A Normal Guy's Perspective on Linux

During a 1992 demo of the NeXTStep 3.0 operating system, Steve Jobs showed off an app that allowed users to run DOS programs inside an application window. He opened Lotus123 (one of the many early spreadsheet apps that Excel crushed out of existence) and manually typed in the command-line instructions to open a specific file. "Wonderful user interface" he sarcastically remarked. To Jobs, it was self-evident that regular people shouldn't have to use the command line; it had been replaced by the GUI the way that command-line interfaces like DOS had replaced entering commands in machine language.

If any PC users were watching that demo back in 1992, they probably disagreed with him. There's always been a class of people who thinks computers should be inherently difficult to use. In 1992, they used DOS. Today, they use Linux. Well, to be more specific they use Arch Linux. Because these days there are plenty of Linux distributions that are specifically designed to be so user friendly that users never have to open their Terminal app.

And since Microsoft is ending support for Windows 10 as of September 2025, people who want to keep using their PCs but don't want Windows 11 are investigating Linux in ever-greater numbers. Not long ago it hit 5% of the desktop market share, about the same as MacOS in the mid-1990s when Apple was in deep trouble but the Mac was the only viable alternative to Windows.

Fedora 42 with the KDE Plasma desktop environment

So, is Linux really a viable Windows alternative? I've been using several distributions and desktop environments over the last few months and here's my take.

Like NeXTStep 35 years ago, Linux is a better, more stable and capable operating system than the market-leading Microsoft product. And depending on what desktop environment you're using, it's infinitely more customizable and beautiful than Windows. But like NeXTStep 35 years ago, Linux also suffers from lack of mainstream application support. There are open-source alternatives to just about any big software package you can name, and some of them, like LibreOffice, are pretty good. (Others--and here I'm thinking of the image editor GIMP--are comparable to their mainstream closed-source alternatives from 10 or 15 years ago.)

Basically, if everything you use your computer for happens in a web browser then Linux is fine. But if your life or workflow is entwined with one of the big commercial ecosystems from Microsoft or Apple, then Linux is the Go-Bot your clueless aunt would buy instead of the Transformer you actually wanted.

Star Trek: Picard Season Three—The TNG Finale Band-Aid

WARNING: This article contains spoilers for Star Trek: Picard Season Three, which as of this writing has been out for the better part of a year.

In the spring of 1994 Star Trek fans were treated to the wonderful TNG finale "All Good Things". It was a little technobabble-heavy, but it was still an affectionate send-off to the TV adventures of the Enterprise-D crew as they made the jump to the big screen.

And then the movies made a concerted effort to shed everything audiences liked about The Next Generation. The first movie unceremoniously disposed of the Enterprise-D, and the next one replaced it with a sharp-edged warship. First Contact also jettisoned the TV show's bright and peaceful ethos to go in a much darker, more violent direction. This seemed cool in the mid-90s, but it didn't really age well. Insurrection was the only movie that really felt like The Next Generation, but at the time it seemed like more of the Rick Berman risk-averse blandness that so infuriated us on Voyager. But the final insult, the nail in the coffin of The Next Generation era, was 2002's Star Trek Nemesis. Instead of a well-crafted farewell like The Undiscovered Country, we got a mean-spirited, cynical ripoff of The Wrath of Khan that ended on a depressing note with Data's pointless death.

It was as if the people in charge of making Star Trek: The Next Generation movies didn't really like Star Trek: The Next Generation. And that wasn't too far from the truth, because Sir Patrick Stewart had a tremendous amount of creative control on them. Sir Patrick spent most of the TV show's 7-year run complaining that his character didn't get to do enough action, and he was the driving force behind turning Movie Picard into a phaser-rifle-toting, dune-buggy-driving action hero who bore only a superficial resemblance to the character audiences enjoyed on TV.

But old-school TNG fans somehow forgot about this in 2018, when Star Trek head honcho Alex Kurtzman announced that that they were bringing back Patrick Stewart in a new streaming series called Picard. For some reason, we hoped that Sir Patrick would help to undo the damage that was caused by his own creative input on the movies. Unsurprisingly, our hopes were crushed like a Fudgesicle on a Florida interstate highway when Picard's first two seasons were (and here I am being diplomatic) a steaming pile of rhinoceros crap.  It turned out that Sir Patrick's number-one condition for reprising the role of Picard was that his character would not be sitting in the Captain's chair of a Federation starship and doing any Star Trek stuff that audiences might actually want to see. It was like if Peter Cullen would only voice Optimus Prime on the condition that the character not turn into a truck, say "Roll out", or fight any Decepticons.

