What will make it "Star Trek"?

[fireproof78]

Fuck me. I didn’t know humanity was a one size fits all type of group. We exist on a spectrum, not every person who suffers through a bad event(s) come away the same. You keep pushing “emotionally dishonest” garbage, when what you should be saying is that “I like watching people wallow in misery”. You keep trying to push it as an objective standard when it is just a personal preference.

Here's the thing, from my perspective. Kirk was one way of dealing with trauma (that is not really acknowledge it, but occasionally it slipped through-see "Conscience of the King"). It reflected a much different time when it came to mental health. It should be judged as such, and not interpreted through 2020's lens on trauma. Burnham is more in line with the 2020 model, allowing her to step through it at her own pace rather than expecting her to have moved on in the storyline. Of course, that's episodic vs. serialized as well.

Now, speaking of 2020 and trauma, I think that there is a tendency to assume that all people are traumatized and should react accordingly. Except, that's not accurate to the human creature at all, since humans vary in terms of resources, resilience and capability. Which means what might be traumatizing for one is not always going to be traumatizing for another. Humans are remarkably more resilient that we currently give ourselves credit for and shouldn't be treated as fragile, especially if we are to actually travel out in to the stars.

Finally, it's art. As you note, there isn't this objective standard on what is entertaining or not, and one is more, or less, emotionally honest than the other. You're quite right from my view, because it can't be taken in as one large monolithic mass. Unlike how Trek deals with its cultures.

 

[Mudd]

I think historical endurance is one key indicator of artistic merit,

Not really. That's circular. "It's good because it persists."

"Why does it persist?"

"Uh...because it's good?"