Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Bad Thoughts, Aug 5, 2019.
No one is saying what you seem to think they are saying based upon your responses.
How does talking about what's actually IN the episodes make me either 'pro violence' or one who 'just watches for the kewl action'?
You claimed TOS didn't often resort to violence as a solution. I guess you didn't pay much attention to what you were watching.
I said in TOS & TNG violence was rarely THE solution.. You know, to each episodes main plot?
OF COURSE they used violence as "a" solution when directly attacked! To, you know, defend themselves, and survive. Nobody has ever denied that. But half of all these episodes have Kirk almost directly facing the camera in the end, taking about how important it is to solve these issues peacefully instead of resorting to violence! Yes - they use it as self defense. No, the plot doesn't end once the fight is over. They usually have to resolve the main conflict with a common understanding, because each episodes conflict isn't resolved once the opposing party lies dead in the dust.
This is in direct contrast to modern story-telling, where the plot wraps up entirely within five minutes once Nero/Lorca/the founder/Adm. Marcus/Leland have biten the bullet, and you notice there wasn't any plot beyond the evil person that had to be stopped.
How you can get the strawman-argument "TOS never had violence in it" out of that is frankly ridiculous and makes it clear you're arguing not in good-faith.
City on the Edge of Forever: defeating Hitler through total war was the only means of ensuring a hopeful future.
THAT'S the central message you got out of that episode?
Holy shit. I guess doing "moral dilemma" episodes truly is way too elitist for modern Star Trek crowds...
This discussion has moved past good faith a while back. It's clear that people are talking past each other.
Violence has been the solution in numerous episodes, as well as other solutions. Star Trek is not black and white in its presentation of solutions.
It is certainly a principle that is explored in the episode (among others): the necessity of war. I think you need to take the rose-colored glasses off.
This is vastly different than the simplistic "badguy goes boom, conflict is solved" that I lamented.
I have no rose coloured glasses that TOS was a peace-only hippy paradise, and that violence wasn't shown to be necessary in some cases. I have no fucking clue where y'all got that from, except as a weird-ass strawman-argument to dilute the original criticism:
That I'm absolutely done with the "kill the badguy in the 3rd act to magically solve all conflicts" kind of story telling that's glorifying violence and does shit-all in depicting a complex reality. And which sadly seems to be the blueprint for every single hour of Star Trek since 20-30 years, only because one movie in 1982 did that successful once (even though even that had a longer coda afterwards).
Then the audience has to demonstrate an interest beyond that, because successful formulas are what are going to be done again and again. The TWOK formula is tried and true, which is one of the reasons I hate that film.
And, I would argue that Discovery demonstrated an interesting outcome in Season 1, one that didn't require destruction but cooperation and trust.
Since multiple people interpreted it as such, perhaps the message was not clear.
OMG, right? Last season played with all the idea of solving problems in unscrupulous ways only to drop it for "guest actor suddenly turns evil and must be personally killed before he literally shoots everyone with his own hands".
Which,now that I think about it, is the basic premise of season 1. Man, the more I think about this show the less I like it. Fingers crossed they turn it around in S3.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
IMHO, Star Trek message is not about "violence is awesome/awful". It's about new model of human society, in which you can achieve nothing with violence. In Federation violence is not "awful" - it's just pointless. In general: you can't become a captain by killing previous captain!
In conflicts with another societies (which are more primitive or more progressive - or absolutely different) Federation prooves its advantages or discovers its weaknesses and finds a way to make the society more sustained. An ability of using primitive solutions (like threats, tricks, violence) where is no alternative is an evolution advantage too. But every time it's a discutable question. Do we have an alternative? Did we have an alternative? Could we find another way? Do our values make sense for anybody else?
DSC disappointed me, because in S1 Federation's values look non-viable, like slogans without real power. They need evil Terrans and corrupted officers to protect them. By violence.
In S2 at least we have Pike for whom Federation's principles are not an empty phrase. He shows that they make sense and give a power.
Except they didn't. Burnham rejected them, recognizing her past mistake and searching for a diplomatic solution, true to their values.
Just because the values appeared nonviable doesn't mean that they were. Just meant that people in desperate times will not always follow through on those values. That is not failure-that is life. I think each step is showcasing how the Federation ideals can continue to endure, especially far from home.
God, this feels like more posts of mine than I like.
On another note: my favorite Trek fight ever is Kirk vs. Finnegan in "Shore Leave". I unfortunately knew some Finnegans who -- I'm not going to lie -- I'd like to do the same thing to.
I think that's what I liked most about it. Your values start to look flexible when pushed right to the breaking point, and DSC did a good job of showing what happens when the Federation starts to think that way.
Do you pay attention only for someone said something? Burnham rejected, Burnham searched... Burnham speaks a lot. Did she still wear Starfleet uniform which received from MU Lorca against the law? She even don't remember that her punishment was cancelled by Terran impostor, not by Starfleet. Don't punish the good girl, she recognized her mistakes...
May be she raised her voice to protect the memory of her mentor?There is another impostor using the identity of Prime Georgiou, - okay, Burnham can only throwing offended sights at her. Just giving another proof that "goodness is helpless".
That's not about values of society at all.
Against the law? O_o As far as Starfleet was concerned Lorca was Captain Lorca, giving lawful orders.
Regardless, doesn't change what Burnham learned. But, hopefully, we get Burnham's day in court so all the legal questions can get resolved. Finally get that Star Trek courtroom drama series I want.
Don't forget, Starfleet did fully reinstate her rank and expunge her record in the last episode of S1.
I'm pretty sure one of the criticisms CBS had of The Cage was that there weren't enough action scenes. The outcome of this was that TOS resorted to violence as a solution pretty frequently.
Separate names with a comma.