But for Season Three, producer Terry Matalas was like "Hey, what if we put some Star Trek: The Next Generation in this Star Trek: The Next Generation sequel show?" and Sir Patrick amazingly went along with it. And the season was a hit. Even people who had been throwing nonstop tantrums since the Discovery premiere enjoyed it. But why? Was it because the show rejected tightly-serialized storytelling in favor of a more episodic approach, like TNG in the '90s? Actually no, it was basically one long ten-hour story. Ah, but was that story at least more straightforward, rather than the convoluted, contrivance-ridden storytelling of most other streaming shows? 

Again, no. It starts with our characters confronting a mysterious threat that turns out to be rogue Changelings who were captured during the Dominion War and subjected to cruel experiments by either Starfleet or Section 31 to turn them into the perfect spies. (Why they would agree to work for the Federation, especially after being horribly mistreated, is never explained)  But then, with only two episodes left in the season, it's revealed that the Borg Queen was behind it all as part of a plan to use Picard's heretofore-unknown son Jack to mind-control all Starfleet officers under the age of 25 so they'll destroy Earth.

So why did middle-aged Star Trek fans who have hated all the other new productions enjoy Picard's third season? I think it's because we finally got a Star Trek: The Next Generation thing that was made by people who actually like Star Trek: The Next Generation. It's the first TNG production in thirty years not made by people who were way up their own butts the whole time. Picard Season Three is basically a professionally-made fix-fic. A fix-fic is a piece of fan fiction written to "fix" a boneheaded creative decision made by clueless studio executives, producers, or actors with too much creative control who didn't like or understand the source material. And that's exactly what the season does. 

Right away it brings back Beverly Crusher and explains her absence from the show thus far. It brings Riker and Troi out of their retirement living in the woods and making pizza. It brings back Geordi and gives him a family, thus undoing the damage done to the character by the Leah Brahms episodes that made him look like a creepy incel. We get to see an older version of Worf doing cool Worf-related things, and his relationship with Raffi Musiker greatly enriches that character. We even get to see Ro Laren again, and we get some wonderful closure to her and Picard's relationship. Best of all, Data is finally rescued from years of breathtakingly stupid creative decisions and restored in a new form that's unmistakably Data, while finally giving him the humanity he'd been seeking all along. This leads to some wonderful moments between Data and Geordi, whose friendship was mostly ignored in the movies. Last of all, the season restores TNG's most horribly-treated character, the Enterprise-D. The beloved starship is finally depicted as something precious and worth preserving, rather than a boring old thing that the show can't wait to ditch in favor of something sleeker and pointier. The season ends on an "All Good Things"-inspired high note, with our beloved TNG family enjoying each other's company around the poker table.

At last, The Next Generation has gotten the well-crafted ending it deserved, and the fans are finally satisfied.

Ha ha! Obviously I'm kidding about that last bit. Fans are never satisfied. When we get something we like, we demand a never-ending stream of that exact thing to be continuously shoveled into our content-consuming orifices until the heat death of the universe. For his part, Terry Matalas whetted our appetites by using the last moments of the Picard finale to set up a potential new series called Star Trek: Legacy with Captain Seven of Nine, First Officer Raffi, and Starfleet Nepo Baby Jack Crusher-Picard on the Enterprise-G. I'm going into Bold Prediction Mode here to say it'll never happen.

As I write this in January 2024, the Internet Streaming Revolution is in a similar place as the dot-com boom in the late-90s. Back then, the Internet was this exciting new thing and there were tons of new Internet-related companies with the following business model:

1. Do something Internet related, with a website and stuff.
2. ???
3. Profit!

You know how that went. Streaming is the same thing. Hollywood has been trying to replace their old business models with streaming services, but no matter what they do the services can't make a profit. Even worse, when they try to attract subscribers with popular intellectual properties like Marvel or Star Wars, the streaming versions of those things tend to dilute and cannibalize the formerly-profitable films. This has led to studio executives like Warner's David Zaslav frantically throwing newly-completed films and older legacy productions into the shredder in a desperate attempt to stop the bleeding. Which is kind of like demolishing the entire east side of your house so it won't be damaged by the electrical fire on the west side. Eventually studio mergers are going to leave us with two or three streaming services that offer no TV shows or movies.

