7 years of nerdrage.
I hope Discovery places "plot" first, avoids melodrama
- Thread starter INACTIVEUSS Einstein
- Start date
7 years of nerdrage.
The plot is what.
The story is who, where, when, why, and how.
The story is who, where, when, why, and how.
Story:
Farmboy Luke Skywalker leaves home, grows up and saves a planet and a rebellion.
Han Solo stops running and commits to something bigger than his own immediate survival and gratification.
Plot:
...they get caught in a tractor beam, then hide in a secret compartment of their ship, then the robots access the station's database while Luke and Han look for the Princess. They break her out of her cell and when they're chased by stormtroopers Leia blows a hole in the wall and they hide in a garbage compactor...
Farmboy Luke Skywalker leaves home, grows up and saves a planet and a rebellion.
Han Solo stops running and commits to something bigger than his own immediate survival and gratification.
Plot:
...they get caught in a tractor beam, then hide in a secret compartment of their ship, then the robots access the station's database while Luke and Han look for the Princess. They break her out of her cell and when they're chased by stormtroopers Leia blows a hole in the wall and they hide in a garbage compactor...
Stargate also ran for 14 years, 17 seasons, and had 3 movies (2 of them television movies.) I will admit they dropped the ball with Universe but i think if they were given one more season, they could've hit their stride.
This is one of the few times I completely agree with you (although I have half-way agreed with you in the past
).The execution of the plot -- no matter what that plot is -- is more important than that plot in and of itself being "interesting" or "clever".
Granted, good execution of a plot means that it is executed in an interesting and clever way, but that plot itself could have been pedestrian and mundane as plots go. That is to say, even the most pedestrian plots -- if executed well -- could make for great theater.
Conversely, you could have one of the most interestingly plotted stories ever, but if it was executed poorly that story would end up being poor theater.
What is "well executed" one may ask? Well-executed means interesting dialogue (clever and/or riveting), believable characters (believable within the fiction of the story), and good pacing. With these things, a great film could be made out of -- say, for example -- a plot as simple as two friends (a comedian and theater director) simply sitting down to a dinner together and talking.
Now, people may say that interesting, clever, or thought-provoking dialogue is that same as "good plot", but id isn't. Again, I'll mention my example above (which by the way is the 1981 film My Dinner With Andre) that is a film that has a plot that is truly as simple as "two guys talking to each other at dinner". Thankfully, those two guys were saying interesting and clever things -- i.e., that mundane and simple plotted film had great dialogue.
So "Great plot does not necessarily equal great show",
and "Poor plot does not necessarily equal poor show".
1. Interesting sci-fi concept
2. Plot
3. Likeable, relatable characters, like Picard
Couldn't care less about interpersonal drama in a sci-fi show, the quality of a show decreases as human drama increases. I get human drama from every other entertainment source, I've almost never been amused by it in science fiction.
2. Plot
3. Likeable, relatable characters, like Picard
Couldn't care less about interpersonal drama in a sci-fi show, the quality of a show decreases as human drama increases. I get human drama from every other entertainment source, I've almost never been amused by it in science fiction.
Then why not just read non-fiction stuff about what people think will happen in the future?
This particular bias means that you are no one's target audience.
I do, it's called futurism and I read most of the stuff that's available, but there's not enough of it and I like when it's explored through familiar setting/characters, like star trek.
Obviously you don't, as there's been a ton of human drama in Star Trek. Starting right from the very beginning. You don't think a man having to kill his best friend to save those he's responsible for, is human drama?
It's only the human drama that made Trek a broad success, instead of the brief niche entertainment that most science fiction shows had been.
Other than the few series that focused on human drama - Trek TOS, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits - science fiction on TV was relegated to kiddie stuff. "Gosh wow, a robot!" was considered sufficient for them.
Or the romance of two people trapped in captivity and used ad lab fodder. Or a man unwilling to see the monster behind the facade of lost love. Or a boy unable to cope with omnipotent power as he transitions to an adult. Et cetera. Et cetera.
Star Trek isn't really about exploring futurism of sci fi ideas. The tech is just a prop to explore human drama.
I find most of B5 barely watchable. Story, plot, acting and most everything is just meh.
Yep. I hung in as the show got worse and worse - the first two seasons were not bad - but ditched it after "Get out of our galaxy!"
Yup. And a big reason why was, despite all the claims to the contrary, it was pretty obvious Straczynski made it all up as he went a long.
The show lost the original pay-off when Sinclair left.
I agree. A plot might be weak and camouflaged by bells and whistles but it's hardly trivial.
Literally all the evidence and first hand accounts say you're wrong, but you're welcome to keep thinking that.
Actually he was always slated to leave.
No he wasn't.
Similar threads
