I didn't even think about it when I was watching. But
Especially when a pulsar is a really obvious thing to check for. But then again, maybe the ship itself checks for pulsars all the time and so they knew it wasn't that.
Star Trek: Picard
- Thread starter SHIELD Agent 47
- Start date
Especially when a pulsar is a really obvious thing to check for. But then again, maybe the ship itself checks for pulsars all the time and so they knew it wasn't that.
Do you remember in Nemesis, when Beverly and Picard are in his ready room, and they reminisce over a picture over him at the Academy, with Beverly saying she remembered him? Well, she couldn't have, since she was somewhere between Not Even Born and three years old when that picture would have been taken.
This is the first actual reference to Jack's age too, previously all we knew was when he got married, had a son, and died. For what it's worth, the actor who played Jack in the recording made before his death was 30 at the time, which would make him contemporary of Beverly, rather than Picard. In fact, it's implied in Attached that the two were already married before either met Picard.
I have a feeling that the wiki might need some updating after this series is over to tie everything together.
Though Picard itself can't keep to its own continuity; stardates and official statements suggest that we're in 2401, which means "five years ago" would've been during Picard's hermitage (when he would hardly have been waxing nostalgic about Starfleet adventures to a bunch of cadets, in a bar that he didn't even find until last season), and that Jack would've been born before Nemesis.
Honestly, if the previous two seasons of the show had been ignored altogether (and I'm kinda leaning that way from a headcanon perspective anyways), these new inconsistencies wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Heck, I'd even be willing to overlook Nemesis, if it came down to it. 
If my memory serves, Picard didn't have to find Guinan's bar in the 25th century. He had to find where it was in the 21st century, though.
Why do I feel like I remember that Picard introduced Jack to Beverly?
I don't know. I feel it too. I don't know if I made it all up, but my impression has been that Jack served under Picard on the Stargazer and was killed doing something Picard sent him to do and he felt guilt for it. If all I thought I knew about him is true, they actually stole something from Jack when they said they were Academy buddies. If he was 20 years younger, THAT Jack Crusher was a shining star that Picard was developing but was cut short before he fulfilled his promise. If they were Academy buddies, Jean-Luc was a shining star going places and Jack was a junior officer that didn't take off. He was just a hopefully competent (though some evidence against that?) friend that Picard brought along because he liked him.
-=-=-=-
"Utopia cannot exist without a criminal element. Ergo, it is logical" is a stupid, stupid line put in the mouth of someone who should be intelligent. That means the writers failed. It seems to have been meant seriously. But it is stupid.
I am still uneasy about what they are doing with Jack. Probably mostly because I still don't trust modern Trek. Whatever they are doing really might be better if they just surprised us when it was time. I have a strong sense that what they are doing isn't going to be satisfying and isn't going to justify the foreshadowing.
Another stupid line:
"Is it a new species?" "No. It's evolution." On a couple levels.
1) These Changelings look totally different when changing than the Founders and are now found to be doing a better and different job of mimicking than the Founders. The Founders weren't the first shapeshifters in Star Trek. At least 2 preceded. Now, I guess I COULD assume that some scan has demonstrated that they ARE Founders, but dialogue hasn't said so and I don't trust modern Star Trek producers to decide that it wouldn't make sense for them not to do some scan that would demonstrate it. Remember last week when Crusher saved the day because she was the only one looking for a pattern in the deadly energy pulses? Now, I am sure that the intent and conclusion of the show is that they ARE, in fact, Founders. But the show itself has not demonstrated to me any reason to assume they are. The evidence is largely that it IS a new species.
2) If it is literally evolution (and it sure feels like a writer that doesn't understand is giving us a 25th century medical doctor who doesn't understand any better than they do), then the answer is "Yes. It's evolution"
3) But it isn't evolution. It is advanced technique.
1) These Changelings look totally different when changing than the Founders and are now found to be doing a better and different job of mimicking than the Founders. The Founders weren't the first shapeshifters in Star Trek. At least 2 preceded. Now, I guess I COULD assume that some scan has demonstrated that they ARE Founders, but dialogue hasn't said so and I don't trust modern Star Trek producers to decide that it wouldn't make sense for them not to do some scan that would demonstrate it. Remember last week when Crusher saved the day because she was the only one looking for a pattern in the deadly energy pulses? Now, I am sure that the intent and conclusion of the show is that they ARE, in fact, Founders. But the show itself has not demonstrated to me any reason to assume they are. The evidence is largely that it IS a new species.
2) If it is literally evolution (and it sure feels like a writer that doesn't understand is giving us a 25th century medical doctor who doesn't understand any better than they do), then the answer is "Yes. It's evolution"
3) But it isn't evolution. It is advanced technique.
I actually paid short attention to the last few minutes that I saw and then had to stop before the end of the episode because I had to come to work. I'll have to rewind a bit and finish this afternoon. Where I left,
Beverly had just asked Jack how he knew those were all Changelings. I would be willing to be 40 cents that he will say, "I didn't"
Last edited:
Looking forward to tonight's episode to see if this season's going to keep up the awesomeness!
