Nonsense.
Spoilers Does it feel to anyone else that SNW is cynically mining Trek's past glories?
- Thread starter zzz
- Start date
Except the audience did. Season 3 Picard says yes.
Right? That's what we're told now. Season 3 is proof positive that nostalgia and familiarity are all that is needed.
I couldn't get into DIS, so I don't know how widely it disperses the focus. However...
LD spreads the love among its four leads, and pays some attention to the senior officer supporting characters.
PRO doesn't seem to have that many episodes focused on one character, so it spreads the love in its own way.
PIC was surprisingly spread out as well, especially in S3, and it was named after one character.
And SNW has done almost DS9-level work at giving multiple characters their moments to shine, and episodes focused on them.
For that reason, I kind of find it had to believe that DIS has focused on one character. Kurtzman Trek seems to have taken a lesson from DS9 (what to do) and VOY (what not to do) in its latest offerings.
LD spreads the love among its four leads, and pays some attention to the senior officer supporting characters.
PRO doesn't seem to have that many episodes focused on one character, so it spreads the love in its own way.
PIC was surprisingly spread out as well, especially in S3, and it was named after one character.
And SNW has done almost DS9-level work at giving multiple characters their moments to shine, and episodes focused on them.
For that reason, I kind of find it had to believe that DIS has focused on one character. Kurtzman Trek seems to have taken a lesson from DS9 (what to do) and VOY (what not to do) in its latest offerings.
Not all that's needed for any show. But for this show, at this point in time, yes.
Hyperbole was implied in my statement.
Obviously shows need more, but what has been demonstrated, time and again, is the simple idea that fans prefer the tickling of ears for the nostalgia and you can utilize the same storytelling styles as long as it "looks right." Which is part of my point, and what I have seen from production companies in the past. They see a success and double down on it. Seen it with TWOK and now we will see it with more nostalgia plotting with future Treks.
If memory serves, I think the DISCO creators had been transparent about their series being principally about Burnham and her journey. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It was doing something different with the Trek formula and not that dissimilar to what other television series do (and new Trek did further by even naming a series for Picard). To me, it was a more explicit way to structure their series than the implicit captains as leads of prior Treks (and with stronger ensemble casts in the Berman era).
Perhaps, the DISCO brain trust was thinking that it would be easier for newbies to get hooked into the journey of one character as opposed to an ensemble. And with that said, while I do think overall ensemble character development has been wanting, it has been improving. Even in the first season, other characters besides Burnham got some spotlight. I don’t agree with the idea that Burnham was a flawless character that got EVERYTHING right. Right off, the pilot episode showed her getting things very wrong, and by the end of the second episode, she had helped abet a war, got her maternal figure captain killed, and been court martialed. A large part of the first season was about Burnham redeeming herself. Even in the fourth season, she was often at odds with the Federation president, so Burnham, despite her gifts, and DISCO’s propensity to prove her right in the end (or get the win) doesn’t get to skate to the winner’s circle.
It's funny that there are no complaints when "Non-Diverse Males" like Archer, Pike, Kirk, and Picard often get the wins as well. If they don't get the wins, some might gripe that that is "woke" deconstructionism of "traditional", "classic", and "iconic" characters run amok.
Perhaps, the DISCO brain trust was thinking that it would be easier for newbies to get hooked into the journey of one character as opposed to an ensemble. And with that said, while I do think overall ensemble character development has been wanting, it has been improving. Even in the first season, other characters besides Burnham got some spotlight. I don’t agree with the idea that Burnham was a flawless character that got EVERYTHING right. Right off, the pilot episode showed her getting things very wrong, and by the end of the second episode, she had helped abet a war, got her maternal figure captain killed, and been court martialed. A large part of the first season was about Burnham redeeming herself. Even in the fourth season, she was often at odds with the Federation president, so Burnham, despite her gifts, and DISCO’s propensity to prove her right in the end (or get the win) doesn’t get to skate to the winner’s circle.
It's funny that there are no complaints when "Non-Diverse Males" like Archer, Pike, Kirk, and Picard often get the wins as well. If they don't get the wins, some might gripe that that is "woke" deconstructionism of "traditional", "classic", and "iconic" characters run amok.
This is the tragic part is that characters can't just be. If a hero fails then that is as much a part of their story as the wins. I love the quote from Michael Jordan were he discusses how he failed time and time and time again, numbering the amount of shots he had missed and yet, kept going. Failure is not deconstruction; it's the simplest story humans have told.
It was just a joke not an actual recommendation.
despite ST being about progress you still have annoying anti woke members of the fandom
yeah, that's part of an ongoing thing, where around 2012 every major popculture fanbase from Star Trek to Who, from comic books to video games was infested with whining incel manbabies to shift public discourse slowly and unnoticed to a reactionary point of view on a larger scale. this just means the franchise is popular.
It's sickening. They made online fan discourse, especially about the MCU and Star Wars, far less enjoyable. I wish they'd just shut up
they can't. they have to slowly brainwash the youth so that when they overthrow western democracies, there will be no resistance. don't forget, it's just a proxy war. the franchises in question in reality mean nothing to them.
Well they won't succeed
Of course not.
Which is so weird to me because I can't figure out what show they were watching to have come away with such a different impression of mission and message.
Ikr. I guess some are fine with the progress it made 30 years ago because that's already settled but current progress is somehow "anti-male" or whatever other bs they want to spew.
People see what they want to see.
What it strikes me as is this idea that "Well, I've got mine and that's enough." There is a streak of selfishness that runs through all of us and when we get what we want then that's good enough to not reflect any further than that.
Yes. Trek is "good enough" as it is and should not change now. Despite being used as a sign of greater equality at the time. Now that's passe.
Aka "don't tread on me, tread on them!" or government is bad unless it's hurting the "right people"
If anything Trek should be ahead of the times. There shouldn't be too much racial or gender prejudice within humanity, for example, by the 24th century. But you have people in these very threads acting like TNG is holier than thou for looking down on modern humans as if TOS never preached anything
Well, the problem with speeches is sometimes you're only convincing people who agree with you, while others will miss the message altogether or feel it is not for them. It's very, very easy to label people, make them "the other" in terms of not understanding Star Trek, yet I think in a way that doesn't understand Star Trek. Shouldn't people come to it for what they like not for agreeing with me? There are lots of things I don't agree with for some, and no doubt people would disagree with me. Hell, I don't even say "I'm woke" because, 1 it's grammatically incoherent and I'm a total word nerd, and two because I have always operated under the belief to treat people as equal, as people. That's important to me. So claiming a term for something I've been taught my whole life is strange to me.
Which is were I think circuits get crossed; people don't use the right term so it causes more division than is needed.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here
