I hope Discovery places "plot" first, avoids melodrama

[Vger23]

I think if anyone is hoping for a show that doesn't get involved in a little soap-opera melodrama...you're going to be sorely disappointed.

That's the number one ingredient in hugely successful genre shows like TWD and GoT...and often what appeals to the broader demographic they'll be looking for.

Sure, there will be plenty of space stuff, technobabble, pew pew and ohmygosh type stuff...but if you think the character relationships and emotions will take a back seat to all that...I think you're setting yourself up for failure right out of the gate.

 

[cultcross]

The main thing I'm taking home from this thread is that we all have different meanings of plot, story, melodrama, and characterization. Looking around for definitive definitions, it appears there are none. Different people trying to explain the difference between story and plot take completely different and often contradictory views on the topic.
In short, I'm not convinced we can meaningfully argue it in the absence of agreed definitions of the terms.

 

[Refuge]

I mean so many of the great plays of all time are basically people in a room talking. There are even thrilling adaptations on film of dramas for the stage, some clearly dramas, some blurring the line between comedy and drama.

I agree here, regards stage.

Don't you think Star Trek Discovery is being packaged to appeal to a cinematic audience? Those who have seen, if not the recent movies, but any current science fiction/adventure movie? Albeit with hero characters and a story to carry them? People are paying in a different way to watch and the sophistication of the genre/its production values coupled with expecting instant satisfaction (some want bang for their buck, not introspection), that the business of Star Trek is going to elevate 'spectacle'. The plot and how it furthers the story has to count somewhere and so does connecting to the characters but I think with a show like this if all the pretty moving pictures aren't equally if not more important then it won't grab the audience.

 

[Tesophius]

I'd have to disagree. Good Star Trek is about the characters and situation. The SciFi is there to propel and support that. It's background and not at the forefront. A story like the Naked Time isn't about finding a cure for the virus, its about what happens when control is stripped away and our emotions and inner selves are laid bare. Very little time is actually spent on virus, just enough to establish what it is and what it does. The real plot is how our characters deal with the effects of the virus while trying to save the ship.

And you have that right. People enjoy Star Trek for different reasons and there are usually episodes that cater to every preference.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And you have that right. People enjoy Star Trek for different reasons and there are usually episodes that cater to every preference.

Of course. But I'm talking about the show and franchise over all. Its emphasis has always been on people and situations not Futurism and Science.

 

[Refuge]

Of course. But I'm talking about the show and franchise over all. It emphasis has always been about people and situations not Futurism and Science.

No, (my opinion).
Its setting is key.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No.
Its setting is key.

Key to what? The stories are still about people. Similar stories can be told on a ranch in the 1870's or a hospital in 2010's. The setting was chosen to slip things past the "censors" and talk about contemporary issues shaded by science fiction.

 

[Refuge]

Key to what? The stories are still about people. Similar stories can be told on a ranch in the 1870's or a hospital in 2010's. The setting was chosen to slip things past the "censors" and talk about contemporary issues shaded by science fiction.

I'm attracted to the science fiction/futuristic theme. Space the final frontier, the ships and transporters and techno babble and slip streams and all that giddy stuff. The future is more hopeful and escapist.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm attracted to the science fiction/futuristic theme. Space the final frontier, the ships and transporters and techno babble and slip streams and all that giddy stuff. The future is more hopeful and escapist.

That's nice. I like that stuff too. But show is rarely about that.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I find most of B5 barely watchable. Story, plot, acting and most everything is just meh.

Thank you! I was reading along, afraid to say this very thing!

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Key to what? The stories are still about people. Similar stories can be told on a ranch in the 1870's or a hospital in 2010's. The setting was chosen to slip things past the "censors" and talk about contemporary issues shaded by science fiction.

Your last sentence is what Roddenberry said, multiple times. The series was to tell stories, reflect ourselves but in a different setting so that censors and the audience wouldn't really know what they were seeing was our current time and what was happening at that time.

That's why I love TOS so much. I learned things I didn't realize about people, circumstances, events, dealing with situations calmly and in a mature manner. I didn't realize because the stories were being told via a setting that wasn't here and now.

 

[psCargile]

The main thing I'm taking home from this thread is that we all have different meanings of plot, story, melodrama, and characterization. Looking around for definitive definitions, it appears there are none. Different people trying to explain the difference between story and plot take completely different and often contradictory views on the topic.
In short, I'm not convinced we can meaningfully argue it in the absence of agreed definitions of the terms.

Well, do not anyone allow a dictionary to get in the way establishing definitions in the pursuit of effective communication.

 

[CRM-114]

I completely agree. The best Star Trek episodes are not obsessed with abstract science fiction concepts, they are ones where a science fiction framework allows for a story about characters, moral dilemmas, challenges and decisions. Take an episode like I, Borg - there's a science fiction element to it, the alien race who are linked through a collective consciousness, but it's not about that. It's about individuality, loneliness, the humanity of your enemy, leadership, and the ethics of war. That's what I hope for from Discovery, stories that are about something.

Star Trek, at its' best, is a science-fiction show where the science-fiction is the window dressing. Star Trek started going bad when it started being about the trappings.

 

[Mr Awe]

Story driven. The plots were often nonsense.

Semantics.

I'll go with Mirriam-Webster on this one.

Their relevant definition of plot is:
the plan or main story (as of a movie or literary work)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plot

TOS was definitely plot driven and had strong characters.

 

[BillJ]

Key to what? The stories are still about people. Similar stories can be told on a ranch in the 1870's or a hospital in 2010's. The setting was chosen to slip things past the "censors" and talk about contemporary issues shaded by science fiction.

Didn't Roddenberry say in one of the writer's bibles that the stories should be able to be told in pretty much any setting? Or am I misremembering?

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Didn't Roddenberry say in one of the writer's bibles that the stories should be able to be told in pretty much any setting? Or am I misremembering?

I believe something very similar was said there, as well as his introduction to the restored print of The Cage. He says something to the effect that these stories could be told in any setting, even in space with little polka-dotted people if necessary.

 

[Noname Given]

Of course. But I'm talking about the show and franchise over all. Its emphasis has always been on people and situations not Futurism and Science.

^^^^
I don't think that's accurate - especially for season one of TOS in that most of the plots and stories were firmly placed in some high concept futuristic science fiction aspect; or making use of some aspect of known space science at the time. Yes, the people and character issues and conflicts were there too - but TOS was WAY more grounded in actual science fiction then TNG and a lot of the 24th century era shows were. TNG often just used it as more a 'set dressing' then anything else.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

^^^^
I don't think tyhat's accurate - especially for season one of TOS in that most of the plots and stories were firmly placed in some high concept futuristic science fiction aspect; or making use of some aspect of known space science at the time. Yes, the people and character issues and conflicts were there too - but TOS was WAY more grounded in actual science fiction then TNG and a lot of the 24th century era shows were. TNG often just used it as more a 'set dressing' then anything else.

I agree. Once TNG started to increase the technobabble and boast of the technological advances in production it had over TOS, the true, actual science started to diminish.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Scotty: "I stopped-up the drain."

Geordi: "I re-routed Excelsior's power distribution manifold through the coaxial EMP discharge capacitor in order to weaken the kinetic amplitude and modulation field."

One of those is definitely more dramatic and gripping than the other.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Scotty: "I stopped-up the drain."

Geordi: "I re-routed Excelsior's power distribution manifold through the coaxial EMP discharge capacitor in order to weaken the kinetic amplitude and modulation field."

One of those is definitely more dramatic and gripping than the other.

I'm sorry, I dozed off while reading Geordi's line. What was the question?