Picard, like Shymalan’s Avatar and Game of Thrones Season 8, is best viewed through savage YouTube takedowns.
And it doesn´t bother me that Picard is dark and moody. In fact, the cheery optimism of TNG is my least favorite thing about that series and the grittier DS9 shows that Star Trek can get legitimately dark. My complaint about Picard is that it is multidimensionally stupid.
I started watching this and after a few (enjoyable) minutes I noticed the top comment notes, “For the first hour I’ve been waiting to disagree with her but just couldn’t…” and then I looked at the runtime…
Holy moly.
Critique in length that rivals the Lefttube greats, I’ll save this one ‘later’.
I liked season 1 personally. Holy hell did it start off with a ton of potential. I did not like season 2 at all. Season 3… Meh, I gave it a shot but wasn’t vibing after the first episode.
I’ll now watch this near 4 hour video to confirm my suspicion on season 3 being shit as well. I don’t care if it’s better rated than S1 on IMDb. I’ll pretend only S1 exists, because I don’t feel like watching S2 again which my brain would require me to do before watching S3.
Good way of putting it, the stupid surrounds you from multiple angles, not matter how much you lower your expectations, it still takes you by surprise.
That sentence used to be a lot longer, but it all does boil down to stupidity.
I heard a theory on the Adam Conover show recently that said product people–that is people that understands products and their customers–no longer run companies. Instead, we have finance people that know how to talk to investors and see their products as conglomeration of characteristics, maximized for mass appeal, and see their customers as numbers on a spreadsheet.
I find this a very compelling theory and you can see it across all forms of media–from movie, to TV, to games. The root cause of this problem has been unstated, but I see it as somehow a result of wealth inequality and concentration of power. Bad decisions can continually be made because competition is limited, at the same time, being “in” with powerful people is career insulation from constant failure.
There’s currently much more money to be gained from attracting investment than there is from generating profit, so companies that don’t prioritise selling to investors over selling to customers just won’t get as big, and the feedback loop ensures that investors who invest in things that other investors will invest in later will have more money to reinvest later than investors who invest in companies that can make a profit. Historically, investors who invested in companies that couldn’t become profitable lost their money, so couldn’t invest in other things in the future. The system kind of does do what it’s intended to, and efficiently allocate capital to where it generates the most return, but that’s become decoupled from the implicit goal of most effectively providing goods and services.
If I had to guess at the root cause, a good candidate would be that after the 2008 financial crisis, when quantitative easing was (successfully) used to stop nearly everyone losing their livelihoods by ensuring investors had access to enough money to avoid feeling pressure to pull out of all their sane investments and in doing so collapse all major employers, because it was never undone through quantitative tightening, there was enough excess money sloshing around afterwards that investors could afford to risk investing in dumb shit, and dumb shit could attract enough follow-up investment later that the early investors were rewarded.
I don’t understand how what you’re saying applies to movies. Do earlier rounds of investment get a higher return? The idea is there is a budget and you don’t start the movie until you’ve raised the money. In that case, the only two things that matter is that there are enough investors to start the project, and that the project is a success.
But it’s all a bit shortsighted, whatever is happening, because all the profit maximization is actively alienating customers. Console gaming is flat-out dying because games suck. Though, in the case of Microsoft, there is an investment angle, because they bought a lot of companies and saddled themselves with debt, so they can’t afford to take risks… but refusing to take any risks across an entire ecosystem is a guarantee of failure…
It only applies to movies and because they’re expensive enough to make that the major titles almost all are things funded by a few major producers, and the investor-first approach has been pervasive long enough that the major shareholders of the studios are that kind of investor, so they pick people to be on the board who agree with them, and the board selects C-suite staff that are good at talking to investors rather than that are good at making their company produce good movies. The kind of movie they then want to make is the kind of movie that costs a lot so they can tell investors that it’s the most expensive ever and therefore the best ever and therefore will make a morbillion dollars (and also says nothing so it offends no one and can be marketed to everyone) rather than making lots of mid-budget movies that might make many times what they cost or might barely break even or might become a timeless classic that makes a profit for decades. If their morbillion dollar movie flops, but the share price is higher than before it was made because investors expecting it to do well invested, the company’s still considered to be better off, and they’ll happily do it again.
i like how they drop the borg alliance in the 3rd season, and gave us some nonsense, like changelings, and a “borg that was supposed be dead at the end of Voy endgame”
TNG, and specifically space(physics,astronomy, although i never was good in school for these subjects, because these were hard class at the basic levels)
I don’t get why people often prefer the third season. It mostly relied on referencing old stuff from previous series, even more than it did in the first two seasons. Then again, some people like that about Lower Decks.
LD was kinda better than the live action ones, so was prodigy. picard like the other 2 live action was all over the place what is with the showrunners obsession with teasing romulans/borg threat and then never mentioning them again.
They talk like they ‘like’ it in the same sense that an abuse victim ‘likes’ a week in which they’re only abused a little instead of a lot. The approval comes from comparison to the rest of new Trek. They also liked it better than the TNG films, which I dunno if I’d say that.
I didn’t like Picard, but I don’t agree with this meme. I found season three to be the most digestible of the three servings of slop.
I’ll never watch it.
Picard, like Shymalan’s Avatar and Game of Thrones Season 8, is best viewed through savage YouTube takedowns.
And it doesn´t bother me that Picard is dark and moody. In fact, the cheery optimism of TNG is my least favorite thing about that series and the grittier DS9 shows that Star Trek can get legitimately dark. My complaint about Picard is that it is multidimensionally stupid.
Watched Angela Collier’s video and wouldn’t so much as pay for the time and electricity to watch an episode of this show.
