I'm really digging The Orville's humane ethical episodes. The two are like night and day. I'll break down what I thought into sections:
Star Trek is Captain America
I find the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Captain America to be one of the most inspiring and uplifting parts of the whole franchise. Apparently some people think that Captain America's morality is 'too old fashioned', something an article in 'Psychology Today' by Mark D White PhD, who teaches philosophy, law and economics, argues is untrue:
Are Captain America's Ethics Too Old-Fashioned for the 21st Century? - Psychology Today
As comics fans know, Steve Rogers is often referred to as a "man out of time": born in the 1920s, fought in World War II in the 1940s, and trapped in a block of ice until he was thawed out in the "modern day"
But while his old-fashioned charm and chivalry is usually appreciated, Steve Rogers' code of ethics is just as often seen as outdated. In the Marvel Universe as well as the real world, he is criticized for clinging to a "black-and-white" morality, better suited to fighting Nazis in World War II than facing modern problems like terrorism originating abroad as well as at home.
When Cap was killed (also, as with Bucky, only apparently) in 2007 following the "Civil War" storyline—a not-too-sublte homage to post-9/11 debates over balancing liberty and security—his death was widely interpreted in the real world as a statement that Cap's moral vision was no longer fit for the modern world. But after the villain Norman Osborn (formerly Spider-Man's foe, the Green Goblin) was anointed head of global security following an alien invasion (don't ask), the Marvel Universe entered an unprecedented period of despotic disorder, the "Dark Reign," which only ended once Steve Rogers returned from the dead to reassert a moral center in the Marvel Universe, ushering in "The Heroic Age."
Captain America, with his "outmoded" moral code based on virtues like honor, integrity, and courage—or, if you prefer, following duty despite all costs—ended up being just what the Marvel Universe needed all along, and this is just as true in the real world of 2011. The importance of virtue and duty never changed, though the world itself changed around them.
What's more, it's not really accurate to say that Cap's ethics are black-and-white with no shades of grey; like anybody, he struggles with moral decisions, as is often shown in the comics. Ethics is never a matter of mechanistically applying simple rules to life: judgment is always necessary to find the rules that fit any given situation and to know how to apply them (especially when two or more rules conflict). What gives his ethics the appearance of being cut-and-dried is his conviction: once Cap decides on the right course of action, he does not waver from it. Moral conviction should be not be confused with moral stubbornness; Cap will change his mind if you convince him he's wrong, but until then, he will do what he feels is right.
The idea that Captain America's moral compass is pointed to the past rather than the present or future is simply mistaken. Steve Rogers may indeed be a "man out of time," but his morals—and his conviction—are timeless.
Star Trek is Captain America of TV shows. I think it's time we saw this, because I don't think a franchise can survive if it loses it's moral centre. It means honor, integrity and courage are a given for it's protagonists. It does not mean inflexibly applying one law to every situation, but it means using judgement and standing by your convictions. At some points in Discovery, characters walk alongside and listen to mass murderer's quips and we witness a Starfleet full of Admirals and Captains who accept Section 31.
I hope a Trek author does not mind me quoting a post I saw of his from another site, but this is essentially what I feel about Section 31's use in both DS9 and Discovery:
I feel Section 31 'makes the whole thing hypocritical nonsense'. It makes the most inspiring parts of TNG's 'Encounter at Farpoint' ideals nonsense. It makes the idea of progress nonsense. The United Federation of Planets should not be a 1:1 analogy for The United States of America, in which someone explores their theory of what stark realistic politics should be, IMO. This is science ficiton. It is meant to be a utopia to aspire toward, showing what can hypothetically exist, which is why social problems are often explored through alien societies, as with the Moclans in The Orville.
Fundamentally, the "Darkest Star Trek" DS9 was still a humanistic show. It understood our strengths and weaknesses and how we would have to grapple with them, but showed the process as uplifting. A fundamentally optimistic view of human nature. The sooner Star Trek stops trying to be Jack Bauer and resumes being Steve Rodgers the better.
Emotional Maturity
The Next Generation era had a certain light hearted emotional maturity among it's crews that I miss. They solved their problems with a certain self-awareness and forgiving empathy for each other's flaws. They were also ensemble casts, and the show gave them each episodes to shine. They were likeable. The Orville has done well in this regard, and Seth MacFarlane said that he finds this TNG attitude inspiring.