All this is to say that we'll be lucky to get any new Star Trek beyond the stuff that's in active production as I write this. And if the rumored Paramount-WB merger happens, there's no guarantee that even those things will see the light of day; David Zaslav might burn them down for the insurance money. 

So buy physical-media versions of all the stuff you love. And don't hold your breath for Star Trek: Legacy.

Enough With the Canon Fundamentalists

By most people's reckoning, Star Trek will be 57 years old this September. To put things in perspective, Superman hit his 57th anniversary in 1995, by which time he'd already gone through one hard reboot and numerous softer ones. Not even the most ardent fanboy would've expected the character and his world to maintain a single unbroken continuity from 1938 to 1995.

But that's exactly what some Star Trek fans expect. 

Never mind that the world of 1966 is as far in our past as 1909 was to Star Trek's original audience. You could argue that TV has changed as much between 2023 and 1966 as the medium of film had between 1966 and 1909. No, the only thing that matters to these Star Trek Fundamentalists is "canon". These are the kind of people who will make an absolute judgement on the "goodness" or "badness" of a Star Trek production based on the shape of a starship's warp nacelles in a single leaked screencap.

These canon-humpers are always looking around for things to be angry about, and these last six years of streaming Star Trek have given them enough fuel for a near-constant orgy of rage. A recent complaint is that Strange New Worlds shouldn't have Nurse Chapel in it at all, and that she definitely shouldn't be having feelings for Spock because established "canon" tells us that she was involved with a scientist named Roger Korby at this point in the timeline.

Except it doesn't.

The first time we see Christine Chapel is in the fifth regular episode (if we go by production order) "The Naked Time". This episode tells us two things about Christine: she's a nurse and she's in love with Mr. Spock. Obviously the two haven't just met; it's implied in dialogue that she's had these feelings for a while. We next see Nurse Chapel three episodes later in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" where we're told that she joined the Enterprise in hopes of finding her fiancee Dr. Roger Korby (described as "the Pasteur of archaeological medicine) who's been missing for five years.

This is as much as we ever learn about Chapel. Interestingly, her feelings for Spock come up again in future appearances, but Roger Korby is never mentioned. Over the years most fans assumed that Christine was involved with Korby first, and after he disappeared she joined Starfleet, was assigned to the Enterprise, and met Spock. But that's all it was—an assumption. The show said absolutely nothing about her professional or personal history.

In the Season Two premiere of Strange New Worlds Chapel mentions that she's applying for a fellowship in archaeological medicine, the very field that one Dr. Roger Korby is the Pasteur of.

So why couldn't she have fallen for Spock during a tour on Pike's Enterprise, and when it didn't work out she left for an archaeological medicine fellowship where she met Dr. Korby? They entered a relationship, then he disappeared, and she rejoined the Enterprise in hopes of finding him one day, only to realize that she still had feelings for Spock. That works, right? And the only thing it contradicts are the long-held assumptions of unimaginative fans.

A real Star Trek fan would react to that by saying "Wow, what a surprising development that gives the Majel Barrett version of the character more depth than she had before!"A canon-humper would just be mad that a long-held assumption got contradicted.

My problem with the canon fundamentalists is that they don't want anything new. All they want is to see exactly what they expect. Any story set during a particular era of Star Trek "history" must exactly match whatever we've seen from previous installments set during that same era, even if those installments were produced as far in our past as the Titanic disaster was for fans in the '60s.

If your main thing is being performatively Mad on the Internet, I guess canon fundamentalism is a good business to be in. But if you want to be a mentally-healthy human being who watches stuff because you enjoy it, then maybe not.

Weird Star Trek: Star Trek Novelverse Edition

Since the very beginning, Star Trek has had rules. Mostly this was done to keep things within a TV budget and make the world of the show seem believable; it was never really something that viewers were supposed to obsess over. But it turned out that Star Trek's fans love to obsess over things, and attention to detail quickly became a major part of the whole franchise.

And yet, during its first 20 years the Star Trek universe was a pretty wide-open place. The original series and the first few movies didn't really do any deep dives into alien cultures, the character's pasts, or Federation politics. So all that stuff was open for exploration, and novels were the perfect place to do it. Unlike TV or movies, a book's only limits are the author's imagination and what the editors will let them do. And up until 1988 or so the editors mostly let Star Trek novel authors indulge themselves. The result was glorious run of deeply weird, occasionally wonderful stories full of stuff that was totally inconsistent with where the Star Trek universe ended up going. For example:

The Federation Chemically Lobotomizes People Who Invent "Dangerous" Technology

Vonda McIntyre's The Entropy Effect was the first novel that Pocket Books published after Gene Roddenberry's novelization of The Motion Picture. Its main plot is about the chaos that erupts when the Enterprise is assigned to transport convicted murderer Georges Mordreaux to prison. After a lot of twists and turns (including the murder of Captain Kirk), Spock discovers that Mordreaux didn't actually kill anybody. (Well, his crazed alternate-timeline variant did) He invented a time machine, and a few of his friends begged him to use it to send them into the past to live out their lives. When Federation authorities realized the incredibly dangerous nature of Dr. Mordreaux's invention, they suppressed all his research, framed him for the murder of his friends, and sentenced him to be confined to a psychiatric hospital and pumped full of drugs to destroy his brilliant intellect so he could never re-invent the time machine.

If Captain Picard caught the Federation doing something like that we'd get the mother of all Picard speeches about Federation ideals and the rights of sentient beings. But Spock just kind of shrugs and accepts it. He reasons that if a such a thing were invented on Vulcan, everyone would unanimously agree never to use it. But since humans aren't as self-controlled, he agrees that the Federation basically has no choice but to forcibly suppress the technology and lobotomize the inventor. Vonda McIntyre's take on the normally-idealistic Federation was shockingly dark, yet it presaged some of what future stewards of the franchise would do with Section 31. 

Klingons Are Violent Animals Who Can Only Act Reasonable If They're Drugged

Again with the drugs! In the 1988 novel Timetrap by David Dvorkin, the Enterprise tries to rescue a Klingon ship trapped in some kind of space storm, but it disappears with Captain Kirk aboard. Kirk wakes up on a base full of reasonable, peaceful Klingons who tell him that the space storm transported him 100 years into the future. They say that in their time the Klingon Empire and the Federation are at peace, and it all started 100 years earlier when Captain Kirk led a fleet of Klingon ships from the future into Federation space on a peace mission. They want to take Kirk back to the 23rd century to fulfill his part of their historical record.

Of course, the whole thing turns out to be a Klingon ploy to trick Kirk into helping them take an invasion fleet past Federation defenses. And the peaceful Klingons only act that way because they've been taking drugs to suppress their violent tendencies. When they go off the drugs, they devolve into snarling, animalistic monsters. To be fair, a formerly drugged Klingon who's reverted to her violent tendencies does have a moment of compassion for Kirk after he collapses from injuries he sustained earlier in the story. But the overall message--that Klingons are inherently violent and animalistic--very uncomfortably mirrors stuff that real-world racists say to justify the terrible things they do.

I believe that this was one of the last books (maybe the last) published before Gene Roddenberry's office--in the person of his manservant Richard Arnold--took a direct role in approving novel manuscripts. And let me be clear: I never liked the late Richard Arnold. He was a fundamentalist who thought the only person allowed to have original Star Trek ideas was Gene Roddenberry. He loved to tell behind-the-scenes stories, and all of them were about a time when he was right about a piece of Star Trek trivia and some more important or famous person was wrong. If he was a Star Trek character, he'd be one of the hooded Lawgivers from "The Return of the Archons" who mindlessly enforced the will of the Landru computer.

That being said, I imagine Richard Arnold probably would have rejected this book, and it would've been the one and only decision of his that I agreed with.

