First Contact nitpicks upon rewatch...

Yes you are lying.

I did qualify my statement about the Enterprise not being defeated in combat unless it was badly outnumber or being engaged by an opponent with superior technology (the Borg being an example of this naturally).

And I also qualified by time travel statement by saying none into Earth's past and if time travel is used to make it clear the circumstances are rare and not repeatable.

So yeah, you were in fact lying.

You really are pathetic.

^Oh sure, because taking umbrage at someone lying or deliberately misrepresenting what I have posted in the past is so bad.

No, it's your usual routine to call someone a liar over what you posted. And when your a shown proof of you said, you still call a person a liar and then try to change what you said.

If anything that makes you the liar.

You are the one who brought what I posted IN THE RED ROOM into Media Central and using that to criticize my views of First Contact.

And you deliberately misstated them or used them out of context and everyone here (including you) full well knows it.

The guy who proudly admits that he'd hire cyber-goons to scrub his posting record if he gets into politics chiding others for dishonesty is comedy platinum.

Except when had that ever been a problem anywhere in the series? Like I mentioned earlier, Picard could've committed Borg genocide in season five but didn't because he realized they had a right to exist like every other species. It just came across as a ham fisted plot point, imo.

First, I don't think the feature film should have to hold perfectly to what happens in the series.

Second, if you want an explanation (rationalization), how about this? The Admiral giving the orders in FC was new on the job and, having read about Picard's "failure" to destroy the Borg during the Hugh incident, decided that he didn't think he could trust Picard's judgment where the Borg were concerned. And, given how Picard acts later in the film, that would have been a wise assessment. How many of Picard's crew died because Picard refused to sacrifice the ship?

@ed629 and @Dayton3 : keep it civil, this is Media Central.

It depends upon what it is. Minor plot elements, and things which can be considered "throwaway items" (Riker says in one episode as he's walking out a door that he hates strawberries, and then is seen eating them in the movie, for a made up example), can be tossed aside freely, because the only people they're going to annoy are the folks who've memorized Picard's service ID number. Things like how a character acts in the series can't be dispensed with unless you have an explanation for why things are different. The bit about Starfleet not trusting Picard is a bit of a judgment call. It could be argued that in this instance the stakes are much higher, so Starfleet's very nervous about the whole thing.

I think that's a fair rationalization. Of course, given that Picard was captured by the Borg, as well as the Cardassians, you kind of have to wonder what Starfleet's thinking by keeping him in a field position anyway. Logically, once they restructured all their various security protocols after the first time he was captured, they'd have stuck him in prestigious position, that would be seen as a promotion, but wouldn't endanger anybody if he suddenly went all "Manchurian Candidate" on them. Make him a Dean or a President at Starfleet Academy, or similar.

The thing to me is that "Starfleet not trusting Picard" makes little sense in the context of the movie.

It doesn't make any sense in the internal continuity of the movie either. If Picard is so distrusted by Starfleet then why do all the surviving ship captains apparently without any known protest agree to Picard taking command of the fleet protecting Earth after the admiral's ship is destroyed.

U.S.S. Enterprise ---> Flagship. The ship that is generally regarded as the lead/command ship in a fleet or group of ships. And it would probably follow that the other Captains would think that Picard had experience with the Borg, defeated a Borg vessel previously, and is considered a highly respected Captain and leader?

If the admirals that command Starfleet don't think so, then why would the ship captains think differently?

Remember, the admirals were captains once as well.

This is rapidly going down the rabbit hole of obsession over trivial details, but here goes...

You can't assume that because Starfleet Command had misgivings about Picard, that every other ship captain would know of them, let alone have them themselves. Are YOU aware of every concern your boss has about your peers?

Indeed, Picard himself wasn't aware of Starfleet's concerns about him until RIGHT BEFORE the battle. Who's to say this wasn't even decided until shortly before?

Dialogue establishes that the ship of the admiral commanding the task force has been destroyed; there may have been no one left to object to Picard's taking over. Put yourself in some random captain's place: you're fighting a desperate battle, ships are being destroyed right and left, your leadership has been taken out...when suddenly the flagship shows up and a captain with a legendary reputation announces he's taking command. Why WOULDN'T you follow Picard's lead?

Let's get into that.

Looking at the internal continuity of the TNG universe, do we KNOW how Picard was regarded by other ship captains and high ranking officers in Starfleet at the time of First Contact?

For example, if you look at Captain Maxwell's reaction in "The Wounded" Starfleet officers largely credited Riker with resolving the crisis with the Borg (The Best of Both Worlds).

Likewise if Admiral Nachauve (whatever the spelling is) opinion is to be considered significant in "Descent pt. 1" there were Starfleet officers royally pissed with Picard's failure to destroy the Borg using Hugh in "I, Borg".

