Why the hate for Disco?

[Gingerbread Demon]

Most of Michael's crying does not bother me. Early season 1 comes across as really, really weird in retrospect because she was played as being very stoic/suppressed, but I can chalk it up to early installment weirdness/pivoting the character to play more to SMG's strengths.

I do have issue with Michael's crying in certain episodes however. Like the episode where she bid Nhan farewell. We saw nothing onscreen to suggest Nhan had a close relationship with Michael - or with anyone really. The tears didn't seem warranted here for that reason, because the show hadn't done the legwork to make an emotional connection that the viewers could identify with.

I agree with this one alone. This seems to be the only point where it bugged me. Michael and Nhan didn't really seem that close but then again we never saw much of the time they may have spent together off screen that wasn't shown in episodes. But yeah this was the one time the crying bugged me.

 

[eschaton]

I agree with this one alone. This seems to be the only point where it bugged me. Michael and Nhan didn't really seem that close but then again we never saw much of the time they may have spent together off screen that wasn't shown in episodes. But yeah this was the one time the crying bugged me.

Regarding the bolded, I've read a lot of film criticism, and the general consensus is if it doesn't happen on camera, it doesn't happen. This even holds in cases where additional footage was actually filmed and then cut for whatever reason from the finished product. Basically each character beat needs to make sense based upon only the information which has been directly given to the viewer.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

That's understandable, as many viewers will never have exposure to the ancillary material, like the novels.

I have a simple test for whether I enjoy an episode. If I watch the episode, and I am not distracted, I am engaged with the story and care about the characters. However, if I watch the episode and I am distracted and/or flash forward to the ending, I am not engaged in the story and I do not care about the characters. Far too many of the 3rd season episodes fell into the second category for me. There were for me issues of dialog, pacing, and characterization.

And, what is missing for me, is dialog that resonates with me. I can not remember any dialog from Discovery which I can apply to my life. I can remember dialog from earlier Trek, which still has meaning for me and gives me perspective. For example, Kirk told Charlie Evans in "Charlie X", Charlie, there are a million things in this universe you can have and there are a million things you can't have. It's no fun facing that, but that's the way things are. I haven't seen this episode in a while, but I still remember these lines of dialog. I have not encountered this in Discovery, so the experience for me has not been as deep.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I agree with this one alone. This seems to be the only point where it bugged me. Michael and Nhan didn't really seem that close but then again we never saw much of the time they may have spent together off screen that wasn't shown in episodes. But yeah this was the one time the crying bugged me.

Getting rid of Nhan was one thing that didn't make much sense to me. I think showrunners should have kept Nhan around to be Saru's and later, Burnham's XO.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Getting rid of Nhan was one thing that didn't make much sense to me. I think showrunners should have kept Nhan around to be Saru's and later, Burnham's XO.

I think Rachael Ancheril wanted to leave the show that's why she has gone.

 

[fireproof78]

Regarding the bolded, I've read a lot of film criticism, and the general consensus is if it doesn't happen on camera, it doesn't happen. This even holds in cases where additional footage was actually filmed and then cut for whatever reason from the finished product. Basically each character beat needs to make sense based upon only the information which has been directly given to the viewer.

And this is why I'll never be a film critic.

 

[Swedish Borg]

I think Rachael Ancheril wanted to leave the show that's why she has gone.

Even when we saw her she got barely a line or two.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I wish the crying were spread around a little more, because it seems like an unfortunate gender stereotype for a female lead. In that sense, I’m glad Janeway was more stoic. If we’re to have the crying, I’d like it to be equal opportunity. Women shouldn’t have to act like tough guys, but neither should the guys or the non-binary.

Anyone remember how many times Kirk cried in Into Darkness?

When he lost his command
When he was reinstated as Pike's first officer
When Pike died
When he died

And all that in the space of 2 hours.

 

[fireproof78]

Anyone remember how many times Kirk cried in Into Darkness?

When he lost his command
When he was reinstated as Pike's first officer
When Pike died
When he died

And all that in the space of 2 hours.

I remember all the accusations of melodrama with that film too...oh, wait.

 

[Jadeb]

Anyone remember how many times Kirk cried in Into Darkness?

When he lost his command
When he was reinstated as Pike's first officer
When Pike died
When he died

And all that in the space of 2 hours.

Perfect examples of how this sort of thing has become perfunctory in modern blockbuster entertainment. Much like the crying in Discovery, they don’t register in a meaningful way.

I have no idea if your list is correct or not, but I believe you that it is true.

 

[Swedish Borg]

Anyone remember how many times Kirk cried in Into Darkness?

When he lost his command
When he was reinstated as Pike's first officer
When Pike died
When he died

And all that in the space of 2 hours.

Michael Didn't even cry when she died.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Even when we saw her she got barely a line or two.

Fair point

 

[eschaton]

And this is why I'll never be a film critic.

