Why the hate for Disco?

So a Vulcan melodrama would be kind of an oxymoron...

 

You know the Vulcan movie critics are going to dock stars for the gratuitous finger touching.

 

I guess I don't see the exaggeration...also, drama that appeals to the emotions; what else is there? Isn't art to invoke an emotional response from the audience?

 

There’s an elegant way to appeal to the emotions. Done right, the effect is profound. Or you can just show someone crying, or blow up the Enterprise again.

 

I don't even know what to say. I cannot fathom this insensitivity to crying that it gets thrown under the melodrama bus so easily.

 

The index finger and the middle finger together are one of the most important erogenous zones on Vulcan, Kinda like the earlobes for the Ferengi...

 

What can I tell you? Relying on crying to generate an emotional response is a hallmark of melodrama. It’s easy and it works on a lot of people, and that’s why melodrama was popular in the Victorian era and is popular today and will be popular in the future. But its effect tends to be fleeting and superficial.

 

Crying is sort of contagious, kinda like yawning...

 

Then I guess I don't understand. I don't see melodrama in Discovery, or any more than I have seen in past Treks. I don't feel manipulated because I'm invested in Michael as a character not because I cry when she cries. I don't get it.

 

The point of entertainment is to be entertained, as long as it works, who cares why it does?

 

Would you disagree that Discovery goes for the emotions much more than the previous shows? I definitely think so, and, in some ways, that’s a good thing. The later Berman shows (and even TNG) could border on the soulless and robotic. But I can see why some people find the change uncomfortable, or at least unfamiliar. Discovery’s taking a very populist, emotional approach to a franchise that was often more about the head than the heart.

 

Yet produced some very stupid episodes where the head was unsolicited

 

I would say the show does and that is a good thing, because of the changing understanding of human psychology. Sorry, I grew up being told that emotions are a terrible thing by my friends and some teachers, and the frustration of the stoic superhero became tiresome and really depressing that emotions were treated as an on/off switch.

Do I think Discovery's approach is perfect? No. Do I find it melodramatic? No. I think a balanced approach would be more appropriate, as I believe in many aspects of life. Do I imagine the approach would be difficult for those used to the Berman era? Certainly. But neither approach really hits me exactly right.

 

Yeah, I’d take melodrama over complete lack of drama.

To me, TOS and the TOS movies have managed it the best. But the makers of TOS had the luxury of focusing on making a good TV show, rather than making “Star Trek.”

 

TOS is hit and miss too though, as much as I love it. There are times where it works solidly, and times where the time period really reflects a poor understanding of human emotion. And, that's just a facet of the age. But, I'm at the point in my life where "limit the emotion" is just too off putting to take seriously any more.

 

TOS is a great show, but I also enjoy it as a historical artifact. Some of the attitudes toward women are shocking, for example. But that just makes me appreciate how far we’ve come, and how progressive TOS was for its time.

 

As I said the other day, Discovery's melodrama is a result of programming on a streaming service. That's what executives believe that viewers want, whatever it takes to binge their shows. It's a very different model than the old days of syndication or network TV where you're relying on a block of programming.

I suppose one critique is that Burnham seems to take up a lot of the emotional baggage for the show. Stamets get's a little bit, but for the most part it's hogged by Michael.

 

Exactly, just like TNG, DS9 etc. DSC is a product of the time we live in, and more than that it is a time of actual discovery that emotions are OK. In Star Trek that was not always displayed in the most positive of ways, with Spock often times being treated as the more heroic figure. I appreciate intellectual solutions as much as the next person but it eventually bled in to evolved humanity has little emotions, culminated in "people don't mourn in the future" edict from Roddenberry in TNG.

So, at this point, I'll take the emotions of Michael. Reminds me of many people I work with in my field.

ETA: I should say this-TOS, DS9, Kelvin Films, and the more recent series all made me feel like these are real people, with real feelings, and emotions that they don't just "get over" by the time the credits roll. TNG, VOY and ENT did not.

 

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.

 

I recently watched the Amazon quasi-anthology Solos. While in some cases I do think the series was a bit lacking (it becomes clear across the entire season that it takes place in a common universe, which really strains credulity because the worldbuilding is so lackluster) the character work in most of the episodes was absolutely stellar. A very "stage play" series where most of the episodes involve long drawn-out monologues from the featured actors (possibly set up this way on purpose due to ease of filming during the pandemic).

But the series really hit it out of the park in making me care about characters and feel like they were real human beings over the course of roughly 30-minute episodes. It really drives home that there's a strong tension between action spectacle and character development - and if you're willing to forgo the high-octane action there's really still plenty of time for deep character development in modern short seasons.