I guess that's where I differ: TOS was always dark and mature to me.
Starfleet Academy General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
They "deployed" him in a consistent manner with which we first saw him.
Alright, I'll ask it a different way - do you think DSC was tonally distinct from TOS, or do you think the two shows are more or less identical?
If they are different, how was this difference developed, conveyed, and presented by the DSC writers?
I completely agree that TOS had some dark threads throughout. Many of their endings were not happy, either. This is why I feel DS9 was the spinoff that was truest in the spirit of STAR TREK. It definitely balanced light and dark stories, threads, and material very well.
You're asking two different questions. How Mudd was represented is a separate issue.
Of course Discovery was tonally distinct from TOS. I wouldn't expect them to be the same. Nor am I going to write a treatise analyzing the differences in tone.
I was just hoping to at least get the baseline agreement that DSC obviously intends to distinguish itself from TOS as a creative work. With that in mind, obviously their framing of Mudd is different, which we can hopefully agree on. The entire reason you'd reuse the character is to contrast the new framing of him with the original version to help distinguish the two shows and demonstrate a fresh twist on the character.
Again, my complaint isn't "Mudd wouldn't do that!!!" or "Mudd's a loveable rogue!", but rather that I think the "reframe comedy character as a hard-edged bastard in a grittier plot" is a dull way of defining a new series against an old one, same as DS9's "the hopeful ending written 30 years ago actually led to disaster" trick with the Mirrorverse.
Again, my complaint isn't "Mudd wouldn't do that!!!" or "Mudd's a loveable rogue!", but rather that I think the "reframe comedy character as a hard-edged bastard in a grittier plot" is a dull way of defining a new series against an old one, same as DS9's "the hopeful ending written 30 years ago actually led to disaster" trick with the Mirrorverse.
I guess I never saw Mudd as comedic. He's a villain through and through.
I have to ask - do you think the DSC writers intended the character to be framed exactly the same as he was in TOS, or do you think they intended their use of the character to feel distinct?
I don't know if I'm not explaining myself well but I feel like people can at least agree that the character is obviously recontextualised in DSC, even if they love the result and totally disagree with me that it was boring/cynical/etc.
I think he was shown as more true to his colors rather than the bombastic persons. So, yes, I would say he was different but I think it peeled back the veneer of an awful person.
Absolutely, that was their intent; I suppose the gulf between me and others in this thread is that I find this kind of deconstruction to be a pretty dull way to build up the tone of a new series. I should probably have said it as a subjective criticism rather than an example of "bad writing".
Sort of like if a new team of writers wanted to make a grittier, rougher TOS, and chose to do it by making Kirk aggressively skeevy and lascivious in a way designed to come across as unpleasant - he'd be theoretically acting perfectly in character given his worst moments throughout TOS, but for writers to reframe it as a source of serious drama would feel to me like the laziest possible way to say "check out our fresh, more downbeat take on the source material".
Sort of like if a new team of writers wanted to make a grittier, rougher TOS, and chose to do it by making Kirk aggressively skeevy and lascivious in a way designed to come across as unpleasant - he'd be theoretically acting perfectly in character given his worst moments throughout TOS, but for writers to reframe it as a source of serious drama would feel to me like the laziest possible way to say "check out our fresh, more downbeat take on the source material".
I guess I don't see the deconstructed idea so I'm guessing that grittier means something different to me.
Well, he's originally a figure of fun, right? He's a violent and sinister man, but TOS treats him overwhelmingly as a joke.
"Mudd's Women" is meant to be funny, though obviously the whole "mail-order bride" plot is deeply unfunny, and "I, Mudd" is straight-up comedy. His fate at the end of TOS is to be trapped with an army of Stellas, intended as a punchline. If we include his TAS appearance, that's also a comedy.
To use the most extreme example, imagine if new Simpsons writers tried to set themselves apart by writing a serious drama in which Homer is arrested for child abuse after throttling Bart. Like, yeah, Homer does attack his own kids, but recontextualising it as a source of grim drama instead of comedy would be a very lame way to say "look what I can do with the IP i've been given!"
Not that Discovery's treatment of Mudd is anywhere near as extreme as that example.
"Mudd's Women" is meant to be funny, though obviously the whole "mail-order bride" plot is deeply unfunny, and "I, Mudd" is straight-up comedy. His fate at the end of TOS is to be trapped with an army of Stellas, intended as a punchline. If we include his TAS appearance, that's also a comedy.
To use the most extreme example, imagine if new Simpsons writers tried to set themselves apart by writing a serious drama in which Homer is arrested for child abuse after throttling Bart. Like, yeah, Homer does attack his own kids, but recontextualising it as a source of grim drama instead of comedy would be a very lame way to say "look what I can do with the IP i've been given!"
Not that Discovery's treatment of Mudd is anywhere near as extreme as that example.
Which is its first mistake. Murder ain't funny.
I mean, I guess. I guess it wasn't funny. It was dark.
Also. There was so much crying and emotions. Burnham started out Vulcan like in the first season than out of nowhere became the biggest emotional person out of everyone. They never even explained that. She just suddenly transformed into a emotional crying person. Maybe everyone else's crying affected her. Lol
It wasn't healthy. Anyone taking psych 101 would know that.
The made a point of showing Burnham as a human that grew up on Vulcan and had trouble understanding fellow humans later. That was the point of her character to begin with. The most interesting aspect. That lasted a short time and she reverted to totally human emotions and characteristics with no explanation. Basically it was totally forgotten by season two. Bad writing.
The only mutineer in the Starfleet is a remorseless psychopath who only clawed her way out of that depressing hole because her mirror universe daddy wanted to bang her.
So far, I've yet to see a single justification or example of supposed "bad writing" that would make the writing on Discovery any more egregious than any other example of "bad writing" that could be found anywhere within any other show within the franchise.
And the "crying" thing is especially ridiculous. I'm re-watching the show again right now, and I'm just not seeing it. I wish I had thought to keep a running count of how many time Burnham cries, but I can assure you that it is something that it is immensely exaggerated and overstated by certain factions. The people complaining about the crying are the ones crying far more than Burnham ever did.
And the "crying" thing is especially ridiculous. I'm re-watching the show again right now, and I'm just not seeing it. I wish I had thought to keep a running count of how many time Burnham cries, but I can assure you that it is something that it is immensely exaggerated and overstated by certain factions. The people complaining about the crying are the ones crying far more than Burnham ever did.
Last edited:
I'm not sure how a laughably silly special effect that would've been mostly cooked up by storyboard artists and cgi animators working in conjunction with the director and showrunners is at all the fault of of the people in the writing room.
Similar threads
