Sounds great.
Why the hate for Disco?
- Thread starter David Hanley
- Start date
- Status
I don't have the time or patience to argue whatever was said immediately above. If someone else wants to, feel free.
Better show. I don't need to know their relationship status to have empathy. That's the most shallow form of empathy and I grow more and more tired of it on the daily.It can be important for character building. I liked that we were shown how close Stamets and the Doctor were before their story arc panned out, because then you empathise with them and feel their loss.
Imagine if we took Kirk's sexuality out of TOS
See, this is an opinion that I really think needs to be embraced more. So much of the writing I see is people struggling with the fact that they don't like a Star Trek show and apparently that is a very dissonant feeling so there must be something wrong with the show. Or, as you note, it simply isn't engaging.
It's OK to not like a Star Trek show.
I wouldn't bother. It's the same old tired bull
that you've seen before. Save your blood pressure.
Stamets had - for most of the show's run - precisely three traits:
- He's gay
- He's grumpy
- He's really, really into spores
Stamets: a genius who was obsessed with his own creation and work to the point of being a jerk in human relationships. Oh, and he's gay.
Seriously. It's more cliché that he's a supergenius.
Seriously. It's more cliché that he's a supergenius
.You don’t need to know their relationship status? For me there is a distinct, huge, gaping gap between losing a crewmate and losing a soulmate/life partner.
I don't need to know their relationship status to have empathy. People get empathy by virtue of being people. Relationship status doesn't add much for me in terms of story. Not saying that it can't be used effectively-in my opinion the episode "Balance of Terror" does so quite well. But, it's not a requirement for empathy.
I think this can go on and we will just end up fundamentally disagreeing on what is empathy.
I’m also conscious that this thread doesn’t have the spoilers tag.
For me when a character loses someone, I can empathise with that, as humans we feel loss. When the character had demonstrated love, a love I can also empathise with. The empathy for the loss is emphasised by the extra empathy with the relationship status.
I don't hate Discovery, but I wish it could be a whole lot more. For example, in Season 3 they had this whole universe they could explore, they has this 32nd Century version of the Federation in the Emerald Chain and I think they could have taken it even further and made it the modern trek version of The Dominion. I think the characters are pretty good characters but I wish they were more well rounded characters. I want to see more downtime episodes where the crew is having lunch together, or playing games together, or just being more casual. Also, I was disappointed with the end result of the Burn, and considering episode 1 ended with a somewhat environmental message, I was really hoping the Burn would have been something along those lines. Heck, the closest they got was blaming the Nai'varians, and I think that should have actually been the reason for the burn, and you can make it an unintentional side effect.
Basically, I think Discovery for me suffers from the feeling of the writers not going far or deep enough.
Basically, I think Discovery for me suffers from the feeling of the writers not going far or deep enough.
That's a fair point in terms of stacking empathy, for want of a better word. But, for my view, I don't want relationship status to be a requirement of character understanding or empathizing with pain and loss. I guess I am different in that I find relationship status to be used a shortcut for character creation. "Oh, you're in a relationship? I should care more!" seems to be the attitude in writing. And I find that less interesting. I don't think that Kirk's sexuality was additive to the stories at large and certainly was the least interesting aspect of the character.
Mileage will vary.
The easiest way by far to determine if I feel empathy with characters in fiction is if get a bit misty eyed when something sad happens. IMHO this basically always requires relationships, but it doesn't require romantic relationships. It can involve one-sided/unrequited feelings. It can involve close friends. It can involve parents and children. Sometimes it can involve negative relationships - anger and betrayal. But fundamentally it needs to involve more than one person - at least for me. I simply don't ever feel the urge to break down because a character doesn't get a promotion or something.
Star Trek has given me feelings such as this on occasion. The Visitor is one of my all-time favorite Trek episodes, and never fails to make me cry. It's only gotten more poignant as I've gotten older and relate to the story as a father and not as a son. It speaks to something universal regarding the human condition, and the bond between a parent and a child. Indeed, IMHO bonds of family are often much more interesting from a writing perspective because they are so complicated, while romantic relationships (if they are happy ones) are blessedly simple.
The only example I can think of in Discovery where I got the feels was in the episode they killed off Airiam...for Airiam. I will credit Michelle Paradise, since she wrote the episode, and got me to have the feels for an ascended extra. But I do think it's notable that despite all of the many awful things that happened to Michael - and SMG's many well-acted tears - I've never really gotten misty eyed for her in particular.
