News Kurtzman: Starfleet Academy Series On The Way

[eschaton]

As I've said before, my real issue with Michael's crying is that anything which happens too much in dramatic fiction loses its impact over time. There's a reason we remember so well the few times Picard broke down in TNG, or that Sisko broke down in DS9 - because it happened quite rarely, which gave seeing the character a broken-down mess an added level of poignancy.

I just don't get that with Michael, IMHO. The first half of Season 1 she was portrayed overall as quite stoic - which was probably in line with her intended characterization. Then in the second half of the first they put her through the wringer emotionally, having her boyfriend try to kill her, her captain betray her, and seeing her dead mentor's face on a very different person. I honestly didn't understand the narrative point of all of this, because Michael had a very clear and well-defined arc in Act 1, from broken mess to a confident woman facing down her fears by Into The Forest I Go. They sort of regressed her as a character to get her to break once again, which wasn't anywhere near as interesting. I will say they gave me an emotional reaction, but it was more feeling uncomfortable with how much of this plot involved emotionally (and sometimes physically) brutalizing a woman onscreen. It was hard to watch at times.

After this in Seasons 2/3 they don't put Michael through anywhere near as much, but they seemed to have decided that SMG was good with crying, so they just kept writing crying scenes for her. In some cases it just didn't really work for me, because we didn't see things onscreen which really suggested she had the emotional connection needed for the tears. Like, in An Obol for Charon, she is suddenly weepy at Saru's impending death, when nothing we saw onscreen indicated they had a close friendship. Same for Airiam's literal death later in the season. Or Nhan's departure in Season 3. The work just wasn't put into making these seem like moments the character would care about, which made it hard for me to care about them.

 

[Mogh]

As I've said before, my real issue with Michael's crying is that anything which happens too much in dramatic fiction loses its impact over time. There's a reason we remember so well the few times Picard broke down in TNG, or that Sisko broke down in DS9 - because it happened quite rarely, which gave seeing the character a broken-down mess an added level of poignancy.

I just don't get that with Michael, IMHO. The first half of Season 1 she was portrayed overall as quite stoic - which was probably in line with her intended characterization. Then in the second half of the first they put her through the wringer emotionally, having her boyfriend try to kill her, her captain betray her, and seeing her dead mentor's face on a very different person. I honestly didn't understand the narrative point of all of this, because Michael had a very clear and well-defined arc in Act 1, from broken mess to a confident woman facing down her fears by Into The Forest I Go. They sort of regressed her as a character to get her to break once again, which wasn't anywhere near as interesting. I will say they gave me an emotional reaction, but it was more feeling uncomfortable with how much of this plot involved emotionally (and sometimes physically) brutalizing a woman onscreen. It was hard to watch at times.

After this in Seasons 2/3 they don't put Michael through anywhere near as much, but they seemed to have decided that SMG was good with crying, so they just kept writing crying scenes for her. In some cases it just didn't really work for me, because we didn't see things onscreen which really suggested she had the emotional connection needed for the tears. Like, in An Obol for Charon, she is suddenly weepy at Saru's impending death, when nothing we saw onscreen indicated they had a close friendship. Same for Airiam's literal death later in the season. Or Nhan's departure in Season 3. The work just wasn't put into making these seem like moments the character would care about, which made it hard for me to care about them.

100% this.

There's a lot more (and far too much IMHO) "telling me" how to feel about characters by setting the emotion dial constantly to 11, which becomes desensitising. I'd rather be shown, rather than told, and more nuanced performances help audience members draw their own conclusions, which I find far more interesting.

 

[Jayson1]

As I've said before, my real issue with Michael's crying is that anything which happens too much in dramatic fiction loses its impact over time. There's a reason we remember so well the few times Picard broke down in TNG, or that Sisko broke down in DS9 - because it happened quite rarely, which gave seeing the character a broken-down mess an added level of poignancy.