As someone else said online, how is it that I easily remember the name of this minor gag-character and forget most of Discovery's crew? Over the show, Yaphit grew from a minor character into someone you recognise, who displays virtue and courage.
A lot of people have written about how they find DSC's crew un-likeable. Perhaps that is because they are always focused inwardly, having long discussions about themselves, their personal demons taking centre stage... the characters come off as shrill, undisciplined and narcissistic to many The ship becomes nothing but a backdrop to their struggles. Concepts like duty, responsibility and discipline take a back seat.
I think perhaps Star Trek should focus more on timeless general values, if it can't handle nuance in a naturalistic way. Or perhaps it should just hire MacFarlane, Goodman, Braga and Bormantis outright, as they clearly understand Star Trek.
The Show Rejects Non-Serious Campy Fun
Some of my friends were expecting that DSC would be a return to the colourful era of Star Trek: The Original Series. I know some people felt Trek got too safe by the end of Voyager, and needed some vibrancy back. Colourful uniforms, weirdness, rough and ready adventure. Fisticuffs, jumping through ancient tombs, avoiding whirring blades, having a phaser fight with Nazis, camp episodes, larger than life villains.
But ....Discovery is actually probably more oppressive, and ponderous than any Trek before it, from a certain point of view, despite it's hectic rushing about style. Because of the aforementioned obsession with making everything about character's inner life, probably. The weirdness often falls flat because it comes from nowhere and lacks plausible origins or consequences. The show puts in some CGI aciton, such as sequences of people racing around in pods, but these arcade game sequences don't feel like they came from a natural place.
So are we in the weird position where the show is actually more stately and ponderous, from a certain point of view? Can DSC bring itself to beam down to a Canadian forest, have an adventure, or is this kind of fiction beneath it's aspirations? I would kill for a light hearted Stargate SG1 romp through million-year old ruins in search of an alien hologram. Purely science fiction concepts that are just awe for the sake of awe.
There was an article mentioning how "while the crew of the Orville is still happy to romp around the same Californian forests as Kirk and Picard, pretending they’re alien planets, Discovery’s officers are trapped on their expensive bridge". Perhaps Discovery feels everything must look cinematic-quality, where The Orville is happy to reach for concepts above it's budget. I really love some of the alien designs on that show though:
Fun and playfulness are as important a part of human nature as love or suffering.
Historical Context and Periodisation
Writing for an established setting, you would think that the show would want to use the historical context of the setting, or else what would be the point? Like you couldn't imagine a new Star Wars film just throwing out the context of the era. Why did Discovery seemingly go out of it's way to ignore it's place within a wider context?
Say that the great challenge of the 23rd Century was the Federation facing equal political rivals, and the great challenge of the 24th Century was the Borg. This presents an understandable development. The Federation has grown as a civilization, and the next challenge isn't how to find peace with a technologically equivalent Cold War adversary, but now a Lovecraftian hive-consciousness that operates on a paradigm far higher.
Discovery took the established linear history of Star Trek and immediately threatened to break. Instead of slotting it's own tale in like a missing piece of jigsaw (one would think, the very point of a prequel), it decided to threaten the entire political basis for the next couple of centuries by coming up with a propulsion system that would have rendered any interaction with a problem, including the Borg, immeasurably different. Like... an analogy would be giving gasoline-power and gunpowder to the Roman Empire.
They had to write this out in the most absurd and unbelievable way, as it broke the entire franchise.
This makes bad business sense for CBS if nothing else because it debases the value of the brand. It means the franchise is less internally coherent. Being less coherent, it becomes whimsy. It is no longer something that rewards the study of fans, or holds up to thought.
Technical Plausibility
Discovery made some pretty dubious choices in regards to science in my opinion. I hope Christopher doesnt mind me quoting a post I saw of his ages ago:
Another reason why throwing things like 'time crystals' and 'spore drives' into the mix and then failing to see any impact on the culture of the Alpha Quadrant seems more Alice in Wonderland style weird fiction than War of the Worlds style science fiction.
Above and beyond that, it just seems like the show threw together technical-souding terms without much thought compared to TNG or Voyager. (Mushroom based FTL does not sound remotely natural. One thing that might make the mycellial network a little more believable is if it turned out to be artificial instead of natural, the roadways of a long vanished empire, or something like that).