Star Trek has given me feelings such as this on occasion. The Visitor is one of my all-time favorite Trek episodes, and never fails to make me cry. It's only gotten more poignant as I've gotten older and relate to the story as a father and not as a son. It speaks to something universal regarding the human condition, and the bond between a parent and a child. Indeed, IMHO bonds of family are often much more interesting from a writing perspective because they are so complicated, while romantic relationships (if they are happy ones) are blessedly simple.
The only example I can think of in Discovery where I got the feels was in the episode they killed off Airiam...for Airiam. I will credit Michelle Paradise, since she wrote the episode, and got me to have the feels for an ascended extra. But I do think it's notable that despite all of the many awful things that happened to Michael - and SMG's many well-acted tears - I've never really gotten misty eyed for her in particular.
Last edited:
I should note that I think it requires relationships but not romantic ones. In fact, I prefer that romance largely be absent from my media.
I think that romances are often poorly written and almost perfunctory on the part of writers. They realize audiences expect some sort of romantic content in a series, and thus create it. Thus it often falls flat, because it's neither rooted in the characters or in the plot. It's just sort of...there. That said, most adults are sexual beings, and also have a desire for romantic companionship. Therefore examining those desires should be a normal part of storytelling.
IMHO one of the reasons romance is often poorly constructed - particularly in visual media - is because it takes time to build intimacy - a lot more time than you have in a movie or a TV show (particularly if the focus isn't actually on romance). Romance requires intimacy, and intimacy requires lots of one-on-one conversation - hours and hours of it. This can be fun as a participant, but isn't good for television. So directors require abbreviated courtships and lots of visual shorthand. Sometimes this succeeds in showing sexual chemistry, but often it doesn't really show true romance because there's just not enough time to spend with the characters - to see how much they let their guard down with one another.
Why? It rarely works for the reasons you expound upon, that it takes time and effort on the part of the writers. Well, Trek has a very sporadic history with it, and it doesn't feel like it is additive.
No argument there. It's in the script of "Encounter at Farpoint". The Enterprise-D had families on board because it was going on a longterm mission, much longer than five years. Q put up his Glomesh barrier and threatened them to turn back. He put Picard on trial. But Picard won and promised to "see what's out there." Then Paramount asked that the episodes stay closer to home, so the Enterprise started ferrying dignitaries and hanging around the Alpha Quadrant.
This resonates with me. I don't have a problem with depiction of romantic relationships if its relevant to the story or is otherwise interesting. I think a good example of this is the Book / Burnham relationship. Wasn't particularly well done, interesting, or relevant to the story. It was just there, almost as if the writers felt obligated to do it. It would have been more interesting if they didn't get in a relationship.
As you noted in another post familial relationships are most interesting and dynamic, that might be why the only relationship I liked this season was Adira/Stamets.
Trek has indeed had a lousy history when it comes to romance. But for example I quite like the relationship that O'Brien and Keiko had in DS9, because it was a realistic depiction of what a marriage is like after you have kids and the passion starts to fade. I also think that "romantic travails" can offer some good drama and allow for serious character growth. For example, Odo's unrequited feelings for Kira were great (not so much once they got together). Or shifting to Voyager, Someone to Watch Over Me was a great romantic comedy - and the reveal of the Doctor's feelings for Seven (which forever went unaddressed) at the end added some real pathos.
Where things tend to fall down IMHO is every time the dog catches the car. Which isn't a problem unique to Trek. Will they or won't they makes for good drama, but once they are, the drama has to come from somewhere else.
IMHO the worst thing about the relationship was that they artificially kept the two of them apart for the whole year off-camera just so we could have the pointless kiss scene later. Two single people of compatible sexual orientations, who have chemistry, living together for a year...and they don't bone??? Plus if they were in a relationship which was established from Episode 3 onward, they could have shifted to long-term relationship drama - which can be very interesting in a way that new passionate romances are not.
In small doses, occasionally. I feel that relationship romance is annoying enough in real life. I don't need it in my entertainment
A thought just occurred to me: the hate for Disco made more sense when it was the only game in town. Now that Picard and Lower Decks are around, and soon Strange New Worlds, why are they still fixated on Discovery?
Because Discovery is not of the body.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
