Spoilers Yeah... I give up - Star Trek has abandoned philosophical naturalism - it's depressing/juvenile

[Vger23]

I think one of the most fascinating things I have come to realize about myself the last several months is that I can see very clearly just about every criticism and I can agree that some of those criticisms are valid and quite obvious.

BUT....

None of that matters because I enjoy the show in spite of all that.

Not sure why it works the way, but it does. I count myself lucky. I'm just having a blast with it, regardless of whether or not it is great or ridiculous at various times. It's all good fun for me thus far. I think I'm just happy they are trying SOMETHING different, and not the same old stuff with the same themes. Maybe that's what it is?

I don't know...I'll need to think about it some more.

 

[eschaton]

I think one of the most fascinating things I have come to realize about myself the last several months is that I can see very clearly just about every criticism and I can agree that some of those criticisms are valid and quite obvious.

BUT....

None of that matters because I enjoy the show in spite of all that.

Not sure why it works the way, but it does. I count myself lucky. I'm just having a blast with it, regardless of whether or not it is great or ridiculous at various times. It's all good fun for me thus far. I think I'm just happy they are trying SOMETHING different, and not the same old stuff with the same themes. Maybe that's what it is?

I don't know...I'll need to think about it some more.

I'll say tons of critical things about the show. But I honestly find it more watchable and enjoyable than 90% of Voyager and Enterprise, which just bored me to tears. It's just that I have high standards. and I'm disappointed when things don't meet them.

 

[rahullak]

I take every show as it is portrayed, at face value. When seen this way there's no reason to complain or carp because every criticism is mostly about a comparison to something else in our head. This is a show created by other people based on what's in their different heads. Obviously it is going to be different from what's in mine. Art is a dictatorship, and you can find ways to enjoy it if you try. On the other hand you could spend your time analyzing it to bits. YMMV.

 

[fireproof78]

I take every show as it is portrayed, at face value. When seen this way there's no reason to complain or carp because every criticism is mostly about a comparison to something else in our head. This is a show created by other people based on what's in their different heads. Obviously it is going to be different from what's in mine. Art is a dictatorship, and you can find ways to enjoy it if you try. On the other hand you could spend your time analyzing it to bits. YMMV.

Yes, indeed.

 

[Refuge]

I take every show as portrayed too most people do, it's the entertainment aspect However that doesn't hide it's shortfalls, especially in its writing. The execution is concerted but much of the writing is all over the place. The amount of unfinished and abandonned plot lines as examined in this thread are rather numerous.

 

[The_Baroness]

I think it's a stretch to say plotlines are abandoned or unfinished when we've not even finished the first season yet. Plenty of time for resolutions.

 

[Hythlodeus]

I agree, we have three more episodes to go, of course the plot is unfinished, everything else would be bad writing

 

[Lt. LaForge]

I don't understand why people generalize by saying TNG people don't like DISCO. TNG is my favourite show of all time, and yet here I am, absolutely loving DISCO.

 

[occultcross]

I don't understand why people generalize by saying TNG people don't like DISCO. TNG is my favourite show of all time, and yet here I am, absolutely loving DISCO.

I think it's aimed at people who like one particular type of show and only that type (or those similar to it). If you are one of those, and TNG is your model of a good show, you probably won't like Discovery, and Orville will appeal through similarity. If you're not like that, and enjoy a wide range of tones and approaches to sci fi TV, then of course you can enjoy both.

 

[Sci]

The primary difference between Star Trek: Discovery and its predecessors is not that it has abandoned Realism/Naturalism -- it's that it has a level of psychological depth and realism to its characters that previous Treks, hindered by Gene Roddenberry's idealizations and other writers' projections on and interpretations thereof, were mostly unable to attain.

 

[Longinus]

The primary difference between Star Trek: Discovery and its predecessors is not that it has abandoned Realism/Naturalism -- it's that it has a level of psychological depth and realism to its characters that previous Treks, hindered by Gene Roddenberry's idealizations and other writers' projections on and interpretations thereof, were mostly unable to attain.

That's utter bullshit. What psychological depth there seemed to be, turned to to be just doppelgänger fakery.

 

[fireproof78]

That's utter bullshit. What psychological depth there seemed to be, turned to to be just doppelgänger fakery.

What? When was Burnham doppelganger fakery? I prefer her story to most in Trek's, next to nuKirk's.

 

[Longinus]

What? When was Burnham doppelganger fakery? I prefer her story to most in Trek's, next to nuKirk's.

I like Burnham too, but the pivotal moments of her story were bungled (though I think that has already been discussed in length previously.) Characters are certainly the strongest part of DIS, but claiming that they have more depth than characters in previous shows is absolutely false, especially considering what they did to Lorca and Tyler.

I really wish that in the next season there will not be this sort of main character related twists, and they will slow down the breakneck pace a bit and let us learn to know the characters properly (which ever of them may remain at that point.)

 

[Hythlodeus]

breakneck speed? so far, the story that has been told over the course of this season would've been told in three episodes in the good old times

 

[Longinus]

breakneck speed? so far, the story that has been told over the course of this season would've been told in three episodes in the good old times

It would have been structured completely differently.

 

[fireproof78]

I like Burnham too, but the pivotal moments of her story were bungled (though I think that has already been discussed in length previously.) Characters are certainly the strongest part of DIS, but claiming that they have more depth than characters in previous shows is absolutely false, especially considering what they did to Lorca and Tyler.

I really wish that in the next season there will not be this sort of main character related twists, and they will slow down the breakneck pace a bit and let us learn to know the characters properly (which ever of them may remain at that point.)

We're only in the first season

 

[Longinus]

We're only in the first season

Sure. I was merely replying to the claim that DIS characters have more depth than characters in any other Trek show. They really don't. This doesn't mean they cannot get more depth in the future.

 

[fireproof78]

Sure. I was merely replying to the claim that DIS characters have more depth than characters in any other Trek show. They really don't. This doesn't mean they cannot get more depth in the future.

Can't speak for the poster, but I personally feel like the characters in DISCO have started out at a deeper place than most (please note, didn't say all) and have the potential to go far deeper.

 

[eschaton]

The primary difference between Star Trek: Discovery and its predecessors is not that it has abandoned Realism/Naturalism -- it's that it has a level of psychological depth and realism to its characters that previous Treks, hindered by Gene Roddenberry's idealizations and other writers' projections on and interpretations thereof, were mostly unable to attain.

I see someone never watched DS9.

 

[Longinus]

Can't speak for the poster, but I personally feel like the characters in DISCO have started out at a deeper place than most (please note, didn't say all) and have the potential to go far deeper.

That is not totally unreasonable statement. Burnham and Stamets are good, and both Tilly and Saru have a lot op potential. They wasted the two seemingly most complex characters (Lorca and Tyler) though, and I'm afraid they will do something silly with Stamets too. Killing Culber was a big mistake. Even though his role was fairly minor one, he was very relatable character. The sanest and most stable person on the ship. And of course his relationship with Stamets was great. I'm afraid that Stamets becomes super angsty (quite reasonably) or worse, evolves into some sort of Mushroom-Traveller... It is weird, I like these characters, but I don't really like what they're doing with these characters...