Exactly, there’s so much great Star Trek content to watch. No point in wasting time on something like Picard.
I started watching this and after a few (enjoyable) minutes I noticed the top comment notes, “For the first hour I’ve been waiting to disagree with her but just couldn’t…” and then I looked at the runtime…
Holy moly.
Critique in length that rivals the Lefttube greats, I’ll save this one ‘later’.
I liked season 1 personally. Holy hell did it start off with a ton of potential. I did not like season 2 at all. Season 3… Meh, I gave it a shot but wasn’t vibing after the first episode.
I’ll now watch this near 4 hour video to confirm my suspicion on season 3 being shit as well. I don’t care if it’s better rated than S1 on IMDb. I’ll pretend only S1 exists, because I don’t feel like watching S2 again which my brain would require me to do before watching S3.
Good way of putting it, the stupid surrounds you from multiple angles, not matter how much you lower your expectations, it still takes you by surprise.
That sentence used to be a lot longer, but it all does boil down to stupidity.
I heard a theory on the Adam Conover show recently that said product people–that is people that understands products and their customers–no longer run companies. Instead, we have finance people that know how to talk to investors and see their products as conglomeration of characteristics, maximized for mass appeal, and see their customers as numbers on a spreadsheet.
I find this a very compelling theory and you can see it across all forms of media–from movie, to TV, to games. The root cause of this problem has been unstated, but I see it as somehow a result of wealth inequality and concentration of power. Bad decisions can continually be made because competition is limited, at the same time, being “in” with powerful people is career insulation from constant failure.
There’s currently much more money to be gained from attracting investment than there is from generating profit, so companies that don’t prioritise selling to investors over selling to customers just won’t get as big, and the feedback loop ensures that investors who invest in things that other investors will invest in later will have more money to reinvest later than investors who invest in companies that can make a profit. Historically, investors who invested in companies that couldn’t become profitable lost their money, so couldn’t invest in other things in the future. The system kind of does do what it’s intended to, and efficiently allocate capital to where it generates the most return, but that’s become decoupled from the implicit goal of most effectively providing goods and services.
If I had to guess at the root cause, a good candidate would be that after the 2008 financial crisis, when quantitative easing was (successfully) used to stop nearly everyone losing their livelihoods by ensuring investors had access to enough money to avoid feeling pressure to pull out of all their sane investments and in doing so collapse all major employers, because it was never undone through quantitative tightening, there was enough excess money sloshing around afterwards that investors could afford to risk investing in dumb shit, and dumb shit could attract enough follow-up investment later that the early investors were rewarded.
I don’t understand how what you’re saying applies to movies. Do earlier rounds of investment get a higher return? The idea is there is a budget and you don’t start the movie until you’ve raised the money. In that case, the only two things that matter is that there are enough investors to start the project, and that the project is a success.
But it’s all a bit shortsighted, whatever is happening, because all the profit maximization is actively alienating customers. Console gaming is flat-out dying because games suck. Though, in the case of Microsoft, there is an investment angle, because they bought a lot of companies and saddled themselves with debt, so they can’t afford to take risks… but refusing to take any risks across an entire ecosystem is a guarantee of failure…
It only applies to movies and because they’re expensive enough to make that the major titles almost all are things funded by a few major producers, and the investor-first approach has been pervasive long enough that the major shareholders of the studios are that kind of investor, so they pick people to be on the board who agree with them, and the board selects C-suite staff that are good at talking to investors rather than that are good at making their company produce good movies. The kind of movie they then want to make is the kind of movie that costs a lot so they can tell investors that it’s the most expensive ever and therefore the best ever and therefore will make a morbillion dollars (and also says nothing so it offends no one and can be marketed to everyone) rather than making lots of mid-budget movies that might make many times what they cost or might barely break even or might become a timeless classic that makes a profit for decades. If their morbillion dollar movie flops, but the share price is higher than before it was made because investors expecting it to do well invested, the company’s still considered to be better off, and they’ll happily do it again.
Well I guess you’re very dedicated towards being negative towards things you don’t even watch. That’s something I guess.
i like how they drop the borg alliance in the 3rd season, and gave us some nonsense, like changelings, and a “borg that was supposed be dead at the end of Voy endgame”
As they say, fractally stupid.
Season 1 was okay.
Season 2 I skipped after a few episodes.
Season 3 has actually been pretty good
What draws you to Star Trek in general?
People watch shows for different reasons.
TNG, and specifically space(physics,astronomy, although i never was good in school for these subjects, because these were hard class at the basic levels)
season 3 was far the weakest one, 1 was pretty bad. 2nd couldve had a good setup with the friendly borg. the nostalgic arc is so poorly written.
I don’t get why people often prefer the third season. It mostly relied on referencing old stuff from previous series, even more than it did in the first two seasons. Then again, some people like that about Lower Decks.
Nostalgia can cover up a lot. Though, personally I’d rather just rewatch the old shows.
LD was kinda better than the live action ones, so was prodigy. picard like the other 2 live action was all over the place what is with the showrunners obsession with teasing romulans/borg threat and then never mentioning them again.
Somehow it seems that the RLM boys liked Picard season 3. I almost want to watch it.
They talk like they ‘like’ it in the same sense that an abuse victim ‘likes’ a week in which they’re only abused a little instead of a lot. The approval comes from comparison to the rest of new Trek. They also liked it better than the TNG films, which I dunno if I’d say that.
I didn’t like Picard, but I don’t agree with this meme. I found season three to be the most digestible of the three servings of slop.
Lt. Angela Collier’s savage YouTube takedown, Season 3 time stamp