La'an: Missed Opportunity?

[Death Ray]

Nope. Not writing what you want is not "bad writing."

Let me revert to my favorite cultural commentator, Mr. Plinkett. When it comes to the quality of the writing, the rule is this: "You might not have noticed it, but your brain did."

Everyone has their opinions of what is satisfying, but there are still some objective features to good storytelling. If they are absent, your brain will notice that it is being starved of them.

La'an's character, with her Khan ancestry, comes with a lot of exploitable features, things that are so obvious that only bad writing can explain why they are being left on the table, or written in a contradictory fashion. And while it is possible that future stories will turn the tables on me, right now it looks like the writers just don't care about the sci-fi potential of La'an, or how her story bumps with Una's. I just don't think there is a lot of fidelity to classic Star Trek present in SNW.

I believe that the big difference in Star Trek these days versus previous eras is that Star Trek is now being written for a female audience, which (in the showrunners' mind, I believe) means an emphasis on emotion and drama, and regrettably, a lack of attention to detail regarding the actual Trek-ness of it all.

I don't mind if the creators want a new audience, but that does come with new storytelling priorities. There is no reason that these stories can't be written more coherently, of course. I just think the genuine sci-fi and world-building is being bleached out of Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

I believe that the big difference in Star Trek these days versus previous eras is that Star Trek is now being written for a female audience, which (in the showrunners' mind, I believe) means an emphasis on emotion and drama, and regrettably, a lack of attention to detail regarding the actual Trek-ness of it all.

As a male who prefers characters, emotions and drama in my storytelling I find this a bit stereotypical.

I just think the genuine sci-fi and world-building is being bleached out of Trek.

So we just have fake sci-fi?

 

[Death Ray]

So we just have fake sci-fi?

I think that this is a "Battlestar Galactica" level of sci-fi.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I believe that the big difference in Star Trek these days versus previous eras is that Star Trek is now being written for a female audience, which (in the showrunners' mind, I believe) means an emphasis on emotion and drama, and regrettably, a lack of attention to detail regarding the actual Trek-ness of it all.

Uh, okay.
Star Trek has been about the emotion and drama above anything else since day one, even "Trek-ness" Your statement makes no sense.

 

[fireproof78]

I think that this is a "Battlestar Galactica" level of sci-fi.

That doesn't answer my question at all.

Uh, okay.
Star Trek has been about the emotion and drama above anything else since day one, even "Trek-ness" Your statement makes no sense.

Exactly. This is another case of preconception of Trek rather than taking Trek as it comes.

 

[Death Ray]

Uh, okay.
Star Trek has been about the emotion and drama above anything else since day one, even "Trek-ness" Your statement makes no sense.

Trek has included drama from the beginning, of course, but it never was about drama. I think SNW leans heavily in the other direction.

By "Trek-ness", I mean that the episodes of other seris led with science before conceding to the necessary fantasy or whimsy. I think the new series are more interested in getting right to the action and SFX.

 

[Death Ray]

That doesn't answer my question at all.


Exactly. This is another case of preconception of Trek rather than taking Trek as it comes.

I don't think there is any denying the change in tone from the last owners of the franchise to the current, and I also did not like most of those earlier programs either. TNG? Loved it. VOY and DS9? Hit and miss. ENT? No thank you.

But, getting back to DNA, I think there is some of that classic Trek DNA missing from the new shows, because of the conscious decision to make them so action/drama heavy.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Trek has included drama from the beginning, of course, but it never was about drama. I think SNW leans heavily in the other direction.

By "Trek-ness", I mean that the episodes of other seris ledwith science before conceding to the necessary fantasy or whimsy. I think the new series are more interested in getting right to the action and SFX.

No, it is about drama. It set in a SF environment, but it is about the drama and yes emotions of the characters. Science is just something that can be used to drive the drama. Trek never leads with science, Its happy to ignore science if it gets in the way of the story. Once again to use @fireproof78 ' phrase "This is another case of preconception of Trek rather than taking Trek as it comes."

 

[fireproof78]

"Star Trek is putting to much on drama" and now "Star Trek is putting too much on action.

Man, 2009 came back in a flurry of arguments that come down to "Star Trek isn't doing what I like or catering to me.

Personally, since I've been watching TOS, the drama came first, the scifi was the setting. Things happened around the people.

But, getting back to DNA, I think there is some of that classic Trek DNA missing from the new shows, because of the conscious decision to make them so action/drama heavy.

I don't.

I don't think there is any denying the change in tone from the last owners of the franchise to the current, and I also did not like most of those earlier programs either.

No kidding. I hate TMP and that was the same guy. Star Trek is not one thing but a variety of things and some things do not work for all people. It's not a lack of "scifi" or an increase in drama, or whatever. It's taking the contemporary approach and using it in the variety platform that is Star Trek. Star Trek is a sandbox, designed for variety, including comedy, drama, magic, western, action/adventure, and spy craft.

TNG had it's drama heavy episodes too. "Haven" pops immediately to mind, with the interpersonal drama superseding the minor sci-fi plot.

 

[cooleddie74]

I believe that the big difference in Star Trek these days versus previous eras is that Star Trek is now being written for a female audience, which (in the showrunners' mind, I believe) means an emphasis on emotion and drama, and regrettably, a lack of attention to detail regarding the actual Trek-ness of it all.

"Tough crowd."

 

[Death Ray]

No, it is about drama. It set in a SF environment, but it is about the drama and yes emotions of the characters. Science is just something that can be used to drive the drama. Trek never leads with science, Its happy to ignore science if it gets in the way of the story. Once again to use @fireproof78 ' phrase "This is another case of preconception of Trek rather than taking Trek as it comes."