The Forgotten TV Western That's Part of the Star Trek Universe
Timetrap was not the first novel where a main character disappeared on a Klingon-related mission. In 1985 Pocket released Ishmael by Barbara Hambly. It's one of the first Star Trek novels I remember seeing in my local Waldenbooks, maybe because of how strange the cover art was:

It clearly said "Star Trek", and that was obviously Mr. Spock there on the right. But who were those other people and why were they all dressed like riverboat gamblers? Whatever explanation you can think of, the truth is way weirder.

The 1968-69 TV season was Star Trek's last on NBC. Meanwhile, over on ABC a new comedy-Western series called Here Come The Brides was starting the first of what would be a two-season run. The premise of the show revolved around women who came to Seattle after the Civil War to find husbands. One of the show's characters, sawmill owner Aaron Stemple, was played by Mark Lenard (the same guy who played Spock's father Sarek a year earlier). In the book, Stemple finds an amnesiac Spock unconscious in the woods and takes him to his cabin to recover. As we go along, Spock meets the show's other characters and becomes integrated into their social circle, making this book basically a Star Trek/Here Come The Brides crossover.

Eventually we learn that Spock got caught up in a Klingon plot to travel back to the 1860s and kill Aaron Stemple to prevent him from helping to thwart Earth's takeover by the Karsid Empire. Of course they fail, Spock gets his memory back, and we learn that Aaron Stemple is actually one of his human ancestors. Oh, and there's also a scene in an alien cantina where Dr. Who, Han Solo, and Apollo and Starbuck (the Richard Hatch and Dirk Benedict versions) all hang out together.

A book like this would probably never get published today and it's absolutely glorious.

The Klingon Empire Gets Canceled By Godlike Aliens
When Spock Must Die! was published in January 1970, Star Trek had been off the air for less than a year. The show was dead and buried as far as anyone knew, and author James Blish was free to do whatever the heck he wanted.

So he wiped out the Klingon Empire.

The book is a semi-sequel to the episode "Errand of Mercy", where the practically-omnipotent Organians stop a Federation-Klingon war and force the two sides to sign a peace treaty. In Spock Must Die!, the Klingons imprison the Organians on their planet with a powerful force field, which leaves the Klingons free to make war on the Federation. Eventually the Enterprise crew takes down the forcefield and frees the Organians, who respond by taking away the Klingons' spaceflight ability for 1,000 years. Imagine what future Star Treks would have been like if the Klingons were completely taken off the table.

The Star Trek: Picard Dumpster Flambé

You may recall that I was a wee bit critical of Star Trek: Picard's first season on account of how the story didn't make any sense. Of course I wasn't angry at the show. It didn't hurt my feelings. I was just disappointed that I wasn't able to enjoy something I thought I was going to like.

Now, I'm going to talk a lot about story and character and all that stuff, but I should point out that I am a fairly nerdy Star Trek fan. I have all the tech manuals and I've read each of them cover to cover many times. I actually understand what all the technobabble means. I regularly pause episodes to scrutinize the LCARS panels. And I shared the disappointment of people who acted like Season One's main failing was that big fleet of identical, hastily-rendered Starfleet vessels in the finale. But ultimately those things are just minor details. Complaining about them would be like complaining that the flames shooting out of the Hindenburg were the wrong color.

But I'm not comparing Star Trek: Picard to the Hindenburg. The Hindenburg actually flew for a while before it burst into flames.

So, what's Season Two of Star Trek: Picard about? Isn't THAT the million-dollar question? Stories told in fairly compact chunks, like two-hour movies or one-hour episodes of older TV programs like Star Trek: The Next Generation (to pick a totally random example), always tell you what they're about pretty early in the story. But for some reason, people who write for this show think it's a really great idea to tease the actual point of the story for as long as possible. I'm not saying that nothing happens in Season Two, far from it. All kinds of things happen. So many things! But we don't understand the point of it all until the season is 90 percent over.

And what's the point?

Well, it's all about how Picard has never been able to settle down and commit to a woman because of a deep, dark childhood trauma. Now, you might think that being assimilated by the Borg or tortured by the Cardassians or getting his brain zapped by an alien probe that made him live an entire lifetime in 45 minutes would've messed him up way more than anything that could've happened to him growing up on a vineyard in France about two hundred years after war, poverty, and disease were eliminated on Earth. But that's because you watched Star Trek: The Next Generation, and whoever decided on this storyline obviously did not.