I just don't get that with Michael, IMHO. The first half of Season 1 she was portrayed overall as quite stoic - which was probably in line with her intended characterization. Then in the second half of the first they put her through the wringer emotionally, having her boyfriend try to kill her, her captain betray her, and seeing her dead mentor's face on a very different person. I honestly didn't understand the narrative point of all of this, because Michael had a very clear and well-defined arc in Act 1, from broken mess to a confident woman facing down her fears by Into The Forest I Go. They sort of regressed her as a character to get her to break once again, which wasn't anywhere near as interesting. I will say they gave me an emotional reaction, but it was more feeling uncomfortable with how much of this plot involved emotionally (and sometimes physically) brutalizing a woman onscreen. It was hard to watch at times.

After this in Seasons 2/3 they don't put Michael through anywhere near as much, but they seemed to have decided that SMG was good with crying, so they just kept writing crying scenes for her. In some cases it just didn't really work for me, because we didn't see things onscreen which really suggested she had the emotional connection needed for the tears. Like, in An Obol for Charon, she is suddenly weepy at Saru's impending death, when nothing we saw onscreen indicated they had a close friendship. Same for Airiam's literal death later in the season. Or Nhan's departure in Season 3. The work just wasn't put into making these seem like moments the character would care about, which made it hard for me to care about them.

I do agree. At least in General. Their are shows out their that master the art of making the audience cry but I wouldn't put this show in that category. I am thinking in terms of This is Us for example. Also that Ricky Gervasis show where he was a man who might have had special needs working in a old folks home. I swear I cry every week when I watched or watch these shows.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Shows like This Is Us are so saccharine I feel too manipulated to get emotionally involved.

What I saw in season 1 even as she was put through the wringer is that even after that she still looked for a peaceful solution. Holding to principles shows much more strength when you’ve been put through hell than when you’ve been raised in utopia.

 

[eschaton]

100% this.

There's a lot more (and far too much IMHO) "telling me" how to feel about characters by setting the emotion dial constantly to 11, which becomes desensitising. I'd rather be shown, rather than told, and more nuanced performances help audience members draw their own conclusions, which I find far more interesting.

The odd thing is Adira - a character who I had basically just met - managed to bring me close to tears with her story in Forget Me Not. That episode did more to make me feel for her than three seasons with Michael.

And then of course they did nothing with Adira of note following that great introduction, but that's a different issue entirely.

 

[fireproof78]

I find Michael more believable than most crying scenes out there. She makes sense to me. And I think people are too hard on her.

 

[Mogh]

Shows like This Is Us are so saccharine I feel too manipulated to get emotionally involved.

What I saw in season 1 even as she was put through the wringer is that even after that she still looked for a peaceful solution. Holding to principles shows much more strength when you’ve been put through hell than when you’ve been raised in utopia.

Season 1 was far less guilty of this than subsequent seasons, but it's clear that it didn't start off as Kurtzman's project. The writers and directors the show seems to have settled on (and indeed, the new powers that be which will commission this new Academy show) have veered much further since.

 

[Nerys Myk]

How did this turn into another Michael crying thread? or maybe

 

[StarMan]

I do agree. At least in General. Their are shows out their that master the art of making the audience cry but I wouldn't put this show in that category. I am thinking in terms of This is Us for example. Also that Ricky Gervasis show where he was a man who might have had special needs working in a old folks home. I swear I cry every week when I watched or watch these shows.

You're thinking of Derek - yeah that was great. He was so sweet and innocent it was heartbreaking at times. But I mean everything Ricky Gervais has done is fantastic.

 

[Jayson1]

The odd thing is Adira - a character who I had basically just met - managed to bring me close to tears with her story in Forget Me Not. That episode did more to make me feel for her than three seasons with Michael.

And then of course they did nothing with Adira of note following that great introduction, but that's a different issue entirely.

That was a great episode. To me the show has really only had two standout episodes. That one and the season 1 time travel one were Mudd keeps killing Lorca. The show does have a bunch of nice character moments, usually when Burnham isn't around. I love the Fucking Math scene or the stuff between Stamets and Jett Reno for example. Lorca was also interesting until they turned him into a cartoon and Pike was good though not totally sold on the new Spock. Naturally nobody will replace Nimoy but I thought Kelvinverse Spock was interesting and not sure I can say that about the new guy.

