiven for after all.
*In response to events regarding Diane Abbott today*:
Diane was right to apologise for her comments this morning.
The Party should now accept the apology and restore the whip.
https://twitter.com/PeoplesMomentum/status/1650206670893596674
Also looking forward to the adaptation of the very good book 'Silo' by AppleTV in a few weeks (and hoping they haven't destroyed it...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYhuvIv1pA
We only continue as is if both sides want to continue as is.
If either side says no then end of relationship?
Where does only one side have a veto?
It would be exactly like the rest of the EU voting against the UK's EURef vote and preventing us, against our wishes, from leaving.
But not in the same way that I am a fan of Shostakovich, Verdi's Falstaff, Der Rosenkavalier, Anthony Powell, Beethoven, Vermeer or Wagner. Or England in an Ashes series. Or Arsenal 1970-71.
Political fandom puts it in the wrong place. It is doomed.
Rings of Power was awful, I may tune into season 2 just to hate watch it.
The petulant psephological reasoning of a rejected boyfriend.
If the uk had voted 100% remain and the eu had voted for us to leave then we would leave.
Only if both sides vote remain do we stick together.
That is not a veto on people leaving in the least. Its just saying both sides get a say on whether the relationship continues if either side wants to question it.....why do you find that a bad thing.
Now generally the eu aren't going to issue a referendum on a country leaving nor the uk. However if a country within either entity does instigate a referendum then the other side should also get a vote on "no we want you to stay/yes we want you to fuck off". Seems fair to me.....both sides have to say stay together.
Why do you think either the uk or eu should not be able to say actually now you mention it we do want a divorce?
If you want to kick Scotland out of the union then don't vote for unionist parties such as the Conservatives, Labour, or the Lib Dems. The hardcore Scot Nats certainly don't.
You've got it the wrong way round: TOS was ground-breaking because it was amazing and exciting television - the inclusion and taboo-breaking, such as it was, was entirely incidental to the great sci-fi stories. And it was based on all races and species being on the bridge, not to 'make a point'b
In other words, they started with the stories and just didn't draw any lines about different races being involved. And I could, if I were so inclined, broaden the point to how Kirk got off with a different woman (of any race, or alien race quite frankly) virtually every week. And TNG is far more about moral and ethical dilemmas that make you think - the Measure of a Man or The Drumhead - without "identity politics" virtually ever creeping in.
The modern equivalent would be to create each episode as a moral lecture to be imbibed and then put a bit of sci-fi around it, usually in a very tedious and boring way, which people hate - and is why Season 2 bombed. What I find fascinating about this is how, consistently, "critics" give such series such high ratings whilst they are utterly trashed by the audiences who watch them.
I can only assume it's herd like behaviour of critics, most of whom probably share similar backgrounds and opinions, who feel they have to laud what should be lauded, and then convince themselves accordingly.
It's also true that it takes two to make and keep a marriage, and only one to dissolve it.
It's rational therefore for the E,W and NI position re Scotland to be: you have a second referendum, then we have one too on the same question, and we separate if either votes to do so.
It would also make fantastic politics of the highest order and keep PB going for years.
Edge of Darkness.
The Singing Detective.
Boys from the Blackstuff.
It's similar to the mistake Margaret Thatcher made in comparing the national economy to a household budget.
It used to be with divorce if the man said no then no divorce, now it needs two yes's to continue a marriage we accept that as fair. A no from either side negates the marriage. Why should either the uk or eu have to accept a member staying that says we are thinking of leaving and we are having a vote on it and not also be able to say, you know what....actually we don't want you now you brought it up
This is the entire antithesis of Woke which depends upon an injustice hierarchy of identity groups for its survival, which Roddenberry would have had little time for.
Survival Instinct?
Harry's Game
The Monocled Mutineer
and of course Inspector Morse which started in 1987
I do believe there was a genuine urge to leave on the intial scots independence referendum, I think the case for the second referendum Sturgeon realised that even if called she would be unlikely to win hence the prevarication however it was loss free for her to keep agitating for one. That might change if she felt if granted one the rest of the uk would have a chance to say bye....probably not on the second one however by the time we got to the 5th indy ref in 50 years you might find the rest of the uk losing patience.
I've not seen Picard Season 2 so I cannot say if that is how it went down, though I recall Stewart making comments like that about intending to comment very clearly about today.
Certain episodes date badly, but it's really worth a streaming watch without adverts.
Reilly, Ace of Spies
Tenko
Jewel in the Crown
Mother Love
Smiley’s People
Fortunes of War
Tutti Frutti
The History Man
And in the US
Hill Street Blues
LA Law
Dallas
Fame
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sandbaggers
I don't think they're getting anywhere at national level in Austria, and if they succeed in local councils because of hard local work, fair enough. I'm noticing a distinct tendency of voters locally in my patch not to vote in accordance with national preference but with the perceivied virtues of the parties and individual councillors locally.
Bergerac
Murder, She Wrote
The Hickson Marple and Suchet Poirot
Sherlock Holmes (Jeremy Brett)
Howard’s Way!
But yes, probably true.