I think you’re confusing writing styles with mandated behavior.
Discovery's approach to leadership and Trek's interpersonal dynamics
- Thread starter Citiprime
- Start date
I finally stopped watching DSC. Those who, like me, just got tired of the focus on feelz and constant supporty vibe, you just have to realize that’s where our culture is at. Every culture has display rules for how much and which emotions to display. And how much sensitivity and brokenness is good and/or praiseworthy.
We saw this in the summer olympics with the gymnast not in a good place mentally, who chose not to compete and was praised for looking after herself. Where decades ago the gymnast who vaulted on a sprained ankle was lionized for putting country above self. Values and zeitgeists change.
I was raised on TOS (far more stoic in demeanor compared to the DSC friends group) and the Berman Trek delightfully described as people talking dully with their arms hanging straight, upthread.
One likes what one likes. I like Prodigy and the Mandalorian. Don’t like DSC. So it goes. Like what you like, make your arguments for it.
We saw this in the summer olympics with the gymnast not in a good place mentally, who chose not to compete and was praised for looking after herself. Where decades ago the gymnast who vaulted on a sprained ankle was lionized for putting country above self. Values and zeitgeists change.
I was raised on TOS (far more stoic in demeanor compared to the DSC friends group) and the Berman Trek delightfully described as people talking dully with their arms hanging straight, upthread.
One likes what one likes. I like Prodigy and the Mandalorian. Don’t like DSC. So it goes. Like what you like, make your arguments for it.
While I completely support your decision to move past a show not working for you I think one of the biggest things that I am coming to terms with is the idea of actual Stoicism. Stoics were not impassionate people, but ones who acknowledged their emotions, could communicate them effectively and still make good decisions. Modern day Dialectical Behavioral Therapy is built on that principle.
Now, for those who will come out against the Discovery crew's trend in intense emotionality-that's where that crew is at. Perhaps Strange New Worlds will be that more balanced approach between strict logic and emotionality.
I also think those Discovery "feelz" moments, where people go into a dimly-lit room to either whisper emotionally or cry before getting a group hug, lose their effectiveness on a dramatic level the more they do it. It's like having a "very special episode" every week. That works if you like watching and crying to This Is Us, but for Star Trek?
To be clear, I'm not saying they should never have these kind of moments. I just think Discovery tends to overdo it, and it would be so much better for the characters and the series if they didn't feel the need to structure the story over forced personal-relationship melodrama which in turn weakens the believability of the characters in the setting. The situations (e.g., big scary anomaly, unknown alien species, and differing opinions on how to deal with it) are dramatic enough in-and-of themselves to create tension within the show without having to see multiple episodes of people near tears over how their love life is going to be affected by it.
For me, yes! 1000% yes! I've been told my whole life, by Trek fan friends, to bury my emotions, to not feel so deeply. I'm tired of it. Discovery may not be for everyone but it sure is for me.
Spock was not intended to be a role model in that regard.
No, but often treated as one
I’m glad for you. I wish you well.
I just blame the crew’s emotional issue’s on the fact that they’re taking emotional advice from a dude that should be so emotionally screwed up that he shouldn’t be practicing medicine.
Biggest thing is there just doesn’t feel like there’s a chain of command. You look at all the other shows, people are still friendly, but they respect and use the chain of command. Here it just feels like it’s a never ending soap opera of drama. You tell off the captain/admiral/president, no repercussions. The president of the UFP should not be having a heart to heart with a captain that barely listens to her.
Biggest thing is there just doesn’t feel like there’s a chain of command. You look at all the other shows, people are still friendly, but they respect and use the chain of command. Here it just feels like it’s a never ending soap opera of drama. You tell off the captain/admiral/president, no repercussions. The president of the UFP should not be having a heart to heart with a captain that barely listens to her.
If you think Culber is too "emotionally screwed up" to practice medicine, I've got some bad news for you about actual doctors and psychologists.
Discovery is what happens when the template of Star Trek is mixed with the melodrama of Grey's Anatomy.
The story dynamics are pretty similar. Emotional scenes where people’s relationships are being torn apart by their devotion to their work, the main character ends up in a room near tears or whispering thoughtfully with someone almost every other episode, and the medical cases/galactic threats are only window dressing for the relationship/family issues in the character's personal lives. And Meredith Grey usually gets away with anything she does, because she's Meredith and can tell off the Chief of Surgery and do what she thinks is right for the people she cares about while advancing upward, just like Michael does when she decides that she's going to do things her way.
You mean, "When the template of Star Trek is mixed with the template of a long-running critically-acclaimed show that has been nominated for and won numerous prestigious awards over the course of its nearly-20-year-long run?"
Perish the thought!
It's so weird how some fans react so badly to ST having well-written three-dimensional characters instead of cardboard cutouts like on VOY or TNG.
If you like the two being mixed, great for you. I'm just pointing out that the melodrama are similar, and for those that don't think they mix, and think it's flawed, that's the formula the writers and producers seem to be going for.
Beyond that, how anyone can call most of the bridge crew of Discovery "three-dimensional characters" is beyond me.
The bridge crew beyond Michael, Saru, Stamets, and Culber feel closer to extras that’s more “crewman in yellow uniform” than defined members of the cast. The cast members beyond those four are less integral characters than any other Trek cast that has come before it.
I'll argue Chief O'Brien just on TNG was a more memorable and defined character than Bryce or Nilsson any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Yes, but unlike O'Brien, I like Bryce, Rhys, Detmer, Nilsson, and Owo.
At least you were able to form an opinion on O'Brien, there's not enough to know about any of those five from the few moments where they give a status report or talk about their vacation plans while almost dying in the galactic barrier to care one way or the other.
It's not melodrama; you just don't like it.
You almost defeated me with your clever game of words! Fortunately, I think context makes it pretty clear that I was referring to DIS's primary characters, not its supporting recurring characters.
I've had an opinion on Bryce, Rhys and Detmer since episode 3.
Similar threads
