Yes indeed, at this point in time they would be regarded as grinning goat herders
Please lower the stakes
- Thread starter urbandk
- Start date
Yes indeed, at this point in time they would be regarded as grinning goat herders
Cuz TFF was . . . fun.
NEM was SERIOUS.
DSC was pretty SERIOUS, come to think.
Years ago, I remember Sondheim decrying where had gone the "comedy" from musicals? In fact they at one time were known as musical comedies. His awesome-dark Sweeney is hilarious and even joyful at points, at least the filmed Broadway with Angela Lansbury and George Hearn. Then Depp got ahold of it. This was back in the days of Les Mis and Miss Saigon, etc.
Maybe that's why we liked Pike's presence this year? He brought some fun? Not chuckly, but joie de vivre. Sorry the spelling there. As did the Spock-Burnham Tracy-Hepburn scenes.
The stakes can be lower in scale if the arc sets up a character point or other element that the audience is made to genuinely care for.
You could make the entire arc about saving one life, and it can be extremely epic and powerful if the journey is well-crafted and the audience cares about the thing we're trying to save or protect.
Star Trek: Insurrection, for example, fails because we don't really care for or sympathize with the Ba'Ku. On the other hand, we are made to care about the titular character in Saving Private Ryan because of the circumstances and the journey Miller's platoon goes on.
Nobody can convince me that you can't create an epic, dramatic tale of adventure and discovery without the existence of all existence being at stake.
As much as I totally enjoyed the last two seasons, I agree that a more scaled-back and simplified approach could successfully be taken next season and, if set up carefully and genuinely, could be just as good or better than what's been done already.
You could make the entire arc about saving one life, and it can be extremely epic and powerful if the journey is well-crafted and the audience cares about the thing we're trying to save or protect.
Star Trek: Insurrection, for example, fails because we don't really care for or sympathize with the Ba'Ku. On the other hand, we are made to care about the titular character in Saving Private Ryan because of the circumstances and the journey Miller's platoon goes on.
Nobody can convince me that you can't create an epic, dramatic tale of adventure and discovery without the existence of all existence being at stake.
As much as I totally enjoyed the last two seasons, I agree that a more scaled-back and simplified approach could successfully be taken next season and, if set up carefully and genuinely, could be just as good or better than what's been done already.
When you read writing guides, they always talk about raising the stakes, not lowering them. But that's because when writers talk about stakes, they generally mean in a personal sense, not a global one. Basically, most people are not heroes, so if you just drop a random character into a world-saving plot and railroad them into "being heroic" it's not as compelling if they're being the hero because of some secondary reason (child in danger, amoral guy in it for the money, etc).
Season 1 set the table for good personal stakes with Michael honestly. I mean, while the whole "mutineer" angle was very poorly put together, in theory it's a good idea to have the main character someone who is personally blamed for the Klingon War (and whose parents were earlier killed by Klingons), because it means they have a level of personal investment in the war that the average Federation officer would not. The season kind of lost its way with the pointless foray into the MU though. Although the story tried to keep the personal stakes high for Michael by introducing MU Georgiou and introducing Lorca's betrayal, it just didn't work with her character as well, feeling more like they were torturing her emotionally rather than introducing crises she was personally invested in. And then there's the trainwreck of the final two episodes.
Season 2 again started in a promising fashion regarding Michael's personal stakes. The central arc of the story was wrapped up in Spock, and her broken relationship with him. Pike might have been trying to figure out a mystery, but in large part Michael was just trying to find her brother and make sure he was okay. But Control fucked everything up, because it introduced a galaxy-spanning crisis which plopped into her lap almost incidentally. Yeah, they railroaded the plot through the involvement of her mother, and finally making her the Red Angel. But ultimately the back half of the season felt - much like the back half of Season 1 - like a bunch of things were happening to her, that she was the object, not the subject.
Season 1 set the table for good personal stakes with Michael honestly. I mean, while the whole "mutineer" angle was very poorly put together, in theory it's a good idea to have the main character someone who is personally blamed for the Klingon War (and whose parents were earlier killed by Klingons), because it means they have a level of personal investment in the war that the average Federation officer would not. The season kind of lost its way with the pointless foray into the MU though. Although the story tried to keep the personal stakes high for Michael by introducing MU Georgiou and introducing Lorca's betrayal, it just didn't work with her character as well, feeling more like they were torturing her emotionally rather than introducing crises she was personally invested in. And then there's the trainwreck of the final two episodes.
