It’s a glorified webisode series.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
It’s a glorified webisode series.
Time travel has provided some of the greatest Star Trek episodes ever (“The Visitor”, “City on the Edge of Forever”, “Trials and Tribbleations”, “Past Tense”, “Cause and Effect”, “Little Green men” off the top of my head), but it has been overdone. The rot has set in by Voyager’s “Timeless”, which was a poor man’s “The Visitor”, and then “Endgame” was a poor man’s “Timeless”.
If they have a genuinely great time travel story they should do it (“Magic to Make the Sanest Man…” was a genuine highlight of DSC’s first season), but, frankly, after the bitter sting of PIC season two I never want a prolonged stay in the past, ever again (almost the entire season I was shouting, Bender style, “let’s GO alreeeadddy!”. Less is more.
If they have a genuinely great time travel story they should do it (“Magic to Make the Sanest Man…” was a genuine highlight of DSC’s first season), but, frankly, after the bitter sting of PIC season two I never want a prolonged stay in the past, ever again (almost the entire season I was shouting, Bender style, “let’s GO alreeeadddy!”. Less is more.
Indeed yes. It's ok to acknowledge time travel has been done, successfully, as well as move on from such stories. Familiarity breeds contempt sometimes.
To be honest, I think The Visitor is a bit overrated already. Most of its attraction seems to come from appealing at viewer's emotions (nothing wrong with that in itself) but I don't think the story is particularly content rich or innovative when viewed dispassionately.
I'd call it good but not great, myself.
No disrespect intended to those involved, as there isn't a Short Trek I dislike, but I'd say they are like very fancy VAM to me. I think it's stretching it to call such a small number of episodes, produced and released so inconsistently and piecemeal, a series.
It's a strange case, as you say.
What is a VAM?
It's value-added material, I think.
It is Value Added Material. Apologies. Something like DVD extras.
Got it.
I agree that they do seem like dvd extras. I never knew Value Added Material was another term for it.
I agree that they do seem like dvd extras. I never knew Value Added Material was another term for it.
What is the purpose of art, if not to generate an emotional response?
That is the primary purpose of art.
G
Gul Sengosts
Guest
Art can also make you think without evoking much emotions, or do other things. But I don't think The Visitor was meant to be viewed dispassionately. I see little point in criticising it for not doing something else than what it set out to do.
I would hope that people would approach art with both thinking and feeling. But, maybe I'm giving too much credit to my fellow humans...
I would hope that people would approach art with both thinking and feeling. But, maybe I'm giving too much credit to my fellow humans...
I think the term "make you feel" is being used too literally here.
Feeling is not just about emotion for me - to combine both of your ideas I would suggest that something could make me feel inquisitive or curious and lead to me thinking about why it was created in such a way etc etc which is still about feeling but maybe not in the overly emotional manner that is usually assumed to be the meaning.
I hope that kind of makes sense
"Feeling" is perhaps too abstract. It isn't just drawing out emotion, but also generating empathy about the characters, what they are experiencing in the moment, and how I would react. It's a multilayered process that adults tend to overthink while children are more genuine in their responses.
Melodrama is all about eliciting emotional responses (through the use of exaggerated characters and extreme situations), but it is hardly above criticism. And, in fairness, nor is it wrong to enjoy it.
Melodramatic is "The Visitor's" middle name.
Melodramatic is "The Visitor's" middle name.
I thought it was Lafayette...
Similar threads
- Locked