I liked this one.
Can’t wait for next week. I’m liking this season a bit more than the previous two.
How many times has Starfleet been infiltrated now? like how Shaw lists off only the lesser TNG movies. Although I don’t think the business in the Devron system was Picards fault. Wasn’t that Qs doing?
I liked that they gave Ro one last guest spot. She wasn’t in the trailers or anything so it was a welcome surprise.
I noticed when Worf was looking up Krinn that Brunt was also on his list.
That sophisticated AI that runs Daystrom is most likely Moriarty.
I liked that they gave Ro one last guest spot. She wasn’t in the trailers or anything so it was a welcome surprise.
I noticed when Worf was looking up Krinn that Brunt was also on his list.
That sophisticated AI that runs Daystrom is most likely Moriarty.
Can’t wait for next week. I’m liking this season a bit more than the previous two.
To be fair, he said organized crime is logical when crime is inevitable. It wasn't a complete tautology.
I had the same thought. Star Trek is so very bad at evolution. This is either a technology or a technique, as you say, and not biological evolution, but biological evolution is synonymous with the development of new species. It's called "On the Origin of Species" for a reason, Doc. Is Crusher a creationist?
It didn't occur to me that the changelings might actually be unrelated shapeshifters, but that could be a valid possibility based on the evidence they have. Thing is, part of the reason we as the audience know for sure is the pot Seven found. It's possible that Crusher knows about it as well.
It didn't occur to me that the changelings might actually be unrelated shapeshifters, but that could be a valid possibility based on the evidence they have. Thing is, part of the reason we as the audience know for sure is the pot Seven found. It's possible that Crusher knows about it as well.
The writer set it up but I'm not going to call the show out for using writing technique. But the thing is, I don't think it's just the writer doing the setting up. Crusher comments on the four on one attack and says "remarkable odds" right before she asks. Before that, she was asking the rest of the medical staff to step out for a moment so she could talk to Jack alone. She doesn't know that Jack has a kill mode that he probably couldn't have switched to nonlethal violence if he wanted to, but she does intuit that one Jack pulling his punches vs. four changelings with guns doesn't add up. She didn't ask the question just to make conversation.
Like, at the end of the third episode, as folks mentioned in this thread, I thought the writers were being dumb making it look like this really was Picard's immediate fault, because of course Picard's plan to attack the Shrike didn't work after committing to Riker's plan to not to, and getting the last of their reserves peeled off. But when episode 4 happens, and they talk about it afterwards, both men know that's what happened without either explaining it to the audience, that Riker's reluctance made Picard's plan impossible. That means Riker wasn't completely right when he got the last word in the previous episode, and the show trusted us to figure that out. It's uncharacteristic, but whatever it is that's happening these two episodes, Star Trek: Picard is engaging in subtext. Like actual grown-up writing or something.
Like, at the end of the third episode, as folks mentioned in this thread, I thought the writers were being dumb making it look like this really was Picard's immediate fault, because of course Picard's plan to attack the Shrike didn't work after committing to Riker's plan to not to, and getting the last of their reserves peeled off. But when episode 4 happens, and they talk about it afterwards, both men know that's what happened without either explaining it to the audience, that Riker's reluctance made Picard's plan impossible. That means Riker wasn't completely right when he got the last word in the previous episode, and the show trusted us to figure that out. It's uncharacteristic, but whatever it is that's happening these two episodes, Star Trek: Picard is engaging in subtext. Like actual grown-up writing or something.
Would have been more of a twist if this Starfleet infiltration was related to TNG 'Conspiracy'
Just two more hours and I can watch this episode!
It is not logical to kill and hurt people and help criminals steal things because it is likely that someone else is going to do it if you don't. It just isn't. Vulcans can be difficult to write for because they are so much more intelligent than the people that write their dialog.
Which is also dumb. Odo's pot must have come from the Bajoran scientist who found him, at the very earliest, if not something he picked much later. Any container will do. If I were an infiltrating Founder, I would bring a container that doesn't look like a container. But no, there is a pot very much like the one Odo was not born with.
A bit that my former roommate liked to say, especially when discussing 22nd-century Vulcan culture and what realpolitik did to it, was "The conclusions reached by logical process are only as good as your initial premise."
And often times, that question doesn't get answered until the last episode.
Old Man Picard Season 1: Ultimately, it was about giving Data a proper sendoff after a franchise-killing film -- but also about restoring hope and showing that Star Trek still has Things To Say no matter the political climate or television landscape.
Old Man Picard Season 2: Q is back-- did you miss him? Of course you did! And while he, the Aegis, and Sex-Bob-omb of Borg never meet up or work together, they're all here to make us sad and think about death and stuff. (Also, we learn why Lal picked her appearance, and that Data is the white sheep of the Soong family.)
Old Man Picard Season 3: Well, we knew going in it was going to be a TNG farewell tour, but as it isn't over yet we aren't going to be in a place to know what else it's about. This is basically ST: Generations 5 in ten parts, so to expect the why to be fully answered in the first act is going to break some storytelling rules even in this audience-fragmented, short-video-addicted age....
Last edited: