> There are people who claim to be Trek fans who are actively objecting to "being preached to" by Picard season 2. To which I say: you never understood Trek at

> There are people who claim to be Trek fans who are actively objecting to "being preached to" by Picard season 2. To which I say: you never understood Trek at all if you object to it being a bit preachy. Yeah, there are a lot of valid complaints that can be made about "New Trek," but this is manifestly not one of them. :) (There is an article I have in my head that I will probably never bother trying to get out on paper, er, screen, defending New Trek against dismissals of it as dark and dystopian and "not Trek at all". I think there is a different take on it, but the take isn't "utopia is a lie," it's "utopia is not a steady state": you don't get to say "Federation achieved, everyone, we're now in a post-scarcity society and the only possible threats can come from outside." Many of New Trek's biggest problems, I suspect, come from trying to adapt our current model of short, heavily-serialized seasons, which all but requires ramping the stakes up through the season to ever more absurd levels -- and requires them to be way better at pacing than they've demonstrably been.) > Which is actually where Picard season 2 falls down: by placing the debates in 2024 America, they're arguably too close to home to pull the trick off. Hmm. I can see that, although I'm pretty sure that they've picked 2024 because it's apparently a very important year in prior Trek canon. (Relentlessly burrowing into canon is, if not always a problem, definitely a quirk of all of the new shows so far.)