MovieChat Forums > msegmx
msegmx (434)
Posts
Question about the leaked footage
Kano just hast to be back for this
"I ate at home." ... (SPOILER)
How do you fans get over the fact that..
How did she know.. [SPOILERS]
Season 2 Teaser
Watching this for the first time
That was underwhelming
Unrealistic scene
View all posts >
Replies
I stopped watching after s3. For me, the best that came out of DSC was Pike, Spock and Cpt. Lorca from season 1.
Here's a 50 sec clip of that scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29e2yhJTm8M
They couldn't make it more obvious.
Various writers, maybe, but Gene Roddenberry had specific guidelines for Star Trek.
I highly doubt the current producers and writers of ST have ever heard of them. Didn't DSC writers name a janitor in DSC season 3 "Gene"?
Again, Picard is not immortal in his new body:
https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/star-trek-picard-finale-death-golem-explained/
<blockquote>
How long will Picard live?
... This android body is not immortal, and Jurati says that the new body will give Jean-Luc “about the same number of years that he would have expected.”</blockquote>
I enjoyed "Transcendence" with Johnny Depp, as well as the novel "Press Send" on the same topic that I read years ago, but this body switch didn’t contribute anything to Picard's character and was totally unnecessary. Even Patrick Stewart didn't know about Picard's fate up until late into the season.
I totally agree, no other ST show or season produced in recent years comes close.
Personally, I was never a fan of Spock’s resurrection in ST:III, but at least he’s an alien.
Also, not all of our cells and organs renew 100% throughout life. Different articles provide different information on that topic.
But back to Picard; in my opinion, the writers of the first two seasons are incapable of writing good science-fiction stories. Turning Picard into a robot was just the result of that.
Picard’s robot body has a built-in lifespan; he’s going to die even as a robot. You must have missed that part.
See, you try so hard to explain the writers’ decision to turn him into a robot using generalizations and science. Suppose a scientist were to turn your pet or even a loved one into a robot, just like Picard’s. Would you still say “atoms = Play-doh”?
I don’t believe in a soul (or anything supernatural for that matter), yet I couldn’t simply say “ok, whatever, we’re all just energy anyway” and move on, even if it’s just a fictional character from a show I enjoyed watching while growing up. If you can, then kudos to you, I guess.
Seems like different writers had different interpretations of how transporters work throughout the years.
There was this DS9 episode, where, as a result of a power outage, some crew members were trapped inside the transporter buffer and appeared as characters in a holodeck program. In other words, they were bits inside the memory of the transporter. That's also why they couldn't reboot the station computers to solve the problem the power outage created.
But then, there was the TNG episode where Barclay was seeing creatures inside the matter stream and could even grab them.
In-universe, a possible explanation would be that there are different transporter models; some of them kill off the original and create a copy, whereas other models use a matter stream.
In reality, I think the writers and creators of ST simply thought of the transporter as a "magical" device that simply sends the person or object to the destination without killing them off or creating a copy. After all, beaming was only introduced to keep production costs low; "beaming down to a planet" was way cheaper than creating special effects of a landing shuttlepod.
Either way, there was no good reason for turning Picard into a robot.
IIRC, the Star Trek writers thought of the beaming process as a ‘matter stream’, primarily to avoid dealing with questions such as ‘what happens to the soul?’. In other words, in Star Trek, the transported person is not copied to the destination, but rather, transported via a matter stream.
But then, there is Thomas Riker (among other incidents). The transporter tech is inconsistent in how it works.
Turning Picard into a robot did not add anything to his character or story. It was a decision made by incompetent writers who just don’t care.
Question is, what's holding them back from bringing back Garfield or Maguire, or even a new actor, and continue with the Venom-verse parallel to the MCU?
That's because Joss Whedon knows how to make superhero movies, Snyder does not. It's not Cavill's fault.
View all replies >