site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   4314 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 23, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is the new season of Star Trek: Picard worth watching?

For the type of curmudgeonly old trekkie who had to stop watching Discovery after 1 season because it was genuinely too hurtful to see that done to something he loves, and has only experienced any of Picard through the noble sacrifice of the Red Letter Media reviews?

I stopped watching the RLM reviews halfway through this season because it seemed like it might actually end up worth watching the show, but the problem is now I can't check in to see their final verdict without having it spoiled.

Season 3 is at least as good as any of the TNG movies except First Contact (which is still miles better than any other parts of post-S7 canon). If they do a new generation show set in the 2400's (25th Century), this season will be required watching.

miles better than any other parts of post-S7 canon

"Sorry to disappoint you."

Sorry, I thought it was understood I was restricting myself to TNG canon: TNG movies 1, 3, 4, and seasons 1+2 of Picard. (Upon reflection, however, I’d put Generations above Picard S3.)

I haven't seen it all yet, but it's a sincere effort.

All of the new actors are at least trying to fit in, and it mostly works. Some of the character behaviour is bizzarre at times, and that can be very off-putting, but it isn't all the time. They manage to get some fire out of Patrick Stewart, and occasionally it comes at an appropriate time. The other TNG characters have done great.

Still has the problem of trying too hard to be something it isn't, and its underlying structure is still thin. But it hits the right notes consistently enough- it got me on the very first episode when it was riffing on The Wrath of Khan.

It isn't stellar (as far as I've seen, it isn't nearly as solid as SNW), but it isn't something that hates its audience or the art of storytelling, and it has some genuinely good moments with a much lower level of utter cringe than before.

Is SNW actually good? The few clips I've seen makes it seem like it would make you want to tear your eyes out.

It's quite good by the standards of modern Star Trek. Which is to say, compared to real Star Trek it's decent. It (mostly) steers away from being a thinly-veiled pretense for the writers to preach about their politics, the characters work well, and the format works well. I enjoyed it and will watch S2, and that's coming from someone who has hated the previous nuTrek shows.

It has the virtue of being a real show.

The characters work well together, they aren't pieces of paper who exist for the sole purpose of pouring out the writers' impoverished souls. It runs the gamut of (mildly) thought provoking to hilarious.

There's only one actor who seemed to come straight out of Discovery (had one episode and honestly wasn't bad), most of the rest displayed a shocking level of competence.

There's no silly plot points sending people on fetch quests (apart from maybe the doctor, but he gets better), no obnoxious mystery boxes.

It's filled with a warmth and thoughtfulness that can really pull one in. For a first season of a Trek, it gets top marks. It isn't perfect, but these people had fun working on something that had genuine merit, and it shows. I would recommend watching episode 2 first if you can't find much patience. Ahura's introduction is where it starts getting good.

Season 3 is watchable tbh. It's like night and day.

They liked it.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats