Is Spectacle better than character development?

[gblews]

Well, my point about 50 years of Star Trek is that they have that vast canon to draw on.

They know what works, what doesn’t work, what’s been done to death, what’s left to explore, etc.

So based on that rich depth of data, I would have expected the story to have been more cohesive.

You're repeating yourself. So I feel compeled to repeat myself. The "value" of Trek history, as you characterize it, really doesn't exist. Trek history was used as a weapon against ALL of the spinoffs, including TNG and DS9. But in fact, ALL of the spins have made use of the franchises' history to varying degrees, just as various member s of the fandom used that same history to point out the shows' supposed shortcomings.

They used that history as a club at least until those folks realized that they liked what they were seeing. Of course, this didn't occur until 2 to 3 seasons into the shows. Sound familiar?

But it’s early days. Maybe comparing it to a show like the flash or supergirl would be more like-for-like in the modern era:

You know, it would have been easier to just come right out and say "DSC sucks".

As for expecting us to know as much about the characters in only 15 episodes compared to 70-odd, I would have thought that comes down to the writing as much as anything else. With a good writing team I don’t think that it’s impossible to expect parity with something like TOS

Well, you're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to bring to some sense to a position that makes no sense.

There is no way a showrunner would tell his/her audience that after the first 15 episodes of a show, that you now know everything about our characters as you could know in 80 episodes of a show. This, to you, would be good writing?

No TV writer would do this. It makes no sense, and you wouldn't like it if a show did do this. Or IDK, maybe you would like it. In season 4 of Ent, the writers let us know something about Hoshi Sato that we had never before been told. There were some fans who complained about this.

In other words, those few fans, apparently, not only thought they knew everything there was to know about Hoshi in the first 80 episodes of Ent, they were annoyed that the writers chose to write something new about Hoshi. I take it from your statement above, you would have been among those fans. What you suggest, would lock the characters forever more into who they were in the first several episodes of a show at the expense of character development and any (Hoshi-like) surprises for later seasons.

- but there I go holding DSC up to a higher standard again

I don't think this means what you think it does.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

They used that history as a club at least until those folks realized that they liked what they were seeing. Of course, this didn't occur until 2 to 3 seasons into the shows. Sound familiar?

So you’re saying basically that “all of this has happened before and will happen again” and we should accept that because that’s how Star Trek works? That’s something of a circular argument but each to their own.

You know, it would have been easier to just come right out and say "DSC sucks".

I’ve said several times elsewhere that I’m discoskeptic - I’ve made no bones about that but I’m not trying to *prove* that it sucks here (I’m not trying to prove anything here). I’m simply trying to have a discussion.

For the record I don’t think DSC sucks. I don’t like most of it, but I think it has the potential to be much *much* better than s1 showed us.

There is no way a showrunner would tell his/her audience that after the first 15 episodes of a show, that you now know everything about our characters as you could know in 80 episodes of a show. This, to you, would be good writing?

I never asserted that TOS told us *everything* about those characters. And I didn’t have any complaints about Hoshi in s4 of Enterprise - other than the fact that she was underused.

We don’t know everything about Spock - we learned that in DSC. You’ve misunderstood my argument. I’m simply saying we could have a deeper knowledge of these characters via the serialised storytelling format than was possible to deliver in only one season of TOS. That deeper knowledge could have been delivered by exploring the charctaers in more detail with less focus on spectacle (which is where the writing comes in).

I don't think this means what you think it does.

I don’t think we agree on the definition, no

 

[CorporalClegg]

Can anyone watch 15 random episodes of TOS and feel like they don't know Kirk, Spock and McCoy? Sure, we learn more background about them over three seasons, but it's possible to get a sense of them in a single good episode.

Of the three, Spock was ever the only one with any amount of depth. People don't like to hear it, but neither Kirk nor Bones were particularly deep characters - if only proven by the fact that Kirk's arc was exactly the same in each of the six (seven) films.

 

[eschaton]

Of the three, Spock was ever the only one with any amount of depth. People don't like to hear it, but neither Kirk nor Bones were particularly deep characters - if only proven by the fact that Kirk's arc was exactly the same in each of the six (seven) films.

I'd actually say all of the depth was more or less provided by the performance, not so much the writing. I mean TOS was fundamentally a pseudo-anthology. Almost all of the stories - even those which personally involved the characters somehow - really could have had entirely different characters and still worked pretty much the same way.

I do think it helped though that production worked differently during the TOS days. My understanding is there wasn't the same expectation that the writers would be more or less done with the season by the time the show started filming. Thus they had some ability to tailor the dialogue over time to not only their own internal idea of who the characters were, but also how the characters were being played by the cast.

 

[Noname Given]

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.

Um, Star Trek has never had great character development. TOS and TNG pretty much exemplify the 'they're reset each week' (and sorry but Picard liking/almost becoming an Archaeologist isn't really character development. DS9 was like that pretty much too until it's later seasons - and the changes were often due to the 'horrors' of the Dominion War. Can't speak to ST: V as I couldn't stomach it enough to really watch it past "The 37's" and in what I saw I would describe it as 'TNG lite'. ENT also started some character development from the 3rd Season on, but again it was in the same vein as DS9 with them reacting top w War-like situation plus being only able to rely o themselves for the most part in Season 3.

There's also the fact the S1 of ST: D had 15 episodes - whereas for the majority of the rest in was an average of 26 episodes a season. But IDK where you got the idea that Star trek as a franchise has ever really done deep sustained overall character development prior to STT: D because overall, it really hasn't.

The ONE character they developed was Burnham; and it was a story about her reconnecting with being a Human; and coming to realize she was okay with that after admiring and trying to emulate Vulcans and Vulcan culture for the majority of her life to the point that we saw her.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Yup. Really the only character in the whole franchise who holds a candle to Burnham is Kira.

 

[Refuge]

Er... no. Burnham is boring.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

DS9 was like that pretty much too until it's later seasons - and the changes were often due to the 'horrors' of the Dominion War.

While I agree with many of your points, I’d debate this one. Early DS9 has plenty of character development before the dominion war. Bashir and O’Brien going from hating one another to becoming friends. Sisko accepting DS9 and Bajor as his home by bringing his African art back from Earth. Also Sisko accepting the death of his wife (a journey that actually begins in the pilot). Kira (and Shakaar) learning that they’re not terrorists any more. Also Kira learning that not all cardassians are monsters.

These developments all happen before s5. Relative to the glacially paced developments of TNG and VOY, these are big changes.

The ONE character they developed was Burnham

See, I wouldn’t go so far as to say they *developed* Burnham.

Sure, we learn a lot about her because she’s inexplicably the main character of the show.

But development-wise, if I ask myself the question “is Michael a different character at the end of DSC than she was at the beginning?” That is, has her character grown in any way? My answer is “no”.

She seems no different to who she was in “Vulcan hello”.

I hope they spend more time actually developing her character in s2 without the old “mutiny-erase” reset button trick from s1.

 

[Lord Garth]

But development-wise, if I ask myself the question “is Michael a different character at the end of DSC than she was at the beginning?” That is, has her character grown in any way? My answer is “no”.

What are the specifics on why you think she hasn't grown as a character? What makes "A Vulcan Hello" Michael Burnham exactly the same as "Will You Take My Hand?" Michael Burnham?

 

[CorporalClegg]

Nothing.

Shit. Even her hair is different. (I hear that's a thing now.)

 

[Lord Garth]

Shit. Even her hair is different. (I hear that's a thing now.)

I've never seen straight guys talk about hair this much in my life.

 

[Vger23]

I've never seen straight guys talk about hair this much in my life.

Holy shit. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

What are the specifics on why you think she hasn't grown as a character? What makes "A Vulcan Hello" Michael Burnham exactly the same as "Will You Take My Hand?" Michael Burnham?

Well, as I perceive her, the specifics relate to the way she reacts to things and how she interacts with others.

She still has that same sense that she’s right about everything - this is explicitly seen in the speech she gives before Starfleet Command. This echoes her decision to mutiny in Vulcan Hello.

She challenges mirror Georgiou on the bridge, despite the fact that she was put there by Starfleet. Following the chain of command? Yes, that is Starfleet.

(Granted, except when it’s not, but not following orders is what got Michael into trouble in the first place - and mirror Georgiou even comments on this and explicitly refers to the BoBS and Michael following orders).

She challenges the admiral and Sarek about their plan because she knows better than they do. Michael’s “superior” knowledge is what caused the BoBS to go the way it did in the first place.

I will, however, modify my statement to say that she doesn’t exhibit *no* character growth at all. There is a scene in another episode where she acknowledges to Tilly that she gave her bad advice. I also feel that Michael learns that the Klingons aren’t all monsters. So my initial statement was wrong - she doesn’t display no growth at all, but virtually no growth.

But, comparing Michael to, say, Bashir - who becomes a totally different character as DS9 developed - there has been as much actual character development in Michael in s1 as there was in Beverly Crusher over 7 years of TNG (that is, not much).

I feel that had they included a less multifaceted story with the MU and pew pew pew with the Klingons, and actually focused on the characters we could have seen Michael actually go through some kind of metamorphosis as a character as befits someone who is a former mutineer and who has PTSD thanks to the Klingons killing her family.

