Come on. You mean to tell me that fire prevention, smoke detectors and sprinklers don't work just a little bit better in the 24th century?? Killing off Picard's family was pointless, and to do it in this fashion was absurd.
shareMaybe it was an old house at an old vineyard.
G o t r i d o f t h e c o m p u t e r w i t h t h e f a u l t y s p a c e b a r
Unlikely that in what is a socialist society that govt regulations don't insure that every house has adequate fire protection. Seriously - dying in a house-fire in the 24th century? Especially a well-to-do-family? I don't see it.
share
"Unlikely that in what is a socialist society that govt regulations don't insure that every house"
There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin.
First, you probably meant to use the word "ENSURE" instead of the word "INSURE". Insurance is something companies do.
Ensuring something is the act of 'making sure'. Insurance is something else.
Second of all, you seem to be under the impression that some kind of 'ism' can change how ownership, rights and law work (it can't), and that government of some kind could simply 'regulate' EVERY HOUSE (freeman on the land's houses cannot be 'regulated' by any government, at least lawfully, no matter what they do).
I am too tired to explain more, but figure it out for yourself. You can start at http://yourstrawman.com, if all this sounds weird to you.
(The page contains errors, bad grammar, bad english, misconceptions, misunderstandings and awful explanations - especially the law is explained badly, but try to get the point anyway)
There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin.In the space of a mere 15 minutes, I find my opinion of you has changed.
Second of all, you seem to be under the impression that some kind of 'ism' can change how ownership, rights and law work (it can't), and that government of some kind could simply 'regulate' EVERY HOUSE (freeman on the land's houses cannot be 'regulated' by any government, at least lawfully, no matter what they do).
They needed something to set off his regrets in not having a family, but frankly, I think having Robert remarry would have done the job.
But they never explained why he, instead of Robert or Renee, was running the vineyard in "All Good Things." They probably figured then that something had happened to Robert and Renee, so they used it now.
G o t r i d o f t h e c o m p u t e r w i t h t h e f a u l t y s p a c e b a r
Robert was his older brother, and Picard was old as hell in All Good Things, Robert could have retired and Renee could have been in Star Fleet.
shareWhile it did provide Picard with some good moments of dealing with a personal crisis, any number of plot ideas could have been used. I think the idea of using Robert and Rene was a bad one, as they were such wonderfully developed characters on the show and they just thrown into the garbage can for no other reason than to use as a plot device. I am sure the hope was to add weight to Picard's loss by involving the audience, but the way they went about it only served to anger fans as opposed to drawing them in. It was ultimately a terrible idea.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
I disagree, watching the episode Family in season 4, Picard's brother is mentioned at working hard to keep it old fashioned and later they have an argument about technology and Picard's brother is against it heavily.
So I think it is very believable that they die in a fire.
"The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed..."share
I'm telling you it was an insurance job.
To lose is to win, and he who wins shall lose.
No, it was arson -- the competitors wanted the Picards out of the wine business.
That's why Jean-Luc came back in "All Good things" -- to avenge his brother and nephew by... making wine...
"From the heart of wine country, I stab at thee...
For the sake of fine vintages, I spit my last brerath at thee..."
The voices in my head are telling me to do things.
But they're telling me to do nice things.
"From the heart of wine country, I stab at thee...
For the sake of fine vintages, I spit my last brerath at thee..."
I never saw the point in the wife not dying with them. That friend could've told Picard.
shareJust shows the disregard the writers had for what came before in Star Trek. Kill or destroy anything to serve the plot. Picard's brother and young nephew? Kill 'em. Starship that's gone on incredible adventures and become an icon? Destroy it in a lame battle with plot holes throughout. One of the most famous characters in all of Trek? Drop him off a cliff and crush him with a bridge after he helps Picard punch Soran!
shareJust shows the disregard the writers had for what came before in Star Trek. Kill or destroy anything to serve the plot. Picard's brother and young nephew? Kill 'em. Starship that's gone on incredible adventures and become an icon? Destroy it in a lame battle with plot holes throughout. One of the most famous characters in all of Trek? Drop him off a cliff and crush him with a bridge after he helps Picard punch Soran
The original Enterprise was destroyed half-way through the TOS series...
"Listen, do you smell something?"
Ray Stanz-Ghostbusters
Not sure what your point is, Captain Obvious, since the destruction of the Enterprise in the original crew series actually had heart and we felt the pain of it's loss along with the crew. In Generations? It was disregarded and done simple because they wanted a fancy new movie ship for bigger better action effects. The crew didn't seem to care at all, and the scene was laughably written.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
Actually, they had wanted to do a crashing scene back in TNG series, but couldn't do one well enough under budget constraints. So when they had the movie set, that was one of the first things they decided they want to.
But you're right in that in TOS, the Enterprise was almost a character herself, and Kirk had a tight relationship with her. In TNG, its just a ship that can easily be replaced.
"Oh no...they sent the wrong Spock!"
I don't know why they were so obsessed with crashing the ship, but the least they could have done is write a good story about it that actually has some weight. As it stands, it's great visual effects but a terribly written scene of character stupidity and contrivance just so they can crash the ship.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
Indeed the visuals were great, I was 7 or 8 when the movie came out and I must have re-enacted that scene a hundred times at home with my Trek toys.
share
I was shocked that they crashed it...
Yet I wasn't really sad, like after STIII
I'm tired.
I hope it won't be much longer.
You'd think if they had been "planning" a crash scene if for a while it'd have been executed better. Every Trek fan I know has at least 2 or 3 major issues with the destruction of the Enterprise (no shield rotation, not pounding away on the Bird of Prey until it's destroyed, no Warp Core ejection). Riker was truly incompetent and should have been court marshaled.
It's even worse after watching the 2009 Trek movie. The U.S.S. Kelvin was pounded on for several minutes by a humongous and much more advanced ship but still managed to fly about firing its weapons. You'd think the Enterprise D could have done better against an aging (and rather small) Bird of Prey!
F you Rick Berman! Screw you Brannon Braga! You both have a knack for ruining things!
I guess Mr. I-Hate-Technology [i.e. Picard's brother] didn't have any of those newfangled smoke detectors.
Ignoring: Digby (and aliases), Rico, GameBoyFan, ibestupid, Holiday_Hobo, sharon_18, TilaMoo, Okie-from-Muskogee/boo321, NorCalNik, Nullifidian, Ben_Doval
Its called "Natural Selection".
BTW, next time you're in the playoffs, expect the other team to stretch the defense. Go to the hole.
"Oh no...they sent the wrong Spock!"