I hope Discovery places "plot" first, avoids melodrama
- Thread starter INACTIVEUSS Einstein
- Start date
Same here.
Well, "melodrama" is actually exaggerated, sensational, and unnatural. I think a lot of people here are actually talking about "drama." Nothing wrong per se with drama, but actual melodrama is generally much sillier. Star Trek needs interpersonal interactions and characters that general audiences can relate and connect to.
Nothing wrong with melodrama. Star Trek has always been melodramatic. I mean:
"Gary, forgive me!"
"For a moment, James. But your moment is fading..." is quintessential melodrama.
And that's totally fine.
"Gary, forgive me!"
"For a moment, James. But your moment is fading..." is quintessential melodrama.
And that's totally fine.
I think there're two better example of quintessential melodrama from TOS: the interrupted wedding between Angela Martine and Robert Tomlinson in "Balance of Terror," and Edith's arc in "The City on the Edge of Forever." Edith is milked for full tearjerking effect at pretty much every turn.
The issue I think is that these intensely focused and heightened emotional situations don't tend to produce relatable character interactions, especially when the main characters bounce back next week like nothing happened, as they routinely did in TOS.
In fact, it's worth pointing that in actual melodrama characters are subordinated to the plot. The choice between plot first and melodrama is a false choice.
I'm not dissing melodrama, I mean I love "City" and every now and then I curl up on the sofa with it for a good cr-- allergy attack. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't lend itself to characters so much as to caricatures. Edith is a paragon of virtue fated to cosmic tragic destiny, not a real person.
If it's characters we're after, we need to look more to drama than to melodrama.
Because melodramatic does not feel organic?
The problem with that is it's not very practical to have heightened dramatic realism in an environment like Star Trek. In fact, from a purely academic standpoint, one could argue that all drama in high-concept show like Star Trek is melodrama. Because the characters are such essentially-defined archetypes They are literally exceptional, extraordinary humans.
I am convinced that there's a subsection of fans who actually consider every form of genuine interpersonal drama to be “melodrama”. For them Star Trek is about the future, spaceships, aliens and science-fiction ideas – not about “petty emo angst” and relationships between people. For example, following discussions about Keiko O'Brien over the years I have noticed that many fans seem to be averse to anything that resembles a real, healthy and normal human relationship. For me, emotions, love and sex are inseparable from human beings and their experiences. So they will always be a part of Star Trek, just as they should be.
To be honest this entire thread has been derailed, as it became clear early on that different people are talking about very different things. Discussion requires common definition, and like cultcross said, the definition of a lot of these terms "plot", "characterization", etc, are non-standardized. I kinda regret making the thread now for that reason, but I was bored, and it is what it is.
Generalities are sometimes taken far too literally - Aristotle put character at number 2 on his list - so some people took that to mean a heavy bias away from characters - 'characterization is unimportant' - hardly what he was saying placing it at 2.
Perhaps some forumers who were agreeing with the thread's premise were misinterpreted. But just because some respondents maybe didn't articulate their point precisely, in arguing for more emphasis on rational plots, and the incorporation of as much science as possible, does not mean they were advocating Star Trek become a BBC 4 documentary.
For my part, I pointed out in the original post that I wasn't sure "melodrama" was the right word for what I was describing. Unfortunately people have probably Googled the precise definition in spite of that caveat, and are treating it as if that is what we are discussing - heightened emotionalism or whatever the official definition is.
I tried to point out it wasn't what I meant, but ya know how forums are... if it's in the thread title, thats the end of it.
If I might make an observation:
TrekBBS, as I've said before, has a bit of a clique, of people with an overlapping tendency to dislike TNG - sometimes exalt DS9 above all other Star Trek - I'm generalizing a bit, they tend to underplay Roddenberry's admittedly sometimes controversial influence (which I nevertheless think was important) - sometimes dislike the irreligious qualities of most of Trek in favor of Ronald D Moore's tendency toward mysticism - say that TOS and TNG were never any good - or downplay Star Trek's science fictional qualities in favor of their own preference for science fantasy. It's a philosophical standpoint that lionizes DS9's character drama and tendency away from TNG-like futurism.
And there is a smaller clique of people who, I wouldn't say prefer, but certainly appreciate, Star Trek's scientific qualities and reputation for philosophy, it's attempts, however successful, to imagine a different form of society - it's Steven Pinker style view into future trends - it's medium-hard science fiction aspects. I find myself in that category.
Since they share the same world-views, they will tend to all upvote each other, etc.
I appreciate their viewpoint, and respect it. People are entitled to their opinions/tastes - but it does have a tendency I think, to blind some folks to the qualities of Star Trek that they personally don't feel that same love for any more, as if they are objectively less enthralling for everyone.