Season 2 again started in a promising fashion regarding Michael's personal stakes. The central arc of the story was wrapped up in Spock, and her broken relationship with him. Pike might have been trying to figure out a mystery, but in large part Michael was just trying to find her brother and make sure he was okay. But Control fucked everything up, because it introduced a galaxy-spanning crisis which plopped into her lap almost incidentally. Yeah, they railroaded the plot through the involvement of her mother, and finally making her the Red Angel. But ultimately the back half of the season felt - much like the back half of Season 1 - like a bunch of things were happening to her, that she was the object, not the subject.
Last edited:
Good analysis. And on both seasons those more interesting early personal stages got later completely overshadowed by the gigantic but impersonal (multi)universal stakes.
You hit the nail on the head here.
Your assessment is part of why I consider Discovery as a series an exercise in a deconstructionist presentation of Star Trek, not just a regular Star Trek narrative.
Generally, I'd be the first to react to such opinions with chiming in with the endlessly boring nonadventures of Captain John Everyman of the USS Nondescript, but there's a whole spectrum between the stakes being "All sentient life in the known universe is in danger" and "Tilly wants to make the perfect BLT sandwich". I don't have any problems with monumental stakes per se, if the story arc itself is engaging and the characters operate and develop well in it. But I agree that three times in a row, it starts becoming repetitive and stale. I would find it a really apt comparison to say Season 1 was TNG, season 2 was Voyager, and another "save-the-whole-universe" third season would be Enterprise in terms of originality.
As it stands, Season 3 has many possible settings that allow for engaging story arcs that also allow for character focus and growth; simply finding their places in an unfamiliar world would be perfect, with possibly building up a mysterious group (the future Federation, probably; either benign or villainous) looming just over the horizon. The characters rediscovering what it means to serve in Starfleet would be a great arc for everyone.
As it stands, Season 3 has many possible settings that allow for engaging story arcs that also allow for character focus and growth; simply finding their places in an unfamiliar world would be perfect, with possibly building up a mysterious group (the future Federation, probably; either benign or villainous) looming just over the horizon. The characters rediscovering what it means to serve in Starfleet would be a great arc for everyone.
I like that contemporary Trek story lines are based around high stakes, it instils terror and uncertainty in deep space - it brings the best out of the characters who signed up for the job.
The opening scene of ST09 set the tone, no matter how prepared you think you are, there is something out there that will remind you of where you really are in the grand pecking order.
The Berman-Braga era made watching Trek feel far too safe, too sterile with its predictability, and a somewhat familiar pattern of condescending and arrogance among the DS9, Voyager and TNG characters.
The opening scene of ST09 set the tone, no matter how prepared you think you are, there is something out there that will remind you of where you really are in the grand pecking order.
The Berman-Braga era made watching Trek feel far too safe, too sterile with its predictability, and a somewhat familiar pattern of condescending and arrogance among the DS9, Voyager and TNG characters.
I think that may say a lot about the audience (us) who are looking for as much death and destruction as we can get.
Yet I found the openings of both Into Darkness and Beyond far more entertaining.
Speak for yourself. My two favorite Superhero movies are The Iron Giant and Super. I don't need the stakes to be high, nor do I need them to be low to enjoy a narrative. I just need the narrative to be something I enjoy
You were the one with the subtle slam about an Avengers movie saving Guam.
Exactly. My favorite Avengers movies are the ones which will never be made.Oh, I guess that wasn't the slam you expected I was making
In 2008 there was Iron Man (created a new franchise by reinventing a very old one)
In 2009 there was Star Trek (created a new franchise by reinventing a very old one)
That's where the similarities end. We know what happened after. So please, let's not compare MCU and Star Trek, it's going to be embarrassing.
In 2009 there was Star Trek (created a new franchise by reinventing a very old one)
That's where the similarities end. We know what happened after. So please, let's not compare MCU and Star Trek, it's going to be embarrassing.
Watchmen, or Umbrella Academy if series are allowed.
One of the best scenes in Trek, in my opinion.
B5 had huuuge stakes. Yet they managed it as a small burn, with lots and lots of standalone episodes. Both can be done.
Why?
Similar threads
