No, it's about characters.
Why the hate for Disco?
- Thread starter David Hanley
- Start date
- Status
IMHO there really are only two - often intertwining - story reasons to use science fiction as a setting. One is to tell an allegorical story with a moral message in the heart of it. The other one is to consider the implications of technology or other "plausible but not currently possible" happenings in terms of how it shapes society and individuals. Most great works of science fiction check one or both of these boxes - from the first Science Fiction novel (Frankenstein) to the Twilight Zone, to Blade Runner.
I'd put in opposition to this something like Star Wars (even though I like ANH, and love TESB). There is no pressing story reason Star Wars had to be a "science fiction" setting. Everything within the series (particularly the first trilogy) would have worked just as well in sword-and-sorcery fantasy, a samurai movie, or even a western. That's not to say that there were not compelling character arcs, but if you take away the gloss, it is literally the "monomyth" from many heroic stories throughout history - nothing less, and nothing more.
Since the kids forced me to get Disney Plus, I broke down and watched all the MCU movies recently. Well, not the Hulk and the Spiderman movies, since they aren't on there, but the rest. Up to that point, other than the two Guardians of the Galaxy movies and Black Panther, I had not seen any.
I thought - in general, they were solidly made movies (B+ to B- grade) but invariably the worst aspect of them was the action. Each movie it seemed had a required three extended action scenes, including a big overblown one right at the climax. I was so happy with the few that bucked the trend - like Doctor Strange using his wits to beat the big bad at the end of his movie rather than a big stupid combat scene. Or that the first 2/3rds of Avengers: Endgame had basically no action and was entirely devoted to character work and a "heist" plot. But in quite a lot of the movies I started using the skip 10 seconds button.
I use to. Then I studied choreography and action scene framing. It's not always easy but there is character there.
I've not seen any of the MCU movies. But, even though it's not Marvel, I think the worst action scenes ever were in the Transformers movies (at least the first three, I stopped watching them after that). Everything moved around so fast and I couldn't even tell who was who. And I saw them when I was in my late-20s. So it's not even as if I was "old". It was just so disorienting. You would have to be on a massive, massive, massive sugar-rush to enjoy them.
Last edited:
I don't know about a sugar rush, but it definitely was a struggle. I don't find them as enjoyable simply because the storytelling is all over the map, and as disorienting as you found the action.
That said, with most* of Marvel's things I can follow the action. I had to revisit Infinity War/Endgame more times than I like to really get a sense of characters. But, honestly, just knowing characters like Captain America or Thor is helpful because they are anchor points for me to gravitate towards. I certainly cannot recommend all the MCU, but here is a favorite moment from Endgame:
I love it because I know the characters of Captain America and Thor ( I couldn't give a
about Thanos). Seeing Cap in action makes the whole thing worthwhile, and even when it turns in to a melee letter Cap is still that ground point. Now, that said, once the melee starts it becomes that disorienting again. Which is why I can see how something like Season 2 of Discovery can lean that direction. But, finding those characters and watching for those moments can make it a little more bearable...maybe
Combat can reflect character. But the big issue with combat in most of the MCU (and modern action movies in general) is there really aren't any real stakes to combat. Infinity War set aside, heroic characters almost never lose (meaning get their asses beat but live to fight another day). They often seem to not even have any notable injuries. When setbacks happen, they generally occur for reasons other than the prowess of the characters in an action scene.
Consider in contrast how combat is portrayed in something like a boxing or a karate movie. There, the protagonist getting their ass totally beat in the first and/or second acts is often an integral part of the character arc.
Consider in contrast how combat is portrayed in something like a boxing or a karate movie. There, the protagonist getting their ass totally beat in the first and/or second acts is often an integral part of the character arc.
I have to admit...massive action scenes where CGI is just smeared all over the screen and the camera moves in 90 different directions a minute are sequences I find not only tedious, but also physically painful to watch.
That said, aside from “Sweet Sorrow Pt 2,” and maybe some of “Brother” I’m not sure I’d accuse any Trek television production of that sin. There’s some painful shit in STID, but not nearly as offensive as some make it out to be. Otherwise I think the films are also pretty tame. Even the infamous Nemesis battle is more thoughtful and has some pretty nice pauses, tension and character moments....and it’s certainly not headache inducing.
But I always get confused when modern Star Trek gets accused of being like a jerky Transformers movie or John Wick 3 or something. I just don’t see it as a norm. It happens, but so infrequently it’s not really worth gettin up in arms about.
That said, aside from “Sweet Sorrow Pt 2,” and maybe some of “Brother” I’m not sure I’d accuse any Trek television production of that sin. There’s some painful shit in STID, but not nearly as offensive as some make it out to be. Otherwise I think the films are also pretty tame. Even the infamous Nemesis battle is more thoughtful and has some pretty nice pauses, tension and character moments....and it’s certainly not headache inducing.
But I always get confused when modern Star Trek gets accused of being like a jerky Transformers movie or John Wick 3 or something. I just don’t see it as a norm. It happens, but so infrequently it’s not really worth gettin up in arms about.