All of that being said, she does seem a little different in some of the scenes they’ve shown us in the latest s2 trailer. So who knows - I’m cautiously optimistic about s2 at this point.

 

[Lord Garth]

She still has that same sense that she’s right about everything - this is explicitly seen in the speech she gives before Starfleet Command. This echoes her decision to mutiny in Vulcan Hello.

That's probably a personality trait of hers in general. A lot of alphas are convinced they're right. If they think they're wrong, they cease to function. It's their way or no way. A big challenge is to learn how to temper that. Of course, if it were easy it wouldn't be much of a challenge.

The big test for Burnham would be to carry out something she doesn't want to do. Or to quote Spock, "What you want is irrelevant. What you've chosen is at hand."

 

[Vger23]

That's probably a personality trait of hers in general. A lot of alphas are convinced they're right. If they think they're wrong, they cease to function. It's their way or no way. A big challenge is to learn how to temper that. Of course, if it were easy it wouldn't be much of a challenge.

The big test for Burnham would be to carry out something she doesn't want to do. Or to quote Spock, "What you want is irrelevant. What you've chosen is at hand."

Not only that, but I'm pretty sure not a moment went by in Picard's life where he wasn't lecturing someone on something because he was convinced of his own correctness.

Weird that it's "awesome" when Picard does it, but "annoying" when Burnham does it.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

That's probably a personality trait of hers in general. A lot of alphas are convinced they're right. If they think they're wrong, they cease to function. It's their way or no way. A big challenge is to learn how to temper that. Of course, if it were easy it wouldn't be much of a challenge.

The big test for Burnham would be to carry out something she doesn't want to do. Or to quote Spock, "What you want is irrelevant. What you've chosen is at hand."

I’d like to see her go through something like that actually.

I think it would develop her character in some ways.

And I wouldn’t have necessarily described Burnham as an alpha - I’d have thought arrogance could be a trait of someone no matter what personality type they aligned with

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Not only that, but I'm pretty sure not a moment went by in Picard's life where he wasn't lecturing someone on something because he was convinced of his own correctness.

Weird that it's "awesome" when Picard does it, but "annoying" when Burnham does it.

That’s boiling Picard down to a pretty one-dimensional character.

Plus we never saw Picard as an XO or at the same point in his life as Burnham is now.

By all accounts young Picard was a bit of a nob - probably similar to Burnham.

The advantage Picard has (which makes him awesome relative to Burnham and let’s face it, all of us hehe!) is wisdom.

Burnham is not wise.

 

[Lord Garth]

And I wouldn’t have necessarily described Burnham as an alpha - I’d have thought arrogance could be a trait of someone no matter what personality type they aligned with

Knocking out Georgiou and trying to take command is an Alpha move if I've ever seen one. And a toxic one at that. She wants to be the dominant one over her more dovish Captain. And then her interjecting constantly whenever Admiral Cornwell was speaking in that scene at the end of "Will You Take My Hand?" Lines up with some of the worst traits I've observed about some types of Alphas from just life in general.

Some people are saying they don't like Burnham because the Creators want to show her as being Just Perfect. I'm of the opinion she's the exact opposite. She's not perfect at all. That's what, for me, makes it interesting to watch.

 

[Vger23]

That’s boiling Picard down to a pretty one-dimensional character.

Plus we never saw Picard as an XO or at the same point in his life as Burnham is now.

By all accounts young Picard was a bit of a nob - probably similar to Burnham.

The advantage Picard has (which makes him awesome relative to Burnham and let’s face it, all of us hehe!) is wisdom.

Burnham is not wise.

Disagree wholeheartedly. I find the journey and growth towards wisdom to be far more interesting and entertaining than just being handed someone who is, for all intents and purposes, perfect and already complete in terms of their personal development journey.

One of the reasons I believe Picard IS a one-dimensional character.

 

[Vger23]

Knocking out Georgiou and trying to take command is an Alpha move if I've ever seen one. And a toxic one at that. She wants to be the dominant one over her more dovish Captain. And then her interjecting constantly whenever Admiral Cornwell was speaking in that scene at the end of "Will You Take My Hand?" Lines up with some of the worst traits I've observed about some types of Alphas from just life in general.

Some people are saying they don't like Burnham because the Creators want to show her as being Just Perfect. I'm of the opinion she's the exact opposite. She's not perfect at all. That's what, for me, makes it interesting to watch.

Exactly. Finally a lead character who isn't a ready-made paragon of virtue and flawless decision making capabilities.

Another area DSC delivers on being somewhat unique from the rest of the franchise.