No, Picard's big trauma, which is endlessly teased and hinted at but not fully explained until episode 9 of a 10-episode season, is that his mom was mentally ill but refused all treatment, and one day after a particularly bad episode, his dad locked in her in her room until he could get her some help. But she pleaded with Jean-Luc to let her out, and since he was too young to understand what was going on he used a skeleton key to unlock her door, and she went to the atrium and hung herself.

But an unfocused time-travel caper to the year 2024 makes it all better, and before returning to the 25th century Picard deliberately leaves the skeleton key where his little-kid self will find it in the future so his mom can get out of her room and commit suicide. Unburdened of his trauma, he goes home to make out with his new girlfriend in the very room where his mommy killed herself! I mean, do I even HAVE to talk about how grotesquely sociopathic and horrible this is? 

I would truly love to find out exactly how this turd sandwich was made. We'll probably never get the whole story, but to me it has all the symptoms of an ego trip vanity project like the movies of Neil Breen (which he writes, directs, and stars in). If you sit through a Neil Breen film (or even a humorous Internet review of one) two things are clear:

1. Mr. Breen sincerely believes that he makes movies to communicate the Big Important Ideas in his brain.
2. None of his ideas are all that big or important, and he is not very good at using the medium of film to communicate them.

For example, in his movie Fateful Findings, Neil Breen's character gets hit by a car and gains incredible computer hacking powers, which he uses to make the shocking discovery that politicians take money in exchange for political favors, and big bank executives manipulate the financial system to make themselves very rich! Neil exposes their wrongdoing to the world, which somehow leads to a press conference scene where all the politicians and corporate executives take turns stepping up to the lectern, confessing to their crimes, and immediately committing suicide while Neil Breen stands off to the side and smiles like an idiot. Obviously Breen was trying to say something meaningful about societal injustice, but managed to do it a clunky, ham-handed manner that made him look like an awkward sociopath.

In the same way, this season of Picard was trying to say something meaningful about how grief and trauma can keep us rooted to a point in our past. But in the process they had Captain Picard deliberately enable the suicide of his mentally ill mother, and this was framed as a good thing! It's no less ghoulish than Neil Breen standing there with his creepy, vacant smile while a procession of people step up to a press conference and shoot themselves!

If anyone is to blame for all this I have a hunch it's Sir Patrick Stewart. Sir Patrick is a great actor. He's better at acting that I will ever be at anything. His success has earned him a hefty amount of clout, which translates into creative control over the projects he chooses to do. But here's the thing: he's only good at acting. 

All the other stuff that goes into a writing and producing a TV show call for several different skill sets. And just because someone is good at one or two of those things doesn't mean they're good at all of them. Patrick Stewart had little or no control over his character on Star Trek: The Next Generation, and it was a huge hit. But as soon as they started making movies, he got creative control, and his notes on the scripts almost always made things worse. Brent Spiner once joked that the main difference between the TV show and the movies was that fewer people saw the movies.

I'm willing to bet that even fewer people are watching Star Trek: Picard.

The First Contact Retrospective

Sometimes I wonder how the people who are always complaining that Discovery isn't "real" Star Trek would react to a big-screen reboot of The Next Generation that reimagined that era's starship Enterprise as a warship captained by a grim, revenge-obsessed Captain Picard. What if it was more darkly violent than any previous Trek film, and relegated the optimistic Roddenberrian message to a paper-thin B-plot? If that ever happened, I'll bet the online Star Trek Fundamentalists would throw a massive Internet tantrum that would make the furor over The Last Jedi look like a polite disagreement.

Oh wait, that happened in 1996 and they loved it:

The 1990s were a weird time. We had a movie where the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles danced with Vanilla Ice. Pauly Shore had a career. And amazingly, against all reason, we had a dark and gritty Star Trek: The Next Generation reboot that the very same fans who now rail against modern Trek for being too dark and violent absolutely loved. How did this happen?

It's worth remembering that the original show was made during the Vietnam War by World War II and Korean War veterans, in a world that lived under the constant threat of Mutually Assured Destruction. The idea that conflicts should be solved with words instead of weapons was a somewhat-radical notion that greatly appealed to the show's young audience, most of whom were personally affected by Vietnam in one way or another.