Lemme give you a concrete example I'm aware of:

In the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie, there is a scene where Drax calls Gammora a "whore." This makes no sense in terms of his character, as he's been established as being a person who is completely literal, with basically all figure of speeches going over his head. He's also bluntly honest, secure in his masculinity, and a generally nice guy. He doesn't insult anyone else over the course of the entire movie - or the next one.

The reason for this scene is there was an earlier, deleted scene where some passer-by called Gammora a whore. Drax, being literal and honest, just took this to be true, and parroted it back later in the movie. But without that scene what would be just another example of Drax's character (along with - potentially - a humorous moment) just comes across as mean-spirited and weirdly out of character. We didn't have the antecedents presented onscreen to make it work.

I think Rachael Ancheril wanted to leave the show that's why she has gone.

Seems odd, TBH, considering at the end of Season 2 they basically left her unmoving and unconscious on the floor. If she really just wanted off the show that was the time to do it.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Seems odd, TBH, considering at the end of Season 2 they basically left her unmoving and unconscious on the floor. If she really just wanted off the show that was the time to do it.

Not quite correct, she was unconscious for a moment but managed to find her air filter thingy that sits on her face and put it back, it was her that opened the airlock to get Airiam to float off into space.

 

[fireproof78]

Lemme give you a concrete example I'm aware of:

In the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie, there is a scene where Drax calls Gammora a "whore." This makes no sense in terms of his character, as he's been established as being a person who is completely literal, with basically all figure of speeches going over his head. He's also bluntly honest, secure in his masculinity, and a generally nice guy. He doesn't insult anyone else over the course of the entire movie - or the next one.

The reason for this scene is there was an earlier, deleted scene where some passer-by called Gammora a whore. Drax, being literal and honest, just took this to be true, and parroted it back later in the movie. But without that scene what would be just another example of Drax's character (along with - potentially - a humorous moment) just comes across as mean-spirited and weirdly out of character. We didn't have the antecedents presented onscreen to make it work.

And I would just try to figure it out and fill in context clues. I don't want on screen to be the only measure for me. As I said, I would not make a good film critic because I don't just think about on screen. To me, the characters presented on screen should have a life outside of the screen otherwise the illusion of being people falls apart.

 

[eschaton]

Not quite correct, she was unconscious for a moment but managed to find her air filter thingy that sits on her face and put it back, it was her that opened the airlock to get Airiam to float off into space.

I'm not talking about the end of Project Daedalus, I'm talking about the end of Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2. Nhan ends up lying on the floor unresponsive after falling in combat with Leland. The season ends with it being entirely unclear if she survived the encounter.

 

[eschaton]

And I would just try to figure it out and fill in context clues. I don't want on screen to be the only measure for me. As I said, I would not make a good film critic because I don't just think about on screen. To me, the characters presented on screen should have a life outside of the screen otherwise the illusion of being people falls apart.

Most people who are not actually keyed in to film criticism wouldn't realize it consciously. However, in general it is easier for viewers to emotionally connect with a story in film or TV if certain "rules" are followed regarding how characters behave onscreen. One of those is that characters behave in a generally consistent fashion, which makes it easier to implicitly accept the characters as real people and not shallow plot contrivances whose decisions veer dramatically depending upon the needs of the story.

Let me be clear here this is not solely a criticism of Discovery. One of the big issues I have with TNG in retrospect is most of the main cast have almost no consistent and easily identifiable personality traits. Picard, Data, and eventually Worf get good development - which is why they became fan favorites. But the others? Riker is a horndog who eventually gets complacent. Geordi is...awkward with women. Crusher is...a mom? Troi is...a woman? Barclay has a better developed personality than any of them, and he only appeared in five TNG episodes.

 

[fireproof78]

Most people who are not actually keyed in to film criticism wouldn't realize it consciously. However, in general it is easier for viewers to emotionally connect with a story in film or TV if certain "rules" are followed regarding how characters behave onscreen. One of those is that characters behave in a generally consistent fashion, which makes it easier to implicitly accept the characters as real people and not shallow plot contrivances whose decisions veer dramatically depending upon the needs of the story.

Let me be clear here this is not solely a criticism of Discovery. One of the big issues I have with TNG in retrospect is most of the main cast have almost no consistent and easily identifiable personality traits. Picard, Data, and eventually Worf get good development - which is why they became fan favorites. But the others? Riker is a horndog who eventually gets complacent. Geordi is...awkward with women. Crusher is...a mom? Troi is...a woman? Barclay has a better developed personality than any of them, and he only appeared in five TNG episodes.

And I have found that I can follow characters, even through inconsistencies. As I said, I would be a terrible film critic. My wife and I love sitting down watching shows and analysing people. I find more value in subtle facial expressions, references to events off screen, than explicit dialog.

 

[Swedish Borg]

And I have found that I can follow characters, even through inconsistencies. As I said, I would be a terrible film critic. My wife and I love sitting down watching shows and analysing people. I find more value in subtle facial expressions, references to events off screen, than explicit dialog.

Then you must love the old silent movies.

 

[fireproof78]

Then you must love the old silent movies.

I love old movies in general.