So, on about episode 3 or so of season 2 of Star Trek: Picard, I stopped watching. The thing that sealed the deal for me was the reference to the hole in the ozone layer. (Hint: There is no hole in the ozone layer; we patched it, we reversed it, we saved ourselves from that fate, go us.) But I’ve been following what’s been going on with the series through reviews, articles, and YouTube videos. Apparently, the general consensus is that the show sucks.
Now, some people will say, “Well, only neckbeard, shit-lord, tiny-dicked incels think it sucks!” But apparently so do many of the people who work on the show. Proof? There are reports of significant churn in the cast meaning many of the actors from seasons 1 and 2 will not be returning for season 3.
“Churn in the cast” is a term often associated with soap operas when actors come in, stay for a bit, then exit the series. Often, soap opera actors get discouraged because they have very little time to learn their lines and there are few takes on set. (This is why soap opera stars appear to be so bad with line delivery–the lines get rewritten on the fly and the actor just have to do their best to keep up.) Churn in the cast is often associated with low-budget, poorly produced, and often poorly written series. The most notable example in science fiction television was Gene Roddenberry’s Earth: Final Conflict.
So, Picard is witnessing churn in the cast. Is it a low-budget show? No. Is it poorly produced? Definitely not. So, is it poorly written? Yes. And that’s the problem.