But by the time Star Trek celebrated its 25th anniversary in 1996, all that stuff was in the past. The second generation of fans grew up during a time when the Cold War was receding, the US military draft had been discontinued, and the western world was at relative peace. The cartoons that entertained us as young kids were the Transformers, GI Joe, He-Man, and even R-rated characters like Rambo and Robocop that had been repackaged for children. All of them were about factions of good guys and bad guys attacking each other with lethal force. (Although nobody ever died or got hurt unless it was time to refresh the tie-in toy line.) Yeah, a lot of those shows had a "moral" at the end, but it kind of got lost after the previous 20 minutes of nonstop fighting.

In 1991 our generation experienced its very first war, the weeks-long Gulf War. It was fought by a small, all-volunteer force and packaged as entertainment by the 24-hour TV news networks. (CNN even gave it a logo and theme music.) Not much of the coverage bothered to delve into the inherent complexities of a conflict in the Middle East. They framed it as a battle of Good vs. Evil; a live-action version of the GI Joe cartoons we consumed in in the '80s. There were serious consequences and real human costs, of course, but the American media didn't really stick around much to cover those.

During the 1990s our generation grew from rambunctious kids to rebellious teenagers. Teenagers of our parents' generation had rebelled by becoming anti-war, flower-power hippies; we rebelled by doing the opposite of that. Our favorite video game was Mortal Kombat, a fighting game where the victorious player could gruesomely murder their opponent by entering a character-specific combo. Our favorite superhero comics were "extreme" Image titles like this:

We liked "heroes" with names like BloodGun and MurderBlade and Slaughter Ninja who did stuff the Super Friends would never dream of, like smoke, drink, curse, and above all else kill their enemies. In these kinds of stories, peace was the coward's way out. "Real" heroes showed their bravery by doing what "needed" to be done i.e. kill the bad guy. Even Superman wasn't totally immune to the trend:

Granted, he went back to his old self two pages later, but for the majority of that issue he was wearing black and toting a ridiculous amount of guns

What I'm trying to say was that the young Star Trek audience in 1996 wasn't a bunch of socially-conscious peaceniks. We were stupid adolescents who saw violence as empowering and fun, but we had zero understanding of its real-world consequences. As much as we enjoyed Star Trek: The Next Generation, we tended to think of Captain Picard as kind of a boring wimp who talked too much:

From a 1994 issue of Starlog

So when the first stills from the movie showed up in Star Trek Communicator magazine, featuring scenes like this one with an action-oriented Picard leading a security team with beefy phaser rifles down a darkened corridor, we were stoked:

And when we saw a sweaty, rage-filled Captain snarl that "the line must be drawn here!" in every trailer and TV spot (along with shots of the biggest space battle in Star Trek history up to that point) we totally lost our minds. 

First Contact was shaping up to be the most action-packed, testosterone-filled Star Trek in history. But it was also the first one to be rated PG-13. People forget what a big deal this was; it gave Star Trek the same cachet as other sci-fi action blockbusters like Independence Day or Jurassic Park. For the first time in ages, Star Trek was dark and edgy and dangerous. And in 1996, we loved it.

Today, First Contact is older than the entire Star Trek franchise was in 1996. And it doesn't hold up particularly well. Yes, it's the best of the TNG films. But here's the thing: none of the TNG films are good. My apologies if you enjoy them. By all means, go right ahead. But in my opinion, they're all bad. They all suffer from tiny budgets and the hand of a TV producer who didn't really like or understand Star Trek. First Contact feels the most "liberated" because it's the only one that wasn't made with some kind of creative mandate imposed by meddling executives.

And even though Picard works through his feelings of rage at the end (by killing his enemy, it should be noted), the movie commits the unforgivable sin of turning the Starship Enterprise into a warship. I'm all for Star Trek stretching its formula in new and different ways, but an inviolable part of its DNA is that the Enterprise is a ship of peace. The bad guys travel around in warships and battlecruisers, not our heroes.

After twenty-plus years of wars, mass shootings, and terrorist attacks we've come back around to the ideal of TV Picard who used reason and diplomacy to solve problems. The angry, gun-toting action hero on a revenge quest, who we thought was so cool when we were stupid teenagers, turns out not to be what we needed after all.