And that right there makes it less meaningful unless I am engaged with the character. The whole complaint of "Well we know they are not really in danger" is BS to me. Largely because of most of the shows I watch the hero usually wins, no matter how desperate the circumstances. Why? Because they are the heroes. Star Trek is guilty of this, Star Wars is guilty of this, Stargate is guilty of this, Marvel, DC, and on and on. Sorry, if the stake is I know they are going to be Ok then most of fiction is pretty much out.
Unless I am completely misunderstanding the point.
Or, I do too. I feel like either my eyes are calibrated differently (finally got the latest patch) when the accusations get made. Like, none of Trek is anywhere close to some action films I've seen.
This was kind of my point when I created this thread, but couldn't word it as well as you. TOS, TNG, VOY, DS9, ENT were all wonderful television for their time. I grew up on them, I loved them*, but if we had more of those shows being released now they would look very very dated both in terms of structure and screen quality. ENT was cancelled ostensibly because audiences were saturated with Trek after VOY and DS9, it was time for a break, and after the break it is time for something new. It is taking some getting used too, but I am here for it, and happy to go through the teething problems to see Trek continue to develop and grow - because THAT is what has kept it going as a franchise for the last 60 odd years.
I am new here, and have enjoyed reading through the responses and getting different perspectives. The one that bites me is the feeling that either you like nuTrek or oldTrek. I loved oldTrek, and am mega excited that there will be more Trek. I don't feel I am doing a disservice to 66-05 trek in doing that.
*It would probably be fair to say I loved T'pol more than ENT itself, but you get the idea
The thing is, not everyone has seen those other movies, so comparisons with them have no meaning. All I can go by is what makes me feel dizzy and disoriented from sensory overload when this stuff comes on the screen.
It's not actually a character flaw to have trouble processing scenes like this, any more than I would have denigrated anyone in the audience for not being able to tolerate a couple of scenes of the production of Jesus Christ Superstar I worked on in 1981. We kept the set as minimalist as possible, but used a scrim (white screen) on which slide images were projected, and there was a warning in the program that a fog machine and strobe lighting would be used. Some people have respiratory issues and if anyone in the audience had had epilepsy, the strobe lighting might have been a problem.
Happily I didn't hear of anyone having such problems. It was a really fun production to work on.
My point is that everyone has different ways of processing visual and auditory information, and too much of a light show and fast motion puts me into sensory overload and I just can't process it. So I either look away from the screen (thus missing part of what's going on), or avoid that sort of show or movie in the first place.
There is a bit of that but isn't that the same with lots of stuff? The latest Star Wars movies aren't a patch on the originals, Hardwired To Self Destruct ain't a patch on Master Of Puppets etc etc. On here I've lurked and read what appears to be genuine anger about todays Star Trek which baffles me somewhat as yesterdays Star Trek is still available to watch whenever you choose. Modern Star Trek doesn't make me feel the way the old stuff did because I'm not that same person anymore, times are different and arguably more difficult, but I can go back and watch The Drumhead whenever I want to recapture one of the moments.
DSC isn't non-stop action. As @Vger23 said, the only episode truly guilty of being non-stop action is "Such Sweet Sorrow, Part II".
But the camera does move around a lot, all the time. Maybe that's what's creating the perception. In something like TNG, you'd cut from one shot to the next. In DSC, the camera will pan around to the next shot, tilt around too, then pull back, and do more sweeping motions while zooming back in or out.
I'm a videographer and editor, it's what I do for a living. I record concerts as well as sporting events, so these are the types of things I notice without even looking for them.
But the camera does move around a lot, all the time. Maybe that's what's creating the perception. In something like TNG, you'd cut from one shot to the next. In DSC, the camera will pan around to the next shot, tilt around too, then pull back, and do more sweeping motions while zooming back in or out.
I'm a videographer and editor, it's what I do for a living. I record concerts as well as sporting events, so these are the types of things I notice without even looking for them.
Last edited:
Real people do not go through life effortlessly pushing aside any adversity. If you want to have an audience relate to characters, you have to show the characters to struggle and grow. And to be fair, many action movies and series do show this. They just fail to show it in the action scenes themselves, since they are usually set up so that failure = death.
Here's a video that goes into some of this:
Uhh...The Orville is sitting right there dude. And it's certainly shot/lit/composed just like Berman Trek.
The way they shot the space combat in the first season in particular was really, really frustrating, because the ultra-close shots of only parts of the ship meant we seldom got a good idea of what was going on. It's especially perplexing, because the use of close-in shots in action scenes began as a way to save money (by not showing all of the action, just inferring it). But since the ship shots are all CGI, there's no reason not to give us a big, wide-angled view of the field of combat.
I loved Children of Mars but ya Calypso was good too
Orville is a parody/homage and exists because of those shows it's not really the same as a show in a Berman format that is doing its own thing
I understand what you mean, but just because something is an homage doesn't mean that it it's not a contemporary show. I mean, The Mandalorian owes a lot to how both westerns and samurai movies were shot (as a throwback of sorts to the original Star Wars trilogy) but it's still absolutely a contemporary show.
Both lean heavy on the source though. I can't imagine a new unique universe show going for Trek style story telling and getting very far. Mando I would say is a contemporary show but Orville is straight up 90s although it gave us an excellent look at porn addiction that I can't imagine Berman would have ever tackled especially given it was gay porn
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