Star Trek is Captain America
I find the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Captain America to be one of the most inspiring and uplifting parts of the whole franchise. Apparently some people think that Captain America's morality is 'too old fashioned', something an article in 'Psychology Today' by Mark D White PhD, who teaches philosophy, law and economics, argues is untrue:
Are Captain America's Ethics Too Old-Fashioned for the 21st Century? - Psychology Today
As comics fans know, Steve Rogers is often referred to as a "man out of time": born in the 1920s, fought in World War II in the 1940s, and trapped in a block of ice until he was thawed out in the "modern day"
But while his old-fashioned charm and chivalry is usually appreciated, Steve Rogers' code of ethics is just as often seen as outdated. In the Marvel Universe as well as the real world, he is criticized for clinging to a "black-and-white" morality, better suited to fighting Nazis in World War II than facing modern problems like terrorism originating abroad as well as at home.
When Cap was killed (also, as with Bucky, only apparently) in 2007 following the "Civil War" storyline—a not-too-sublte homage to post-9/11 debates over balancing liberty and security—his death was widely interpreted in the real world as a statement that Cap's moral vision was no longer fit for the modern world. But after the villain Norman Osborn (formerly Spider-Man's foe, the Green Goblin) was anointed head of global security following an alien invasion (don't ask), the Marvel Universe entered an unprecedented period of despotic disorder, the "Dark Reign," which only ended once Steve Rogers returned from the dead to reassert a moral center in the Marvel Universe, ushering in "The Heroic Age."
Captain America, with his "outmoded" moral code based on virtues like honor, integrity, and courage—or, if you prefer, following duty despite all costs—ended up being just what the Marvel Universe needed all along, and this is just as true in the real world of 2011. The importance of virtue and duty never changed, though the world itself changed around them.
What's more, it's not really accurate to say that Cap's ethics are black-and-white with no shades of grey; like anybody, he struggles with moral decisions, as is often shown in the comics. Ethics is never a matter of mechanistically applying simple rules to life: judgment is always necessary to find the rules that fit any given situation and to know how to apply them (especially when two or more rules conflict). What gives his ethics the appearance of being cut-and-dried is his conviction: once Cap decides on the right course of action, he does not waver from it. Moral conviction should be not be confused with moral stubbornness; Cap will change his mind if you convince him he's wrong, but until then, he will do what he feels is right.
The idea that Captain America's moral compass is pointed to the past rather than the present or future is simply mistaken. Steve Rogers may indeed be a "man out of time," but his morals—and his conviction—are timeless.
Star Trek is Captain America of TV shows. I think it's time we saw this, because I don't think a franchise can survive if it loses it's moral centre. It means honor, integrity and courage are a given for it's protagonists. It does not mean inflexibly applying one law to every situation, but it means using judgement and standing by your convictions. At some points in Discovery, characters walk alongside and listen to mass murderer's quips and we witness a Starfleet full of Admirals and Captains who accept Section 31.
I hope a Trek author does not mind me quoting a post I saw of his from another site, but this is essentially what I feel about Section 31's use in both DS9 and Discovery:
I disagree 100% about 31. Star Trek isn’t about stark realism, it’s utopian fiction. At its best DS9 challenged it, but the only time it actually repudiated it was with the existence of 31, which makes the whole thing hypocritical nonsense, plus it’s become the laziest of writers’ crutches.
Fundamentally, the "Darkest Star Trek" DS9 was still a humanistic show. It understood our strengths and weaknesses and how we would have to grapple with them, but showed the process as uplifting. A fundamentally optimistic view of human nature. The sooner Star Trek stops trying to be Jack Bauer and resumes being Steve Rodgers the better.
Emotional Maturity
The Next Generation era had a certain light hearted emotional maturity among it's crews that I miss. They solved their problems with a certain self-awareness and forgiving empathy for each other's flaws. They were also ensemble casts, and the show gave them each episodes to shine. They were likeable. The Orville has done well in this regard, and Seth MacFarlane said that he finds this TNG attitude inspiring.
As someone else said online, how is it that I easily remember the name of this minor gag-character and forget most of Discovery's crew? Over the show, Yaphit grew from a minor character into someone you recognise, who displays virtue and courage.
