I was dubious going into this video. I was expecting a tirade about how Picard should’ve doubled down on nostalgia from day 1 and villainizing Patrick Stewart for wanting to do something different.

Instead I got a very thoughtful analysis about fundamental mistakes made by the writers that put them in the train wreck that it became—wanting to try something new, but not committing; over thinking TNG and under thinking Picard as it’s own thing.

I also strongly agree that Picard as a space Indiana Jones series would’ve worked so much better than a washed up vineyarder. I’m honestly surprised that I never considered this until watching this video.

While I think the video raises some good points, I'm not sure it actually follows through on the promise of its clickbait title. Though I suppose, "What I would have done with 'Star Trek: Picard' if anyone asked me" isn't likely to grab as many viewers.

But yeah, seeing Picard as an adventuring archaeologist would have been great. Especially after LDecks established that Picard was funding an independent archaeological association while serving as an admiral. Still, I feel like a lot of fans who objected to season one would still have many of the same problems regardless of what they got if it wasn't the fanservice firehose of season three, but that's really neither here nor there.

I haven't seen this one yet, but Rowan's videos are always worth a look.

I didn’t watch this video but to me, the “where Picard went wrong” was clearly revealed in the first after show about it: one of the main writers was rock hard with excitement to tell us all about how he really wanted to prove he could do a dark star trek show, which to me, seems to miss the whole point of star trek. That guy is what went wrong with it

It’s not so wrong as to not be worth watching, but it does drive a need to be ready for it rather than a need to consume it, and so I have still not seen the whole show yet