Is Spectacle better than character development?

[T'Boggan]

I have been enjoying Discovery but I feel the Visual aspects of the series as well as the grandiose nature of the story line is not allowing the characters to present a face that we can identify or sympathize with. I feel Character development is taking a back seat.
Ok its the first season and we didn't get many episodes either, but to me The story was a real mess of Tech, visual splendor and Machismo.
Also I am a bit tired of Massive battles, destruction and huge body-counts. Its amazing that any starship can navigate through they're universe what with all the trashed starship and bloated frozen corpses cluttering it up! Would the current audience for trek have the patience for a more personal Trek ? Even just to put the more dramatic storylines into context. I think they would.

 

[Tosk]

No. It is not better.

 

[cultcross]

Strange choice of complaint for a show that has more character development than any other Trek first season by virtue of not using an episodic reset format.

 

[dahj]

Why not both? It's not really an either-or thing...

 

[mos6507]

Strange choice of complaint for a show that has more character development than any other Trek first season by virtue of not using an episodic reset format.

Convoluted plotting != character development.

 

[cultcross]

Nobody said it did. "Character development" is about exploring and changing a character gradually as you go along. Evolving them like real people do as time goes along. Trek has generally not done a lot of that, preferring its characters to stay essentially the same. Major character events tend to be forgotten by the next week. Discovery is doing it much more than any previous Trek series, and in its first season too.

 

[Spider]

Characters are hit and miss because of the individuals (the viewers) with their own particular tastes judging the characters. There's not a Trek series made that didn't have characters I really liked and characters that I thought were just dumb mistakes. It's that balance and mixture of characters that throws individuals off.

As to Discovery, I'm not interested in what's left of the Discovery crew after Lorca's demise, but the idea of Pike, Spock and Number One intrigue me. Maybe season two will improve for me, but who knows what the writers will cook up and serve. Whether you liked the first season or not, my bets are that season two will be much different in some manner. Just a prediction.

 

[Vger23]

DSC seems far more character driven than any other series besides DS9.

And no, spectacle never trumps character. That's why I love Star Trek so much.

 

[Mudd]

You can call what they do on this show "character development" if you like, but they write to the lowest common denominator to support the spectacle of nonsensical plot "twists." If Voq/whatsisname had turned out at some point to be able to unscrew and replace his head, that would have been consistent with the overall level of plausibility and narrative logic the series displayed...but doubtless the characters would have had feelings about it.

 

[Mage]

Strange choice of complaint for a show that has more character development than any other Trek first season by virtue of not using an episodic reset format.

Yup, basicly that ended this topic.

And no, spectactle is never beter. But when done right, they can both work together very well.

 

[Jadeb]

Strange choice of complaint for a show that has more character development than any other Trek first season by virtue of not using an episodic reset format.

That the format has virtues doesn't mean the show capitalized on them. I would go so far as to say that Discovery has the most ill-defined main cast at the end of the first season (or 13 episodes, if you prefer) of any Trek series ever. I couldn't begin to describe Burnham's personality (other than she likes speeches), couldn't tell you if Stamets is genuinely grumpy by nature or was just resentful, couldn't describe Culber as anything other than "concerned significant other." The only character that stands out is Saru, who is the most in the mold of previous Trek characters and goes through a very traditional Trek "character development." Same with Tilly: She ends up exactly where you'd expect.

Other than Saru and Tilly, the characters are basically a blank slate for season two, which is both a blessing and a scathing indictment.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I have been enjoying Discovery but I feel the Visual aspects of the series as well as the grandiose nature of the story line is not allowing the characters to present a face that we can identify or sympathize with. I feel Character development is taking a back seat.
Ok its the first season and we didn't get many episodes either, but to me The story was a real mess of Tech, visual splendor and Machismo.
Also I am a bit tired of Massive battles, destruction and huge body-counts. Its amazing that any starship can navigate through they're universe what with all the trashed starship and bloated frozen corpses cluttering it up! Would the current audience for trek have the patience for a more personal Trek ? Even just to put the more dramatic storylines into context. I think they would.

Star Trek used to be a vast world where I could imagine living in, but ever since DS9, a brilliant idea in the beginning btw, paved the way to places where I would be scared to death to journey. The lack of vision from the mini brains in Hollywood can't understand the boredom their storytelling is driving. Massive battles, destruction, and constant death is not Star Trek, and with Discovery where the "in your face" catastrophes is the norm in every episode, there seemed in order to keep anyone's interest the production will have to up the angst. Like that episode in TNG "Hero Worship" where the Enterprise was hit by a wave front intensity, "Raise shields - Raise shields" as the ship continues to get pounded. Season 2 is in danger of being more of the same but faster and more intense. There's more to Star Trek than this shit.

 

[NeoStar9]

You can have both and I think Discovery shows you can have both. You do not need to choose between them. However if you want something to be successful and have people spend money on it today spectacle is a MUST. No one is going going to bother spending money on a show or film in huge numbers if it's not exciting to look at and watch.

 

[Kemaiku]

It *tries* to be both. But it's spectacle is early 2000's fanboys style edgey. And it's characters are woefully written.

It needed to work a lot harder balancing both.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Anyone who can name another Star Trek character who went through more growth over the course of 15 episodes than Micheal Bunham gets a cookie.

 

[T'Boggan]

A story can be exiting and epic without giving us PTSD! My feeling is that without getting to know and empathise with the crew members then the peril isnt as meaningfull. Every story doesnt have to have Galactic consequences. "They who save one life in time saves the world"

 

[Kemaiku]

Anyone who can name another Star Trek character who went through more growth over the course of 15 episodes than Micheal Bunham gets a cookie.

Shran appeared in around 15.

(You didn't say in a row)

 

[CorporalClegg]

A story can be exiting and epic without giving us PTSD! My feeling is that without getting to know and empathise with the crew members then the peril isnt as meaningfull. Every story doesnt have to have Galactic consequences. "They who save one life in time saves the world"

Well "saving the world" is part-in-parcel for Star Trek season finales. And Burnham's actions had a lot more to do with saving herself.

Shran appeared in around 15.

(You didn't say in a row)

He still doesn't come close. Plus, since the episodes weren't in a row (and spread out across several seasons), most of his "growth" happened off screen.

On the other hand, we see Micheal maneuver a series of events that completely alters (if not reverses) her worldview.

 

[XCV330]

Greeks kind of invented drama. They went to enormous technological leaps to keep the audience entertained. Stuff that wouldn't be reinvented for millenia to automate stages, wow the people in the stands, etc.
We don't remember that bit but the plays are still performed today, usually in methods that would seem minimalist, or er.. spartan to viewers from that time, to appreciative non-rowdy crowds who won't wonder why everyone is being so calm and where the hell are the naked flute players.

It's all important. The story, the character dvelopment is more important but they're both very important.
If star trek took place in a blank set with drably attired people concentrating solely on the fundamentals, no one would watch, not even the smuggiest of the smug.
DSC had plenty of character development.

 

[Kemaiku]

Well "saving the world" is part-in-parcel for Star Trek season finales. And Burnham's actions had a lot more to do with saving herself.

He still doesn't come close.

Bigoted racist rando captain of any other Andorian ship that becomes the Ambassador of a whole species, helping found the entire Federation, changing views on not only one species but several. After losing a loved one and fighting to the death with said allies and overcoming even that rage.

Burnham stumbled head first into a war, went whoopsie and kind of bumbled about some more, fell for a killer Klingon and...something.