 

[Mogh]

How did this turn into another Michael crying thread? or maybe

It's a treatise on what fans are expecting of the new Academy show, based on recent experience. Clearly the crying is something some of us find to be particularly emblematic of the current writing/production style (YMMV, of course!).

 

[fireproof78]

I had years of stoicism. I prefer some crying. But, to read comments, apparently Starfleet Academy should have a Vulcan finishing school to expunge those nasty tears because Starfleet officers don't cry.

Feel like I'm back in high school.

 

[Mogh]

I had years of stoicism. I prefer some crying. But, to read comments, apparently Starfleet Academy should have a Vulcan finishing school to expunge those nasty tears because Starfleet officers don't cry.

Feel like I'm back in high school.

They debated Star Trek in your high school? Where on earth did you go?!

 

[fireproof78]

They debated Star Trek in your high school? Where on earth did you go?!

Small school in Pacific Northwest.

Also, was laughed at and slammed for crying and liking TOS.

 

[XCV330]

Starfleet 90210

Welcome Back Vassbinder

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's a treatise on what fans are expecting of the new Academy show, based on recent experience. Clearly the crying is something some of us find to be particularly emblematic of the current writing/production style (YMMV, of course!).

Is there a lot of crying in Picard or Lower Decks?

 

[Jayson1]

Is there a lot of crying in Picard or Lower Decks?

Their was some in Picard. Not from Picard though. It felt more earned actually which I guess goes back to the quality of writing argument. I think Picard is simply a better show. Heck it even did better. In one short season than 3 of Discovery in terms of world building. I can see more shows set in this 20 something years after TNG setting.. They just got to stay away from robot tentacle monsters. Good advice for any sci-fi show I would imagine. If it has a tentacle you say this is not amendable.

 

[Mogh]

Small school in Pacific Northwest.

Also, was laughed at and slammed for crying and liking TOS.

Which is of course wrong on both counts.

I think there's definitely a place to show people letting their emotions out as a healthy release and to be supported. That's as true of Trek as any show, and we've seen that portrayed many times previously.

Like everything (action, romance, special effects, slow scenes, fast scenes) I find it works best in moderation. Too much of anything starts to detract - as I said, it desensitises you and erodes the plausibility of what you're watching.

I have no problem with Michael Burnham having a breakdown or a hard moment - in fact, I think it's a good thing. But when it's every episode - and a YouTube can extract a solid five minutes from just 10 episodes - then what was a beautiful scene is cheapened. Spock's death was poignant, but if it had happened in every episode of TOS, it would have grated and lost all meaning.

And that's my fear for a new Academy series: an OVERDOSE of darkness, cynicism, special effects, emoting scenes with violins, etc.

(The older shows had their own issues. They were just different ones).

 

[Mogh]

Is there a lot of crying in Picard or Lower Decks?

Less crying - that seems to be Sonequa Martin-Green's MO - but certainly incessant personal tragedy and failure in Picard (again: better used sparingly), and implausible frat behaviour in LD (ditto).

Using a dollop when a pinch will do, with what I suspect is a view that audiences would identify more with flawed people (in most cases struggling constantly to hold it together) than they would with less flawed people who are challenged by circumstance but generally have it together a bit more.

 

[Mogh]

Their was some in Picard. Not from Picard though. It felt more earned actually which I guess goes back to the quality of writing argument. I think Picard is simply a better show. Heck it even did better. In one short season than 3 of Discovery in terms of world building. I can see more shows set in this 20 something years after TNG setting.. They just got to stay away from robot tentacle monsters. Good advice for any sci-fi show I would imagine. If it has a tentacle you say this is not amendable.

Yeah, it's a far better show; the cynicism doesn't quite take me out of it as much as Discovery (and far better writing and pacing helps) but it's still a bit jarring as a "Star Trek" show.