I think Picard was willing to sacrifice himself to save the kids. He’s an officer who signed up for a risky job - they are not, and also they’re kids. I think he thought that going with them would slow things down enough to add unacceptable risk for the kids. And they did end up spending a bunch of time cobbling together an apparatus to move Picard during which the lift could have fallen.
When the kids refused to go maybe that changed Picard’s calculation: the advantage of going without him diminishes if they use up time arguing. Or maybe it’s TV writing.
But maybe Picard wasn’t certain that the lift would fall. Or maybe if he’d stayed he would have managed to pull out a Picard move to save himself at the last second - you know, the kind that’s easier to do when there aren’t kids watching. Or maybe, as far as he knew someone might rescue him in time. But yeah, he probably would have died, and the kids’ mutiny was the only out that let him save himself while also trying to be noble.
I also have mixed feelings about Discovery, but for different reasons. I love the characters and character writing. I disagree that the rest of the crew doesn’t get any development - but a lot of that does come in later seasons. My complaints are about the plots. I think season 1 was the most problematic in that respect with progressive improvements over the next two seasons. (I haven’t seen season 4 yet.)
Overly ambitious arcs, and over-the-top stakes make the story feel unbelievable
Discovery being the only crew able to address several civilization-threatening crises makes the universe feel small
Leaning on action and artificial tension (like, the ship will explode in 3 minutes) is a cheap way to seek engagement that deprives us of time seeing the characters drive the story
overly-ambitious arcs in season 1It wasn’t enough to try to take on the entire Klingon war at the same time as introducing a whole new cast. They also had to add an entirely separate, even more threatening crisis? Making Michael responsible for both starting and ending the war makes you feel like the universe begins and ends on one ship.
We don’t need constant threats of annihilation in the story to be engaged! The most compelling Trek writing has had much lower stakes. When we have had high stakes, like in The Best of Both Worlds and The Dominion War, the writers managed to make us feel like we were seeing a pivotal part of a much larger conflict. They took the time to build up to the big tension, and took the time to play out satisfying resolutions. And they didn’t make it the entire show.
But things got gradually better,
over-the-top stakes in season 2In season 2 they managed to limit themselves to a single major crisis. And they stepped it down from end-of-every-universe to end-of-all-life-in-one-galaxy. But still unbelievably over-the-top. Still too much artificial tension. Still too Discovery- & Michael-centric.
I love Michael, and I enjoy watching her be great at everything. But she can be part of a larger society of amazing people, and still be amazing herself.
somewhat lower stakes in season 3And then they stepped it down again to maybe-end-of-what’s-left-of-the-Federation.
In season 3 things slowed down enough, and they spent enough time letting more of the cast develop and drive the story that I felt like I could enjoy the story without gritting my teeth.
season 3 world-buildingBut I do have similar feelings: the world-building of what is essentially a whole new galaxy in season 3 feels underdeveloped. I was initially frustrated by what felt like an attempt to distance Discover from Star Trek. Trek is supposed to be about a future utopia - we have enough other works that wallow in dystopia. But it seems like maybe it’s only supposed to be dystopian for one season? The ambitious writing is certainly still there.
I don’t disagree with you about mirror-Georgiou’s participation being unbelievable. The thing where everybody loves Michael to the degree where it becomes their primary motivation is too Mary Sue-like. Again I think that’s at its worst in season 1. OTOH having Michelle Yeoh on the show is a lot of fun so I’m inclined to forgive the stretch in that character arc.
One of my favorites is from Sisko, but I guess this one is more of a soliloquy than a dialogue,
The trouble is Earth! On Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet Headquarters and you see paradise. Well it’s easy to be a saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise! Out there, in the Demilitarized Zone, all the problems haven’t been solved yet! Out there, there are no saints! Just people! Angry, scared, determined people, who are going to do whatever it takes to survive, whether it meets with Federation approval or not!
I have a hard time getting over the thing where the story introduces some amazing new capability, and it’s never explored further. In this one it’s, “we found a way to get home instantly, but we’d have to do a thing in sick bay to reverse the side-effects.” A similar case is the episode with the planet of friendly hedonists with long range transporters that it turns out they can’t use because “the power systems are incompatible”.
I’m sure if I weren’t so uptight I’d enjoy these episodes more.
What frustrates me most about “new Trek” is that the characters don’t drive the story. Instead they have constant action, artificial tension, and over-the-top stakes. I love the characters on Discovery, but they’re not allowed to exist as themselves. OTOH SNW is primarily character-driven, as good Trek always has been.
Well I just discovered how much I enjoy The Diplomat so I think Netflix is safe for now. I have kids so Disney+ is staying. Paramount+ has me locked in for Star Trek (per their evil plan). I got a Hulu trial to watch Futurama - but that feels like at least one subscription too many so Hulu is likely to get the axe.
