7of9

Don't be sorry for your reply being long, it was clearly well thought out and considered. I agree on all the points you've made ... perhaps the majority of people here didn't like Picard 1 & 2 because it wasn't repeating the type of story telling that Star Trek has typically given, but was a whole new thing. People, generally, don't like change and I think in the current world there's comfort to be had in the "monster of the week" style 90s shows.

Not enough deciduous trees for that!

Start with series 3, that's where it was up to speed and you don't miss much

That could be said of a lot of things ... a great concept let down by lazy writing and poor casting. Yet these things get money thrown at them - great effects, lighting, locations, makeup, etc etc

Mmm, I know exactly what you mean. I'm tired of limp lead characters who just tick the boxes of a target demographic to self-insert into.

The Expanse suffered a bit from that (the main guy had all the magnetism of limp celery) but was saved because every single other character was genuinely interesting. Farscape had a much smaller cast, so there was no escape!

Well, 1 and 2 both dealt with deep themes of grief and generational trauma ... I appreciated that they tried to write a story with a deep meaning to it, even if it didn't 100% work it was better than a lot of the recent things I've watched

The thing I liked with 1 and 2 was that they both tried to tackle big ideas of past trauma, even if it didn't come out well the big thinking was in there while a lot of recent things I've watched has felt skin deep at best

Well, I'm glad it wasn't just me, lol ... I figured some people must have enjoyed it otherwise they'd have left it at one season!

If this thread is anything to go by, me and my other half were the only people on the planet that actually enjoyed Picard S1 and 2, and didn't like S3 as much.

In that spirit, if a film is made I look forward to enjoying it even if I'm the only one.

You may be right, the more of Voyager I watch the more flexible each character appears in order to fit around what the story requires. Apart from Tom Paris repeatedly being an idiot, that's a constant.

We can agree to disagree and enjoy it on our own terms I guess. If I have been dismissive of your argument I would like to apologise, that was not my intention.

Not an obsession, I tuned out of watching Voyager when it was first on TV and I'm partway through a complete watch now ... she's simply my favorite character from the show, and given that Star Trek fans have a pleasant and active community here I thought it was a good choice. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Being interpreted as smug was not my intention, I thought I was simply stating my opinion with equal force to the poster above. How should I have responded?

Picard was written by different people who needed different things from the characters, however there were occasional moments where her previous manerisms showed through.

A feral child who was not ASD could have been portrayed like Mowgli (or, for a more Star Trek reference point, Tuvok when he had brain damage). Seven gradually learns how to navigate human interaction (and how to smile, for instance) through studying and is surprised when it's occasionally useful, a non-ASD character could have learned through interpretation of people's reactions and would have sought socialisation rather than peace and quiet in a neatly ordered cargo bay (I'm led to believe that's how it works anyway).