I could not disagree more. Obviously each episode of almost every single ST series introduces some interesting sci-fi conundrum or phenomenon, which the crew must then resolve. Of course the result will be drama, emotion, excitement-- but it is all in service of the story. In SNW and DISCO, I think the sci-fi is principally in service to the character drama.

 

[Death Ray]

No kidding. I hate TMP and that was the same guy.

I LOVE TMP! Also: very slow and emotional.

 

[fireproof78]

I LOVE TMP! Also: very slow and emotional.

I must have missed out on the emotions part.

So, this comes down to personal preference, not right or wrong, not "objective writing mistakes." Just preferences. The writers went one direction; you'd prefer another. I'd just as soon bin TMP for being a rip off of "The Changeling" and making Kirk a complete ass, and that's just for starters.

Who is right? And if the answer is "It's subjective" then so is views on La'an.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I could not disagree more. Obviously each episode of almost every single ST series introduces some interesting sci-fi conundrum or phenomenon, which the crew must then resolve. Of course the result will be drama, emotion, excitement-- but it is all in service of the story. In SNW and DISCO, I think the sci-fi is principally in service to the character drama.

Gene Roddenberry wrote:
YES, THE STAR TREK FORMAT IS ACTUALLY THAT SIMPLE. IF YOU'RE A TV PROFESSIONAL, YOU ALREADY KNOW THE FOLLOWING SEVEN RULES:
I. Build your episode on an action-adventure frame- work. We must reach out, hold and entertain a mass audience of some 20.,000,000 people or we simply don't stay on the air.

II. Tell your story about people, not about science and gadgetry. Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain the mechanics of his .38 before he uses it; Kildare never did a monologue about the theory of anes- thetics; Matt Dillon never identifies and dis- cusses the breed of his horse before he rides off on it.

III. Keep in mind that science fiction is not a separate field of literature with rules of its own, but, indeed, needs the same ingredients as any story -- including a jeopardy of some type to someone we learn to care about, climactic build, sound motivitation, you know the list.

IV. Then, with that firm foundation established, inter- weave in it any statement to be made about man, society and so on. Yes, we want you to have some- thing to say, but say it entertainingly as you do on any other show. We don't need essays, how- ever brilliant.

V. Remember always that STAR TREK is never fantasy; whatever happens, no matter how unusual or bizarre, must have some basis in either fact or theory and stay true to that premise (don't give the enemy Starflight capability and then have them engage our vessel with grappling hooks and drawn swords.) VI. Don't try to tell a story about whole civilizations . We've never yet been able to get a usable story from a writer who began... "I see the strange civilization which...".

VII. Stop worrying about not being a scientist. How many cowboys, police officers and doctors wrote westerns, detective and hospital shows?

None of this has changed in the last six decades

 

[Death Ray]

I must have missed out on the emotions part.

It's because you are afraid to open your heart to wuv.

I am going to double-down on my claim of "objective" qualities to good storytelling. I already mentioned La'an's "Chekov's Gun" problem. You can still like what they have done with her and Una despite this, of course. But those problems are there. Lurking. Like a crouched Gorn.

 

[fireproof78]

It's because you are afraid to open your heart to wuv.

Right...

I am going to double-down on my claim of "objective" qualities to good storytelling. I already mentioned La'an's "Chekov's Gun" problem. You can still like what they have done with her and Una despite this, of course. But those problems are there. Lurking. Like a crouched Gorn.

Go for it. I don't agree with you. Thus far I just see a claims of not fitting preconceptions of Star Trek, nor a crouching Gorn. I see a lot of personal desires for a story to go a certain way, as well as claims that viewers are not smart, unwilling to open their hearts, and writers who don't know what they are doing.

I don't see the "Chekov's Gun problem." I see two different characters, with similar backgrounds exploring different consequences. Like in many different Star Trek characters there is trauma in the background (Kirk, Spock, Yar, Worf, Sisko, among others in the background), and they respond differently. That's the beauty of these elements. It isn't that there is a prescribed outcome, because La'an's background is not just "descendant of Khan." It's sole survivor, wracked with guilt, conflicted and desiring to be in control while trying to make peace with a lot of pain.

Una has a different past, a secret that could ruin her.

It's interesting characters and when the show ends I'll probably, somehow, subjectively, find reasons to not like it. Or not. I don't think that makes it failing some writing rule making.

 

[Supervisor 194]

I'm curious, Death Ray, what is your baseline Trek? For me, it always comes back to TOS as the standard, and SNW fits perfectly into that notion of what Trek "is" to me. It can be anything: straight drama, high and low comedy, high concept, mystery, absurdist, and just about anything else as long as it is anchored in well-written characters that I care about. In many ways, I see SNW as finally fulfilling the potential that I first saw and loved in TOS all those many years ago, far more than any of the other spinoffs have.

 

[Serveaux]

By Star Trek standards, the amount of "bad writing" on this show has been...virtually nonexistent. By comparison with all previous series and movies.

But as has already been said, "bad writing" and its idiot cousin "lazy writing" is just code for "I don't like this."

 

[Death Ray]

'm curious, Death Ray, what is your baseline Trek?

Good question! I think TNG was the high water mark, although the movies (TMP through The Voyage Home) I think are also pretty good. Of the other series, I think Voyager probably had the most episodes I enjoyed... usually because of Kate Mulgrew.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm curious, Death Ray, what is your baseline Trek? For me, it always comes back to TOS as the standard, and SNW fits perfectly into that notion of what Trek "is" to me. It can be anything: straight drama, high and low comedy, high concept, mystery, absurdist, and just about anything else as long as it is anchored in well-written characters that I care about. In many ways, I see SNW as finally fulfilling the potential that I first saw and loved in TOS all those many years ago, far more than any of the other spinoffs have.

Yup. TOS set the tone.