A lot of people have written about how they find DSC's crew un-likeable. Perhaps that is because they are always focused inwardly, having long discussions about themselves, their personal demons taking centre stage... the characters come off as shrill, undisciplined and narcissistic to many The ship becomes nothing but a backdrop to their struggles. Concepts like duty, responsibility and discipline take a back seat.
I think perhaps Star Trek should focus more on timeless general values, if it can't handle nuance in a naturalistic way. Or perhaps it should just hire MacFarlane, Goodman, Braga and Bormantis outright, as they clearly understand Star Trek.
The Show Rejects Non-Serious Campy Fun
Some of my friends were expecting that DSC would be a return to the colourful era of Star Trek: The Original Series. I know some people felt Trek got too safe by the end of Voyager, and needed some vibrancy back. Colourful uniforms, weirdness, rough and ready adventure. Fisticuffs, jumping through ancient tombs, avoiding whirring blades, having a phaser fight with Nazis, camp episodes, larger than life villains.
But ....Discovery is actually probably more oppressive, and ponderous than any Trek before it, from a certain point of view, despite it's hectic rushing about style. Because of the aforementioned obsession with making everything about character's inner life, probably. The weirdness often falls flat because it comes from nowhere and lacks plausible origins or consequences. The show puts in some CGI aciton, such as sequences of people racing around in pods, but these arcade game sequences don't feel like they came from a natural place.
So are we in the weird position where the show is actually more stately and ponderous, from a certain point of view? Can DSC bring itself to beam down to a Canadian forest, have an adventure, or is this kind of fiction beneath it's aspirations? I would kill for a light hearted Stargate SG1 romp through million-year old ruins in search of an alien hologram. Purely science fiction concepts that are just awe for the sake of awe.
There was an article mentioning how "while the crew of the Orville is still happy to romp around the same Californian forests as Kirk and Picard, pretending they’re alien planets, Discovery’s officers are trapped on their expensive bridge". Perhaps Discovery feels everything must look cinematic-quality, where The Orville is happy to reach for concepts above it's budget. I really love some of the alien designs on that show though:
Fun and playfulness are as important a part of human nature as love or suffering.
Historical Context and Periodisation
Writing for an established setting, you would think that the show would want to use the historical context of the setting, or else what would be the point? Like you couldn't imagine a new Star Wars film just throwing out the context of the era. Why did Discovery seemingly go out of it's way to ignore it's place within a wider context?
Say that the great challenge of the 23rd Century was the Federation facing equal political rivals, and the great challenge of the 24th Century was the Borg. This presents an understandable development. The Federation has grown as a civilization, and the next challenge isn't how to find peace with a technologically equivalent Cold War adversary, but now a Lovecraftian hive-consciousness that operates on a paradigm far higher.
Discovery took the established linear history of Star Trek and immediately threatened to break. Instead of slotting it's own tale in like a missing piece of jigsaw (one would think, the very point of a prequel), it decided to threaten the entire political basis for the next couple of centuries by coming up with a propulsion system that would have rendered any interaction with a problem, including the Borg, immeasurably different. Like... an analogy would be giving gasoline-power and gunpowder to the Roman Empire.
They had to write this out in the most absurd and unbelievable way, as it broke the entire franchise.
This makes bad business sense for CBS if nothing else because it debases the value of the brand. It means the franchise is less internally coherent. Being less coherent, it becomes whimsy. It is no longer something that rewards the study of fans, or holds up to thought.
Technical Plausibility
Discovery made some pretty dubious choices in regards to science in my opinion. I hope Christopher doesnt mind me quoting a post I saw of his ages ago:
Science fiction is fiction based on conjectural scientific or technological advances and their consequences. There is no requirement that the advances be genuinely possible, merely that they be treated as hypothetical science rather than magic or divine intervention, and that their consequences on human life be explored. A lot of science fiction begins with premises that are most likely impossible, such as psi powers or time travel, but explores their consequences in a realistic manner -- i.e. if this impossible thing did exist, what effects would it have in the context of otherwise real science, psychology, and sociology?
Above and beyond that, it just seems like the show threw together technical-souding terms without much thought compared to TNG or Voyager. (Mushroom based FTL does not sound remotely natural. One thing that might make the mycellial network a little more believable is if it turned out to be artificial instead of natural, the roadways of a long vanished empire, or something like that).