Actually whether you find things like futurism, engineering, thought-experiment plots and science fascinating depends less on them being simplistic qualities that a niche obsess over, and more to do with what emphasis on life you choose to take - as you become less concerned with a given part of the natural order - you will actually find it less interesting as if it is objectively shallow - rather than because your mind is elsewhere. A naturalist world view can yield all kind of personal and metaphysical insight, and is bottomless in depth. But paying more attention to emotional intelligence and character nuance can almost make you think nature/plot/realism is less nuanced/important than emotional naturalism, rather than being a very important part of our human experience. After all, the objective reality is a big part of our emotional nuance!
For my part I think Star Trek explained it best; neither emotional intelligence or natural realism should be any less important - as Picard would say: study Shakespeare AND Einstein. Don't neglect the natural world when working through the complexities of the human experience. And conversely don't forget the human experience when studying the natural wonders.
Star Trek was always human drama, but it was ALSO a world with a heavy tendency in favor of what was considered realism in it's given era - people became fans because they loved characters like Kirk, Spock and McCoy, but ALSO, because Star Trek was a really deep setting full of possibility and plausible views of the future. You can't separate these things. Star Trek wouldn't have been a phenomenon if it's creators hadn't tried to make it more believable than its horrible contemporaries.
Classic cinema, like Jaws, as the original article pointed out, also had a tendency to do this, which is why they are timeless. They balanced emotion and realism in a plot - didn't let realism get in the way of a good story - but also looked for the natural realistic situations in which to set their drama, rather than contriving it.
Of course people who love looser fantasy and slice of life fiction will look at characterization and say "aha, thats why Star Trek is a global phenomenon", and of course people who went the other way and became fans of the engineering and science will say "aha, thats why Star Trek is a global phenomenon". But they are missing the point by dismissing the other. All I want to do is show the importance that a rational plot can play in a human drama - and how the two can back each other up to make something even stronger for the fact that realism was factored in.
Here is a short article about melodrama Hitchcock wrote in '37. I think he makes some relevant points:
https://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/Film_and_Stars_(1937)_-_Why_I_Make_Melodramas
He may have wrote this two decades before Psycho, but he still applied the same principles. Everything about the shower scene is soaked (
) in melodrama: The shrieking strings. The way Leigh emotes. And the heavily-exaggerated stabbing motion. And yet it remains one of the most celebrated scenes in cinema history.
Now imagine he instead filmed it as an ultra-realistic murder scene (Or in so far as murder can be made "realistic.") It probably would gone down as a forgettable footnote.
Now compare that to Star Trek's most famous scene. From the moment Kirk violently picks up the communicator and Shatner grunts out "Khan, you bloodsucker!" to the scream that booms through celestial eternity, the whole scene trumpets an exercise in pure over-exaggerated melodrama.
It may have become one of the interwebz' great memes, but it's still a fantastic scene. And everyone knows it, and it's certainly become an 80s movie landmark.
People complain how Kirk and Khan never face-off in person. But I don't think that scene would be celebrated the way it is if it had been two guys engaging in a super-realistic conversation of wits.
https://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/Film_and_Stars_(1937)_-_Why_I_Make_Melodramas
He may have wrote this two decades before Psycho, but he still applied the same principles. Everything about the shower scene is soaked (
) in melodrama: The shrieking strings. The way Leigh emotes. And the heavily-exaggerated stabbing motion. And yet it remains one of the most celebrated scenes in cinema history. Now imagine he instead filmed it as an ultra-realistic murder scene (Or in so far as murder can be made "realistic.") It probably would gone down as a forgettable footnote.
Now compare that to Star Trek's most famous scene. From the moment Kirk violently picks up the communicator and Shatner grunts out "Khan, you bloodsucker!" to the scream that booms through celestial eternity, the whole scene trumpets an exercise in pure over-exaggerated melodrama.
It may have become one of the interwebz' great memes, but it's still a fantastic scene. And everyone knows it, and it's certainly become an 80s movie landmark.
People complain how Kirk and Khan never face-off in person. But I don't think that scene would be celebrated the way it is if it had been two guys engaging in a super-realistic conversation of wits.
So, here's the definition of melodrama:
a sensational dramatic piece with exaggerated characters and exciting events intended to appeal to the emotions.
It is a form of drama but placing the focus on the appeal to the emotions that is a problem for some. It all depends on what you're looking for. Melodrama tends to be soap opera-ish. The problems tend to be interpersonal problems and the characters interact to produce all those emotions associated with interpersonal problems. Also the characters are exaggerated and tend to become caricatures.
Of course, it's also a matter of degree. Most good drama has that to some degree. It's really a matter of how much emphasis is placed on it. When is it too much? Different people will draw the line at different places.
It's a matter of preference. Melodrama is not my cup of tea. If it's yours, that's fine. I'm just hoping it's not prominent in Discovery--I don't think it will. I'm very optimistic based on what I've seen!
I hope it places not sucking over every other concern.
For all the good DS9 did, sometimes it went a little overboard with melodrama. Still, when it was warrented (Like Sisko's mental breakdown in Far Beyond the Stars), I could accept it.
Also, the baseball yelling. That part was real.
Similar threads
