[kukalakana]

Some good points.

Originally Posted by horatio

So do I. People who don't like "Prime Directive blah blah" might wanna prefer to watch the mind- and soulless NuTrek but TNG is about moral issues from time to time.

As Kevin says, I neither dislike the Prime Directive, Star Trek's penchant for moral issues, nor Picard's cerebral nature.

Not a complaint, the original post was more a commentary on the situational appropriateness. Personally I think there are times when the Prime Directive is good in theory but others where it does not work in practice.

Another example might be Keev Falor's (spelling??) arguments to Picard in the episode "Ensign Ro."

*Note this is quoted from my not very good memory so do please forgive me for an occasional slip*

"How convenient, to turn a blind eye to a people's suffering because it falls behind the boundary of a line on a map."

So whether invoking the Prime Directive itself is right or no is an extremely frought issue. Picard of course is almost constantly invoking it. To the subject of his speechmaking, (Not at all a complaint but merely a prelude to discussion -- which has turned out quite interesting.) I find myself wondering what I would feel if I was in the position of the onscreen listeners. There are unfortunately times when I imagine Picard's words would come across as hollow rhetoric.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by MagaditH

Why is movie Picard a 180 from Tv Picard?

Generic audience expectation.

Because in a TV series you can defeat the bad guy with words/more non-violent means and have him taken into custody and/or face the consequences of his actions via justice.

In a mainstream movie the audience is trained to want the bad guy get blown up at the very end (because movie justice is more bloodthirsty than TV) and he doesn't have to be made to see the error of his ways before he goes kabluey (thus Soran, the Borg Queen, R'uafo and Shinzon all get killed off gleefully and learn pretty much nothing before they do, even though in a couple of scenarios - particularly Soran and R'uafo - they didn't strictly need to be killed at the end), and Picard suddenly becomes all about - 'where's my guns!!' and 'don't I look good for my age in a vest?'

To be fair, though, this 'blow up the baddie' kinda began with Khan/Reliant and yes, the new film also does this but it's really just doing what the rest did.

[TNG_Trekman]

Originally Posted by kevin

Generic audience expectation.

Because in a TV series you can defeat the bad guy with words/more non-violent means and have him taken into custody and/or face the consequences of his actions via justice.

In a mainstream movie the audience is trained to want the bad guy get blown up at the very end (because movie justice is more bloodthirsty than TV) and he doesn't have to be made to see the error of his ways before he goes kabluey (thus Soran, the Borg Queen, R'uafo and Shinzon all get killed off gleefully and learn pretty much nothing before they do, even though in a couple of scenarios - particularly Soran and R'uafo - they didn't strictly need to be killed at the end), and Picard suddenly becomes all about - 'where's my guns!!' and 'don't I look good for my age in a vest?'

To be fair, though, this 'blow up the baddie' kinda began with Khan/Reliant and yes, the new film also does this but it's really just doing what the rest did.

Good words my friend. We think alike...I think.

If I may also point out that maybe it could of started with TOS, how Kirk's form of diplomacy was generally with his fists. It could of had something to do with audience expectations in the 60's as apposed to the 80's