They were losing the battle, Picard came in assumed command of the fleet since the Admiral's vessel was destroyed. As soon as he took command of the fleet he gave orders where to fire on the Borg vessel. It worked, at that point the other captains had only invested about 10 seconds worth of their time. If it didn't work, then they would still have been fucked.

And Picard could have very well been the most senior officer at the battle. which under command structure places him in command. It's not that difficult to figure out.

Does anyone else here picture Dayton watching a movie and asking what is going on and "Huh??? When did that happen?" every 30 seconds?

If Picard's adventures aren't well above average for a starship captain, the job doesn't pay nearly enough. My perception--and I don't care to go research facts to back it up--is that Picard is well-known and well-regarded in Starfleet. He's captain of the flagship, after all. I don't think you stumble into a job like that. You earn it with years of successful leadership (nuTrek notwithsdanding). So, I'd say it's much more likely than not that Picard is well-known by other starship captains.

Meaning that one incident was enough to make Riker--a first officer, not a captain--well-known. Now consider all the major incidents resolved by Picard.

As there should have been and as would be expected. So, it's documented that there were those in Starfleet who had problems with Picard's decision-making. Who is to say that one of them couldn't have been the admiral in charge by the time of FC?

But, see, this is why it's pointless to argue over this. There's NO right answer. None of these things actually exist in reality. If the story requires Starfleet to be skeptical of Picard, his abduction by the Borg is more than sufficient cause. If the story requires Starfleet to follow Picard, his position and reputation provide enough reason.

My point is this:

There is NOTHING in First Contact that REQUIRED Starfleet to be skeptical about Picard's willingness or ability to confront the Borg.

The Enterprise could simply have been too far away from Earth to participate in the initial battles and have been ordered there from the beginning. It would've made no real difference in the story and might've made more sense regarding Picard and Enterprise swooping in to "save the day" as it were.

Yes, there is. The screenplay establishes it very early on.

And this ISN'T just a convenient throwaway line. It establishes that Picard (1) has a history with the Borg and (2) may not be altogether stable when confronted by them.

AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE CASE. Later in the film, Picard becomes so fixated on revenging himself against the Borg that he nearly gets his entire crew killed fighting a hopeless battle.

When we the audience first hear of the Enterprise being ordered away from the battle, we react like Riker does. Picard does seem like the guy you want to fight the Borg. But we find out later that, no, he still has some pretty deep psychological issues regarding the Borg. We eventually realize--and Lily's speech drives it home--that Picard's obsessiveness is not a positive thing.

The Enterprise being ordered to the Neutral Zone isn't an arbitrary element in the story. The whole purpose is to signal the audience that there are concerns about Picard's history with the Borg. The more I think about it, the smarter I think that is. It communicates a lot, as well as allowing the Enterprise to come racing to the rescue (against orders, it must be noted). Picard's drive to confront the Borg is clearly not restrained by the rules.

The only way I can reconcile FC Picard with the series, is to suppose his space-alzheimers from "All Good Things...", is starting to kick in.

I do agree that Picard's character with respect to the Borg is not altogether consistent with what we saw in the series. But I wouldn't let one psychological inconsistency stand in the way of a good story.

If you want to rationalize it, you could say that Picard reacts so strongly because the Borg are trying to take the Enterprise which, perhaps, he considers an extension of himself.

Picard vs. the Borg - everything's cool
Picard vs. threat to the Enterprise - everything's cool
Picard vs. the Borg trying to take the Enterprise - the line must be drawn he-e-re!

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the flick.

I consider it up right up there with 2, 3, 4, and 6.
(And now, 11 and 12)

I'm just saying...

I declare Paladin the winner of this thread.

It WOULD have made a difference.

If we don't get this foreshadowing of Picard's psychological problems, his obsessive behavior later in the film would seem to come out of nowhere.

Dayton clearly doesn't understand storytelling.

Nor does he understand Star Trek.

PTSD... If someone is subjected to an intense, hostile situation, forced to commit murders, and suffers nightmares from the experience even years after. Hint - Picard having a nightmare about being assimilated and controlled by the Borg. Can very well be an unstable element. You don't really want someone in command of a ship who may suddenly lose his shit, and may possibly be influenced by the Borg. He was able to 'hear' the Borg before, during, and after the battle. And he was able to hear Data as well. That has to be in his medical file, hearing hearing the Borg when he is no longer part of the collective is probably going to worry a few people.

Seriously dude, do you lack imagination or even consider how or why something may be?

I would have much preferred that she be another "Locutus." A mere Drone picked to speak on the Borg's behalf that ends up having a little bit of her own personality bleed through.

I know it's not official, but David Mack's Destiny trilogy does reveal the Queen to be nothing more than another Locutus.